Non complex weapons aren't really the issue, it's when you get into significant data transfer required into the mission computer that the time and costs start ramping up. Even better when every country is involved in design/manufacture of one part in the chain.

Eurofighter could have designed a less complex aircraft using a less complex process, but they didn't and so weapon integration takes time and costs a lot of money / they earn a lot of money from it.
 
Non complex weapons aren't really the issue, it's when you get into significant data transfer required into the mission computer that the time and costs start ramping up. Even better when every country is involved in design/manufacture of one part in the chain.

Eurofighter could have designed a less complex aircraft using a less complex process, but they didn't and so weapon integration takes time and costs a lot of money / they earn a lot of money from it.
It takes the same time and cost roughly the same has every western aircraft using MIL-STD-1760.
 
It actually does.
Centurion was delivered in less than three years from the moment that BAE actually got a signed paper from the UK MOD.
The main problem has been the "signed contract" bit.

Was it? Project Centurion started with the introduction of P1Eb in RAF service starting in 2014 and concluded with the FOC declaration of P3Ea in Dec. 2018. P1E was actually signed in 2007 and while Project Centurion wasn't defined/launched at that time it built on the outcome of P1E as a baseline (Paveway IV Litening 3 capability). Foundations for Storm Shadow integration with P2Ea were laid down in 2015 and P3Ea had been signed by that time adding Brimstone II, enhanced PW IV and UK specific Storm Shadow integration (original one for P2Ea was geared towards KSA).
 
Was it? Project Centurion started with the introduction of P1Eb in RAF service starting in 2014 and concluded with the FOC declaration of P3Ea in Dec. 2018. P1E was actually signed in 2007 and while Project Centurion wasn't defined/launched at that time it built on the outcome of P1E as a baseline (Paveway IV Litening 3 capability). Foundations for Storm Shadow integration with P2Ea were laid down in 2015 and P3Ea had been signed by that time adding Brimstone II, enhanced PW IV and UK specific Storm Shadow integration (original one for P2Ea was geared towards KSA).
Every upgrade is based on prior work. Centurion emerges in 2014 and the final contract is signed in February 2015.
The point being that there's nothing particularly complex about integrating weapons in Typhoon by comparison with its western peers.
The complex bit has been the MOD's forking out the cash and signing the contracts.
 
But getting the cash from the MODs is difficult precisely because it's complex and expensive.

Separate companies split across 4 countries and workshare split across the system does not make it easy. And this adds cost.
 
Last edited:
Every upgrade is based on prior work. Centurion emerges in 2014 and the final contract is signed in February 2015.
The point being that there's nothing particularly complex about integrating weapons in Typhoon by comparison with its western peers.
The complex bit has been the MOD's forking out the cash and signing the contracts.

The objective of Project Centurion was to transfer the (weapon) capabilities from the Tornado GR.4 to the Typhoon until its OSD in 2019. The objective was met, but as stated the first step was already completed with P1Eb. It essentially coincided with the formal launch of Project Centurion.

Anyway, I cannot comment on the "more complex", or "more difficult" part of weapons integration compared to other aircraft, but weapons integration has typically taken many years to accomplish and the range of weapon options available to the Typhoon is still limited compared to other platforms.

National airworthiness requirements certainly play a role here and the quadri-national setup and workshares don't ease the process either.

What's required?
Airbus GE:
- Attack and Ident integration of new weapons/stores
- FCS implementation
- Aeromechanical testing
- MDP adaptions for stores configurations

Airbus SP:
- Structure analysis

Leonardo:
- ACIS implementation
- ACS and NAV integration (later especially for PGMs)
- Stores separation
- UCS

BAES:
- EMC and TEMPEST testing
- D&C implementation

This list is not exhaustive, or complete, but gives you an idea how work is spread across the EPCs and there is a lot that needs to be coordinated, harmonised. This alone makes it a complex task to integrate new weapons/stores on the Typhoon. Many of the activities certainly need to be performed on other A/C as well, but there is typically not such a wide spreading of responsibilities and the system architecture of the Typhoon induces more complexities as well. An aircraft with an IMA can be updated more easily as the system function reside in one Computer, not many and there is subsequently a much lower duplication (if any) of data, diffuclty of synchronisation, simplier and quicker certification of one LRI software, not multiple LRI softwares... Just to give you an idea.
 
This list is not exhaustive, or complete, but gives you an idea how work is spread across the EPCs and there is a lot that needs to be coordinated, harmonised. This alone makes it a complex task to integrate new weapons/stores on the Typhoon. Many of the activities certainly need to be performed on other A/C as well, but there is typically not such a wide spreading of responsibilities
But this isn't new, Eurofighter Gmbh is simply Panavia Gmbh Mk2.
 
