<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Defense Review - Latest Comments in Eurofighter Typhoon: Can Thrust-Vectoring and Low-Observability be Added?</title><link>http://defensereview.disqus.com/</link><description>None</description><atom:link href="https://defensereview.disqus.com/eurofighter_typhoon_can_thrust_vectoring_and_low_observability_be_added/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:15:03 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Eurofighter Typhoon: Can Thrust-Vectoring and Low-Observability be Added?</title><link>http://www.defensereview.com/eurofighter-typhoon-can-thrust-vectoring-and-low-observability-be-added/#comment-63965816</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The aircraft I have heard of in the 1970s being made "low-observability) was not carrying any armament.  Also, the aircraft had to be flying incredibly slow to keep ist thermal signature low.  The only reasonm the F-22 can supercruis and still abe stealthy is because of advanced heat disapating ceramics similar to those used by the B-2 and the F-117.  So the only way the EFA 2000 could be made low-observability would abe to take off all missles and use it as a reconassense platform.  And if your going to do that youi might as well just use an F-35.  Also, how can the EFA 200's engines be "staggeringly powerful" if the EFA 2000 can't even brake Mach 2?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Wise_guy_11</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:15:03 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>