Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[Waylander]

What I want to say is that it is totally unimportant how it is named.
It's the same like in the thread about subs. If they want to name it SSGN or SSN is totally unimportant.
There is no info in it. It doesn't help you to discuss about the abilities of the fighters.
It is just normal that the marketing section of EADS says that EF is a 5th gen fighter. It is also normal that the other companies say it vice versa.

 

[DarthAmerica]

What I want to say is that it is totally unimportant how it is named.
It's the same like in the thread about subs. If they want to name it SSGN or SSN is totally unimportant.
There is no info in it. It doesn't help you to discuss about the abilities of the fighters.
It is just normal that the marketing section of EADS says that EF is a 5th gen fighter. It is also normal that the other companies say it vice versa.

IIRC EADs doesnt call it 5th Generation. And for many reasons, its important.

 

[Scorpion82]

@Darth

Those are all nice brochure statistics. But in the real world CAPTOR is does not have the versitility of the APG-63(v)1 or APG-73 and its range figures are certainly exagerated and taken out of context. CAPTOR cant deliver the a2g stores the US sets can either.

This are not only brochure statistics. Captor has been tested by Industry and Airforces often both working together. Developement and testing of the AG-modes is more advanced than you probably think. However it hasn't been incooperated into the service aircraft as their initial task is air defence/superiority.

The US has had superiority in fighter radars for quite some time. AESA just raised it to another level. Just look at our R&D budget. CAPTOR is holding the Eurofighter back in the real world. AN/APG-63(v)1 and AN/APG-73 have been sold and continue to be sold world wide in volume to gold standard customers.

Yes the US leads the fighter radar developement, no doubt about that. But Europe is becoming a more and more harder competitor. These radars are selled with the aircraft or as upgrades for aircraft of the specific type as it is the case for the most radars.

About the MiG-29 and its associated RCS I fully agree with you.

 

[Scorpion82]

There is no such thing as 4.5 generation. Generation means successive intervals. 4.5 is a clever marketing term used to hide the fact that the Eurofighter and Rafale are being delivered 10 years later than promised and are infact competing in a market that is shifting toward 5th generation fighters. Eurofighter was hatched in 1972 and like the F-16/F-18C, its a 4th generation fighter. Generational references HAVE NOTHING to do with AESA, Stealth or any of that. Its only representitive of evolution. FOr example, Boeing can rightly claim the F/A-18E to be a 5th generation fighter because its a decendant of the 4th generation F/A-18C. Just as the Raptor is the 5th generation decendant of the 4th generation F-15. The F-35 is the 5th Generation successor to the 4th generation F-16/18C. The Eurofighter, is the 4th Generation successor to the 3rd Generation F-4 and Tornado.

Let me ask people to consider this logically. Is your son or daughter or are you a x.5 generation of your parents? Or are you infact a "next generation". Generations are integers. 4.5 is marketing hype.

You are wrong. The AST 309 from 1972 was a RAF requirement for a STOVL attack aircraft to replace the Harrier GR1/3 and Jaguars. However the project was canceled as such and in the mid 70's the RAF issued a new requirement AST 403 for an air defence fighter. Also Italy and Germany were defining requirements for a new fighter. Studies were conducted however the Eurofighter programm was not started before 16th december 1983 under the name FEFA (later EFA only and then Eurofighter 2000). The requirements were already updated and partly changed for EFA in comparision to the 1970's effords. When the developement phase started on 23rd november 1988 it was intended to put the type in service in 1997.
To make things short the Eurofighter was developed just about the same time as the F-22 and is so in the same generation. The Eurofighter was not developed at the same time as F-16 or F/A-18 etc.
As already mentioned in a post above the definition of fighter generations in Europe is another than in the US! Virtually Rafale, Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F and F-22A are the same generation. However most people including much military and industrial personal is defining the 5th generation with stealth, integrated avionics etc. meaning defining the generation by technologies and not chronological time.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You are wrong.

The Eurofighter was not developed at the same time as F-16 or F/A-18 etc.

As already mentioned in a post above the definition of fighter generations in Europe is another than in the US! Virtually Rafale, Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F and F-22A are the same generation.

However most people including much military and industrial personal is defining the 5th generation with stealth, integrated avionics etc. meaning defining the generation by technologies and not chronological time.

