| Revision as of 11:11, 18 June 2015 editZ07x10 (talk | contribs)1,605 edits →Survey← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:42, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,083 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (281 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Aviation | |||
| {{WPAVIATION|class=B <!-- B-Class checklist --> | |||
| |B-Class-1=yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> | |B-Class-1=yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> | ||
| |B-Class-2=yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |B-Class-2=yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| |B-Class-5=yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |B-Class-5=yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | ||
| |Aircraft=yes }} | |Aircraft=yes }} | ||
| {{WikiProject Military history|class=B |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes |Aviation=yes |British=yes |French=yes |German=yes |Weaponry=yes}} | |||
| {{WPMILHIST|class=B <!-- B-Class checklist --> | |||
| {{WikiProject Europe|importance= }} | |||
| |B-Class-1=yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> | |||
| {{WikiProject Germany|importance=low}} | |||
| |B-Class-2=yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |||
| {{WikiProject NATO|importance= }} | |||
| |B-Class-3=yes <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
| |B-Class-4=yes <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| |B-Class-5=yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
| |Aviation=yes |British=yes |French=yes |German=yes |Weaponry=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Europe |class=B |importance= }} | |||
| {{WikiProject NATO|class=|importance= }} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{ |
{{Press|year=2004|section=March 2004 (30 articles) | ||
| |title=Budget pays attention to the poor, but... | |title=Budget pays attention to the poor, but... | ||
| |org=The Straits Times | |org=The Straits Times | ||
| |date=March 16, 2004 | |date=March 16, 2004 | ||
| |url=http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,240668,00.html}} | |url=http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,240668,00.html}} | ||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=365|dounreplied=yes}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive index | |target=Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive index | ||
| Line 33: | Line 27: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 7 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | ||
| Line 39: | Line 33: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| {| class="{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk messagebox" style="background-color: {{{1|Lavender}}}; border: 1px solid {{{2|Thistle}}}" | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Hinterstoisser Air Base) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Hinterstoisser Air Base","appear":{"revid":315195385,"parentid":311988829,"timestamp":"2009-09-20T23:40:11Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":755987273,"parentid":745798511,"timestamp":"2016-12-21T09:07:07Z","replaced_anchors":{"Air defence systems":"Other air defence systems"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| |- | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Typhoon FGR4) ]. <!-- {"title":"Typhoon FGR4","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":465851613,"parentid":465849370,"timestamp":"2011-12-14T17:46:41Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| | ] | |||
| }} | |||
| | <div align="center">This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to ] when commenting here.</div> | |||
| |} | |||
| == Hardpoints == | |||
| Currently the article suggest 13 hardpoints (5 fuselage and 4 on each wing), however this shows 15 (5 fuselage plus 5 on each wing - 2 inside drop tank, 2 outside it) although 2 of them are rarely used.] (]) 18:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 13:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The article doesn't ''suggest'' anything, the information in the article about 13 hardpoints is based on a reliable secondary source, whereas your claim about there being 15 hardpoints is original research, since it's your personal interpretation of a picture you've found on Flickr, with no reliable sources of any kind to back it up. And it's very much your own personal interpretation of the picture, because those protrusions can be just about anything, from additions to improve airflow to chaff dispensers... ] ] 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there one single ] that clearly states that the aircraft has 15 hardpoints? If so, go ahead and use it. It seems rather amazing that you might be the only person to have discovered this new "fact". It sounds like it would be quite an attractive design feature that the manufacturers would want to advertise very enthusiastically. ] (]) 17:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == RCS 1/4 that of Rafale == | |||
| ] believes that is a reliable source. Having never heard of the publication or writer before as experts on aviation topics I disagree. The statement relied upon on the 6th page states "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter" without providing any references for this weasel-worded statement. I do not believe that such a statement can be relied upon for inclusion on this page. ] (]) 03:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : No, I did not quite say or indicate that. I added a {{t1|vs}} (verify source) tag right after that reference so others can determine if the publication is reliable. The wording in this article clearly says it is a estimate (most RCS number generally are). I also tagged the previous sentence about the Eurofighter have an RCS better than RAF requirements. -] (]) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Given that actual experimental data on the RCS of modern aircraft is probably one of the most classified things about them, you can regard ALL public discussion on relative RCS as mere opinion. Some opinions are worth more than others, sure, but it really isn't going to be possible to verify any of the figures anyway - it certainly wouldn't be out of place, in my opinion, to state something on the wiki along the lines of: "Some sources claim that the RCS of the Typhoon could be as little as 1/4 of that of the Rafale." | |||
| Though without any data on the Rafale either, that hardly means anything by itself anyway. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Composites are more radar absorbent that metal and the Typhoon has a much lower metal content on its surface (higher composite. Rafale is 70% composite, Typhoon is 85% composite. I think that adds some weight to the argument to keep this note.http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/ Also of note is the recessed BVRAAM carriage on the Typhoon, whereas the Rafale carries it's missiles on pylons, which definitely increases frontal RCS. Other features of note - the Rafale has an external IFR probe and the MWS is stuck on a plank on the tail, which definitely isn't stealthy.http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm-ng_datasheet-1432732678.pdf The Typhoon's wings also have a higher sweep angle and both the tail height and canard-span are smaller. I think the evidence detailing composite percentage in surface area for the two aircraft supports the original statement, which is why I added it but ] deleted it.] (]) 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You need to provide WP:RS rather than two statements as to composite percentages linked by your own OR ] (]) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Heh, at least the sources I used are neutral. You linked a Rafale fan site as evidence. I linked an Indian study and information regarding composite percentage from both Eurofighter GmbH and Dassault. As regards your source, this statement is just plain wrong - "The vents for Eurofighter here offer the best technology for speed, without any consideration for any radar signature reduction" (http://www.portail-aviation.com/2013/11/dassault-rafale-vs-eurofighter-typhoon2_11.html) - as evidenced here - http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Feurofighter.airpower.at%2Ffaq.htm&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF-8 - "Signature-absorbing coating on the canards. The same coating is also found extensively on the air inlet, at the wing edges and on the vertical tail."] (]) 12:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] look who made the edits. They were made by IP 86.69.13.240, not me, I don't sock. Stop adding back your OR on composite percentages as proof of the Typhoon's stealthiness. I am very tired of your OR such as the claim of 15 hardpoints above or your tedious change to the Typhoon's top speed. ] (]) 12:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Desist immediately, composites having reduced radar reflection compared to metals is not original research, it's a scientific fact supported by multiple sources: | |||
| :::::http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/navy-experimenting-with-composite-superstructure-for-warships/articleshow/47056945.cms | |||
| :::::http://www.ramboats.com/why-ram.html | |||
| :::::http://nano.iphy.ac.cn/N04/papers/NO4_papers%20all%20pdf/HJ_Gao.0710.pdf | |||
| :::::http://www.deccanherald.com/pages.php?id=473934 | |||
| :::::http://www.scribd.com/doc/21038610/Composite-Materials#scribd | |||
| :::::Hell, even wikipedia itself supports this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Stealth_technology] (]) 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All I have stated is that Typhoon RCS is reduced by extensive used of composites on its surface, as stated on Eurofighter.com and then added percentages for composite usage as shown on Eurofighter.com and Dassault.http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/ | |||
| :::::This is 100% accurate and indisputable. That composites lower RCS relative to metals is supported by multiple sources and the percentage composite usage for each aircraft is confirmed by their respective manufacturers. This is wikipedia bread and butter source usage, not WP:OR.] (]) 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, you desist immediately. You are using OR yet again. You have produced two different composite percentages for Typhoon and Rafale and then linked them by saying because Typhoon has more composites it must therefore have a lower RCS, that linkage is your OR and so not acceptable. You must present a WP:RS that states that because the Typhoon has a higher % of composites than the Rafale that means that it has a lower RCS. It may be scientific fact that composites have lower RCS than metals, but this is by no means decisive. Who's to say that where the composites are used on each aircraft and their impact on RCS? Who knows how much of an impact the composites have on RCS as opposed to shielded air intakes or facetting? | |||
| :::::::How is it OR if I'm using sources and simply relaying what they say? I haven't stated that the Typhoon must have a lower RCS than the Rafale because it has a higher composite percentage, I've simply stated that composites helped reduce its RCS and given percentages for both aircraft. Entirely factual. You obviously don't understand what OR is. You are saying I've said things which I haven't. This is what I added in bold, where is the OR? According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. '''The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.''' Where is the OR in what I added? Source supports everything I added before it and source supports everything after it. You've imagined I've said something which I haven't. ] supported my edits. Wrt RAM coating and engine shielding, both aircraft have this, if you did a little research you'd realise this. The links already there support this in fact.] (]) 13:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The OR is the link you make between the different % of composites in Typhoon compared to Rafale and your conclusion that therefore Typhoon has a lower RCS. That is OR. You are already on 3RR on this edit. I note that in your last reversion you say you agreed the wording with ], where is that agreement? To spell this out in further detail for you, saying "Typhoon's surface area is 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite" is factual (if we accept primary sources) and not OR, but your words "Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part..." is your OR and not acceptable.] (]) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Nope, I did not make this link, you imagined it. This is what I added in bold, where is the OR? According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. '''The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.''' Where is the OR in what I added? Source supports everything I added before it and source supports everything after it. You've imagined I've said something which I haven't. ] agreed my edits and made only minor text/link trim adjustments.] (]) 13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] - You have also reverted more than 3 times using sock puppet accounts. Home PC, work PC, lap-top, mobile device, proxy servers, all unsigned edits. I've had the same problem with you before.] (]) 13:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I have deliberately avoided 3RRing here, unlike you. Your claims that I have socked and that you've had the same problem with me before are preposterous. I'm reporting you for 3RR/edit warring ] (]) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The history shows you 3RR'd first: | |||
| The history also show that you 3RR'd first: | |||
| '''1.''' (cur | prev) 12:14, 4 June 2015 Mztourist (talk | contribs) m . . (167,591 bytes) (-6) . . (→Radar signature reduction features) (undo | thank) | |||
| '''2.''' (cur | prev) 12:13, 4 June 2015 Mztourist (talk | contribs) . . (167,597 bytes) (-252) . . (→Radar signature reduction features: Z07x10 stop blaming me for edits I didn't do and stop adding your OR!) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 12:10, 4 June 2015 Z07x10 (talk | contribs) . . (167,849 bytes) (+144) . . (→Radar signature reduction features: Undone further bad faith non-agreed changes of Mzourist.] (]) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) | |||
| '''3.''' (cur | prev) 12:04, 4 June 2015 Mztourist (talk | contribs) . . (167,705 bytes) (-258) . . (→Radar signature reduction features: restored tag and removed OR; Z07x10 I didn't make and bad faith changes IP 86.69.13.240 did make changes while you keep trying to put in your OR, stop it!) (undo | thank) | |||
| (cur | prev) 11:58, 4 June 2015 Z07x10 (talk | contribs) . . (167,963 bytes) (+51) . . (Removed bad faith changes of Mzourist - biased source with grossly inaccurate information. Returned to changes previously agreed.] (]) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) | |||
| '''(cur | prev) 09:30, 4 June 2015 86.69.13.240 (talk) . . (167,912 bytes) (+22) . . (→Radar signature reduction features) (undo) | |||
| (cur | prev) 09:20, 4 June 2015 86.69.13.240 (talk) . . (167,890 bytes) (+147) . . (→Radar signature reduction features) (undo)''' LOL | |||
| '''4.''' (cur | prev) 16:57, 30 May 2015 Mztourist (talk | contribs) . . (167,743 bytes) (-220) . . (→Radar signature reduction features: restored tags and removed OR based on percentages of composite usage) (undo | thank)] (]) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Rubbish. You can discuss it at ANI ] (]) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Have done. You actually made a total of 6 reverts, breaking the 3RR twice over before accusing me. Despite waiting 24 hours it's still a breach and edit warring in principle. You made 2 reverts before Fnlayson's text trimming agreement and 4 thereafter. Well done, you just nailed yourself.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z07x10_reported_by_User:Mztourist_.28Result:_.29 There is no immunity for reporters: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Don%27t_shoot_yourself_in_the_foot] (]) 14:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I am the one who made these edits, not Z07x10. As I said in my edit comment, the ICPS study seems severely biased against Rafale, contains some inaccurate data and does not cite their source. It is not safe to assume that Rafale has 4 times bigger RCS than Typhoon ; that would mean EF has a RCS of less than 0,05m², which is a fairy tale. Objectively, Rafale features more RCS reduction measures by design than what the EF does (Rafale has a greater RAM coating fuselage, fixed air intakes (this is crucial ! Remember this is one of the key point of the low RCS of B-1B), serrated edges (completely absent on Typhoon)). Composite % is far from being the only parameter - remember that 1) composite is not fully radar transparent either 2) what is under the composite airframe (wiring, etc..) is even less radar transparent. Airframe design and shape are a much more prominent parameter. .] (]) 15:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Actually it isn't a fairy tale and this further source supports such an RCS for the Eurofighter. It says that a similar radar which detects an F-35 at 59km can detect a Eurofighter at 120km. A factor of two on range by the radar range formula gives a factor of 16 on RCS, which does indeed put the Eurofighter in this RCS ballpark by equation 14 in second link. | |||
| :::::::::::::::# | |||
| :::::::::::::::# | |||
| :::::::::::::::I will add these sources but leave the 'verification needed' tag in place to avoid upset. | |||
| :::::::::::::::Yeah, the rest of your comment is full of unsupported assumptions too. The ramp on the Typhoon intake is fixed geometry. Your assertion of greater RAM coating is unsupported and crucially the Rafale's surface area contains twice as much metal, which reflects radar much better than composites. Crucially the intake is also composite on the Typhoon but aluminium on the Rafale. | |||
| :::::::::::::::# | |||
| :::::::::::::::# | |||
| :::::::::::::::http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/] (]) 08:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Furthermore the Rafale has a wider canard span, external IFR probe and taller tail with an extremely unstealthy plank-like feature on it.http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm-ng_datasheet-1432732678.pdf | |||
| :::::::::::::::The Typhoon also has semi-recessed storage for 4 BVRAAMs whereas the Rafale's BVRAAM must be mounted on pylons, which is again very unstealthy. As for serrated edges - the F-22 doesn't have them on the intakes either, and it also uses fixed geometry ramps, myth busted.http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/files/images/F22%20front%20view%20tight.preview.jpg | |||
