I’ve yet to hear of program members/buying nations/partners voicing concerns over problems. Of course maybe I’m way out of touch but can you point me to any sources of concern from interested parties/partners?

There are more than enough customers which have raised their concerns about the numbers due the cost increasements over all the years. Those numbers provided by the briefing are still the same as that given years ago, but many customers are in doubt to that numbers. The brits f.e., Italy has withdrawn from the testing phase, the dutch want at least reduce the test fleet from 2 to 1. There are doubts in Canada etc. If all is so well on time and budget I wonder why so many customers think about cuts. And they are hardley on schedule with all the technical difficulties they had so far and the development and testing phase is far from being completed. The costs for the F-35s currently on order are miles away from the quoted figures either. Sorry but I believe such a price tag when I see it, not those empty marketing promises to keep the customers onboard. Sure the costs will go down once full rate production ramps up, but I’m still sceptical about those figures. Just take a look at the F-16 which is still in production and how expensive new build aircraft are. So you want to tell me the F-35 won’t be more expensive with all that stealth and technology involved? That’s ridiculous at best.

Or if they decided to keep the OEU (17) and raise it to a full size squadron…………..?

Does it make sense to equip an OEU with the same number of ac as a frontline unit?

They obviously confuse the first flight with the in service date.

Thanks Scorps – I was reading about the MAWs being a problem with regard to an Afganistan deployment. Why would this be the case?

Don’t know why this is supposed to be a problem, as Harriers and Tornados have no MAWS either. The problem for the Typhoon is that while the hardware is installed since years, there are still software issues, which prevent the system to work as advertised now. That’s the reason for the MAWS test flights.

Danke Scorpion82.

Is it possible for the Eurofighter Typhoon to use Triple Ejection Racks too ?

So far no TERs has been integrated, but they were proposed for 500 lb class bombs. I have seen dual-racks on Typhoon’s, albeit not in flight and not for operational aircraft. The problem with the Typhoon is that it has 4 pylons per wing, which are relative close to each other and might interfer with other stores.

@GoT,
LDP is required if the PW IV is used with laser, but it can be used with INS/GPS as well (dual-mode). Designation can be done by 3rd parties as well and in the configuration mentioned above the centre line station might still have been free for attaching the LDP.

@LmRaptor,
Typhoon still uses the active system.

As always comrade thanks for the grins and giggles. I usually just read your propaganda and chuckle but I have a bit of time on my hands so I thought I would correct you on this one.

The AWG-9 could TWS 6 and 24 independently of the Phoenix. There was no relationship between the active radar on Phoenix and the radar. As for practicality you forget comrade that the F-14 was an interceptor designed to fight the outer air battle. It’s normal practical load out on BEARCAP (kill Russian bombers and cruise missiles) was either 6 Phoenix or 4 Phoenix and 2 Sparrow. Further unlike much of ther junk the Soviets fielded, Hughes had top prove that the Phoneix/AWG-9 combination on a single F-14 was capable of taking out 6 airborne targets in simultaneous fashion. The radar on the Phoenix (as on any other A2A missile) is only powerful enough to provide terminal guidance. The AWG-9 guided the missiles most of the way.

Check this video out comrade Flex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fNcGFNLPHE

Could they engage six fighters successfully, probably not but they where more than capable of bringing down Backfires and other bombers.

While it is true the R-73 first reached IOC in 1982/3 it was little more than a AIM-9L equivalent. The R-73M introduced in 1997/8 time frame was the first off oversight model that caused the AIM-9X to be fielded 5 or 6 years later. An agile missile was developed but not produced in the mid 80’s. The US DOD underestimated the Russian R-73 and it was decided not to produce it.

You leave out the R-73E which was fielded earlier than the M, but later than the A (somewhere in the later 80s) and this missile was well capable of HOBS engagements up to +/- 60°. The R-73A was limited to +/-45° still noticabley more than any AIM-9 derivate at that time.

The reason is simple. First they needed to get the Luftwaffe running and up to numbers so F84 and F-86 were used. When it became obvious that something better as needed the defense miniter Strauss wanted to achieve a big step. So the F-100 was ruled out.
Now why they picked the F-104 has to do with bribery and the idea to get new life into the German aviation industry by localy producing as much as possible.

The F-104 selection was also made as the US didn’t rule out the use of tactical nuclear bombs by german operated jet fighters. The french refused that.