Three points, 1) If you are going to talk about the necessity of a particular product the alternatives must be part of that discussion, to exclude them is either naive, likely invalidating your argument, or to be pushing a particular agenda, definately invalidating your argument.
2) If a product is designed to use a feature for a distinct segment of a market the feature is by definition filling a niche. From the writings of many F35 advocates stealth is intended as a day one, first strike tool, afterwards being negated by the external carriage of munitions to enable the platform to perform CAS / battlefield interdiction taskings. Thus stealth in this context is defiantely a niche feature, perhaps making the F35 a niche product.
3) Your argument to date seems to be leading to the conclusion that anybody but the US at this point in time should give up and buy US products. This is, to put it politely, unrealistic.

Sorry I missed this last post Snafu. Let me explain further so that no one has an excuse to accuse me of trolling when they haven’t the intellect to debate the facts intelligently. Not you but others.

To your points in order in which you wrote them:

1) I agree but this thread was about Eurofighter and it started decaying into a pissing match about the merits of Rafale. I started a thread for that plane so it could be discussed there but it has been foolishly locked after some people had difficulty discussing the facts and resort to name calling.

2) I disagree, don’t confuse the F-35’s versatility with it being a niche player. It will always have the option of carrying fuel and stores internally. How valuable is it to be able to fight your enemies without them being able to see you very well? Is it a one day thing or is “First day of war” a saying. Do I personally think the F-35 is ever going to perform CAS? Not unless you are the Marines or you don’t have dedicated CAS assets, but the capabilty is still there. So what. That does not make it a niche aircraft. In fact stealth makes it even more versatile. Consider this: Why not use one or two stealthy F-35s to track targets and provide fire control while the rest of the squadron is loaded upthe AMRAAM and does the shooting while still out of detection range of the targets. AIM-120D has a two way data link and it can be guided by another aircraft.

3) No, my point is that if you consider current events, the state of European defense budgets, and the work/money needed to bring the existing Typhoons up to full capability it is foolish to continue with production of the 3rd tranche of aircraft. In fact it is almost criminal to do so since it takes resources away from other very much needed items in both the Italian and UK inventory. It is true the British have been hoisted on their own petard with this but Gordo ought to declare that conditions have changed and they cannot and will not pay penalties for an aircraft they do not need and cannot afford. I am sure Italy would support the decision as well.

With all due respect you have not actually said anything here. The above is merely a listing of various technologies and designs. Time and thus the maturity and application of technology move on thus changing the way it can be applied; being the first to try something doesn’t mean that you have achieved the ultimate application of the technology or design.

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I claimed that the Eurocanards in general do not have state of the art airframes. Someone claimed that I was wrong and an XXXXXX to boot. So I rattled off a few things that they are missing and I pointed out why canards in themselves are not really all that modern.

Why, exactly, does the Typhoon not qualify for the status of ‘huge high-tech jobs program’ that you so readily attribute to the Lighting II? The production run may not be as large but it still has gargantuan benefits for the capabilities, experience and integration of the European combat aircraft industry.

It is a jobs program as well. Not nearly as large but as for the rest, no not really. It’s like having four aircraft companies design and build a plane with a production run not likely to exceed 700 units on four separate (five if you count SA) assembly lines. By contrast the F-35 is a huge international jobs program with a single (perhaps two since Alenia may get one) assembly line building a state of the art affordable aircraft that will not be obsolete 10 or 15 years from now. Further unlike Rafale, Typhoon allows none of the partner nations the ability to build fighters independently.

LET’S.

WRONG: Fundamental aerodynamic differences, NO generalities here.

WRONG:

No what I see here is a crude attempt to try and blend the wings into a botched application of engine inlets. Blended wing/body looks like this:

WRONG: and it’s Leading Edge Extention, DUDE.:D

Sorry Dude but you are wrong.

The wing was provided with a leading edge root extension (LERX)

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f17.html
Go here to see what they look like: http://www.smugmug.com/popular/Airplanes/2/26500333_nRjJ6#26500333_nRjJ6-A-LB
Note the large structure above the engine inlet for the LERX. In fact note the inlet. Hint it has something to do with reducing RCS.

NO need for additional YAW stability when canards root vortexes does the job at up to 100* AoA.

These vortexes energises the airflow around the SINGLE fin without the structural problems known to affect EVERY single US double-fin design since F-18, INCLUDING F-35, solution being simpler and lighter at once.

The F-18 has a maximum maneuverable AOA of 83 degrees.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1994/1994%20-%200027.html
Frankly, if it where canards that where responsible for such a large AOA why doesn’t the Eurofighter have the same ability? No thanks, LERX are the way to go. Billions of dollars, countless hours of flight tests and the commercial success of the twin tailed American planes seem to indicate that. Besides canards are not exactly good for reduced RCS, they induce additional drag. As for your structural problems, there have been over 3700 twin tailed F-14 through F-22 built to date and another 2000 to 3000 planned. What structural issues are you talking about?

If you meant DELTA wings YES; so does F-22 with virtualy similar leading edge sweep and of course the delta VORTEX LIFT going with it..

Nope, I meant F-106 with canards. In fact I was being charitable. The F-106 carried it’s weapons internally and was able to super cruise. The Eurocanards are simple deltas with canards attached and causing instability.

WRONG: B-70 was a STABLE aircraft with canard acting mainly as lifting surfaces such as the Grifon in 1954.

Yes, B-70 was a stable aircraft, the point being made is moveable canards are nothing new.

