I never said that I think the Typhoon is worse than the Flanker nor will not beat it most of the time, I just said that it’s a fighter that I can easily see the Typhoon having some trouble with. I think that even in 4-to-1 odds that a Eurofighter wouldn’t have any trouble with MiG-21s, F-4s, etc. That’s what I mean. What I am saying, however, is that If a group of 4 Typhoons encounters 8 Flankers, I can envision a great number of situations where you will start seeing Typhoon losses. As most of the Typhoon operators would start to see some social and media controversy over the new fighter in a case like that, that’s what I was talking about. Now, while most of us here know that in a situation like that, a Typhoon only losing 1 aircraft would have been doing quite well; an 8-to-1 ratio against Flankers is impressive for most aircraft, but the taxpayers might not see it that way.

I wasn’t saying that the Typhoon wasn’t up to the task, I was just saying that 10-20 years down the road, I can see a lot of situations where the Typhoon might run into some trouble either preventing certain strike aircraft from hitting a sensitive target or merely trying not to suffer any losses. If export MiG-31s start getting bought up and your Su-30MKI+ Flankers start becoming more common and Rafales start getting passed around North Africa, I can foresee a number of possible incidents where Typhoons might wish they had some more help on hand.

Logan Hartke

I think that the Typhoon is a good enough aircraft that it will still be quite capable in 20 years as long as the systems are kept updated. Its real tests are going to be up against the Flanker and its derivatives. It won’t have to go up against the F-22 and most of the Typhoon’s potential adversaries won’t be any better. I think that the only aircraft that it might have a problem with that it could be up against in 10-20 years will be the J-10, the Su-27, the Rafale, and the F-35. I can see Italian Typhoons against Turkish F-35s or something, so I wouldn’t totally discount some of those match-ups. Libyan or Algerian or Moroccan Rafales versus British or Italian or Spanish Typhoons. Anyone can get Su-27s, so the potential for it as an adversary is limitless, and who knows who China might seel the J-10 to. I don’t think that the J-10 will be a major adversary air-to-air, but let’s say a group of adversary J-10s is attempting to strike a target protected by Typhoons. How capable would a flight of Typhoons be in stopping a strike package of J-10s?

I can understand your concern, and it’s true that the Typhoon lacks some capabilities that larger fighters like the F-22, the F-15, the Su-27, and the MiG-31 might possess, but I think that it will serve its users just fine and is likely the best aircraft in the world in its class. I personally think that RAF Typhoons against South American Flankers would probably end in favor of the Typhoons, but like the SHAR vs Mirage, I don’t think that it’ll be easy, and will always be in large part attributable to the skill and professionalism of its pilots.

Logan Hartke

Forgive me if it’s hiding in one of these threads and I’ve not seen it, but does anyone have photos of Mexican CH-53s?

Thanks in advance,

Logan Hartke

Really, they’re just different aircraft for a different mission. The F-15E is faster, more powerful, longer ranged, and can carry more. Suffice it to say that it has better performance in a number of areas. So why is the F/A-18E/F more expensive? A number of reasons.

First of all, it’s navalized. That’s not an easy thing to do. As stated above, there are a lot of different aspects to this and a lot that this requires. Compare the USN Hornets to the F-15s of the Hawaii ANG and you get a first-hand look at the problems salt water corrosion can cause. The F-15 deals with it, but not as well as a Hornet can.

Second, it’s easier to service (and cheaper). Operating a squadron of Super Hornets instead of Strike Eagles can easily save you in the long run, depending on your mission. Like most USAF fighters, the Eagle is most at home in an environment with a good deal of infrastructure. If a country has to build a new base to operate a new squadron of F-15s, they don’t look as nice. The runways have to handle a higher gross weight, have bigger hangars, be longer, etc. The F-15 will tend to go through fuel at a higher rate as well, depending on the mission. On that note, too, the F-15 requires boom tanking, which means bigger tankers, too. The Hornet is probe and drogue and even does buddy tanking. It will, however, need tanking on missions that some F-15s wouldn’t, but it can perform some missions that the F-15 wouldn’t have been able to without a huge tanker.

Third, it uses a lot more composites. Composites have a lot of advantages over aluminum, but cost is generally not one of them. The Eagle is still a lot of metal, both a good and a bad thing. They each, like the aircraft themselves, have their ups and their downs, but you are paying more for the net advantages that the increased composites give you.

Also, in the long run, the Super Hornet is likely to be in service longer than the Eagle, so you have the option of increased longevity.

Both are great aircraft. Depends on what you need. It’s kind of like a Flanker vs Rafale.

Logan Hartke

Hi logan…

venezuelan Bell412EP

Thanks, baphomet. With the exception of the new batch of Russian aircraft, Venezuelan schemes always seem to be nice.

Logan Hartke

Also, you have to remember that only part of an MPA’s value is found in ASW work. Surface patrol and ASuW, fisheries patrol and enforcement, drug interdiction, search and rescue, and numerous other roles all factor into using MPA aircraft.

MPA often operate as part of a package. Subs typically operate alone, so if you find one with an ASW ship or a submarine of your own, you might be on about equal terms or even disadvantaged. An MPA is a bit of a force multiplier, not vulnerable to enemy subs and able to quickly transit to an area where an enemy sub might be. Using a sub or frigate to hunt down an enemy sub makes it likely that the hunter will become the hunted. With the exception of a few submarines (such as Kilos) armed with short range SAMs, MPAs are one of the few platforms that can search for and attach enemy subs with impunity.

So, you do a lot of your searching with other platforms, ASW frigates and submarines, and then call in an MPA to swing the odds heavily in your favor. When it comes to ASW, they’re also great for a bit of “area denial” dropping sonobuoys and pinging away since they don’t need to worry about exposing themselves like a submarine might. If an enemy submarine is close, the MPA finds it. If it’s not, you’ve forced the enemy sub to go somewhere else. Area denial.

Logan Hartke