True, doesn't change the facts, the complex arrangement is not making things easier and can induce all kind of delays.
These issues also happen on what you seem to be imagining as single sourced aircraft. Every modern combat aircraft includes systems sourced from vendors in multiple companies in multiple countries. Changes that cut across multiple systems mean coordinating multiple vendors to make those changes. Where Eurofighter and Panavia are/were more complex was at the national requirements level, not so much the vendor level (a little bit in the early days, but once the multinational teams bedded down it was no different to working with another site within the same company, and eventually simpler).
 
These issues also happen on what you seem to be imagining as single sourced aircraft. Every modern combat aircraft includes systems sourced from vendors in multiple companies in multiple countries. Changes that cut across multiple systems mean coordinating multiple vendors to make those changes. Where Eurofighter and Panavia are/were more complex was at the national requirements level, not so much the vendor level (a little bit in the early days, but once the multinational teams bedded down it was no different to working with another site within the same company, and eventually simpler).

You are right about the multiple vendors, but that doesn't apply to systems like the radar, FCS etc., at least not to the same extend as is in the Eurofighter programme. The mulitnationality is first and foremost at the Eurofighter level, not so much at the EPC level and Eurofighter is primarily a management company, it's typically not developing anything, but brings black ink on white paper. Ofcourse you have the consolidation at the Eurofighter level, standards are eventually agreed there, as are the fournational processes, then you have your national processes for nationalisation for the customers managed by your EPC. It definitely needs a lot of coordination and might need less, if everything comes from the same source (at least major equipment/systems).
 
You are right about the multiple vendors, but that doesn't apply to systems like the radar, FCS etc.,
You do realise I worked on the FCS team for around 10 years and regularly had to work with the NAAs leaning over my shoulder prior to each CDR saying "Show me where this requirement was implemented"?
 
The mulitnationality is first and foremost at the Eurofighter level, not so much at the EPC level
There's a reason I had colleagues called Maurizzio and Klaus ;)

The Eurofighter FCS team was split between Rochester and Ottobrunn (now Manching). Rochester was primarily British with German and Italian contingents (I can't recall anyone from Spain, but could be wrong - ISTR Enosa(?) chose to take its workshare in other forms), while Ottobrunn was primarily German with a significant British contingent (and presumably some Italians). The situation changed later, with an end to the German and Italian secondments to Rochester, but some of the individual engineers opted to remain.
 
There's a reason I had colleagues called Maurizzio and Klaus ;)

The Eurofighter FCS team was split between Rochester and Ottobrunn (now Manching). Rochester was primarily British with German and Italian contingents (I can't recall anyone from Spain, but could be wrong - ISTR Enosa(?) chose to take its workshare in other forms), while Ottobrunn was primarily German with a significant British contingent (and presumably some Italians). The situation changed later, with an end to the German and Italian secondments to Rochester, but some of the individual engineers opted to remain.

We apparently worked in different fields, with different responsibilities and probably at quite different times. Much has changed over the years and while I don't say that it doesn't work at all, the setup can cause all kind of problems. I had several instances, where SDR, EDR and IDR were split and where time was essentially wasted by determining who is really responsible now. It typically ended up with the SDR sub-tasking the EDR, or IDR depending on the problem, before everything flew down the route in opposite direction. Yes problems were eventually solved, but it often took quite some time to achieve this, which might not have been the case with a single responsibility, where everybody tries to shift the problem to another responsible... Add the longer routes from Airforce to NETMA to Eurofighter to EPC and possibly a supplier and even sub-supplier, or the other way round and there are a lot of elements in the chain that can break and most things take longer. That's inviteable in a multinational programme anyway and the setup chosen offers certain advantages, but also disadvantages.
 
Key excerpt from the article :
Whichever manufacturer is the lead campaigner for an export sale is generally awarded final assembly rights; The UK is the lead Eurofighter export nation for campaigns related to Qatar, Turkey, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The failure of the UK to commit to a new order of 24 Eurofighter Typhoons is chief among issues raised by McGuiness, alongside reports that London will replace older Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 1 jets (due to be phased out in 2025) with additional orders of the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Following the recent news concerning a possible (and maybe imminent?) Saudi Arabian inclusion to the GCAP, I wonder if that has links to the competition between Rafale, Eagle Ii and Typhoon.

I'm not sure about the order though; as in if the UK has the leverage to demand the selection of Typhoon for the Sauds to be included, or if the Sauds have the leverage to demand the inclusion into GCAP if they select Typhoon, ala offset, but I'd guess that both cases are probably true to a certain extent and goes either way.
 
No point linking to the article as its so heavily paywalled....

Financial Times is reporting that Qatar is going to take up its option to buy another 12 Typhoon from the UK....great news for Warton. So we're up to 139 aircraft on order now....

Joint Statement from Emir of Qatar confirms this....also appears that the big order of Boxer from the UK for Qatar is also n the way...(100's on vehicles, plus training).

https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2024-12/05/0069-joint-statement-of-the-state-of-qatar,-uk-on-occasion-of-hh-the-amir's-visit
 
Last edited:
The bean-counters at BAe and HM's government must be quietly rubbing their hands with glee;):D.

