Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[SW1]

Saab have had discussions with the Germans over there arexis pod system in relation to the jamming requirement.

The typhoon airframe is really only limited by our willingness and imagination for its development. It’s blessed with a great engine and wing.

[Timmymagic]

It's an odd choice, but I wonder if its more Eurofighter looking to get the Germans to pay for some upgrades. I would have thought that plumbing for tanks and the redesign work involved would cost more than finishing off the conformal development work and open up far more sales/upgrade potential from other users.

That is assuming that the Conformal tanks worked well as a design, at the moment we're just not sure how far Eurofighter took it (although you'd hope adding attachment points to T3 Typhoons would bode well).

[SW1]

I would have thought that plumbing for tanks and the redesign work involved would cost more than finishing off the conformal development work and open up far more sales/upgrade potential from other users

That would depend on exactly what is required to integrate and clear either configuration. It maybe cheaper to integrate the tank option across all a/c variants, it may not be possible to do that with conformal tanks. Also a consideration maybe performance limitations on the a/c with conformal tanks, once there on there likely not coming off, drop tanks would give more flexibility. It would depend what one is looking for. There’s a lot of options available and a lot of options for collaboration on systems that can be used on FCAS as well like anything funding will dictate what happens next.

[Timmymagic]

That would depend on exactly what is required to integrate and clear either configuration. It maybe cheaper to integrate the tank option across all a/c variants, it may not be possible to do that with conformal tanks.

It's definitely not possible to integrate the conformals across all Typhoon variants. Neither T1 or T2 have the mounting points. I suspect T2 could be retrofitted (at no doubt enormous cost), but T1 apparently is a no-no (but also with an OSD of 2030 why would you bother). From everything I've heard and read the engineering work to make those 2 pylons 'wet' is considerable, so much so that a new wing is required. Hence the reason why new production is preferred to do it.

Also a consideration maybe performance limitations on the a/c with conformal tanks, once there on there likely not coming off, drop tanks would give more flexibility

Agreed on the conformals. If any were fitted they'd be permanent to all intents and purposes.

But thinking about it...
One thing that isn't clear from the Typhoon ECR proposal illustration is which variant Airbus were proposing. A 2-seater would make sense for the ECR mission, the image shown is an underside so it isn't clear if that is the case or not. If a 2 seater was being proposed the additional seat sacrifices some internal fuel capacity. And from all of the images that we've seen of the conformal tanks (which were always on single seaters) it doesn't look like the conformals would work on a 2 seater, you just couldn't get into or out of the cockpit. That might be why Airbus were showing a potential new wet pylon arrangement. They perhaps need a 2 seater for the ECR mission, but conformals won't work. With the reduction in fuel capacity of the 2 seater and the location of the jammer pods perhaps the only way to get additional fuel onboard is to make those pylons wet.

[ArmChairCivvy]

... and the rumour of the Israeli 2-seater f-35 has died as well
- for similar reasons

[SW1]

That would depend on exactly what is required to integrate and clear either configuration. It maybe cheaper to integrate the tank option across all a/c variants, it may not be possible to do that with conformal tanks.

It's definitely not possible to integrate the conformals across all Typhoon variants. Neither T1 or T2 have the mounting points. I suspect T2 could be retrofitted (at no doubt enormous cost), but T1 apparently is a no-no (but also with an OSD of 2030 why would you bother). From everything I've heard and read the engineering work to make those 2 pylons 'wet' is considerable, so much so that a new wing is required. Hence the reason why new production is preferred to do it.

Also a consideration maybe performance limitations on the a/c with conformal tanks, once there on there likely not coming off, drop tanks would give more flexibility

Agreed on the conformals. If any were fitted they'd be permanent to all intents and purposes.

But thinking about it...
One thing that isn't clear from the Typhoon ECR proposal illustration is which variant Airbus were proposing. A 2-seater would make sense for the ECR mission, the image shown is an underside so it isn't clear if that is the case or not. If a 2 seater was being proposed the additional seat sacrifices some internal fuel capacity. And from all of the images that we've seen of the conformal tanks (which were always on single seaters) it doesn't look like the conformals would work on a 2 seater, you just couldn't get into or out of the cockpit. That might be why Airbus were showing a potential new wet pylon arrangement. They perhaps need a 2 seater for the ECR mission, but conformals won't work. With the reduction in fuel capacity of the 2 seater and the location of the jammer pods perhaps the only way to get additional fuel onboard is to make those pylons wet.

Structural provisions are on the tranche 2 jets for conformal tanks but I doubt they will get them. As you are modifying primary structure the modification will be classed as a major mod, however these do happen on most aircraft it’s the payback for doing them that generally see them thru or not because of the non recurring costs. These type of modifications are rolled into major upgrades like the project centurion type of work or fitting new radars. Ultimately how extensive the exercise will be depends greatly on what the weight of modifications do to the c of g of the aircraft and if the flight control software needs to be opened. Being an existing pylon with a cleared weight the issues maybe more subtle. The hard points around the wing root have always been fun on typhoon.

The preference for new build is always the wish for class 1 mods Mainly because retrospective install will be treated like a repair lots of paperwork, aircraft with different build standards and concessions adding to the entertainment. You would always like to introduce it as a production standard cut in and sell as such with buyers junking or selling on older types. Doesn’t always work like that in defence these days but f15x being a gd example. I suspect what may happen is the pod may move outbd from the fuel store and weight limited accordingly or the area strengthened.

A 2 seat option for strategic missions may certainly appear. Workload is certainly a concern and adding a second person maybe cheaper than lots of software solutions particularly in very high intensity situations were you may add controlling of unmanned wingmen into the mix.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A 2 seat option for strategic missions may certainly appear.

Isn't this where the overlap with the future Franco-German a/c will start to weigh in?

[AndyC]

we'll just have to be satisfied with 143 Typhoon....

That is just a little on the high side. By my reckoning 139 is the current theoretical total available to the RAF.

This comes from a total buy of 160 minus three Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA) managed by British Aerospace, ZJ943 crashed in 2008, ZJ922 damaged in 2014 and sixteen two-seater T3s reduced-to-produce (RTP) over the last twelve months.

[Timmymagic]

Every now and then you get one right....looks like the need for the new wet pylons has been cleared up.

[Gabriele]

It is now clear that tests have demonstrated some unexpected, huge problem with Conformals and we will never see them adopted.



Let me get this straight: in ECR images they are effectively proposing to make "wet" the innermost pylons (that today are not) and to design whole new 1000 liters tanks to fit in that position without conflicting with landing gear and other stores. It is a majorly invasive undertaking, probably never to be done on aircraft that are not new production ones, and it does NOT increase the fuel capacity by 1 liter, but only moves the tanks away from the "large stores" pylons while keeping today's external fuel load unchanged.

If the above is "more effective" that freeing all pylons and fitting CFTs on aircraft which already have the fuel connection ready for them, it indirectly tells you how huge the CFT integration problem has to be.

It's the Harrier GR9 and Storm Shadow all over again. They said they would integrate it, then "realized" it was pretty much impossible to actually do it.



EDIT: Gareth has asked a question and posted a second tweet: aerodynamic instability seems to be the issue. Too much instability on an aircraft already designed for instability.

Scrap the CFT dreams, folks. Not gonna happen.

[SW1]

Let me get this straight: in ECR images they are effectively proposing to make "wet" the innermost pylons (that today are not) and to design whole new 1000 liters tanks to fit in that position without conflicting with landing gear and other stores. It is a majorly invasive undertaking, probably never to be done on aircraft that are not new production ones, and it does NOT increase the fuel capacity by 1 liter, but only moves the tanks away from the "large stores" pylons while keeping today's external fuel load unchanged.

Sort of. They have a concept showing fuel tanks on the inner pylons. No different to designing new features or pods for any aircraft there is always constraints to work within and a cost/benefit to integrate on existing or buy new. In theory it would increase fuel capacity because you potentially could carry 5 drop tanks in total and if you had something else on the current heavy stores pylon you could still carry 3 tanks were as today you could only carry one. Other options are also under consideration it depends what’s asked for by the customers.

Depending on how much importance you place on aircraft shape for survival of future manned tactical aircraft will ultimately depend on how much your prepared to follow a evolutionary route to achieve a similar solution perhaps placing greater importance on the system of systems approach.

[bobp]

Surely these would have to be new build AC as the ECR version is supposed to be a 2 seater. So plumbing in new wing fuel positions would be possible.

[Timmymagic]

Surely these would have to be new build AC as the ECR version is supposed to be a 2 seater. So plumbing in new wing fuel positions would be possible.

Yes total new builds. They'll have a new rear cockpit for the EW operator as well. No twin stick by the look of it.
The additional 2 wet pylons become necessary because it looks like the Conformals are going nowhere (and I don't think they ever would for the 2 seater anyway) and the second seat takes up space that is used for fuel by the single seater. In short to be able to get the range necessary to support other Typhoons with a 2 seat ECR variant they have to make another 2 pylons wet and fit tanks. Otherwise the ECR will not have the range to keep up.

To be honest it looks like a bit of an act of desperation, if the conformals could have been made to work they would have gone down that route as it would have opened up potential sales of conformal tanks to users with Tranche 3 Typhoons.

[Gabriele]

To be honest it looks like a bit of an act of desperation, if the conformals could have been made to work they would have gone down that route as it would have opened up potential sales of conformal tanks to users with Tranche 3 Typhoons.

Absolutely. If Conformals were feasible, they would be the No 1 option on every list.

The No 2 option would be another thing seen in drawings for years but that suspiciously vanished in more recent times: moving the Targeting Pod to one of the METEOR recesses. That would allow you to carry the fuel tank centreline AND still have target designation capability.

[Ron5]

Absolutely. If Conformals were feasible, they would be the No 1 option on every list.

Mmmm the RAF begs to differ. Plenty of quotes saying this would not be high on their shopping lists.

[Timmymagic]

No twin stick by the look of it.

Actually have seen another image and there was what appeared to be a sidestick and throttle (and a sidestick in the Typhoon is unusual in the first place).

[Lord Jim]

I wonder if they could adapt the AMRAAM/Meteor stations to allow the fitting of slimline ECW pods, possibly by increasing the number of power and other connectors. Installing two such pods on the front two stations would produce less drag as a minor benefit and not take up existing pylons. Just a thought.

[Timmymagic]

I wonder if they could adapt the AMRAAM/Meteor stations to allow the fitting of slimline ECW pods, possibly by increasing the number of power and other connectors. Installing two such pods on the front two stations would produce less drag as a minor benefit and not take up existing pylons. Just a thought.

One of the improvements that seems to have fallen by the wayside is using a conformal AAM station for other uses. the main focus was on fitting a targeting pod as currently they have to use the centreline pylon which is one of the few 'wet' pylons, and also rated for a heavy weight store, which means it would be perfect for a tank.

The problem with using those stations is the masking effect that the fuselage has in comparison with a wing pylon. An ECM pod, even if it was fitted to the front conformal station would be restricted to emitting downwards only, even straight ahead might be impossible. They also tend to generate a lot of heat so having the store exposed fully on a pylon tends to help with cooling.

[SW1]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-462280/

Typhoon development plays a critical role in that,” he says. “Our commitment to upgrade Typhoon technology including weapons, sensors and defensive aids will be the technology testbed for Tempest, and will make sure that Typhoon remains the backbone of our combat air force well into the 2040s.”

In particular, the Eurofighter joint venture that builds the Typhoon will get practice upgrading the aircraft with a new electronically scanned radar, the Saab Smart Dispenser System and Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod, he says.

[Gabriele]

Obviously, unlike the Germans, he couldn't provide any indication of when the AESA will happen, and on how many aircraft...

[SW1]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ve-462396/

The Swedish company earlier this year outlined its plans for the low-band jammer technology demonstrator, which is approximately 4m (13.1ft) long and weighs 350kg (770lb). The work is being performed in support of expanding its Arexis family of electronic warfare equipment, and with an eye on future European combat aircraft self-protection needs.

Saab says the EAJP “is a strong complement” to the electronic warfare system on its new Gripen E/F, but notes that the same technology can be adapted for use with other aircraft types, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[Ron5]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-raf-to-use-typhoon-as-testbed-for-tempest-d-462280/

Typhoon development plays a critical role in that,” he says. “Our commitment to upgrade Typhoon technology including weapons, sensors and defensive aids will be the technology testbed for Tempest, and will make sure that Typhoon remains the backbone of our combat air force well into the 2040s.”

In particular, the Eurofighter joint venture that builds the Typhoon will get practice upgrading the aircraft with a new electronically scanned radar, the Saab Smart Dispenser System and Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod, he says.

Alternative title for the article: "RAF man says spend more money on me, me, meeeee"

[SW1]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-raf-to-use-typhoon-as-testbed-for-tempest-d-462280/

Typhoon development plays a critical role in that,” he says. “Our commitment to upgrade Typhoon technology including weapons, sensors and defensive aids will be the technology testbed for Tempest, and will make sure that Typhoon remains the backbone of our combat air force well into the 2040s.”

In particular, the Eurofighter joint venture that builds the Typhoon will get practice upgrading the aircraft with a new electronically scanned radar, the Saab Smart Dispenser System and Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod, he says.

Alternative title for the article: "RAF man says spend more money on me, me, meeeee"

Ino he’s really saying we should be spending money on something useful rather than on yet more ships........

[ArmChairCivvy]

Saab says the EAJP “is a strong complement” to the electronic warfare system on its new Gripen E/F, but notes that the same technology can be adapted for use with other aircraft types, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The two coming together, exc. for the airframe itself; but for the systems that keeps them (both) uptodate