Should Tranche 3 Typhoon be scrapped?

[contedicavour]

Assuming that the last Typhoon gets delivered 2014-2016 will serve unti 2040, I'd expect the EUAF (European Union Air Force, which could very well exist in 20 years) to start the design process in 2025 at the very latest (2015 would be more likely) to develop the successor aircraft (which could be a UCAV though).

You're way too optimistic about the EU's role in defence policy. You have 4 clusters of air forces in Europe : those that will always rely on US planes, the Typhoon consortium countries, France with its Rafale, and the Gripen countries.
Politically, getting all the EU countries to agree is a pure nightmare, never mind a defence programme worth tens of billions of euros and tens of thousands of high tech jobs.
One last thing : instead of thinking of how a Typhoon will look like in 2040, how about thinking of how our air forces will look like in 2015 with hardly any F35s in service and only the Typhoons remaining alongside ?

cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

IIRC there is a drag advantage/fuel savings to be had from using CFTs in the single digit percent range. However they cannot be jettisoned, which I understand to be the procedure with the standard external tanks when agility/acc/speed is needed. Hence the comparison should be between the "clean" EF and the CFT EF.

Actually i remember reading with the F-16 conformal tanks that they produced only 16% of the drag of an underwing tank of equivalent volume.

That is a HUGE advantage. The drag increase is so low that even if they cannot be jettisoned they make only a slight difference compare to a clean aircraft.

With the F-16, three external tanks have the same volume as just a pair of conformal tanks. With the three high drag tanks the cruising speed reduction is in the order of 25%. With the conformal tank the speed reduction will be less than 5%. So the conformal aircraft will travel atleast 20% faster with the same fuel load.

When the three high drag tanks are jettisoned the conformal tanked aircraft will now be travelled 5% slowly. So basically a 20% gain and less than 5% loss means you get a huge increase in transit/cruising speed for only a minimal reduction in combat speed.

Also the lower drag of the conformal tanks as it allows it to travel faster at the same thrust level or specific fuel consumption. This gives a noticable increase in range even if the fuel weight is the same. So with that increase in range the conformal tanked aircraft could use afterburners more frequently and would make up for that small reduction in combat speed.

So its win win with the conformal tanks.

This is why the F-35 is so good. Research has show that aircraft nearly always carry droptanks. So they gave the F-35 massive internal fuel. The drag of having the fuel internally is even lower than conformal tanks aparently its now in the single figures when compared to a conventional drop tank.

An F-15 would have to carry 3 droptanks just to reach the fuel capacity of the F-35. This would increase drag so much that it will need to use more power to maintain a decent combat speed. This is why the F-35 will be extremely quick considering its fairly low thrust to weight ratio.

 

[kato]

@contedicavour:

He's not really too optimistic.

Consider that Eurofighter development ("Fighter 90" at that time) immediately followed the last regular Tornado deliveries (which after all was another European joint development) in the early 80s.

Next project to go for wouldn't be a new fighter or strike bomber though in my opinion. What's needed is a next-gen dedicated Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The P-3, Nimrod and Atlantique MPA3 now in service with WEU/EU nations will really hit the end of the line in the next 15-20 years, even with SLEP/MLU/whatever refurbishing.

This one could (opinion based upon previous projects, like A400M) actually be realized on a WEU/WEAG European Defence Agency basis, and involve at least Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Germany, France and Italy already cooperate closely in that field.

 

[contedicavour]

@contedicavour:

He's not really too optimistic.

Consider that Eurofighter development ("Fighter 90" at that time) immediately followed the last regular Tornado deliveries (which after all was another European joint development) in the early 80s.

Next project to go for wouldn't be a new fighter or strike bomber though in my opinion. What's needed is a next-gen dedicated Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The P-3, Nimrod and Atlantique MPA3 now in service with WEU/EU nations will really hit the end of the line in the next 15-20 years, even with SLEP/MLU/whatever refurbishing.

This one could (opinion based upon previous projects, like A400M) actually be realized on a WEU/WEAG European Defence Agency basis, and involve at least Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Germany, France and Italy already cooperate closely in that field.

You're right that the Tornado programme was followed by Typhoon and that we should expect some follow-on... though F35 introduction is likely to mean that Tornados will be replaced mainly by the F35. So the next mega programme should be the Typhoon replacement, around 2030 earliest.

IMO MPAs certainly need replacement but are too low a priority for all the countries concerned. France developed ATL-2 which is relatively modern and won't be replaced for ages. Germany took over second hand P3s from Holland, Italy is likely to take ATR72MPA (costs so much less than a P3...).
Since Germany "defected" to the P3 and Italy isn't interested in higher capability MPAs (for lack of money), I'd expect the US to sell P8 to the richest European countries and no specific version of A400 for lack of a sufficent number of launch customers.

cheers

 

[Satorian]

You're way too optimistic about the EU's role in defence policy. You have 4 clusters of air forces in Europe : those that will always rely on US planes, the Typhoon consortium countries, France with its Rafale, and the Gripen countries.
Politically, getting all the EU countries to agree is a pure nightmare, never mind a defence programme worth tens of billions of euros and tens of thousands of high tech jobs.
One last thing : instead of thinking of how a Typhoon will look like in 2040, how about thinking of how our air forces will look like in 2015 with hardly any F35s in service and only the Typhoons remaining alongside ?

A shared, common security and foreign policy (GASP in Germany, Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik) is one of the pillars of the EU founding. Especially in recent months the idea of a EU military came up again, and in 20 to 30 years time we might just be there already.
And I think you underestimate the power of the Eu parliament and what far-reaching consequences EU law and directives have. Politicians don't really like to tell their peons, but the EU is a sticky fly trap: There are no regulations that govern leaving it and while only restricted by respective national constitutions in application, EU law are immediately effective for the whole EU and directives have to be turned into laws by the nations themselves, but according to the instructions given in the EU legislative directive.

Now, most countries have their military and power over military and sovereignty and military sovereignty defined in their constitution, so there still is a hurdle to climb. Even though past efforts for a common EU constitution failed (France and the Netherlands voted against it), we are already farther ahead now than we've been 10 years ago: We signed a European Human and Civil Rights Charta this year, a founding stock to a future constitution. It's going slower than some perhaps expected or wished for, but it's happening.

And if Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Germany pull in one direction and reach a consensus on something, I'm willing to bet that they can drag everyone else along.

Tornado = GB, Italy, Germany
Typhoon = GB, Italy, Spain, Germany
Next one = GB, Italy, Spain, France, Germany?

Well, speculation of course, but I think Europe will turn into a kickass confederation.




Well, to come back to the Typhoon: A biofuel mid-life update would actually be something worth investigating I think. Less consumption, cheaper propellant and perhaps coming from a renewable source.

 

[Shortfuse]

Hi guys,

I admire your technical knowledge, but please keep cost effectiveness in mind when suggesting solutions to military problems.

Yes you can build unbelievably capable aircraft to deliver an air to ground capability, but in the world today we spend the vast majority of our time blowing the crap out of opponents with a very limited capability to shoot back. Why not just have a large number of cheap AC-130 loitering above the enemy carefully picking off the targets we actually want to hit, backed up by expendable UAV's and cruise missiles for contested missions?

This is just an obvious example, but the relative cost of any solution is very important if you want a taxpayer to fund it. Before suggesting a new generation of air to air or air to ground superfighter, please justify it against other available (and usually much cheaper) strike options.

I’d rather have a large number of basic medics in the field with good support services than a handful of neuro surgeons. Reality entails trade offs.

 

[Scorpion82]

I think that the Eurofighter Typhoon is sufficient for the operations to be conducted by its customers over the years to come. More important than introducing more technologies with tranche 3 is to secure the T3. Recent information suggest that T3 examples will be similar to the latest T2 examples (block 15) maybe with some detail changes. Once the number of aircraft is secured it is still possible to introduce new technologies and capabilities. Current block 5 aircraft are sufficient to perform the AA role and future T2 examples will take care of AG roles, though an austere AG capability will be available with T1 as well.

 

[swerve]

Nice idea, but the Nimrod MRA4s will have many years life left in 15-20 years time. They're more or less new-build airframes.

In the relatively near future, completely new-build MRA4s could be turned out for a tolerable cost. The very high unit price for the UK is because of the development cost being spread over such a small number of aircraft. In the same timescale, if you want a cheaper, tried & tested & very reliable airframe, there's always an A320-based MPA. EADS has offered it, with variants of the FITS combat system, to a few countries.

In 15-20 years time, the A320 replacement should be in production, but if it's an all-composite fuselage like the 787, I'm not sure whether it would be feasible to fit a weapons bay.

 

[kato]

In 15-20 years time, the A320 replacement should be in production, but if it's an all-composite fuselage like the 787, I'm not sure whether it would be feasible to fit a weapons bay.

MPA320 has provisions for "weapon compartments". Doubt it'd be more than say two externally hooked Torpedoes and a sonobuoy launch grid.

The Atlantique and P-3 offer far more than that; not only more ASW and ASuW capability, but also airborne minelaying capacity (still important for some of those nations), and capability for auxiliary usage as a medium bomber.

Maybe a maritime strike bomber with extensive ELINT facilities, 5th-gen datalink interfaces, and some additional things - and linked "ground-based" ELINT analysis/evaluation?

There's lots of things that i could think of regarding aircraft development still :

 

[Grand Danois]

Actually i remember reading with the F-16 conformal tanks that they produced only 16% of the drag of an underwing tank of equivalent volume.

That is a HUGE advantage. The drag increase is so low that even if they cannot be jettisoned they make only a slight difference compare to a clean aircraft.

With the F-16, three external tanks have the same volume as just a pair of conformal tanks. With the three high drag tanks the cruising speed reduction is in the order of 25%. With the conformal tank the speed reduction will be less than 5%. So the conformal aircraft will travel atleast 20% faster with the same fuel load.

When the three high drag tanks are jettisoned the conformal tanked aircraft will now be travelled 5% slowly. So basically a 20% gain and less than 5% loss means you get a huge increase in transit/cruising speed for only a minimal reduction in combat speed.

Also the lower drag of the conformal tanks as it allows it to travel faster at the same thrust level or specific fuel consumption. This gives a noticable increase in range even if the fuel weight is the same. So with that increase in range the conformal tanked aircraft could use afterburners more frequently and would make up for that small reduction in combat speed.

So its win win with the conformal tanks.

This is why the F-35 is so good. Research has show that aircraft nearly always carry droptanks. So they gave the F-35 massive internal fuel. The drag of having the fuel internally is even lower than conformal tanks aparently its now in the single figures when compared to a conventional drop tank.

An F-15 would have to carry 3 droptanks just to reach the fuel capacity of the F-35. This would increase drag so much that it will need to use more power to maintain a decent combat speed. This is why the F-35 will be extremely quick considering its fairly low thrust to weight ratio.

That's a lot of info on the F-16. Agree wrt the F-35. The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF. My info is from a forum discussion on another forum (yes, I am a heretic ) some months ago, an darn I just can't Google it up again. So, I'll leave it here and let others comment on it. It may be that somebody here have accurate info or more informed comments.

 

[Satorian]

The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF.

This supposition I really don't understand. Could you elaborate on the difference?

 

[Grand Danois]

This supposition I really don't understand. Could you elaborate on the difference?

What I wrote in prev post plus what rjmaz1 wrote in his. As I said, wrote in on memory and can't check up.

 

[Satorian]

I'm sorry to be so annoying about it, but I just don't understand how the EF would benefit considerably less from CFTs than the F-16. I couldn't get that from the posts.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm sorry to be so annoying about it, but I just don't understand how the EF would benefit considerably less from CFTs than the F-16. I couldn't get that from the posts.

Didn't mean to come across as if I was annoyed. I threw out some numbers I had seen in another discussion wrt CFTs for the EF. I used a generalisation as I went by memory, and I can't dig it up again... Was just a bit surprised as how much the F-16 benefited from the use of CFTs. Much much more than what I remembered the EF benefited from CFTs.

 

[rjmaz1]

That's a lot of info on the F-16. Agree wrt the F-35. The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF.

“A set of CFTs carries 50 percent more fuel than the centerline external fuel tank, but has only 12 percent of the drag.”

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm

I think you under estimate the drag benifits of conformal tanks.

If the aircraft is often seen carrying drop tanks and most mission profiles require the use of drop tanks then that aircraft will definitely benefit from conformal tanks.

The only reason external wing tanks get jetissoned is because they produce alot of drag once run empty. The conformal tanks give the advantage of having extra fuel with such little drag its like they are not their at all.

Some roles of the Eurofighter do not require conformal tanks though. For example as an interceptor they would be willing to sacrifice range by 25% if it meant top speed was increased by only 5%. Though in the strike role international customers would definitely enjoy a 25% increase in range for a 5% speed reduction. The Eurofighter will be outranged by the F-35 when it comes to strike missions, adding conformal tanks will help.

 

[Grand Danois]

rjmaz1,

You can of course produce the same info on CFTs for the EF? That would help clear this up.

Edit: Did find this though. Not very specific but something.

BAE SYSTEMS tests eurofighter typhoon conformal tank

16 May 2002

The first wind tunnel tests of the Eurofighter Typhoon conformal fuel tank design have successfully been completed in the high-speed wind tunnel at BAE Systems, Warton UK, using a scale model of the aircraft.

