Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Comparable aircraft

Even though I am not in favour of a "my aircraft is better than your aircraft" diatribe that may surely result, I would like to open the discussion as to the elements that would constitute: "Comparable". I would suggest: era represented, technology employed, role or mission, performance and ?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

  • Clearly Rafale, F-22, Su-27, Su-35, F/A-18E, and J-20 would be comparable with little to no dispute - modern, medium-large, twin-engined, multi-role fighters. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the F-22, Su-27, and possibly the J-20 could be disputed. The Su-27 is more of a "last generation" aircraft, though modernized versions such as the Su-35 are more Eurofighter class. The F-22 and J-20 are designs with stealth in mind. While the Eurofighter has some affordable stealthy features, it is not in the same class as the F-22 in that regard. Certainly the Rafale is comparable, as are the Superhornet and Su-35. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Definitely Rafale as it was developed in competition with the EAP/Eurofighter, in relation to the others it will just create arguments with everyone who thinks that Eurofighter is a rival to the JSF/F-22 and those who think it is just a rival to the Superhornet and F-16 Block 50 Mztourist (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
In the market-place "comparable" means only one thing - an alternative on the same shopping list. So we should really be looking only at those aircraft that have been appraised alongside Typhoon by those nations thinking of buying one. And comparable includes "comparable price ticket". This would work fine, except that the Rafale, the plane that's closest to Typhoon, isn't on anyone's shopping list. And the F-22 is too expensive for anyone else to buy. But Gripen should certainly be there. 109.154.158.81 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rafale keeps getting evaluated, though, associated with Eurofighter (so far Brazil's the only place it's survived past the first round, though as it were). As for F-22, there's three countries, possibly four, right off the top of my head (Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea) who would line up, hat in hand, if the U.S. Congress decided to permit export of the thing (which is the problem, not cost - note JSF now costs nearly as much as a Raptor, but I'm digressing). It needs to be remembered that Eurofighter is a late-1980s programme(!) that suffered delay after delay after delay...so late 1980s/early 1990s types should be mentioned. If we go by "purchase alternatives" then the list is Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18E, F-15E, F-16 Block 40/Block 50, MiG-29, and Su-30 (which fits rather better than the -27 and -35)... - The Bushranger One ping only 10:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Four replies - four opinions, which is what is wrong with the comparable aircraft section. Why not just leave it out and use categories instead. Its what they were created for and its already in Category:Delta-wing aircraft, Category:Canard aircraft, Category:International fighter aircraft 1990–1999 and Category:Relaxed-stability aircraft. It may need some more cats created like Category:International fighter aircraft still in use and from the reply above Category:Aircraft in the Indian MRCA competition etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Errrr no. "In use", "modern", "current", etc. are horribly bad category topics and consensus at CfD is that they are to be eliminated whenever possible. Now, List of modern fighter aircraft might be a worthy project along those lines though. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with the suggestion or the wording Category:International fighter aircraft still in use which was just a suggestion and can be anything we want. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix for 4.5 in the lead

How about something like "with planned upgrades to 4.5th generation capabilities" to avoid giving the erroneous impression that it is currently up to par with the Super Hornet. Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Obsered. — Woe90iWoe90i 21:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't currently have AESA radar and so can't yet be called 4.5 generation. Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Should remove any mention of "generations" it has no meaning to the general public or properly defined it is just something for the fighter fans to argue about. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I hate this "4th generation, 4.5th generation, 4+++th generation" speil - it's all nonsense - what's competing with one another for contracts is what's competing with each other for contracts, regardless of magic decimal places, self-appoint scales of meanless comparison. This numbering-muck got old with Intel processors ten years ago, and that's real old to me: I wish it were completely buried and done away with. Abitrarily whacking out these numbers means.... nothing. Kyteto (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Or aircraft manufactures use to promote their own aircraft - agree should be deleted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
We should use whatever our generation our reliable sources use. Our personal feelings regarding the definitions are irrelevant, and it isn't our place to add or remove an aircraft based on AESA. It's 4.5 if the reliable sources say it is, it is 4 if the reliable sources say it is, it isn't listed as anything if the reliable sources do not say it is. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The source we have for this is the manuf's site, which claims 5th generation. They never claim 4.5th so the current inclusion is not based on any sort of official claim or technical ruling. Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to the previous version by Fnlayson which doesn't mention 4.5 Gen at all. This issue has been debated at length on previous talk pages with no clear agreement on where Eurofighter fits as Gen 4, 4.5 or 5. Its probably worth pointing out that in international procurement competitions, which are perhaps the best indicator of how Eurofighter rates against other aircraft, it has lost to the F-15E twice (Singapore and South Korea), the F-16 Block 50/52 (Oman) and the F-35(Japan) and it appears that rather than ordering more Eurofighters the Saudis have decided to buy 80 more F-15Es. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a Forum.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mztourist, those examples are more cost related and politically influenced rather than what your suggesting. What is interesting though is that India has finalized Typhoon and Rafale for its MRCA competition, where cost and political influences have been very limited/non-existant. — Woe90iWoe90i 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
and your basis for claiming all those decisions were cost related and politically influenced is what exactly? Only two nations apart from those that had to buy it have bought Eurofighter and given the bribery claims surrounding the Saudi purchase you can hardly say that wasn't politically influenced. Saudi could easily have chosen to and afforded to buy more Eurofighters, but seems to have opted for F-15s instead. The Japanese clearly felt that F-35 was more capable than Eurofighter. It remains to be seen if India (or anyone else) signs up to buy Eurofighter Mztourist (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
At risk of a forum type conversation, the Saudi purchase of more F-15s was most certainly not due to cost, but rather hugely political. Washington pushed the F-15 deal along with upgrades for Saudi's older F-15s and increased defense cooperation and training. Eurofighter simply wasn't in a position to offer a deal that good, except more Typhoons, which it may yet do. You also fortunately disregard the fact that Saudi Arabia had previously purchased the Typhoon over its performance against the F-15.
Japans choice of the F-35 followed Japans recent defence review and after both Japan and the USA stressed closer military ties. Political ties are paramount. F-35s stealth and interoperability with US F-35s were also final decision makers for Japan.— Woe90iWoe90i 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The only reason why the Saudis bought Tornado was because the US Congress blocked further F-15 sales. The follow-on Eurofighter purchase was politically influenced/bought with bribes. As soon as the Saudis could buy more F-15s they jumped at the opportunity. I don't know anything about the Austrian purchase decision, but the sales record of Eurofighter versus other aircraft elsewhere really speaks for itself - stealth and interoperability being perfect valid assessment criteria.Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Having researched the Austrian purchase decision it appears that that was surrounded in controversy and bribery allegations, which I have noted in the appropriate section on the page. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
May be the Saudis bought Tornados because the F15 on this time only a figther and can't drop nothing? "No pound for air-to-ground"! Even the F15S is not a deep strike figther bomber like the MRCA Tornado, it's only a downgraded F-15E. The only in Libya downed fighter bomber was a F-15E. The problem with the F15 is that the self falling apart. --HDP (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Saudi bought the Tornado ADV and IDS. The ADV is no longer in service, while the IDS is being upgraded. If you read the F-15E page you will see that the F-15S is the same as the F-15E except for the radar, which is being upgraded as part of the new arms package. What you mean by saying the F15S is not a deep strike fighter bomber like the Tornado is simply incorrect, Tornado IDS is a strike aircraft with limited air-to air performance, while the F-15E is generally regarded as the most versatile multirole fighter ever produced. In case you forgot, 7 Tornado IDS' were lost in combat in the first Gulf War, which if I recall correctly gave them the worst loss record per sortie of any coalition aircraft type. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure but what sorties fly the IDS/ECR on the gulf war? The wiped out the runways and the airdefense Radars and fly other inderdiction sorties. It's simpel the F15 has a to great aspect ratio for surface follow flights. A greater aspect ratio caused a higher squall load. The joke is the lacks a ground follow Radar like the Tornado. LoL the F-15 and the best multirole figter. Even a student pilot in a Block 2A training aircraft with preliminary FCS software downed two F15E in a mock fight. In bribering are the US-manufacturer well known the master. Lockheed bribery scandals [[1]] Maybe read the Airpower article Broken Wings about the F-15 longerons undercut. [[2]. Then Wikipedia as source for your claims are useless. So long as Hcobb and other publish her believe or desinformation is Wikipedia useless as source. The best example is Hcobb insertion about 68020 and the use in the DASS-System. First DASS use not the 68020. At the time who the Eurofigther had the MC68020 in the FCS used the other FCS 8bit or 16bit CPUs even now days. Then 68020 was replaced for a long time by an Altivec Powerprozessor. --HDP (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. You seem to be claiming that so many Tornados were shot down because they were engaged in higher risk attacks against airfields and radars, that is a matter for dispute, the obvious counter-argument being that given that the Tornados lacked radar designators and standoff weapons they generally had to drop dumb bombs and overfly their targets. The fact is their loss rate was the worst of the war, while only 2 F-15Es were lost. Please cite your source for the claim that a Tornado IDS downed 2 F-15Es in a mock dogfight. The Lockheed bribery scandals were a long time ago, while the Al Yamamah bribery scandal was quite recent and swept under the carpet by the British Govt under political pressure from the Saudis. Mztourist (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone, this is not a forum for general discussion of Eurofighter Typhoon.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

53 oldest RAF Typhoons to be scrapped, fleet cap at 107?!

Despite the widely believed rumour out there, according to a recent Hansard (October 2011), this is not the case. "The Department has no plans to cap the number of Typhoon aircraft in service at 107 between 2015 and 2020." interesting. Will make appropriate change to article.TalkWoe90i 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

LERX

Maybe we could add Leading Edge Root Extensions under the Upgrades section. I believe these have been trialled on German Typhoons in 2007. Here are some pics: [3] [4] 87.194.223.183 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Naval proposal

Should something about the Navalised version of the EF be added. I know there was some talk about this when the F35 project looked to be under threat. This has been amended now and UK will buy the STOVL landing version of the F35. But enough outside countries were interested in the project for it to become economically viable.§English n proud (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is described in Eurofighter Typhoon variants. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

'Fatal Accidents' and 'Accidents'

Hmm, I smell bias in the article, none of the other wiki fighter aircraft entries have 'fatal' accidents' listed separately so why does the Typhoon? It belongs under accidents, tbh it's a real joke as the operational history to date makes it one of the safest ever fighter aircraft.Twobells (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably added in a drive-by edit that was missed. No reason to think a conspiracy in play here. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The concept of "fatal accidents" (not difficult to grasp) is essential in most aviation saftety reporting and analysis (and in indeed in transport in general). It would be far better if all aviation articles followed this convention and reported the two types separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is this then only called Operational problems or Notable accidents at the F22 and Accidents at the Rafale lemma?!--HDP (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the F22, the title should be Accident or incidents or either word on its own depending on content so all the article appear to be the same. Operational problems is a separate subject MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Even though all accidents (or incidents) must be notable to warrant inclusion, I am very surprised that the page guide does not support a further distinction, between fatal and non-fatal accidents, as being useful. And this would apply equally to civil as well as military aircraft. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that is all dealt with in WP:AIRCRASH rather than the page content guide. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, that guideline shows clearly the criteria for notability. And it implies that fatal and non-fatal accidents may be included on an equal footing. It does not say that they definitely should not be presented separately (if required). I would have expected it to say that they should be, in line with the reporting conventions of most civil and military aircraft operators world-wide. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe

Apparently Richard Hammond in his BBC "Miracles Of Nature" series recently featured the new German "Giraffe" g-suit, which may replace the Libelle suit which they developed for Typhoon. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Supercruise

This is verifiable at Mach 1.5 by several sources.

http://www.allmilitaryweapons.com/2009/07/eurofighter-typhoon-fighter-aircraft.html

http://www.fighter-aircraft.com/eurofighter-typhoon.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread266386/pg1

Could the editing user please stop being a Kopp and leave as is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried opening the current single source to the Swiss EADS site? It does not open for me. But this [5] does. Perhaps one or more of the other sources ought to be used instead? p.s. as Dr Carlo Kopp asks, what's the point of quoting a speed without a duration? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, forum sites are not WP:RS and neither are other Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And what happened to this source [6], currently used to support the figure of 1.1 Mach in the text? Presumably that September 2008 editionAir Forces Monthly still exists? Shouldn't the article at least be internally consistent? 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Specification blocks are not the space for specifications?

So just put a note in which section that it has have the Angle of Attack limit of the F-35? Hcobb (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We cannot put every single piece of data, plucked from random sources into the specification section. Angle of attack data is not available for 99% of the aircraft articles out there, and by plucking a figure from an article which does not necessarily use the same base assumptions like weights, etc as the sources for the rest of the specifications means that it may be misleading and not placed in the correct context. The article's specification section already uses far too many sources already, many of which may not be consistant - the last we should do is add additional random pieces of snippets of data of questionable relevance.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a multirole aircraft

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/uk/uk-130410-ukmod01.htm 'The successful delivery of Paveway II from a Tranche 2 Typhoon is another step forward in the development of the platform's multi-role combat capability.'

So if that's not notable, can we simply delete off all mention of "multi-role" until it actually has some capability? Hcobb (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No, because it's designed as a multi-role aircraft and is being developed with the software upgrades needed, and, as noted in the other part of the edit summary you decided not to address, Typhoon has already been used in air-to-ground missions. You don't need to make WP:POINTy suggestions because somebody reverted an edit of yours. Also, GlobalSecurity is a source that should generally be avoided. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The aircraft has yet to self-designate. A point that the current article has been censored free of. Why cover up the steps being taken to give it even a modest capability?

BTW, there are plenty of other sources for this lack of capability.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8448774/Libya-RAF-Typhoon-fighters-carry-out-first-ever-attack.html

Hcobb (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the ability to self-designate is a key factor in being multi-role, lots of aircraft use other aircraft and ground assets to designate, multi-role just means it does more than one job. Not sure of Hcobb's latest reference to the telegraph has been pointed as a reference to lack of ability when the article clearly says it has the ability to ground-attack, perhaps the wrong article has been used. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Air Vice Marshal Phil Osborn rejected reports that the RAF had insufficient Typhoon pilots trained in the ground attack role to mount operations in Libya although the National Audit Office reported last month there were just eight. AVM Osborn acknowledged that the full Typhoon ground attack capability would not be available until 2015, but said that they had enough for the current mission in Libya. A defence industry source claimed that the RAF had rapidly cleared "overzealous" red tape to allow pilots to drop their bombs.

So everything about that operation was contrary to standard procedures, and all the aircraft did was fly a bomb to a general GPS coordinate as part of a PR stunt. And we're going to help the RAF cover this up. Hcobb (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The aircraft has yet to self-designate can you supply a source? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
A quick search provides an example A typical sortie would see Typhoons penetrate hostile airspace and attack ground targets designated by Litening pods carried aboard. The RAF aircraft then swung into the air-air role, taking up station above an enemy airfield to engage enemy aircraft. date 18 March 2013 during Red Flag [7] Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This may also be of interest BAE doing wind tunnel testing of Harpoon on Typhoon [8] Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I am the one who did the initial revert. Hcobb, what you posted amounted to just saying "they did some training one day." That is not notable. As it is previously established in our article that the aircraft have been used to drop bombs operationally, publicity stunt or not, that one day in April 2013 they happened to train dropping bombs is not, on its own, notable. It smacks strongly of the type of "list of events" type cruft we have been trying to remove from these articles. We need notable information that is not constantly added in the form of "on X day, something else happened." Simply the act of dropping bombs in training does not seem to be hugely notable as this had already occurred operationally. What would be notable is if this training was the first dropping of bombs using self-designation, such as with LITENING. That is quasi-implied in the Globalsecurity article as it says these were Tranche 2 aircraft, which can carry LITENING, but it never actually says that as the milestone (or, indeed, whether this test involved either LITENING or self-designation). Both since we want to avoid Globalsecurity and because of the current lack of notability, I removed it. If you or someone else can find a source saying that something new happened, like the additional capability of dropping laser-guided bombs with self-designation, I would definitely support adding that to our article. I am going to ignore your POINTy remarks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

German Eurofighter Typhoon controversy

David Cenciotti has indicated that F-22 Raptor kill markings have appeared on German Eurofighter Typhoons making the claim that "the F-22 is not invincible". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC). Posted by

Who cares? Is it relevant? What does it prove? Does it really mean they are kill markers for F-22s. This is nothing more than irrelevant nonsense. The stuff that makes Wikipedia nothing more than a source of superficial and questionable information. !. No one ever said Raptors are invincible and 2. The appearance of "kill" markings on a plane from an exercise does nothing to disprove the point. Lastly this is about Eurofighter performance, not Raptor invincibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.207.218 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it is a reference to the capability of the Eurofighter, and backed up by verifiable reference sources. You will need a consensus to alter what is a contentious issue, that has been removed and placed back into the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
Doesn't this belong in the German unit's page as an indication that the Germans think the Raptor is cool? Hcobb (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
We have no idea what the circumstances of the exercise were, the "kill" marks are trivia and should be removed.Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
They are what they are, and appear in a number of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
They are what they are is not an argument, these are unverified claims from an exercise we know nothing about. What are the reference sources and what do they say other than that the Typhoon pilots have painted Raptor kills on their planes? Writers should wait until Typhoon scores a real air-to-air kill before crediting it with as yet unproven abilities Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The NATO exercise, 2012 Alaska Red Flag pitted dissimilar types and showed that the Eurofighter, despite criticisms about its capability, could be pitted against contemporary types and be successful in combat exercises. The eight Luftwaffe Eurofighter Typhoons were involved in a two-week deployment to Eielson AFB where U.S, Polish, Japanese and Australian air forces were participants in simulated combat threat environments from both surface and air foes. It is typical of these exercises that successful engagements are noted even in an unofficial manner. I have no "horses in the race" as this was not my submission but I did see that the statement was clearly referenced. As a compromise, following an earlier suggestion, the sentence can be moved into the German operational history with a clarifying statement as to the nature of Alaska Red Flag and the "kill markings" statement be made into a "note to reader". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC).
I agree Mztourist (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Typhoon's ability to 'shoot down' the F-22 in the merge, which was known to the RAF for several years before the Luftwaffe found out, belongs in the Typhoon article. It does not want shunting off to a German-language page devoted solely and obscurely to that Luftwaffe unit -- unless you happen to be a publicist working for Lockheed Martin. This article bears obvious signs of sabotage, including notably the pretence that Typhoons flew only one mission in Operation Ellamy -- the RAF's part in supporting the Libyan revolution -- and that this mission only hit an 'abandoned tank park', and that Tornados had to 'spike' (designate) for the Typhoons because Typhoon pilots don't know what they're doing. All a complete and typically Wikipedia lie, of course. Typhoon flew hundreds of missions over Libya and dropped hundreds of munitions. Typical loadout was four 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway IIs and a couple of AMRAAMs. Typhoons often spiked for themselves, and they often spiked for Tornados to save the Tornados carrying a Litening pod. The RAF actually preferred a Typhoon-Tornado pair, making use of Tornado's air-to-ground radar and Typhoon's datalink and Defensive Aids Sub-System (in case of SAMs). See The Official Royal Air Force Annual Review 2012, pp.8-14 and 16-21. -Hugo Barnacle 46.208.40.201 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fan page, it is an encyclopedia. The claim of F-22 kills in an exercise is unverified trivia. If you believe that the Typhoon's performance record over Libya is incorrect then please feel free to correct it using reliable references. Mztourist (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia, it's Wikipedia, which is a worldwide byword for useless junk information (usually manipulated by idiot Americans -- see, for instance, the Murder of Meredith Kercher page, which is simply an Amanda Knox fansite offically approved and locked down by Jimbo Wales). I am not a fan and you are a disingenuous idiot for addressing me in that way. The F-22 kills, mentioned by the Luftwaffe pilots themselves in several sources, are not unverified trivia; that counterclaim is a Lockheed Martin PR astroturf 'talking point'. And I just gave the references for the Typhoon's record over Libya. Those references are from an official publication sponsored by the air force in question. No doubt you'd consider that 'unverified trivia' because it's not American and because it shows that the Wikipedia article is lying. Hugo Barnacle 146.90.126.244 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to British idiots. Would you please observe the TP rules and keep uncivil crap down? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't call anyone idiots please. Well, we don't know enough of the information to know exactly what happened and there will always be controversy surrounding the claims so it is best to not mention it and stick to the facts. This would be my suggestion.Languid Scientist (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Flag fest

Can we do something about the flag waving that is the armament section or do we nominate it for ugly table of the week? MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Be constructive and come up with a better table to replace the current one; as the flags are truly a bit on the too abundant side. --noclador (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Any better? might need to be checked I moved the data correctly. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
much better! and all is correct; only one thing: with each update of the software new weapons options become available... so we need to keep and eye on this and update it again and again. --noclador (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the check. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

AACMI Pod

It seems as long ago as 2010 Typoon was using the German-Israeli Flight Profile Recorder (FPR) Pod: [9] But no mention of it in the article? 31.53.217.173 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a specialised range pod and not particularly notable to the Typhoon so I am not sure it is worth a mention on this or all the other types than can use it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's actually "rangeless". 31.53.217.173 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tranche 3A

I'm not sure how to reconcile this report: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/germany-eurofighter-idUSB4N0EP00A20130708 with what's currently in the article, which indicates that Germany has contracted for the full 143 Eurofighters Mztourist (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Gutierrez?

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/eurofighter-chief-aims-jet-cheaper-084901705.html The new chief of the Eurofighter Typhoon will lay out plans by the end of this year to make the fighter jet cheaper and decision-making quicker, as the aircraft gears up to vie for more business in an increasingly crowded and competitive market.