As for your photo essay on the history of french experimentation with FBW, thanks for the education. It came as no surprise though, Dassault has a long history in the business. The only part I find fault with is your assertion that Mirage 2000 was the first unstable FBW fighter when in fact it was the F-16 whcih first flew and became operational a few years prior to M-2000. Other than that you just further prove my point. There is nothing new here.

CANARDs are a LOT more than LEX.
Maybe, maybe not, but they are not a lot more than LERX.

Now pick up your pieces and copy and go flush please.

I believe it is you who needs to flush …… DUDE

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The aircraft was supposed to encounter waves of enemy air strikes and achieve and maintain air superiority over the battlefield. With secondary strike/attack missions to strike targets not to far behind the frontline, CAS, SEAD and other missions as intended….

It is true that the Typhoon is late and expensive to procure, though the weak dollar makes the aircraft looking more expensive from a “dollar point of view”….

The aircraft is late as most current generation fighters….

For current scenarios the Typhoon is even over qualified, though the aircraft is much more suited than the over expensive F-22 for example. Even the F-35 is more than over qualified for the current types of scenario….

When are the PAK-FA and J-XX are going to enter service, when are they fielded in numbers and operational, how capable will they be in reality. The next question is how many of these aircraft will be exported?….

Many of you guys seem to believe that the PAK-FA or J-XX will be exported on a large scale very soon, don’t you think this is more than exagerated?….

How many nations can even affort a complex air defense system comprising dozens of advanced EWRs or S-300/400 types?…

How do you guys think have non-stealth combat aircraft operated in the past?…

Do you think technology won’t evolve?

All good points and all worth replying to:

Yes it was intended from the outset with secondary strike capability and given the state opf technology and world affairs when it was designed it was more a political intention than a real design intention. Large delta wing aircraft do not make good low level strikers due to severe buffet encountered at high speeds and low level. FBW only addresses some but not all of the problem. Second, it is a fact that EF scrambled to fit an austere A2G capability after the plane was in production and that it’s full A2G suite will not be in place until and unless T3 is fielded. In short it really is not going to be a very good A2G platform and only the fact that standoff PGMs have been fielded makes it a viable platform.

The Typhoon is very late and again that only tells part of the story. It was rushed into service without all of the integration done on it than was intended. Did it have IRST, did it the helmet mounted sight just to name two items that came later. Even in service it was/(is?) operationally limited in altitude and speed.

Sure lots of systems are late and lots of them are expensive but don’t you think that there isn’t much value at over 60 million pounds a copy for a jet that breaks no new ground. There was really nothing that had not been done before on other aircraft so why the delays? Look at Super Hornet, why can the USN get them for a bit over 50 million dollars a copy. Both planes are of the same vintage and have roughly the same level of technology. In fact the Super is carrier capable which adds even more cost to it.

The PAK-Fas and J-XXs of the world while a potential threat down the road are not necessarily the problem right now. What about the upgraded SU-27s of the world? Are they more advanced? Are they better than Typhoon? Probably not. Will they cause Typhoon pilots problems? Will Typhoon dominate? Yes, and no. Again, where is the value from a cost/capability standpoint? Do you really think that Israel with upgraded F-15s and later F-35s won’t make short work of Saudi Typhoons if it ever came down to it?

All you need is one potential enemy to posses a modern integrated ADS and you have problems. Sure you could saturate the airspace with cruise and stand off munitions but how many of them do you need? How do you do BDA? What happens when you miss a battery of SA300s?

Before standoff smart weapons and stealth you went in low and enmass and you hoped to take the target out before too many of your friends died.

Sure technology will evolve. The problem is that Typhoon is behind the eight ball and as counters to stealth evolve, stealth will also evolve. Technology advances for both sides.

Utter Tosh…

I just love those intelligent posts of yours. How can I argue with such logic?

Since there is no possibility for Western Europen AFs to fight with USAF in the foreseeable future……..

It is very natural for a fighter project to become obsolete and be surpassed by other new challengers after entering service for 10 to 15 years.

2020-2030 is a long way off. While I too think it is extremely unlikely you never know. Times change.

The teen series did not become obsolete in 10 or 15 years. In fact later versions of them are just as deadly now as they where back in 1980. It could even be argued that the one that had the most potential, the F-14 was retired prematurely and it entered service in 1975.

Well, no matter expensive or cheap, almost every 4th Gen and 5th Gen fighters in the world keep doing these expensive and endless serial upgrades in order to maintain their effectiveness and competitiveness for another 5 to 10 years. Even F-22A has no exception:

You are missing the point. When the teen series came out they where world beating aircraft. The same can be said for the F-22 and it looks like the F-35 as well. Updates and upgrades where a normal evolution for these planes. The Typhoon was fielded 10-15 years too late. It’s not being upgraded, it is still being developed. How many of those Tranch I airplanes that the UK has are going to be flying in 10 years?

well if you ask me it is a very relevent program for the same reason you said 😉

The people from the land of Gaul was highly unlikely to operate a foreign type as their main fighter, especially after making the Mirage III, Mirage F1, and Mirage 2000 and had the balls to make the bigger Mirage 4000! The French were going to make French regardless if it was the Le Rafael, le Leonardo, le, Michaelangelo, or le Donatello.

Now the other Euros.. they are not as prideful as the French (but still pretty prideful).
The Germans, British, Spaniards, and the amalgamation of weakly related peoples called the Italians were happily operating their F-4s, Mirage F1s, and F-18s. they could’ve and probably should’ve saved time and money and gone for F-16s or F-18s.. and in the case of the British, definitely F-18s and F-14s.

the Rafale is relevent because the French made it relevent.

I could not agree with you more. Rafale has given the French autonomy. Eurofighter has just broken budgets.