In addition to... well, all of it, I'm particularly curious about the logic behind the "missile loadout for fighter performance" metric too. I read through the article and couldn't see much of a basis for it. What is the dominant part of the metric, the "missile loadout" part, or the "fighter performance" part? It seems intentionally misleading, as does the catch-all nature of the comparisons. Stating "does my fighter have quality x, yes/no" doesn't tell anything near to the full story.
On that note the article sets out facts in a way that could be construed as somewhat deceptive. Implying the F-35 is an attack aircraft in the same category as the A-4 and F-117 and therefore cannot be considered a fighter is a bit rich - for starters even on a basis of equipment alone it completely ignores sensor fit, information sharing systems, and BVR capability. But then it goes on to tout sensor fusion and information layering systems as one of the Typhoon's great strengths! Never mind that the differences between the two aircraft would probably result in their being tasked and utilised for the anti-air role differently... it boggles the mind that a anyone could keep a straight face while claiming the United States Air Force was intending on replacing the vast, vast majority of its combat jet fleet with an aircraft not intended for air to air combat.
I don't want this to turn into a this versus that thing, so I should make it clear that I'm not having a go at the Typhoon. From what I understand the aircraft is very good at what it does. I am however absolutely having a go at the quality of writing.
The article makes some very poor statements even if it's only intended to be advertising. The assertion that "If you can hide an F-117, you can hide a B-52!" is so profoundly ridiculous (especially when it's removed from its particular context and used in a broad sense) that I don't even know what to say.
On that note the article sets out facts in a way that could be construed as somewhat deceptive. Implying the F-35 is an attack aircraft in the same category as the A-4 and F-117 and therefore cannot be considered a fighter is a bit rich - for starters even on a basis of equipment alone it completely ignores sensor fit, information sharing systems, and BVR capability. But then it goes on to tout sensor fusion and information layering systems as one of the Typhoon's great strengths! Never mind that the differences between the two aircraft would probably result in their being tasked and utilised for the anti-air role differently... it boggles the mind that a anyone could keep a straight face while claiming the United States Air Force was intending on replacing the vast, vast majority of its combat jet fleet with an aircraft not intended for air to air combat.
I don't want this to turn into a this versus that thing, so I should make it clear that I'm not having a go at the Typhoon. From what I understand the aircraft is very good at what it does. I am however absolutely having a go at the quality of writing.
The article makes some very poor statements even if it's only intended to be advertising. The assertion that "If you can hide an F-117, you can hide a B-52!" is so profoundly ridiculous (especially when it's removed from its particular context and used in a broad sense) that I don't even know what to say.
Last edited:
