Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote:Who would of thought the Germans would of got into such a bind over the nuclear mission. With Boeing in such a complete mess, I’m sure there nearly giving them away.

Mind you if you read the sdsr 2020 thread many will tell you tactical nukes are pointless don’t deter anyone serious and they have to be on a submarine so perhaps the real question is why are Germany bothering at all unless of course the sdsr thread may not be entirely accurate.
I've been curious about this too. It's not like the 80s when 'the front' was slap bang in the middle of Germany. How long do they honestly think a fleet of 30 Super Hornets is going to give them any kind of effective strike capability? I'd even have questions over whether the F-35 could safely deliver a nuclear gravity bomb to anywhere 300 miles near an S400 battery.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jensy wrote: ArmChairCivvy wrote:
acquisition program gets underway in a few years[/b]
:wtf:
I think the back and forth between two languages has played up here, and "acquisition program" actually means start of deliveries here.
... "A ministry spokesman on Monday said Kramp-Karrenbauer’s missive to Esper etc"
Ah. Ok that makes a little more sense. Thought they might still be conducting a fly-off in the mid 20s.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The mentioned (DefSec) Esper might see the wisdom keeping the other fighter manufacturer going/ involved: Esper was executive vice president at the Aerospace Industries Association in 2006 and 2007. From September 2007 to February 2008, Esper served as national policy director to Senator Fred Thompson in his 2008 presidential campaign.
- not to forget Trump's love for Boeing: at inauguration time he was seriously talking about funding the hyper-SH; and let's not forget how this one emerged from 'nowhere' https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... ils-emerge

Fighter deals are country-to-country deals and I guess that will also weigh in (Germany buying from the US, without hurting the prospects for FCAS with the F-35)
- the whole thing is good news for Typhoon's longevity as (unlike F-35) the SH is not 'next-gen' compared to Eurofighter... just a better fit for the required (and fairly specific) role
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Still don't get the Germans seemingly reluctance to buy F-35's. Not seen anything that adequately explains.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by topman »


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Thanks. Mostly old news somewhat debunked in later news.

But this quote makes zero sense to me. I personally think Herr Hoke is full of der shit.

"Dirk Hoke, then Chief Executive Officer of Airbus Defence and Space, had warned the German government against the purchase of the F-35.

“As soon as Germany becomes an F-35 member nation, cooperation on all combat aircraft issues with France will die,” Hoke said in an interview with Welt Am Sonntag which can be found here."

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Confirmed by the German defence minister

Germany plans to buy 93 Eurofighters and 45 US-made F-18s to replace ageing combat jets, Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said Tuesday, emphasising that the US planes satisfied NATO requirements.

Amid growing criticism over her decision to include US-made aircraft in the mix, the minister told Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper the F-18s were needed as "bridging technology".

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:needed as "bridging technology".
The purchase might convince the French about the "penetrating" part in the FCAS performance spec... and that just having a RAFALE XL might not do it
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:needed as "bridging technology".
The purchase might convince the French about the "penetrating" part in the FCAS performance spec... and that just having a RAFALE XL might not do it
Or the opposite. In the future they may want the growler capability on the same aircraft that drops the bomb.

Either way what it does is put any new manned fighter buy for Germany miles down the road (regardless if there onboard the program or not) which isn’t an entirely unreasonable argument to make.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

What if the Germans really got into be with the French and signed an agreement to use French air launch nuclear weapons but had these place under NATO command in a similar way to how the B61s are. FCAS will already have this capability and having airbus integrate the French next generation ASMP or whatever the French weapon is called onto the Typhoon in the interim, or purchase/lease say 24 Rafales as an alternative. As for the ECM/SEAD role, again accept the Eurofighter proposal but put major cost and timescale constraints on them as the precondition. The EW upgrade in the pipeline for the Typhoons would be a good place to start, with effort concentrating on offensive EW capabilities. You never know they could look at the SPEAR-EW as part of the package.

All a total pipe dream but thinking outside the box can be fun sometimes.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Possibly but the French would need lots of convincing. This decision puts that question on ice for Germany for probably nearly 25 years now.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:What if the Germans really got into be with the French and signed an agreement to use French air launch nuclear weapons but had these place under NATO command in a similar way to how the B61s are. FCAS will already have this capability and having airbus integrate the French next generation ASMP or whatever the French weapon is called onto the Typhoon in the interim, or purchase/lease say 24 Rafales as an alternative. As for the ECM/SEAD role, again accept the Eurofighter proposal but put major cost and timescale constraints on them as the precondition. The EW upgrade in the pipeline for the Typhoons would be a good place to start, with effort concentrating on offensive EW capabilities. You never know they could look at the SPEAR-EW as part of the package.

All a total pipe dream but thinking outside the box can be fun sometimes.
Or just giving up of nuclear role as Germany can't have them per the Two plus Four Agreement?
And developing Typhoon ECM/SEAD.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by seaspear »

An interesting article claiming that Passive radar tracked two F35s at the Berlin airdhow last year and that Germany is looking to further develop this .
https://www.businessinsider.com/german- ... ?r=AU&IR=T
I raise this because Russian sensors are capable now of tracking aircraft taking off from German airfields from sites in Belorussia these sites would have to be avoided in any action certainly the possibilty that a non stealthy aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon could be shot down this way might give some thoughts to countries that such an aircraft would be shot down over .
Poland as a fellow N.A.T.O member might not be happy in the choice of a non stealthy aircraft performing this mission overflying its territory
Is there a reason that a seads type version of the Eurofighter has not been developed

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by abc123 »

seaspear wrote:An interesting article claiming that Passive radar tracked two F35s at the Berlin airdhow last year and that Germany is looking to further develop this .
https://www.businessinsider.com/german- ... ?r=AU&IR=T
I raise this because Russian sensors are capable now of tracking aircraft taking off from German airfields from sites in Belorussia these sites would have to be avoided in any action certainly the possibilty that a non stealthy aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon could be shot down this way might give some thoughts to countries that such an aircraft would be shot down over .
Poland as a fellow N.A.T.O member might not be happy in the choice of a non stealthy aircraft performing this mission overflying its territory
Is there a reason that a seads type version of the Eurofighter has not been developed
About nuclear B61 toss-bombing, I think that's at least 40 yeas obsolete. If Germany want's some somewhat effective option, then ASMP is a must.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

Lord Jim wrote:What if the Germans really got into be with the French and signed an agreement to use French air launch nuclear weapons [...] or purchase/lease say 24 Rafales as an alternative.
I've been struggling with this as well.

Certainly the Rafale isn't compatible with the majority of weapons in use by Germany (I don't believe the Luftwaffe has introduced Meteor to service yet).

However if they are merely trying to maintain a nuclear strike force, rather than a broad replacement for the Tornado, then Rafale with ASMP-A, maybe coming from a joint European or NATO stockpile would make a lot of sense.

Seems that either: they wish to ingratiate themselves with the Yanks, whilst avoiding F-35 (as suggested by ACC here and on the Germany thread) or else they are already playing politics with FCAS and don't want to help out Dassault by adding to the Rafale order book.

That way Dassault's role in the project would be more limited to design than airframe manufacturing.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote: Seems that either: they wish to ingratiate themselves with the Yanks, whilst avoiding F-35
Yes, to expand on that:
Macron is continuously doing 'resets' with Putin (they don't work, but the message is left hanging in the air, regardless). UK potentially looking over the oceans and not the Channel trickle... means that Germany will have to keep the multi-key NATO nuclear deterrence together, or herself become a nuclear power
- the latter they definitely do not want

So not killing the FCAS with F-35, and the options being widened with the FCAS in the further-out future (with ASMP automatically being integrated; another multi-key arrangement thus becomes a possibility). Hence, the 'temporary nature' of the current choice - with toss-bombing - is not necessarily a bad choice. Politically. Once Germany annexed the Commission and lost Merkel's trusted defence minister, there is now another trusted hand in that seat (though she was an unpalatable choice for the party leader seat).
... so this arrangement for the next twenty years will have been put firmly in place by the time the next Chancellor - whoever that might be - will be installed
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

seaspear wrote:An interesting article claiming that Passive radar tracked two F35s at the Berlin airdhow last year and that Germany is looking to further develop this .
https://www.businessinsider.com/german- ... ?r=AU&IR=T
I raise this because Russian sensors are capable now of tracking aircraft taking off from German airfields from sites in Belorussia these sites would have to be avoided in any action certainly the possibilty that a non stealthy aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon could be shot down this way might give some thoughts to countries that such an aircraft would be shot down over .
Poland as a fellow N.A.T.O member might not be happy in the choice of a non stealthy aircraft performing this mission overflying its territory
Is there a reason that a seads type version of the Eurofighter has not been developed
The F35 does t go anywhere in peacetime short of certain ranges in America without its signature enhancement devices installed to avoid accurate assessment of its true signature.

