Should Tranche 3 Typhoon be scrapped?

[Scorpion82]

@Pingu,
it's currently not even clear if T1 examples will be brought up to T2 standard. If T3 will be similar to T2 as it was recently suggested then it should be no great deal at all. But all depends on the available funds and priorities.

The RAFs squadrons will all become multirole, unlike earlier plans for dedicated units of airdefence, multirole and offensive roles. Though I think that the squadrons will have a kind of primary role.

 

[swerve]

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.

Which one presumes is why BAe were looking into it with an Australian firm, until it became clear Australia will not buy Typhoon. Doubtless it'll all be kept on file, & dusted off if any potential or actual customer (e.g. Saudi Arabia) expresses an interest.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Which one presumes is why BAe were looking into it with an Australian firm, until it became clear Australia will not buy Typhoon. Doubtless it'll all be kept on file, & dusted off if any potential or actual customer (e.g. Saudi Arabia) expresses an interest.

I assume the current tranches are wired and plumbed for CFT's???

@Pingu...

CFT's are not perminant. Therefore you can have them fitted for a strike mission and take them off for air superiority mission, depends what mission profile you want to run. So there is no need just to fit them to the assigned jaguar replacements when you can quite easilly take them off again.

 

[Scorpion82]

I assume the current tranches are wired and plumbed for CFT's???

I'm not 100% sure about that, but AFAIK at least T1 isn't prepared to receive them. But I could be wrong on that.

 

[Pingu]

@ Ozzy Blizzard

That's a good point, and something I forgot to consider. I guess then the point still stands that there can only be advantages from adding CFTs to the Typhoon, because in situations where they would be a dissadvantage (such as UK air defence) they could be removed. Perhaps CFTs for half of the fleet would be a cost effective idea.

This is why I ask about retrofits etc, because I imagine it is easier to retrofit sensors and software etc than structural changes. Therefore, I'd imagine that because the tranche 3 platforms will be new build, they will have structural provisions for CFTs. I imagine that retrofitting CFTs would not be very cost effective but to not retrofit Tranche 3 sensors across the entire fleet would be stupid.

 

[rjmaz1]

That is pretty amazing! From this:

You concluded this:

Let see what information was in that piece...

You can come to a very accurcate conclusition.

• A 25% range increase with conformals.
• 3,000 litres extra fuel for the pair of conformal tanks..

We can then use other sources believe it or not to fill in the blanks.

• 3,000litres is roughly 1800kg of fuel
• The F-16 tanks are 2,200litres and the empty tanks are 900 pounds.
• The 3,000litre Eurofighter tanks would weight aprox 500kg empty.
• Internal fuel is around 6,500litres or 4000kg of weight.
• Empty weight is 11,000kg
• Weight with internal fuel is 15,000kg
• Weight with conformal tanks is 17,300kg

With this information we can now compare things such as..

• We can calculate the fuel fraction of the aircraft.
• We can work out the percentage increase in fuel.
• We can Work out the percentage increase in range.

With this information we can compare it to the F-16 which has nearly identical percentage increases.

We can then get an idea of the drag of the conformal tanks compared to the drop tanks.

So yes it is pretty amazing that i worked out the Eurofighter would benefit from conformal tanks just like the F-16.

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?

Because the original design didn't require huge range. The original requirements had very little importance for the strike mission.

Now that its a strike fighter its range needs to be longer. To compete against the F-35's its range needs to be longer.

The conformal tanks will help dramatically on the international market. Though it will still get slaughtered sales wise against the F-35. The Eurofighter is really 20th century technology.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The conformal tanks will help dramatically on the international market. Though it will still get slaughtered sales wise against the F-35. The Eurofighter is really 20th century technology.

I agree with you on that one. The combination of LO, long range, huge payload, huge versatillity and a whole bunch of state of the art systems will make the F35 the worlds premier strike fighter. Its a combination that will be very attractive in the export market. Thats why the only customer to buy the Thyphoon outside of the original consortium (correct me if i'm wrong) is Saudi Arabia. The rest of europe who aren't commited to a eurocanard are jumping on it.

 

[Super Nimrod]

I don't think you have the weight of the fuel right. By my reckoning 3000 litres of fuel is about 2450 kg in round figures, which is significantly more than 1800 kg

 

[Satorian]

I agree with you on that one. The combination of LO, long range, huge payload, huge versatillity and a whole bunch of state of the art systems will make the F35 the worlds premier strike fighter. Its a combination that will be very attractive in the export market. Thats why the only customer to buy the Thyphoon outside of the original consortium (correct me if i'm wrong) is Saudi Arabia. The rest of europe who aren't commited to a eurocanard are jumping on it.

