Is the Eurofigher Typhoon a turkey ?

"El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First!" (lightningzone) 12/22/2013 at 11:14 • Filed to: planelopnik

1

33

I mean it wasn't used in too many battles, and it never engaged a comparable enemy plane, it isn't very stealthy and it is designed to be deliberately unstable in air, meaning that if one of the on board computers fails, the plane will most certainly go down faster than a shot duck.

Casper > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 11:22

4

Being deliberately unstable is what makes most fighters so maneuverable. As far as it being a turkey, that's hard to say as we have never really seen it in action... but it's also a bit dated compared to other first world fighters you might compare it to.

Bluecold > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 11:24

6

Is lightning Zone a troll? I mean it didn't really research anything, it made unsubstantiated blanket statements and is insulting an awesome piece of machinery on Oppo

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 11:26

4

it is designed to be deliberately unstable in air, meaning that if one of the on board computers fails, the plane will most certainly go down faster than a shot duck.

It also makes the plane vastly more manoeuvrable than it would otherwise be. And the chances of computer failure are comparable to the chances of both wings falling off, or other things that just don't happen. Every plane has points of failure which would lead to it falling out of the sky, and care is taken to make sure that a single failure doesn't lead to that.

As for not having engaged a comparable plane, it's only been in service for 10 years (at most). There are no comparable planes in any airforce it's been up against, or even is likely to go up against; there won't be for another few years at least. I'm not certain, but I believe the same thing can be said of the F18 - never fought a comparable aircraft - and that's been around a hell of a lot longer. The whole point of having advanced fighters these days is to overwhelm the airpower of smaller countries, not to go toe-to-toe with equivalent machinery.

This piece seems to present a fairly decent factual analysis:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typho…

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > Bluecold 12/22/2013 at 11:27

0

What I said, is real, and the companies who build it, don't seem to have a replacement for it, at least nothing leaked out.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 11:41

0

Why would they have a replacement for it? It's right at the beginning of its service life.

davedave1111 > Casper 12/22/2013 at 11:42

0

" it's also a bit dated compared to other first world fighters you might compare it to."

In what sense? It's at least a decade newer than comparable fighters.

davedave1111 > Bluecold 12/22/2013 at 11:43

0

There's no reason to think it's trolling rather than just being wrong. Trolling would require the OP to be posting something they don't believe, just to incite responses.

Casper > davedave1111 12/22/2013 at 11:53

1

That's the key, what do you consider "comparable" fighters. Is an F-22 Raptor a comparable or a Chengdu J-20, or are you comparing it to MIGs and F16s? I consider it dated compared to new fighters rolling out based on it's predicted survivability predictions against better heat shielded and stealth aircraft as well as it's very long development history... it came into service in the early 2000's, but it was developed on tech much older.

Victorious Secret > Bluecold 12/22/2013 at 12:01

3

Well, perhaps.

Yes.

The Eurofighter, as he said, was made to be aerodynamically unstable so a pilot could flip that thing around in a dogfight and just deliver all kinds of hell to enemy craft in close quarters. When you're that close, every extra G of turning power is great and needed and the Typhoon, just in watching it fly, looks like it could turn on a dime and still stay in the air while doing things you think should be IMPOSSIBLE with a plane.

Yes, if the computers failed you'd be in trouble. As you would in a F22. Or F35. Or pretty much any modern fighter jet. Hell, your computers go out in any jet ever made and you're kinda in some degree of trouble whether it be reduced power, no avionics or reduced maneuverability.

duurtlang > Casper 12/22/2013 at 12:02

0

predicted survivability predictions against better heat shielded and stealth aircraft

You're probably right, but does it really matter? In the real world, where will aircraft like these be implemented? Not against a top rated army or a first world country in air to air combat. It's like a battleship, an overly expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.

Victorious Secret > davedave1111 12/22/2013 at 12:04

1

I was just gonna bring up the F-18.

That plane never really had a 'competitor'. It just did its own thing in many different roles.

The Typhoon is too new to say one way or another, but any plane can have crippling issues. I'd imagine the Typhoon has enough redundant systems to ensure that you'd sooner get blown out of the sky before you actually lost control of it.

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > duurtlang 12/22/2013 at 12:08

1

DRONES!

Casper > duurtlang 12/22/2013 at 12:08

0

Yes, but that's the point. This is arm chair combat. These jets will almost certainly never meet each other in combat, but it's all speculation.

I disagree that they don't still fill a role... air superiority will always be required for dominance of a region, it is just always changing. Battleships didn't go away, they just changed with the pushing of missile cruisers and carriers. Now their bombardment role has been replaced with surgical strike capabilities.

duurtlang > Casper 12/22/2013 at 12:15

0

Well yes, but from my arm chair I consider a slightly less modern yet cheaper fighter (like this Typhoon) in combination with known availability of cruise missiles and drones a more viable solution to ultra-state of the art overly expensive aircraft like the F-35.

