Negative. F 22/f 35 do not share anything with EF. It is true that BAE is making a lot of hardware for F 22 (the ALR 94, considered by many as the most sophisticated piece of equipment in the jet, even more sophisticated than the APG 77!) or for F 35, but we are talking about BAE Systems North America, the former Sanders. BAE acquired Sanders from Lockheed a few years ago. However, there is no sharing of technologies between BAE UK and BAE NA. In order to approve the acquisition, US Govt. imposed severe fire walls. If BAE violate them, it may result the seizure of BAE assets! The result is that BAE can’t use these technologies for any plane, but F 22/F 35. So, no, there is no piece of equipment/technology that EF and F 22 have in common.

Negative. 😀
These aircraft do share a number of avionic systems. F35 to a surprisingly large degree and F22 to a miniscule degree.

Nuff said! Can’t be bothered to have an argument over the matter, won’t say any more except that your factually wrong.

Really, a more realistic comparison with the Typhoon would be its likely adversary! (i.e. Flanker Su-27, Su-33, Su-35, etc.) :rolleyes:

FLY NAVY 😎

Exactly! But again your faced with the problem of the Russians having their own ideas of what generation their aircraft are. I have seen at least one official Russian source describe late versions of the Mig29 as being 5th generation when I have seen western source’s describe them as 3rd to 4th generation.

In the end it’s a number which is used to somehow proove how advanced their product is when frankly it could of been plucked out of the air. It should be dropped as a valid description for the merits of different types.

Further to this I have seen this imaginary value changed by people depending on the point they want to make. So when you want to make an enemy threatening ie China (which by the way is becoming a worrying player but I digress) then people start talking about 4, 4.5 as a justification for newer types like the F22 to counter this. On the other hand when it comes to a sales competition pushing these values down for our product rivals is fair play. Anyone noticed the whole .5 thing is often attached to older types like the F16 to proove they are still potent.

Its stupid when you consider my previous point that the aircraft have so many years between them in development yet also share systems and weapons.

Enlighten me! :rolleyes: Are you saying its too expensive, waste of resources, not needed or what? :confused:

FLY NAVY 😎

No I think the carrier’s are essential what makes me feel glum is the constant avoidance by the MOD of commiting to them.

Query,

Will the red arrows make a move to the eurofighter over the coming years, or will they stay as is with the Hawk?

Hawk.

Unlike America the UK can’t afford to use it’s premiere air superiority fighter for this role.

Also the Red Arrows represent UK PLC around the globe and the Hawk is an all British product.

The main problem I have is that main gate should of been long ago! What we have instead is constant avoidance by the MOD by pointless studies and reviews which waste money and only serves to pull the wool over the public eye’s.

The simple fact is the Treasury (led by Gordon Brown) doesn’t want to spend the money required for main gate but the government (led by Blair) doesn’t want the embarrassment of cancellation. It’s basically a battle between the Brownites and the Blairerites. It’s easier for the Treasury to drip feed funding to keep it alive then to cause a storm and kill the project. This will all come to a head when Blair is replaced probably by Brown. There are plenty of left wing Brown allies who would be happy to see Britains armed forces cut down to a bare minimum self defence force.

It’s the navy and British industry that will loose out, at this rate a time will come when British industry will not be able to shoulder new orders. The best we can hope for on the carrier front is an order for the first hull probably with far greater French input along the lines of the French providing some or more of the major hull sections.

I think Boeing’s biggest problem with the Indian competition is that the F/A-18 E/F is really in the same size and performance class as the Su-30MKI already in service and the competition was for a small to medium fighter. Now if Boeing still had a variant of the F/A-18 C/D with more advanced avionics much in line with the late block F-16 they would have a better chance.

I still think with the amount of different types in Indian service a variant of the Mig-29 would be far more logical for their neesds.

Ah strategypage , interms of credibility i would probably rate it as low as wikipedia if not lower .

Yeah I used it for a while, I left after I got fed up with a person who posted under the names GIXER and Darth America (he had to change his name after being kicked off the forum. He had a habit of starting a thread with a reasonable question then proceed to attack everyone elses input unless it matched his views. I have no problem with someone defending the corner of their national product or querying the performance of equipment from other countries but his argument was always “its American so it is automatically better” – even his fellow Americans got fed up with that style of debate. He was also a prolific liar claiming service with all three major American armed services as well as employment with several different American manufacturers. If somebody pointed out a major inconsistancy he would move onto very personal abuse. I got fed up of Strat pages mods failing to control his behavior and joined this forum.

All in all a poor forum.