Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[JWCook]

Some interesting discussion on RCS... Now which Block Typhoon is being compared to the SH RCS??, (Hmmm... Is this to do with the radar range at China Lake)??

DA, IP, production block?

I'd like to know as its important!!!.

Cheers.

 

[Magoo]

Some interesting discussion on RCS... Now which Block Typhoon is being compared to the SH RCS??, (Hmmm... Is this to do with the radar range at China Lake)??

DA, IP, production block?

I'd like to know as its important!!!.

Hey JW

I don't know for sure, but I think the Typhoon data came out of BAES/Eurofighter and the RAF, as my friend's exposure to the jet pre-dates the China Lake RCS range tests done in 04 (was it 04?). I've had a lot more exposure to the Hornet, and I understand the Super's numbers have proven to be slightly superior to those predicted by Boeing (a company noted for its conservative performance estimates) in anechoic chamber, pole, and real-world testing at China Lake.

Apart from Captor and some enhanced sensor integration (DASS etc) and antennae, I don't know if there's going to be a lot different on the Typhoon when comparing the IP jets to late-build production aircraft, except perhaps the build quality which can have an effect. Structurally the jets are (as far as I know) identical, so the raw RCS (i.e. pole model) is likely to be pretty similar.

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

Eurofighter Just keeps kicking goals...

Spanish Eurofighter Performs First Air-To-Surface Weapon Release

(Source: EADS Military Air Systems; issued May 12, 2006)
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005998.php

MADRID / MUNICH --- The first deliveries of air-to-surface weapons in the history of the Eurofighter programme were carried out by EADS CASA Military Air Systems (MAS) on the 4th and 5th of May. “As we have been nominated to conduct these first weapon release trials within the Eurofighter community, we are proud to announce that the next-generation combat aircraft Eurofighter is getting closer to reach the full multirole and subsequent swing-role capability”, said Pablo de Bergia, CEO of EADS Defence & Security Systems Spain, after this significant programme milestone.

For the first drop EADS CASA test pilot Alfonso de Castro took off on the 4th of May from Moron AFB. The Eurofighter, accompanied by an F-18 chase aircraft of the Spanish Air Force, made several approaches to the planned impact point in order to check the release procedures and the video cameras for the flight-test documentation. In the hot run, a GBU-16 was jettisoned from the centre pylon of the starboard wing. The following day, company test pilot Carlos Pinilla dropped another GBU-16 from the inboard pylon of the starboard wing.

The GBU-16 is a 1,000 lbs. Paveway II-class NATO-standard air-to-surface laser-guided precision bomb to be implemented by the four Eurofighter core nations Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The weapon will enter into service with the first Eurofighter Typhoon Block 5 aircraft.

Both jettison tests were completely successful and met all flight test objectives. The most prominent ones were to verify the safe separation of the stores from their pylons and the overall aircraft behaviour during and after the jettison trials. Of extreme importance was also the evaluation of the armament control system, the flight control system and the overall avionics performance during the weapon jettison sequences. To reach the final GBU-16 clearance, the programme foresees four more test sorties, to be performed by EADS CASA within the next two months.


EADS Military Air Systems (MAS), the centre of competence for all manned an unmanned airborne weapons systems within EADS, is an integrated business unit within the EADS Defence & Security Systems Division (DS).

EADS Defence & Security Systems, with revenues of about EUR 5.6 billion in 2005 and roughly 23,000 employees across ten nations, forms the defence and security pillar within EADS. DS is a market leader for integrated system solutions (Large Systems Integration – LSI) to meet the new challenges of the Armed and Security Forces. It is active in the areas of manned and unmanned integrated combat and mission air systems, including related training services, and in missile systems, battlefield management systems for all branches, global security solutions, secure networks, defence electronics, sensors and avionics as well as related services.
EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2005, EADS generated revenues of EUR 34.2 billion and employed a workforce of about 113,000.

Those capabilities are just going to keep coming.

From that article, if the tests over the next 2 months are successful seems Batch5 Eurofighters will be cleared for GBU-16 operations. Obviously they need a "buddy" to "laze" the target at present, but I'd imagine a targetting pod will be an increased priority once GBU-16 is cleared...

 

[DarthAmerica]

I can tell you on good authority but without revealing sources that the Super Hornet, in clean config has a considerably lower RCS than the Typhoon, certainly in the front on, underside and plan aspects, and marginally so in the rear aspect. However, the argument is irrelevant as neither aircraft has any internal weapons carriage, and once you start hanging pylons and weapons off them, any advantage is lost.