Let me clarify. BTW I parsed your quote so I apologize in advance if anything is taken out of context. The F-16 and YF-17 programs were started at approximately the same time as the Eurofighter. However political difficulties associated with multinational joint project caused delays that the US light weight fighter program didnt have to deal with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter#Development

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Development

One parting comment on generations. I realise that generations have morphed into technological comparisons as a result of the internet and pop culture influence on military affairs. However to professionals in the industry or service. We have never regarded generations as requiring a particular technology. Generations may suggest certain technologies. But they do not require it. Generations are merely representative of successive progression. eg 1966 Mustang vs 2006 Mustang. In fact the reason why people have called the Eurofighter 4.5 generation is because the aircrafts development continued through the time when other contemporary 4th generation fighters were already in service. Most people that are actually involved and knowledgable about the subject matter would agree with the definition as I have described it because it is in fact the only true definition. I would question the motivation of anybody who suggested different. Generations denote time and technology denotes capability. Technologies can and often do cross generations. Which is why you have AESA on 4th Generation F-15's and F-16's and MSA on 5th Generation F/A-18E until the end of this year when AESA will be operational in the fleet. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Magoo]

Let me clarify. BTW I parsed your quote so I apologize in advance if anything is taken out of context. The F-16 and YF-17 programs were started at approximately the same time as the Eurofighter. However political difficulties associated with multinational joint project caused delays that the US light weight fighter program didnt have to deal with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter#Development

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Development

One parting comment on generations. I realise that generations have morphed into technological comparisons as a result of the internet and pop culture influence on military affairs. However to professionals in the industry or service. We have never regarded generations as requiring a particular technology. Generations may suggest certain technologies. But they do not require it. Generations are merely representative of successive progression. eg 1966 Mustang vs 2006 Mustang. In fact the reason why people have called the Eurofighter 4.5 generation is because the aircrafts development continued through the time when other contemporary 4th generation fighters were already in service. Most people that are actually involved and knowledgable about the subject matter would agree with the definition as I have described it because it is in fact the only true definition. I would question the motivation of anybody who suggested different. Generations denote time and technology denotes capability. Technologies can and often do cross generations. Which is why you have AESA on 4th Generation F-15's and F-16's and MSA on 5th Generation F/A-18E until the end of this year when AESA will be operational in the fleet. Does this make sense to you?

I think saying Eurofighter 'development' started in 1972 is a bit of a stretch. The idea about getting together to develop an aircraft may have started then, but it wasn't until the EAP flew that they started to get serious about developing the Eurofighter.

Therefore, to say that the technology used in the jet can be traced back to 1972 (or even 1982 for that matter) is misleading, indeed many of the integrated systems on Eurofighter (e.g. Sensor fusion of DASS, AIS, ECM, IRST, IR targeting pod etc) are state-of-the-art. Plus, and although I don't know enough to consider myself an authority, from comments I have heard and read, I feel you may be selling the CAPTOR radar short.

Here's some program history info, and a few remarks from the OC 29SQN RAF in an interview this time last year with Australian Aviation magazine (published in the August 2005 issue)...

