Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

UK numbers usable

User:Mark83, noted your revert here: [[1]], 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 raise WP: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."[2]

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. [3] 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, [4] Mark83 (talk) 09:48, 19 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:

• Cockpit of RAF Typhoon Fighter MOD 45152531.jpg

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)

Adjust internal fuel capacity.

The Eurofighter DA7 flight manual is available in NATO countries legally, I have this manual and I can link people to this manual and they can access it legally depending on where they live.

The stated useable internal fuel capacity is 4756kg. You can find this in section 1 page 118 of the flight manual. I checked the current reference for this number in wiki and it's just some random website. Baring some other reference or other important information, I intend to change this to the flight manual figure of 4756kg. I am not looking to change the range figure at this time, as that depends on so many things.

Any thoughts on this? Liger404 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)4996

See WP:V. References need to be verifiable. A manual in your personal possession is not verifiable, but if you can provide a link that can be verified then that's good. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true. Citing books is allowed on wiki. Many articles have it. This article has it. Anyway, here is one example of where you can get the flight manual. https://archive.org/details/da-7-flight-manual-2003 Liger404 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Archive.org isn't a publisher. All you have there is something somebody uploaded there. We have no way of knowing whether it was uploaded with permission, or without. We have no way of knowing if it is authentic. We have no way to determine the copyright status. If we cite a book (or anything else) we provide a proper citation to the publisher, not just an archive link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Its all over the web, you can buy it, it's for sale. The publisher is Eurofighter GmbH. I don't really see how the copyright status is important, I'm not looking to print copies of the book, I bought it, I own it, I can quote a number from it. No different to how I own some James books and am allowed to quote them. https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/product/eurofighter-typhoon/ Liger404 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would ask you to consider the validity of my document Vs the current source of the fuel capacity number, and random web page. Are you fairly applying the same standard to both? Liger404 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that something that can only be accessed legally in some countries would qualify as being 'published'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

There are countries where you can't read much of anything, like North Korea. It can be read in basically all western countries. In reality it can be read in all countries, but the classification level is "NATO nations only.". Liger404 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The document you link is clearly marked 'NATO RESTRICTED'. Which is a (low level) form of classification, for "information the unauthorized disclosure of which would be disadvantageous to the interests of NATO". Which clearly isn't a statement that it is freely distributable in NATO countries. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You can read this and other material in the national archives in the UK. Although this manual is for the Italian aircraft. I also have documents for the sustained turn rate ect. I don't see how this information is invalid, but a random website with no source, which is the current source, is? Liger404 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that fuel capacity may well have changed during development. The specifications section of the article really needs to make it clear what version is being referred to, and only give specs for that version. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the DA7 is a fairly mature model. But I have never seen a number as high as the current number listed. Liger404 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The DA7 was a single development aircraft. See Eurofighter Typhoon variants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was the last one. Once the air fram was already finalised. Whilst some changes may have occurred, we have no record of that. Ask yourself, what is the source for the current number and is it of higher reliability than a known value for a prototype model? Liger404 (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Its also on Eurofighters official website. "The intelligent computer-controlled fuel system ensures long-range, flexibility and safety. The maximum fuel capacity amounts 7,600kg". The drop tanks are 1000kg each, up to 3 of them. So that's 3,600kg internal fuel. The current figure is too high. https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft/features#:~:text=The%20intelligent%20computer%2Dcontrolled%20fuel,fuel%20capacity%20amounts%207%2C600kg. Liger404 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry bad maths, 4,600kg internal fuel. Liger404 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The article says "Up to 3 × 1000L drop tanks". Litres, not kilogrammes. The Eurofighter almost certainly uses JP-8, which is 0.775 – 0.840 kg/L. Taking the mean, that would make 2,422 kg for 3 tanks. Subtract that from the 7,600 kg total above, and you'd get 5,177 kg of internal fuel. A lot closer to the 4,996 kg our article currently states than the 4,756kg you are proposing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Find a source for the current figure that meets any of your standards, or change it to 5,177kg then. Because the current figure is literally from nowhere. Liger404 (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to change it to 5,177 kg - doing so would constitute WP:OR. I was merely pointing out that your calculation was quite obviously wrong. As for sourcing, I agree that the existing source cited is questionable. It appears to be the work of a single individual (see [6]) very likely not WP:RS, and is cited in several places. Unfortunately, poor sourcing has been an endemic problem with Wikipedia military aircraft coverage right from the start. The solution to this, however, isn't to replace one poor source with another. For now, I'm going to tag citations to airpower.at as unreliable sources. At a pinch we could cite the official website figure of 7,600 kg total, though that isn't really very satisfactory, since it clearly includes drop tanks, but doesn't say how many. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Well made points. With you on all of it. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The interpretation of subtracting 3000 from 7600 as WPOR is overly strict and not actually the intention of the rule. The rule was not created to force people to form Wiki from newspaper clippings. Nor were the rules created to stop people referencing books. Indeed the WPRS rules show you how to reference a book and this article is chock full of book and newspaper references from the 1990s. There is 3 of us here, let's find a fuel figure that has some merit and is as close to guidelines as possible.

I think if we take the official figure of 7600kg fuel, which they say is the maximum, it is fair and reasonable to say that is with 3 drop tanks. Much more fair and reasonable than a website that has no links, no affiliation, no nothing. And to some extent we have few alternative figures that are reliable.

Other available numbers exist in Janes (5,700L) which using your specific gravity number is 4,560kg or a maximum of 4,788kg. At work we use 0.8 for the specific gravity of JetA1, and that fits within the JP-8 range, but it moves with temperature, so you can never be sure. https://janes.migavia.com/inter/eurofighter/typhoon.html

Janes expresses low confidence in their number.

You guys should have a look yourselves, we can see what we can get together and make a most dependable number possible. You will find, that most online sources, are copying the Wikipedia specifications section, so watch out for that. Liger404 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)