While I generally agree with this statement in regard to clean configurations. I disagree with the suggestion that "any advantage" is lost with external stores. External stores will increase the RCS. But the increases are on a "stealthier" platform. Just the same if you put external ordinance on an F-22/35 they would still be significantly more stealthy compared to the F/A-18E or Eurofighter. In all cases with operational advantages for the type with the lowest RCS to start with.

 

[Giblets46]

Does anyone know any figures for the RCS for paveways and other guided weapons, am sure all those moveable wings and things must make it light up like a christmas tree! I know some of the newer weapons storm shadow etc have some stealth characteristics though.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Does anyone know any figures for the RCS for paveways and other guided weapons, am sure all those moveable wings and things must make it light up like a christmas tree! I know some of the newer weapons storm shadow etc have some stealth characteristics though.


http://www.raytheon.co.uk/news_room/300dpi-images/Paveway%20IV%20PGB%20-%20front%20view.jpg

To give you a rough approximate they are about ~.25m^2 from the front +\- a few degrees depending on which model.

 

[Giblets46]

Is there a list for the RCS (m²) of other weapons?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Is there a list for the RCS (m²) of other weapons?

Sure, publically available is another question. But its possible to estimate within reasonable tolerances assuming you have experience and proper education or software tools.

(example below used only to make the point above^^)

http://www.emarket.gatech.edu/defense/2005_Catalog.pdf

Which weapons are you interested in?

 

[gf0012-aust]

To give you a rough approximate they are about ~.25m^2 from the front +\- a few degrees depending on which model.

Its a relatively pointless exercise looking at the RCS of a dismounted and pole assessed weapon though.

as soon as you put that external onto a platform it will change values - and not necessarily equate to a merge of lower numbers just because the platform has an inherently lower RCS than another.

ie, its not necessarily a cumulative reduction.

its why externals need to be RCS conformal to their platforms/mounts if there is an expectation of overall reduction.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Its a relatively pointless exercise looking at the RCS of a dismounted and pole assessed weapon though.

as soon as you put that external onto a platform it will change values - and not necessarily equate to a merge of lower numbers just because the platform has an inherently lower RCS than another.

ie, its not necessarily a cumulative reduction.

its why externals need to be RCS conformal to their platforms/mounts if there is an expectation of overall reduction.

Actually its not pointless as some of those weapons will be what enters the defensive zones of coverage ie, JSOW, JASSM, SLAM-ER or SCALP ect. Also the RCS penalties for the types of weapon being discussed are within reason excluding some things that I have left out.

To make a long story short, fly a F/A-18E, Eurofighter or RAAF F/A-18A loaded for a2g head on towards a Big Bird or Clam Shell and the Rhino gets detected later in the engagement. Enough so that it would have operational advantages.

 

[JWCook]

Hey JW

I don't know for sure, but I think the Typhoon data came out of BAES/Eurofighter and the RAF, as my friend's exposure to the jet pre-dates the China Lake RCS range tests done in 04 (was it 04?). I've had a lot more exposure to the Hornet, and I understand the Super's numbers have proven to be slightly superior to those predicted by Boeing (a company noted for its conservative performance estimates) in anechoic chamber, pole, and real-world testing at China Lake.

Apart from Captor and some enhanced sensor integration (DASS etc) and antennae, I don't know if there's going to be a lot different on the Typhoon when comparing the IP jets to late-build production aircraft, except perhaps the build quality which can have an effect. Structurally the jets are (as far as I know) identical, so the raw RCS (i.e. pole model) is likely to be pretty similar.

Magoo

From what i've been told the RCS between the DA,IP, and Production blocks are different, ie. Some stealth materials were not used in the early models....

So I guess it really depends on which set of figures your using!.

Thanks for the info.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually its not pointless

I didn't say pointless. read my prev. RCS is not necessarily cumulatively reduced just because an external is mounted onto a LO platform.

Unless the external is sympathetic to the platform, it can (and has in some tests) theoretically blown out the overall reading.

Hence the rush to make sympathetic rails as well as packs.

If an F117 can blow a reading by having 1 of its 4 retractables "proud", or if a B2 can throw a reading out (and substantially) by having proud masking, then adding a non sympathetic carriage will do some considerable damage to overall levels. The fact that the F-22 is alleged to have a lower reading than the F-117 means that a failure to attend to detail will be like advertising on CNN. Adding a set of 2503's could lift it out enough to make an enemy operator say "why is something with the RCS of a (example) Learjet flying in such a such manner at such and such altitude etc.... - this doesn't make sense, I think I'll push the orange button and bring something else to an elevated alert level to back me up"

There is no relationship between a low RCS external and a low RCS platform. If its not a sympathetic mount - then you are just as likely to throw the numbers - as has happened in the past - and is why conformal and sympathetic mounts plus weapons are being developed and tuned per platform type.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I didn't say pointless. read my prev. RCS is not necessarily cumulatively reduced just because an external is mounted onto a LO platform.

Unless the external is sympathetic to the platform, it can (and has in some tests) theoretically blown out the overall reading.

Hence the rush to make sympathetic rails as well as packs.

If an F117 can blow a reading by having 1 of its 4 retractables "proud", or if a B2 can throw a reading out (and substantially) by having proud masking, then adding a non sympathetic carriage will do some considerable damage to overall levels. The fact that the F-22 is alleged to have a lower reading than the F-117 means that a failure to attend to detail will be like advertising on CNN. Adding a set of 2503's could lift it out enough to make an enemy operator say "why is something with the RCS of a (example) Learjet flying in such a such manner at such and such altitude etc.... - this doesn't make sense, I think I'll push the orange button and bring something else to an elevated alert level to back me up"

There is no relationship between a low RCS external and a low RCS platform. If its not a sympathetic mount - then you are just as likely to throw the numbers - as has happened in the past - and is why conformal and sympathetic mounts plus weapons are being developed and tuned per platform type.

Understood and what you are saying makes sense. My point being that not all benefits are lost, from certain aspects, with external stores(within reason) relative to completely unoptimized platforms. Remeber, the RCS reduction was factored into our design with the understanding that the platform fights with external stores. It is not a True Stealth aircraft in that common usage of the word but does have considerable survivability advantages over 4th Gen types. This is not in the same category as the F-22/35/117 or B-2 which are designed under a different design philosaphy.

 

[Magoo]

Understood and what you are saying makes sense. My point being that not all benefits are lost, from certain aspects, with external stores(within reason) relative to completely unoptimized platforms. Remeber, the RCS reduction was factored into our design with the understanding that the platform fights with external stores. It is not a True Stealth aircraft in that common usage of the word but does have considerable survivability advantages over 4th Gen types. This is not in the same category as the F-22/35/117 or B-2 which are designed under a different design philosaphy.

I know what you're saying, but for arguments sake (in very simplified terms), lets say you have two aircraft; one is as large as a marble in clean config, and one as large as a ping pong ball - both pretty small and only really able to be tracked by the most capable of radars at relatively short ranges.

Now, if you then go and hang pylons, jugs and weapons off them, you're then going to be comparing a beach ball to a basketball. Sure, the beach ball is bigger, but once you get beyond a baseball in size, its pretty academic if you're flying against SA-10, AA-10, AMRAAM etc...you're gonna get dead real fast if you don't have alternate countermeasures.

Magoo

 

[DarthAmerica]

I know what you're saying, but for arguments sake (in very simplified terms), lets say you have two aircraft; one is as large as a marble in clean config, and one as large as a ping pong ball - both pretty small and only really able to be tracked by the most capable of radars at relatively short ranges.

Now, if you then go and hang pylons, jugs and weapons off them, you're then going to be comparing a beach ball to a basketball. Sure, the beach ball is bigger, but once you get beyond a baseball in size, its pretty academic if you're flying against SA-10, AA-10, AMRAAM etc...you're gonna get dead real fast if you don't have alternate countermeasures.

Magoo

Marbles and Ping Pong Balls? Im sure you mean Golf ball or the official F-22/33 RCS figures... Your last sentence is not entirely correct. I'll get back later with details...

...OK not for arguements sake lets use the numbers you have given. BTW the USAF actually does say officially that the F-22/35 have the RCS of a marble and golfball respectively. If either of those aircraft carried external stores and had an increase to baseball size or even basketball sized RCS from their original values. The penalty would not totally offset the advantages of those aircraft. You see a lot of people misunderstand what stealth is. They think stealth is a technology that makes one invisible on radar. Well we know this isnt true. Stealth does however seriously degrade the performance of radar based systems to detect and track stealthy platforms. So aircraft are all just more or less stealthy and even that depends of whats trying to detect them. Lets go ahead and use an example based on CAPTORs quoted performance of 160km for a standard fighter sized target of 5m^2 RCS. An F-22 pretty much makes CAPTOR useless for BVR and the F-35 reduces CAPTOR to being less effective than the old Jay Bird against an F-15 over the Bekka Valley. The F/A-18E depending on what its carrying would Reduce CAPTOR by up to half. OK so for some reason you need to carry external stores on the F-22/35 its going to increase the detection range if they are increased to baseball or basketball levels. But not by enough to bring them up to the levels of unstealthy platforms especially from the front! GF mentioned that aerials and antennea degrading the stealthyness of F-117/B-2. Two things. First aerials and antennea tend to be made out of very reflective materials. Also the F-117/B-2 by virture of there stealthy penetrating missions, have to do whats called "threading the needle" in the opening phases of an airwar to open up opportunities for less stealthy platforms. Because these aircraft are much closer to Tx/Rx performing direct attack, they REQUIRE maximum survivability enhancements.

Click here to see illustrated example of the scenarios described above and below.

This is less of an issue for a fighter like the F/A-18E or Typhoon because they dont have the same type of roles as a dedicated stealth aircraft. Stealth is the combination of technology and tactics. Where stealth aircraft place a heavy emphasis on the technology portion of the stealth matrix. Aircraft like the Super Hornet, more than any other fighter, place an emphasis on tactics to maximize the comparitively minimal technological advantages. For example, the F/A-18E may deploy a weapon like the JSOW or SLAM-ER and a combination of low altitude terrain masking. But compared to unoptimized aircraft they can do it later and get a little closer to exploit the degraded performance of the enemy IAD. Yes in some cases an SA-10 may be able to get a shot off at the missiles R_Max. But the long range search radar that has to cue the SA-10 battery will be degraded and if the mission planning is done properly. The F/A-18E could avoid the reduced detect range of the search radar longer before having to drop below the radar horizon or possibly long enough to fire a 200+ Mile ranged PGM! When this lower RCS is combined with offensive jamming assets like the EA-6B, EA-18G(eventually) or even the APG-79 itself in certain cases! The IAD performance is futher degraded. Consider the way in which most enemy nations will encounter a Super Hornet or F-35. It will most likely be from the sea where the Carrier positions itself to exploit gaps in coverage in the enemy IAD. Also not many nations have the capability to detect and tract aircraft anywhere far off of their coast with any amount of persistence. So as the Super Hornet or F-35's come screaming in to roll back the enemy IADs. They will be flying over undefended, unwatched water probably preceded by TLAMs and augmented by powerful jamming and then they will be using stealthy long range PGMs against defensive ISR on the enemy coast rolling it back into the interior.

So to make a long story short, any degradation of the enemy SA especially with regard to IAD is a good thing. Even if its only going to buy you a few extra seconds to do something the enemy will not like. The F/A-18E was not RCS reduced without regard to the effects of external stores.

 

[Scorpion82]

Hi Darth,
I'm finally back and have now some more time to discuss some issues. I will handle one topic after the other for clarity reasons.

The first I want to speak about (again) is the Captor radar.


You say the Captor is an 1970/80s technology radar. My point of view is
the mechanical scanned flat planar array is indeed a developement of that time but:
1) A radar consists of more than the antenna only
2) Captors mechanical array also includes some new features not available for such radar systems at that time, like data adaptive scanning

In fact Captor is one of, if not the most advanced and best performing fighter radar of its kind (with mechanical scanned array). I listed some of the features in a post above that are more common to new generation radars than to the older designs. Captor beats similar designs like the AN/APG-63V1/70 or AN/APG-73 in many ways be it performance, handling or presentation of the data to mention some.
In fact Captor fullfils the original requirements, not to say succeeds them in many areas. Its still a capable and good performing radar sufficient enough for current operations. The reality is there is no large probability of a high intensity conflict in the near future. Captor can also compete with the most current PESA radars, having some disadvantages but also some advantages.

But another fact is, and there I think we have the same opinion the future belongs to AESA. I'm well aware about the capabilities, performance and possibilities this technology is offering and there is no doubt about the superiority of AESA designs like AN/APG-77/79/80 etc. in all areas compared to the current MSA Captor.
The mechanical array was originally chosen in preference to a passive phased array because of the technology of PESA wasn't enough developed at that time. But it was early intended to replace the initial MSA radar of the Typhoon with a new AESA system. Around 2010 its likely to see a production modell of the system and I think it has good chances not only for the export market but also to be fielded in the aircraft of the original developer countries. The first version will probably not include features like acting as ESM/ECM or data link, but such possibilities are already studied and may be a feature of the later Block 25 models of the Eurofighter Typhoon. For sure selling an aircraft with MSA radar today is definitive a chance decrising factor and I assume the export chances will be improved with the radar.

See this as an initial post. If you want to discuss some related things more detailed or want to know some more details let me know.

 

[DarthAmerica]

In fact Captor is one of, if not the most advanced and best performing fighter radar of its kind (with mechanical scanned array). I listed some of the features in a post above that are more common to new generation radars than to the older designs. Captor beats similar designs like the AN/APG-63V1/70 or AN/APG-73 in many ways be it performance, handling or presentation of the data to mention some.

But it was early intended to replace the initial MSA radar of the Typhoon with a new AESA system. Around 2010 its likely to see a production modell of the system and I think it has good chances not only for the export market but also to be fielded in the aircraft of the original developer countries. The first version will probably not include features like acting as ESM/ECM or data link, but such possibilities are already studied and may be a feature of the later Block 25 models of the Eurofighter Typhoon. For sure selling an aircraft with MSA radar today is definitive a chance decrising factor and I assume the export chances will be improved with the radar.

See this as an initial post. If you want to discuss some related things more detailed or want to know some more details let me know.

I have edited out the things I agree with and left those things I want to elaborate on. Overall your last post was good and we agree on many things. However its a bit of a stretch to say CAPTOR outperforms the APG-63(V1) or APG-73. These radars are roughly equivilent and have both advantages and disadvantages by comparison. I could go into detail about which is better but I am only interested in discussing the AESA sets because the APG-63(V1) and APG-73 are being replaced by that technology in US service.

An AESA is going to be a significant boost to the Typhoon's capability but it will not be available until sometime after 2010 and according to sources in the industry no earlier than 2011 for IOC. Also in its initial incarnations it will lack many of the features that the US AESA sets have. This is due to cost and technological limitations but subsequent versions will over time gradually introduce new features as they become available and affordable. Technologically speaking the AESA's under development for the Typhoon will initially be roughly equivilent to the APG-80.

 

[Scorpion82]

However its a bit of a stretch to say CAPTOR outperforms the APG-63(V1) or APG-73. These radars are roughly equivilent and have both advantages and disadvantages by comparison. I could go into detail about which is better but I am only interested in discussing the AESA sets because the APG-63(V1) and APG-73 are being replaced by that technology in US service.

I would be interested into a comparison, as Im convinced that Captor is the better one of the MSA designs. However I accept and can also understand that you are primary interested in the newer AESA technology. I'm interested too, but the problem is it's currently very difficult at the moment as there are not enough details available for those AESA radars.

To come to the AESA technology there is no doubt that the US is ahead, they fielded AESA fighter radars in the evolved F-teens and logically into their 5th generation fighters.
I agree that the initial Captor AESA (however it will be called) will have similar capabilities as the APG-80, but I assume the new Captor will offer a better performance at least in terms of range.

Just some info about the CAESAR, mayxbe I'm able to gain some additional informations/data:
The CAESAR demonstrator now is near to a production modell, but it currently weights a bit to much. However that isn't a large problem as according to an industrial source this will solved without significant problems to be exspected. I assume the weight will already be reduced when the system is tested into the Eurofighter. A prototype is scheduled to fly with CAESAR later this year and after that additional trials will follow in the BAC 1-11 with an further improved version.
The CAESAR have 1500 modules with an output of 10 W for each module. The system will use the PowerPC processor of the newer MSA Captor, which is already designed in mind for switch to AESA. CAESAR also uses the Captor receiver unit, but the most other components especially the antenna with Gallium-Arsenid modules and the power supply with fluid cooling are entirely new.
The EADS Defence Electronics in Ulm, Germany has a microwave factory which is already tailored to mass production of the T/R-modules. The factory will also produce the modules for the transatlantic MEADS airdefence system. That means relative low module prices can be calculated if everything goes well as currently planned.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I would be interested into a comparison, as Im convinced that Captor is the better one of the MSA designs.

Why? Based on what data? Both APG-63(v1) and APG-73 have far more versitily and modes than CAPTOR. APG-63(v1) equipped F-15's have been selected over CAPTOR equipped Eurofighters anytime they have been in competition.

 

[Grand Danois]

Why? Based on what data? Both APG-63(v1) and APG-73 have far more versitily and modes than CAPTOR. APG-63(v1) equipped F-15's have been selected over CAPTOR equipped Eurofighters anytime they have been in competition.

I'd say that's a non sequitur. I don't know how the radars compare, but my impression is that the Sings made their choice based on how the tenders matched the full spectrum of relevant parameters in their requirement.