Eurofighter

Please tell me why the Europoorfighter is shit apart from it being another overpriced and overdue design of a multi-national committee with its parts supply intentionally spread out to multiple (((EU))) members to increase bureaucracy coupled with the first production aircraft having to be scrapped in the long term due to totally-not-intentional parts incompatibility with later tranches.

Fromt what I know it has a decently capable Radar+IRST, piss poor ground attack capabilities and the Swiss favored it over the Rafale in that study a while back.
The Rafale's close coupled canard configuration is certainly superior in a WVR engagement but the Eurofighter nonetheless appears to have scored kills against F-22s in training engagements so it can't be as bad the F-35 or Gripen.
How would Zig Forums fix it?

Attached: Eurofighter_cockpit_int.jpg (2000x1331 127.85 KB, 337.95K)

Sell it to the Turks and then take over their country because they will have practically no air superiority ever

Give it full delta wings, double tail, and maybe it can be a good fighter bomber…. but those intakes make the most useful portion of the lifting surface unable to take large loads.

It's just a bad design from the start, there's no way to really fix it.

>Please tell me why the Europoorfighter is shit apart from it being another overpriced and overdue design of a multi-national committee with its parts supply intentionally spread out to multiple (((EU))) members to increase bureaucracy coupled with the first production aircraft having to be scrapped in the long term due to totally-not-intentional parts incompatibility with later tranches.
But that is the reason mostly.
It has the issue Tornado had. Took longer and cost more than it should have done cause of being an international shitshow with everyone pulling the design in different directions. Despite what faggots will say it is actually capable, and most importantly doesn't cost an arm and a leg to operate which more often that not is what kills a lot of designs. If the plane came out in the late 80's as it should have done it would have been a lot better. The Cold War ending really is what fucked the design more than anything. Especially since it was never intended at all to be multirole in the first place.
To be fair a lot of planes have scored kills against F-22's in training engagements. An F-18 once got one with guns. think even a Gripen funny enough managed it

Err except it can? If anything the Eurofighter can carry a retarded amount of ordnance carrying similar to A-10 levels which granted most craft can do but doing so without being a flying brick is rather special. It's regular payload is also considerably more than most other aircraft of it's type.
This herein lies the problem. The Eurofighter is for all purposes a Fighter first and foremost. It was shoehorned in to be multirole which it is just not designed for it. If you factor the Eurofighter in it's intended role it's insanely good.

This you moron, learn to read at least one language. And quit following me from thread to thread like a stray dog because I fed you once.

Attached: 78001aebeecf6ce81974da0506ce9173dab08100da2a29689b8fffbfcf369c6d.jpg (2000x1331, 382.62K)

Excuse me what? I literally have no idea what you are on about. I am telling you that the Eurofighter can carry a large amount of ordnance although reading your post I misread it. You're talking about wasted surface area not the actual carrying capacity I take it?

Can I get a complete list of planes that scored kills against F-22s? I know even a T-38 training plane managed it.

Couldn't one do another retarded tranche upgrade with structurally reinforced intakes+additional fuselage hardpoints or, if we're in full lockheeb mode something akin to the intake of the carrier based fighters in webbum related?
Unlike the F-14 the Eurofighter doesn't have a lifting fuselage AFAIK so it should be able to accurately drop unguided ordinance from there in theory.

t. brainlet

Attached: Yukikaze_04.webm (640x480, 15.24M)

I know Leaf's are retarded shitposters but do you even check think things through before you type? That would be like saying that the B-2 would be a better fighter plane if it was designed like an SU-47. It would but it's irrelevant to what it was deigned for.

If you have been saying this shit in other threads I want to know and hope fags have been calling you out for being a retard.

>USE a purposely aerodynamically unstable dogfighter into a flying wing bomber
^ this is what's happening now, the people who made it are using it as a bomber. Despite it being ostensibly a fighter, the eurofighter is used as a bomber because there's no real bomber program in Europe right now.

I just started proposing that it get turned into what it's being used as, but then realized it wouldn't be possible because it's just too badly designed for the job.

how is it a bad fighter-bomber, spergleave?

It's from Europe. That's all that needs to be said.

You want a list? I can compile a short one in the morning.

Considering that your idea of a "good" CAS aircraft is a Textron Scorpion and your idea of a "good" tank is a humvee with some chicken wire wrapped around it, I shudder to hear what your idea of a "good" fighter bomber involves.

This isn't 1944, the term is "multirole fighter".

Jesus Christ do these people have any idea how G forces work? There's a good reason why you invert yourself before a dive. Then again its got my other favorite shitty anime troupe in there called AA never does anything and is just there to make characters look cool.

Attached: DANGAR FLASH.gif (644x401, 151.72K)

This isn't 1968, the current term is "Joint Strike Fighter".

A lot of stuff is hard to come by cause the US Chairforce is reluctant to release details on these exercises.
The one's I know off the top of my head have got simulated kills against the F-22:
While I am not sure I do believe an F-5 and a MiG-29 got a Simulated kill.
However keep in mind there are kills and there are kills and a lot of times when an F-22 has been shot down it has been because it was fighting in a scenario with it's hands tied behind it's back. That said there are two planes that have been known to beat the F-22 in a proper fight; i.e. a proper scenario with no holds barred and both sides have proper support. That's the
and
In both circumstances it's because to engage said planes the F-22 is heavily pushed outside it's comfort zone. Eurofighter supposedly is able to lock onto and fire a missile off quicker than an F-22 when it opens up. In the E/A-18G case actually not much is known other than the fact the plane's life has been extended beyond the F-22 and they are extremely silent about the capabilities of it's ECM package so speculation as you will. There was also an instance when a regular F/A-18 running passive had an F-22 fly past it so it spun round and cut it in half with guns.

And this is why everyone with a braincell ignores retarded leafs like yourself.

It's Japan. Two nukes wasn't enough.

I kek'd a little.

Attached: f18fgunf2202.jpg (710x530, 32.52K)

Still no answer? As expected of a shizo retard.

Simulation fights are not real fights and don't have any ground AA interfering. Also, look at the sortie rate of those planes.

Exactly. Hence the disclaimer I put in and focused more on the scenarios that came remotely close to a real air battle.
Not always, sometimes they do but it is rare. Whenever they do those are the tests to pay attention to.

A textron scorpion is a good tactical bomber for a country like Ukraine, because they can manufacture more of them as needed.
Don't put your words in my mouth and I won't put my dick in your moms.

1. Has two engines but eschews the advantage of lifting body. A lifting body would give it advantage as a fighter AND as a bomber (see F-15).
2. Intakes block using the body from taking any loads. Attaching pylons directly to body airframe is the best way to increase carried mass per pylon (see A6). This is why the weapons it carries are so tiny and few.
3. Has canards instead of lerx, which would be more useful for medium alt bombing runs. Far more turbulence this way.
4. Single large tail is both vulnerable and fails to provide control at high angles of attack.
5. Lack of lifting body also reduces onboard fuel carriage, requiring it to carry many drop tanks which reduce its onboard weapons carriage. It needs 3x1000l external tanks to reach the combat range an F-16 can reach with 4x500kg bombs despite supercruise ability.
6. Inefficient reinforcing and addition of second engine causes this aircraft, which is similar in size to F-16, to weigh 20% more empty.
7. An F-16 with three 500l tanks and 6000kg of stores has similar range to an Eurofighter with three 1000l tanks and 6000kg stores. Meaning it's just a far more expensive F-16 in almost every way.

user, why do you hate Ukrainians? Are you Polish or something?

stopped reading there

You're right Ukrainians should use a Gripen to do their tactical bombing. They can only afford five of them, and can't build any new aircraft or even replacement parts, but hey, the 5x cost F-16 has really got a much cooler shape than a Scorpion.

I'm not going to 'stop reading' a list I requested like a passive aggressive pussy, so can you please explain how canards are more useful than a mobile lerx? The LERX is going to be able to do everything a canard can, but it's also got the advantage of being able to improve airflow over the wing which a canard can't do as its not connected to the wing, contribute to lifting body physics, add more to the total wing area, and they also have a lowered cross section.

I'd suggest something more along the lines of a F-16 and some SDBs. You know, a platform that won't get shredded by Pantsirs and MANPADS.

>Please tell me why the Europoorfighter is shit apart from it being another overpriced and overdue design of a multi-national committee with its parts supply intentionally spread out to multiple (((EU))) members to increase bureaucracy coupled with the first production aircraft having to be scrapped in the long term due to totally-not-intentional parts incompatibility with later tranche
Apart from those things, it isn't shit. It's a super agile interceptor/fighter aircraft.
The only real downside is that, for some fucking reason, someone decided to use it as a multirole aircraft. It is not a multirole. It is an interceptor/fighter aircraft. It is meant to do exactly two things:
b) be super agile
c) kill enemy planes
And it excels at both.

It's retarded politicians going "We don't want to invest into a proper airforce. Can you make this thing do everything" and greedy companies going "Sure. It's gonna cost you though." A process that is internationally known as "fly-y die-y, give me money".

Seeing as this is the Eurofigher thread:
What few people know is that the pilot controls and the actual surfaces in the Eurofighter are entirely disconnected. The pilot doesn't control the plane anymore. He simply uses the joystick to give directions to the digital polit, which constantly checks airspeed, air density, humidity, fuel load, weapons load and temperature, checks those against a list of parameters and maximum possible G loads, and performs manouvers as best as possible.
This doesn't mean that the plane is impossible to stall though, but it's impossible to put the Eurofighter into an uncontrollable stall. Many of the manouvers the computer is capable of actually use stalling to get more performance out of the plane than a pilot would be able to, by riding the safe parameters to the most extreme limits. It's an amazing system, and I hope to see it used more in future planes (allthough all calculations will have to be redone, which will be expensive and cost a lot of money).

Those are fine though I still prefer canardsfor aesthetic reasons, I thought you were talking about inferior static LERX like those on the F/A-18.
why not have both?
Also close coupled Canardos like those on the Viggen and Rafale do improve airflow over the wing by generating vortexes on their tips.
Canards themselves also generate lift unlike tail end elevators which only add drag, they also make it less likely for the aircraft to enter a stall while maneuvering if properly designed by stalling prior to the main wing and can also serve as impromptu airbrakes on the ground if need be.
Downside is that canard aircraft require a sophisticated FBW computer assist to stay airborne in a controlled fashion as described by , though those aren't exactly uncommon among newer fighter aircraft these days regardless of wing configuration.

Attached: DeltaVortexRafale.png (449x356, 133.89K)

Rebels don't have Pantsirs, they have Kubs and Buks. Why do you think an F-16 is immune to either?

F-16 is definitely a better choice than Gripen, but again Ukraine can't make replacement parts for it, or new ones. I don't think Ivchenko Progress can make a GE F111, much less the various avionics that make the F-16 a good aircraft.
It needs to be a simple enough plane for their industry to handle, maybe an F-5, Scorpion or Skyfox.

After all it just has to get a bunch of bombs to altitude, drop them, and then descend. It's doing all this in one medium sized country, not going very far.

I'm sure Putin could make sure some get sent over if it was necessary to do so. And I believe the rebels do have MANPADS.

To Pantsirs and MANPADS because it would be able to provide bombing support without muh low and slow flyovers.

;_;

Attached: poland can into ace combat.jpg (1280x853, 1.2M)