Casper > duurtlang 12/22/2013 at 12:26

1

If it came down to having cruise missiles and an F-22 or F-35 vs having cruise missiles and Typhoons, I think I would still prefer the better fighters. The massive advantages of stealth air craft with supersonic strike capability and super sonic maneuvering can not be overstated in a direct fight.

The problem is that people forget, the military that stops moving forward dies. It's not like you can fall 20+ years behind the curve, then when war breaks out, wave a magic money wand and catch up. If history teaches us anything it is that staying current with fewer good pieces of equipment and clear strategies based around them provides a massive advantage in unexpected conflicts.

compbl1701 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 12:28

0

it is designed to be deliberately unstable in air, meaning that if one of the on board computers fails, the plane will most certainly go down faster than a shot duck

A statement made by someone that knows nothing about modern military aircraft. F16, F-117, B-2 stealth? All inherently unstable and in the case of the F117 and B2, wouldn't even get off the ground without their computers.

Sunray09 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 12:28

0

The days of putting a man in the cockpit of a machine are fast becoming history,sooner rather than later the need to engineer in the life support systems and cockpit controls will be economically unsustainable. The sooner the shift to purely automated systems begins the better.

davedave1111 > Casper 12/22/2013 at 12:56

0

"That's the key, what do you consider "comparable" fighters."

Aircraft of similar design intended for a similar role. Which means the F-teens, not the F22 or F35.

" it came into service in the early 2000's, but it was developed on tech much older."

That's always the case. The planes which came into service in the seventies were built on fifties and sixties tech. The Eurofighter's more advanced than older planes, and less advanced than newer planes that haven't yet come into service. A lot of composites and electronics in the construction compared to previous generations of fighters, but not as much as in the very newest.

davedave1111 > Victorious Secret 12/22/2013 at 12:58

0

Not sure which, but some of the F-teens are also fly-by-wire and have negative stability.

The Transporter > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 13:02

0

Due to the state of modern warfare (actual warfare, not that stupid video game), very few 4.5 Gen and 5th Gen fighters have ever been used in anger and, as far as I know, none of them have seen air-to-air combat.

Also, the F-16A was designed in the 1970s to be deliberately unstable and could only be controlled if its analogue (I'll say that again, analogue ) fly-by-wire flight control system functioned perfectly. Since its first flight, there has been not a single incident with its FBW system. If the US could do 40 years ago with an analogue system, I'm sure the Europeans could do it with a digital system.

Victorious Secret > davedave1111 12/22/2013 at 13:42

0

I think that might've been the F-16, which is also a pretty awesome plane in its own right.

Neuro > Sunray09 12/22/2013 at 13:44

0

Just like Duncan Sandys in the 60' when he threw away the Uk's lead in advanced aircraft - was a fuck up then will be today - unless hard AI suddenly happens

Neuro > Bluecold 12/22/2013 at 13:45

0

Yeah I mean all new combat aircraft are functionally unstable its to they can turn like fuck

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > The Transporter 12/22/2013 at 13:53

0

The F-22 has been involved in an actual interception lately.

Hip89 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/22/2013 at 14:54

0

The Eurofighter was enough to trouble the F-22 in a close range missile duel. Due to it having off-bore capability for it's short range air to air missiles, be it AIM-9s or the individual airforces version. There was a report following a Red Flag exercise detailing it.

The Eurofighter also has 3 computers controlling the flight surfaces for triple redundancy.

wagnerrp > Victorious Secret 12/22/2013 at 15:03

3

That's not exactly true. If you flip a fighter aircraft backwards in a dogfight, you're going to kill the pilot.

In a traditional planform aircraft, the primary wing produces a forward pitching moment, and the rear horizontal stabilizer produces negative lift to counter this moment. In a reversed planform aircraft like the Typhoon, the same forward pitching moment exists off the primary wing, but the forward horizontal stabilizer produces positive lift to counter this.

When it comes to a high maneuverability aircraft, your turn rate is dependent on your maximum lift, your L/D, and the thrust of your engine. You want to produce as much lift as possible, and do it while producing sufficiently little drag that you do not overpower your engines and decelerate. An aircraft with a low L/D is said to "bleed energy" in a turn, eventually slowing down and turning at a lower rate.

So... In a traditional planform and a statically stable aircraft, when you pitch up, you increase the pitching moment, and you require more negative lift to counter this. It's inefficient. On the other hand, if you are statically unstable, as are many modern fighter aircraft, you actually produce a rearward pitching moment, and thus your rear stabilizer must produce positive lift to maintain dynamic stability. It is less wasteful, producing a higher L/D, and a higher sustained turn rate.

Now on a reversed planform design, things get a bit strange. With a cursory analysis, one would expect the opposite of above to be true. You would want the aircraft to be statically stable, such that both airfoils were producing lift. However, one mustn't forget interaction between the two airfoils. Whatever you do on the forward horizontal stabilizer will affect flow over the primary wing, and it may be such that the forward stabilizer behaves similar to a leading edge slat. By pitching down, one vectors the airflow over the top of the primary wing, increasing velocity over the top, and thus increasing lift. It may counter-intuitively be better to make the reversed planform be statically unstable if it allows the airflow to be manipulated in this manner in a high AoA turn. There's really no way to tell without throwing the whole thing in a wind tunnel and seeing what happens.

Ain't aerodynamics fun!

Victorious Secret > wagnerrp 12/22/2013 at 15:05

0

You used science, you get a like

wagnerrp > davedave1111 12/22/2013 at 15:13

0

It also makes the plane vastly more manoeuvrable than it would otherwise be.

If you're speaking of roll/pitch/yaw rates, the most maneuverable aircraft is the neutrally stable one, whose control surfaces can act directly and not have to worry about overpowering or tempering aerodynamic coupling. If you're speaking of turn rate, then yes, being statically unstable in pitch does inherently improve maneuverability, if you're using a traditional planform aircraft with a rear stabilizer. If you're using a reversed planform aircraft like the Typhoon, it is actually a detriment. It is only useful if your forward stabilizer is positioned such that it can be used as an active flow control device for your primary wing.

davedave1111 > wagnerrp 12/22/2013 at 16:32

0

I was being pretty loose with the terminology, in part because I'm not expert enough to be sure of the exact relationship between the instability and the manoeuvrability. As I understand it, though, it's a combination of different factors, and it would be more correct to say that the instability is to restore manoeuvrability lost in giving the plane good high speed aerodynamics.

It sounds like you know more about the subject generally than I do, so you might be able to explain to me how that actually works :)

wagnerrp > davedave1111 12/22/2013 at 17:06

1

Fundamentally, the aerodynamics of an aircraft can be modeled as a feedback loop. Looking just at pitch, your pitch controls act upon your angle of attack, and in turn your angle of attack will produce a moment that acts back upon itself. If your center of mass is in front of your center of pressure, the feedback is negative, meaning an increase in angle of attack will feed back on itself and bring itself back to zero. If your center of mass is behind your center of pressure, the feedback is positive, and your angle of attack will feed back on itself, causing the aircraft to diverge out of control.

Divergent behavior such as this means an aircraft is statically unstable. In order to make it flyable, another feedback loop must be applied on top of the fundamental physical behavior. The trouble is that your control surfaces only have a limited amount of authority, and will eventually stall out. If your angle of attack gets too high, and the pitching moment is beyond the ability of your control surfaces to counter, the aircraft will fall irrecoverably out of control. The primary purpose of thrust vectoring is to allow an increase in control authority such that the aircraft is never in a position that is irrecoverable.

Assuming your control surfaces are not pulling double duty as advanced flow control or a lifting surface, any deflection in your control surfaces will present a disruption of the ideal airflow around the aircraft, and thus a reduction in its efficiency. Thus, the most maneuverable aircraft will be the one that does what it needs to with the least amount of deflection. In other words, that will be the aircraft that does not have to use its control surfaces to fight its own natural tendencies.

Now there are exceptions to that very simplistic view. Any aerodynamic surface, including control surfaces, can provide lift, and if all you're going for is high lift, such as in a high-G turn, any lift you can get helps. If you have a traditional planform aircraft (tail behind wing), and you are statically unstable in pitch such that a high AoA will lead to an even higher AoA, your horizontal stabilizer must provide lift to counter that. In that situation, it is beneficial to be slightly unstable such that your stabilizer is working with your primary wing, as opposed to against your primary wing, to change the direction of your aircraft. This is the principle behind making modern fighter aircraft unstable, rather than simply neutrally stable.

davedave1111 > wagnerrp 12/22/2013 at 17:09

0

OK, that makes sense. So is the Eurofighter actually more unstable than other recent planes?

wagnerrp > davedave1111 12/22/2013 at 19:27

2

I've heard it's pitch unstable, but then so is the F-16. I am not aware of any specific information about the Typhoon. From a controls standpoint, it would not make sense for a reversed planform aircraft like a Typhoon to be unstable, but from an aerodynamics standpoint, operating pitch down on the forward stabilizer may alter the flow over the primary wing in some beneficial way to make it worth doing so.

willkinton247 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 12/23/2013 at 08:33

0

Please see the Raptor kill markings on this Typhoon.

Also, the Brits, Germans, Spanish and Italians are still using it... It's probably the world's premier Gen. 4.5 fighter.