| :::::::::::::::This link also discusses how the Typhoon's radar is fundamentally stealthier than the Rafale's radar due to being tiltable (page 20-21).http://www.docdroid.net/12ngk/eurofighter-world-feb-15.pdf.html] (]) 08:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :] you have been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know that OR such as the WP:SYNTH that you are using with your multi RS/non-RS references to try to back up the claim that the Typhoon has RCS 1/4 that of Rafale is unacceptable. You have been warned for edit warring this point already, several other users other than myself have taken issue with your changes to this page over the last few days and if your behaviour doesn't change you will be at ANI again very quickly. ] (]) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I removed the synthesis from my original edit as requested by Thomas W., what's left are just supporting sources. Note I say 'supporting sources' not verification, which is why I left the 'verification needed' tag. The sources are perfectly reliable. Only the manufacturers of each aircraft know the composite percentages, what other source could they possibly come from, since no one else would know without first getting the information from the manufacturer. The other source is a secondary source, where's the problem? I'm happy for you to add this to the DRN discussion also.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale] (]) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You continue to try to argue the same point you edit-warred previously. Your "supporting sources" are a mix of RS and non RS linked by your Synth. You are just adding a lot of spurious information because you can't find a reliable source that clearly supports the claim. | |||
| '''I request all interested Users to form a consensus on whether or not this is acceptable''', for me obviously I '''Oppose''' ] (]) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not the same as my previous edit because I have left the verification tag in situ and also given text comparison between composite percentages in the same paragraph. Note previous edit: | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665467470&oldid=665464629 | |||
| ::Current edit: | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665778918&oldid=665778690] (]) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You really don't seem to understand WP:SYNTH because you persist in doing it. In any event http://www.radartutorial.eu/ is a self-published blog and so not WP:RS, while Eurofighter world is a marketing magazine produced by Eurofighter and so a primary source and any statements contained there are questionable. ] (]) 18:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay I looked it up. I have now broken it out into individually sourced sentences of completely supported facts to comply with 3rd example on the wiki OR/synthesis page, which is marked as correct: | |||
| ::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material | |||
| ::::As regards the radartutorial site it contains text book material and is written by a radar specialist called Christian Wolff who owns a company that produces radar systems and radar components in the 1-25GHz range, so as sources go, it's as good as it gets. | |||
| ::::http://www.radartutorial.eu/html/author.de.html | |||
| ::::Primary sources are not prohibited by wikipedia and in certain cases they are the only way of obtaining the information. | |||
| ::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources] (]) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regarding http://www.radartutorial.eu/html/author.de.html, see ], which states "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" so unless you can back up his blog with evidence that he is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", its not RS. ] (]) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::His work is published in books: | |||
| ::::::http://www.scribd.com/doc/89626942/Radar-Tutorial#scribd | |||
| ::::::http://www.radartutorial.eu/druck/Book3.pdf | |||
| ::::::http://www.radartutorial.eu/druck/Book2.pdf | |||
| ::::::And referred to by other published sources | |||
| ::::::http://tapchi.vnu.edu.vn/upload/2015/01/1546/5.pdf | |||
| ::::::http://www.richardsonrfpd.com/resources/RellDocuments/SYS_28/Richardson-RFPD_Basic-Principles-of-Radar.pdf | |||
| '''::::::Not to mention the fact that the radar equation on that page is a well established mathematical fact published on wikipedia already, which you would have found out very easily if you'd taken a little time: | |||
| ::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Radar#Radar_equation''' | |||
| ::::::I have now added this source as verification of original but frankly a quick google would readily turn up this equation on multiple sites dealing with radars and you would find it in any radar text book.] (]) 07:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source. I cannot open the 1st site, the 2nd and 3rd are just links back to the radar tutorial site, the 4th site refers to two publications written by the radar tutorial site owner, it is not clear who published them, while the 5th is just an abbreviation of an extract from the radar tutorial site. These do not meet the criteria that the radar tutorial site owner is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If the radar equation is indeed "a well established mathematical fact" as you say you should have no difficulty in finding WP:RS for it, rather than continuing to push dubious sources. ] (]) 08:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Page 2.6: | |||
| ::::::::http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf '''taken from''' http://www.amazon.com/Radar-Handbook-Third-Merrill-Skolnik/dp/0071485473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433666995&sr=8-1&keywords=radar+handbook '''author also wrote''' http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Merrill+Skolnik&search-alias=books&text=Merrill+Skolnik&sort=relevancerank | |||
| ::::::::http://uk.mathworks.com/help/phased/ug/radar-equation.html#btdelm7 | |||
| ::::::::http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/courses/details/EDP306 | |||
| ::::::::http://ece.wpi.edu/radarcourse/Radar%202010%20PDFs/Radar%202009%20A%20_4%20Radar%20Equation.pdf | |||
| ::::::::http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf | |||
| ::::::::http://copradar.com/rdrrange/ | |||
| ::::::::http://www.everything2.com/title/Radar+Range+Equation | |||
| ::::::::Now tell me the IEEE, Matlab and The University of Alabama are wrong too. Are any of these sources good enough?] (]) 08:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So all of these are new sources rather than further attempts to justify the use of the radar tutorial site? You only need to provide one RS, the University of Alabama is a RS and so if you can indicate where in the paper is the calculation you are relying on and give a proper citation that will be acceptable. ] (]) 10:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Page 14, Equation 2-35: | |||
| :::::::::http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf | |||
| :::::::::I'll insert this and remove the radar tutorial link.] (]) 10:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Orphaned references in ] == | |||
| I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. | |||
| <b>Reference named "Qatar":</b><ul> | |||
| <li>From ]: {{cite news| url= http://www.lemonde.fr/economie-francaise/article/2015/04/30/le-qatar-va-acheter-24-avions-rafale_4625561_1656968.html |title= Le Qatar va acheter 24 avions Rafale |work=Le Monde|language=French|last=Gallois |first=Dominique |date=30 April 2015|accessdate=30 April 2015}}</li> | |||
| <li>From ]: {{cite web|title=Qatar Airways confirms order for 80 A350 XWBs and adds three A380s|publisher=Airbus|url=http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_06_18_qatar_A350_A380.html | accessdate=25 October 2009 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080622022241/http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_06_18_qatar_A350_A380.html|archivedate=22 June 2008 }}</li> | |||
| </ul> | |||
| I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. ]] 04:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Now fixed. This thread could be deleted.] (]) 07:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rafale== | |||
| Trying to understand the issues in recent disputes, we seem to be comparing the Typhoon with the Rafale, as we dont normally compare aircraft in these articles can anybody explain why we need the paragraph "According to the RAF.." and why it cant just be removed, thanks. ] (]) 18:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A very good point. I can't really see the justification for it either. ] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would be happy to see it deleted. ] (]) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::It should further be noted that the source being cited for the comparison is being misrepresented - it actually reads "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter." 'May appear.' A vague assertion rather than a specific statement about radar cross sections. Nothing to do with the RAF either. ] (]) 09:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>Simply replace with a ]. ] (]) 09:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