There is an admission from the top that EF is too expensive and the management too cumbersome for the current market, but of course this man gets zero mentions in this article. Hcobb (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Clearly the source makes no mention of being expensive or management too cumbersone, you just made that up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hcobb, please read WP:SYNTH. "A" does not equal "B" unless the source says A=B. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not start a new vibrant article on Why Typhoon is an 80s dinosaur? I'm sure all your sources could be used there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Simply mentioning the current EF boss and his agenda would add a great deal of balance to the article. Hcobb (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it would, the Eurofighter GmbH article makes no mention of any other "boss" but would be more relevant at that article than here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
He specifically talks about the kinds of changes he is trying to make in order to sell his product. That speaks (in a slightly indirect way) about the mistakes that have been made to date. Hcobb (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
And speaking "in a slightly indirect way" is still WP:SYNTH. Unless the source says changes X are being made because of mistakes Y, you can not put in the article "mistakes Y have been made". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

has been eliminated from the bidding

That is the exact wording from http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/600033.html by Kim Kyu-won on the basis of interviews with EADS and DAPA. So what part of that is unclear? Hcobb (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Does your comment relate to the failed bid for Korean Airforce? When you say "Usual EF mistakes means they can't even give them away", what do you mean? I'm sure they would welcome any sound advice. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hcobb says "What part is unclear ?" - Well it was probably the mind reading bit as that was not the reference you used in your recent edit. MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
... um, my recent edit?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry it relates to Hcobb original comment. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Do I detect the merest touch of irony there? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If nobody loves Korean sources, then how about BizLeak?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-19/eads-fights-to-keep-typhoon-in-south-korean-combat-jet-contest

Hcobb (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This says EADS are still fighting? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is to be expected, but we don't. Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet another non-Korean source to better suit the biases of Wikistan...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-19/eads-fights-to-keep-typhoon-in-south-korean-combat-jet-contest.html South Korea’s DAPA defense armaments agency requested a draft contract over the weekend as EADS sought to clarify its proposal that had “confused” the customer, said Christian Scherer, the sales chief of EADS’s Cassidian defense unit.

Oh, those silly poor confused Asians. Whenever will they get it right? Eh? :-( Hcobb (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's all quite straightforward - the Korean sources tell the truth, and the non-Korean sources are full of confusing Western lies, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Hcobb, the majority of our problem with your stuff isn't your sources, it's your editorialising in your edits; "the Eurofighter team repeated their usual dumb mistakes" is something that has no place in a Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Well you will never find it in this article, but EADS had to redo their bid before for very similar reasons. So it's not the first time (other than as reported here), that the Koreans slapped EADS down for failure to follow the bidding rules and localize their bid. How many lost sales does European cultural arrogance take in order to rise to the level of "dumb"? Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it "European cultural arrogance", exactly? Which WP:RS describes it thus? It sounds just like poor business practice to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Over nine thousand, because "dumb" is WP:POV. Also, Hcobb, you've been around here long enough to know how to indent your comments, please do so.- The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/hell-hath-no-fury-like-britain-scorned/article2867071.ece "cultural arrogance" in reference to yet another failed EF bid. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Um, that's describing the reaction, by some Britons, especially on the Right, to India's decision. What has this got to do with EADS' business incompetence, in another country? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The systematic bias in this article is the assumption that EADS is competent to sell 1980s tech in the 2010s, in spite of many examples to the contrary. How many examples of bad business practices do I have to pull up (from RS that have been omitted from this article of course), in order to show this? Hcobb (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And "1980s tech in the 2010s" is different from Rafale, F-22 or Gripen how? If you provide sources that actually back up your claims, and then add them to the article without editorial comments, then nobody will have a problem with them. Hcobb, I'm going to be blunt: there are a lot of editors (of the ones I have seen, all of them) who find your editing on aircraft articles, particularly the POVish tone and sometimes blatantly POV edit summaries, problematic, and some editors have stopped editing certain articles rather than to have to continue to deal with you at them. Eventually you need to stop and ask yourself if the problem is you, not them, and if everyone else sees one bias and you see another, maybe the bias is yours. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
As always, everybody should remember that (a) this is not a forum and (b) this is not a newspaper. Discussion of the results of the Korean competition can wait until the results are formally announced.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Density issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=prev&oldid=571378388

It looked to me as if the new editor had been reading 5000 liters as 5000 kg. Which of course does not apply to jet fuel. Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No the new editor was referring to page 9 of reference 256 http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_3-2010web.pdf. This says 5t, which is 5000kg or 11,000lb. With the assumption that interceptor configuration (see ref. 257 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-263) is air superiority configuration minus the drop tank http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf.Z07x10 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was the writer of the article in the magazine who assumed that the EF's tanks were filled with water. Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say that?Z07x10 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Because our other references say 5000 liters of fuel, not 5000 kg. Hcobb (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked about and couldn't find any other reliable secondary sources let alone primary sources. Most of them were just copy and pastes of the previous wiki figures. I agree that this isn't the ideal situation because various weights and fuel loads are bandied about with nothing concrete but at least we're using the best available sources. This does leave a disparity with the empty weight but there doesn't appear to be a reliable source for that either. The only reliable secondary source says 16,000kg (35,200lb) for interceptor configuration which should theoretically include internal fuel and air-to-air missiles (6 BVRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs). This would weigh about 14,000lb combined (11,000 + [6*400] + [2*200] + 170lb), which is why I had adjusted the empty weight earlier (to 21,000lb) so that it at least mathematically matched the information from the available secondary sources.

I also make the Thrust-to-weight based on interceptor configuration 1.15. 90kN / [454(1000/9.80665)] = 20,215lbf. 2*20,215 / 35200 = 1.15. Z07x10 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Airpower.at writes tank capacity : Tankinhalt: 4.996 kg / 6.215 Liter http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm http://eurofighter.airpower.at/vergleich.htm That make two refrence with ~5t one the producer and one from a Janes editor. --HDP (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon max speed

Typhoon max speed is said to be mach 2 at high altitude, which dcorrespond to 2150 km/h and not 2450 km/h which correspond to mach 2 at low altitude...

The source says "2.495 km/h in 10.975 m Höhe", which translates to "2,495 km/h at a height of 10.975 kilometers". There is no Mach number given. So if anything, shouldn't the Mach number be changed? At a precision of only one digit versus four, it's probably a lot less exact, too. --Julian H. (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Correction: The official site does mention Mach 2.0 to be the maximum speed. Now I don't know what's correct. Eurofighter: Technical Data --Julian H. (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Air Force specification is mach 1.8 (1900 km/h) [www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm]. But we can assume that RAF limits the top speed to preserve airframe and engines lifespam. 2495 km/h (mach 2.3) isn't possible, for more than few seconds, as the composits parts of the airframe coud'nt support the resulting temperature (abaout 200°C). Old fighter could reach such speed because they were maid of metal : aluminium alloy allow speed up to 2600 km/h (heat wall) and steel alloy (like MIG-25) only allow higher speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klem1982 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Composits parts of the airframe coud'nt support the resulting temperature? The SR-71 rudder is a composit part and good for Mach 3.5 and the nose cone and leading edge of a space shuttle. It's a big difference between cold-curing composit systems and CO2 annealed composits.--HDP (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the Eurofighter using carbon ceramics or other ceramic composites. If that would be the case, high temperatures would not be a problem, but as far as I know, only standard prepreg CFCs are used. --Julian H. (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The speed is listed in multiple places as 1550mph at 10975m. Reference 257 shows Mach 2+ from 28,000ft to 55,000ft, which is damn near identical to this official speed chart for a MiG-29.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.png
You can see that also tops out at over Mach 2.3. The limit of the Typhoon Titanium's diffusion-bonding was originally quoted as Mach 2+ because I worked on it. It was never quoted as just Mach 2. If you look at the Rafale and then the Typhoon you'll notice a clear difference. The Rafale has pitot intakes that are stealthier (in theory) but less efficient at high speed (above Mach 1.2 and especially so above Mach 1.6). The Typhoon has longer ramped intakes to minimise total pressure losses in the intake at high Mach. It is quoted in multiple other places as 1550mph:
http://www.ukairshows.com/aircrafttyphoon.html
and this obviously isn't at sea level. The 1550mph is very specific because it is not simply Mach 2 at sea level miscalculated. Mach 2 at sea level would be 1530mph or 2448kph. Reference 256 is also an official source, so it should be Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Z07x10 - your first source there looks like you could have knocked it up yourself - what is its provenance? And you can't add anything to any article "... because you worked on it." Your Airshow source looks more respectable, but maybe not be considered a WP:RS for technical aircraft specifications. So this seems to leave just "Reference 256"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The first source in my post above is from an official performance spec for a MiG-29. If I 'knocked it up myself' how come you can see the Russian writing on the reverse side through the page? It is supposed to demonstrate that an aircraft capable of Mach 2+ from 28000ft to 55000ft (see reference 257 in Eurofighter page) is likely to top out above Mach 2.3. Reference 256 is from the Austrian airforce, which is very official and there are now 2 other sources backing this up. 1550mph crops up everywhere but unfortunately people who don't understand jack have divided it by the speed of sound at sea level to get the Mach.
[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
Besides this, it's scientifically illiterate to have a wiki page that says 'Mach 2 at altitude' and then '1550mph afterwards'. They can't both be right and 1550mph is stated everywhere. Notice how the Su-27 says Mach 2.35 and gives the same speed of 1550mph:
[15] Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you're very clever with Russian writing and PhotoShop - how should I know? What a coincidence that these two aircraft should have the exact same top speed. But then, maybe I'm a "scientific illiterate" who "doesn't understand jack". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not quite the same but many aircraft are designed for a similar role and have similar performance. Seriously? 'Clever with Russian and photoshop'? Be serious.Z07x10 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You could simply provide the source of your image alongside it, to demonstrate its provenance. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes because everyone can demonstrate the provenance of everything they find on the web? The speed is 1550mph at 11km altitude which is Mach 2.35. This is plainly stated in Reference 257 and Reference 258 states Mach 2+ from 28,000 to 55,000ft, which is consistent with Mach 2.35 at the optimal altitude in between. Please stop changing it back as not every aircraft can be as slow as an F-35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
um, my last edit was on 2 August? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tweaked your edit (and please dont use reference numbers as they can change every time somebody does an edit), the second ref is not reliable and the first ref gives 2.346 not 2.35. MilborneOne (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(2495/3.6) / (1.4*287*216)^(.5) = 2.35 (of course it depends what value of gamma you use).

The world's oldest air force says Mach 1.8.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm

Hcobb (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's because they're instructed not to fly above that just as MiG-25 pilots are instructed not to fly above Mach 2.5. I've changed it back. We can play this game all day. Z07x10 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
[citation needed]. We don't "play games" on Wikipedia, we use reliable sources. Z07x10, you are edit-warring on this issue, and have not sourced the edit you desire to make to the satisfaction of the consensus of editors on the talk page. This is a warning: do not edit-war further on this. It doesn't matter if you're "right", your constant reverting on this issue combined with your "we can play this game" attitude has put you in the wrong, and you need to stop and discuss this, without constantly re-adding the information in the meantime, before you get blocked, the page gets locked to force discussion, or both. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So basically you want to turn Wikipedia into an American encyclopedia of BS. I've listed 2 reliable sources showing Mach 2.35:

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmlv.gv.at%2Fwaffen%2Fwaf_eurofighter.shtml&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

and

Mach 2+ from 28-55,000ft

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Feurofighter.airpower.at%2Ftechnik-daten.htm&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

and so far I've listed several other supporting sources stating 2495kph. So unless you believe that's at sea level, it isn't Mach 2, it's Mach 2.35. You can't say Mach 2 and then say 2495kph at 10,975m because they're contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to head off an edit war and avoid people getting blocked. Regardless of what you believe is "right", or regardless of what is "right", this is obviously not a non-controversial change. Therefore you need to discuss, thoroughly, what it is you want to change, and why, providing the sourcing here on the talk page, and have a full discussion before re-adding the change to the article at all. If you are, in fact, correct, then it should be reasonable that over the course of the discussion that you'll be able to convince other editors of the verifiable factuality of your position. Either way, though, the constant re-adding to the article in the meantime, even if it is 110% correct, is disruptive edit-warring. Also, please indent your posts as it makes the discussion easier to follow, and please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
hmm, so maybe that is 110% of max speed?! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reference that talks about the horrible things that happen to a EF when it goes past Mach 1.8? Hcobb (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No because there aren't any. Many airforces imposes operating restrictions to improve longevity. If you want to talk about terrible things happening, how about you stop interfering with articles on EU planes or I'll go to the F-22 article and start linking some figures from this documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk e.g. 1 critical failure every 1.7 flying hours, 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 flying hour etc. How does that grab you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2013‎ (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way [16] is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If that's so, and that is the only source that gives that value, it's not quite so easy to add it to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, does the Austrian Air Force count as a primary source in this case? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be tempting for the Austrian Air Force to tell a few porkies to scare away the opposition, we really need a reliable secondary source like Janes or Flight. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Aviation Week says Mach 1.6 in the 2008 Aerospace Source Book. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Source? Well at the moment the page says 'Mach 1.8, 2495kph at 10,975m', which is a complete contradiction.