Austria bought it and Norway is still in contact with EF GmbH and giving out occasional contracts to conduct research even though they signed the latest F-35 MoU and are also in talks about an improved Gripen. Seems like Norway is keeping its options open to decide quite late.

Jane's Defense Forecasts is pegging the Typhoon as slight favorite for the Japanese F-4 replacement competition.

 

[kato]

Typhoon also has some good chances in Switzerland currently.

 

[Scorpion82]

[*]Internal fuel is around 6,500litres or 4000kg of weight.

As Nimrod said your multiplicator for recalculating litres to kg is worng.
According my formula 3000 l = ~2400 kg for max external fuel (3 x 1000 l drop tanks) and/or CFTs (2 x 1500 l). Internal fuel load is about 6215 l = ~5000 kg.

So max fuel load is about 9215 l with external tanks and 12215 l wich external tanks and CFT.
BTW it's not unlikely that Typhoon might receive 2000 l underwing tanks in the future. This would add a further 2000 l in total.

Now that its a strike fighter its range needs to be longer. To compete against the F-35's its range needs to be longer.

Typhoon was from the outset designed as a swingrole capable tactical multirole fighter. Aircombat performance was the priority, but at least the RAF and probably EdA required a robust secondary AG capability. It is true that the AG capabilities have become a greater priority since the end of cold war, but the main reason for Typhoon's limited range is the scenario for which the aircraft was designed.
Comparing the F-35 to Typhoon is not that suitable at all as the F-35 was designed for different purposes.

The conformal tanks will help dramatically on the international market. Though it will still get slaughtered sales wise against the F-35. The Eurofighter is really 20th century technology.

You have to take into account that the Typhoon will be a much more advanced aircraft at the time the F-35 enters service. BTW the 20th century technology is also that of all other fighters currently in service including F-22, Rafale or F/A-18E/F to name few examples. But all these aircraft will be upgraded and I don't see such a great advantage for the F-35 in the long terms. Just look at all the critics which are often brought in conjunction with Typhoon (though it is as valid for other a/C like F-22). Many say Typhoon is so late that its avionics are no advantage anymore to that of upgraded teen series. This has a core of truth, but it also applies to other designs not just Typhoon.


@Ozzy

hats why the only customer to buy the Thyphoon outside of the original consortium (correct me if i'm wrong) is Saudi Arabia. The rest of europe who aren't commited to a eurocanard are jumping on it.

Saudi Arabia is likely though no contract has been signed so far. The real first export customer is Austria which already received its first aircraft.
Norway and Denmark are both looking at different options including Eurofighter and Gripen, though they a lvl 3 partners within the JSF programme. PArticularly the RDAF seems to be interested in the Typhoon and the chances in Norway aren't that bad either. Nonetheless we'll have to wait until about 2009 before we get an answer.
The Swiss is another candidate. The Swiss is said to prefer a european solution and rumors suggest that the Typhoon is the prefered choice of its air force. Romania, Greece and Bulgaria are additional potential customers.
There might be chances in Japan, though I'm not very optimistic about that and I don't see any chances at all for India.

 

[kato]

The Swiss is another candidate. The Swiss is said to prefer a european solution and rumors suggest that the Typhoon is the prefered choice of its air force.

Switzerland is actually a good candidate just by exclusion. They've boiled their choices down to F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen.
Gripen gets minus points for not supporting NATO interoperability as much (eg it doesn't have Link 16 datalinks). Rafale still has a good chance. The Super Hornet - depends on how much the US is willing to shell out especially in ToT (Switzerland usually heavily modifies its aircraft in electronics), i doubt its chances personally.

Switzerland only buys aircraft if it gets "compensation sales". The "compensation sales" for the 34 F/A-18C/D bought in the 90s (parts production in Switzerland e.g.) by contract amounted to US$2.8 billion between 1993 and 2003, exactly as much as they paid for the aircraft.

 

[JWCook]

You have to love people who are comparing the F-35 to the Typhoon, The F-35 is still in development, it doest exist at present, AFAIK the production representative craft has not even flown.
And yet we have people comparing the systems that are current operating on Typhoon to 'planned' systems.

Lets compare the Typhoons IRST to the F-22 IRST that was planned!, My monies on the Typhoons IRST, or the F-22 planned HMD??

OK now tell me which systems will be dropped from the F-35 to make it affordable, or do you think the F-35 will be unlike any previous program?.

The price is already at a critical stage for the partner nations, anyone what to take a bet when it will over take the Typhoons flyaway price? or which varient may get dropped?:shudder

If you do intend to compare the two then compare the early 'planned' Typhoon big wing variant (you know the longer ranged stealthy bomber variant) to the 'planned' F-35 or at least compare it to a tranche 3 Typhoon, or the Raven/Corax sixth generation fighter UCAV's that the fifth generation F-35 will be in competition with.

wow just read this before posting - it sound like a real rant I'm having there, its not, but If we started talking about Corax vs the F-35 we'd get a similar rant from the F-35 fraternity.