| ::::And incidentally, the statement that "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements" is unsourced. ] (]) 10:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yup, kill it. ] (]) 11:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They are both reliable sources. I have removed the bit about RAF requirements already. It was correct but can't be sourced. Globalsecurity.org and ipcs.org are used over 500 times each in wikipedia and have very good credentials.http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ , http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm. Comparisons are not new in fighter articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15 , https://en.wikipedia.org/North_American_F-86_Sabre and are inline with policy. Obviously ] the size of return from a aircraft is proportional to RCS - that is established fact therefore not OR/synthesis. The sources after the 'Detection Range' sentence point this out - a good reason for keeping the paragraph, you read it and learn something.] (]) 20:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Aside from that the paragraph contains some good sources and information about composite percentages and the Typhoon radar wrt RCS.] (]) 20:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Evidently WP:RS is another policy you have difficulty understanding. There is no such thing as an abstract 'reliable source' - it always depends on what a source is being cited ''for''. And no, we don't cite a sources own opinion of itself as evidence of reliability. ] (]) 20:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], are you here to build an encyclopedia by means of consensus or just to continually battle for your own view of how things should be? ] (]) 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm here to build an encyclopedia based on wikipedia policy. There are two sources stating that the Typhoon has a lower RCS, ipcs.org and globalsecurity.org (in two separate articles). These sources are each used over 500 times in wikipedia already. I can't find a single reliable neutral source that states a counter opinion. | |||
| :http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf | |||
| :http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm | |||
| :http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm | |||
| A further source compares it to the F-35 wrt detection range, which is proportional to the 4th root of RCS. This can be back calculated to a figure much lower than the Rafale (i.e. 2^4 ~ 16 times F-35 RCS) using the radar equation and estimates of the F-35 frontal RCS. I think the point is very well sourced overall. | |||
| http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html | |||
| http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf] (]) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regarding the reliability of the sources being cited, it should be noted that the ipcs source states that "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter", whereas globalsecurity.org gives a figure of 1 m<sup>2</sup> for the Rafale, and 0.5 m<sup>2</sup> for the Typhoon. I think we can thus safely conclude at that at least one of them must be wrong. Though frankly, if the figure globalsecurity.org gives for the F-35 (0.005 m<sup>2</sup>) is correct (which is of course open to question, along with the other data), I suspect that our readers might think we were comparing the Typhoon with the wrong aircraft, or at least omitting a comparison which may be seen as more significant. ] (]) 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| RCS varies depending on aspect angle and the ratio of frontal RCS will be different to the ratio of all aspect RCS, or an average covering a given arc. I suspect the globalsecurity.org figure covers a frontal arc and the ipcs.org figure covers only a head-on frontal aspect but that is only opinion. The globalsecurity.org figures are actually an accumulation of different aspects for different aircraft, which is why there are 3 given for the B-2. '''I am happy to change the wording to 2-4 times as opposed to 4 and give both sources in the interests on neutrality if we can agree on that.''' The ratio wrt the F-35 varies with angles, the koreatimes source leads to a lower ratio of ~16 times but yes, from some angles it may be 100 times the F-35 RCS. We could include a statement to that affect too.] (]) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure it's appropriate to add anything based on your suspicions. ] (]) 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There is a clear consensus, me, ], ], ] , ] and ] all oppose the inclusion of the paragraph, but ] continues to forum-shop and wikilawyer to try to 'win' ] (]) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I resent that allegation coming from a person who alleged OR, which was then ruled against by Robert McClenon because the alleged synthesised point was already mentioned in the first source, which you didn't read. I recommend that both you and Andy read more and write less. That way, you may one day have an informed opinion on something rather than just an opinion.] (]) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Robert McLenon hasn't 'ruled against' anything. His participation as a voluntary DRN moderator gives him no authority to make rulings, and he has at no time suggested that he has any such authority - I suggest you stop misrepresenting what he says. ] (]) 14:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Funny, you are the one who writes these vast tracts that people can't be bothered reading. As I have said to you before, drop the stick and devote your energy to creating non-contentious content rather than picking fights ] (]) 11:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I have moved the RFM here, because the last one didn't get processed by the Bot.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2] (]) 09:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::z07x10... it might help if you could you explain ''why'' you think this article needs to include the comparison in the first place. The vast majority of our aircraft articles don't contain comparisons to other aircraft... so why should ''this'' article be different? ] (]) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The ] and ] articles include comparisons and I think it should be included simply because the information exists in reliable sources and more information makes for a better encyclopedia. Both aircraft were developed in the same time frame in Europe and therefore the comparison is an interesting and relevant one given the history of the EFA party split.] (]) 07:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == I intend to start an RfC on the RCS issue, and allow the community to decide the matter. == | |||
| As I have made clear at ], I do not think mediation is necessary when normal community processes for resolution have not been attempted, and accordingly I will (unless specifically instructed not to by someone in a position to do so) be starting an RfC on the issue. In the interests of fairness, it is clearly appropriate to discuss the precise wording of the RfC first. Accordingly, I ask Z07x10 (or anyone else supporting the section on RCS) to first provide an updated version of the proposed wording, if it is felt that it needs revision in the light of new sources. I see no reason why the wording of the RfC itself need be more complex than a simple "Should the following text on comparative radar cross sections be included in the article?", but if anyone has an alternative suggestion, please do so. | |||
| I would ask that people please stay on topic here, and confine discussion strictly to the proposed wording of the RfC - other issues can be discussed in appropriate threads. ] (]) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I support this approach ] (]) 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>I thought we did have a consenus above not to include the section with only Z07 wanting it to be added, but if you ignore that consensus and think we need an RFC than how about something like ''Should an exception be made in the "Radar signature reduction features" section to discuss the RCS of the Rafale or F-35 which have no relevance to Typhoon design features.'' ] (]) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)</s> Struck suggestion as I believe we already have a consensus to remove the section. ] (]) 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::RfC questions are supposed to be neutrally worded. ] (]) 16:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with MilborneOne. Especially since 1) we usually don't do aircraft to aircraft comparison 2) the sources don't seem to be reliable for the claims and 3) the rest is OR/Synth. --] (]) 21:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The synthesis allegation has already been rejected by ] because the first source states composite percentage as a reason for the RCS difference, therefore I'm not synthesising that point.] (]) 06:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Normally I'd agree with ] that this would be a simple matter of consensus. But I feel an RfC, as suggested by ], may be required to examine very thoroughly Z07x10's view that Misplaced Pages policy supports his position, as he so vehemently claims. ] (]) 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I don't support this approach because there is already an RFM in play and participants should either settle the matter there or drop their case.