Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[Timmymagic]

Likely waiting for someone to open their wallet at this point.

Saudi's? Or does the fact they still have Tornado and F-15 mean they're not that bothered?

Pretty certain I've seen targeting pods mounted in place of semi-conformal AAM's before on other aircraft. Any reason we couldn't mount the pod in place of a Meteor or Amraam. I mean 3 Meteor, 2 x Asraam and 1 x 27mm cannon should cope with most air to air threats shouldn't they? That would free up the centreline, wet pylon for a tank again.

[ArmChairCivvy]

remain impossible to attain the optimal combination of 2 CFT's + pod + one central drop tank. It is not possible to fly with just one wing tank

Pods are probably not the pinch point, but the conflict in the use of the two wet wing pylons. To launch cruise missiles without having the benefit of more than one (none?) drop tanks and of no CFTs.
- the assumption is that the modification to feed from CFTs in any other way is implicit there; not sure if the right one is used (not doable), and if it is doable, has such (at the time unused) modification been included in the later tranches?

[Timmymagic]

Exactly, and of the other partner nations (perhaps save for Italy, who will get F-35s) Deep Strike does not figure prominently.
- so you can guess whose wallet it will be

I think the Germans may be forced to ultimately as well. The 6th generation co-operative programme I think will end up being a non-starter or drag on for an eon. Tornado OSD of 2040 sounds ridiculous as well, will it actually be viable then? Or in fact from 2030 onwards? I suspect the Germans may have to bite the bullet and invest in some of the proposed upgrades. Which could mean the UK gets some cash back, they'll have to pay to get a lot of the work that the UK has funded. After that AESA and CFT. I don't think we'll ever see thrust vectoring, but the AMK and uprated EJ-200 could be a possibility.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The answer could be surprising; this is what Jakarta Post can tell about the structuring of the Typhoon deal (should it happen):

"Other than moving the final assembly line [from Spain]to Bandung, Elbourne also said that PT DI could design, test and manufacture conformal fuel tanks (CFT) for the Typhoon, making Indonesia the only supplier of such enhancements for the jet fighter.

'€œIndonesia could be the first country to equip Typhoons with CFTs, providing an extra range to reach the country'€™s vast maritime territory and airspace,'€ he said."

Heh-heh: Typhoons for Canada, too (another natural user of CFTs; building up a tanker fleet would cost a tad more)

"'€œOther countries that also need the CFTs would have to buy them from Indonesia as the sole source.'"

[MRCA]

""There is a catch though. The Laser Designator pod can only fit on the central station. This takes up one of the three wet points. Also, the landing gear folds sideways into the wing. Long weapons like the Storm Shadow can't be fitted on the two points close to the body. They have to go on the wet points on the wing. While a Rafale C could take three drop tanks plus two ALCM's, a Typhoon could not.

Fortunately conformal fuel tanks are in development [albeit the development has not proceeded further than wind-tunnel testing by BAE? Or has it; has not caught my eye in any form of news]. They can alleviate this problem. But it will remain impossible to attain the optimal combination of 2 CFT's + pod + one central drop tank. It is not possible to fly with just one wing tank. The package has to be evenly balanced."

There is a blog dedicated to the alternatives in the competition: https://bestfighter4belgium.blogspot.be/"

Almost all of this is nonsense.

As for Germany the issue with tornado replacement is what carriers the b61 typhoon is not cleared for nuclear weapons.

[Timmymagic]

As for Germany the issue with tornado replacement is what carriers the b61 typhoon is not cleared for nuclear weapons.

Surely that just means Germany coughing up some weapons integration cash? It's not insurmountable by any stretch. Size wise its not a problem, but interestingly the B-61/12, the new GPS version, will not interface with Tornado at present. Either way if they want to retain the ability to drop B-61 they're going to have to stump up some cash. Might as well drop it on Typhoon. That benefits the Italians as well (although they're more likely to use their F-35) as they're losing their Tornado by 2025.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Howabout the Belgians? Didn't their role include a couple of nuclear-capable sqdrns; or is that all history?

[MRCA]

All NATO nations have a requirement to be able to deploy b61. Typhoon could carry it but its more than just weapons integration it would require a number of system protections and shielding to be investigated. I think typhoon will end up replacing tornado for Germany, or more precisely they will take over tornados role as tornado is retired.

[Defiance]

Putting nukes on Typhoon would be a big deal.

[topman]

Having an LDP on at the same time as carrying SS isn't really an issue, you wouldn't need them at the same time anyway.

At the moment CFTs are a low priority, the AAR force we've got and that of allies is seen as sufficient. Clearly having them would be helpful in that it would reduce trips to the tanker on a sortie.

There were plans to have larger drop tanks for the u/w however they were cut years ago due to budget issues.

[Timmymagic]

All NATO nations have a requirement to be able to deploy b61. Typhoon could carry it but its more than just weapons integration it would require a number of system protections and shielding to be investigated. I think typhoon will end up replacing tornado for Germany, or more precisely they will take over tornados role as tornado is retired.

Does that include Spain and Portugal? Presumably Spain uses the F-18 if that is the case and Portugal the F-16?

[MRCA]

Both those a/c can carry nuclear weapons but currently the weapons sharing countries are Germany, holland, Belgium, turkey, and Italy.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The lack of (future) direction is starting to show, not to mention the effect that the dragging the feet for known upgrades has had on export deals.

In the yonks-ago Dutch fighter competition Tr3 was still rated equal with F3 Rafale. Only F4 rafale about drew with F-35 (the latter of course won and is being delivered). The interesting thing about that is that while all the export deals are for F3R, as in
"France struggled for years to secure its first foreign order for the Rafale but, since making a breakthrough with a 2015 deal to sell 24 of the planes to Egypt, it has notched up several other orders for the multi-role combat jet.

In May 2015, France and Qatar concluded a 6.3 billion euro ($6.77 billion) deal for the sale of 24 Rafales and last September, India signed a deal to buy 36 Rafales for around $8.7 billion, the country's first major acquisition of combat planes in two decades. "

what constitutes F4 will only be decided at the end of this year, as per https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... pabilities
... so what gets to the public domain and what is shared between militaries, in their planning, are so many years apart

[MRCA]

What lack of direction? The typhoon road map is clearly mapped out and the a/c will remain the backbone of certainly the uk fastjet force until at least 2040.

While it undoubtedly was slow at the beginning on weapons upgrades that changed years ago. It has sold to 8 different countries. There is over 500 typhoons built and delivered against around 150 rafale.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What lack of direction? The typhoon road map is clearly mapped out

Spanish line closing during this year; and the others? Is the idea to run the BAE line by churning out (by a drip feed!) the rest of the order, and then put the same planes through the same line again, to give them upgrades that were (=are) available during the production.
- a crazy production model from the beginning, if you compare to how Airbus airliners are made (pretty much by the same countries)

[MRCA]

None sure what the spaninish final line closing has to do with the roadmap for the a/c, the tornado final line closed years ago and it's still getting upgrades across the partners. Currently there testing the P3E software upgrades with P4E package currently being defined incorpating sofware and systems not even developed when typhoon entered service. On top of that the current DROPs programs is continuing as well obsolescence corrections.

The Spanish and German lines will close next year the UK final line will close in 2019 and the Italian one in 2022 with completition of the Kuwait deal if nothing new goes on contract. That I would think is better than slowing to 6 a/c a year like rafale has for the last 5 years.

As for FALs yes it would of been better to of had a single final line but then everyone wants a final line. I'm not sure u know how airbus works they currently have final lines in France, the USA, Germany and china all producting a320s. Any widebodies built in European are then flown green to the completiition centre in Hamburg before going back to the test centre at Toulouse.

when eurofighter was conceived, airbus had this way of working where by if you were designing a fuse barrel in France you optimised the stringer/skin thk differently to say if you were doing one in Germany, then u had the joyous task of creating a funky lap joint to try and join the two barrels together. Depending on which airbus country you were working in you also had a different methodology for design 5 axis machinings. Thankfully most of this has changed for better but not all, and if you think ol bubba Boeing or Lockheed are any better they are not.

[ArmChairCivvy]

if you think ol bubba Boeing or Lockheed are any better they are not

Didn't think so at all, but talking about road maps (and investment backing it), Rafale seems to have one, whereas (as I said) Eurofighters are produced in such a config that they will need an immediate (nothing is immediate in the Eurofighter/ Typhoon context) upgrade - what is the sense in that?

And had Grumman not got the bomber contract -it was perfectly possible that the project would have seen the "A-12" end - we would now see a Grumman Boeing (the latter did not have much of a road map on the military side, either, and has now broadened their portfolio with helicopters instead).

[MRCA]

'but talking about road maps (and investment backing it), Rafale seems to have one, whereas (as I said) Eurofighters are produced in such a config that they will need an immediate upgrade'

I have no idea acc why you think this but it couldn't be more wrong.

[RetroSicotte]

Typhoon has some munitions plans plus a new radar planned.

Rafale is planning new sensors, networking, helmet, engines, munitions and there's even talk of side facing radars.

A lot of Typhoons other planned stuff has never gotten attention, like its conformals, AFK, engine uprating, none of that came around.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Typhoon has some munitions plans plus a new radar planned.

Rafale is planning new sensors, networking, helmet, engines, munitions and there's even talk of side facing radars[*].

A lot of Typhoons other planned stuff has never gotten attention, like its conformals, AFK, engine uprating, none of that came around.

That pretty much summarises what I am saying: Tranche 3 the end of the road? Retrofitting stuff that could go onto all new ones today, just to keep the line/ the team going for a bit longer
... if there is not even an indication of the next steps (that's a Road Map, not how you slice your budget between years for stuff that exists), why would anyone buy it? Fast jets are bought for 25-30 years; 2040 (the figure for us) minus 2017 (almost gone) makes?

----------
[*] the talk of the town for PAK-FA, too. Which, however, has such engine problems that Norway will outnumber Russia 3:1 in operational stealth jets once they have their contracted deliveries completed. Pretty irrelevant if they want to decorate the PAK-FA like a Xmas tree, if it is not up to scratch in the basics.

Now, lets talk about RAF's Deep Strike for a change: to Typhoon, or not to Typhoon, that's the question (assuming that our JSF deliveries run at the projected rate)

[MRCA]

Well typhoon has a very capable helmet mount sight system , rafale has none. The upgraded typhoon helmet which is arguably more advanced than f35s is already in flight test.

The ej200 engine is a significantly more powerful and reliable engine than the one currently on rafale which is why it's been a priority for rafale. Typhoon simply doesn't need any engine improvements.

Likewise the radar, typhoons is significantly larger than Rafales (the consequences of landing on a carrier) and just about the best mechanical radar available. Rafale had to prioritise an asea to get more power dwn range. Most of the Gucci asea radar functions are not available to anywhere.

As for sensors the targeting pod on typhoon is a better pod than the rafale equivalent. The typhoon IRST its EW and Das system are excellent and continually being updated.

Likewise it's connectivity is as gd as anyone's and being continually enhanced read the releases around bable fish exercises as part of this years high rider exercises.

[MRCA]

Tranche 3 is a build production order lot in much the same way as f35 lrips nothing more.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Contact: Contact MRCA
12 Jul 2017, 13:45
Tranche 3 is a build production order lot in much the same way as f35 lrips nothing more.

That's the right, the only ones in build now, and that is why I REFER TO them as in a Road Map they would be the starting point; the question is what comes next.

As to the points listed in your previous posting, we are in violent agreement (If you have read my posts over the years, here, and perhaps on TD as well?) you would have quickly noticed that I am very pro-Typhoon and even more so for making the best use of the huge investment
- however, the points are for "NOW" which is where a Road Map starts (and pre-Tranche; that 3 is [really aviation] history)

Now, tell me about Deep Strike; why was the stuff discussed about it hogwash up to your (such) comment... the discussion died, which is what tends to happen with such broad sweeping and unspecified comments
... shall I say a little bit in the Ron-esque style of commenting (everyone must have noticed that we are the best of pals by now)

[MRCA]

ACC

We will have discussed this many time if you were on TD and been in rampant agreement on most things. Road map is laid out for typhoon, airframe production may or may not stop depending on further orders. The RAF will not be ordering anymore, the road map currently goes well into 2020s in terms of what systems will be update and potiential capable that may go onto the jet going further than that is simply to far in the future for likely technologies that may become mature enough to be considered.

The comments on LDP placement assymetric loadout, and comparisons to rafale and what is or is not in development and what the author of the comments considered the optimal loadout were as I said largely hogwash.

Deep strike and how the airforce intends to answer that question is a different discussion. You need to define what deep strike is for a tactical jet first and against what type of target. Is deep strike really air interdiction?

[MRCA]

Are you defining deep strike along the lines of something like the below, or is it the ability to carry Storm shadow

Air Interdiction An air operation conducted to destroy, neutralize or delay the enemy’s military potential before it can be brought to bear effectively against friendly forces at such a distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required

Air Operations for Strategic Effect are aimed to destroy or disrupt the defined strategic centre of gravity of an opponent. The effect sought by air power could be destructive, non-destructive or a combination of both, against target sets which undermine the opponent’s ability, will and means to continue his aggression. Air operations for strategic effect are not limited to bombing or solely the domain of attack aircraft. All combat aircraft and associated weapon systems are capable of action for strategic effect.