Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[JWCook]

Hmmm so to sum up...
Your not asserting anything!,
Your not telling what you think you know.
Your not even telling why you think you know.


Clears that up nicely.., but sort of sucky when it comes to debating, do I take it you withdraw sir?

BTW AMSAR and CAESAR are not the same at all, I'm afraid your more than a little confused between what AMSAR is and where CAESAR fits into it.

But I'm sure you knew that all along and was just toying with me.

For the benifit of others reading this here is a description of AMSAR/Caesar.

AMSAR is R&D, CAESAR is a technology demonstrator, money is require to move to production, tooling etc..

AMSAR

or Airborne Multi-mode Solid-state Active-array Radar aims to provide the Typhoon and Rafale (and other future European air systems) with an entirely solid-state advanced active array (although the Rafale is equipped with a phased array radar, the RBE.2, it is a passive system rather than a solid-state active array). A consortium company was formed soon after called GTDAR (or GEC-Thomson-DASA Airborne Radar).
he program has an intended length of 11 years and is split into three phases. The first two of these examined the feasibility and requirements for a new generation of active arrays as well as new methods for fabricating the expensive Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuit (MMIC) modules. The target price for the modules is around £400 to £500 compared to several thousand at present. In addition a bench scale unit was to be constructed demonstrating the overall feasibility of the project. Both of these phases were completed by mid-1998 with the testing of a 144 module array utilising an advanced MMIC featuring a custom ASIC and a multi-layer ceramic substrate housed in a metal matrix composite unit.
Following a successful demonstration of the 144 module array the British, French and German Defence Ministries have authorised the third stage of the project to proceed. This will see the construction of a 1000+ module full-scale unit which will subsequently undergo flight testing aboard BAE Systems's Canadair avionics test aircraft. If the project proceeds to schedule the unit will be competed in 2001 and flight trials will occur in 2002.

CAESAR is the child of AMSAR and the CAPTOR, 'with an eye on costs' the modules that control transmit and receive and the planar array are removed and the CAESAR components are slotted in, the back end where the processing occurs is kept the same but was sw modified and the processors upgraded in the past to accept this type of upgrade, it is estimated that the higher cost of procurement will be more than recouped by reduced cost of maintainence.

link http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=1579207


As for NOAR functions I'm unable to quote the source to you, you'll just have to trust me!!. unless you know different.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Clears that up nicely.., but sort of sucky when it comes to debating, do I take it you withdraw sir?

Take it however you like. I'm not interested in semantics, word games, antagonism or "winning debates". The premise of this thread is the obsolesence of the Eurofighter compared to other contemporary 4th Gen platforms.

BTW AMSAR and CAESAR are not the same at all, I'm afraid your more than a little confused between what AMSAR is and where CAESAR fits into it.

No its your website that references the AMSAR in the wrong context.

But I'm sure you knew that all along and was just toying with me.

For the benifit of others reading this here is a description of AMSAR/Caesar.

AMSAR is R&D, CAESAR is a technology demonstrator, money is require to move to production, tooling etc..

As for NOAR functions I'm unable to quote the source to you, you'll just have to trust me!!. unless you know different.

I do know different. But it hardly matters. CAESAR is not even an option pre-2011 optimistically. Meanwhile, there are no fewer than 4 real AESA capable fighters out there and available now. Eurofighter has not done well in competition with any of them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Reminder:​

• 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.

• Civility will be adhered to on this forum or posts will get locked pronto.

We've spent the last 12 months getting the unnecessary sarcasm and flippancy out of posts - I or the other Mods will not have it revert to the days when we had kids have arse rubbing competitions.

This forum is not here to create a venue for competition on opposing thoughts.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Reminder:​

• 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.

• Civility will be adhered to on this forum or posts will get locked pronto.

We've spent the last 12 months getting the unnecessary sarcasm and flippancy out of posts - I or the other Mods will not have it revert to the days when we had kids have arse rubbing competitions.

This forum is not here to create a venue for competition on opposing thoughts.

Thank You making that clear.


Summing up the radar issue, CAPTOR has hurt the potential of the Eurofighter and is in clear need of replacement. An effort that is currently underway with the CAESAR program. The reality with CAESAR is that no matter how good it is, its arrival in the beginning to middle of next decade may hurt the potential of the Eurofighter with the arrival of the F35/apg-81 and maturing of the APG-63(v3), APG-77 and APG-79. And CAESAR will still suffer from some of the limitations of the previous CAPTOR design that will limit its ability to be NOAR.

I wonder if the alternative of fitting a modified APG-79/81 to the Typhoon has been considered?

 

[adsH]

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 suppose so.

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.

Hold on!! is this Fact Based on Evidance that you've Accumulated or is it your vague Opnion disguised and Foricably pushed through as a Fact.

Not all forces regard F-22 as the Future requirement hence your statement about Obsolesce should be disregarded. YOu don't procure Military hardware based on Mass Marketing Campaigns you procure them based on capability studies and requirement Evaluations. Each Miltary force is different
The British Armed forces have requirements that the Eurofighter fulfils.

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.
.

I'l take your word on the Priceing issue. provided you can provide either credible source or a logical reasoning.


Please don't start Off "In my honest opinion" and then near to the end of the paragraph state opinion as a fact, its misleading!

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.

It's all about preserving your capabilities I'm not ashamed to admit that. Politics is a major Factor in Weaponry SAles and We're DAmn good at it

 

[DarthAmerica]

The British Armed forces have requirements that the Eurofighter fulfils.

Agreed but at what cost especially compared to alternatives. Say for example UK decided to procure F-15E variants instead as was the case in SK and Singapore. Or perhaps even F-16 Blk 60 or F/A-18E. In these cases I think that the requirements could be met at much lower cost, on time and with capabilities that the UK could take advantage of now such as true long range multirole capabilty. Two things though, this is an opinion and it ignores the desire for a European platform.

I'l take your word on the Priceing issue. provided you can provide either credible source or a logical reasoning.

Just in case my word isnt enough. I found this on this site:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=952

While that isnt my source, even the unadjusted numbers support my comments in regard to price. There are many open sources that show the cost of the Eurofighter to be at least approximately double that of the F-35. The one qualifier though is that the F-35 isnt operational yet so we would have to reevaluate the cost in the 2012 timeframe. But cost is a driving factor in the F-35 program and if it grew too far outside the predicted margins the F-35 would price itself out of the market for most potential users. My understanding of the approximate cost of the Eurofighter vs the F-35 are

Eurofighter=approximately 100 to 130 million USD each in todays dollars
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

F-35=approximately 50 to 60 million USD each in todays dollars
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm

It's all about preserving your capabilities I'm not ashamed to admit that. Politics is a major Factor in Weaponry SAles and We're DAmn good at it

I agree with you here. I just think it could be done better and cheaper by buying US... When I say better I'm speaking in terms of avionics, weapons and multirole capability.




Below is a related OPINION piece:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/04/01/ixopinion.html

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.

I would think that a platform is only as good as the system it operates in and that to separate out the platform from the system is a mistake.

I think back to the first gulf war where the Saudi AF had some very potent platforms but the system was not able to operate them effectively, or the Iranians in the 1980s who had the F-14, but no logistics to keep them flying, and not enough experienced pilots as a result of the revolution to make the most of them.

That being said I recognise that the Typhoon that is flying in April 2006 may not be as capable as it will be, either the platform or the logistics. I don’t know that for certain as I do not have access to all the facts. But I do know from the history of the introduction of other platforms that tactics and logistics take time to shape up. The Tornado ADV flew with concrete in place of the Radar if memory serves me right.

But I also recognise that the RAF pilots train to NATO standards of at least 180 hrs per year, I also know that on average the Russian Air Force has had an average or 30-50 hrs for its pilots for around a decade now and that logistics have also not been up to scratch either. I don’t know of any SU operators off hand that has the tactics, support systems or training hours up to NATO standards. That being said I am sure the Russians, Indians, and Chinese will be capable of generating capable units in their own local environments, but only as a small percentage of total platforms.

As I start off by saying in an Air to Air scenario the system makes more of a difference than the platform.

 

[Gaenth]

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.

No I wouldn't be happy either weighing those two against each other, but not because I think Flankers are close in capability to Typhoons, I just can't figure out how considering the inmense differences between their air-to-air weapons and systems. Again, the Su-27 family has been arround a while, it seems natural to me that it's been upgraded accordingly, they've packed pretty much all they can on that airframe and they've developed so many different versions for many different roles yet none of them is called second best fighter in the world.

As for the remaining Russian platforms, all have been left behind by latest versions of Western 4th Generation Fighters. 5th Generation: MiG 1.44 flown twice and yet they claim it's equal to F-22, (can't figure out how either) then it was marked as a "technology demonstrator" because they couldn't afford to produce it. Su-47 another technology demonstrator, Sukhoi admitted the benefits of its forward swept wings were just not worth the cost of the aircraft, so they would choose another wing design for production leaving them with what? Another Flanker? And God knows when will it enter production when and IF they team up with India. Those programs were anything but cheap so, there you have, some interesting way of blowing cash on platforms that are obsolete right from the beginning.

So you're American then? HA!

 

[DarthAmerica]

No I wouldn't be happy either weighing those two against each other, but not because I think Flankers are close in capability to Typhoons, I just can't figure out how considering the inmense differences between their air-to-air weapons and systems. Again, the Su-27 family has been arround a while, it seems natural to me that it's been upgraded accordingly, they've packed pretty much all they can on that airframe and they've developed so many different versions for many different roles yet none of them is called second best fighter in the world.

There is just so much potential inherent in the design of the SU-27 series that I cannot do it justice without a dedicated post. The Russians really hit a home run with that platform. I think open sourced SU-27s represent some of the best potential available all things considered.

As to which platform is second best. Thats a tie between F-15E/18E until the F-35 hits the market.

So you're American then? HA!

Yes

 

[JWCook]

Darth Wrote:-

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

you asked me to prove it - See http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
and click on general information it quotes "Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic"

Consider it proved Darth.... can you provide anything?


Re Costs the JSF is price

Its funny Darth the link you provided http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm states the Typhoon is $58M not the $100M-$130M you claim.. a typo perhaps!!.

The current real cost of a Typhoon (as taken from the figures from the Austrian deal) is 62M Euros (approx $US76M). flyaway.

The GAO http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05271.pdf report contains the prices as from last year $45N - $61M (not current as you claim), if you extrapolate thes figures (even with the most favourabe linear rises) the unit price of the 2013 JSF will be
CTOL = $55M
carrier= $85M
STOVL= $120M

You'll agree these are significantly higher than inflation, which must also be added...

Its my own personal view the JSF will come in around the $75M to $90M mark. If you trend it against the last fighter produced by the US it is much much higher (F-22).

So be wary of counting your 45-60M dollars chickens just yet.


Darth also wrote

No its your website that references the AMSAR in the wrong context.

Can you explain further?, why is it in the wrong context..?, can you provide anything?


Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

I would think that a platform is only as good as the system it operates in and that to separate out the platform from the system is a mistake.

Agreed. What I'm doing and suggesting others do is to substitute other alternative platforms into that system and judge the results.

I think back to the first gulf war where the Saudi AF had some very potent platforms but the system was not able to operate them effectively, or the Iranians in the 1980s who had the F-14, but no logistics to keep them flying, and not enough experienced pilots as a result of the revolution to make the most of them.

The F-14 proved to be a deadly weapon in the hands of the Iranians and did very well for themselves.

That being said I recognise that the Typhoon that is flying in April 2006 may not be as capable as it will be, either the platform or the logistics. I don’t know that for certain as I do not have access to all the facts. But I do know from the history of the introduction of other platforms that tactics and logistics take time to shape up. The Tornado ADV flew with concrete in place of the Radar if memory serves me right.

The problem, for me, is that after some 40 years of development it will still never catch up to its peers. This excludes flight performance.

But I also recognise that the RAF pilots train to NATO standards of at least 180 hrs per year, I also know that on average the Russian Air Force has had an average or 30-50 hrs for its pilots for around a decade now and that logistics have also not been up to scratch either. I don’t know of any SU operators off hand that has the tactics, support systems or training hours up to NATO standards. That being said I am sure the Russians, Indians, and Chinese will be capable of generating capable units in their own local environments, but only as a small percentage of total platforms.

As I start off by saying in an Air to Air scenario the system makes more of a difference than the platform.

I agree with this. And at the systems level, the Russians are able to overcome the RAF even in their weakend state. Of course this is partly due to sheer strength of numbers. But how you win doesnt matter at the end.

Air to air scenarios are increasingly obsolete IMO. And these are the scenarios that defined the development of the Typhoon. During the Cold War or IMMEDIATELY after in the 1991-1995 timeframe. AMRAAM armed Typhoons rising up to meet encroaching Soviet/Russian aircraft of that time would have been a good match. But in todays world. The Russians have weapons in their system that make these tactics obsolete. Specifically long ranged PGM with low RCS and low altitude flight profiles or really high speed ASMs. The ranges of these systems means that the Russians would not have to overcome the Typhoons to get at the critical infrastructure of the RAF. Because Typhoon lacks an AESA, the low altitude low RCS missiles will be extremely difficult to intercept. Yes AWACs coverage will help greatly. But in the condensed battle space of the UK its not going to take too many leakers to get measurable effects. But even worse than all of that. Being that the Typhoon is an inherently defensive fighter and also because the UK totally lacks any relevant non nuclear means of striking back, the Russian system can wear down the defense through attrition. And you cannot trade 100 to 130 million dollar Typhoons for 40 to 50 million dollar SU-27s and hope to remain in the fight very long.

 

[LancerMc]

Darth can you list these low RCS PGM's, because I have read extensively about Russian PGM's and not familar that any were designed with a low RCS that are currenlty in any type of service like some Western designs?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Darth Wrote:-

you asked me to prove it - See http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Airframe/
and click on general information it quotes "Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic"

Consider it proved Darth.... can you provide anything?

That doesnt prove anything. As I stated before. The Eurofighter website claims many things, as do other manufacturers, that are best classified as marketing hype. At best , that statement is out of context. It would be the same as posting the phenominal performance of the F-15 rigged as a test bed. In other words its no different that when a car manufacturer advertises its sports car by showing not street legal racing versions of their car doing laps on a track. And then in the next scene they show a street legal commercially available model. Its a common marketing technique. Operationally configured Typhoons do not offer any significant or tangible performance charateristic that other 4th Generation planes like the F-15/16/18C do not also offer. Futher, the Typhoon doesnt have the fuel or the engines to sustain supercruise in any operational context. In order to supercruise, engines have to be specifically designed to deal with the higher stresses that go with that type of operation. The F119 and EJ200 are fundamentally different designs with one optimized for supercruise. This is not unlike the claim that Mig-25s can exceed M3.0 when in practice they are limited to speeds below M2.8 because above that the engines are literally worn out. Also the Typhoon is limited to a very narrow flight profile to even hope to achive this kind of performance(supercruise). 50% fuel, at approx 36000ft and unladen with the exception of possibly 4 AAM. Like I said, even if you ignore the fact that the engines could not sustain this performance. Calculating the range based on the SFC eliminated the chance for any operational capability. Dont fall for the marketing hype. It didnt work in Singapore or South Korea when the type had to compete for business.

The current real cost of a Typhoon (as taken from the figures from the Austrian deal) is 62M Euros (approx $US76M). flyaway.

Thats simply not true. The Austian deal was heavily subsadized to spur exports. Whats funny about that is that even if you believe the misleading $76M USD number. The aircraft is significantly less capable than F-15E, F-16 blk 60 or F/A-18E in addition to being more expensive. Be careful using numbers like that because it is very missleading. Every defense aviation publication and expert agrees that the cost of the Eurofighter is higher than the nuber you listed.

Darth also wrote

Can you explain further?, why is it in the wrong context..?, can you provide anything?


Cheers

I would do so in private so as not to provoke the moderators. Feel free to contact me via Gmail if you like. Fear not Mr. Cook. I do not hate the Eurofighter. Its a nice looking jet with impressive performance. All things considered however its only moderately capable in the context of other 4th generation and 5th generation platforms. It fits in between the early model 4th Gen Migs/SUs/F-teens and late model F-teens/Migs/SUs and sits well behind the 5th gen F18E/22/35. In my analysis I am considering avionics, multirole applicability, LO Characteristics, weapons options and cost.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Darth can you list these low RCS PGM's, because I have read extensively about Russian PGM's and not familar that any were designed with a low RCS that are currenlty in any type of service like some Western designs?

Most modern cruise missiles have relatively low RCS inherent to their design(ie being small). F-16's and Mig-21's are noted for having low RCS compared to larger fighters for example. Also by flying close to the ground, the cruise missile can hide below the radar horizon unless you are able to "look down". Of course the Eurofighter has a look down radar, but the performance will be reduced somewhat.

Specifically dealing with your question. Take a look at the Kh-55 and BrahMos missiles.

http://www.brahmos.com/missile_spec.html

There are others as well but it is beyond the scope of my post to describe them in detail. I will say this though. A missile with even slightly reduced RCS either inherent in the design or by design seriously complicated the defense. The high speed of these missiles will already reduce the amount of time you have to intercept. The sooner you detect them the better your chance of stopping the missile. CAESAR would offer a better chance to detect these types of targets futher out than CAPTOR as a benefit of AESA technology. But as I said before, its not availale yet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Specifically dealing with your question. Take a look at the Kh-55 and BrahMos missiles. There are others as well but it is beyond the scope of my post to describe them in detail.

I'm not so sure I'd use both of those missiles as an example of low RCS.

Brahmos/Yakhont/P800 especially stands out like the proverbial dogs from an E2. The heat signature alone will make someone stand up and take notice.

As for the Kh-55 - well, again "we" use jet aircraft to simulate them as they have similar flight and RCS profile. - it's like looking at a slow moving Mig-21

 

[LancerMc]

gf0012 is correct neither of the missiles are meant to be low RCS systems. Inherently these systems because of their size do have lower RCS then larger aircraft. Though none of those system were designed with the intention of having a very low RCS. If you look at Western RCS missile system you can gain a good idea what a PGM with a low RCS looks likes, examples: Stormshadow, AALCM, JASSM, and the JSOW.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I'm not so sure I'd use both of those missiles as an example of low RCS.

I'm very sure to use them because I said relative RCS generically as it applies to cruise missiles and also the low altitude flight profile which could hide even a B-52 depending on the altitude of the sensor trying to detect it. You will note the concern over such primitive systems as the Silkworm.

BrahMos in particular adds the dimension of decreased reaction times. Even if "its not all that great" and can only gain an additional 10 or 20 km of ingree before beinf detected, at its speed thats valuable time lost. Especially in the context of the UK IAD which is quite vulnerable.

That you mention IR if interesting as thats not typically used for wide area survailence and comparitively short range would leave significant gaps. Any cruise missile that could thread the needle between sensors is as stealthy as a B-2 in practical terms.

 

[DarthAmerica]

gf0012 is correct neither of the missiles are meant to be low RCS systems. Inherently these systems because of their size do have lower RCS then larger aircraft. Though none of those system were designed with the intention of having a very low RCS. If you look at Western RCS missile system you can gain a good idea what a PGM with a low RCS looks likes, examples: Stormshadow, AALCM, JASSM, and the JSOW.

OK this is taking my comments out of context. I'm not making a direct comparison to western cruise missiles. Also the BrahMos IS DESIGNED with some consideration to reducing RCS. How effective it is, is something we could only speculate on given the typical secracy associated with RCS. But considering that cruise missiles ALREADY have reduced signatures any improvement on a missile traveling at those velocities is going to have tangible benefits.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That you mention IR if interesting as thats not typically used for wide area survailence and comparitively short range would leave significant gaps. Any cruise missile that could thread the needle between sensors is as stealthy as a B-2 in practical terms.

yes it is - in fact fleet airborne ISR has been used since time immemorial to look for cruise missiles - and that includes using IR sensors.

Orions are also used (in Iraq currently) to watch for heat sigs on fast moving cruise missiles.

Thats why a fleet attack will need to broach a 300-450km window guarded by an AWACs as well as other organic sensor systems in play.

what you say has relevance for a non NATO navy more than 45 years ago - its certainly not the case now or since then.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also the BrahMos IS DESIGNED with some consideration to reducing RCS. How effective it is, is something we could only speculate on given the typical secracy associated with RCS. But considering that cruise missiles ALREADY have reduced signatures any improvement on a missile traveling at those velocities is going to have tangible benefits.

Thats incorrect though. We do know what its RCS is because its just a P800 with an indigenous guidance system. The internal changes made by the Indians don't change its RCS profile at all.

So it's not speculation at all. Its based on what we know of the original russian product which brahmos fundamentally mirrors in 99% of its external design.

As for the threat of a supersonic cruise missile - I've yet to come across any USN EW Officer who sees them as the bogey man articulated by the press. The counter systems in place still deal with supersonics as well as subsonics - irrespective of reaction times that some may wax lyrical about.