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2 Why have you refused to do so ]?] (]) 06:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mediation looks certain to be rejected. Are you going to propose new wording for the text on RCS, or do you want me to go ahead with the existing wording? That is the only reply needed here, as this RfC is going to happen, with or without your participation, and if you don't propose alternate wording, I will have to assume you are still supporting the existing material. ] (]) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Because we want a binding decision to end this discussion ] (]) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You know, if this would settle this whole mess once and for all I would be fine with it. While there is pretty clear consensus not to include the material I am fine with an RFC. An RFC worded as suggested by Andy is fine by me. ] (]) 11:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::An RFM gives a binding decision as I understand it. A consensus is subject to change and challenge with time.] (]) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::We now have to wait for all the three late-comers at the RfM to "accept" or it will be declined. But we may have to wait until 10.37 on 22 June before a decision is taken. ] (]) 20:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::One has declined, so the RfM will no longer be accepted. ] (]) 07:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Types of Consensus=== | |||
| I agree as to an RFC. On the one hand, there is a consensus among the currently involved editors that we don't need the section comparing the RCS of the Eurofighter to that of the Rafale, with only Z07x10 disagreeing. On the other hand, an RFC can be publicized at the appropriate Wikiprojects, including the very active Military History project, and is also randomly publicized by Legobot, and would get a larger consensus. It would really be quite useful to get this consensus, because this issue has been going on for at least a year and a half. I would like to see the wording of the RFC before the bot tag is put on the RFC, so that we can review whether the wording is neutral. (A non-neutrally worded RFC is worse than useless, and many RFCs are non-neutrally worded are are useless or harmful.) ] (]) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Z07x10 doesn't support the RFC approach, saying that the RFM is already in play, and participants should either settle the matter there or drop their case. That itself appears to be a very non-neutrally worded statement. It appears to mean that participants should either agree with him and the mediator to include the RFC language or should drop their opposition to the language. The RFM will probably be declined, because no one except Z07X10 has agreed to mediation. In any case, I really have no idea why he thinks that mediation is the next step. Does he really think that, when light-weight moderated discussion at ] did not result in compromise, formal mediation will result in compromise? Is there anything to compromise? Either the language should be included, or the language should be excluded. Does Z07x10 really think that mediation will result in a decision to force the comparison language in? I really do not understand what Z07x10 expects to be gained by mediation. ] (]) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Some editors oppose an RFC because they think that there is already a consensus against the language. I agree that there is already a consensus against the language, but an RFC would be a larger consensus. We need to put this matter to rest, because Z07x10 doesn't want to let it drop, and has been going on about this matter for more than a year. ] (]) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| We don't usually do aircraft-to-aircraft comparison, but there isn't a policy or guideline that says that we don't do aircraft-to-aircraft comparison. That is why not to refer to an exception, and just ask whether to include the comparison language. ] (]) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If you wish to propose alternate wording for the RfC, please do so - I have already made specific a proposal ("Should the following text on comparative radar cross sections be included in the article?"). ] (]) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::That statement of the question is good, but of course needs to be followed by the paragraph that Z07X10 has tried to include in the past. ] (]) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] we probably need to make this a military/science question but I don't agree with the RFC process because consensus will only get challenged at a later date.] (]) 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't understand why you don't agree with the RFC process. Who, other than you, will challenge the consensus? You have been challenging the consensus against including the comparison for eighteen months. Do you just want to continue to argue, rather than to resolve it? ] (]) 18:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you had bothered to read my proposal above, you would have seen that I proposed to do exactly that. Though I would have thought that the words 'following text' would have made this obvious. ] (]) 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An RFM considers policy as well a head count, that is why I want it.] (]) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''Here is new wording proposed''', I have used 2 sources to give a wider indication of different views on RCS, mods in bold. I think that gives a fair and balanced account using different sources. | |||
| ''Sources have estimated the ]'s radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect.<ref>. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.</ref>{{vs|date=February 2015}}<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref>'''<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm</ref>''' Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes,<ref>http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft</ref><ref>http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a508/sigmafour1/TyphoonConstr_zpslgixpxjr.png</ref> whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.<ref>http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/</ref><ref>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png</ref> The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20140419074552/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf</ref>''An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar,<ref>http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html</ref> with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.<ref name="UA-Huntsville">{{cite web |last1=Budge, Jr. |first1=M.C. |title=Course Material EE619-2011 |url=http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf |publisher= University of Alabama in Huntsville |accessdate= 7 June 2015 |ref=Page 14, Equation 2-35}}</ref><ref name="Radar Handbook">{{cite book|last1=Skolnik |first1=Merrill |title=The Radar Handbook |date=12 Feb 2008 |publisher= McGraw-Hill Education |isbn=978-0071485470 |page=2.6 |edition=3rd |url=http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf |accessdate=7 June 2015}}</ref> Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined.<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref>'' | |||
| Those with issues should list them specifically. I believe the OR/synthesis issue is dead as agreed by ] on the NORN board. Reliability of sources - ipcs.org and globalsecurity.org are used thousands of times in wikipedia for military material. Two sources and two comparisons included for neutrality purposes. So I believe the only remaining issues is whether we do comparisons.] (]) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue is indeed whether to include the comparison paragraph. There are multiple reasons why some editors don't want the paragraph. I didn't '''rule''' on synthesis; I only offered an opinion, and other editors may disagree. Some editors still have issues with sources, and some with undue weight or NPOV. The issue is indeed whether to include the comparison paragraph, and an RFC is a way to decide that. ] (]) 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::So maybe the first RfC we need is to decide '''do we need any comparison at all'''? ] (]) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :How can that last source possibly support the final sentence? ] (]) 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :::My bad, I added the wrong source, fixed.] (]) 12:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Going Forward==== | |||
