I heard you the first time
Actually, it isn't the same basic design. I know this is all conjectural now since the real F-16IN has been revealed, but a re-winged F-16 is still
an F-16. It uses the same components for much of the airframe and structure as well as most of the systems, otherwise it would be a new plane.
Typhoon compare to EAP is a new plane, there is not one part of EAP that made it onto Typhoon, it has zero commonality. An outward similarity is as
far as it goes, but that was the entire point of EAP in the first place.
As I said, EAP was built quickly and cheaply in order to convince the then potential partner nation govt's that BAe DID know what it was doing when
it talked of building a mach 2 delta canard fighter that could be as good as anything in the world, this was a very important point to prove as there
had been no new British fighter built since the BAC Lightning flew in 1958!
Hanging AAM's off the Tornado doesn't really count as it was a long range bomber interceptor, never a proper fighter that could mix it with the best
as the Lightning had done, and yet here were BAe saying they could still do it. Not only that but they were talking about FBW, RSS, Carbonfibre
structures and all the other things the Americans were already very good at. EAP was much more about BAe proving themselves than it was about proving
Naturally they were met with disbelief and this was partly behind France's earlier insistence on programme leadership which led to them quitting and
building Rafale. There was also the massive pressure to take the easy option and buy the Northrop F-18L, despite the RAF saying it didn't want it as
it didn't meet our requirements.
That the EAP was built so quickly and cheaply and REALLY WORKED was a brilliant achievement and I often wonder what might have happened if the
investment had gone into turning this into an operational RAF fighter as its original test pilot had called for (being in service a decade earlier is
Nevertheless, having proven the technical capabilityof the industry, the decision was taken to design the Typhoon which (as the BAe p.120) was a
completely new design from scratch which very rapidly evolved into the Eurofighter with Germany, Italy and later Spain joining the programme.
The Typhoon is as different an aeroplane from the EAP as it is from the Rafale, F-16XL, or any other fighter.
edit, sorry for going so far off topic. I'm not even arguing that a revamped F-16 along the lines of the XL or the UAE model pictured higher up the
thread cannot be a very capable alternative, I'm sure it can.
I just cannot leave a misconception unaddressed
[edit on 27-2-2008 by waynos]