The other is low observable is thrown about as a panacea it is not. Tactical fighter aircraft are limited in what they can achieve by the need to be a fighter. They target specific frequencies and specific aspects to achieve the best result. Aircraft like the b2 or indeed many of the bat wing designs are able to target a greater range of frequencies and azimuths . A further part of the game is the aircraft knowing prior to planning or sensing during a mission of radar activity and specifically positioning the aircraft to a radar or changing its height to achieve optimal effect. But radar is only one aspect of the low observable game. IR another, as is optical as is EW.

There is no wonder weapons that makes one side or the other pack up and go home because it’s used.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by seaspear »

This is an old article discussing developments of building Eurofighter with SEADS capabilities it may have been posted before but I had not seen this configuration of the fighter with those antenna at the front I was wondering if this is the type of Eurofighter Germany could build or has this been cancelled in favour of the S/H Growler
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25838 ... qfwregzaUk

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

Jensy wrote:I've been curious about this too. It's not like the 80s when 'the front' was slap bang in the middle of Germany. How long do they honestly think a fleet of 30 Super Hornets is going to give them any kind of effective strike capability? I'd even have questions over whether the F-35 could safely deliver a nuclear gravity bomb to anywhere 300 miles near an S400 battery.
It also means that those 30 F/A-18E/F (probably mostly F's) will be unavailable for other taskings. They'll purely be on the nuclear mission and nothing else. When you've only got 30 nuclear capable aircraft thats all you can use them for. They have to be preserved. Its a dreadful use of resources.

S400 doesn't really have a 300 or 400 mile range. The missiles for that have yet to arrive. And if you're flying a NoE profile the radar is restricted by terrain features. And thats about 30 miles...
SW1 wrote:Or the opposite. In the future they may want the growler capability on the same aircraft that drops the bomb.
Which makes the decision to buy EA-18G even more odd. They're essentially losing a lot of work in their own, well respected, EW industry by buying from the US. You'd have thought they'd want that work in Germany in preparation for FCAS.
Lord Jim wrote:As for the ECM/SEAD role, again accept the Eurofighter proposal but put major cost and timescale constraints on them as the precondition. The EW upgrade in the pipeline for the Typhoons would be a good place to start, with effort concentrating on offensive EW capabilities. You never know they could look at the SPEAR-EW as part of the package.
The Typhoon EW work is for the self protection system. Not a full offensive jamming capability. That was in the proposed Typhoon ECR version from Airbus which was a different thing entirely. Spear-EW was in that proposal from Airbus, there were 6 hung on the wings of the image they released.
abc123 wrote:About nuclear B61 toss-bombing, I think that's at least 40 yeas obsolete. If Germany want's some somewhat effective option, then ASMP is a must.
The B-61/12 includes GPS and INS guidance for accuracy, similar to a JDAM. But why on earth it also doesn't include at the least a gliding wing kit to extend range or a JDAM-ER style wing kit and turbine to get it past 120km range is a real mystery. Given how common those developments are on US precision weapons its a strange omission. The reason probably lies within one of the nuclear treaties.
seaspear wrote:Is there a reason that a seads type version of the Eurofighter has not been developed
Money and lack of demand. Both Italy and Germany have the ECR Tornado and both were planning to retain until 2025 or in Germany's case, 2035. The ECR Tornado's were the youngest airframes around. The UK has never gone down the jamming route, primarily due to doctrine and cash. Instead we used low level flight and ALARM to open a corridor (and we also tacitly depended on US support).
Jensy wrote:Certainly the Rafale isn't compatible with the majority of weapons in use by Germany (I don't believe the Luftwaffe has introduced Meteor to service yet).
Don't think they share any air weapons at all, with the exception of Meteor (and possibly a Paveway variant that the French use in limited numbers). Meteor has only recently gone operational with the Luftwaffe.
seaspear wrote:This is an old article discussing developments of building Eurofighter with SEADS capabilities it may have been posted before but I had not seen this configuration of the fighter with those antenna at the front I was wondering if this is the type of Eurofighter Germany could build or has this been cancelled in favour of the S/H Growler
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25838 ... qfwregzaUk
The best write up of the proposed ECR Typhoon is below:
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-eurofigh ... ck-concept

The key design choices to note are:
- 2 seater is believed necessary for ECR mission
- This means reduced fuel load...it won't have enough fuel to escort other Typhoon to range...conformal tank effort has failed so...
- Need a centreline tank...Which means no space for targeting pod...so
- Put the targeting pod on the left-front Meteor/Amraam station. A sensible move, no-one really needs 4 Meteor...RAF could benefit from that...but still need more fuel...so
- Carry 2 more wing tanks....but...the existing 2 'wet' wing pylons are required for the 2 jamming pods for clearance and weight issues...so
- Re-engineer the wing so that the innermost wing pylons are now 'wet'..now hang two new tanks on it.
- Now undertake a large scale trials programme for all of these changes..

Thats a lot of work...it would be so much easier if the conformals had worked...But add in AMK, Captor-E radar 2, updated defensive EW suite, Britecloud, towed decoy, AARGM / ER, Spear and Spear-EW with IRIS-T and Meteor (which could also have a SEAD role) and it would be a very, very impressive capability. More than equal to the E/A-18G but at quite a cost.

If I'm honest its not all bad news with the additional Typhoon production run (which is good for the UK as well). But I can't help feeling that its another opportunity lost. AMK, up-rated engines, thrust vectoring (more for reduced fuel consumption than manoeuvrability), CAPTOR-E, updated EW suite, updated PIRATE, revised pylons and a renewed effort to get conformals onboard would leave Typhoon at or near the top for years to come. And most of these things have been developed, are being worked on or are easily possible with a comparatively small outlay of funds and some political will from the users.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:Which makes the decision to buy EA-18G even more odd. They're essentially losing a lot of work in their own, well respected, EW industry by buying from the US. You'd have thought they'd want that work in Germany in preparation for FCAS.
The purchase is politics namely US and NATO politics...and money.


Pod locations is interesting the saab offering for example is a 1K lb store and flight tested more outbd on gripen. Of course no reason why a loyal wingman could not have such a payload.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:S400 doesn't really have a 300 or 400 mile range. The missiles for that have yet to arrive. And if you're flying a NoE profile the radar is restricted by terrain features. And thats about 30 miles...
Was about to say that, which then takes us to AWACS-like look-down radars; of which Russia has quite a few
Timmymagic wrote:You'd have thought they'd want that work in Germany in preparation for FCAS
Yes, but: you need planes in service. Would we leave (forgetting the distances difference) our deterrent to Tonkas? The timing argument comes up also in the next quote, and these things with development risk do not have definitive timings, anyway:
Timmymagic wrote:Now undertake a large scale trials programme for all of these changes..
Timmymagic wrote:it would be a very, very impressive capability. More than equal to the E/A-18G but at quite a cost.
Yes, and not only cost but the other factors touched upon above.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Was about to say that, which then takes us to AWACS-like look-down radars; of which Russia has quite a few
Actually they don't. On paper they have 22 A-50M (the old Mainstay model) and 6 A-50U, which is the new version.

But when you look at Ivanovo, the main operating base you can see over half the A-50M fleet is laid up, hasn't moved for years, with many missing engines.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sever ... 40.9847761

The hardstanding where the A-50U are based has 6 spots. I'd be surprised if they can get more than 4-5 of the A-50M fleet in the air. Not a huge amount of AWACS when you're Russia...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Glad to hear! Longer ranged fixed radars on both sides will go early in any conflict, so that state of affairs would tip the balance nicely
- Luftwaffe must have been aware of this when they went for the Bloc III ground-hugging radar, to sneak in (and may be even out) ;)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by abc123 »

Timmymagic wrote: But why on earth it also doesn't include at the least a gliding wing kit to extend range or a JDAM-ER style wing kit and turbine to get it past 120km range is a real mystery.
Agreed.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

J. Tattersall

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by J. Tattersall »

This decision means that both German and French air forces will be qualitatively outclassed by other NATO nations (Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, UK) with their F35s for at least the next 20 years until (or if?) the Franco-German FCAS comes into service.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

J. Tattersall wrote:This decision means that both German and French air forces will be qualitatively outclassed by other NATO nations (Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, UK) with their F35s for at least the next 20 years until (or if?) the Franco-German FCAS comes into service.
True but as the old adage goes, "quantity has a quality of its own..."

If Germany is serious about 90 more Typhoons, plus their 45 Hornets/Growlers, that's a serious force.

Post Reply