The Eurofighter has suffered perhaps the most prolonged gestation of any combat aircraft in history, in large part due to the competing budget and capability require­ments of its partner nations.
Eurofighter can be traced back as far as the early 1970s to a British Ministry of Defence (MoD) requirement for a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to replace the Jaguar and Harrier.
The first multinational predecessor was the European Combat Aircraft (ECA), a joint Anglo, French and German study. ECA sought to develop a multirole fighter which would replace the Phantom in the UK and Germany, and the Jaguar in UK and French service. However, there were difficulties in defining the aircraft, as Germany didn’t consider a ground attack capability a high priority, and France wanted a lighter aircraft which would be carrier capable and wouldn’t compete with its own Mirage 2000 program.
By early 1981, the project was in tatters as the three nations failed to agree to a common requirement for the aircraft.
While ECA fell apart, British Aerospace con­tinued work on its Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA) study, with MBB of Germany and Aeritalia of Italy becoming part of a joint design team in April 1982. The ACA, first displayed in mockup form at the 1982 Farnborough Airshow, closely resembled the definitive fighter, with design fea­tures including twin engines, canard foreplanes and an advanced delta wing. It also featured twin vertical tails.
In May 1983 BAe and industry partners including Rolls-Royce, MBB and Aeritalia had signed a contract with the UK MoD to build a technology demonstrator aircraft based on the ACA dubbed EAP – for Experimental Aircraft Program.
EAP was powered by two RB-199 engines from the Tornado. It featured canards, an advanced compound sweep wing, active flight controls, advanced cockpit design and displays, new lightweight composite materials, and a single vertical tail (from the Tornado).
The EAP demonstrator first flew on August 8 1986. Over five years until May 1991 it flew 259 sorties for 195.3 flight hours, successfully demonstrating its digital flight control system (DFCS), composite manu­facturing processes, and various low observ­ability design features, proving useful to the Eurofighter program.
EFA: While the EAP was under develop­ment, the UK, France, West Germany, Italy and Spain again tried to find some common ground. In December 1983 they issued an outline staff target for a new fighter, resulting in the launch of a feasibility study for the European Fighter Aircraft (EFA) in July 1984. However, bickering continued, and France withdrew from the program in July 1985 (going alone to develop the slightly smaller Rafale). Eurofighter GmbH was formed in June 1986 to manage the EFA program.
Development contracts for both the airframe and engines were signed in 1988. The primary sensor contract was awarded in 1990 to Euroradar, a consortium of GEC-Marconi, DASA, Inisel and FIAR.
Throughout the 1990s, in an environment of post Cold War budget cutbacks, squab­bling between the partners over workshare, threats of withdrawal, and funding uncertain­ties plagued the project. These contributed to the significant delays the aircraft experienced more than any development hitches.
DA, IPA and SPA: Seven development aircraft were built for the project’s flight test program from 1993, dubbed DA1 to DA7. The first Eurofighter to fly was DA1 from Manching in Germany in March 1994, with the UK’s DA2 flying from BAe’s factory at Warton a month later.
Spanish built DA6, the first two-seater, flew in August 1996. It was lost in November
2002 following a dual flameout at high altitude, the only Eurofighter loss to date, and was replaced by the former German DA1 in the Spanish develop­ment program.
A further five initial production aircraft or IPAs, have been built and flown; two by the UK (IPA1 and IPA5), and one each by Italy (IPA2), Germany (IPA3), and Spain (IPA4). All IPAs are two-seaters, and are instrumented Tranche 1 production standard aircraft.
The first four series production air­craft, or SPAs, all flew in February 2003. All two-seaters, they are dubbed GT001 (Germany), IT001 (Italy), BT001 (UK) and ST001 (Spain). They will most likely be retained by their air forces for ongoing trials and development work throughout the life of the program.

“Typhoon is really exceeding our expectations. We always knew the aircraft had potential and it is now clearly demonstrating that in spades. There is still a lot to do, a lot of capability to come, but in terms of where we are with the aircraft and where we take it in terms of the platform, a lot of the avionics and radar, we are really happy with it.”

“Some aspects of the radar’s performance, including detection and tracking ranges, have been significantly better than expected.”

“I’m 100 per cent confident the aircraft is an absolute world-beater, and I’m looking forward to the displays and exercises in the coming years where the aircraft can show its stuff. I think it will be shown in a very good light.”

I'm happy to email a PDF of that article if anyone's interested - please PM me with your email address.

Cheers

Magoo





Ahhh...the wonders of cutting and pasting text from a PDF to MS Word then into a text box. Apologies for the odd typo in the article transcript.

 

[Scorpion82]

@Darth,
I have a similar opinion about the definition of combat aircraft generations and I most widely agree with you on that. However I don't agree with:

The F-16 and YF-17 programs were started at approximately the same time as the Eurofighter.