| I have created a section of this talk page called '''RFC''', but have not included the actual proposed paragraph. It isn't a real RFC yet because I haven't added the bot tag to it. When we have agreement that the RFC is neutrally worded on inclusion of the comparison paragraph, I will add the bot tag, and it will become a real RFC. That is how we can go forward. ] (]) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A complete waste of time. You can't start a sort-of-RfC then change it half way through. Which is why I asked that we sort the wording out first. ] (]) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. You can't change an RFC after the bot tag is applied. That is why we are working out the wording here. ] (]) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then work out the wording in the thread I have already created for the purpose (i.e. this one). Don't start a misleadingly-named sort-of-half-RfC on the underlying question. You ''cannot'' change the wording half way through without turning the whole procedure into a complete farce. ] (]) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are we in agreement on the wording? If anyone wants, I can strike through the draft and create a new final version. Was there an alternate proposal to include an RFC on whether to have comparisons at all? If so, we can run both. ] (]) 23:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There still hasn't been an explanation from ] as to what they think will be accomplished by mediation. ] (]) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not sure that there is any need for a separate 'do we have comparisons at all' RfC - the question can clearly be tweaked to say "...the following text or similar" or something like that. As far as I'm aware, nobody has proposed alternate text, and the general consensus seems to be that we don't want comparisons of the Eurofighter/Rafale RCS in the article at all. As for proposed wording, I'm personally not keen on asking if there is "a policy-based reason to exclude" the material - it seems to be leading the responder. A simple "should we include..." question implies nothing about policy either way. ] (]) 00:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] I'm trying to avoid a case of ] by going to RFM. I think it's important that complainants should have a policy-based reason as to why the content is wrong, rather than just opinion. I'm yet to see any sound policy-based reason against it.] (]) 07:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed RFC: Inclusion of Radar Cross-Section Comparison == | |||
| Is there a policy-based reason for excluding the following content from the article: | |||
| ''Some sources have estimated the ]'s radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect.<ref>. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.</ref>{{vs|date=February 2015}}<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref><ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm</ref> Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes,<ref>http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20150203042607/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf</ref> whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.<ref>http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/</ref><ref>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png</ref> The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20140419074552/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf</ref> An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar,<ref>http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html</ref> with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.<ref name="UA-Huntsville">{{cite web |last1=Budge, Jr. |first1=M.C. |title=Course Material EE619-2011 |url=http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf |publisher= University of Alabama in Huntsville |accessdate= 7 June 2015 |ref=Page 14, Equation 2-35}}</ref><ref name="Radar Handbook">{{cite book|last1=Skolnik |first1=Merrill |title=The Radar Handbook |date=12 Feb 2008 |publisher= McGraw-Hill Education |isbn=978-0071485470 |page=2.6 |edition=3rd |url=http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf |accessdate=7 June 2015}}</ref> Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined.<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref>'' | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| Include your !votes in the '''Survey''' section with brief statements as to reason. Do not include threaded discussion in the '''Survey''' section, but instead in the '''Threaded Discussion''' section. | |||
| </del> | |||
| ===Survey=== | |||
| FWIW, content looks fine to me, but then I did write it.] (]) 12:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == UK numbers usable == | |||
| Since this isn't an RfC, responses here are going to achieve precisely nothing, other than confusing the issue. We need to sort the wording out ''first'', and then ask for input. ] (]) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ], noted your revert here: ], hence ] (though the added information wasn't really <U>that</U> <B>]</B>). So: | |||
| ===Threaded Discussion=== | |||
| Can I ask why Robert McClenon thinks it remotely appropriate to start another thread on the proposed wording for the RfC, when we already have one? What exactly is this supposed to achieve beyond extending this seemingly-unending debate even longer? This is ''not'' an RfC (see ), and cannot be changed into one half way through - that is not only contrary to process, but more or less guaranteed to lead to more time-wasting. ] (]) 18:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Is the information encyclopedic? I think this is accepted. | |||
| Since this isn't an RfC, I suggest it be '''summarily closed as out of process'''. ] (]) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't see why it can't be, the wording looks pretty neutral although I felt an RFM would be better. Once you start adding opinions and points to the question then it's difficult to make it neutral, so let's just leave it as it is and let people decide if the content is out of whack with policy or not. ] (]) 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nobody has suggested adding 'opinions' to the question. And if you are going to edit your proposed text, please at least inform us of the fact. ] (]) 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You have eyes.] (]) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I do. Eyes which can see several obvious problems with your proposed content, regardless of whether it merits inclusion or not. But since you are happy with it, I'll leave such comments until the RfC. ] (]) 01:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :One thing I will however mention now is that you are '''citing content uploaded to Photobucket'''. Which shouldn't even be linked on a talk page - we have no way of knowing whether the copyright holder has authorised it (it appears to have been uploaded by a 'sigmafour1'), and neither do we have any way of verifying it as authentic. I seem to recall pointing this out before, and am surprised it hasn't been sorted out. ] (]) 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] the proposed RFC language looks fine and ] shouldn't make any futher changes to the contentious paragraph while this is subject to RFC review. ] (]) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm entitled to make whatever changes I like to improve the paragraph, e.g. avoiding alleged copyright violations that nobody actually cares about in this case.] (]) 08:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::He is going to have to do something about citing an apparent copyright violation. It is totally contrary to policy. ] (]) 03:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The photobucket image is from the Tech Guide, I'll link that instead.] (]) 07:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 2. Is the information correct? I don't know, but a RS says it is. Can another editor shed any light? | |||
| == RFC: Inclusion of Radar Cross-Section Comparison == | |||
| {{rfc|sci|pol}} | |||
| Is there a policy-based reason why the following content should not be included in the article? | |||
| 3. The removed material is from a standard ], but in this instance you believe the source is wrong. Can you ], or are you arguing that the claim is ]? I assume that it is not that you ]? | |||
| ''Some sources have estimated the ]'s radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect.<ref>. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.</ref>{{vs|date=February 2015}}<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref><ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm</ref> Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes,<ref>http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20150203042607/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf</ref> whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.<ref>http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/</ref><ref>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png</ref> The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20140419074552/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf</ref> An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar,<ref>http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html</ref> with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.<ref name="UA-Huntsville">{{cite web |last1=Budge, Jr. |first1=M.C. |title=Course Material EE619-2011 |url=http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf |publisher= University of Alabama in Huntsville |accessdate= 7 June 2015 |ref=Page 14, Equation 2-35}}</ref><ref name="Radar Handbook">{{cite book|last1=Skolnik |first1=Merrill |title=The Radar Handbook |date=12 Feb 2008 |publisher= McGraw-Hill Education |isbn=978-0071485470 |page=2.6 |edition=3rd |url=http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf |accessdate=7 June 2015}}</ref> Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined.<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref>'' | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| Include your !votes in the '''Survey''' section with brief statements as to reason. Do not include threaded discussion in the '''Survey''' section, but instead in the '''Threaded Discussion''' section. | |||
