Typhoon Upgrades

[ORAC]

https://www.c4isrnet.com/global/europe/2019/08/08/royal-air-force-typhoon-jets-to-receive-key-sensor-upgrade/

Royal Air Force Typhoon jets to receive key sensor upgrade

[Mr. Vice]

Say what you will about the early years of Typhoon but right now it is fielding ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Meteor, Paveway 4, Brimstone 2, Storm Shadow and the Gun!

The go to Combat Air platform right now.
It has been a long road for the jet but finally it is paying off.

Mr Vice.

[Bob Viking]

I give it one day until we get any or all of the following:

It isn’t as pretty as the Lightning/Phantom/Buccaneer/Harrier.

Just think how many Hunters you could have for the same money.

Waste of money.

White elephant.

A couple of Vulcans would be just as good.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

BV

Having said that, I may have staved them off just by posting this.

[unmanned_droid]

Did the conformal fuel tanks get binned for good?

[BEagle]

Bob Viking , your sneering deprecation of your seniors does you absolutely no favours.

Typhoon suffered only from protracted development, but ever since it entered service it has been a superlative aircraft, which finally gave the RAF a first rate fighter aircraft. Since then it has also proved itself in the air to ground role. I recall an IoM towline trip working with a pair pre-production Eurofighters; used to the rather sedate performance of the Tornado F3 when leaving the tanker with full tanks, the request from the Eurofighter to climb into a block of airspace at around FL500 on leaving the tanker was quite a surprise, as was its subsequent departure and impressive climb.

One hopes that the niggardly procurement policies of earlier years, leading to the nonsense of 'fleets within fleets' will not be foist upon the Typhoon and that all aircraft will receive the 'sensor upgrades'.

Those who would view earlier generation aircraft through rose-tinted spectacles might care to remember:

Vulcan - revolutionary in its day, particularly in its B2 form. But the EW suite was a complete joke and was never adequately upgraded. The AAR system was allowed to deteriorate, as was the conventional bombing system. When South Atlantic War came along, a frantic scramble and the raiding of some museums and station scrap heaps provided just enough to make the aircraft adequately capable. EW kit had to be begged and borrowed from other fleets, as had the single INS.

Lightning - again, revolutionary in its day with shattering performance. But it suffered from short range and for many years lacked a head sector capability. Overland, the limitations of a pulse radar against low flying targets, particularly in an EW environment, were only too clear.

Phantom - the UK's decision to use the RR Spey caused huge problems in the early days of RAF service. But it became a very good multi-role platform, although the radar required considerable skill from the navigator and the aircraft itself had some significant vices at high AoA. Then in later years the air to ground role was virtually abandoned until air to ground strafe was brought back in to the inventory after the South Atlantic War.

Harrier - again, another revolutionary UK aircraft. But it required very high levels of skill to operate and until the GR3, lacked sufficient thrust on many occasions. Later marks bore little resemblance to earlier marks, but the ultimate F/A 2 with AMRAAM, Blue Fox and Link16 was a superb ship borne interceptor which should still be in service.

Jaguar - early versions were woefully underpowered and the cockpit ergonomics were pretty lethal. But it gave a very good account of itself over Iraq, both during the war and afterwards in armed policing; the ultimate version had an excellent avionic system but the lack of thrust was never really resolved.

Hunter - underpowered and with inadequate fuel in its early versions and with significant gun firing problems in the Avon powered version until a somewhat primitive solution was provided. It came of age in its F6 variant, but its air to air role was compromised by the lack of any missile capability and a primitive radar ranging system.

Buccaneer - only came into RAF service after cancellation of TSR-2 and F-111. But the crews worked wonders with such a very demanding aircraft; had the radar and nav/attack systems been upgraded to Tornado standard it would have been exceptional. During my AAR sorties working with mixed Buccaneer / Tornado formations during GW1, the benefits of the Buccaneer's fuel capacity were abundantly clear!

Tornado - an excellent air to ground aircraft which was continually upgraded over the years, providing the RAF with superb service. Whereas the Tornado ADV was an utter joke in its early days. The F2 was seriously underpowered and couldn't meet the spec with more than 6 missiles. Radar of the 'Blue Circle' variety was initially quite appalling. But over the years the aircraft was developed into an exceptional air to air platform, with the final iteration of Foxhunter, AMRAAM, Link 16 and cunning SOPs. Retired prematurely though.

But it seems that the painful lessons of previous years have been learned as regards Typhoon, which just gets better and better. Particularly when operating in concert with F-35B, I gather!

[Drainpipe]

I enjoyed your post. I thought you summed up the majority of Pprune military posters quite accurately, one in particular.

[Bob Viking]

My post was intended to be semi light hearted.

Your inability to understand how some of your posts come across as condescending and offensive does you no favours either.

You know I enjoy our sparring but neither of us should consider ourselves immune from criticism.

BV

[Lordflasheart]

...
Recent headline .... "Captor-E on the horizon."

Bone question ... "Can Captor-M see that far ?"



....

[Less Hair]

Plus: IFF will now consider EU airplanes hostile.

[tucumseh]

Beags

If the RAF (not procurers - nothing to do with them) decides to have fleets within fleets, I would have a little more confidence than previously. I recall one of the first posts they advertised way back when it was EFA was a Configuration Control Manager. Other aircraft offices at the time were being actively stripped of funding, as it was considered a waste of money. But the now jobless CCMs from those offices couldn't apply for EFA, as they'd graded it 3 grades higher - a good sign in away, but tempting fate. Nevertheless, there was an understanding lacking in other parts of MoD.

[Asturias56]

I think Bob V was having a quiet shot at some of the normal reactions on here................. I thought he was spot on - in a humorous fashion............. :ok:

[Mr. Vice]

RAF Typhoons are now pretty much split into two variants "Tranche 1" jets which are Air-Air only and the Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft which are now a common standard known as "P3E" software which are fully multi-role.

The fleets within fleets problem has mostly gone away. A frontline Squadron is equipped with P3E standard jets.

There are a great deal of weapons and sensors for a new JP to Typhoon to get their head around.

Mr Vice.

[Timelord]

I give it one day until we get any or all of the following:

It isn’t as pretty as the Lightning/Phantom/Buccaneer/Harrier.

Just think how many Hunters you could have for the same money.

Waste of money.

White elephant.

A couple of Vulcans would be just as good.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

BV

Having said that, I may have staved them off just by posting this.




One you missed: “It would be even better with a navigator”

Which of course it would!

[Nomad2]

I was surprised to learn today that some of the early Typhoons have already been 'reduced to produce', ie scrapped.

[just another jocky]

Bob Viking , your sneering deprecation of your seniors does you absolutely no favours.


But he wasn't wrong! :ok:

[phil9560]

Why are the Tranche 1 Typhoons unable to be updated ? What exactly makes it so prohibitive ?

[Rhino power]

Why are the Tranche 1 Typhoons unable to be updated ? What exactly makes it so prohibitive ?

Physical differences between the 3 different build tranches, Tranche 1 Typhoons are significantly different enough internally to Tranche 2/3 that upgrade further than the current Tranche 1 Block 5 (which does include air-to-ground capability, contrary to what some folk believe) is not viable. This is purely from memory so may well not be 'totally' accurate, but I understand that the internal avionics racks/bulkheads, amongst other things, are where the issue arises...

-RP

[phil9560]

Ah yes.I thought it may be a modular thing.Thanks.

[Homelover]

BV
I think that’s what you call ‘a bite’ !!

:ok:

[Davef68]

I was surprised to learn today that some of the early Typhoons have already been 'reduced to produce', ie scrapped.

Twin seat T1 variants if I recall

[Nomad2]

Well, they were T.1s, but then were ugraded to become T.3s.

They haven't all been scrapped. Only eight of them. I'd have thought the two seater would be quite a useful thing, but I guess the sims are busy these days.

[weemonkey]

One you missed: “It would be even better with a navigator”

Which of course it would!


Two brains are better than one!!

[flyburg]

Physical differences between the 3 different build tranches, Tranche 1 Typhoons are significantly different enough internally to Tranche 2/3 that upgrade further than the current Tranche 1 Block 5 (which does include air-to-ground capability, contrary to what some folk believe) is not viable. This is purely from memory so may well not be 'totally' accurate, but I understand that the internal avionics racks/bulkheads, amongst other things, are where the issue arises...

-RP
Hi there,
Civilian pilot but very interested in military aviation, I understand what you are saying but how would the Eurofighter T1 be different to earlier model F16 from NATO countries that have been upgraded to a standard comparable (as I understand) to F16 block 50/52?

thanks

[Bob Viking]

That is a timeless question and one that is very hard to answer.

Once you have more than one person you then have CRM to worry about. Some brighter minds work better on their own and can find it hard to communicate their thought processes.

Also, modern jets can look after the flying side to the extent that the single mind can easily manage the systems.

Many years ago, before cockpit ergonomics were really considered, I would agree with you. Nowadays though I think the single person crew concept in a fast jet is far more preferable.

I am not the leading expert though and others may well disagree.

BV

[Easy Street]

That is a timeless question and one that is very hard to answer.

Once you have more than one person you then have CRM to worry about. Some brighter minds work better on their own and can find it hard to communicate their thought processes.

Also, modern jets can look after the flying side to the extent that the single mind can easily manage the systems.

Many years ago, before cockpit ergonomics were really considered, I would agree with you. Nowadays though I think the single person crew concept in a fast jet is far more preferable.

I am not the leading expert though and others may well disagree.

BV

I consider myself qualified to comment here! Some considerations:

1) The Typhoon autopilot can hold a level turn but will not adjust it to maintain position over a target (due to target motion or wind) and takes no account of the need to keep the targeting pod unmasked by the airframe or stores. Thus at least some of the pilot’s attention is required on these tasks in the classical ‘CAS wheel’.

2) Even with a more intelligent autopilot that could take care of the above tasks (anyone know if F35 has the capability?) then there is going to be a certain amount of lookout needed for other aircraft and threats such as SAMs and AAA. Threat warning systems have weaknesses and blind spots, while collision warning systems don’t work if other aircraft aren’t squawking Mode 3/S, which can often be the case on operations. And, where ground activity is focussed in a small area, the number of aircraft packed into the CAS stack can be eye-watering. All it takes is for another player (maybe not autopilot equipped) to drift a mile laterally or 500 feet vertically out of their block and you have trouble. Situational awareness datalinks aren’t currently robust enough to replace lookout and in any case don’t provide the audio cues necessary to allow complete focus elsewhere.

3) If only the ergonomics of Typhoon’s targeting pod controls or its weapon programming interface lived up to contemporary ideals!

4) For all the old AD vs Mud banter ‘the targets don’t move, how hard can it be?!’, air-to-surface targeting in real operational situations is beset by issues that demand extended periods of near-exclusive focus on the ground picture. Tracking moving targets through areas where buildings or vegetation restrict visibility is one example (incidentally, also requiring attention to be paid to aircraft positioning at the same time to keep the line of sight clear). Monitoring for traces of civilian activity is likely to be a requirement of rules of engagement... blink (or fly the aircraft for a second) and you might miss it. And there are no IFFs yet capable of mitigating blue-on-blue when things get hectic.

Put all the above together and I would still choose two seats for the type of air-to-surface ops that we’ve tied ourselves up in for the last 20 years. Of course Harrier, A-10 and F-16 show that it’s possible with one seat, but the question is which of the above areas do you compromise in? Each of the aforementioned 3 aircraft has the advantage of better ergonomics than Typhoon (and in the first 2 instances, no other substantial roles to train for), but taking that forward my worry about ‘sensor fusion’ is that it’s only as good as its programming and depends on on-board computers that by the very nature of military procurement are a long way behind the state of the art.* The advantage of a second human is to be found in the processing of incomplete, conflicting or unexpected information. Moreover that human can be reprogrammed by reading or briefing, in contrast to the computer which needs expensive and time-consuming work.

I find it very interesting that the Franco-German 6th-gen concept has 2 seats, undoubtedly under French influence (they operate a mixed fleet of single- and two-seat Rafales on operations, which tells its own story). I don’t know enough about F35 to comment, but I am confident enough to judge Typhoon well behind F15E in air-to-surface capability in the here and now. The fact that one of the Typhoon upgrades is a targeting pod with improved auto-tracking capabilities tells its own story about one of the issues found while taking over Tornado’s mantle. But then Typhoon was not intended to replace Tornado. (Nor was F35, but we are where we are; it’ll be interesting to see if its sensor fusion and ‘reprogrammability’ show the French and Germans to have made the right or wrong call with their Tornado replacement concept).

* A final thought: I think it more likely that future advances in computing will take away the ‘piloting’ task, leaving a single ‘WSO’ to monitor sensors, issue orders to unmanned wingmen, and apply human ethics to engagement decisions for his or her ‘formation’ of drones. It’ll have to be a 2-winged ‘WSO’ though, obviously ;-)

[ORAC]

How can I “like” a post....

[Easy Street]

Easy Street, I think your final thought is close. Someone who knew a lot about the F35 told me that the piloting bit was very easy thanks to the automation. The difficult bit was managing all the information.
That's my understanding too. Looking ahead to advances in on-board computing capacity, artificial intelligence now reliably beats human intelligence in structured scenarios where complete information is available, such as games of chess or go. And I'd say the job of a pilot fits that definition much more closely than that of a WSO. Even the most dynamic piloting activity, air-to-air combat, sees decisions based on known 'pictures' and measurable geometries which a suitably capable set of sensors and computers stands at least a chance of mastering. For all that an air picture can be confusing, it's almost infinitely simpler than the ground picture and to that extent I can see HAL being left to do all the flying while the human concentrates exclusively on the 'military thinking', for want of a better term for it.

It's not the piloting part of the job that will keep a body in our aircraft in the long term: were it not for the fragility, vulnerability and bandwidth limitations of beyond-line-of-sight datalinks we'd probably do the 'military thinking' somewhere else and do away with the crew altogether. That leads to another thought: focussing on improving sensor fusion to ease workload might actually be a distraction from the more achievable goal of improving automatic piloting to ease workload. And I say this as a pilot...

[Rhino power]

Hi there,
Civilian pilot but very interested in military aviation, I understand what you are saying but how would the Eurofighter T1 be different to earlier model F16 from NATO countries that have been upgraded to a standard comparable (as I understand) to F16 block 50/52?

thanks
Whilst the early F-16A/B of European operators that have been upgraded to 'MLU' standard are very capable, they really are not on the same level as a Block 52 F-16, the same as the early Tranche 1 Typhoons are not as capable as Tranche 2/3. Internal arrangement, structural changes, avionics power supply/cooling etc, all have an impact. Theoretically, a Tranche 1 Typhoon 'could' be upgraded to Tranche 2/3 standard, but it just wouldn't be economically viable, or sensible...

-RP

[Valiantone]

Nomad2

Sorry to burst your bubble. But apart from 1 RTP Tranche 1 twin stick going to the BAE Technical College at my old local airport. The only other survivor is the one that has gone back to the factory that built it. Some of the Jets went to a yard in Lincoln and I doubt they stayed complete for long.

[tartare]

Did the conformal fuel tanks get binned for good?

Yes, I wondered that too - what happened to the conformal tanks?

[Rhino power]

Yes, I wondered that too - what happened to the conformal tanks?

Tranche 3 jets are plumbed for and have the attachment points for them, just needs the RAF/MOD to actually buy some...

-RP

[Rhino power]

Of the the Tranche 1 Typhoons that were upgraded to T.3s, ZJ800/801/802/803/804/805/806/808/809/811/812/813 and 815 have all been RTP'd/scrapped, or are awaiting RTP/scrapping, only a few Tranche 1 T.3s remain in service. As far as I can tell, all Tranche 2 T.3s remain in service...

-RP

[weemonkey]

That is a timeless question and one that is very hard to answer.

Once you have more than one person you then have CRM to worry about. Some brighter minds work better on their own and can find it hard to communicate their thought processes.

Also, modern jets can look after the flying side to the extent that the single mind can easily manage the systems.

Many years ago, before cockpit ergonomics were really considered, I would agree with you. Nowadays though I think the single person crew concept in a fast jet is far more preferable.

I am not the leading expert though and others may well disagree.

BV

Bob thanks some pertinent points there.

My main concern is ROE and avoiding blue on blue.

I still believe the two crew concept has significant advantages in this.

[andrewn]

Generally, I think the advantages of 2 crew over 1 come in the execution of those complex or very high workload scenarios. I listened in on a 2-ship live QRA a few years ago, think it was the BMI one, and the workload of the formation lead was phenomenal, and appeared highly stressful, almost to the point of being task saturated in my opinion.

Certainly way beyond my capabilities, regardless of the amount of training undertaken!

[Pittsextra]

Is the canopy still leaky?

[flyburg]

Whilst the early F-16A/B of European operators that have been upgraded to 'MLU' standard are very capable, they really are not on the same level as a Block 52 F-16, the same as the early Tranche 1 Typhoons are not as capable as Tranche 2/3. Internal arrangement, structural changes, avionics power supply/cooling etc, all have an impact. Theoretically, a Tranche 1 Typhoon 'could' be upgraded to Tranche 2/3 standard, but it just wouldn't be economically viable, or sensible...

-RP

thanks for the info!

[oldmansquipper]

Do you still need inflating boots?

asking for a friend.....

[Stitchbitch]

Do you still need inflating boots?

asking for a friend.....

No inflating boots required. Inflating socks instead, not many pilots used them when IWOT.

[jindabyne]

On a historical note. From 1996 -2000, I ran the campaign, in country, to flog the Typhoon to the Australian Defence Force. Prior to that, I spent seven years at Warton working with the excellent design teams, in a marketing sense, on potential developments. Things like Raptor and conformal tanks - among other things (such as the ill-fated attempt to equip the aircraft with deck-landing capability). All of these were put to the Aussies with some vigour. They, friends as they were, largely poo-poohed me. I failed in my quest, which was inevitable; but I had a bloody good few years doing it.

Meanwhile, I paint.

Eat your heart out Mel Hupfeld, Pietsch and others!! Good mates.

Now, in my dotage, I'm delighted to see that the aircraft is reaching its true potential. As I always maintained it would do so. So did Ned

[ORAC]

AW&ST: http://aviationweek.com/defense/multipronged-plan-takes-shape-typhoon-capability-expansion

A Multipronged Plan Takes Shape For Typhoon Capability Expansion

Eight months after formally declaring Project Centurion—the name given to the RAF’s up-arming of the fighter with additional air-to-ground and long-range air-to-air weaponry—operational, a new round of upgrades is being tested for the UK fleet of Tranche 2 and 3 jets.......

The newest upgrades build on that Centurion work with tweaks to the man-machine interface based on feedback from crews using Centurion on the front lines over Iraq and Syria. The RAF also plans to introduce the Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod, which features a higher-fidelity sensor that allows targets to be identified from extended ranges. The pod is undergoing flight testing on an aircraft borrowed from the RAF, and is expected to reach the front line early next year, says Flynn.

Work is also underway to enhance the aircraft’s Passive Infrared Airborne Track Equipment (Pirate), the Typhoon’s infrared search and track sensor mounted just ahead of the cockpit. Typhoon operators have struggled with the system’s reliability, but Flynn says the team is taking a “fly-fix-fly” approach to improving the sensor’s “reliability and robustness,” with the upgrade introducing a passive nighttime detection capability.

British Typhoons will also be fitted with a new Saab (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=40638)-developed smart dispenser system—replacing the dispensing systems embedded in a fairing beneath the wing—whose development is expected to be completed next year. Saab officials say this will be more closely integrated into the defensive aids system and will prepare the aircraft for active decoys such as the Leonardo-made BriteCloud.......

the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) project, beginning with a €53.7 million ($60 million) 19-month study, announced at the Paris Air Show, to look at the next upgrade steps for the aircraft and its Eurojet EJ200 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=618&pgName=Eurojet+Turbo+EJ200) engine, as well as the aircraft’s avionics and defensive aids system.

This work, however, is separate from the ongoing Phase Enhancement program, the most recent of which, P3E(a), integrated the Brimstone missile.

The next step is P3E(b), which will deliver the capability to use the new Captor-E active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, the first customer for which will be Kuwait...... P3E(b) also gives the aircraft the ability to drop Mk. 82 and Mk. 83 dumb bombs, a Kuwaiti requirement.

A P3E(c) enhancement program is also in the works, but few details have emerged on what it contains. The same goes for the long-awaited P4E upgrade. That is planned to be embodied in the fleet around 2024, but will likely pave the way for adding more capable versions of the AESA radar such as the so-called Radar 2 desired by the UK.......

[chopper2004]

Interesting, if I recall...Kuwait and Qatar(?) latest customers. Latter is odd considering they’ve also ordered Boeing F-15QA and Dasssult Rafale. So three front line types.

iAlso are not the conformal tank design aimed at one of the mIddle East customers?

Had the pleasure two years ago of seeing and sitting in Saudi Typhoon at DAs2017. IIRC, Saudi configuration is the same as us Europeans? (my photos below). Saudis made a one day visit to the show on the Tuesday.

cheers


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/8afd2227_8748_4b3b_9d69_8dfb7acd79b8_ca9a58bf710ea23cae69377 efa3de6fab2b47c1d.jpeg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/be12b17d_4d8f_48ed_9fb9_aff8b74e2c98_3fa3518d2933fa96db1a8ef 8ff5620d7359ee84a.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/5626b677_cdd5_44f5_b07e_8b02e7e31209_0feec52eac18997c1099ffe 66284220494f29af9.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/e9830046_a6f5_42b8_aae7_5644c77a871c_be7f09bcd4ccbae73c51c61 61fe539b190d6049e.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/2f31fc37_421b_4ae9_9ec1_9853ad26f9ee_5eb68b40a53efc14976e554 f8596894e0d6e45c8.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/c25741be_d751_48e6_8b9b_e61b233ffb16_418d3ef0143421ef0eff861 1c907724e0d520369.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/456739fa_2751_48a4_a5df_97220a658668_20b774fd2d60d3c7774c799 a9ba9d0cb5e4637ef.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/c8518a4e_ed67_416a_b9ce_a12fdb7083fc_9eaabd5c70d1ce86c5edb69 bce82dd388e1b343f.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/522x521/7234874d_f3e9_463d_bce9_c5e70b87d0e3_014d0ba197b9fa89880a3d6 3ac658ff39763fb83.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/de152a3e_e186_498e_8cf0_7a041910243d_728c9d83eb1bbf69be50872 19e07d3f29cb8c95f.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/358da650_9ee7_4449_9f0b_09d3d8e43ad4_8552a0c4067544eeeb634db 584b6b0f35b357a58.jpeg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/fcaf5bc2_345f_4903_bfd9_4d81135f0bcf_849cc34e5cc17b9eb99289d 26bccb26b77dee33b.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/e4d08498_1c03_45a3_9986_65743d2c829e_63a316884fdb87c041abb2b 01b2fdbda30af6c4a.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/664ccf1b_1385_46fa_9e2d_cf2b146354a1_fb7385d2cb8236206902cd8 cad6f1b298cb6af16.jpeg
​​​​​​​

[orca]

Qatar wasn’t buying jets. They were buying influence at a time of vulnerability.

[gr4techie]

Does the upgrade come with spare parts?

[charliegolf]

Have the steps been upgraded at al?:E

CG

[jindabyne]

Much of this now goes above my head (as a lot does). But it's good to see the aircraft approaching full fruition - with still lots of time to go. Are those on here who consider Tempest to be a viable prospect? If the Typhoon timescale is to be compared, then we're perhaps looking at an ISD of 2060?

[Lordflasheart]

...
RAF Typhoon AESA radar upgrade ....... or NOT ?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34940/eurofighters-new-radar-is-nearly-ready-but-royal-air-force-wants-an-even-better-one

Qatar and Kuwait will, it seems, be first to have Eurofighters fitted with AESA.

Germany and Spain next.

Why doesn't the RAF just issue an RFP for a cloaking device and wait for that instead ... hmmmh Sergei ?

Some of the serious players seem to have AESAs on their AESAs already.

LFH
...

[Could be the last?]

I assume as part of the upgrade activities there is a programme to replace or upgrade the pilot’s various helmets?

[Stitchbitch]

I assume as part of the upgrade activities there is a programme to replace or upgrade the pilot’s various helmets?

That would depend on what you need the helmet to do. The Striker line of helmets would be obvious, but then there’s the Gentex helmet for Euro users, UK Mil helmets for UK and UK overseas customers..then a night requirement...

[Hot 'n' High]

That would depend on what you need the helmet to do. The Striker line of helmets would be obvious, but then there’s the Gentex helmet for Euro users, UK Mil helmets for UK and UK overseas customers..then a night requirement...

As Stitchbitch notes, depends on (a) what the customer wants and (b) what they can afford - that is key. I'm sure industry is also looking at all sorts of ways to improve situational awareness and tactical advantage (there seems to be a good mindset out there these days) but, ultimately, what makes a project viable in Industry is what cash income to the company (whoever they are) is likely to see. No money in it = a dead programme. BTB - Blame The Bean-counters!!!

Re the comment by Lordflasheart on the apparent tardiness of the RAF to adopt AESA, while not privy to the state of AESA nor it's integration into the Weapon System, maybe letting others weather the unpredictability may not be so daft. Besides, with Centurion probably still smoothing itself out, I'd suspect breathing space at the Phoon Desk in the UK MoD is also welcome/necessary! :ok:

Just some idle thoughts! Cheers, H 'n' H

[Out Of Trim]

Counter-drone tech and state-of-the-art radar for the RAFRAF Typhoons are to be equipped with next generation radar thanks to a £317 million investment, Defence Minister Jeremy Quin today announced.

Published 3 September 2020From:Ministry of Defence (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/counter-drone-tech-and-state-of-the-art-radar-for-the-raf

Some Good News...

[Bob Viking]

A quick question from a slightly tipsy BV if I may?

Why does counter drone technology need to be on a fast jet? I’ll admit I haven’t fully absorbed the thrust of the article but don’t we have other platforms that might be better placed to take on the counter drone role?

BV

[wub]

A quick question from a slightly tipsy BV if I may?

Why does counter drone technology need to be on a fast jet? I’ll admit I haven’t fully absorbed the thrust of the article but don’t we have other platforms that might be better placed to take on the counter drone role?

BV

I think It is a badly drafted press release. The first part refers to AESA upgrade to the Typhoon and the second part refers to the counter drone technology, which is a ground-based system.

[Just This Once...]

£317M... I guess that will be the Tranche 3 jets only then.

[DuckDodgers]

I wonder if the Typhoon DT in DE&S negotiated a stellar deal for 107 units at £2.96MM a piece inclusive of integration? Given the track record of procurement it sadly looks like it's just the T3A jets at £7.925MM each, which given T3A jets have the structures, power, and cooling requirements already embedded seems expensive. If memory serves, T2 aircraft only have the structural requirements so need a full retrofit programme.

[ORAC]

£317M... I guess that will be the Tranche 3 jets only then.


https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/09/03/britain-moves-forward-with-its-own-typhoon-radar-primed-for-electronic-warfare/

Britain moves forward with its own Typhoon radar primed for electronic warfare

......The British plan to equip their 40-strong fleet of Typhoon Tranche 3 jets with the new radar but will decide at a later date whether to take up the option of fitting out the earlier Tranche 2 aircraft with the technology.......

The announcement of the next step in Britain’s intentions to go their own way with development of the Mk2 system comes just weeks after Typhoon national partners Germany and Spain revealed they were going ahead with the development and manufacture of the Hensoldt-led European Common Radar System Mk1 version.....

Although Britain and its partners have undertaken substantial work together on common AESA development work through the Euroradar consortium, the Mk2 is effectively a completely different product from the Mk1 forward of the common power supply......

[thelizardking]

Seems a bit of a terrible idea to have 2 fleets within a fleet. I assume tactics would change based on the new RADAR and so training will become ever more complicated...

[Bob Viking]

Surely those without the AESA radar will still get the link picture from those with the new toy? Maybe things won’t need to change too much.

I’m just spitballing and not too invested.

BV

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

All this Management Bo££ocks of Tranches; just give them different Mark numbers/sub type letters ffs....... (yes, I'm having a Bad Day!)

[ORAC]

All this Management Bo££ocks of Tranches; just give them different Mark numbers/sub type letters ffs....... (yes, I'm having a Bad Day!)
You buy in tranches - you can buy three tranches of identical models/marks.

[Martin the Martian]

You buy in tranches - you can buy three tranches of identical models/marks.

But they were never identical to begin with,and if they have different mark numbers it might make it bit easier. After all, they are throwing mark numbers at the Chinook force like they are going out of fashion, and there is more commonality between them than there is between T1 and T3 Typhoons. which are all FGR.4s.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

But they were never identical to begin with,and if they have different mark numbers it might make it bit easier. After all, they are throwing mark numbers at the Chinook force like they are going out of fashion, and there is more commonality between them than there is between T1 and T3 Typhoons. which are all FGR.4s.

That's what I thought the situation was and supports my point entirely; thanks MtM.

(My day has got marginally better since original post! The first Caribbean Coke in few minutes should help too!)

[SLXOwft]

Forgive my ignorance but am I correct that this means squadrons remaining solely Tr1 equipped will be reliant on a mechanical radar based on a 30+ year old design. So the airframes with limited GA capability will also be without the benefits of a modern radar which among other things has improved AI capbility and from a defensive view lower probability of intercept. So for optimum performance they will need to use a Link picture from an aircraft from another unit with a more modern radar also in range of their potential targets?

OK, I know there should also be an E-3 or E-7 but it still doesn't make sense to this bear of little brain.

From what I understand the Tr1 is a very different beast internally, systems and software wise from Tr2/Tr3; thus, as Rhino power said, it would be uneconomic to upgrade Tr1 airframes to a common standard. To me, however, it looks that over the medium to long term, it is false economy to retain rather than replace the Tr1s, however, HMG is unwilling to raise the necessary taxes to pay for replacement probably becaue of the "optics".

[ORAC]

If you are using them as UK based QRA they are more than up to the task.

[SOX80]

Many nations use a mixed fleet of AESA and mech scan (F15 E, Rafale). It would be nice to have a full AESA fleet but the money would be better spent elsewhere. Arguably L16 and fifth gen integration is more important than an AESA.

[SLXOwft]

If you are using them as UK based QRA they are more than up to the task.

ORAC, I'm sure you are right for now and the foreseable future but with a Typhoon OSD of 2040 (and probably later) how long will it be justifiable to maintain them for that single role. Also will they still be capable against potential LO and/or autonomous UAV intruders possibly even from a non-state adversary? I grant the possibilty of hostile acts against the mainland UK is vanishingly small. However, I think in 1985 nearly all of us saw the Cold War continuing ad infinitum; the world can change rapidly in unexpected ways.

Having a tiny fleet within, what historically is already a small fleet, presumably with dedicated pilots and maintainers, surely limits who and what can be deployed elsewhere if the need arises with the problems that brings.

I clearly have too much time to think wild thoughts at the moment.:O

SOX80, I should obviously remember: "The best, particularly in the business of defence, is so often the enemy of the good."

[ORAC]

ORAC, I'm sure you are right for now and the foreseable future but with a Typhoon OSD of 2040 (and probably later) how long will it be justifiable to maintain them for that single role.
Maybe - but I was still launching and controlling Binbrook Lightnings on SQRA into the late 1980s. Over 10 years after the fleet had been reduced to just one base and 2 squadrons - 5 and 11 (I’ll disregard the LTF).

[Jackonicko]

£317M... I guess that will be the Tranche 3 jets only then.

This is just the latest development and T&E contract - it does include some long-lead manufacturing and procurement, but a separate production contract will be required.....

[Jackonicko]

My take:

Typhoon’s Radar Two breaks cover



On 3 September 2020, UK Defence Minister Jeremy Quin announced that a £317 million contract had been signed covering the integration of a new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA or E-Scan) radar on the Typhoon, to meet RAF Requirements.



A test and evaluation contract for the previously little-known ‘Radar Two’ had been widely expected, to allow development of this radar to be completed. In recent months, there have been a number of reports that a test version of the radar was being operated in Leonardo’s roof lab at Crewe Toll in Edinburgh, and even that ‘Radar Two’ formed part of the Eurofighter offering to meet the Finnish HX fighter requirement, and had been demonstrated to Finnish personnel. It was also predicted that a development contract would include the production of five radar sets for flight trials.



While it was expected, the announcement of the contract represents an extremely welcome boost for both industry and the Royal Air Force. It is the product of ten years of MoD investment in UK radar/EW programmes, and while it is not the final step in the journey towards equipping RAF Typhoons with a new radar it is a critical step in the long term air capability plan.



The UK has long resisted pressure to adopt what was once hoped to be a four-nation AESA programme, insisting that the RAF needed a more advanced radar, which would incorporate extensive electronic attack (EA) and electronic warfare (EW) capabilities.



This led to a divergence of AESA radar development for the Eurofighter. The development of the baseline Captor-E AESA radar saw both BAE Systems and Leonardo working alongside Eurofighter consortium partners in Germany, Spain and Italy as part of a four-nation development programme, with Leonardo leading the four-nation EuroRADAR consortium (Leonardo in the UK and Italy, Hensoldt in Germany and Indra in Spain) to develop the baseline E-scan radar, and also acting as the design authority, leading the design of the radar system. BAE Systems had equipment design responsibility, integrating the radar into the aircraft.



The resulting Captor-E was a minimum change version of the M-Scan Captor radar, combining the existing Captor back end with a new AESA antenna, mounted on a dual swashplate repositioner. The first production variant of this new AESA radar was known as Radar One Plus or ECRS Mk 0, and was developed primarily to meet the requirements of Kuwait and Qatar.



Another version of the Captor-E is being developed to meet German and Spanish requirements. Germany has a requirement to retrofit AESA radars to 110 of its Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 Eurofighters, and to equip the 38 new-build aircraft being acquired to replace Tranche 1 aircraft under Project Quadriga. Spain plans to retrofit 19 of its Eurofighters.



Hensoldt was awarded a €1.5 Bn contract by Airbus Defence and Space to develop and produce a new ECRS Mk 1 AESA radar for the German and Spanish Eurofighter fleets. The ECRS Mk 1 is a development of the Kuwait/Qatar standard Mk 0, and will be produced by retrofitting Mk 0 radars with a new digital multi-channel receiver and new transmitter/receiver modules developed by Hensoldt.



Hensoldt will be the design authority for the new Mk 1 radar, drawing on Hensoldt’s years of partnership with Leonardo in producing the current Typhoon radar, while Airbus will have equipment design responsibility for the new variant. Leonardo will provide a significant level of support to enable Hensoldt to assume design authority, and will also continue to provide the processor for the German radar.



Despite UK companies having leadership of the Captor-E project, the baseline Mk 0 radar was never going to be used by the RAF, whose corporate heart was always set on the more capable ‘Radar Two’ product.



The new British radar, known as ECRS Mk 2, is designed to ensure that Typhoon will be able to operate in the most challenging contested environments, on its own, and autonomously. The new radar allows potential export customers to operate a single platform Typhoon fleet even in the most challenging contested environments.



BAE Systems’ former Finland Campaign Manager, Wing Commander Anthony ‘Foxy’ Gregory, explained that ECRS Mk 2 “makes the case for Eurofighter in Finland more compelling.”



Gregory says that Finland has “a predominantly defensive posture against adversaries, and is looking to protect a long land border,” making the HX competition “predominantly a high-end air defence type of requirement, albeit operating in a high threat environment, from the point of view of some of the adversary threat systems that might be deployed.” He says that Typhoon offers advantages over the F-35 in speed, range, and reach, with greater autonomy and sovereignty in Mission Data, and enjoys a similar ability to operate and survive in a contested environment.



For the UK, the new radar also promises to make Typhoon the ideal partner in a fourth/fifth generation and unmanned force mix for decades to come.



It was once believed that leading air forces would move to an all-Stealth, all fifth generation force structure, but the growing vulnerability of stealth to new and developing counter stealth systems, coupled with the high cost, has led to a growing emphasis on operating fourth and fifth generation fighters together in a more complementary and synergistic fashion. This is what lies behind the resurgence of the Block III Super Hornet and Growler, and also the development of Boeing’s Advanced F-15EX.



ECRS Mk 2 promises to allow the Typhoon to enhance the RAF’s F-35 force – not merely carrying additional weapons to the fight, but bringing its own advanced capabilities that improve the F-35’s survivability and effectiveness. A Typhoon equipped with ECRS Mk 2 will be a very survivable platform, so while the enemy may know that the aircraft is ‘in the area’, it will be able to operate as what one programme insider described as a ‘brute squad’, its pilot not having to worry about his signature, able to carry vast numbers of weapons and “raining down electronic attack and the world’s supply of SPEAR Capability III or SDBs or whatever weapon you want to use, while the fifth gen aircraft is acting as a silent assassin, sliding around the back to slip the knife in!”



“This is going to be an asset that people are going to want to have there. Just like they want Growlers now, they’re going to want Typhoon with ECRS Mk 2 because of the things that it’s going to be able to do in the really challenging contested environment, and because of the way it complements and enhances the capability of fifth generation and unmanned platforms. The force mix, the mixture, the combination of Typhoon with ECRS Mk 2 and F-35, is greater than the sum of the parts. Leonardo’s EW division at Luton are literally at the top of the premier league within the EW market, so we’ve got something that genuinely adds capability value, even if you’re operating as part of a coalition with the US.”



In the wake of the contract announcement, more detailed information about the new radar emerged. ECRS Mk 2 has been developed by Leonardo and will be integrated by BAE Systems, the UK’s prime contractor for the Typhoon.



Though designated as the ECRS Mk 2, (European Common Radar System Mk 2), the new UK radar has little in common with previous Euroradar AESA radars, despite sharing the same ECRS designation prefix. The ECRS Mk 0 AESA radar fitted to Kuwaiti and Qatari Typhoons, and the ECRS Mk 1 radar which is being developed for the German/Spanish retrofit programme are derivatives of the mechanically scanned (M-Scan) Captor-C, using much the same back-end, but married to a new AESA array with an innovative double swashplate repositioner. They are collectively known as Captor-E variants.



The ECRS Mk 2 radar does share a common interface with the platform and weapons system, via the German supplied attack computer, and uses the same power generation and cooling, but is not based on Captor technology, instead using a completely new open-architecture radar ‘back end’. From the power supply forward the new radar uses completely new hardware, including what is referred to as a “revolutionary” Multi-Function Array. This will allow the radar to provide traditional air-to-air and air-to-ground, search, track and targeting functions as well as new electronic warfare (EW) and wide-band electronic attack (EA) capabilities.



The open architecture of the back end will also enable the rapid low cost development cycles necessary for the radar to be adapted to counter dynamic and developing threats. The concept is that the whole radar will become what is being called ‘mission ware’, which can be changed with the same level of overhead and difficulty as it now takes to change mission data – crucially without having to go back through the safety case every time the software is changed.



The ECRS Mk 2 also has a completely new processor, a new receiver, a dedicated EW receiver and techniques generator, and a completely different system for the antenna repositioner, using a single rotating joint, rather than the double swashplate arrangement of Captor-E. The aircraft will even feature a new radome to support the wide bandwidth that comes with ECRS Mk 2.



The Typhoon’s relatively wide nose allows it to accommodate a large radar dish, and this in turn allows a large number of transmit-receive modules (TRMs). Leonardo claim that ECRS Mk 2 has significantly more Transmit-Receive Elements than other radars. Because a large dish with a large number of transmit receive modules makes for a narrow beam, this means that ECRS Mk 2 will have focused power, and since the Typhoon provides all of the electrical power and cooling that is needed, it will have the ability to generate some exceptionally high-powered, focused electronic attack, but also great sensitivity allowing unparalleled passive detection and a very long reach.



All of this has led Leonardo to claim that ECRS Mk 2 will be the World’s most capable fighter AESA radar, blending the power and precision of traditional radars while also enabling the simultaneous operation of its wide-band Electronic Warfare functionality. This will allow RAF pilots to locate and identify enemy air defences and suppress them using high-powered jamming – adding the suppression/destruction of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD) role to the Eurofighter Typhoon’s multi-role mission set. The aircraft will engage targets while remaining beyond the reach of threat systems – and will jam enemy radars even when their main lobe may be looking in another direction.



The new ECRS Mk 2 will also enable the Typhoons to link up with future data-driven weapons to combat rapidly evolving air defences, ensuring that UK Typhoons will be able to continue to dominate the battlespace for many years to come.



The ECRS Mk 2 radar makes use of both Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) and Gallium Nitride (GaN) semi-conductors within its array, blending the strengths of the different technologies to cost effectively provide a differentiating military capability.



ECRS Mk 2 is built on the lineage of the ARTS (Advanced Radar Targeting System) and Bright Adder technology demonstrators, and on the ES-05 Raven radar used on the Saab Gripen NG, rather than being based on the original Captor radar and the AESA-equipped CAPTOR-E.



ARTS was born in February 2006, when the UK Ministry of Defence awarded a contract to QinetiQ to demonstrate the advanced targeting capability offered by Electronically Scanned (E-Scan) radar technology on a Tornado GR4A (ZG707, the so-called the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle or TREV) for assessment by the RAF in 2007. Electronic attack is understood to have formed a key part of ARTS. QinetiQ teamed with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems (now Leonardo) and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support to integrate the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) on the Tornado with a view to replacing the 1970s-era mechanically-scanned terrain following/ ground mapping radar system on the RAF Tornado fleet. The requirement to provide an AESA upgrade for the Tornado GR.Mk 4 was called Reforger, and had a planned ISD of ‘soon after 2010.’ Though Reforger was cancelled, ARTS formed the basis of UK efforts to provide an AESA for the Typhoon, primarily via the Bright Adder TDP.



Bright Adder itself was launched in about 2010, and was based on the ARTS concept, but in a form factor suited to the Typhoon. It was intended to be better than the Typhoon’s existing air to air radar, while also offering electronic attack capabilities. Bright Adder is reported to have successfully demonstrated novel ‘jamming through the radar’ techniques and functionality. Though built as a flyable asset, the Bright Adder radar was not flown, instead being used in Leonardo’s roof lab at Crewe Toll in Edinburgh.



Bright Adder will now fly on a Typhoon as part of the ECRS.Mk 2 test and evaluation (T&E) effort, with a number of other test radars and the first three production systems. The first ‘Radar Two’ will fly in a Typhoon in 2022, and the T&E fleet will build steadily from there, achieving IOC (Initial Operational Capability) for the ECRS Mk 2 soon after 2025.



Programme insiders seem confident that this ambitious timetable can be achieved, thanks to a carefully co-ordinated test plan which will see the use of a comprehensive array of airborne and ground-based test assets. The latter include Leonardo’s roof lab, and test facilities at Warton where the radar can be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if required. Synthetic and modelling assets will also be employed, which will reduce programme risk and reduce the flight test time required. Flight testing is obviously expensive and is often asset limited, and can cause delays.



One programme insider observed that this new contract represented the fifth cycle of activity that he had seen on ECRS Mk 2, and in that time, during those five cycles, the schedule and planned timeline had been maintained, giving him confidence that the planned IOC will be achieved.



A further ECRS Mk2 contract will obviously be needed before the series production phase but some long-lead procurement and manufacturing is already included in this latest deal.



The initial plan is for all 40 of the UK’s Tranche 3 aircraft to be equipped with ECRS Mk.2, though there is an option to re-equip Tranche 2 Typhoons as well. Both Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 aircraft have the necessary pre-mods to allow an ECRS Mk 2 retrofit, but that decision does not need to be made yet.



The new radar is also being offered to export customers, including Finland - where the Typhoon offer is based on alignment with the RAF aircraft standard, including Radar 2.



Ironically, in view of its selection of the ECRS Mk 1 for its Tranche 2/3 upgrade and Tranche 1 replacement, Germany could still be a customer for ECRS Mk 2. Germany has an outstanding requirement to replace some 85 surviving Tornados, and may opt for a split buy of Super Hornets and Eurofighters to meet this requirement, divided between 30 Block III F/A-18E/Fs and 15 E/A-18G Growler Electronic Attack and SEAD-versions, plus 40 Eurofighters to replace the Tornado for strike missions, with an option for a further 15 aircraft for Electronic Attack. Alternatively, Germany could still opt for an all-Eurofighter solution. It has been reported that German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen may have favoured equipping these aircraft with Radar Two, though Airbus’ unveiling of a dedicated SEAD variant (the so-called Eurofighter ECR) to meet the LUWES (Luftgestätze Wirkung im Elektromagnetischen Spektrum or airborne action in the electromagnetic spectrum) requirement may make this less likely.



The ECRS Mk 2 development contract will sustain more than 600 highly skilled jobs across the UK, including more than 300 at Leonardo's site in Edinburgh, over 100 electronic warfare specialists at the company’s site in Luton, and 120 engineers at BAE Systems' sites in Lancashire, 100 at their site in Dunfermline, Fife; and 50 at sub-contractor Meggitt in Stevenage, Herts.



Its makers hope that the ECRS Mk 2 programme will sustain some of the key skills that will be needed to keep the UK at the forefront of the global Combat Air sector, a key ambition of the broader 2018 UK combat air strategy.



BAE’s Foxy Gregory pointed out that: “The combat air sector supports in excess of 46,000 jobs, across the various companies and throughout the supply chain. It turns over in excess of £6 Bn. But it’s not only the economic value, the jobs value, it’s also the fact that it’s a national capability, providing a sovereign freedom of action to our armed forces, based on the fact that we can do things across a national industrial base, without being reliant on other parties. This gives the RAF confidence in the kit that they are operating. We’re currently at the top of the premier league, why wouldn’t we want to stay there and derive the prosperity benefits and the technology sustainment benefits of that position?”



Mark Hamilton, Senior Vice-President Electronic Warfare, Leonardo, said that: “Inventing, developing and building advanced technology here in the UK allows us to understand and meet the specific requirements of our Armed Forces and to secure export orders all around the world, boosting the whole UK economy.”



More specifically, ECRS Mk 2 forms a key part of the UK’s long term vision for Typhoon, forming a cornerstone of the so-called Eurofighter long term evolution. But is also a key building block for future combat air capabilities more widely, and is part of the wider effort to mature key technologies and operational concepts and capabilities for future combat air systems, perhaps including Tempest.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/feindef/2021/11/03/new-radar-kits-abound-for-the-eurofighter-fleet/

New radar kits abound for the Eurofighter fleet

ROME — The first Kuwaiti Eurofighters with new electronically scanned radars onboard took to the skies in Italy in October for test flights, as engineers in the U.K. provided fresh details on the e-scan radar version they are developing for the RAF’s Typhoons…..

[Buster15]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/feindef/2021/11/03/new-radar-kits-abound-for-the-eurofighter-fleet/

New radar kits abound for the Eurofighter fleet

ROME — The first Kuwaiti Eurofighters with new electronically scanned radars onboard took to the skies in Italy in October for test flights, as engineers in the U.K. provided fresh details on the e-scan radar version they are developing for the RAF’s Typhoons…..

Just out of interest. As someone who worked on the Eurofighter Typhoon (engine) programme, albeit towards the end of the development cycle, I don't often get to read much about how good or otherwise the jet actually is.
Maybe no news is good news.
But with Tornado, there was always lots of information about what it did well and not so well.
From the knowledgeable people in this forum, what is the general opinion on how well Typhoon is in its in-service operational capabilities.

[ZH875]

...From the knowledgeable people in this forum, what is the general opinion on how well Typhoon is in its in-service operational capabilities.

Do you seriously expect answers, on this topic, in a public forum?

[Buster15]

Do you seriously expect answers, on this topic, in a public forum?

Calm down. I wasn't asking about operational specifics. Not that they are restricted anyway.
Just an indication of whether it is actually doing a good job. That type of thing.
Having spent many years supporting Tornado in service, I was wondering how well Typhoon is doing.

[57mm]

Buster15, the Tiff force owes you and all involved in the engine programme a vote of thanks. The Tiff donks are simply outstanding.

[Buster15]

Buster15, the Tiff force owes you and all involved in the engine programme a vote of thanks. The Tiff donks are simply outstanding.

That is very much appreciated. The EJ200 development programme was led by some outstanding engineers. And the Specification Requirements were extremely stringent. In particular the 'iluties'; reliability, maintainability, testability, durability and supportability.
It made good use of the very latest in computer modelling and materials.
And tried to learn from the previous RB199 programme.
In reality, it is a much simpler engine configuration than the 3 spool. And benefitted massively from the XG40 demonstrator programme. Something the RB199 never had.

Edit.
Please don't take this as any form of criticism of the RB199. That could not be further from the truth.
But the EJ200 benefitted from a number of things there 199 did not.
And an important one was time.
To develop a brand new state of the art engine at the same time as the aircraft was a huge risk. And absolutely everything had to be done from scratch with almost zero experience to fall back on.
And the timescales were extremely tight.
First engine test September1971.
First flight mid 1974.
Production delivery from 1979.

EJ200 timescales were quite a bit longer and had a great deal of technology and experience already in place.
So while I am not at all surprised that it is simply outstanding, it is still good to hear that confirmed.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1707321883547324601?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


BAE video on STRIKER II HMD for Typhoon shows other interesting things. One; wide area display & deletion of HUD. Not clear if this is coming in current upgrade phase; RAF has 2,35 billion, of which 910 million already committed to MK2 radar & STRIKER II.

Other interesting bit is load configuration in simulator. It implies Common Weapon Launcher is still on, because it shows Brimstone/SPEAR3 on innermost pylon and 2 AAM on a pylon underwing. In CENTURION, for all we know, BRIMSTONE integration was only on outer pylons (last pic)


https://dms.licdn.com/playlist/vid/D4E10AQE0mKZWWfWWMQ/mp4-640p-30fp-crf28/0/1695888697091?e=1696500000&v=beta&t=9WY5Z1IliD-XQLFMc1SAqajBfPKQdq_oJhzPeXFrOPs


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1142x498/image_de7d08d29cbda65b388a3228f308531707b8a7bc.jpeg

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x771/image_7a9c3312cadea8ada091bc851ab1a2a0f0851a0a.jpeg
​​​​​​​

[ORAC]

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1721464083369607672?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Luftwaffe slide showing a new ECW (Electronic Combat Wingman) unmanned loyal wingman for the @eurofighter EK. Official tells me just a vision currently, details to follow in @JanesINTEL story… (the circle around the F-35 was on the slide, and not related)...

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1063x683/image_5e33eb48b49c544fb14556f50d36d77c54d2e2f8.png

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/953x683/image_995095b19adbc34c5214b0005482ab7aa2597186.png
​​​​​​​

[ORAC]

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1721442297257070780?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


After some confusion as to whether Halcon II @Eurofighter for #Spain will be Tranche 4 as per Halcon I or Tranche 5, now confirmed as Tranche 4+. The will be P4E tech level at time of contract, but if LTE/Tranche 5 ready by time jets roll off line they should be at that standard.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1213x682/image_0c913df683201e479ec39631a72270c86eb9a75b.png
​​​​​​​

[ORAC]

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1721582673829773735?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Luftwaffe to equip all 163 of its Tranche 2,3,4 and EK @eurofighter (notwithstanding any outstanding Tornado replacement orders) with the new E-Scan radar, while the RAF is limiting itself to equipping just 40 Tranche 3 aircraft.

Spain potentially to join Germany in equipping all 96 of its Tranche 2, 3, 4, 4+ (as well as whatever comes out of a potential Halcon III buy for Tranche 5) @eurofighter jets with E-Scan radar, with MoD telling me LTE upgrades could be rolled out across entire fleet...

[Easy Street]

Was going to say it's unfair to say "RAF limiting itself"... I'm sure it would have a fleet wide fit if the MOD would allow it the budget and/or the leeway in other tasks to prioritise the existing budget that way... but then I reflected that the RAF's apparent requirement for a different radar must raise the unit cost and bear at least some of the responsibility for the limited deployment. All I can say is, it had better be good enough to outweigh the limitation posed by at least half of any formation being equipped with mech scan radars for the remaining life of the fleet!

[57mm]

Been out of the Tiff game for a while now, but would be interesting to know of progress on MLS and Auto Approach.

[barotraumatized]

Been out of the Tiff game for a while now, but would be interesting to know of progress on MLS and Auto Approach.

Unknown, but, if we’re being honest, just not operationally relevant capabilities anymore. Between funding for a 21st (20th!) century e-scan or something that mitigates approach issues (of which we’ve had ?? how many attributable losses?) then I know which I hope the RMs prioritise.

[henra]

Luftwaffe to equip all 163 of its Tranche 2,3,4 and EK @eurofighter (notwithstanding any outstanding Tornado replacement orders) with the new E-Scan radar, while the RAF is limiting itself to equipping just 40 Tranche 3 aircraft.

Ouch! Just 40?! Wow. In 10 -15 Years from now that will leave the RAF with a pretty small fleet of effective A2A Fighters. The others you can only use as bomb trucks against a sub- par opponent. Have MOD read the Newspaper lately?

[ORAC]

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1722226471866130453?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


A little bird tells me that Italy is to buy 24 more Eurofighter.

No confirmation/details yet from the Italian Air Force while LDO Aircraft declined comment, but following Germany's Quadriga’s and Spain's Halcon, that would leave the UK as only partner not to place an additional order.

[Asturias56]

Ouch! Just 40?! Wow. In 10 -15 Years from now that will leave the RAF with a pretty small fleet of effective A2A Fighters. The others you can only use as bomb trucks against a sub- par opponent. Have MOD read the Newspaper lately?

AFAIK no-one is fighting air to air right now anywhere - it's all bomb trucks or missiles or drones

[PPRuNeUser0211]

AFAIK no-one is fighting air to air right now anywhere - it's all bomb trucks or missiles or drones
Errrrrrrr, did I imagine the air to air going on in Ukraine, pretty sure there was quite a bit early on....

[ORAC]

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-11-airbus-to-make-eurofighter-fit-for-electronic-combat

Airbus to make Eurofighter fit for electronic combatMunich, 29 November 2023 –

Now it's official: The Eurofighter EK (Electronic Combat) is coming. Following the recent parliamentary approval by the German budget committee, Airbus will equip 15 German Eurofighters for electronic combat - and equip them with a transmitter location and self-protection system from Saab, as well as "AARGM" anti-radar missiles from the American company Northrop Grumman. The Eurofighter EK is to be NATO-certified by 2030 and will then replace the Tornado in the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) role.

"Electronic warfare and reconnaissance are an important NATO requirement: current conflicts and the present security situation show how important the two capabilities are," says Airbus Defence and Space CEO Michael Schöllhorn. "In this respect, the German government's decision to include such an important capability as electronic warfare in the Eurofighter capability portfolio is an important measure. EK will add this important capability to the already broad operational spectrum of the Eurofighter while strengthening European sovereignty and autonomy."

With the parliamentary approval by the Budget Committee, the Eurofighter is now officially set as the successor to the Tornado ECR (Electronic Combat/Reconnaissance). Airbus is now looking forward to the official order to integrate the selected technical solutions into the Eurofighter. The corresponding contract between Eurofighter GmbH, as prime contractor, and NETMA (NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency) is expected to be signed before the end of the year.

With Saab’s transmitter location system and the Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) from Northrop Grumman, the Eurofighter EK will be able to detect, localise and disable anti-aircraft radars. In addition, the Saab solution has jammers that improve the Eurofighter's self-protection. The Eurofighter EK also has technologies on board that were developed by small and medium-sized enterprises and a start-up. These include an AI solution that makes it possible to analyse radar data on-board and quickly determine precise self-protection measures.

Airbus is currently working with the BAAINBw procurement office, the German Air Force and the Bundeswehr Aviation Office on a detailed schedule for the implementation of the selected EK solutions in 15 Eurofighters...

[57mm]

IIRC, the EJ200 had potentially 30% thrust growth. Where are we with that?

[Gordon Brown]

IIRC, the EJ200 had potentially 30% thrust growth. Where are we with that?

Probably comes along with a 50% cost growth.

[mahogany bob]

AFAIK no-one is fighting air to air right now anywhere - it's all bomb trucks or missiles or drones

Errrrrrrr, did I imagine the air to air going on in Ukraine, pretty sure there was quite a bit early on

For FAST JET experts out there

At the risk of getting loads of groans - an old question which IS relevant when discussing the Typhoon - and future small agile fighters.

Are the days of Close Air to Air combat over ?

From google :

According to experts, lasers could potentially make the traditional air-to-air dogfighting obsolete, since a fighter with a laser weapon could destroy a target instantly without having the need to do a follow-up shot.

Because modern aircraft have reliable radar technology and missile guidance systems, dogfighting is no longer necessary. Aiming and shooting missiles with precise accuracy from further distances is now a reality, which means close-range aircraft combat is generally outdated.

In other words will the air battle be fought ‘ over the horizon’

Perhaps developing a Vulcan / B52 /B747 replacement ( BV will laugh !)with the ability to travel huge distances , with a large payload of missiles - air to air and air to ground ,modern ECM and able to stay on task for hours without AAR - is NOT so stupid after all ??

OR is the ability to visual I/D and escort ( with stealth and high g loads ) essential?

OR is an expensive MIX required ? - with small cheap bombers for asymmetric warfare .

[ORAC]

Perhaps developing a Vulcan / B52 /B747 replacement ( BV will laugh !)with the ability to travel huge distances , with a large payload of missiles - air to air and air to ground ,modern ECM and able to stay on task for hours without AAR - is NOT so stupid after all ??


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

Douglas F6D-1 Missileer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fleet-air-defense-fighter-douglas-f6d-1-missileer-and-its-rivals.33890/
​​​​​​​

[mahogany bob]

Thanks ORAC - but that was 66 years ago!
Missile technology has moved on - have the principles not changed?

[Bob Viking]

I’m far from being the leading expert on such matters but thankyou for the vote of confidence!

The problem your 747 will have is the length of its stick. On modern medium-long range missile combat, the aim is to launch your missile from as high and fast a platform as possible. It is also a good idea to be able to turn away ASAP once the missile is active and using its own radar. So your 747 could carry loads of missiles but would be dead from the first shot it received before it ever got a launch solution.

As for the validity of dog fighting, the fact that all Air Forces still train for it should tell you something. There is an argument that in the fifth gen world, the first time you get to ‘fight’ it will be in the visual arena with guns, once all other weapons have been expended. Basically, it’s better to train for it and know what to do if you need to, than to not train and have no idea what to do if the time ever came.

The other problem will be the number of fighters you have and the number of missiles they can carry. I know you might think that’s where your 747 comes in but it just wouldn’t survive long enough to be useful. If there were a way to re-arm your fighters in the air that would be a real step change!

BV

[Video Mixdown]

If there were a way to re-arm your fighters in the air that would be a real step change!BV
Isn't there talk of Tempest having a directed energy weapon. Theoretically unlimited ammunition.

[Asturias56]

I think the discussion on here led to the view that the power cable to the nearest GW power station was a bit of a limiting factor

[ORAC]

If there were a way to re-arm your fighters in the air that would be a real step change!BV
That’s the point of UAV wingmen, they can be rotated with replacements launched from trucks, ships or even your 747 equivalent from outside the combat zone and RV with the Tempest etc.

Meanwhile those that are Winchester can recover by landing or parachute to be turned round.

[mahogany bob]

Doing homework on the ‘Air War choices ’ I have come to the conclusion that the hundreds of boffins and military ‘experts ‘ (including Elon Musk )working on the way to go are not in agreement - so are keeping agile dog fighters in play - before gambling on as yet unproven missile /drone technology.

Aircraft manufactures and the whole aerospace industry must be lobbying hard (and the tax payer foots the huge bill) - the price of freedom! £100 million for one F35!

All new ideas are obviously Top Secret so it is impossible to find out what is really going on. Let’s hope that America keeps propping up Europe and keeps ahead of China.Hopefully Russia will lag behind.Perhaps UK can benefit with our historical talent for innovation /invention ?

One thing certain is that technology is advancing at an unprecedented rate and that Star Wars is not as far away as we once thought !

[Brewster Buffalo]

Perhaps developing a Vulcan / B52 /B747 replacement ( BV will laugh !)with the ability to travel huge distances , with a large payload of missiles - air to air and air to ground ,modern ECM and able to stay on task for hours without AAR - is NOT so stupid after all ??


Such a development of the Vulcan was proposed following a Air Staff requirement in the 1970s for an aircraft with a large air to air weapons load and a powerful radar ....termed the flying battleship.
There were two versions offered - one armed with 12 US Phoenix missiles and the other with 10 air-to-air versions of the Sea Dart missile. There would have been a "chin" radar under the nose.
The project didn't go far due to the proposed missile costs and the remaining fatigue life of the Vulcans.

[Brewster Buffalo]

If there were a way to re-arm your fighters in the air that would be a real step change! BV

Following a suggestion from the RAF in 1977 BAe proposed a version of their Multi-Role Support Aircraft that would be able to re-arm and refuel a Tornado on long range patrol.

The idea was that a pallet - fitted with four Skyflash missiles - would be reeled out from the back of the MRSA on a cable and it would home onto the fighter. The fighter would then lower a cradle and by some means the pallet and cradle would connect and then be be fitted under the Tornado's fuselage.

[ASRAAMTOO]

Another factor that must be taken into account is the Rules of Engagement (ROE). These are usually written by politcians and or lawyers. Whenever the UK has been involved in No Fly zones in the past there has been a distinct reluctance to allow the use of BVR weapons.

[superplum]

Following a suggestion from the RAF in 1977 BAe proposed a version of their Multi-Role Support Aircraft that would be able to re-arm and refuel a Tornado on long range patrol.

The idea was that a pallet - fitted with four Skyflash missiles - would be reeled out from the back of the MRSA on a cable and it would home onto the fighter. The fighter would then lower a cradle and by some means the pallet and cradle would connect and then be be fitted under the Tornado's fuselage.

Thank goodness the current CAS is an Engineer and can talk sense!

[barotraumatized]

Following a suggestion from the RAF in 1977 BAe proposed a version of their Multi-Role Support Aircraft that would be able to re-arm and refuel a Tornado on long range patrol.

The idea was that a pallet - fitted with four Skyflash missiles - would be reeled out from the back of the MRSA on a cable and it would home onto the fighter. The fighter would then lower a cradle and by some means the pallet and cradle would connect and then be be fitted under the Tornado's fuselage.

Yes, but in 1991, Bill Gunston proposed a SkyHook that would ‘snag’ a hovering Harrier next to the BoAt, negating the need for a deck. That didn’t catch on either…(get it).

[Lonewolf_50]

A modest bit of googling will find a few articles that discuss what the USAF had been doing a decade or so ago, pursuant directed energy weapons on both fighter-sized and 747-sized airframes.
The latter was a basic requirement for the Boost Phase Intercept Ballistic Missile defense proposal. (a good enough summary is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_flight_phases#:~:text=Boost-phase%20intercept%20is%20a%20type%20of%20missile%20defense,w hile%20they%20are%20still%20in%20the%20boost%20phase.)).

I will leave to the ten-pound brains the engineering challenge of getting that kind of power module tucked into a fighter: one hopes they can manage it.

As to relevant RL experience: BVR is great when the RoE permit it. :p

[JG54]

Yes, but in 1991, Bill Gunston proposed a SkyHook that would ‘snag’ a hovering Harrier next to the BoAt, negating the need for a deck. That didn’t catch on either…(get it).

That was Heinz Frick, and the idea dates from the early / mid eighties. Had quite a bit of effort thrown at it, too.