From some of the diplomatic work that has been underway recently I suspect there is more to come as well....

Plus it looks like the UK has simultaneously landed a big Boxer contract with Qatar in the hundreds of vehicles...there will inevitably be more work for MBDA as well....
 
No point linking to the article as its so heavily paywalled....

Financial Times is reporting that Qatar is going to take up its option to buy another 12 Typhoon from the UK....great news for Warton. So we're up to 139 aircraft on order now....

Joint Statement from Emir of Qatar confirms this....also appears that the big order of Boxer from the UK for Qatar is also n the way...(100's on vehicles, plus training).

https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2024-12/05/0069-joint-statement-of-the-state-of-qatar,-uk-on-occasion-of-hh-the-amir's-visit
Good enough to keep the plant running until 2026, as it earns them time until either Turkey or Saudi Arabia decides to procure Typhoons. But if neither of them commit, then the overall situation doesn't change all that much with the inevitable end of production only slightly delayed.
 
From Financial Times:

Qatar looks to buy another 12 Typhoon jets from UK

New order would provide boost to production for BAE Systems. Qatar has said it will buy another 12 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft from Britain, easing fears of a gap in workload on the UK assembly lines for the pan-European combat aircraft.The commitment came after this week’s state visit by the emir of Qatar during which he held talks with Sir Keir Starmer about strengthening economic co-operation between the two countries. In a joint statement issued by Qatar on Thursday evening, the emirate said the two countries had agreed to extend the existing partnership between the Qatar Amiri Air Force and the Royal Air Force beyond 2030. The extension, it said, would “allow for the continued development of capabilities through the training, exercises, and graduation of Qatari and British pilots in both countries”. To enable this partnership, it added, “Qatar will procure an additional 12 Typhoon jets”.

Although Qatar has not yet signed a firm contract, the news should bring a much-needed boost to BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest defence group, which assembles the aircraft for the emirate at its facility in Warton in Lancashire. In the first half of next year, the factory is due to deliver the last two jets from a previous £5bn order by Qatar for 24 Typhoons signed in 2018. Unions have in recent weeks raised concerns about the prospect of work ending on the final assembly line in the absence of new orders. The Typhoon is built by a consortium involving BAE, Airbus and Leonardo, with each taking the prime contractor position depending on the customer.

The UK is the lead Eurofighter export nation for campaigns related to Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia but new orders have so far not been placed. A fresh order from Qatar would deliver another year of work for the facility, according to people familiar with the situation. Union representatives also want a commitment from the UK government to order more Typhoons to ensure that key skills are retained in the country. They say these will be needed for the trilateral Global Combat Air Programme to build a next-generation jet with Italy and Japan.

Although export orders are welcome, unions have argued that a domestic order is critical to ensuring work remains in the UK. “We would like the British government to commit to ordering a squadron of 24 Typhoon jets, it must be noted that we are the only partner nation in the Eurofighter consortium that hasn’t committed to buying new aircraft,” unions wrote in a letter to the chair of the Commons defence select committee. “[A] domestic order will not only fulfil a military requirement for the RAF in these unstable times but will also ensure that vital skills required to build the next-generation aircraft, GCAP, are retained at Warton,” the letter said. It was “important to ‘buy British’ so that people keep the muscle memory and the skills of how to do final assembly line work”, Steve McGuinness, an executive council member for the union Unite, told the Financial Times. There would also be “wider benefits to UK manufacturing as there would be maintenance and overhaul work” on any jets, he added.

BAE had been expected to keep some work going on the final assembly line with research and development for future projects after the delivery of the two final jets from the previous order. The company has, in the past, also redeployed workers across the wider Typhoon programme and other combat air programmes in the business. BAE declined to comment on Thursday. The UK Ministry of Defence pointed to a statement issued on Wednesday that set out a closer economic partnership between the two nations.
 
By the way, where we are talking about Qatar, is the No.12 still joint RAF/QEAF, or has it been changed to RAF only?
 
By the way, where we are talking about Qatar, is the No.12 still joint RAF/QEAF, or has it been changed to RAF only?

I think it reverted to UK after 2023....but I might be wrong.

I guess they better restart the process now...wonder if they'll move back to Leeming
 

"The Prime Minister [has agreed] a step change in defence partnership with Saudi Arabia today, to enhance the strategic partnership between the two countries and pave the way for greater defence industrial cooperation.

This covers all aspects of the UK-Saudi defence relationship, including on combat air, and provides a framework for closer collaboration for generations to come."
 
Celebrating 12 extra Typhoons for Qatar may be premature.

NB: What the FT actually says:

The extension, it said, would “allow for the continued development of capabilities through the training, exercises, and graduation of Qatari and British pilots in both countries”. To enable this partnership, it added, “Qatar will procure an additional 12 Typhoon jets”.

Qatar on Friday updated its online statement to remove the reference to the additional jets. A spokesperson for Qatar’s foreign ministry declined to comment on the reason for the removal.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom