Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[DarthAmerica]

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.

Thats exactly what they did. And the Sings wanted a multirole fighter with long range and a variety of advanced PGMs. AN/APG-63(v1) is a key component of that versitility.

FYI-
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/index.html
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d3_radarp20.html

 

[Grand Danois]

AN/APG-63(v1) is a key component of that versitility.

FYI-
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/index.html

Nice answer.

What I immediately could find was this:

http://www.defencetalk.com/air_systems/fighters/eurofighter-2000_typhoon.html

Looks good to me...

I don't know how far they have gotten with the CAPTOR for Tranche 2. I'll leave it to the experts to sort it out.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Nice answer.

What I immediately could find was this:

http://www.defencetalk.com/air_systems/fighters/eurofighter-2000_typhoon.html

Looks good to me...

I don't know how far they have gotten with the CAPTOR for Tranche 2. I'll leave it to the experts to sort it out.

Pick your experts carefully. Especially when they get the first sentence of their description wrong...

The Eurofighter Typhoon (EF-2000) is a result of joint efforts on the part of UK, Germany, Italy and Spain to develop a 5th Generation fighter capable of engaging all contemporary threats like the Flanker and Fulcrum series of fighters.

...Unfortunately there is a lot of embellishment that hides the truth about the Eurofighter. Oh and the sorting has already been done.

 

[webmaster]

What is wrong with the description? Eurofighter is not capable of engaging flanker and fulcrum?

 

[Grand Danois]

What is wrong with the description? Eurofighter is not capable of engaging flanker and fulcrum?

I betcha it's the 5th Gen label Darth is unhappy with.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

What is wrong with the description? Eurofighter is not capable of engaging flanker and fulcrum?

Sure it can engage a Flanker or Fulcrum. But its not hardly a 5th generation design.

 

[Waylander]

And because you don't think that they should name it 5th gen fighter the source is crap?
If for example somebody wants to name it's new fighter "The big bad 24th generation batmobil" than he is free to do so. Names say nothing about capabilities.
Just my 2 cent...
The rest of the discussion can be done by people who have a lot more knowledge than me.

 

[Big-E]

According to the DoD the F-22 and F-35 are the worlds only two 5th gen fighters, whatever thats worth.:drunk1

 

[Giblets46]

Well the only site that seems to think that the F-18 e/F is a 5th gen fighter without naming the EF and the Rafale as one is the Boeing website (thogh i don't beleive that explicetly states EF and rafale are not). EVERY single other site seems to think they are all 4.5 or all 5th gen.

But obvioulsly they are all wrong except the manufacturer of the claimed 5th gen!

 

[DarthAmerica]

And because you don't think that they should name it 5th gen fighter the source is crap?
If for example somebody wants to name it's new fighter "The big bad 24th generation batmobil" than he is free to do so. Names say nothing about capabilities.
Just my 2 cent...
The rest of the discussion can be done by people who have a lot more knowledge than me.

This isnt personal for me. Its a matter of fact that the Typhoon is not a 5th generation fighter. Only in the dreams of EADs marketing could that ever even be thought of.

 

[Scorpion82]

If you define 5th generation with stealth and AESA in the baseline than yes Eurofighter is no 5th generation. But in fact the aircraft as well as the Rafale was developed at the same time as the Raptor, all programms started roughly at the same time and all three types has entered service yet.
In Europe there is another definition of fighter generations! In Europe we speak about 3rd generation when we talk about F-16 or MiG-29, Eurofighter or Rafale are the next that means 4th generation. In Russia or the US designs classed as 3rd generation in Europe are 4th generation. Meaning the F-16 for example is defined as 3rd generation in Europe but as 4th generation in the US.

 

[Scorpion82]

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.

There are a lot of things to consider. The handling, presentation of data, performance at all and modes.
An AN/APG-63V1 or AN/APG-73 will not automatically select modes like RWS/TWS/VS automatically priorizing them, showing them clearly with their flight direction/IFF etc.. These radars are not able to display a 3-D picture of the airspace as Captor does and AFAIK they have no third data processing chanel especially for ECCM. Captors range is well beyond 160 km against a fight sized target and it can track at least 20 targets at once, engaging at least at of them and guiding missiles (mid-course guidance) to these targets. Already attacked targets will be shown and to optimize performance Captor automatically chooses the best PRF and uses DAS technics.
For AG modes a lot of work was done for the Captor, but the software hasn't been deployed to the combat units also because the aircraft is used for air defence duties at the moment.
AN/APG-63V1/73 track less targets and can't engage as many of them providing MCG like Captor. I also have no indication that these US designs provide a better range.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well the only site that seems to think that the F-18 e/F is a 5th gen fighter without naming the EF and the Rafale as one is the Boeing website (thogh i don't beleive that explicetly states EF and rafale are not). EVERY single other site seems to think they are all 4.5 or all 5th gen.

But obvioulsly they are all wrong except the manufacturer of the claimed 5th gen!

There is no such thing as 4.5 generation. Generation means successive intervals. 4.5 is a clever marketing term used to hide the fact that the Eurofighter and Rafale are being delivered 10 years later than promised and are infact competing in a market that is shifting toward 5th generation fighters. Eurofighter was hatched in 1972 and like the F-16/F-18C, its a 4th generation fighter. Generational references HAVE NOTHING to do with AESA, Stealth or any of that. Its only representitive of evolution. FOr example, Boeing can rightly claim the F/A-18E to be a 5th generation fighter because its a decendant of the 4th generation F/A-18C. Just as the Raptor is the 5th generation decendant of the 4th generation F-15. The F-35 is the 5th Generation successor to the 4th generation F-16/18C. The Eurofighter, is the 4th Generation successor to the 3rd Generation F-4 and Tornado.

Let me ask people to consider this logically. Is your son or daughter or are you a x.5 generation of your parents? Or are you infact a "next generation". Generations are integers. 4.5 is marketing hype.

 

[DarthAmerica]

There are a lot of things to consider. The handling, presentation of data, performance at all and modes.
An AN/APG-63V1 or AN/APG-73 will not automatically select modes like RWS/TWS/VS automatically priorizing them, showing them clearly with their flight direction/IFF etc.. These radars are not able to display a 3-D picture of the airspace as Captor does and AFAIK they have no third data processing chanel especially for ECCM. Captors range is well beyond 160 km against a fight sized target and it can track at least 20 targets at once, engaging at least at of them and guiding missiles (mid-course guidance) to these targets. Already attacked targets will be shown and to optimize performance Captor automatically chooses the best PRF and uses DAS technics.
For AG modes a lot of work was done for the Captor, but the software hasn't been deployed to the combat units also because the aircraft is used for air defence duties at the moment.
AN/APG-63V1/73 track less targets and can't engage as many of them providing MCG like Captor. I also have no indication that these US designs provide a better range.

Those are all nice brochure statistics. But in the real world CAPTOR is does not have the versitility of the APG-63(v)1 or APG-73 and its range figures are certainly exagerated and taken out of context. CAPTOR cant deliver the a2g stores the US sets can either. Of course when these difficiencies are pointed out the response is "its a software issue" or "for now we just do air defense" ect. I heard it all during the Singapore eval. As far as range I know you are going to tell me about some Mig-29 tracked at 185km ect. ect. I have read that report and no mention of aspect angle or load config. But even more, when people say fighter sized target. In terms of radar that means RCS. Mig-29's have a huge RCS even from the front. the much claimed 160km "fighter sized" target claim is for a 5m^2 RCS target. If you substitute the Mig-29 8m^2 + RCS into the simplified RCS vs Detection range formula I derived earlier you will see where this out of context claims come from. All you have to do research all the things CAPTOR could not do in the real world vs what a AN/APG-63(v)1 can do and has demonstrated and you will understand. The US has had superiority in fighter radars for quite some time. AESA just raised it to another level. Just look at our R&D budget. CAPTOR is holding the Eurofighter back in the real world. AN/APG-63(v)1 and AN/APG-73 have been sold and continue to be sold world wide in volume to gold standard customers.

My intent is not to belittle the Eurofighter or its radar. I merely seek to point out the obvious truth vs the myths spawned by the internet. When I get home and walk through my study. I look at my vast collection of "old" print media and technical manuals and marvel at how we used to do this before the internet. The net is a good source of info but its open availability sometimes compromises accuracy by considerable margins. That was less of a problem in print because the consequences of a mistake could not be fixed by a delete key and the cost of a mistake had career ending possibilities to say nothing of reputation.


FYI-

4th Generation:
http://www.eurojet.de/default2.php?p=6&cid=14

General stuff about Singapore and Multirole ect:
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/farn/farn_04/d3eurofighterp26.html

 

[Giblets46]

. If you substitute the Mig-29 8m^2 + RCS into the simplified RCS vs Detection range formula I derived earlier you will see where this out of context claims come from.

You could of course substute the 8m² figure in, but of course you could substitue any figure you liked in, you have chosen to substitute that figure in as it backs up your figures, however, the people who carried out the exercise, being in the RAF, and the other, writing for 'Journal of Electronic defence' , and therefore know about the exact exercise, stated it was a mig-29g, and the RCS was 5m².

 

[DarthAmerica]

You could of course substute the 8m² figure in, but of course you could substitue any figure you liked in, you have chosen to substitute that figure in as it backs up your figures, however, the people who carried out the exercise, being in the RAF, and the other, writing for 'Journal of Electronic defence' , and therefore know about the exact exercise, stated it was a mig-29g, and the RCS was 5m².

I'm not substituting anything. I'm telling you the way it happened. THe Journal of Electronic Defence is wrong if they are using that(5m²) figure. A Mig-29G is nothing more than an ex East German Era Mig-29 RCS is considerably greater than even the 8m^2 figure I gave you just for benefit of the doubt. See below for more Fulcrum Facts...

Re-Unified Fulcrums [1 Nov 2000] AFTER THE MiG-29 was introduced into the Soviet Air Force in 1983, the Warsaw Pact (WP) partner countries decided to enhance their fighter fleets by seeking replacements for their ageing MiG-21 aircraft. In the mid-1980s, the former East German Air Force (NVA) took the first steps towards the procurement of the MiG-29A fighter. Banned further sales Following the final settlement of the contract, worth 1 billion GDR Marks, Fighter Wing (FW) 3 Vladimir Komarow' at Preschen airbase, near the town of Forst and not far from the Polish border, became the first wing to be equipped with the new fighter. The first two of the 24 aircraft purchased, 615 (c/n 2960525110) and 628 (c/n 2960525111), were delivered in May 1988, and the last, 778 (c/n 2960526314), in January 1989, and in doing so, equipped the first and second squadrons of FW 3. Although the NVAs MiG-29A variant was to be an export version, some minor equipment changes were made, mainly to the radar, which was changed in favour of the N- 019E or EA 'Rubin'. Even the latest version of the SRO-2/SRZ-15 (NATO code Odd Rods) Identification Friend or Foe/Selective Identification Facility (IFF/SIF) equipment could be found in the NVA aircraft. In the final months of the NVA's existence, JIG 3 pilots accumulated some flight hours in the new aircraft, though they could hardly be said to have reached even a limited combat-ready stage. As German reunification drew closer, the Soviet government banned further sales of MiG-29s to the GDR forces, although the NVA had planned to re-equip JG 1 at Holzdorf airbase with the same type of aircraft. Under cover of darkness, Russian technicians from a nearby Soviet air base were sent to Preschen to remove the Odd Rods system from all 24 MiG-29s, as the Soviets were not about to let this state-ofthe- art equipment fall into the hands of the West NVA ceased to exist, and all its units and equipment became part of the Federal Republic of Germany. Up to this time, the USA and other NATO countries would have paid a king's ransom to own such a gem of Eastern technology, but now it simply became part of the NATO inventory. Luftwaffe testing To begin with, the Luftwaffe gave the weapons system a lukewarm reception. German officials were suspicious about the idea of an eastern type of aircraft in use with a standard NATO wing. It was decided in 1990 to keep the MiG-29 in an airworthy condition and to operate a minimum flying service of two or three flight hours per aircraft per week from January 1991 onwards. Four MiG-29s two A models (29+20, 29+21) and two UB models (29+22, 29+25) - were handed over to Wehrtechnischedienststelle 61 (WTD-Test and Evaluation Centre) at Manching, near Ingolstadt. Another Fulcrum, 29+06 (all MiG- 29s were given GAF codes starting with/29 after reunification) went overseas to the US Air Force for evaluation, staying there for 18 months. As the Gulf War became inevitable, sorties and missions by aircraft from the 'allied' nations were conducted against the MiG-29 one of the spearheads of Saddam Hussein's air force.

...We have had a chance to evaluate almost every Fulcrum specific operational characteristic and we did that using the specific model you discribe. You could bet your house on that RCS figure being considerably greater than 5m^2.

 

[Giblets46]

Typhoons are at China Lake conducting DACT with F-22's at the moment, apparently as predicted, BVR it is F-22 everytime, however, in a dogfight the Typhoon holds the cards. (admittedly its not much use if you are already dead!) but there will be times when they will get through, despite its advanatages, some F-18's were jumped by some Mig-21 (or 23s) in Iraq at under 20miles, though here, the F-18's still held the cards.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Typhoons are at China Lake conducting DACT with F-22's at the moment, apparently as predicted, BVR it is F-22 everytime, however, in a dogfight the Typhoon holds the cards. (admittedly its not much use if you are already dead!) but there will be times when they will get through, despite its advanatages, some F-18's were jumped by some Mig-21 (or 23s) in Iraq at under 20miles, though here, the F-18's still held the cards.

Its DACT so unless you know the exact details and limits on the exercise. Its not a meaningful way of comparing aircraft or declaring who "holds the cards". A-4's and F-5's often held the cards over vastly superior F-14's and F/A-18C's in TOP GUN.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1157

The F/A-18C shooting down of the two Migs while laden with bombs and fuel was a live demonstration of "swing role" "multirole" performance executed by very well trained pilots in a technologically superior machine with better situational awareness. This is why you do DACT. So that when you actually encounter a real "Mig", you know what to do in the event that a real world event similar to what you encountered in training actually happens.

 

[Magoo]

Typhoons are at China Lake conducting DACT with F-22's at the moment, apparently as predicted, BVR it is F-22 everytime, however, in a dogfight the Typhoon holds the cards. (admittedly its not much use if you are already dead!) but there will be times when they will get through, despite its advanatages, some F-18's were jumped by some Mig-21 (or 23s) in Iraq at under 20miles, though here, the F-18's still held the cards.

AND...the F-22s are flying from Hill AFB in Utah for the fights which are taking place over the Nellis, Utah and China Lake (R-4808) ranges.

The ROEs for the DACT is what's going to decide the majority of the winners in these contests, NOT necessarily the superiority of aircraft OR pilot.

Magoo

 

[DarthAmerica]

God Guns

AND...the F-22s are flying from Hill AFB in Utah for the fights which are taking place over the Nellis, Utah and China Lake (R-4808) ranges.

The ROEs for the DACT is what's going to decide the majority of the winners in these contests, NOT necessarily the superiority of aircraft OR pilot.

Magoo

Well said! In fact when I trained my men. I always gave them scenarios I knew they need to work on most. Sometimes I made things quite easy to build confidence. Other times I killed them or made impossible situations to teach lessons where I felt it to be necessary.