Tornado - Future GR4 questions
Thread Starter
There you go putting two and two together and making six. And attributing motives to me that simply don't exist.
I don't think that anyone should "tell all". (And I am categorically not asking anyone to do that).
I would not ask anyone to post anything on PPRuNe that they thought was not already in the public domain, nor to post anything that might be of aid or comfort to an enemy.
And I was asking for a simple and very limited status report, hopefully gleaned from a press release, station magazine visit, cleared briefing etc.
Were I asking questions about capabilities, parametrics or operational employment, then your caution would be entirely appropriate. I think that in this case it's misplaced, but far from wanting to "quell" it, I'm happy to point that out and leave it to people's own judgement. I welcome your warning because of the opportunity that replying to it has given me to reiterate what I do and do not want.
I don't think that anyone should "tell all". (And I am categorically not asking anyone to do that).
I would not ask anyone to post anything on PPRuNe that they thought was not already in the public domain, nor to post anything that might be of aid or comfort to an enemy.
And I was asking for a simple and very limited status report, hopefully gleaned from a press release, station magazine visit, cleared briefing etc.
Were I asking questions about capabilities, parametrics or operational employment, then your caution would be entirely appropriate. I think that in this case it's misplaced, but far from wanting to "quell" it, I'm happy to point that out and leave it to people's own judgement. I welcome your warning because of the opportunity that replying to it has given me to reiterate what I do and do not want.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Who knows where this week.......
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, excuse my ignorance, but for whom do you write and in what capacity? I have obviously seen your name here several times, and the debate of this thread is not a new one, but my curiosity has been aroused..... And hopefully my simple question will avoid the 'need to know' comments!
Thread Starter
Just noticed this, and thought I'd bring it up to date a tad.
Though future GR4 mods like ARTS are long dead, it has become clear over the past year or so that a "son of ARTS" forms the basis of Bright Adder.
Bright Adder is, according to whom you speak, either:
a) A UK TDP looking at particular aspects of the UK's Typhoon AESA requirement, which will feed into the quadrinational Typhoon AESA programme.
b) A UK AESA that stands ready to form the basis of an alternative full Typhoon AESA radar if the quadrinational programme stumbles - and as such could be critical for demonstrating the credibility of Typhoon/AESA in India.
c) Both of the above.
It was said that Bright Adder would fly on a Typhoon (BT025 and BT026 were postulated as being the airframe involved).
It is said that Bright Adder is now flying.
It has been suggested that Bright Adder is flying, but on a Tornado (presumably the TREV jet? ZG707???).
It is said that the full Quadrinational AESA will fly on IPA5, perhaps fairly soon......
With Rafale's AESA in production, one hopes that some snippets will emerge that might give India some hope that the Typhoon partners are not too far behind.......
Though future GR4 mods like ARTS are long dead, it has become clear over the past year or so that a "son of ARTS" forms the basis of Bright Adder.
Bright Adder is, according to whom you speak, either:
a) A UK TDP looking at particular aspects of the UK's Typhoon AESA requirement, which will feed into the quadrinational Typhoon AESA programme.
b) A UK AESA that stands ready to form the basis of an alternative full Typhoon AESA radar if the quadrinational programme stumbles - and as such could be critical for demonstrating the credibility of Typhoon/AESA in India.
c) Both of the above.
It was said that Bright Adder would fly on a Typhoon (BT025 and BT026 were postulated as being the airframe involved).
It is said that Bright Adder is now flying.
It has been suggested that Bright Adder is flying, but on a Tornado (presumably the TREV jet? ZG707???).
It is said that the full Quadrinational AESA will fly on IPA5, perhaps fairly soon......
With Rafale's AESA in production, one hopes that some snippets will emerge that might give India some hope that the Typhoon partners are not too far behind.......
Last edited by Jackonicko; 2nd Aug 2011 at 09:39.
In other news, MoD is still using two-word, unusual-combination codenames that were useful in pre-Google days (unique and memorable) but make any security slip-up on the Intertubes instantly obvious.
Thread Starter
Typhoon lost in India, with its lack of a credible AESA programme cited as one of the reasons for its elimination.
It is said that Bright Adder has flown/is flying on a rotary wing platform, and on a light twin (a Piper Navajo, perhaps). It hasn't yet flown on BT025/BT026.
I don't know if it's still flying on the TREV, and I still don't know which Tornado the TREV was.
The Quadrinational Typhoon AESA will fly on IPA5 and IPA8, though perhaps not for some time, as the consortium supplying it are making a big deal about having shown pilots what an AESA with a repositioner could do in the simulator.
One would have hoped that they'd have done that decades ago......
It is said that Bright Adder has flown/is flying on a rotary wing platform, and on a light twin (a Piper Navajo, perhaps). It hasn't yet flown on BT025/BT026.
I don't know if it's still flying on the TREV, and I still don't know which Tornado the TREV was.
The Quadrinational Typhoon AESA will fly on IPA5 and IPA8, though perhaps not for some time, as the consortium supplying it are making a big deal about having shown pilots what an AESA with a repositioner could do in the simulator.
One would have hoped that they'd have done that decades ago......
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would have hoped that they'd have done that decades ago......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: on track, on speed, on time
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - persistent I will give you but journalist/defence expert is a stretch. Don't you have to do some trg for that line of work? Good banter though, never lost for words. We do have some history but I cannot reveal it as you would then constantly be 'tapping me up' for the gen.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: various bits of UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to these lovely projects - which were being widely written about a year or two ago, but which seem to have been kicked into the long grass?
Thread Starter
Parallel Track,
I fear you may be adding 2 + 2 and making a number that you assume is 4.
I am not the John Nic that you might assume, I have never been a Tornado Nav, and while I do claim to be a journo, I'd admit that 'defence expert' is a bit of a stretch.
JN
Phuttbang,
No, I'm not 'after' QinetiQ, just trying to tie down loose ends, some of which are relevant when trying to understand the pre-history of Bright Adder, and which are also interesting when trying to work out what GR4 might have become.
JN
I fear you may be adding 2 + 2 and making a number that you assume is 4.
I am not the John Nic that you might assume, I have never been a Tornado Nav, and while I do claim to be a journo, I'd admit that 'defence expert' is a bit of a stretch.
JN
Phuttbang,
No, I'm not 'after' QinetiQ, just trying to tie down loose ends, some of which are relevant when trying to understand the pre-history of Bright Adder, and which are also interesting when trying to work out what GR4 might have become.
JN
Thread Starter
Six years on, and Typhoon AESA seems to have progressed less far and less rapidly than one might have wished.
We do at least seem to be looking at the Typhoons for Kuwait and Qatar being delivered with a basic Captor-E AESA ('Radar 0') but there has to be some doubt as to whether the seemingly 'relaxed' pace of testing on the two development aircraft will be sufficient to deliver an operational, fully tested AESA in time for the first deliveries to Kuwait next year or the year after.
It should be remembered that the CAESAR ((CAPTOR Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar) TDP began in 2002, was flown in sub-scale form on a BAC 1-11 from February 2006, and was then flown on Eurofighter Development Aircraft 5 in May 2007. That radar featured a fixed, flat array, and was to have been incorporated on Tranche 3 aircraft! It was to have been retrofittable to Tranche 2 Captor-D radars but not to Tranche 1 aircraft, whose radar featured 'older, lower performance processing technology', while the front bulkhead would require mods to cope with the weight of an AESA antenna array.
Furthermore, though we were all told some time ago that there will be a single radar programme, with a single radar standard, this is obviously (again) no longer the case, with some operators looking for a more capable AESA with some new functionalities (Radar 1) and with Britain (and perhaps Germany, if it ends up acquiring further Typhoons as Tornado replacements) wanting an even more capable radar with electronic attack (EA) and other advanced capabilities (Radar 2).
Though understandably little detail is known about any of the projected Captor-E variants (which may not even have been fully defined beyond the initial Radar 0 standard), it would seem likely that Radar 0 will consist of an existing Captor back-end, with some obsolescence removal, married to a new AESA array with a repositioner (the latter two elements perhaps borrowing heavily from the Gripen's Raven AESA - also a Selex design).
Radar 0 will presumablyprovide sufficient capability to allow for the fullest exploitation of the new MBDA Meteor missile, and a degree of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground functionality, but (with the exception of the very impressive field of regard conferred by the repositioner) is unlikely to mark a revolutionary improvement over the US AN/APG-79, 81, and 83, and may be fairly directly compared to the Raven now being fitted to the Gripen E/F, albeit with a larger antenna, with more TRMs and a larger aperture, and perhaps with more power.
The UK (at least) still apparently has a requirement for a more advanced and more capable AESA than Radar 0, which might not mark a really significant improvement over the existing M-Scan Typhoon radar. The UK also requires advanced EA capabilities. This has led to the so-called Radar 2, which might also be a feature of the additional German Typhoons that are to be acquired as Tornado replacements.
The need for a more advanced AESA may be exacerbated by the Team Tempest FCAS TI programme - it would seem like a backwards step to put Radar 0 into any FCAS TI demonstrator, let alone into any operational aircraft eventually flowing from that programme.
The difficulty is that the cost of developing a new AESA, or even a significantly different version of Captor-E would seem to be considerably greater than the funding that has been allocated to Typhoon over the next decade, presumably meaning that the UK cannot 'go it alone' on a Radar 2 programme. Unless more was achieved with Bright Adder, ARTS and TREV than we ever knew? Very little is known about any of those programmes, except that they fed into the UK 'Radar 2' requirement, and that Bright Adder might have been as much about research into the waveforms required for EA as it was about hardware.
And now we know that the still unfunded Radar 2 has been offered as part of the offering to Belgium, for example, and may be pat of the Saudi requirement for an additional 48 aircraft.
Yesterday, at Edinburgh, Leonardo (Selex) did at least confirm that they had received a contract for risk reduction efforts in support of a UK Typhoon AESA. Which was big news to me, anyway. It would be nice to think that Radar 2 was a real and credible and viable option.
We do at least seem to be looking at the Typhoons for Kuwait and Qatar being delivered with a basic Captor-E AESA ('Radar 0') but there has to be some doubt as to whether the seemingly 'relaxed' pace of testing on the two development aircraft will be sufficient to deliver an operational, fully tested AESA in time for the first deliveries to Kuwait next year or the year after.
It should be remembered that the CAESAR ((CAPTOR Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar) TDP began in 2002, was flown in sub-scale form on a BAC 1-11 from February 2006, and was then flown on Eurofighter Development Aircraft 5 in May 2007. That radar featured a fixed, flat array, and was to have been incorporated on Tranche 3 aircraft! It was to have been retrofittable to Tranche 2 Captor-D radars but not to Tranche 1 aircraft, whose radar featured 'older, lower performance processing technology', while the front bulkhead would require mods to cope with the weight of an AESA antenna array.
Furthermore, though we were all told some time ago that there will be a single radar programme, with a single radar standard, this is obviously (again) no longer the case, with some operators looking for a more capable AESA with some new functionalities (Radar 1) and with Britain (and perhaps Germany, if it ends up acquiring further Typhoons as Tornado replacements) wanting an even more capable radar with electronic attack (EA) and other advanced capabilities (Radar 2).
Though understandably little detail is known about any of the projected Captor-E variants (which may not even have been fully defined beyond the initial Radar 0 standard), it would seem likely that Radar 0 will consist of an existing Captor back-end, with some obsolescence removal, married to a new AESA array with a repositioner (the latter two elements perhaps borrowing heavily from the Gripen's Raven AESA - also a Selex design).
Radar 0 will presumablyprovide sufficient capability to allow for the fullest exploitation of the new MBDA Meteor missile, and a degree of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground functionality, but (with the exception of the very impressive field of regard conferred by the repositioner) is unlikely to mark a revolutionary improvement over the US AN/APG-79, 81, and 83, and may be fairly directly compared to the Raven now being fitted to the Gripen E/F, albeit with a larger antenna, with more TRMs and a larger aperture, and perhaps with more power.
The UK (at least) still apparently has a requirement for a more advanced and more capable AESA than Radar 0, which might not mark a really significant improvement over the existing M-Scan Typhoon radar. The UK also requires advanced EA capabilities. This has led to the so-called Radar 2, which might also be a feature of the additional German Typhoons that are to be acquired as Tornado replacements.
The need for a more advanced AESA may be exacerbated by the Team Tempest FCAS TI programme - it would seem like a backwards step to put Radar 0 into any FCAS TI demonstrator, let alone into any operational aircraft eventually flowing from that programme.
The difficulty is that the cost of developing a new AESA, or even a significantly different version of Captor-E would seem to be considerably greater than the funding that has been allocated to Typhoon over the next decade, presumably meaning that the UK cannot 'go it alone' on a Radar 2 programme. Unless more was achieved with Bright Adder, ARTS and TREV than we ever knew? Very little is known about any of those programmes, except that they fed into the UK 'Radar 2' requirement, and that Bright Adder might have been as much about research into the waveforms required for EA as it was about hardware.
And now we know that the still unfunded Radar 2 has been offered as part of the offering to Belgium, for example, and may be pat of the Saudi requirement for an additional 48 aircraft.
Yesterday, at Edinburgh, Leonardo (Selex) did at least confirm that they had received a contract for risk reduction efforts in support of a UK Typhoon AESA. Which was big news to me, anyway. It would be nice to think that Radar 2 was a real and credible and viable option.
Parallel question:
1. With RAF GR4 retirement only a few months away, does anyone know the status of Typhoon Centurion update programme.
2. Will these Typhoon be as capable as Tornado in the CAS and ground attack role.
Given the significance I has expected to hear much more about it.
1. With RAF GR4 retirement only a few months away, does anyone know the status of Typhoon Centurion update programme.
2. Will these Typhoon be as capable as Tornado in the CAS and ground attack role.
Given the significance I has expected to hear much more about it.
Thread Starter
There's a big write up in this month's Air International. (Along with a piece on Typhoon on Op Shader).
In short, Centurion is on track to deliver Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon to be operational by the end of the year, and certainly by the time Tornado stops flying on Shader.
There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?).
Nor will there be a RAPTOR capability, and that is still being used, and proving useful, on Shader.
On the other hand, we have SPEAR capability 3 to look forward to on Typhoon, and SPEAR 5.
There will be ways in which Typhoon will be a better air-to-ground aeroplane than Tornado, and doubtless also ways in which it won't be quite as good, but overall the mood seems to be one of quiet satisfaction and confidence that Centurion will do 'what it says on the tin'.
The Typhoon's standard loadout on Shader includes more PWIV's than does Tornado's at the moment, interestingly.
In short, Centurion is on track to deliver Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon to be operational by the end of the year, and certainly by the time Tornado stops flying on Shader.
There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?).
Nor will there be a RAPTOR capability, and that is still being used, and proving useful, on Shader.
On the other hand, we have SPEAR capability 3 to look forward to on Typhoon, and SPEAR 5.
There will be ways in which Typhoon will be a better air-to-ground aeroplane than Tornado, and doubtless also ways in which it won't be quite as good, but overall the mood seems to be one of quiet satisfaction and confidence that Centurion will do 'what it says on the tin'.
The Typhoon's standard loadout on Shader includes more PWIV's than does Tornado's at the moment, interestingly.
There's a big write up in this month's Air International. (Along with a piece on Typhoon on Op Shader).
In short, Centurion is on track to deliver Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon to be operational by the end of the year, and certainly by the time Tornado stops flying on Shader.
There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?).
Nor will there be a RAPTOR capability, and that is still being used, and proving useful, on Shader.
On the other hand, we have SPEAR capability 3 to look forward to on Typhoon, and SPEAR 5.
There will be ways in which Typhoon will be a better air-to-ground aeroplane than Tornado, and doubtless also ways in which it won't be quite as good, but overall the mood seems to be one of quiet satisfaction and confidence that Centurion will do 'what it says on the tin'.
The Typhoon's standard loadout on Shader includes more PWIV's than does Tornado's at the moment, interestingly.
In short, Centurion is on track to deliver Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon to be operational by the end of the year, and certainly by the time Tornado stops flying on Shader.
There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?).
Nor will there be a RAPTOR capability, and that is still being used, and proving useful, on Shader.
On the other hand, we have SPEAR capability 3 to look forward to on Typhoon, and SPEAR 5.
There will be ways in which Typhoon will be a better air-to-ground aeroplane than Tornado, and doubtless also ways in which it won't be quite as good, but overall the mood seems to be one of quiet satisfaction and confidence that Centurion will do 'what it says on the tin'.
The Typhoon's standard loadout on Shader includes more PWIV's than does Tornado's at the moment, interestingly.
I have read many times that the Tornado two crew configuration has been vital in times of extremely heavy workload.
I understand that Typhoon sensors and more modern systems reduce pilot workload but wonder whether in far more challenging scenarios than Shader that still applies.
Lastly Tornado has a radar specific to the A2G role wherever Typhoon was developed primarily for the A2A role.
Any thoughts on these points, assuming you are able to respond.
Thread Starter
Buster 15,
No worries!
It's not the case that Typhoon was "developed primarily for the A2A role." It was always intended to be a multi-role/swing role aeroplane (replacing Jaguar in RAF service, for example), and to have a robust air-to-ground capability, though getting the type operational in the air-to-air role was the priority of all four of the original operators. When the UK embarked on the austere air-to-ground capability, it was very much a case of unlocking latent capabilities, rather than adding new and never-considered ones!
The current M-scan Captor radar does have a number of air-to-surface capabilities, and in some ways is superior to Tornado's twin radars as TimeLord suggests. Moreover, if and when the RAF Typhoons do get an AESA radar the Typhoon will be very much more capable as air-to-ground platforms.
It's not just about workload. The Typhoon pilot enjoys great SA, and connectivity. and on occasion the RAF has chosen to use mixed Typhoon/Tornado pairs (in Libya, for example) to allow the Tornado to benefit from this.
The Typhoon's HMSS/HEA also provides real advantages in the air-to-ground role.
No worries!
It's not the case that Typhoon was "developed primarily for the A2A role." It was always intended to be a multi-role/swing role aeroplane (replacing Jaguar in RAF service, for example), and to have a robust air-to-ground capability, though getting the type operational in the air-to-air role was the priority of all four of the original operators. When the UK embarked on the austere air-to-ground capability, it was very much a case of unlocking latent capabilities, rather than adding new and never-considered ones!
The current M-scan Captor radar does have a number of air-to-surface capabilities, and in some ways is superior to Tornado's twin radars as TimeLord suggests. Moreover, if and when the RAF Typhoons do get an AESA radar the Typhoon will be very much more capable as air-to-ground platforms.
It's not just about workload. The Typhoon pilot enjoys great SA, and connectivity. and on occasion the RAF has chosen to use mixed Typhoon/Tornado pairs (in Libya, for example) to allow the Tornado to benefit from this.
The Typhoon's HMSS/HEA also provides real advantages in the air-to-ground role.