How about Typhoon for U.S. Military?

[the_big_m_in_ok]

I cannot really see any reason for the U.S. to buy the TYPHOON. If one of the European canard fighters (GRIFFIN, RAFALE and TYPHOON) were to be purchased by the U.S., it would be the RAFALE.

Wouldn't it also be better to build the plane using our factories and workers and then have our American engineers redesign and then build an improved plane? The present design, as is, should have already been a proven one. Less money in R&D that way.

...Also, while the NAVY and MARINES could use the RAFALE for their missions which require a carrier capable aircraft, the U.S. would have to pay for a carrier version of the TYPHOON to be developed. There goes any cost advantage over the F-35.

That was where the F-14 was a shining beacon. It's approach speed was lower than the F-4. And with the latest engines, the F-14 was a good dogfighter for its class of plane. Can the European fighter/bombers operational match that for less money than the F-14 originally cost to build?

 

[Bonza]

The F-35 is a performance replacement for the F-16. It will probably be no better at dog fighting and ground attack than the F-16, but the stealth features could be the key to surviving in a complex surface to air environment. That, the carrier capable and the short field/vertical take-off features are the key improvements over the F-16.

I'd highly recommend googling up some information on the F-35's sensors, electronics, and networking capabilities (and if you can find decent figures, range on internal fuel). Its capacity in this regard is far, far superior to an F-16 - and I'd argue is even more relevant to the F-35's overall capability as opposed to airframe performance. It's not just an "F-16 with LO" - have a look around for some information, I think you'll be surprised.

As far as carrier operations go, I agree with Ozzy, there's no reason for the USN to be interested in Rafale when they have an extremely modern fighter in the block II Super Hornet available. This aircraft has tremendous networking capabilities, an operationally deployed AESA, is fully supported by the USN supplies and logistics chain, and is compatible with the full range of USN munitions. There's no need for another fighter aircraft - they already have a very good one.

Ozzy, good to see you around again mate.

If an F-22 strike derivative or new aircraft is not developed to replace the F-15E STRIKE EAGLE, then the TYPHOON might have a chance as a strike aircraft replacement, but only if it offers a real advantage (like range) over the F-35. Also, the F-15E might be replaced by the SILENT EAGLE or a UAV.

Again I'm not sure as to your reasoning - why would they want Typhoon as a strike replacement when the F-35 is going to be in service? It doesn't offer anything over US aircraft in the strike role that I can see. You're right about the increasing relevance of UAVs and UCAVs. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next decade in that regard.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

That was where the F-14 was a shining beacon. It's approach speed was lower than the F-4. And with the latest engines, the F-14 was a good dogfighter for its class of plane. Can the European fighter/bombers operational match that for less money than the F-14 originally cost to build?

Wait, are you suggesting the US should build Super Tomcats in lieu of a Typhoon or Super Hornet buy?

The F-14 was an excellent fleet defense fighter, but the growing emphasis on strike missions make multi-role strikers like the Hornet, Super Hornet, and F-35 more informed choices towards meeting the US Navy's needs.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Thanks Bonza!

 

[Scorpion82]

All in all we can some it up quite short and simple. The Typhoon is a multirole fighter with an emphasis placed on air to air designed to suite the requirements of the participating European airforces. It doesn't suite the US military requirements as they are different.

 

[Zaphael]

All in all we can some it up quite short and simple. The Typhoon is a multirole fighter with an emphasis placed on air to air designed to suite the requirements of the participating European airforces. It doesn't suite the US military requirements as they are different.

Yeap. If the USAF wants something that can fly off runways, its got the F-35 and F-15E+ options to go for. If the Navy wants something that jumps off decks, it'll have the SuperHornet and the F-35s to look forward to.

About the Superhornet's slow and tight turning capabilities, its got a lot of nose authority alright. However, I think it may actually turn out pretty ugly for the SH if you put it in a phone booth with a Typhoon. The Typhoon can handle slow and tight turns as well as the Superhornet while retaining a power advantage. The Hellenic Air Force pilots who flew against it in mock air battles can attest to its low speed handling and sheer power.

 

[Bonza]

Yeap. If the USAF wants something that can fly off runways, its got the F-35 and F-15E+ options to go for. If the Navy wants something that jumps off decks, it'll have the SuperHornet and the F-35s to look forward to.

About the Superhornet's slow and tight turning capabilities, its got a lot of nose authority alright. However, I think it may actually turn out pretty ugly for the SH if you put it in a phone booth with a Typhoon. The Typhoon can handle slow and tight turns as well as the Superhornet while retaining a power advantage. The Hellenic Air Force pilots who flew against it in mock air battles can attest to its low speed handling and sheer power.

Helmet mounted sights and AIM-9X/ASRAAM will make such a dogfight a bloodbath for both sides, regardless of who has the turning advantage. If you get seen, you'll have a missile shot up your rear end. Not that the Tiffie is ever likely to tangle with a Super Hornet...

 

[golden]

Why rafale

[Again I'm not sure as to your reasoning - why would they want Typhoon as a strike replacement when the F-35 is going to be in service? It doesn't offer anything over US aircraft in the strike role that I can see. You're right about the increasing relevance of UAVs and UCAVs. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next decade in that regard.[/QUOTE]

BONZA,

I thought the subject was whether the U.S. should buy the TYPHOON. In my blog, I pointed out that most fighters are now being using in the attack mode, not as an interceptor. Of the three Euro fighters, the RAFALE is the only one that is carrier capable. It is also strike/attack oriented, so it would be useful now, without waiting for any "future tranches which may never come".
.
As far as whether the U.S. should buy it, I see not justification for any of canard planes. None offer any real advantage over the F-16 and F-18 in the attack/tactical bombing assignment.

The TYPHOON'S claim to fame is that it is the "BEST INTERCEPTOR YOU CAN BUY" with the obvious point that no one can buy the F-22 besides the U.S.A.F. Even JAPAN was turned down and they could have afforded it with a buy large enough to have allowed a larger U.S. purchase.
Since the TYPHOON is still unproven in the fighter role, I think it is an arguable claim.

GOLDEN