As mentioned in my previous post the developement of the aircraft did not begun there in 1972 nor in 1979 or 1982. Defining requirements and conducting studies is not the same as developing aircraft! Already in 1965 in the US it was issued to develope a cheap light weight fighter to complement the proposed FX which eventually become the F-15 Eagle, but the developement work on the YF-16 or YF-17 did not start at that time as you probably know. The same goes for the F-22. When the NATO/US noticed the appearance of new sovjet 4th generation fighters, namely the MiG-29 and Su-27 the USAF was already concerned about its achieved superiority with its 4th generation designs like F-15 and F-16 and thought about purchasing a new next generation fighter in the late 1970s, when the F/A-18 for example had not even been fielded. In 1981 the USAF announced its intended plan to develope a new fighter as a F-15 replacement and finally started the ATF programm back in 1983. However it took some 3 years before Northrop and Lockheed were contracted to built to prototypes each of their proposed designs and then the developement work started on the ATF PAVs. I assume you know how that story continued in case for the F-22.
To sum it up what I want to underline is simply the fact that the early studies or requirements did not mark the developement phase beginning and as mentioned the developement of the Eurofighter Typhoon began about the same time as that of the Rafale or F-22 so I see no real reason to class the Eurofighter into a generation below F-22 and with that in the same generation as F-15 or F-16, except you define generations with its technologies and you don't do that according your own words.

A new combat aircraft might have been in service earlier when the initial partner countries would have agreed at that stage. I agree with your statement the entire afford could have been realized much earlier if there were no political difficulties, the US hasn't to face. However the result would have been a completly different aircraft and not the Eurofighter Typhoon as in its form today.

Another conflicting issue might be the only chronological definition of fighter generations particulary for the F-35. Wouldn't it be 6th generation? It is developed after the F-22 and already benefits from the type... You see its at least a difficult topic if you don't precisously define what counts. I personally place the Typhoon in the 4th generation (european definition), but the more important point for me are the capabilities and possibilities the weapon system offer.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I think saying Eurofighter 'development' started in 1972 is a bit of a stretch.

Plus, and although I don't know enough to consider myself an authority, from comments I have heard and read, I feel you may be selling the CAPTOR radar short.

Here's some program history info...

...The Eurofighter has suffered perhaps the most prolonged gestation of any combat aircraft in history, in large part due to the competing budget and capability require­ments of its partner nations.
Eurofighter can be traced back as far as the early 1970s to a British Ministry of Defence (MoD) requirement for a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to replace the Jaguar and Harrier.

The PDF confirms the timeframe mentioned by me earlier. Its literally unquestionable. The tardyness associated with the type is also confirmed.

RE: Selling CAPTOR short. I'm merely stating the truth that its not competetive against modern US AESA's. Thats also confirmed.

Another confirmation is that it(Typhoon) is the successor to the 3rd generation Harrier and Jaguar.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Defining requirements and conducting studies is not the same as developing aircraft!

They are different parts of the same program.

Another conflicting issue might be the only chronological definition of fighter generations particulary for the F-35. Wouldn't it be 6th generation?

No, its not designed to replace the F-22. Its more like what the F-16 is to the F-15. Both 4th Gens designed in order of priority and to be complimentary.

More on stealth aircraft and generations later...

 

[Scorpion82]

@Darth

They are different parts of the same program.

Right but as mentioned the AST 309 requirement had nothing to do with the later EFA. That was only a requirement and not a programme. ECA was a programme which was later canceled. AGAIN the Eurofighter programme was was started on 16th december 1983 as F/EFA.

Or to explain it with an example you may know:
Is the F-14 Tomcat a fighter developed since the later 1950's, because at that time the USN required a new carrier born fleet defender/interceptor? You probably know the story of F-111B and when the F-14 finally emerged so according your logic the F-14 programme started with the developement of the F-111B.

No, its not designed to replace the F-22. Its more like what the F-16 is to the F-15. Both 4th Gens designed in order of priority and to be complimentary.

I never said the F-35 is designed as a F-22 replacement and I'm well aware for what the F-35 is designed.

Another confirmation is that it(Typhoon) is the successor to the 3rd generation Harrier and Jaguar.

And the type will also replace the already outphased F-104 2nd generation fighter as well as 4th generation MiG-29 and F-16. Depending on the customer you replace different generations of aircraft. So how to define now the generation particulary for the Eurofighter? Don't forget that the Eurofighter is a multinational programme!



To sum the whole thing up:
You define the generations as it would be in a family. That is a reasonable opinion which is not wrong.
But where to start and if the generation not defines through its technologies/additions, so where would be the disadvantage of Eurofighter being 4th and F/A-18E being 5th generation?
The reason for measuring technologies as generation reference is that the people can imagine what the aircraft has for technologies. According your definition if F/A-18E is 5th and Eurofighter 4th generation, is the Eurofighter less advanced or more worse because of that? If you ask me NO.

 

[DarthAmerica]

To sum the whole thing up:
You define the generations as it would be in a family. That is a reasonable opinion which is not wrong.
But where to start and if the generation not defines through its technologies/additions, so where would be the disadvantage of Eurofighter being 4th and F/A-18E being 5th generation?
The reason for measuring technologies as generation reference is that the people can imagine what the aircraft has for technologies. According your definition if F/A-18E is 5th and Eurofighter 4th generation, is the Eurofighter less advanced or more worse because of that? If you ask me NO.

Scorpion,

There is no disadvantage solely because the Eurofighter is 4th Gen and the F/A-18E is 5th Gen. The primary disadvantages in that comparison are with the Radar, RCS, Weapons capability and versitility. Generations originally only denote that one type is the successor to a previous generation in the same role. It has nothing to do with what technology is involved.

Look at the F-16 Blk 60 or Indian Mig-21's. Both have technologies more commonly associated with future generations but are in fact 4th and 2nd generation platforms respectively. Generational designation is not as important in platform vs platform comparisons as is capability which is defined by technology. Its primary importance is in historical context. But if you want to be accurate and understand why platforms are the way they are, you have to know where they come from and why. Whoever wrote the Typhoon description on this site is not using the proper designation for Typhoons generation. To confirm this, all one need to do is reference this site...

http://www.eurojet.de/default2.php?p=6&cid=14

Not 5th gen, not 4.5 gen. Clearly defines this as 4th gen.

 

[Scorpion82]

Scorpion,

There is no disadvantage solely because the Eurofighter is 4th Gen and the F/A-18E is 5th Gen.

Right that's what I said.

The primary disadvantages in that comparison are with the Radar, RCS, Weapons capability and versitility.

Radar: If you speak about AN/APG-79 vs Captor yes.

RCS: Do you know the exact RCS of the Eurofighter AND F/A-18E to be able to make a reality reflecting statement? The official available data may give a slight evidence, but they are often only a hint. When comparing the both aircraft only by looks with the principal knowlege about was makes an aircraft stealthy I can hardly see why the SH should have a lower RCS at least for the frontal RCS.

Weapons capabilty:
Eurofighter is at its early service life and is no evolved previous fielded type like the SH. For sure the current weapon selection is much larger and it may even be in the future, but it depends on what the customer requires.

Versatility:
There is no need for the Eurofighter to act as refueller all other tasks could be fullfilled when required by an airforce. Its a matter of weapon and equipement pod integration. The avionics of the Eurofighter are already tailored for multirole expansion.

Generations originally only denote that one type is the successor to a previous generation in the same role. It has nothing to do with what technology is involved.

As already said before I agree with you on that. The problem is to see in the marketing. If you will want to sell an aircraft which is as new as another platform and featuring same technologies its sounds strange if you refer it as a generation below. To make such a definition easier many refer generations to the technology involved. The Russians are a good example for that they refer their newer MiG-29 and Su-27 designs as 4+ and even 4++ generation!

Whoever wrote the Typhoon description on this site is not using the proper designation for Typhoons generation. To confirm this, all one need to do is reference this site...

http://www.eurojet.de/default2.php?p=6&cid=14

Not 5th gen, not 4.5 gen. Clearly defines this as 4th gen.

As mentioned no one of the single partners in the Eurofighter programme be it from industry or military claim the Eurofighter to be 5th generation or such. Me too, so there is no need to "prove it" to me.


Only as a nice to know information for you:
When the developement of the Eurofighter Typhoon started and the requirements were set in the later 80's the goal was to develope the best air superiority fighter in history, that means the type was to be better than any (at that time) present and future airborne threat/competitor including Flankers, Fulcrums, Vipers, Eagles and even their evolved versions.

 

[Big-E]

RCS: Do you know the exact RCS of the Eurofighter AND F/A-18E to be able to make a reality reflecting statement? The official available data may give a slight evidence, but they are often only a hint. When comparing the both aircraft only by looks with the principal knowlege about was makes an aircraft stealthy I can hardly see why the SH should have a lower RCS at least for the frontal RCS.

I can tell you on good authority but without revealing sources that the Super Hornet, in clean config has a considerably lower RCS than the Typhoon, certainly in the front on, underside and plan aspects, and marginally so in the rear aspect.

Magoo

Considering Magoo has and his co-worker have experience with both the Super Hornet and Eurofighter RCS testing I think we can take it from the source!

 

[Scorpion82]

Considering Magoo has and his co-worker have experience with both the Super Hornet and Eurofighter RCS testing I think we can take it from the source!

Maybe it is so, I let that alone until some day we may have additional informations.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Radar: If you speak about AN/APG-79 vs Captor yes.

RCS: Do you know the exact RCS of the Eurofighter AND F/A-18E to be able to make a reality reflecting statement? The official available data may give a slight evidence, but they are often only a hint. When comparing the both aircraft only by looks with the principal knowlege about was makes an aircraft stealthy I can hardly see why the SH should have a lower RCS at least for the frontal RCS.

There is an obvious and immediate disadvantage for the Eurofighter in a frontal RCS comparison with the Super Hornet. There is also an implied disadvantage. To directly answer your question though. I do know with a very high degree of certainty and reasonable accuracy that the RCS differences are significant.

Only as a nice to know information for you:
When the developement of the Eurofighter Typhoon started and the requirements were set in the later 80's the goal was to develope the best air superiority fighter in history, that means the type was to be better than any (at that time) present and future airborne threat/competitor including Flankers, Fulcrums, Vipers, Eagles and even their evolved versions.

I understand the goal. But it has clearly not been met. All of the evolved F-Teens are better in a2a and a2g roles as are the late model SU's but much less so than the evolved F-Teens. I think depending on supporting assets and pilot skill a Flanker vs Typhoon fight could get really ugly and if the fight is at extended range from a tanker or airbase the advantage shifts toward the Flanker. I dont think any Fulcrum in service would do too well against properly fought Typhoons though.

 

[Big-E]

I think depending on supporting assets and pilot skill a Flanker vs Typhoon fight could get really ugly and if the fight is at extended range from a tanker or airbase the advantage shifts toward the Flanker. I dont think any Fulcrum in service would do too well against properly fought Typhoons though.

I don't follow, isn't this a contradiction? I think everyone who flies the Typhoons will be well trained. If EF has METEOR does that change things at BVR? While the Fulcrum is impressive her weapons accuracy has something to be desired.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I don't follow, isn't this a contradiction? I think everyone who flies the Typhoons will be well trained. If EF has METEOR does that change things at BVR? While the Fulcrum is impressive her weapons accuracy has something to be desired.

I'm sorry Big E but could you elaborate a little on what is contradicting?

 

[Big-E]

I'm sorry Big E but could you elaborate a little on what is contradicting?

Advatage Flanker at BVR to Advantage EF with no change except experience of the EF pilot. Is the EF advantage in a dog fight? What are you saying?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Advatage Flanker at BVR to Advantage EF with no change except experience of the EF pilot. Is the EF advantage in a dog fight? What are you saying?

I'm saying that at best the EF-2000 has relative parity with most of the Flankers and in some cases is outright outclassed for the late model evolved variants. The Flanker is a huge plane with the fuel and room for expansion to exceed the Eurofighters performance at range. The Flanker will be able to do things the Eurofighter wont because it has the fuel to manuver, disengage use the Burner ect. Also the Flankers got a huge nose and space for really powerful radar/avionics and engines as well. The Flanker is also the Primier fighter of the non western world and has the expertise and financial backing of Russia, India and China as well as other tier 1 design houses constantly looking for ways to improve and sell it. and speaking of selling, the flanker has a significant cost benefit and could potentially outnumber the EF-2000 in encounters with user nations. The EF-2000 doesnt have the horse power to go 1 vs many with the Flanker and have enough of an advantage to beat the odds or trade planes/pilots even with some favorable exchange rations. The Flanker really is an awesome plane and not to be taken lightly. The Russians really got it right with that one.

 

[Magoo]

Is it just me, or is this thread getting really old and tired now??? :drunk

Magoo