UK Defence Forum

Was there any consideration that the Eurofighter,s replacing the Tornado be equipped with conformal tanks for increased range ?

SKB wrote:
(Forces TV)

The Typhoon is the RAF’s frontline jet with pilots flying missions over Iraq and Syria. The fighter jet is now being enhanced to attack targets on the ground with Brimstone missiles.

Watching that I was left with one thought... That reporter needs a no-no

Sorry

Was there any consideration that the Eurofighter,s replacing the Tornado be equipped with conformal tanks for increased range ?

There was, and all 44 Tranche 3 have the little bumps on the back which are the connections for said CFTs. But for now CFTs haven't progressed beyond that point.

Would be nice to see the aircraft fully developed CFT, AESA radar, Aerodynamic Modification Kit (LERX and strakes) and EJ230 with thrust vectoring applied, would cost a bloody fortune though.

I suppose it depends on how long the RAF actually wants to keep the Typhoon in service and if the Germans and any export customers decide to further enhance the platform and fund the work.

Loaded with long range weaponry such as storm shadow and meteor, why can't it act as a bomb truck for clean f35's for many years to come?
As a QRA aircraft surely it will remain effective for years?
Surely CFT's would even just be worth it for both QRA and training flights as it lowers the demand on aerial refuelling? And if they lower drag in comparison to underwing tanks would reduce fuel costs?

The real worth of CFT is Storm Shadow. Currently the Typhoon can only mount a single tank when carrying a pair of SS. A tank that overrides the only Targeting Pod hardpoint too. Granted, pods are not exactly a SS fit, but it's just one of those little niggles of restriction that greatly demonstrates the worth of CFTs. It would increase SS reach by a considerable margin.

andrew98 wrote: Surely CFT's would even just be worth it for both QRA and training flights as it lowers the demand on aerial refuelling? And if they lower drag in comparison to underwing tanks would reduce fuel costs?

It depends on how much the total cost of them are plus support and then of course how many would we buy? Then there's the RTS and all the trials to work through. All that is expensive, I doubt that total costs of the whole thing have been worked out. The costs are just an estimate.

As to lower costs, it'll only be done if you can get rid on a reasonable basis tanker support frequently. I don't think anyone will stump up the cash in this climate if it's a case of cutting out a tanker bracket. You still need them so you are saving fairly marginal costs against a capital investment.

That's not to say they are of no use, aircraft especially US types have them and do make use of then. They are just not seen as a priority under the vfm microscope.

RAF honcho was quoted on CFT's as the RAF not interested. Can't jettison them and the UK has spent umpty billions on inflight refueling so why solve the same problem twice?

Kinda surprised to hear the RAF Typhoons are piped for them. Is that fact or conjecture?

You can see the mounting points on them if you look at pictures of tranche 3s

Ron5 wrote: Kinda surprised to hear the RAF Typhoons are piped for them. Is that fact or conjecture?

Fact.

Thanks. I guess there's spare cash still left after all.

I believe that all tranche 3's are plumbed as standard.

Tranche 2 is also capable of being adapted for conformal tanks if required , the cft is reported to increase combat radius by 25 percent

seaspear wrote:the cft is reported to increase combat radius by 25 percent

I wonder what the net effect is: increased drag from the ss vs. increased fuel load (with not too much drag, compared to a drop tank arrangement)?

CFT's are nothing more than a last ditch remedy for a country desperate to delay purchasing new aircraft, they're a way of kidding yourself that your 40yr old fleet of F15's, F16's & F18's can still be relevant for another 40.

Cooper wrote:a way of kidding yourself that your 40yr old fleet of F15's, F16's & F18's can still be relevant for another 40

If you believed that for the first 40 years, then our (zero ) investment has produced a good yield.

Cooper wrote:CFT's are nothing more than a last ditch remedy for a country desperate to delay purchasing new aircraft, they're a way of kidding yourself that your 40yr old fleet of F15's, F16's & F18's can still be relevant for another 40.

Just finished work, so I'm feeling dumber than usual.
But that makes no sense to me

A question- Tranche 1 airplanes, they can use just air-air weapons, like ASRAAM or AMRAAM? And maybe drop dumb bombs, right?

Could they get some sort of austere air to ground capability, like integration of Litening and Paveway- do they have some obstacles from technical standpoint? And would that be too expencive?

Given the Tranche 1 Typhoons are only being retained as a stop gap until the F-35 is available in greater numbers, keeping it as a Air Defence platform is the simplest and cheapest option when every penny counts. The future seems to be four or five Tranche 3 standard Typhoon squadrons working with three to four F-35B Squadrons as the future strength of the RAF's fast jet force.

Lord Jim wrote:Given the Tranche 1 Typhoons are only being retained as a stop gap until the F-35 is available in greater numbers, keeping it as a Air Defence platform is the simplest and cheapest option when every penny counts. The future seems to be four or five Tranche 3 standard Typhoon squadrons working with three to four F-35B Squadrons as the future strength of the RAF's fast jet force.

Yes, I agree, but I want to know is that possible? Or if yes, is it financially prohibitive?

dumb bombs? the RAF dont use dumb bombs.

The Tranche 1 aircraft have already used Paveway II operationally, but this will soon be out of service in the RAF. There is little that would prohibit Paveway IV being integrated on the early aircraft, other than money.

Keeping the tranche 1's as an air defence platform is a bit of a guff option, it wont get the new radar, or Meteor, making it a much less capable aircraft.

shark bait wrote:dumb bombs? the RAF dont use dumb bombs.

The Tranche 1 aircraft have already used Paveway II operationally, but this will soon be out of service in the RAF. There is little that would prohibit Paveway IV being integrated on the early aircraft, other than money.

Keeping the tranche 1's as an air defence platform is a bit of a guff option, it wont get the new radar, or Meteor, making it a much less capable aircraft.

Yes, I know that RAF don't use them, I just wanted to sad that they CAN use them.
So, they CAN use Paveway 2? And have used them?
So they have Litening integrated or have to get laser ilumination from another source?

Tranche 1 can and have used Paveway 2 operationally. They also can use Litening, but it was never properly integrated, it was a bit of a bodge, and definitely wasn't a swing role implementation.

It was just an interim effort to finally get some multi-role use out of the shiny new multi-role fighter, before Tranche 2 came along and did things properly.

shark bait wrote:Tranche 1 can and have used Paveway 2 operationally. They also can use Litening, but it was never properly integrated, it was a bit of a bodge, and definitely wasn't a swing role implementation.

It was just an interim effort to finally get some multi-role use out of the shiny new multi-role fighter, before Tranche 2 came along and did things properly.

About T1, I wonder did they came from factory with IRIS-T/ASRAAM/AMRAAM allready integrated or that was added later when in service?