The tanks, which have a capacity of approximately 1,500 litres each could extend the range of the aircraft in excess of 25% - a major selling point in the export market, and a vital element in developing Eurofighter Typhoon's air-to-ground capability.

Work on the Eurofighter Typhoon conformal tanks is the responsibility of a partnership between BAE Systems and GKN Engage of Australia.

Commenting on this significant milestone, Steve Cain, Eurofighter Tranche 3 Airframe Team Leader at BAE Systems said: 'The new design of conformal fuel tank offers a major enhancement to an already world beating aircraft. To extend the range, which is key to certain export markets including Australia, by around 25 percent with little affect to the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft is a tremendous achievement.'

[...]

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2002/press_16052002.html

I have underlined some of what I find interesting, with respect to potential in particular roles and customers. Wonder if there is anything newer than this.

 

[rjmaz1]

rjmaz1,

You can of course produce the same info on CFTs for the EF? That would help clear this up.

That info you provided pretty much sums up the advantage. Two 1500litre conformal tanks giving atleast 25% improvement in range.

Thats equal if not a bigger improvement than what the F-16's conformal tanks provide.

Like the F-16's block 60's if you want to sacrifice range by over 25% and only gain a 5% increase in top speed the user can always remove the conformal tanks.

The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF.

It seems that is false and the Eurofighter will gain immensely except in the supersonic intercept role.

Though just thinking out loud this would be interesting to test out. With the extra fuel provided by the conformal tanks it would allow afterburners to be used at a higher setting to give the same endurance. For example both aircraft could sustain Mach 1.6 for 10 minutes just the conformal tanked aircraft would require a slightly higher afterburner setting which would use the extra fuel up that the conformal tanks provided.

So that would mean there is not a single disadvantage speed wise with the conformal tanks but theres a big improvement in range.

 

[Grand Danois]

That is pretty amazing! From this:

The first wind tunnel tests of the Eurofighter Typhoon conformal fuel tank design have successfully been completed in the high-speed wind tunnel at BAE Systems, Warton UK, using a scale model of the aircraft.

The tanks, which have a capacity of approximately 1,500 litres each could extend the range of the aircraft in excess of 25% - a major selling point in the export market, and a vital element in developing Eurofighter Typhoon's air-to-ground capability.


You concluded this:

That info you provided pretty much sums up the advantage. Two 1500litre conformal tanks giving atleast 25% improvement in range.

Thats equal if not a bigger improvement than what the F-16's conformal tanks provide.

Let see what information was in that piece...

1) Tests conducted prior to 16 May 2002. I couldn't find anything newer! That has an explanation later.
2) It could extend the range of the aircraft in excess of 25% That means that flying certain mission profiles like marstrike and strike, you could extend the range. That is why it is called a vital element in developing Eurofighter Typhoon's air-to-ground capability.
3) The explanation to 1); ...partnership between BAE Systems and GKN Engage of Australia. Australia went SH and JSF. So, no requirement. It corroborates what I posted prev.

If you read the stuff you posted yourself, a pattern wrt CFT and when it is used will develop...

It seems that is false and the Eurofighter will gain immensely except in the supersonic intercept role.

Ask yourself, why oh why didn't the design include more internal fuel equiv to the CFTs if it made such a huge difference or why isn't CFTs already there if it makes such a huge difference as you say?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Range probably is not a big deal for Typhoons primary customers, the europeans. Plenty of freindly airfields close to the battlepsace ensures that. the rest of the world might not enjoy those sircumstances though and range is an issue. In that case CFT's will be quite usefull and a big selling point for potential customers.

 

[Pingu]

I have just thought. People are saying that speed is more important than range for the Typhoon, thus arguing against CFTs.

Well, since the Typhoon is a replacement for both the F3 and the GR3A? Then why not add CFTs to the Jaguar replacements only. That way, the sacrifice of speed is unimportant.

Basically, we would have A2G Squadrons with CFTs and A2A squadrons without.

Are Tranche 2 Typhoons being retrofitted with Tranche 3 systems? To me, it makes sense to have the new build Tranche 3 Typhoons (with CFTs) as Jaguar replacements and then retrofit the Tranche 2 Typhoons with the Tranche 3 Sensors. I am unsure of how the former F3 and GR3A squadrons are being replaced though, will they still remain dedicated A2G and dedicated A2A squadrons seperately?

Also, am I right in saying that there are two F3 squadrons permantly based in the UK and soley tasked for UK air defense? The other Squadron/s used for foreign operations such as CAPs?