Should Tranche 3 Typhoon be scrapped?

[Pingu]

In my opinion, the third tranche of Typhoons should be scrapped. I've always thought the Tyhpoon is a very capable aircraft but as time goes on, I can't help but feel it's been quite a waste of money.

I always hear mixed figures but as far as I am aware, it is about 7 years late and cost has risen from £7 Billion to £20 Billion for 232 Typhoons for the RAF. (If anyone could give exact figures of R&D costs and delays etc, it would be appreciated).

I think that the money saved by cutting the third tranche could be spent on retrofittinh tranche 1 and 2 aircraft to tranche 3 standard and then extra savings should be spent on more assets of the "force mix" Tornado Replacement.

I am unsure of whether the UK intended on retrofitting the trache 1 and 2 Typhoons to tranche 3 standard after delivery of tranche 3 aircraft so again, any information would be appreciated.

At the moment, the Typhoons don't look to be as capable in some areas where it's needed. I believe that Conformal Fuel Tanks and Thrust Vectoring should be added and also, the CEASAR radar should be introduced sooner as AESA radars are becoming very numerous on other aircraft.

Thoughts please?

 

[kato]

At the moment, the Typhoons don't look to be as capable in some areas where it's needed. I believe that Conformal Fuel Tanks and Thrust Vectoring should be added and also, the CEASAR radar should be introduced sooner as AESA radars are becoming very numerous on other aircraft.

• CFT - what for really? The Typhoon isn't a deep penetration strike bomber.
• TVC - Eurojet is working on it, potential EOC for Tranche 3.
• CAESAR - will most likely be offered for Tranche 3 contract in 2009. CAESAR won't be ready for operational use before 2010+ anyway.

I am unsure of whether the UK intended on retrofitting the trache 1 and 2 Typhoons to tranche 3 standard after delivery of tranche 3 aircraft so again, any information would be appreciated.

See here.

All Block 1, 2, 2B Eurofighters (115 total; that's Tranche 1) have been upgraded with the R2 program to Block 5, which is considered FOC (Final Operational Capability; meaning it includes full A2G capability).
Block 1 aircraft will be upgraded last, as they are all twin-seat trainers anyway. Also "The R2 programme is paving the way for future upgrades to Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 aircraft".

 

[Tornado F3]

I heard on another forum that there was a rumor that the Tranche 3 typhoon might have thrust vectoring.

well i was a bit late since Kato posted it at the exact minute lol

 

[Scorpion82]

TVC is unlikely as there is no requirement for the moment. CFT is still an option, but there is currently no requirement too.
A productionized version of the CASESAR is the most likely upgrade for the Typhoon, though there is currently no requirement either.

Considering that the aircraft will serve until 2040 or longer a specific number of aircraft is needed to fullfil the RAFs needs. Some operational reserves are necessary and the more aircraft you have the more you can distribute the flight hours over the single airframes. This enables you to use the aircraft longer, and is cheaper in the end. As it looks like, T3 will be very similar to T2 to save costs. We will have to wait.

I doubt that the costs have risen from 7 to 20 bln. The costs has been increased but for sure not by that amount. The 7 bln probably doesn't include all the costs including R&D, production preparation, logistics, training, spares, weapons integration etc.

 

[Satorian]

I consider TVC unlikely as well. Seems they'd rather focus on HMCS and a capable WVRAAM (ASRAAM/IRIS-T).

CFT might not seem needed immediately, but I think it'd be a great option and always a plus to offer during export competitions. More fuel to play with, higher average energy state or more loiter time are always nice to have. Personally, I wouldn't mind having it adapted for Tranche 3.

AESA, although industry-funded at the moment, seems very likely to be adopted to me. AESA is the new black.


By the way, the 7 billion figure is given on Wikipedia, but the source link doesn't seem to back it up. It only mentions the rise from 16.7 billion GBP (the agreed and expected price) to 19 billion GBP.

 

[contedicavour]

We spent so much on R&D and F35 is so many years away that we (UK, Italy, Germany, may be a bit less Spain) all need as many Typhoons as possible to replace old Tornado ADV, F16ADF, F4Fs, Mirage F1s.
By 2015 when the first F35 equipped squadron will be ready (if no delays happen) all older types of fighters will have been deleted, and it will take 10 years (ie 2025) before the bulk of F35s are procured.
So we either sign the Tranche 3 or we'll be forced to complement the insufficient Tranche 1 and 2 planes with F18E/F or Rafales...

Oh and let's not forget the impact such a cut would have on our defence industries...

cheers

 

[kato]

Following from the Bundeswehrplan 2007 and 2008 documents (Bundeswehr budget allocation planning), for how the Luftwaffe deals with it:

• Captor-E radar upgrade (CAESAR) upgrade is desirable and ultimately planned, but not fundable at the moment.
• Total acquisition cost (for 183 Eurofighters and R&D; parts, maintenance etc not included) is 20,617 million Euro, lowered from 20,786 million Euro long-term planning since 2005 (2007 saw a expected allocation increase to 21,139 million temporarily).
• Above does not include R&D and acquisition of weapons, total allocated for these:
  
  
  

  • Meteor: 738 million (-16 million)
  • IRIS-T: 724 million (+16 million)
  • Taurus: 905 million (+9 million)
• Planned numbers are by each year's end (active Jan 2007 - 31 + 1 IPU): 2007 - 42; 2008 - 52; 2011 - 103; 2012 - 112
• Regarding armament, both Meteor and Taurus are considered important, both to strengthen German defence R&D, and as weapon systems to be introduced.
• Luftwaffe Eurofighters all take part in the R2 retrofit (to Block 5), planned to start 2006 (actually, signed February 2007).
• Luftwaffe fully intends to acquire Tranche 3 (of 68 aircraft).

Above budget allocation recalculated for the RAF (232 aircraft) would give us 17.7 billion pound, btw (current exchange rate). If the 20 billion mentioned include weapons and other "dependant" programs, it would be a realistic number.

 

[Pingu]

• CFT - what for really? The Typhoon isn't a deep penetration strike bomber.
• TVC - Eurojet is working on it, potential EOC for Tranche 3.
• CAESAR - will most likely be offered for Tranche 3 contract in 2009. CAESAR won't be ready for operational use before 2010+ anyway.

CFTs, even if not used in strike missions, are advantagous in air-air missions. They could negate the need for underwing fuel tanks, or at least require only the centreline tank. This would improve perfomance and reduce RCS and also improve supercruise. This would of course reduce performance in terms of agility, which the TVC would help to solve. TVC would also reduce the close-in advantage of the modern TVC flankers.

The Typhoon may not be designed as a deep strike aircraft but I feel upgrading the Typhoon with increased thrust, TVC, CFTs, AESA (which in itself provides good ground mapping and SAR abilities) would make it a very good A2G platform in a similar way to how the USAF are intending on using their F22s.

The most likely replacement for the GR4 is the proposed "force mix" idea said to be a combination of Typhoons, F35s and a UAV. Considering the force mix is a cheap solution, then surely plenty of money could be spent on the Typhoon and since it is part of a replacement for the GR4, then dedicated A2G improvements ought to be developed.

I guess on that note, the third tranche should be procured, so as to sufficiently replace numbers of Jaguars, F3s and GR4s. I just feel that the UK wont be ambitious enough to upgrade the Typhoon to its potential.

I have just read that the RAF have 112 F3s and had 75 GR3As, so how come they are being replaced on a more than one for one basis with a more capable aircraft?

 

[Grand Danois]

RAF procurement is meant to cover the need for several decades, so as I understand it, they wont all be put into operational use from the start. The number for the RAF include attrition and replacement over the entire operational life of the Typhoon in the RAF.

As to CFT's, you can't dump them as you can with normal tanks, which translate into lesser maneuverability and survivability. The advantage is actually rather marginal, but it is there. But it would probably have to be funded for an export customer.

 

[harryriedl]

RAF procurement is meant to cover the need for several decades, so as I understand it, they wont all be put into operational use from the start. The number for the RAF include attrition and replacement over the entire operational life of the Typhoon in the RAF.

As to CFT's, you can't dump them as you can with normal tanks, which translate into lesser maneuverability and survivability. The advantage is actually rather marginal, but it is there. But it would probably have to be funded for an export customer.

im for keeping the T3 damaging to its export potential
Japan would be interested in CFTs and they would fund it

 

[Satorian]

TVC would also reduce the close-in advantage of the modern TVC flankers.

Advantage if you are expecting a guns kill. Otherwise, with all-aspect IR missiles, HMCS and over the shoulder lobs, I think it doesn't matter much and the most probable result is a mutual kill.

As to CFT's, you can't dump them as you can with normal tanks, which translate into lesser maneuverability and survivability. The advantage is actually rather marginal, but it is there. But it would probably have to be funded for an export customer.

CFTs might have their effect through their mass (agility) and volume (drag), but do CFTs provide as much drag as drop tanks and do they limit you to 6.5g loads and 180°/s roll rate as well and apply as much torque to the wings/frame during a roll?

 

[Grand Danois]

CFTs might have their effect through their mass (agility) and volume (drag), but do CFTs provide as much drag as drop tanks and do they limit you to 6.5g loads and 180°/s roll rate as well and apply as much torque to the wings/frame during a roll?

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.

 

[Satorian]

And what's the agility/energy advantage of Typhoon with A-A armament versus one with A-A armament and CFTs? To me it seems like CFTs are always worth it. If they are empty, they are not going to hinder you much, as they are comparably light and close to the body. And if they are not empty, you can stick it into AB longer, which allows you to convert more energy and raise your average energy level.

 

[Grand Danois]

And what's the agility/energy advantage of Typhoon with A-A armament versus one with A-A armament and CFTs? To me it seems like CFTs are always worth it. If they are empty, they are not going to hinder you much, as they are comparably light and close to the body. And if they are not empty, you can stick it into AB longer, which allows you to convert more energy and raise your average energy level.

I am not saying it is not worth it. Was it up to me, every bit of widgetery for the EF would be developed. It is about requirements and where the limited development money should be spent. I seems that the CFTs will be most favourable in mission profiles where range is important - and that is why I thought of export customers with certain needs might help fund it.

To me, CAESAR and expanding the diversity of the weapon loadout is the most important thing to do with the EF, in the medium term.

 

[Satorian]

I agree that the AESA and weapons integration (especially A-G) and development (Meteor) should come first. But beyond that I'd immediately go for the CFTs. I just feel like the Typhoon is a bit short-stacked when it comes to fuel, because it's not just about range. When on an intercept, the pilot probably wants to stay on the AB as long as possible to gain speed and height. And the more fuel to burn the better.


I would skip TVC though and instead put that money towards other development issues.

 

[Super Nimrod]

My own view although perhaps a little controversial is that the Tranche 3 needs a whole new look, not just a few nice to have extra's but a major upgrade to take it closer to the F-22, e.g. enhancements to all aspects of the aircraft. By the time the decision point comes the Russians will have flown their 5th generation airframe, the Japanese should have their prototype in the air and the J-10's capabilities will be better known as will those of the F-35. The last Typhoons will have life that will take them a long way into this century and will be expected to compete with the first of the other 5th generation machines. Reluctantly, I say spend some money

 

[Satorian]

If you take a look at what sets jets like the F-22 and the F-35 apart, it's largely stealth. And you can't really "upgrade" your plane into a different planform, internal weapons bay and completely different materials. Everything done to the Typhoon to close the gap in terms of stealth will hit diminishing returns quickly and just won't be worth it. Additionally, with sensitive optronics/IRST sets and increasing processing power to enhance signal processing, new ground-based radars and netcentric warfare we'll have to see how of an advantage radar stealth will be in the battlefield and how much it'd be worth in money.

I think it's better to let the Typhoon program run its course, develop and deliver a solid and proper T3 configuration (AESA, CFT, weapons) and then concentrate on the next project.

And with the EU legislation progressing as is, the next development cycle should be comparably breezy and hassle-free as most things will be decided off-hand by the EU parliament instead of single member states.

 

[swerve]

My own view although perhaps a little controversial is that the Tranche 3 needs a whole new look, not just a few nice to have extra's but a major upgrade to take it closer to the F-22, e.g. enhancements to all aspects of the aircraft. By the time the decision point comes the Russians will have flown their 5th generation airframe, the Japanese should have their prototype in the air and the J-10's capabilities will be better known as will those of the F-35. The last Typhoons will have life that will take them a long way into this century and will be expected to compete with the first of the other 5th generation machines. Reluctantly, I say spend some money

What you're talking about is a new airframe. I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to design a new airframe around the engines, avionics etc of T3 Typhoon, but it wouldn't be T3. It'd be a new aircraft (call it Tempest ), & some time later.

Personally, I'd like to see it. But I'm sure it won't happen.

 

[Ryttare]

What you're talking about is a new airframe. I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to design a new airframe around the engines, avionics etc of T3 Typhoon, but it wouldn't be T3. It'd be a new aircraft (call it Tempest ), & some time later.

Personally, I'd like to see it. But I'm sure it won't happen.

It would certainly be very exciting, but it would cost a lot of money and probably take it's time. The risk is that it would be getting both costly and obsolete. I think it would be better value for money to put the funds into reaserch on better RAM coatings and external stealth weapon pods. And that's probably what will happen, I think. Not so sexy, but probably quite efficient.

 

[Satorian]

Personally, I'd like to see it. But I'm sure it won't happen.

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).