The RAF thinks Typhoon FGR4 is multi-role. The Luftwaffe thinks Typhoon is multi-role, judging by their replacing Tornado (ground-attack) with Typhoon and using Typhoon as an interceptor.

You disagree with the RAF’s and Luftwaffe’s definition of multi-role. Noted, no confusion here.

I’ve posted a link to a 1994 story that tells you Typhoon was, at that time, intended to be a multi-role aircraft. Had a look in the mirror, not a hint of blue.

Only in that it is A2G capable. A2A was definitely the primary design focus though, for all the very obvious reasons mentioned repeatedly already. That’s the bit you can’t grasp. An A2A fighter with A2G ability doesn’t make a true multi-roler by design focus. Why? Because you can equip any fighter with A2G ability and I don’t think there is one single fighter in operation without some kind of A2G ability. Does that make all fighters primarily focused on multi-role? Hell no! Even an F-22 can carry bombs, as could the F-14 pre-scrap, and Israeli F-15s were also A2G equipped later on. As a rule of thumb, if a fighter only has A2A weapons qualified when it enters service that’s usually a very good indication it’s intended primarily for A2A, especially if it remains that way for 8 years before the first A2G weapons are equipped! Length of time before first Typhoon A2G mission – 8 years. Length of time before first F-22 A2G mission – 9 years. Quite the coincidence. Putting an apple label on an orange doesn’t make it an apple.

Typhoon lineage for all to see here at the very excellent secret projects forum:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,169.0.html

Here is a Eurofighter precursor design, the BAE p110 from 1981 complete with A2G weaponry
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237110[/ATTACH]

More BAE imagery of the ACA which fed into the Eurofighter from the UK end:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237115[/ATTACH]
Note ALARM underwing

[ATTACH=CONFIG]237116[/ATTACH]

Note that they moved away from side-mount intakes with canards on their outer edges. 1981 – side-mount intakes and lots of A2G weapons on display. 1982 ACA, bottom-mount intakes – mainly A2A.

Also see chart for F-22. A2G weapons, does that make it a primarily multi-role focused design? Hell, even called an ‘F/A-22’ – does the ‘F/A’ make it primarily multi-role focused, or is there just a chance that the super large radar, massive performance and more restrictive internal bays (relative to F-35A wrt A2G weapons) designed for 6 BVRAAMs make it primarily focused on A2A?

If that particular airliner has the transponder turned on, responds to calls, maintains FL41 and doesnt do anything stupid in midway, no airforce will care, be that the AMI, the Adla, whatever. If the Airliner doesnt follow standard procedures, something that happens, well, then, its going to get flying companions with pointed noses.

It all depends on how quickly you want to get their. It could be argued that due to the small size of Switzerland, getting there really quickly is paramount because there’s only a relatively short period between entering their airspace and getting to a city, where a hypothetical hijacked plane may intend to wreak havoc. Theoretically that brings us back to the Typhoon once again.

Indeed. Being 90 knots faster (flat out) than an airliner in level flight does not mean it can climb to intercept an airliner before it leaves Swiss airspace.

The radar equiped F/A-50 might do the trick, the M346 never.

True, I was looking at the never exceed speed. The F/A-50 might work though, as you say.

I repeat, Typhoon was designed from the ground up as multi-role.

You can repeat until you’re blue in the face but it clearly wasn’t because the underside intake and recessed BVRAAM carriage are both very clear indications that it wasn’t. Both those features improve A2A effectiveness but at the expense of A2G flexibility.

For which I gave one source, but more are available. More focused on A2A than Rafale, but still: multi-role, capable enough of ground attack for this to be reflected in its designation. The German Luftwaffe is replacing most of its Tornado IDS fleet with Typhoons, which indicates they use the same definition of multi-role as the one used by the RAF. I accept your definition of multi-role is different from theirs.

You’re confusing a fighter being designed primarily for A2A with the intention of adding A2G as a secondary aspect, with a dedicated multi-role design. Two different things. Personally I think A2A is a better focus because A2G is real difficult without air superiority.

I really don’t think I’m the one who is confused here.

I think you are. If you can seriously look at the design features I’ve highlighted and the operation of the Eurofighter as well as the historical capability gap and tell me it was designed as a true multi-roler, you’re definitely confused, no two ways about it.

RAF 2 squadron saw its Tornado GR4s replaced by Typhoon FGR4s. FGR means Fighter, Ground-attack, Reconnaissance. The RAF considers its Typhoon FGR4s to be true multi-role combat aircraft. Read it here http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm

You don’t. Shrug.