| With all respect, ] (]) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey=== | |||
| '''Support''' - all sources look reliable and are well used in Misplaced Pages and make the points outlined in the text.] (]) 08:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Number usable is not really of any encyclopedic value all fleets will have some aircraft in maintenance, short term or long term storage, it is not something we normally include in these articles. ] (]) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' for multiple reasons as detailed below: | |||
| 1. Not based on a WP:RS: If you read the source it is clearly a poorly-researched and referenced hatchet job on the Rafale, which is why it was tagged back in February. The paragraph relied on states that: ''"While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars. According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter. While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible."'' The first sentence assumes that as the Eurofighter Typhoon is constructed of more composites than the Rafale it is therefore stealthier, yet the later sources cited that show that the Typhoon is 85% composite while the Rafale is 70% composite, so saying that the Typhoon is mostly composites while the Rafale is ''"overwhelmingly metal"'' is clearly wrong. The writer of the article ignores all other aspects of stealth which are widely known and ironically also refers to the Rafale's ''"curvaceous layout"'' ignoring that this may be "continous curvature" as used on the ]. The second sentence is equally problematic, none of the ''"estimates"'' are cited and ''"may appear"'' is weasel wording. The final sentence makes it clear that both aircraft lose whatever steathiness they have when carrying munitions, it is well established that external storage leads to higher radar returns, but there is no mention of this in this paragraph. If there were reliable sources saying clearly that "the Eurofighter Typhoon is stealthier than the Rafale' but not as stealthy as the F-35" then I would not be oppoosed to some variation of this paragraph staying in but no such WP:RS for the Typhoon:Rafale comparison have been presented. ] (]) | |||
| ::'''1.Source reliability - There are two sources supporting the Rafale-Typhoon RCS comparison, both are used a thousand times on wikipedia and are very highly regarded.''' | |||
| ::'''Globalsecurity.org''' | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=globalsecurity.org&go=Go | |||
| ::http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/history.htm | |||
| ::http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm | |||
| ::'''IPCS.org''' | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=ipcs.org&go=Go | |||
| ::http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ | |||
| ::'''2. "Overwhelming metal" - The Rafale is overwhelmingly metal, but its surface area is not, but does still contain a higher proportion of metal as pointed out by the following sentences.'''] (]) 10:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for taking the time to set out your concerns here. On 1. - agreed. | |||
| 2. Its OR/Synth: To analyse the contentious paragraph: | |||
| ::2 and 3 are related. As I put in the edit summary I find the Daily Telegraph to be a good source normally, and have used it many times for other defence related topics. <s>It's fair to raise</s> ]. In answer I am happy to state I do not have strong feelings on this article overall, or this specific issue, nor do I have any conflict of interest (not asked, but just for the record). I do however have concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the cited article and therefore on the potential to mislead readers of this article. As well as the comments on Typhoons the article has some falsehoods and many many gross oversimplications. But to focus on the issue at hand: | |||
| ''"Some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect''<ref>. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 2012.</ref>{{vs|date=February 2015}} This was the original wording from February that all later edits seek to support. | |||
| ::The article states "The RAF, too, is pitiably run down. Its main ability to make war today resides in just one combat jet, the disastrous Eurofighter Typhoon. This plane is so expensive to operate that just 98 of the 160 purchased are potentially flyable." So let's leave aside the fact that the author's contempt is blatant here. But just on the facts this is a gross oversimplification. In contrast, read this analysis from the ]: | |||
| :::" "On serviceability rates, the RAF is well within the top cohort of air forces around the world," Bronk said. "Modern combat aircraft are complex and maintenance intensive to operate," ...adding that "a regular deep maintenance/upgrade cycle for each airframe" is a standard fleet-management practice around the world. Having 55 of the service's 156 Typhoons in sustainment is normal, Bronk added, "and actually better than most comparable fleets in NATO and elsewhere." | |||
| ::So if you are keen on including this "sustainment" vs "active" ratio, then in the interests of providing the full context you'd need to find and include the comparable servicability rates of all the other operators of the Typhoon? Germany has been reported as having much worse serviceability, e.g. It would also be necessary to provide the context that this active vs sustainment number is a common measure. The author misrepresents it as unique to the RAFs Typhoons because in his view its a "disastrous" aircraft. ] (]) 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hardly unique to have aircraft on maintenance, modification programmes, short or long-term storage, it would be of note if they were all flyable, again not really noteworthy for inclusion. 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also note the total fleet figures are way out in the business insider source as well, the RAF has just over 130 Typhoons so that makes the percentages generated wrong. ] (]) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with you. ] (]) 19:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ''Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes,<ref>http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft</ref><ref>hhttp://web.archive.org/web/20150203042607/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf</ref> whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.<ref>http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/</ref><ref>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png</ref>'' This side by side comparison of primary source information is Synth when read following the previous sentence. i.e the unspoken assertion is that Typhoon is steathier because it has a higher % of composites, while completely ignoring numerous other aspects that contribute the stealth. ] (]) | |||
| ::'''The first source states composite percentages as a reason for the RCS difference.http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf Therefore it can'tbe OR. You already lost this case on the OR noticeboard before your fishing expedition began.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#A_Summary.2C_and_Thoughts_to_Go_Forward'''] (]) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed that no fleet will have 100% serviceability, but what is noteworthy is the number of aircraft which are "in active fleet management, which can include aircraft in storage (to preserve airframe hours)" but excluding aircraft which are in the process of being disposed of. That information is available, so I will have a look and update the article accordingly, if indeed it is not up to date. ] (]) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ''The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20140419074552/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf</ref> This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar). ] (]) | |||
| :: |