2495kph(1550mph) http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmlv.gv.at%2Fwaffen%2Fwaf_eurofighter.shtml&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 http://markosun.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/the-worlds-current-top-10-jet-fighters/ http://www.ukairshows.com/aircrafttyphoon.html http://www.fighter-aircraft.com/eurofighter-typhoon.html http://www.militaryplanes.co.uk/typhoon.html http://historywarsweapons.com/eurofighter-typhoon/ http://globaldefencesystems.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/eurofighter-typhoon_6870.html http://fighter-planes-mania.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/eurofighter-typhoon.html http://f-25.com/fighter/ef-2000/ http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/fighter-plane-dimensions/#!/exjun_ http://webaviation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/eurofighter-typhoon.html http://destianariwibowo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/crew-1-operational-aircraft-or-2.html

Can agree that 2495kph or 1550mph at altitude (11km) is Mach 2.35? If so, what is the issue? At the moment we're saying it's Mach 1.8 which is factually and mathematically inaccurate.Z07x10 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So can anyone actually source another speed specified at an altitude? Mach 2.35 again listed here: http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofighter-vs-f35/Z07x10 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So what altitude is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
And here's another problem: none of those links are reliable sources. None of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay well here's what the aircraft manufacturers have to say:

BAE SYSTEMS - 1521mph http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon EADS - Mach 2+ http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.htmlZ07x10 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So they both basically say Mach 2.0. But give no altitude. How much faster than Mach 2.0 do you need to go to be at "Mach 2.0+"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, now we have reliable sources stating "Mach 2+", is there anythingn in secondary sources, which are preferred, to confirm or refute this? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I have provided a whole listing of secondary sources above that state either 1,550mph or 2,495kph. The speed of sound is given by sqrt(gamma*R*T). The value of gamma is 1.4. R is the gas constant (287J/kgK) and T is the temperature, which at 11,000m is 216K. That gives Mach 1 as sqrt(1.4*287*216) = 294.6m/s. 2,495kph*1000/3600 = 693.1m/s. 693.1/294.6 = Mach 2.35. If you look on some of my other sources you'll see the speed of other Mach 2.35 aircraft also listed as 1550mph.Z07x10 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Er...no, you haven't. All those "secondary sources" are not reliable sources. Rule of thumb: if "blogspot" or "wordpress" is in the URL, a reliable source, it is not, and none of the other links you have provided are to RSes either - so far the only reliable sources you have linked are manufacturers' websites and the Austrian AF - all of which are primary sources, and all of which only confirm "Mach 2+". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well what exactly do you mean by a 'secondary source'? What is there in between the primary sources listed and the other sources listed (an example would be good)? Furthermore the BAE SYSTEMS source states 1521mph, which I've explained in my calculation is around Mach 2.3 at the edge of the troposphere, which is almost invariably where fighter jets achieve top speed because it's the best trade-off between cool air and good air density for lift at lower alpha, which reduces drag. The only place these mph figures equate to Mach 2 is at ground level and that sure as heck wasn't where 1550mph was achieved. So far with have 2 primary sources listing 1521-1550mph(2495kph), which is obviously around 11km altitude by common logic, and a fairly specific source stating Mach 2+ from 28,000-55,000ft: http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm This matches up favourably with this performance graph for a MiG-29 (which apparently I fabricated, in Russian, which I don't speak):

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.pngZ07x10 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Z07x10, I'm sure your calculations are perfectly reliable. But on this highly sceptical website they constitute WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Calculations that any editor can perform given the information presented are not considered WP:OR. However since the source in question does not give an altitude at which the speed is relevant, we can not assume it's at altitude for the calculation, which does make it WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
'Secondary source' - Jane's, Aviation Week, The New York Times, etc. Sources that are not a manufacturer or operator, but that are not self-published. To be quite honest if you don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, what constitutes a reliable source, and why blogs are not reliable sources, you need to take a break from editing and read the relevant policies and guidelines until you do. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I don't mean to quibble but Jane's and Aviation get their facts from primary sources, which is exactly where the other 'non-secondary' sources get their data from. The only actual primary source is sitting on the Warton Proquis Information Management System and has a classification of 'SECRET'. In fact, only the header sheet is actually sitting on the system, the document itself is locked away in a fire-proof safe with back-up copies at Iron Mountain. One of the two primary sources does specify an altitude, and then there's just the simple fact that the Vmax altitude given by the Austrian Airforce is roughly true for most fighter jets. This is a primary source backed up by common knowledge, more than enough to base a calculation on. There is a reason why fighters achieve top speed at this altitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_envelope and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AltitudeEnvelopeText.GIF. Furthermore using a = sqrt(Gamma*R*T) to calculate the speed of sound is very much not 'original research'. It's a very well established formula that's expressed on your own pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_in_ideal_gases_and_in_air Here R is expressed in J/molK which divided by the molar mass gives J/kgK, i.e. (8.31451J/molK)/(0.0289645kg/mol) = 287J/kgK. This is kind of why I get annoyed discussing things here. I'm stating things that are indisputable facts as an engineer in conjunction with a primary source, and being told that they are merely 'opinions' or 'original research'. The link I've posted also specifies the speed of sound at 11km altitude (295m/s or 294.6m/s exactly using formula) and the temperature there (273-57) = 216K.Z07x10 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that secondary sources get their data from primary sources, it doesn't change the fact that secondary sources are preferred (although primary can be used for simple statements of fact). If you have one source that gives a top speed and an altitude that that top speed is at, then calculating the Mach number from that data is not WP:OR; if, however, you infer the altitude, that the speed-at-altitude is the top speed, or you take the top speed from one source and altiude from another, that's synthesis and not allowed. But, as I said, if you have a reliable secondary source that gives "top speed at altiude" then calculating the Mach number from that is pefectly acceptable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Except that isn't what I did. The speed and altitude are both listed on this one primary source: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml. I only used this second primary source to verify the mph speed: http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon and support the first primary source. The supposition of altitude only applies to the second of the 2 primary sources. The calculation is based purely on the speed and altitude in the first primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Then, now that that's all sorted, it should be alright, I think? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So we can change it to 2.35? Thanks. Changes made.Z07x10 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late to the discussion. So no, you cannot make the change. There is no problem making simple calculations (assuming we have all the relevant parameters) when we are missing a reference for a specific value. But this is not the case at all here. We have numerous, concordant primary and secondary sources virtually all agreeing on the Mach 2 value. So doing our own calculations to contradict those sources is the textbook definition of original research. On wikipedia, we just report what the sources say, so unless you find at least one secondary, reliable source with a different Mach value, there is nothing we can do here. --McSly (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not the case and we have done this to death already. The Austrian Air Force clearly states 2495kph at 10,975m - the calculation is based on that. BAE SYSTEMS (the manufacturer) states 1521mph which roughly agrees and works out to Mach 2.3+. So the calculation is based on speed and altitude figures from a primary source, backed up by speed from another primary source and an assumed altitude. Note that 'Mach 2+' does not specifically contradict these values. Also, the changes have already been agreed after a very lengthy discussion, so if you want to change it back you need to get agreement here first! You can't just barge in and edit an already contested and argued at length edit.Z07x10 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
To me, 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6) is not a complicated calculation. We do have all parameters needed for it. It's not really much more than a unit conversion imo. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed; since the sources say "Mach 2+" the 2.35 number is not inconsistent and has been shown to be a routine calculation given that all available numbers for it are right there in the source. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

McSly, why do you change the value now without even mentioning it here? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I cited the reasons before. We are in no shortage of sources giving the top speed as a Mach factor. Spoiler alert, they say Mach 2 or 2+, none say Mach 2.35. Therefore, we have absolutely no business doing our own half-ass calculations based on cherry-picked sources in order to contradict the values that primary and secondary sources already provide. At best, it's just synthesis or original research. The question has nothing to do with the calculation being easy or hard, the only question we have here is do we have sources stating the Mach number? And since we do, we just cite them, no calculation required. As a side note, the other time the same editor tried to replace a directly cited value by a "simple" calculation where we had "all parameters needed for it", we ended it up with that change which was laughably wrong. --McSly (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
One says Mach 2, one says Mach 2+ (which contradicts Mach 2 in my opinion) and one says Mach 2.35 (via a basic calculation, which contradicts Mach 2 but not Mach 2+). I can't say which one is closest to reality either, but the most precise value is Mach 2.35. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
We've gone over this before a few times now. The source specifying 2495kph (1550mph) at 10,975m is a primary source and is very specific. The other primary source quoted is a manufacturer and specifically states 1521mph, which is a very close figure and it only requires a small stretch of logic and subject matter knowledge to know that this is at the edge of troposhere and not at ground level. Furthermore EADS (the other manufacturer) states '2+' http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html. And so does this technical guide http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf. So we have 2 primary sources agreeing with the mph figure, one of which states an altitude enabling a calculation and 2 other primary sources that state '2+'. So that's 4 primary sources that are not in dispute. Furthermore there are other seemingly well informed tertiary sources that state Mach 2+ from 28-55,000ft http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Feurofighter.airpower.at%2Ftechnik-daten.htm&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 and this MiG-29 speed graph of unknown providence showing that it's entirely possible for that to correlate to Mach 2.3+ at optimum altitude http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4430/l6mh.png.
Hello, consensus can and does routinely change when new information and new sources come to view so saying that we talked about it before is not an argument. I'd like to also remind you that the value for the Mach speed has been consistent in this article for the past 10 years at Mach 2.0. In addition, what you did in the previous paragraph is clear WP:OR, if you want to know why, "this MiG-29 speed graph of unknown providence showing that it's entirely possible for that to correlate to Mach 2.3+ at optimum altitude" was a dead giveaway. Lastly you misrepresented a couple of sources there, I left a note on your talk page on this.
So let's re-start. I think we all agree that the value Mach 2.0 do not aligned with 2,495 km/h and we are trying to reconcile them. So far, the premise has been that 2,495 km/h is right therefore Mach 2.0 must be wrong. So what Z07x10 has been trying to do is 1) pretend that the sources stating Mach 2.0 do not exist. 2) Replace those sources by his own calculations based on synthesizing cherry-picked values and "speed graph of unknown providence". 3) Rationalize the value Mach 2+ present in some sources so it really means 2.35, but only if you don't think about it too much.
Except that none of that is actually quite true. First it is very easy to find good quality sources flatly contradicting the 2,495 km/h value. Here are a few. BBC News [17] (1,320 mph - 2,125 km/h), Daily Mail [18] (1,320 mph - 2,125 km/h), FAS [19] (2125 km/hr), RAF Typhoon Manual [20] (1,320 mph - 2,125 km/h). The RAF Typhoon Manual is a very high quality secondary source as it is a official RAF title and it probably the best source we have here. They are all consistent with Mach 2.0. We also have numerous quality secondary sources stating the Mach speed at Mach 2.0 making any attempt at doing personal calculation a complete waste of time. Among those sources are Jane's All the World's Aircraft (page 278 of the 2004-2005 edition) which is already used throughout the article so is perfectly valid to set the Mach speed, and the official eurofighter.com [21] (Z07x10 falsely claimed that the source said Mach 2+, it actually says Mach 2.0, twice). Lastly about the 2+ value. In fact, most sources do not say Mach 2+, instead, they say Mach 2.0+. The additional 0 is quite significant. Mathematically, it means that the value must be lower than Mach 2.1, completely ruling out Mach 2.35.
So, given that 1) we have no source whatsoever for Mach 2.35 but many for Mach 2.0 including JANE and eurofighter.com. 2) we have several high quality sources including the BBC and official RAF titles (The RAF Typhoon Manual) giving 2,125 km/h. 3) Mach 2.0+ means at best Mach 2.0999 and 4) 2,495 km/h is the exact conversion of Mach 2.0 at sea level so could be easily explained by someone not familiar with the concept of Mach speed making a mistake, I think a clear picture is starting to emerge here. In the Mach 2.0 - 2,495 km/h pair what is wrong is not the Mach value as initially thought, it is the km/h speed that should be 2,125 km/h. We have numerous high quality secondary sources to confirm it and get a consistent non WP:OR set of values. Any additional thoughts before I change the article with Mach 2.0 and 2,125 km/h ?--McSly (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you but 'Haynes' do not produce official Typhoon manuals or performance specifications. They're produced at BAE SYSTEMS in Warton Aerodrome by people like me and are referred to as ODMs (Operating Data Manuals), AFRCs (Aircrew flight reference Cards) and Performance Specifications. The last two of which are classified and the only true source of data. Just to blow your 'sources apart completely. In the Haynes Manual link you posted (secondary source at best) it states take-off to 40,000ft in 30s in one place and also states brakes-off to 40,000ft in 90s in another. Take-off taking 8s, clearly a contradiction of itself. The Eurofighter tech guide is again a secondary source. This is important to understand because neither Haynes, nor the Eurofighter tech guide, nor Jane's are written by people with access to the official performance specification or official data. This is why on page 18 of the tech guide it shows the Typhoon with 20 different stores, only 9 or 10 of which have actually been qualified if you count the (E)GBU-16 as an EPW II and lump all Eurofighter nations together as one.

This is my response to your subjective interpretation of significant figures that I've also copied to your talk page: I don't accept that Mach 2.0+ excludes figures higher than 2.1 and if there is a page stating this on Wikipedia it needs to be adjusted. It means the same as Mach 2+ in this case. Meaning is always specific to context and the fact that some websites write '2.0+' was a choice, because no one has officially ever stated, in person, Mach 2.0+. Let's face it, to give 1dp and then add '+' is kind of nonsense. It's more likely to be an auto-formatter choosing the number of significant figures/dps just like on Wikipedia. And in the case of the Typhoon this interpreation is confirmed by the Austrian Airforce primary source stating '2495kph at 10,975m'. and BAE SYSTEMS stating '1521mph'. Furthermore Mach 2.0 at sea level is 2448kph not 2495kph and the Austrian Airforce clearly state an altitude. The consensus reached so far is based on two primary sources stating '2495kph at 10,975m' (Austrian Airforce) (which is very specific and specifies an altitude enabling a simple calculation) and another primary source (BAE SYSTEMS) stating '1521mph', which again is not Mach 2 at sea level, which would be 1530mph and is clearly not at sea level. The other primary sources state Mach 2+ or Mach 2.0+ depending on their formatting preferences. The decision to add or not a dp is aesthetic not mathematical in this context and, in the face of the aforementioned sources, the best interpretation is that it simply means 'more than Mach 2'. The inclusion of a digit doesn't always have significance even on Wikipedia, e.g. does 11,000 lb mean less that 11,050 lb, or less than 11,500lb? And your maths is also wrong, if something is rounded to 2.0, that means less than 2.05 not less than 2.1, so mathematically you aren't even correct assuming your reasoning was correct. You're also wrong that speed has ever been generally accepted as Mach 2.0. It has always been Mach 2+, ever since I was working as an undergrad at BAe Brough in 1997. So in summary: Austrian Airforce (Primary Source in possession of actual performance specification) - 2495kph @ 10,975m = Mach 2.35 at ISA conditions. BAE SYSTEMS (Primary Source manufacturer in possession of actual performance specification) - 1521mph = Mach 2.3+ at or above troposhere. EADS (Primary Source manufacturer in possession of actual performance specification) - Mach 2.0+ which in context means 'over Mach 2'. The only sources that state otherwise are secondary or tertiary sources not in receipt of the performance specification or possibly some instances where a kid on work experience has been given a task of web page design. Instead of grasping at straws and wasting people's time, try and find something specific from primary sources before coming back and wasting my time in having to type a response on my weekend. The Austrian Airforce is a primary source and has given very specific details with speed and altitude, so I can't grasp the reasoning of some people. Are the Austrian Airforce liars? Is that the case being put forward?Z07x10 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I actually thought we were at an impasse here but fortunately you last edit made me realise what the disconnect was. And this is my fault as I should have mentioned that before since you are relatively new to Wikipedia. On WP, we really only want secondary sources. From the policy page: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Please read that page carefully as well as this one. We use primary sources only when secondary sources are not available which is not the case here. This is why JANE's, the Eurofighter tech guide and the RAF Typhoon Manual are actually very, very good sources for this article and that's why JANE's is widely used across WP because they are the kind of sources that we want. They will also trump any primary source. So, that said, I'll give you some time to familiarize yourself with those WP policies and if there are no additional objection, I'll update the article with what those high quality secondary sources say (Mach 2.0 and 2,125 km/h). --McSly (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The policy can't possibly say that. That's basically the equivalent of accepting the word from the guy down the road instead of the people who build and fly the plane and are in receipt of the full facts. What I would hazard a guess to as regards your misunderstanding of the rules is that secondary sources are used when primary sources could be tainted, or have heavy agendas, e.g. court cases and political incidents. Then it would be appropriate to use secondary sources or other unbiased primary sources. In a matter like this, secondary sources are not really 'sources' at all, in that they are not the actual 'source' of any information they provide. In this case here we are dealing with a specific fact 'speed' which can only be reliably taken from those who have tested it, measured it and recorded it in a document. Neither Haynes nor Jane's have done this. You'll also appreciate wrt the policy, primary and secondary sources are somewhat entwined. Is the Austrian Airforce reading from the Performance Spec a primary or a secondary source? They are clearly one step removed from manufacture as a customer and the people writing websites at BAE and EADS are also not the ones doing the actual testing. From this perspective the aforementioned sources are secondary sources providing a reliable commentary having viewed the primary sources. Haynes and Jane's are now tertiary sources who have not had access to the primary sources and only have restricted access to the information via people who have, or sales executives from those companies speaking from bullet points, or pilots who typically fly the aircraft with 3 drop tanks and have strict guidelines about peacetime operating limits. Supercruise with just AAMs is Mach 1.5 but with 3 drop tanks and 4 EPW IIs it's Mach 1.2 or less. Hopefully you can see the problems associated with taking figures from journalists and trying to categorise primary and secondary sources too rigidly. I think the article as it stands uses the best sources available as regards those who have access to the actual indisputable genesis of the information.
As an aside I can't understand where all the dispute comes from. Nobody ever questions the maximum speed of a Tornado being Mach 2.27 with 15% less thrust and 30% more weight but OMG, add Mach 0.08 for the Typhoon and Arrrrgh WWIII.Z07x10 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, First as I already explained to you, on WP "[the] articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Please see the policy pages here and here. Those policies are the same for everybody and they are non negotiable. If you don't believe me, I invite you to go to the Village pump so you can ask other editors to confirm. Air force sites are primary sources, JANE's and the RAF Typhoon Manual are quite evidently secondary sources (and very high quality). We don't have any tertiary source here as tertiary sources are encyclopedias. Please read their definitions carefully as they were already pointed out to you. Again, if you don't believe me, you need to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask.
Now, let's move this along. Your core argument here is that (and I quote): "In this case here we are dealing with a specific fact 'speed' which can only be reliably taken from those who have tested it, measured it and recorded it in a document" and you use the Austrian Air force official website as a source. Well, as it turns out, Austria is not the only country with an official air force website, Germany, the UK and Italy have one too. For your argument to be valid, all values must agree, because same aircraft, same tests, same measures must give the same results. So, this is exciting, let's check if that the case. Italian airforce [22] "maximum speed Mach 2.0" (different value). German air force [23] "Höchstgeschwindigkeit Mach 2,00" (also different value). RAF [24] Max speed: 1.8Mach (new different value). So we have 4 websites of equal importance with 4 different values for the maximum speed and absolutely no way to know which one is right (and at least 2 of them are wrong). Z07x10, I sorry to inform you that your argument is therefore demonstratively false. Incidentally, this is why we rely on secondary sources such as JANE's because primary sources contradict themselves all the time.
The bottom line here is that 1) not only the Austrian Air force site cannot be used for the maximum speed, but all 4 sites are not reliable sources as they contradict each other, if the article uses any of them, we will have to find other sources. 2) since primary sources are in conflict, we must rely on secondary sources (and that what we should do anyway) to set the top speed. I will now update the article with the 2 reliable secondary sources we have for this value. Any attempt to change those with a primary source will be reverted. --McSly (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You are now participating in an edit war by deliberately making disputed changes against that agreed by consensus. Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions. The logical conclusion is that most air forces have chosen not to be specific as regards top speed. The RAF figure has already been ruled out as unreliable by consensus in the large discussion before you joined in that you've conveniently chosen to ignore, it also quotes 2.0 elsewhere on the same site. You'll also note that the german airforce quote the dry engine thrust as 70kN then 60kN on the same page http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP3I5EyrpHK9nHK98sS0NL2s1JJivdTSony9ktTkjDz9gmxHRQCVxGXO/#par3. The wing area has also been approximated to 50.00m^2 (51.2m^2 - wiki). Clearly not reliable. The original official release was Mach 2+, so many people just quoted Mach 2. However, we now have more recent information from 2 reliable sources that contradict this, one of which specifies an altitude, which cannot be ignored. 2495kph at 10,975m is extremely specific and the German Wikipedia page has reached the same conclusion entirely independent from my input https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon.
With respect to contradictions, you've quoted a Haynes article that contradicts itself in the space of 1 page. As regards 'magazines' in general (e.g. Janes, Air Forces Monthly), I grew reading car magazines, like many teens, and if I had a pound for every time they disagreed or got something wrong, I'd be very rich and the hardbacks published were even worse. 'Secondary sources' are in conflict too, especially as regards supercruise, and the sources you describe as secondary are arguably tertiary as they have never laid eyes on the primary source. A true secondary source needs to have access to the primary source. The level of a source (primary, secondary or tertiary) is debatable and we should focus on a commonsense approach rather than rigid categorisation of sources. As an example, if I produce datasheets like these http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Tow.pdf http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Coyote_Fact.pdf, as I have done for the relevant wiki pages, are you seriously suggesting that a magazine article or a page from Haynes on line should be able to take precedence over such sources. May as well close Wikipedia if that's the case. Z07x10 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait, wait, just realized something. You didn't pick 2495kph and 10,975m over all the other higher quality sources just because they are precise right? Please tell me that's not the what you did?--McSly (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
No I ignored the other lower quality sources for the reasons already mentioned. The legacy figure was stated as 'Mach 2+', which was stated in many places as either 'Mach 2+', 'Mach 2.0+', 'Mach 2' or 'Mach 2.0'. All those figures derive from the legacy release of information. 2,495kph (1550mph) at 10,975m is a new figure that states a specific altitude as well as a speed and it comes from an airforce. The figure is backed up by '1521mph' quoted by the plane's manufacturer and the German wiki has drawn the same conclusions http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon this serves as a neutral 'third opinion' within the wiki community - see dispute resolution '3O'.
Explain to me why you are adamant that a plane with a 5% higher thrust-to-weight ratio than an F-16 and ramped intakes vs an F-16's pitot intakes, is somehow slower than it. Now replace the F-16 with a Tornado with no supercruise ability whatsoever but ramped intakes that allow Mach 2.27 with reheat despite weighing 30% more than a Typhoon and having older engines with a 15% lower thrust rating. There's no logical rationale to your insistence that the speed is Mach 2.0. Here's what Airpower Austria says: http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm Mach 2.0+ from 28,000-55,000ft.
Following the last change, I'm now reporting you for edit warring.Z07x10 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
And making the same change under an alias won't help you either.Z07x10 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually Z07x10 you're the one edit-warring and you have 3R'ed. I agree with McSly, but we will see what the outcome of the DRN is. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
So if someone changes something 3 times in a day without using revert it isn't edit-warring, but if they do then it is? Good policy. Go see German and Spanish wiki, they quote the same source (Austrian Airforce). See last posts by Julian H and Bushranger above. Now tell me who is edit warring.Z07x10 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
One can't help but point out that McSly is French and therefore has an agenda in this, see French wiki - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon. 1.8 LOL.Z07x10 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
An editor's nationality is irrelevant. WHat the German wikipedia decides is irrelevant. Not using the revert link to makes changes can still be violating 3RR. Accusing another editor of socking is way out of line without evidence (and if you have it, start an SPI instead of insinuating such things). There is no consensus for the change you want. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is right there before McSly made changes a month or so later, was corrected by 3-4 people, waited another month and then made more changes without consensus. See above discussions with Bushranger and Julian H from several months ago. And no, independent German Wiki consensus isn't irrelevant just because you say so as it serves as a £rd opinion - see '3O'. The matter is in dispute resolution and you shouldn't be making any changes during that process period.Z07x10 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If other projects' opinions mattered then it seems the French wikipedia says it is 1.8. You are mistaken, it simply does not matter what happens on other projects. You have been reverted LOTS of times. It seems clear there is no consensus. Please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes and it's absolutely no coincidence that McSly is French and Dassault are currently trying to re-patch a deal that they won and then screwed up with India. Furthermore the kids who wrote Mach 1.8 on French wiki also listed 2100kph, which isn't Mach 1.8 at >30,000ft. Italian wiki also quote the Austrian Airforce source and >2450kph. Spanish wiki also quote 1522mph from the BAE SYSTEMS source.Z07x10 (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I too speak French, and make a killer martini, that does not preclude me, or anyone else from editing. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked the manufacturer for a comment, answer posted in the Dispute resolution noticeboard‎‎. Mach 2.0 is described as a rounded figure, while 2.0+ is a representation of the differences in values depending on configuration, one example being is 2.35.
Regarding the discussion here: I agree that other wikipedias are not as relevant here as finding the actural, correct number. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Z07x10 there is no consensus on Mach 2.35 and you haven't provided reliable secondary sources. Your obsession with this point, 3R breaches and general behaviour justify you being blocked. Mztourist (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
So to summarize my position here. We have numerous contradictory primary sources giving the top speed at high altitude. We really don't have any way to evaluate which is better so we must rely on secondary sources to set the value. We happen to have a good one in "Jane's All the World's Aircraft". That source is actually already used on this article 7 times to set values such as Maximum takeoff weight and wing area so we have no reason to doubt it couldn't be used as well for the top speed. So let's use it. If, in the future Jane's is updated to set the top speed to Mach 2.35 or Mach 1.8 or anything else, just point me to it and I'll make the change myself.
Since the current version of the article is reflecting the "wrong version" and that at this point I don't want to edit the article any further, I'll let other editors do it if they want and I think I'm done here for now. Oh, and I updated the French WP with the new value, the old one was indeed a little off.--McSly (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Z07x10, prove your consensus or accept this Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was with Julian H and Bushranger above. McSly says "Hello, consensus can and does routinely change when new information and new sources come to view" implying that he was aware of this consensus but edit-warred anyway. Over in dispute resolution a reply to Julian H from Eurofighter.com has explained that the official information says '2+' and that some sources have 'rounded this to '2' however it does not refute the claim of the Austrian Airforce saying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon

"Dear Mr. Herzog, Thank you for your interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Regarding your question: There should be no contradiction – we quote Mach 2.0+ which is correct – the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure and our official statement on maximum speed is Mach 2.0+. Kind Regards EUROFIGHTER COMMUNICATIONS Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH"

That implicitly agrees that the Austrian figure is possible with specific fuel and weapons load etc.

The figure of Mach 2/2+ has been copied from the official release around several sources and subsequently rounded and/or stated as if it were the maximum under optimal conditions etc. So whilst there are several sources saying '2', none of them are truly independent.

Furthermore the statement of 'mach 2+' or 'Mach 2 class' is commonplace http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html. It does not mean that that is the maximum. E.g. in the case of the F-22, wiki quote 2.25 and the 'Top Tens - Fighters documentary (accessible on YouTube) states 2.5.

Speed is dependent on conditions and operating limits. E.g. wiki state Mach 2.34 and 1.8 for the F-14D and F-18E/F respectively but their operational manuals say less:

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAD-1.pdf (see page 4-6 configuration 1A - no stores) http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf (Page XI-10-15 - 60% fuel and 4 AAMs)

However you'll see that the right side of the F-14 flight envelope is a vertical line implying that higher speeds are possible with greater stress on the aircraft. This vertical line is very similar to that on the flight envelope portrayed at Airpower Austria- http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm.

At present McSly lists a kph speed based on the altitude specified in the Austrian Airforce source that he ignores for speed purposes. This is quasi-pseudo mathematics and has no legitimate place. At least my calculation was based on one coherent source specifying speed and altitude, rather than pick and mix figures from different sources.Z07x10 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that 'Haynes manual' isn't really a legitimate source for fighter aircraft because it's like getting a specification off the box of an airfix model, the link listed by McSly says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-273 "Loveless, Antony (1994)..."

Not only is this document not current now, but it wasn't even current a decade ago. Recommend removal.Z07x10 (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now restored the document to its state before Mach 2.35 was entered. It reads Mach 2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m). There is no source listing 2,125kph - that was a McSly quasi calculation using Mach from one place and altitude from the source now listed (Austrian Airforce) which states a different kph value. Haynes manual removed because it pre-dates in-service date and at 1994 corresponds to a time when only pre-liminary prototype testing was being done. Therefore not current or reliable.Z07x10 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Z07x10, are you trying to be blocked? Editing this until the dispute resolution is over is unconstructive. Please stop. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Julian I have simply returned it to where it was before my disputed changes were made, at which time it read '2+ (2495kph at 10,975m)'. The figure of 2,125kph provided by McSly has no source and is a pick and mix of Mach from one source and altitude from another. I think it should go to where it was pre-dispute until resolution.Z07x10 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update, Eurofighter.com now quote '2.0+' not '2.0' which was rounded (as stated in their response to Julian). http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/technicaldata.html Z07x10 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Maximum speed

Note I have protected the page from editing due to edit warring on this subject, please come to a consensus here on the way forward, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Specification

Hi, the service ceiling is only 16765m according to the source (service ceiling=Dienstgipfelhöhe) the absolute ceiling is 19810m (absolute ceiling=max. Flughöhe). I didn't edit it myself because I'm not sure how to enter the data, so both ceilings are shown.

IAF £15 billion contract may still be up for grabs

It seems that BAE are paring down the cost £3.5 million per unit and have re-approached the Indian gov after some very serious disquiet in the Indian military community over choosing the Rafale.[25]

Is Der Spiegel a RS for EF cost overruns?

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/eurofighter-droht-finanzieller-kollaps-a-909770.html

Notable? Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

nope, Der Spiegel has agendas, so you can not trust their articles. Right now they want to write the German Minister of Defence Thomas de Maizière out the office, so they are digging up all kind of things and blowing them out of proportion to damage him. --noclador (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the same from Reuters for the German impaired. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-eurofighter-germany-idUSBRE9660CD20130707 Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Reuters source is Spiegel! --HDP (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
LoL Spiegel compare to Time (magazine). Spiegel to go south. The should make better resarch. http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/!ut/p/c4/NYuxDsIwDET_yE6GopaNqqrEygJlS9soMqqTyjhl4eNJBu6kN9zT4RNLozsoOKUU3YYPnBY6zx-Y-QjwSlnKCkyR3uqFMuO9flYPS4peK9VHpcIgTpPAnkS3arJIMUArTsYOvbHmH_vtunFsmlPbDtf-hjvz5Qcp3Co6/ --HDP (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan will acquire Eurofighter Typhoon?

??? Maybe Rafale?219.151.149.91 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when Europe signs up to defend their freedom. Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder could your response here have any underlying political motive? (I thought Rafale was French, not European, lol). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Found the ref. They apply anti-PRC arms embargo against Taiwan: http://thediplomat.com/new-leaders-forum/2012/03/20/how-europe-shies-from-taiwan/ Hcobb (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a sales brochure?

This entry reads like a sales brochure. The data is cherry picked (eg. super cruise M1.5?). The prices are all over the place depending on what you count. A sales endorsement from Gen. Jumper? Supposed performance in exercises - who cares? Its about combat and real world experience not exercises were the parameters are fixed to give a certain result. A compendium of export prospects. Does it need such out of date detail? Really, this is one of those entires that really gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.243.175 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comments in future. The figure of Mach 1.5 is based on an interceptor configuration with just AAMs and no drop tanks. It's explained elsewhere in the article that the supercruise speed drops to 1.2 when drop tanks are added. If you're aware of any official performance test that disputes figures then feel free to link it rather than simply complaining.Z07x10 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

there should be more comparisons in performance with Russian fighters

These would be the adversaries that "count" in a major war, not all this sand dune stuff in the Middle East which, while tragic, is not the same thing as what NATO's real mission is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We dont normally do comparisons in aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
We don't normally fight the Russians, either. We do, on the other hand, regularly have operations in or near the Middle East. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
However we don't provide comparisons in the articles, as that starts to fall into the area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree on this. Aircraft comparisons are fraught with complications as any encounter depends on the skill of the pilot, the ECM/ESM technology, the avionics and the missile technology as well as the aircraft itself. E.g. fit a crap aircraft with a great pilot, top-notch avionics and virtually infallible missiles and it'll make light work of a good aircraft with a crap pilot stuffed with junk electronics and '60s missiles.Z07x10 (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning about Max speed

I assumed good faith by removing the protection from the article (and allow others to edit areas other than maximum speed) but non-consensus edit to the speed area will be seen as distruptive editing. Please gain consensus for any edits involving speed or we may have to topic ban users and/or remove editing privilages from those that ignore this request, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I put this to DRN but the process just seemed to get archived. No valid arguments were brought forward by any of the protagonists. Julian H got an official response on the Austrian figures from :Eurofighter.com confirming that it was possible dependent on configuration. This response was made available to all participants. The discussion concluded with McSly's argument comprehensively defeated based on the Eurofighter.com confirmation of the specific Austrian figures and explanation of what they referred to as 'rounded' figures from elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_78#Eurofighter_Typhoon
"...the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure..."
Unless we have an official performance test that disputes the position of Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH on an Airforce's figures then all counter protagonists and nay-sayers should really be thrown in with the flat-earthers and simply ignored. I'm sorry if that seems arrogant but you have to draw the line somewhere with all this BS. You can't have people blocking edits containing officially-verified information based solely on the fact that they don't like it.Z07x10 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought we had Jane's as a good secondary source. Let's please not do this again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought we had found a solution in the dispute resolution? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That was the conclusion I drew too but apparently it was just archived if you click the link above. To date nobody has responded, disagreeing or otherwise, with my last post in that DRN. We've thoroughly discussed at length in that DRN why Jane's and a whole host of other secondary sources have approximately the same value as a parrot, simply repeating information and occasionally with 'rounding' thrown in. Eurofighter.com has explained this in their official response although not in as many words. It's also been covered at the policy board that if a secondary source is just relaying generic information without independent testing, then there's no reason whatsoever to hold it above a primary source, especially when we have one primary source that has officially confirmed another. To my mind people have had over a fortnight to post a logical counter-argument in the DRN and have failed to do so, therefore the proposed edit should be permitted.Z07x10 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Jane's is a highly respected secondary source. Can you please provide a link to the discussion that said a primary source can be used to trump a secondary source? Thank you.Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether it's a respected secondary source or not is completely irrelevant. You have to look at the genesis of their information. It comes from press-releases and is not independently tested, nor is there any independent analysis of the speed figure, hence the term 'parroting'. We have an official confirmation from Eurofighter GmbH on the Austrian AF figures. How about you or McSly try and get Jane's to officially state that the Typhoon can't do Mach 2.35 and that the Austrian AF figures are false. Then you would have a legitimate case but chances are they'll admit that they don't know.
Policy discussion on sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_109#Clarification_Regarding_SourcesZ07x10 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22
From from the above:
"Characteristics of a secondary source: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia."
Jane's fulfills none of the criteria mentioned in the sentence above wrt the Typhoon Mach figure and has remained stagnant (not updated) since 2003.Z07x10 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain:
"Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source? The answer is: not always. If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source. The text and images of the proclamation always remain primary sources."
This is a perfect description of Jane's in this instance - a separately printed copy of the legacy primary source, i.e. not a secondary source at all. If Airforce magazines operated more like car magazines do with cars then they would be legitimate secondary sources but fat chance of that.Z07x10 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Jane's is, however, a rather respected source in things like stats about planes, ships and the like. Indeed, they don't just reprint press releases from the Austrian air force, our article indicates that they do analysis. The discussion at the village pump did not say that secondary sources can be trumped by primary sources. I actually don't care how fast this plane goes. But we do have a nice referenced speed here. I am not sure why I should get Jane's to publish something, and I really doubt they would listen to me, or you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you could get the Austrian Air Force to publish the data that show how fast their aircraft can fly. And then we've have a fact to deal with? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of how exactly they have analysed their Mach figure for the Typhoon (given that they originally published it circa 2003). The discussion at the Village Pump linked to information calling into question whether Secondary Sources are always better and whether Jane's is indeed a secondary source in this case. They've probably analysed, or talked around the Typhoon's overall capabilities but I don't think for one second that they've specifically analysed the top speed - that is simply a copy and paste on their part. What the heck does 'nice' mean wrt sources? And again, I'll repeat, there is a clarification from Eurofighter GmbH on the Austrian AF figure, so how about you get one from Jane's stating that the Typhoon can't achieve Mach 2.35, then you'll have something of equivalent relevance to bring to the discussion.
At Martinevans - they have done, it's right there in the first reference after the max speed stat in the main article. Eurofighter GmbH have also confirmed this as possible dependent on load, altitude etc.
What we're seeing in Jane's is something akin to how many car magazines still state the top speed of the McLaren F1 at 231mph. That was the original press release (copy and pasted - a reprint of a primary source) but it was tested to 240+mph in the interim link. Jane's is a reprint of an out-dated primary source wrt speed, not a secondary source. If there's any analysis to verify the speed let's see it.Z07x10 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
At zero-seven-times-10: shucks, and there was me thinking it was all locked away in a secret safe. :( Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The actual performance specification with the flight envelope charts relevant to different loadings will be. In the DRN discussion I've actually posted some flight manuals for older aircraft if you care to look at what I mean link1 link2. A point speed at a specific altitude gives away relatively little information.Z07x10 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, what's that ? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well if you care to examine the article, you'll see the top speed quoted is Mach 2.34, yet the actual flight envelopes in 'link1' flat-line at Mach 2. So some mugs like Jane's might be inclined to copy and paste '2.0' if that aircraft had been released recently. http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy-natops-f-14-tomcat-flight-manuals/.Z07x10 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Z07x10 why is this so important to you? Eurofighter said Mach 2+ and we have general agreement on that, but you keep insisting on Mach 2.35 to the point of being temporarily blocked. You don't have consensus for this change and you cherry-pick sources to back the figure you want. Give it up Mztourist (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Turn the question around and ask it to yourself. There are many articles on Wikipedia that people can update without several baby-sitters jumping in within <10 minutes, so why is this so special? My changes were based on new information not impulse, same as my recent changes to the SM-3 article. I posted a source from an airforce user, then myself and Julian took the matter to DRN and received a validation from Eurofighter GmbH. On any other article that would be sufficient, so why are there so many vested interests opposing the matter here with nothing more than a magazine reprint of a legacy press release that hasn't been updated since 2003. Exactly what are the requirements for making a case besides 'coming to a consensus with people who are ardently opposed to any changes for reasons they can't substantiate in DRN or put down in print'. 'Cherry-picking' is using a speed with a specific altitude quoted by an airforce and a verification by the company who built the aircraft? Yes I cherry pick good sources, instead of using any crap source I can find to back my perspective (e.g. your buddy McSly and Haynes manual).Z07x10 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Eurofighter quotes Mach 2+ it doesn't say Mach 2.35 is correct, the RAF says Mach 1.8, the Austrian Air Force says Mach 2.35, so why have you cherry-picked the highest Mach number? There is consensus for Mach 2+ and yet you seem fixated on Mach 2.35. Give it up and make useful contributions to other articles rather than trying to argue/bore everyone into submission and claim it is consensus Mztourist (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Z07, please don't do this [26] again. You should not edit archives of pages, it is out of line. There is even a warning at the top of the page that says as much. Open a new DRN if you would like, but you don't edit archives, it is not done. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was it archived in the first place if it wasn't concluded? If you practice completely retarded policies don't be surprised if rules get broken. Dispute not resolved but let's archive the Dispute Resolution anyway. Who does that? What did you expect? I simply added a line asking for it to be unarchived so that it could be resolved properly.Z07x10 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why and when things get archived, I suspect a bot does it, but I am not sure. I simply expect you to follow the rules, especially when in bold text at the top of the damned page it says not to edit it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, just as a wild suggestion, the bot should stop archiving DRs before resolved. It's kind of like getting work from a line manager and binning it.Z07x10 (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about Evolution Package 2

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-new-development-contract-for-eurofighter-typhoon.html

Is the bit about the radar finally installing a modern AESA rig, or just a patch for the legacy gear? Hcobb (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The date listed (end of 2015) would be about correct for that and would align with the introduction of Meteor, which I suspect has been set to that time to avoid having to effectively do integration twice (with CAPTOR and then with CAESAR).Z07x10 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Move the radar developments to one place

Now that we have a revised schedule on yet another radar delay I think it's time to move the radar history into a single section, unless there's somebody who likes how the topic is scattered around the article. Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like it if it wasn't added piecemeal whenever some tiny, inconsequential and likely invalid news article crops up. I find it interesting that you are attacking several articles for their seeming scatteredness when you are the one making most of those additions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Requesting outside input as regards the interpretation of policy on this matter - Typhoon maximum speed.

The original press release stated the maximum speed of the Eurofighter as Mach 2.0+ in 2003. Several magazines and other sources have reprinted this figure in the interim. These do not class as secondary sources in my view because:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 From from the above: "Characteristics of a secondary source: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia." The magazines in question fulfill none of the criteria mentioned in the sentence above wrt the Typhoon Mach figure and have remained stagnant (not updated) since 2003.

Furthermore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain: "Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source? The answer is: not always. If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source. The text and images of the proclamation always remain primary sources."

More recently the Austrian Airforce has quoted the maximum speed of the Typhoon as 2,495kph at 10,975m. This calculates as Mach 2.35 at ISA conditions (see DRN link). Furthermore this capability has been confirmed by the manufacturer Eurofighter GmbH as possible with a given fuel load etc. (see DRN link). In light of the fact that these are two good primary sources and in the absence of any true secondary sources (with independent analysis or verification of the top speed capability) I move that the speed be changed to Mach 2.35, or at least noted that 2,495kph at 10,975m corresponds to Mach 2.35 at ISA for the benefit of users not familiar with the calculation. At present the article reads "Maximum speed: At altitude: Mach 2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m)".Z07x10 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • You requested an interpretation on policy, you made the suggestion on this talk page and nobody else has accepted it sticking to the current consensus. Raising it in different forums to change consensus doesnt appear to have had much effect so clearly the talk page consensus to use Mach 2 is ok and the Wikipedia:Consensus is working fine. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting an interpretation on policy relating to biased consensus flying in the face of respectable source material and on how 'reliable' source information should be defined exactly. At the moment I feel some people have misinterpreted reprints of legacy primary sources as secondary sources, whilst ignoring more up-to-date sources both primary and secondary. The policy on sources is also being inconsistently applied. For instance, in the F-22 article, we have Mach 2.25 stated based on one magazine article that doesn't specify (a) where it got that figure from or (b) what altitude it's at. We also have multiple primary sources for that aircraft stating 'Mach 2 class' with multiple reprints of that in other magazines. Then in this article we have a figure with a specified altitude from a national airforce (also verified by the manufacturer as possible) being ignored. Furthermore you don't understand Wikipedia:Consensus:
"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote."
Therefore your interpretation of 'consensus' is incorrect. An encyclopedia shouldn't be turned into a popularity contest. That's why I'm inviting uninvolved people to the dispute to interpret actual policy as per Wikipedia:Consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is always going to be biased if nobody agrees with you, thats life, you made a suggestion but if you cant convince other editors to agree to the change then the consensus is not to make that change. The escalation of consensus building outside of the talk page is only when two people or two groups cant agree, in this case as far as I can see nobody has agreed with your suggestion so consensus is clearly working, if you cant convince editors on this page then perhaps you need to consider the essay WP:DROPTHESTICK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Your sight is obviously impaired. You will see that two other editors have agreed with me along the way - Bushranger and Julian H. I'm trying to find out exactly what a consensus is. It's not unanimity, nor is it a matter of counting editors, as you continually insist on incorrectly implying. Surely it should be an agreement on the consistent interpretation and application of policy as regards sources, which currently isn't happening as I've already explained very clearly.Z07x10 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to have this RFC, could somebody please present a neutral summary of the issue and question at hand? So far this seems like the middle of an argument that already saw several other venues.  — daranz [ t ] 13:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, several other venues, and always with the same result for quite a while now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
But Z07x10 still refuses to drop the stick, so maybe it's time to, as MilborneOne suggested, take the stick away from him... Thomas.W talk to me 13:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
In essence, we have several sources, secondary ones, that say Mach 2.0 and one primary source that says Mach 2.35. Currently the article uses Mach 2.0+ I believe. ZO wants it to be 2.35 based on the primary source. Others have disagreed. ZO has taken this to DRN, twice, to arbcomm and opened discussions twice at Village Pump to talk about this. The current consensus has won the day each time. That is my reading of it. I am, however, an involved editor here.Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi daranz, I'll do my best but I'm happy for others to chip in. The original official press release for the Eurofighter stated Mach 2+ and this has been confirmed by Eurofighter GmbH as the official figure in a communication with Julian H provided in the recent DRN discussion. Paraphrasing, they say they state this vague figure because the actual value depends on load, altitude and configuration, as you would expect. It has been stated as either '2', 2.0', '2+' or '2.0+' in several other sources like Jane's etc. Others contest that these are secondary sources, however I contest that they are not because they haven't conducted any independent analysis to arrive at those figures, nor have they arrived at it through testing, they are merely parroting the original release. More recently the Austrian Airforce has stated 2,495kph at 10,975m link, which is a fairly specific figure from a respectable source that actually uses the aircraft. Eurofighter GmbH, in their correspondence, have confirmed this as being possible under specific loading, configuration etc. These figures are already included in the article. I would like to add a note pointing out that this equates to approximately Mach 2.35 under ISA conditions for the benefit of people who can't figure that out for themselves anyway (many can). However this edit has faced significant objections on the grounds that more sources say 'Mach 2/2+'. However my position is that if a flaw can't be found with the new source, and it is backed up by Eurofighter GmbH, then there's no reason to ignore it on the grounds that other sources are simply mirroring the original release, often with 'rounding'. As you can see it has become a charged debate and I'd like to refocus it on the actual evidence/sources and the application of policy in categorising/using sources..Z07x10 (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Just for others interested in the debate the article says Mach 2.0+ which is supported by the reliable sources and the Eurofighter letter which z07x10 refers to as the official figure and the article also mentions the Austrian sourced 2,495kph at 10,975m then I understand all z07x10 wants to do is to add the note that the Austrian figure can be calculated to be Mach 2.35 although that is not actually in any of the quoted sources. The Eurofighter letter (although not really a reliable source) supports the article as is. So the RFC is not really about policy it is all to do with can z07x10 add in a figure not supported by sources that he calculated himself. Consensus so far is that he cant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The note I intended to add was merely to state that 2,495kph at 10,975m calculates as approximately Mach 2.35 assuming ISA conditions, which is a simple fact supported by Wiki itself [[27]]. If you like we can also include in the note that it may or may not have been at ISA conditions and add calculations for a 10degC shift either way, which would give a likely range of 2.3 to 2.41.Z07x10 (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, stop it, what you're doing is just plain silly. Go find another hobby, as it is you're just wasting everyone's time here. Thomas.W talk to me 20:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me like it'd be reasonable to at least indicate that the Mach 2+ and the airspeed at altitude numbers come from separate sources, to avoid giving the impression that the latter was calculated from the former (as it was not). As to including a note (footnote?) to say that the airspeed at altitude values evaluate to a Mach number of 2.35 with standard atmosphere, my primary concern would be whether or not such a calculation is sufficiently routine to avoid being OR. I'd lean toward "no" as an answer to that particular question.  — daranz [ t ] 20:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should stick to saying Mach 2+. This is a military aircraft so all published figures should be expected to inaccurate or even intentionally misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Daranz - I agree that it would be an idea to mention that they come from different sources as well as quoting what Eurofighter GmbH has to say about the other figure. The calculation can be found at this link [[28]] and it's also used on the German wiki page on the same article [[29]] along with the '2.35' figure. There's also a very interesting analysis from another editor in the Appendix of that page suggesting that the Mach 2 figure originated from testing of the DA2 development aircraft in 1997 which used Mk.104 RB199 engines [[30]], which offer only 73kN compared to the >90kN delivered by the EJ200s. It should also be noted that the German article was arrived at by an entirely independent consensus between other editors without my involvement. Only recently did I post on their talk page to try get them involved here.
Wrt the calculation, it's well established among aerodynamicists that Speed of Sound = sqrt[gamma * Universal gas constant * Temperature]. The universal gas constant is 287 J kg−1 K−1 and the temperature under ISA conditions is 288.15K at sea level and falls 6.5K every 1000m up to 11,000m (the troposhere) where it is 216.65K. Therefore at 10,975m Speed of Sound under ISA ~ sqrt[1.4 * 287 * 216.65] = 295.04m/s = 1,062kph. 2495/1062 = 2.35. I'm more than happy to include this calculation with appropriate links and explanation.Z07x10 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
A) It doesn't matter what the German Wikipedia says since each language version is totally independent of the others, and B) read WP:CALC, which says that your calculations can not be added to the article unless there is a consensus among other editors to add it, which there isn't. Thomas.W talk to me 12:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Z0 has been told these things a number of times, but ignores them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I am confused. Surely, translating a speed at a given altitude to a Mach number ought not to be controversial? It is otherwise clear that the performance of a plane depends on its loading.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Just leave it as it is and invest your energy in making Wikipedia better. This has been going on for far too long. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We should leave it as Mach 2+ and Z07x10 should stop trying to change this to Mach 2.35 because there is no consensus Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
CyrilleDunant - Nor do I. I'm trying to use the fact that it is a simple conversion to build a consensus and so far the only objection I'm getting is that it shouldn't be used because of 'consensus', which is circular logic, in that a previous consensus is being used as the sole reason to block the formation of a new consensus with a complete absence of reasoning.Z07x10 (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thmoas.W - Please read your own link fully, quote from WP:CALC "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."Z07x10 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call calculating a Mach number from airspeed at altitude a trivial unit conversion. It's on the level of calculating the weight of water given the dimensions of its container—it involves the use of non-trivial formulas and lookup tables. WP:CALC refers to much simpler arithmetic.  — daranz [ t ] 15:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your mathematical background. There are a number of formulae relating pressure and temperature at altitude, e.g. P = Psl(T/Tsl)^5.26 = Psl(1 - [2.26x10^5 * H])^5.26, where sl = sea level and H = height in metres (up to 11,000m). I understand that pressure and temperature do vary about the ISA conditions but then gravity doesn't always exactly = 9.80665m/s^2 either. So long as we clearly state that we're assuming ISA conditions then it won't be misleading and the variance with temperature is fairly small, +/-10degC gives a Mach difference of -/+0.05 respectively. It's perhaps not as trivial as lb to kg, which is why it actually improves the encyclopedia by adding it (for those without the necessary knowledge), whereas I suspect most people can convert lb to kg in their head.Z07x10 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
its not just the calculation, its also your cherry-picked sources that mean that you are unable to establish consensus Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you care to elaborate on that accusation that you've now made several times so that I can thoroughly debunk it once and for all. The only officially released figure says 'Mach 2+'. Any other number is either the result of 'rounding' as stated by Eurofighter GmbH, e.g. 'Mach 2', or it is a statement of normal operating maximums intended to reduce O&S costs, or applicable to performance with drop tanks, hence not the 'maximum speed'. So the Austrian Airforce figure does not disagree with the only real source and has in fact been confirmed as possible by them. If you think there are any other actual sources besides Eurofighter GmbH (BAE SYSTEMS and EADS) and the Austrian Airforce please cite them and I'll explain why they aren't sources wrt to 'the maximum speed', e.g. because no new information on 'the maximum speed' actually originated there.Z07x10 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
What part of "you can NOT make the edit unless you have the support of a clear consensus" is it that you don't understand? You have tried to raise the matter in every venue there is, and then some, but have still not managed to get any support for your edit. So just drop it. Thomas.W talk to me 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
^The last resort of someone who can't make a logical case - anger. Still also ignoring the people who have taken my side too, because if you shout loudly enough that will make your argument more sensible won't it?Z07x10 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not angry, I just find your behaviour incredibly childish. Adults usually know when to drop the stick, children don't. And the one or two editors who briefly supported your views obviously stopped supporting you long ago since they're not here. Thomas.W talk to me 17:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Not one of your last 5 or 6 posts on this page has even debated the issue at hand, you're just shouting. Such unconstructive comments in a mediation would be grounds for a report. It's precisely because of attitudes like yours that counter support has backed away from the discussion. Either constructively debate the issue or leave the debate.Z07x10 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not shouting, I'm just trying to make you understand that this isn't going your way. Thomas.W talk to me 17:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC) (And it's not up to you to decide who can and who can not take part in this debate. Getting desperate?)
I agree with Thomas.W. Z07x10, I and others are not interested in discussing this with you further. You don't have consensus so you can either accept that and go and do something useful or leave Wikipedia. Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If you don't have any valid debating points to counter my points, simply leave the discussion, you don't have to discuss it any further.Z07x10 (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There is consensus against your view, stop trying to bore us into submission.Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how many discussion boards are left but the failure to offer valid counter-points has been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#Non-consensus without valid counter-points, I suspect User:Z07x10 may be running out of discussion boards to raise this on before the horse can rest in peace. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Mztourist - There is consensus without any valid counter-points against the case I've submitted. Science by vote.Z07x10 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
There is consenus against you, yet you continue to forum-shop to try to satisfy your obsession with this pointMztourist (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
With good reason, because this problem is not article specific, it applies to the whole site and questions the entire wiki consensus article itself. Consensus isn't supposed to be about a show of hands according to the article, it's supposed to be about valid points, yet here it has devolved into a mere show of hands from a mob with no salient points that stand up to the light of day.Z07x10 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment from an uninvolved author, I think it is pretty clear that consensus hasn't been reached and the RfC creator gathered no support from this and other venues, also this discussion got out of control it is too much threaded. I am in favor of its closure Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved editor. A good RfC has a succinct and neutral summary that presents both sides of the story and offers a clear choice: A or B. This RfC doesn't do that and had the added distraction of a long heated debate under the initial statement. I don't see any hope for it successfully clarifying the issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight tests with Storm Shadow missile started

http://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2013/11/eurofighter-typhoon-flight-tests-with-storm-shadow-missile-started --HDP (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ribble tides at Warton

[31]: "Construction is so sensitive that the jets are placed on floating platforms in the massive assembly hall to counter the movement of tides in the nearby Ribble Estuary." 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Italy to dump 5th gen for Eurofighter?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140209/DEFREG01/302090010

Does anybody have a more detailed source on this? Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon/Archive_5&oldid=1143536759"