I regard ‘multi-role’ as an intentional 50:50 split (or near) in design intent and that isn’t what the Typhoon is. Ultimately any fighter can be equipped with A2G weapons, that doesn’t mean that the design was compromised to allow for it. As mentioned about a dozen times already there are several obvious features on the Typhoon that restrict A2G flexibility, meaning that it was designed primarily for A2A. E.g. side-ways opening landing gear to permit use of bottom-mounted intake and recessed BVRAAM carriage that improves RCS and performance but restricts use of inner wing pylons, meaning they can’t carry drop tanks or larger A2G weapons like Storm Shadow and 2000lb bombs…. Lack of dedicated pylon for LITENING pod carriage. Then you have the capability gap during procurement, which was most definitely A2A and the actual use of the aircraft since operations began. None of these things point to multi-role design intent.

As for using nomenclature to determine design intent for airframe, what about the Tornado F2, next you’ll tell me that the Tornado was intended as a dedicated fighter. Use and labelling doesn’t determine design intent. The Tornado was multi-role with a heavy focus on A2G in design intent, whereas the Typhoon has a heavy focus on A2A. You have to look at what we actually mean when we say ‘multi-role’, does multi-roles or was designed with a focus on that? The Typhoon definitely does multi-roles but it wasn’t designed with a focus on that and largely hasn’t been used for that whilst another A2G aircraft was available. That’s where your confusion lies. The Rafale, by comparison, has been heavily involved in A2G from the get go, because it was a multi-role design intent.

Ugh.

Again. His point is SWITZERLAND DO NOT NEED A FAST JET WITH BELLS AND WHISTLES.

Its not about ability to afford. Its about need to pay for.

As for the invasion crap, its crystal clear what he is saying is:
The probability of Switzerland being invaded by a neighbour is = 1/∞
The probability of Switzerland being invaded by a country that isn’t a neighbour is = 1/(∞-1)

Well I guess if all they’re looking for is a fast jet for intercepting non-responsive airliners, then a T-50 or M346 would be even cheaper than a Gripen.

Infinity – 1 is still infinity.

Typhoon was designed from the beginning as a multi-role aircraft, as this 1994 BBC article will tell you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/27/newsid_2531000/2531051.stm

Not really true. It’s true that it had to fulfill multi-roles because the UK can’t afford dedicated fighters for each role, but the design is primarily focused on air-combat, in fact it was specifically designed to defeat Flankers. Hence the aforementioned design features that improve performance for air combat but deteriorate load carrying and stores flexibility, chiefly the bottom-mounted intakes and recessed BVRAAM carriage that weaken the central hardpoint and mandate sideways opening landing gear, restricting inner pylon usage. Since introduction the aircraft has almost entirely filled A2A operations with Tornadoes taking care of A2G until the JSF replaces it and nobody has exactly been in a mad rush to clear it for A2G weapons. It only had its first A2G weapon cleared for use after 8 years in service and is currently only cleared for two A2G weapons (maybe 3, not sure if unguided 1000lb bombs are also cleared). It’s very much an A2A aircraft with A2G capability as an add on, just as it was for the F-14 and F-15 in later life.

Of course Eurofighter GmbH will always bandy about the multi-role term to help sell the aircraft and it does have decent A2G capability, but A2G was a distant second in design focus, you very definitely wouldn’t design an aircraft like that for A2G operations or if A2A:A2G was a 50:50 focus. You also have to look at the fact that, at the time of development, the UK already had 2 A2G aircraft in the Tornado and Harrier and no true A2A aircraft, in fact the Tornado was very definitely a fighter bomber by design with a very low focus on A2A. The Tornado ADV was probably among the least agile fighters in the world with an air defence role during its day, it was designed for low-level nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and the Harrier, well it was a VTOL aircraft, which definitely isn’t where you start from if you want an A2A platform. So already having 2 A2G aircraft, it’s very unlikely that the MoD asked for a true multi-role aircraft, since A2G was already well covered and A2A was a gaping wide hole in capabilities at the time. That was further cemented by their reliance on US CAP during Desert Storm and in other theatres, whereas over Libya, the Typhoon was flying CAP for Tornadoes.

Remind me please. Why did the Swiss reject the Gripen again?

Was it a proper military procurement decision or one based on political posturing and Swiss demographic factors? Or both?

Swiss voters.

http://www.janes.com/article/38038/swiss-voters-reject-gripen-purchase

Swiss voters have rejected the country’s planned purchase of 22 Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft in a landmark referendum on 18 May.

Referendums can be called on any issue in Switzerland providing a public petition can gather enough signatures, and the cost of the programme and the choice of the Gripen sparked sufficient controversy to generate this.

Based on the above, they may as well just leave aircraft selection to a referendum, it’s probably more efficient than going through a selection process and then having voters reject their choice afterwards. Dear taxi drivers, which aircraft do you think looks the best? We recently interviewed John Smith, who voted against the F-35 because it wouldn’t be possible to paint a Swiss flag on the fuselage.:highly_amused: