Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[DarthAmerica]

Radar:

Below is my assessment of the inferiority of the CAPTOR vs more modern technologies and the adverse effects on the Typhoons.

In the next few years there will be a number of upgrades to the systems software till Final Operational Capability is attained. Following this a number of hardware upgrades are planned. These involve changing a number of both the shop replaceable items and line replaceable units. These upgrades will focus on improving resolution and ECCM capabilities. The next upgrades will see a switchover to off-the-shelf components. Even with these improvements there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the CAPTOR's design such as; relatively slow scanning speeds compared to newer technology arrays, relative ease of detection, effects on RCS, etc.

Source:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

-Acknowledgement of RELATIVE slow scanning speed compared to AESA/ESA

-Ease of Detection when in operation

-Adversely affects the RCS of the aircraft

-Vulnerable to jamming

-Cost, both maintenance and procurement

-Improved resolution. A vague statement but probably in regard to NCTR or ground mapping/target aquisition

-Limited ability to interleave modes of operation and simultaneous target processing

These flaws will take extensive redesign and/or a different radar altogether to correct. Not a small task and very significant indeed. In my opinion this is perhaps one of the most significant weakness of the Typhoon when compared to other fighters of the 3rd or 4th generation equipped with AESA/ESA radars.

****************************************************************************

SUPERCRUISE:

Definitions, discriptions and graph:


http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Transonic_Flow/TH19.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic
http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/content.html
http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/t.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/Gifs/drag_rise.gif

EADs and Eurojet claim supercruise at M1.2-M1.3(depending probably on external config) which is clearly in the TRANSONIC region. A futher claim suggest an engine upgrade to allow M1.5 but configuration is unspecified. So to settle the long long standing dispute the Eurofigher DOES NOT SUPERCRUISE. Disagreement with this point, not that there should be any, should focus on SUPERCRUISE rather than exceeding Mach 1 which is what the Eurofigher has demonstrated. SUPERSONIC being defines as ALL AIRFLOW AROUND THE AIRFRAME being supersonic. Also consider that the configuration typically discussed has 50% fuel load which doesnt bode very well when you factor in the SFC ~23g/kn at max military power. Also the claimed Eurofighter supercruise capability originates for a 1998 WAP Journal Volume 35 Winter 1998 edition. The 44 page article describes how a Eurofighter flying at 40,000ft with 6 mock up air to air missiles and 50% fuel load ACCELERATES TO M1.4 WITH AFTERBURNER during a supersonic acceleration test. After which the pilot disengaged the after burner and the aircraft decelerated to about M1.0~M1.1 and held that speed briefly without the afterburner on.

FYI-

F-14/15/16/18

F-104

EE

Draken and some Migs/SUs

Rafale

All of the above can fly just above Mach 1 in military power again depending on configuration and have been able to do so for decades. So NOTHING IS NEW OR REVOLUTIONARY about the Eurofighter false claim of supercruise.

****************************************************************************

Cost:

20 billion pounds for the RAF program cost!!!

****************************************************************************

Schedule:

5 years late if we accept the sub standard Tranche 1 IOC. Longer(10 years) for the Tranche 2+.

****************************************************************************

Relevence:

Considering the limited air to ground capability vs comparable types. I would include this as one of the detractions of the type but not always because some users have different requirements. But still considering the price and the ability of Other 4th Gen designs like the F-16 Block 60, Gripen and others it has to be a factor.

 

[perfectgeneral]

So, we met again Mister Bond.

The usual suspects hawking the same old goods.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The usual suspects hawking the same old goods.

Yes we do. Hopefully this time in a more mature and moderated forum. But I'm a little confused. Wouldnt you be Bond though...

 

[gf0012-aust]

........this time in a more mature and moderated forum.

This forum is a lot more tightly run than some others.

fundamental rules for people to remember:
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

particular emphasis should be paid to:

• Do not post anything illegal or injurious (including libelous, defamatory, or abusive statements, obscenity, profanity, or pornography).
• Do not post irrelevant topics/replies. The DefenceTalk.com, its moderators, and members of this community reserve the right to delete posts we determine are irrelevant to the discussion in which they're posted.
• Do not disrespect anyone on this board - whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.
• Do not disrespect military personnel of other countries. DefenceTalk.com considers them dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line for their motherland.
• Do not link, in any post, to pages elsewhere on the Web that violate either these rules or their spirit.
• Do not start inflammatory threads with purpose of degrading/defaming another country, its leaders or its people.
• Do not post LINK/URL to external FORUMS and message boards or in your Signatures.
• Do not use forums for "lobby" purposes. Defencetalk is an international website but that does not mean you can abuse its forums by posting false and anti-"country" information in order to degrade members of that country or its position in the world community. We will not allow that.</I>
• You must post source of your information/articles ( link, website, book, magazine, etc.).Please post actual link of the story rather than your own blog, etc.
• You must have fun and let others do the same.

Violators may be warned, suspended from posting, or banned from the forums, at the sole discretion of DefenceTalk.com Admins.

Posts that don't comply or generate a lot of warranted complaints won't last long on here.

 

[DarthAmerica]

This forum is a lot more tightly run than some others.

In that case I am really looking forward to the replies. As you know, I can both stir and cool the pot...

 

[Gaenth]

In my humble opinion the Eurofighter program is the living proof of the might of the European Aerospace Industry. They're truly capable of working together and deliver some of the best defence systems in the world.

That said, there's a bunch of succesful European programmes that preceed Eurofighter so in perspective it's not such a big breakthrough in terms of multinational cooperation or technical achievement even, and there's the controversy of the delays and exceeding costs of the programme which are undeniable. But if you look to the F-22 programme you'll see that it's also far from perfection and just wait for the F-35! In the end I think Europe can still look proudly at their Eurofighter.

As for detectability and attack capability, I think it's a bit unfair to compare Eurofighters to Block 60 F-16s because the Viper is a mature design that has received a lot of avionics and weapons upgrades over its years in service to a point in which Block 60's are only similar in shape to Block 10's. The Grippen has a lot of potential as well but is not that a match to Typhoon, however future upgrades to both look interesting because they will have to do something to keep up with newer designs equipped with TVC engines, lower observables, and more advanced weapons. I see the Typhoon becoming a really powerful attack platform in a few years, at what cost I wonder...

 

[webmaster]

Thanks Gary.

This might help with the discussion:

Eurofighter Leads Growing Fighter, Attack, Jet Trainer Aircraft Market

The world combat aircraft market is much more competitive than it was a year ago, primarily due to two significant developments. First, the U.S. Air Force failed to overturn cutbacks suggested for the Lockheed Martin F-22 program in early 2005; the service will now acquire about 180 F-22s.

 

[DarthAmerica]

In my humble opinion the Eurofighter program is the living proof of the might of the European Aerospace Industry. They're truly capable of working together and deliver some of the best defence systems in the world.

That would be true in 1990-1995. In IOC in 2006 at less than advertised performance after 30+ years of development? I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I see the Typhoon becoming a really powerful attack platform in a few years, at what cost I wonder...

Well thats the crux of the arguement. In a few years, 2010-2012, we are talking about a platform thats been in development since 1972. And it will offer less bang for the buck than many currently available fighters and far less than the F-35. So you have to question the wisdom of a 20 billion pound program thats essentially obsolete from day one. In my opinion the program would have been better off cancelled with funds diverted into a F-35 successor/competitor or a system of UCAVs. In the interm current platforms could have had modernizations and service life extensions until such time that the F-35 was available. Funnily enough though, by the time the Eurofighter is able to deliver on claimed capabilities the F-35 WILL BE available and at half the price. Just doesnt add up for me. Of course there is the preserve your industry peace dividend arguement but I think there were better alternatives to preserving the industry. Of course I can say that with 20/20 hindsight but an objective look at platforms coming out of the US and Russia in the 1990-2015 timeframe would have helped IMO.

 

[JWCook]

Hello Darth

Is plagiarism in your vocabulary???

Below is my assessment of the inferiority of the CAPTOR vs more modern technologies and the adverse effects on the Typhoons.

In the next few years there will be a number of upgrades to the systems software till Final Operational Capability is attained. Following this a number of hardware upgrades are planned. These involve changing a number of both the shop replaceable items and line replaceable units. These upgrades will focus on improving resolution and ECCM capabilities. The next upgrades will see a switchover to off-the-shelf components. Even with these improvements there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the CAPTOR's design such as; relatively slow scanning speeds compared to newer technology arrays, relative ease of detection, effects on RCS, etc.

Directly lifted from my website here :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

I'm sure you didn't mean to pass it off as your own........:nono

and these shock n horror admissions are just personal opinions of the webmasters (one of which is me!):duel

OK heres the info you really need to find out about:-

Hmm.. Have you heard of CAESAR???, the Captor AESA Radar program??.

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/CAESAR_Triumphs_As_New_Gen_Of_Radar_Takes_Flight.html


You also said this:-

EADs and Eurojet claim supercruise at M1.2-M1.3(depending probably on external config) which is clearly in the TRANSONIC region. A futher claim suggest an engine upgrade to allow M1.5 but configuration is unspecified. So to settle the long long standing dispute the Eurofigher DOES NOT SUPERCRUISE. Disagreement with this point, not that there should be any, should focus on SUPERCRUISE rather than exceeding Mach 1 which is what the Eurofigher has demonstrated. SUPERSONIC being defines as ALL AIRFLOW AROUND THE AIRFRAME being supersonic. Also consider that the configuration typically discussed has 50% fuel load which doesnt bode very well when you factor in the SFC at max military power.

you might want to see one of your sources which directly contradicts you too:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise


The M1.5 figure is with the present engines and the configuration is clean and with less than a full tank of gas, But never fear!! with growth engines the M1.5 will be higher.

So apart from 'acccidental' plagiarism, and misrepresenting the facts - that was a top post...:mock


regards

John

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hello Darth

Is plagiarism in your vocabulary???

Directly lifted from my website here :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

I'm sure you didn't mean to pass it off as your own........:nono

and these shock n horror admissions are just personal opinions of the webmasters (one of which is me!):duel

OK heres the info you really need to find out about:-

Hmm.. Have you heard of CAESAR???, the Captor AESA Radar program??.

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/CAESAR_Triumphs_As_New_Gen_Of_Radar_Takes_Flight.html


You also said this:-



you might want to see one of your sources which directly contradicts you too:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise


The M1.5 figure is with the present engines and the configuration is clean and with less than a full tank of gas, But never fear!! with growth engines the M1.5 will be higher.

So apart from 'acccidental' plagiarism, and misrepresenting the facts - that was a top post...:mock


regards

John

I apologize for not acknowledging your site. My HTML link to you didnt work initially and I edited out the invalid HTML tags. As a lowly private on Defense Talk, I'm not as familiar with this site as I am with several others. Bear with me please.

Besides the sarcasm, you have nothing that contradicts anything I said. Also, while I doubt the claim of M1.5. Its hardly a relevant performance parameter if the aircraft isnt armed and flying with 2 to 3 minutes of fuel. Its also not possible without using the afterburner to first accel past the transonic drag hump.

As to CAESAR, you do know that its still in development, too expensive to mass produce, wont be available until after 2011 and when it is available. It will "Just be a Radar" rather than having the capabilities of competing MESAs that are flying on othe combat aircraft. Having said that, it will reduce the RCS, increase performance vs Jamming, offer more multirole capability, increase detection range AND OF COURSE ADD COST. Not to mention being less capable than the apg-63(V2)/63(v3)/77/79/81.

Like I said, Eurofighter is an obsolete design in my opinion.

 

[Gaenth]

So you have to question the wisdom of a 20 billion pound program thats essentially obsolete from day one. In my opinion the program would have been better off cancelled with funds diverted into a F-35 successor/competitor or a system of UCAVs.

You're not British, are you my friend? Well, I've always thought that if the French would have stayed it wouldn't have been so bad, now the UK, France, Germany and Italy all have very expensive new fighters and everyone is complaining. I find it hard to believe there was ever a point where the EF programme could have been called off and come out of it with an advantage.

In the interm current platforms could have had modernizations and service life extensions until such time that the F-35 was available.

They actually extensively upgraded Harriers, Jaguars, Tornados and even the Bucaneers because they had to in order to maintain capability not to fill the gap while the miracle=do-it-all-super-fighter arrived. Many have questioned the Typhoon funds could have been better used in such upgrades, but there would have been little left to invest in other programmes. FOAS was axed and some of its funds diverted to JSF and UCAVs that don't fulfill the original FOAS requirement.

Funnily enough though, by the time the Eurofighter is able to deliver on claimed capabilities the F-35 WILL BE available and at half the price.

Oh! That's yet to be seen... Hopefully you'll be right.

Of course I can say that with 20/20 hindsight but an objective look at platforms coming out of the US and Russia in the 1990-2015 timeframe would have helped IMO.

Having an objective look at the platforms coming from Russia I think that they certainly look the part but don't play it.

 

[JWCook]

I apologize for not acknowledging your site.

No apology necessary, I guessed it was just an ommission.

Besides the sarcasm, you have nothing that contradicts anything I said.

Hmm. you have posted a website that supposedly supports your arguments , and I have posted links from the same website that directly contradicts you RE:- supercruise - can you explain that?nfloorl:.

Also, while I doubt the claim of M1.5. Its hardly a relevant performance parameter if the aircraft isnt armed and flying with 2 to 3 minutes of fuel.

You need'nt doubt the M1.5 claim, after all it is on the present engines, as for relevancy with warload, that is not the issue, it was you who brought up the Typhoons supposedly inability to supercruise, I have mearly told you some facts you were missing when you made your flawed assertions, BTW clean means 4 BVRAAM missiles..

Its also not possible without using the afterburner to first accel past the transonic drag hump.

The typhoon does not require AB to pass this region.

As to CAESAR, you do know that its still in development, too expensive to mass produce, wont be available until after 2011 and when it is available. It will "Just be a Radar" rather than having the capabilities of competing MESAs that are flying on othe combat aircraft. Having said that, it will reduce the RCS, increase performance vs Jamming, offer more multirole capability, increase detection range AND OF COURSE ADD COST. Not to mention being less capable than the apg-63(V2)/63(v3)/77/79/81.

I do hope you have a robust arguement to back up these claims,

"Just a radar" what are your sources for this?...

"less capable" is especially funny considering you have no idea what Caesar is capable of!!!, and what are the costs involved??, I'd like to know, procurement against maintanence.. hmm you must have better sources than mine!!

Like I said, Eurofighter is an obsolete design in my opinion.

You are entitled to this opinion, and it is indeed a fine opinion to have, well apart from the obvious..:clown



Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

You're not British, are you my friend? Well, I've always thought that if the French would have stayed it wouldn't have been so bad, now the UK, France, Germany and Italy all have very expensive new fighters and everyone is complaining. I find it hard to believe there was ever a point where the EF programme could have been called off and come out of it with an advantage.


Having an objective look at the platforms coming from Russia I think that they certainly look the part but don't play it.

Well you noticed I'm not British...

Seriously though, I'm a little intrigued by your last comment in regard to Russian Platforms. Specifically the exports. I'm not sure I would be too happy weighing the SU-27 series and Typhoon against each other in terms of capabilities. Tripple if we factor in cost. Insult to injury if we consider potential for enhancement and upgrades.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You need'nt doubt the M1.5 claim, after all it is on the present engines, as for relevancy with warload, that is not the issue, it was you who brought up the Typhoons supposedly inability to supercruise, I have mearly told you some facts you were missing when you made your flawed assertions, BTW clean means 4 BVRAAM missiles..

I do doubt it. And you doubt me. Thats fine and I dont wish to have an endless doubting session. So we either agree to doubt each other and move on. Or you can back up your doubt of me. But what is without a doubt is that using the Typhoons SFC. If you factor in reserve fuel, time to altitude and with a 50% fuel load. No Typhoon will ever supercruise by any practical measure(a.k.a. as in tangible in combat). Do the math, it will be sobering.

The typhoon does not require AB to pass this region.

Prove it

I do hope you have a robust arguement to back up these claims,

"Just a radar" what are your sources for this?...

"less capable" is especially funny considering you have no idea what Caesar is capable of!!!, and what are the costs involved??, I'd like to know, procurement against maintanence.. hmm you must have better sources than mine!!

First you should state clearly if you agree or disagree with what I said.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Well you noticed I'm not British...

Seriously though, I'm a little intrigued by your last comment in regard to Russian Platforms. Specifically the exports. I'm not sure I would be too happy weighing the SU-27 series and Typhoon against each other in terms of capabilities. Tripple if we factor in cost. Insult to injury if we consider potential for enhancement and upgrades.

Interesting, are you taking into account who is flying, maintenance, training (flight hours), assets supporting the aircraft, over all tactics being employed etc...

I would not bet against RAF pilot supported by RAF/NATO assets over a SU-27.

 

[JWCook]

As for doing the math, Ricconconi (Spelling) did the same for the Raptor and came to the same conclusion your coming to!!.

The Eurofighter Accidentally exceeded mach 1 during its development without using Reheat, and this was using RB199 engines which are considerably lower in power!!.



Now will you answer why the definition of supercruise as stated by your sources states that the Typhoon can supercruise!!.

You may argue the practicalities of the warload and endurance, but not the fact it can supercruise.


I cannot agree with your assertions re CAESAR...!
Now where are the robust arguments supporting your assertions of Cost and capability of CAESAR, what are you basing these claims on?

cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

I would not bet against RAF pilot supported by RAF/NATO assets over a SU-27.

Interesting that you are mismatching a system vs platform comparison in your arguement. If that SU-27 is being flown by a Russian Airforce Pilot and is of the latest generation and being used per doctrine I'd bet on it overcoming the RAF. Thats because its not going to be one SU-27. It will be many of them with support and they will be able to replace losses faster and at less cost. But we would have to define the conflict better for a true analysis.

At the platform level, the SU-30 variant is more than a match for the Typhoon and currently more capable to include operational experience.

 

[DarthAmerica]

As for doing the math, Ricconconi (Spelling) did the same for the Raptor and came to the same conclusion your coming to!!.

Not only Strawman but a common propaganda tactic. Try to associate the opposing view with a commonly unpopular person or ideology. You will have to do a little better Mr. Cook.

The Eurofighter Accidentally exceeded mach 1 during its development without using Reheat, and this was using RB199 engines which are considerably lower in power!!.

I dont care to debate that. Many aircraft today and in the past could do that. The Electric Lightning and F-14 come to mind. But I am not arguing about the irrelevant ability to simply exceed M1.0 but rather to exceed and sustain such flight so as to exploit the capability in combat.

Now will you answer why the definition of supercruise as stated by your sources states that the Typhoon can supercruise!!.

You may argue the practicalities of the warload and endurance, but not the fact it can supercruise.

Because I'm using supercruise in the context of it being a tangible ability that can be exploited in combat. So yes I'll argue it. And in the end I'll be right.

I cannot agree with your assertions re CAESAR...!
Now where are the robust arguments supporting your assertions of Cost and capability of CAESAR, what are you basing these claims on?

cheers

Be more specific on which assertions.

 

[JWCook]

Ok the Typhoon has a fuel fraction of 31 % the F-22 according to Riccioni is 29% See http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm

Now I've done the math, Are you also asserting the F-22 isn't a supercruiser??, what exactly are you asserting??

Onto Breaking mach without reheat

I have proved the Typhoon can break mach on RB199'sn in dry, something you ask to be proved, When I did you then "don't care to discuss it"
Very Odd....

Care to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Why does your definition differ to this website, a website you offered as a credable source???:rotfl.

You asserted CAESER is only a radar, I believe it be NOAR.
You asserted the CAESAR is more expensive, however did you take throught life costs into account?
You asserted the capabilities of other radars were superior, I know you are making it up, as the capabilities of CAESAR are not yet publically known.

Stop dancing around the issues..

 

[DarthAmerica]

Ok the Typhoon has a fuel fraction of 31 % the F-22 according to Riccioni is 29% See http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm

Now I've done the math, Are you also asserting the F-22 isn't a supercruiser??, what exactly are you asserting??

I'm not asserting anything nor am I discussing the still very classified and unknown to you , F-22. Think Typhoon.

Onto Breaking mach without reheat

I've already made clear that I'm talking in the context of tangibility and combat. If you would like to discuss breaking M1.0 without burners then I suggest you start another thread. For that matter we could also discuss breaking M2.0.

I have proved the Typhoon can break mach on RB199'sn in dry, something you ask to be proved, When I did you then "don't care to discuss it"
Very Odd....

You proved or typed?

Care to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Why does your definition differ to this website, a website you offered as a credable source???:rotfl.

I already have. Look up the word efficiently and read it again. FYI, I think ans speak in terms of combat. So if some fighter can fly backward in an airshow but that ability not offer some applicability to actual warfare. Then its an irrelevant capability.

You asserted CAESER is only a radar, I believe it be NOAR.

OK good for you. Got proof?

You asserted the CAESAR is more expensive, however did you take throught life costs into account?

Thats not an assertion, its fact. One of the primary reasons Europe lags in the fighter AESA market is production cost. CAESAR is only a demonstration of technology and hasnt been optimized for serial production.

You asserted the capabilities of other radars were superior, I know you are making it up, as the capabilities of CAESAR are not yet publically known.

Stop dancing around the issues..

Sigh...if only it was possible to have objective discussion. In addition to over using the word assertion, you now accuse me of making things up. Very well. In that case we dont have much more to talk about until you could extend the courtesy of not claiming to know I'm making up things. I will leave you with the fact that CAESAR is not an entirely new radar. And that CAESAR relies on many of the "older" backend components of CAPTOR.

Before making ad hominem attacks on my credibility about what you know I'm making up. You may want to refer to the site that you are a Web Master on that talks in detail about some of the limitations of CAPTOR even when retrofitted with an AESA antennea and power supply. Interesting enough, it also mentions the issue of keeping cost down.

Futher, in comparing AESA, the USA is between the 4th and 6th generation of deployed AESA technology. The APG-63/77/79/80/81 were purpose built and use modern design philosophy rather than retrofits onto older mech scan array backends.

Your Site:

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

Also you might want to change the AMSAR references to CAESAR in the interest of accuracy.