# Eurofighter upgrades



## Aggie08 (Mar 30, 2007)

MoD announces air-to-ground upgrade for Eurofighter | The Register

From what I've seen this bird is completely capable but the inter-country debating and all those delays really are making it a tough sale.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

Supposed to be very capable. Nice avatar of shiner!


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 30, 2007)

Ah, a fellow Texan! I went to the brewery a few weeks ago, it was magical.

Anyways I am a fan of the Eurofighter, I hope they can get everything straight and let it acheive it's full capability.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> Ah, a fellow Texan! I went to the brewery a few weeks ago, it was magical.
> 
> Anyways I am a fan of the Eurofighter, I hope they can get everything straight and let it acheive it's full capability.



Haha!  Fellow Texan, I am not. I'm born and bred in Jersey. I'm just stationed here in Texas, but we'll be moving back to Pensacola in a month. My son was born here in Texas, though.


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 1, 2007)

Well, not everyone can be quite so lucky I guess!  Enjoy it while you can!


----------



## Marriott (Apr 10, 2007)

yes it would be great if everything could be sorted out with this aircraft. It seems like a great fighter


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 19, 2007)

But why do we need an air-supremecy fighter anyway? its hardly likely some group of terrorists will get hold of a bunch of MiGs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

It is a deterent thats why. I seriously doubt that the last of the major wars has been fought. There is still China, North Korea and hell Russia is still a very volotile nation.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Didn't they say that before Argentines reared up? Seriously, world airforces are actually increasing. Not the opposite as Joe2 would imply.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

Joe2 said:


> But why do we need an air-supremecy fighter anyway? its hardly likely some group of terrorists will get hold of a bunch of MiGs.



You're right. You don't need any air assets at all, actually. Terrorists aren't likely to launch a major naval operation, so you should scrap the Royal Navy. Amphibious landings against terrorists... nahhh - give the Royal Marines the pink slip. Major ground operations against a well armed conventional army... not too likely, so the British Army should be phased out too....


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Don't encourage him. The RAF personnel numbers have gone from 90,000 in the 90s to 40,000 today. The RN has suffered a commensurate loss of ships. The humour here is quickly fading.


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

Joe2 said:


> But why do we need an air-supremecy fighter anyway? its hardly likely some group of terrorists will get hold of a bunch of MiGs.



Russia and now China are more than willing to sell quite sophisticated aircaft to anyone. Personally I wouldn't fancy my chances in a Tornado against an Su27 or even Mig29 if they got within IR missile range.

The UK have if we are honest, has been depending on the USA for fighter coverage for some years and its about time we were able to look after our own. Our GA capability has been as good as anyones including the USA but fighters no.

The best fighter the UK has had for a dogfight has been the Harrier FR2 and these are now out of service.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 20, 2007)

I know this is a bit off topic, but i want to know when the USAF is actually gonna start mass producing the F-22


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

They aren't. Not enough on order to "mass produce". For the near term production is only in the single digits.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 21, 2007)

What!? so they intend to just have 1 squadron then thats it, no more, thats ****ing stupid


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2007)

Last I heard about the Eurofighter she's beautiful weather fighter.....


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> What!? so they intend to just have 1 squadron then thats it, no more, thats ****ing stupid



It will also increase the unit cost significantly giving those who don't like it an excuse to further reduce the order to 'save costs'.

Seen that happen to often this side of the pond.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

No. Just a slow procurement. And currently DoD wants about 450. Funding is for only about half that...maybe. It's a matter of keeping the assy line open and still allowing for future upgrades/increases in procurement.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 21, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> No. Just a slow procurement. And currently DoD wants about 450. Funding is for only about half that...maybe. It's a matter of keeping the assy line open and still allowing for future upgrades/increases in procurement.



Last I have heard, the number actually produced will likely be in the 200-250 range. A big beef is the concurrent F-35 project...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

Yep


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 22, 2007)

What we got here is an aircraft, that is 10 more advanced thatn the F-15 Eagle, and youre telling me that the USAF is only going to Order a total of 450 of these aircraft, whereas the F-15 EAGLE, was the most Advanced Air Superiorty Fighter of its time


That is Horse ****

Maybe The USAF has a monopoly on the world right now in terms of technology, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, there is limited need for such a plane

but the threat in the middle east is more than enough justification to put such an advanced peice technology into production


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2007)

To be honest 200 to 250 is probably eneogh. The aircraft is capable eneogh. You wont need thousands of them. Yeah I would up to 400 to 450 but 1000's is not needed.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

The danger is and its one that I have said before, is that for the last 25 years the F15 and F16 were the class act to beat. No one could touch the combination and they ruled the export markets.

Now the USA have the F22 and the F35. The F22 is to expensive and to secret to sell to anyone (recently the USA refused to offer it to Japan one of the few countries to afford it and banned the sale to Israel), the F35 can probably be beaten in a fight with the Eurofighter and would be hard pushed (maybe beaten, its to early to tell) by the Grippen and the Rafael.
Overseas buyers now have options and good ones at that. Don't get me wrong, I am confident that the USA will sell a good number of F35's , but sales will not match the numbers of F15's and F16's. This could have a major impact on your industry.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 22, 2007)

Glider said:


> the F35 can probably be beaten in a fight with the Eurofighter and would be hard pushed (maybe beaten, its to early to tell) by the Grippen and the Rafael.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Eurofighter? Maybe. Gripen? Don't bet on it. F-35 would cream it. Lockheed didn't coin the term 5th generation fighter for nothing. Only after doing so, did all the other world fighter manufacturers adopt the term.
> ...


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

Be fair I did say its to early to tell and it may well be hard pushed as opposed to be beaten.
Wish I knew what happened at the Red Flag.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 22, 2007)

Glider, depends on the engagement scenario. If you are talking about a furball then things are a bit more on equal footing. But the F-35's strength is avoiding furballs and engaging BVR. With stealth, passive sensors, AESA radar and netcentric data exchange, the F-35 would likely destroy the Gripen before the Gripen could even detect the F-35. This concept has been proven over and over again as a viable force multiplier.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

Agreed but the big question is the BVR scenario. When was the last time the USA allowed its aircraft freedom to fire BVR on a regular basis?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 22, 2007)

Libya, GWI, GWII...

I hear ya Glider. Kinda like the argument during Vietnam about F-4 not needing guns. "If our planes are not capable of dominating a furball, is that proper planning". I think the answer is that the technology to make a highly maneuverable fighter is available to virtually all world states. What is the tie breaker is to ensure that the type of fight that makes equals of mice and elephants is avoided. This is where the BVR doctrine is the force multiplier and the the background for AWACS, netcentric data dissemination, stealth, supercruise and AESA attack capabilities. You avoid those scenarios that puts you on a more equal footing, and capitalize on technologies that are not available to your enemies. Eurofighter has most of those. Gripen does not.


----------