Cheers I'm off to finish my red wine

 

[rjmaz1]

I don't think you have the weight of the fuel right. By my reckoning 3000 litres of fuel is about 2450 kg in round figures, which is significantly more than 1800 kg

I just copied the number from the F-16 article i posted earlier.

tank set holds 450 gallons (ca. 3,050 pounds, or 2,271 litres) of additional JP-5/8 fuel.

 

[Ryttare]

Gripen gets minus points for not supporting NATO interoperability as much (eg it doesn't have Link 16 datalinks).

That's not true. Today Gripen can use Link 16, but you have to do without the much more capable TIDLS link then. For next year Saab has announced that total interoperability between them will be introduced. This means that both links can be used simultaneusly and that data can be transfered between the systems, with the limitation that Link 16 with much lower bandwidth cant transer all data aquired from the TIDLS link.

 

[Scorpion82]

That's not true. Today Gripen can use Link 16, but you have to do without the much more capable TIDLS link then. For next year Saab has announced that total interoperability between them will be introduced. This means that both links can be used simultaneusly and that data can be transfered between the systems, with the limitation that Link 16 with much lower bandwidth cant transer all data aquired from the TIDLS link.

It would be interesting to more details on data transfer rates of LINK 16 and TIDLS. The TIDLS is often claimed to be superior, but I wonder why as no specific data/details are brought to back up that argument.

 

[kato]

That's not true. Today Gripen can use Link 16, but you have to do without the much more capable TIDLS link then. For next year Saab has announced that total interoperability between them will be introduced.

Uh, no.

Today's Gripen can't use it. Only the Gripen avionics simulator has Link 16 integrated yet. Next year, Link 16 on that simulator will get its basic certification.

Also, Saab will only offer Link 16 as an option for exports (to access a wider market). The integration was only started for Gripen C/D last year, and is part of a 3-year software upgrade and integration program.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You have to take into account that the Typhoon will be a much more advanced aircraft at the time the F-35 enters service. BTW the 20th century technology is also that of all other fighters currently in service including F-22, Rafale or F/A-18E/F to name few examples. But all these aircraft will be upgraded and I don't see such a great advantage for the F-35 in the long terms. Just look at all the critics which are often brought in conjunction with Typhoon (though it is as valid for other a/C like F-22). Many say Typhoon is so late that its avionics are no advantage anymore to that of upgraded teen.

Whilst I don't wish to particularly engage in the "debate" over the Typhoon v Lighting II debate (why don't people call the F-35 the Lightning II? Are they simply not used to it yet?) I might add something here.

The critical design reviews are complete for the F-35.

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will have AESA, HMS, an integrated FLIR/EO system (EOTS), a 360 degree distributed aperture system, an integrated ECM/EWSP system, an LPI radar and modern processors running on modern "code".

Can anyone point to another aircraft that will benefit from such systems SIMULTANEOUSLY, as WELL as "full" stealth (for lack of a better term), a high performance airframe (despite what some open sourced "analysis" of the aircraft might say), internal weapons carriage, a a huge internal fuel capacity (for a tactical fighter) AND a software package that promises to integrate the various capabilities of the aircraft to a hiterto unmatched level?

Good luck...

 

[Satorian]

So did the F-35 flights restart already after the "unscheduled maintenance"? Did the post-weight shave body already fly?

There's still a long way to go for the F-35 (which is a lot shorter than "Lightning II"), so let's reserve judgment until the first squad stood up with a production unit.


As for the F-35's advantages besides stealth and massive internal fuel load: Which of these can't be retrofitted? Which of these specifically pertain to the airframe?

 

[Ryttare]

Uh, no.

Today's Gripen can't use it. Only the Gripen avionics simulator has Link 16 integrated yet. Next year, Link 16 on that simulator will get its basic certification.

Also, Saab will only offer Link 16 as an option for exports (to access a wider market). The integration was only started for Gripen C/D last year, and is part of a 3-year software upgrade and integration program.

I think you might have misunderstod it. It says: "Currently running in Gripen’s avionics simulator, full Link 16 certification is planned for 2008."

I interpret that as that it already runs in the simulator and will be functional on operational Gripens next year. This would also be in line with other info I've heard.

It also says that "In addition to the Swedish data link, Link 16 is now an option in Gripens onboard datalink capabilities." It doesn't says an option on the market, but an option onboard Gripen. It's also consistent with what I've heard.