::Updated - 101 in service (out of 139 total - which from the note in the table includes aircraft which "are in the process of being disposed of"). ] (]) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::Can any editor find a RS for what happened to the balance of 21 which have been disposed of, and what is the state of the 38 which are in the process of being disposed of? ] (]) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While we wait for reliable source, FYI some have been canaballised for parts, ] (]) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| ''An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar,<ref>http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html</ref> with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.<ref name="UA-Huntsville">{{cite web |last1=Budge, Jr. |first1=M.C. |title=Course Material EE619-2011 |url=http://www.ece.uah.edu/courses/material/EE619-2011/RadarRangeEquation(2)2011.pdf |publisher= University of Alabama in Huntsville |accessdate= 7 June 2015 |ref=Page 14, Equation 2-35}}</ref><ref name="Radar Handbook">{{cite book|last1=Skolnik |first1=Merrill |title=The Radar Handbook |date=12 Feb 2008 |publisher= McGraw-Hill Education |isbn=978-0071485470 |page=2.6 |edition=3rd |url=http://www.dsp-book.narod.ru/skolnik/7913X_02a.pdf |accessdate=7 June 2015}}</ref> Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined.<ref>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm</ref>'' I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft.] (]) | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| ::It says exactly what it says??? You haven't even made a point here??] (]) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-09-30T14:38:03.540945 | Cockpit of RAF Typhoon Fighter MOD 45152531.jpg --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Tranche 5? == | |||
| In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. No information is presented that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more effectively than the Typhoon. | |||
| Some news sources are calling the latest Tranche Germany are buying Tranche 5 not Tranche 4. Should we add Tranche 5 to the Production Summary Table? ] (]) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 3. Comparison of aircraft: there is a dearth of WP:RS on the issue of relative stealthiness of the Typhoon compared to the Rafale which is why the Indian article above and the OR/Synth are used. Comparison between aircraft on a page is unusual except where they met in combat such as the ] and ] and so the relative performance and success of the two is relevant for inclusion on both pages.] (]) | |||
| ::'''And the Typhoon and Rafale were developed by 2 rival manufacturers in the same time period following a split during the EFA project, hence this comparison is of interest too.'''] (]) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Tranche 5 is being used to refer to aircraft which have received the Long Term Evolution upgrade or built with it as new. The German order for 20 (which hasn’t been formally placed yet) would follow on from their 38 Tranche 4 (Quadriga) and be delivered in the 2030’s. ] (]) 08:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''The 'vote' has failed to respect policy and is hence just a vote and not a consensus.] The current vote is based on ] and has failed to argue any policy basis for its objection. It has also failed to consider any value in the wealth of content presented in this paragraph.'''] (]) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The term "Tranche 5" appears in the article once. Shouldn't this be explained in some way? What does the "Long Term Evolution upgrade" include? ] (]) 09:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Threaded Discussion=== | |||
Latest revision as of 08:42, 10 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eurofighter Typhoon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eurofighter Typhoon at the Reference desk. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
UK numbers usable
User:Mark83, noted your revert here: ], hence WP:BRD (though the added information wasn't really that B). So:
1. Is the information encyclopedic? I think this is accepted.
2. Is the information correct? I don't know, but a RS says it is. Can another editor shed any light?
3. The removed material is from a standard WP:RS, but in this instance you believe the source is wrong. Can you prove it, or are you arguing that the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I assume that it is not that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?
With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Number usable is not really of any encyclopedic value all fleets will have some aircraft in maintenance, short term or long term storage, it is not something we normally include in these articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to set out your concerns here. On 1. - agreed.
- 2 and 3 are related. As I put in the edit summary I find the Daily Telegraph to be a good source normally, and have used it many times for other defence related topics.
It's fair to raiseWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. In answer I am happy to state I do not have strong feelings on this article overall, or this specific issue, nor do I have any conflict of interest (not asked, but just for the record). I do however have concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the cited article and therefore on the potential to mislead readers of this article. As well as the comments on Typhoons the article has some falsehoods and many many gross oversimplications. But to focus on the issue at hand: - The article states "The RAF, too, is pitiably run down. Its main ability to make war today resides in just one combat jet, the disastrous Eurofighter Typhoon. This plane is so expensive to operate that just 98 of the 160 purchased are potentially flyable." So let's leave aside the fact that the author's contempt is blatant here. But just on the facts this is a gross oversimplification. In contrast, read this analysis from the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies:
- " "On serviceability rates, the RAF is well within the top cohort of air forces around the world," Bronk said. "Modern combat aircraft are complex and maintenance intensive to operate," ...adding that "a regular deep maintenance/upgrade cycle for each airframe" is a standard fleet-management practice around the world. Having 55 of the service's 156 Typhoons in sustainment is normal, Bronk added, "and actually better than most comparable fleets in NATO and elsewhere."
- So if you are keen on including this "sustainment" vs "active" ratio, then in the interests of providing the full context you'd need to find and include the comparable servicability rates of all the other operators of the Typhoon? Germany has been reported as having much worse serviceability, e.g. It would also be necessary to provide the context that this active vs sustainment number is a common measure. The author misrepresents it as unique to the RAFs Typhoons because in his view its a "disastrous" aircraft. Mark83 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hardly unique to have aircraft on maintenance, modification programmes, short or long-term storage, it would be of note if they were all flyable, again not really noteworthy for inclusion. 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also note the total fleet figures are way out in the business insider source as well, the RAF has just over 130 Typhoons so that makes the percentages generated wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. Mark83 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed that no fleet will have 100% serviceability, but what is noteworthy is the number of aircraft which are "in active fleet management, which can include aircraft in storage (to preserve airframe hours)" but excluding aircraft which are in the process of being disposed of. That information is available, so I will have a look and update the article accordingly, if indeed it is not up to date. Springnuts (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Updated - 101 in service (out of 139 total - which from the note in the table includes aircraft which "are in the process of being disposed of"). Springnuts (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Can any editor find a RS for what happened to the balance of 21 which have been disposed of, and what is the state of the 38 which are in the process of being disposed of? Springnuts (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- While we wait for reliable source, FYI some have been canaballised for parts, Mark83 (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Can any editor find a RS for what happened to the balance of 21 which have been disposed of, and what is the state of the 38 which are in the process of being disposed of? Springnuts (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Updated - 101 in service (out of 139 total - which from the note in the table includes aircraft which "are in the process of being disposed of"). Springnuts (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Tranche 5?
Some news sources are calling the latest Tranche Germany are buying Tranche 5 not Tranche 4. Should we add Tranche 5 to the Production Summary Table? 2A00:23C5:CFAA:AC01:54E3:DB43:2137:9491 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tranche 5 is being used to refer to aircraft which have received the Long Term Evolution upgrade or built with it as new. The German order for 20 (which hasn’t been formally placed yet) would follow on from their 38 Tranche 4 (Quadriga) and be delivered in the 2030’s. WatcherZero (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The term "Tranche 5" appears in the article once. Shouldn't this be explained in some way? What does the "Long Term Evolution upgrade" include? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- B-Class aviation articles
- B-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- B-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- Unknown-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- Low-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press