And if, as you posted, it had a problem using US ammo? Then what
is it going to fire? An unarmed plane isn't a real threat or
defence.
BTW, the Typhoon design was designed for survivability through
agility and speed, you need a specialised flight suit beyond the
normal ones, so that is another cost point. And the physical
punishment on the pilot is harsh, not sure if our pilots can use it
to the full effect considering that we are generally smaller than
the Europeans. The F-15 on the other hand, is more balanced in it's
survivability design, i.e a mix of stealth, armour, system
redundency and agility.
Ultimately though... it's the missiles!! :)
You don't go into Top Gun dogfights, air to air is usually
vollying missiles at each other then running like f-. That is the
reason why our F-5s can still be used. You're not fighting the
plane, you're fighting the AIM.
And the F-15 carries a lot more of them on the underbelly
pylons. (6 I think, assuming that the AMRAAM can be changed 1:1 for
a Sparrow)
It can also be tasked as a stand-in bomber, something the
Typhoon has trouble doing due to it's design focus.
"And it's stealthier than the F-15"
This is wrong, the canards boost the radar signature, while the
F-15 is a more "traditional" configuration. Though the difference
may be slight.
We already operate an American/Israeli fleet, if the idea was to
standardize on 2 fighter types in the long run, Typhoon would've
been though. The F-15/16 have a huge amount of commonality in
parts, in common with American fighters from even the A-4 era.
Spain and Italy at least have large enough mixed fleets to make
Typhoon worthwhile, but we were only in for 24 aircraft. Germany
found the MiG-29 better than the F-16, but they sold them to Poland
for $1 each and retained the F-4.
Anyway, cost was a huge factor, and a strong preference for
mature technologies even if better alternatives exist. There isn't
a credible air threat out there.
