Eurofighter Typhoon

timmymagic said:
Avoiding over-reliance on the US...
Click to expand...

Not doing a very good job of it given that all three platforms so far are highly or totally reliant.

If Eurofighter is a serious contender then perhaps it's an opportunity to cancel the F-16 upgrades and phase that type out. Yes, premature retirement but no air force of that size has any business running four types of fighter. The USAF is trying to get away from that scenario itself.
 
Kiltonge said:
Not doing a very good job of it given that all three platforms so far are highly or totally reliant.

If Eurofighter is a serious contender then perhaps it's an opportunity to cancel the F-16 upgrades and phase that type out. Yes, premature retirement but no air force of that size has any business running four types of fighter. The USAF is trying to get away from that scenario itself.
Click to expand...

if they do it phase out and give ukraine an ex poland f16 gain eurofighter, would it is good move?
 
timmymagic said:
Avoiding over-reliance on the US...
Click to expand...
Ugh, it's pointless at this point.

If one wants to stop over-relying on US - a nice start will be to design a native MRAAM(no, not meteor), and procure more than one week worth of them(Hi France). Otherwise, without US 5-6 digit weapon stocks, it's all but chest-pumping.

It won't do much to spite the US or even reduce reliance. It'll just make Trump the first US president who actually made Europe pay for its defence. Making americans afraid by doing something they tried to get you to do for decades isn't really going to work.
 
Ainen said:
If one wants to stop over-relying on US - a nice start will be to design a native MRAAM(no, not meteor)
Click to expand...

Why not Meteor....who wants a fair fight anyway....

But there is actually an easy solution to getting a cheaper MRAAM....have a look at CAMM-ER's dimensions....particularly after you take the turnover pack off....RF seeker, 2 way datalink, 120km+ from air launch. What more would you want...

I suspect the stock price of US defence contractors would disagree....
 
timmymagic said:
Why not Meteor....who wants a fair fight anyway....
Click to expand...
It doesn't really work as normal MRAAM; ducted ramjet comes with a whole set of pros and cons, higher Isp and throttling are just the top of the list.
Furthermore, it is expensive, and production capacity is at the moment quite limitedm

I.e. it isn't about fairness, it's about not getting crippled.

Meteor was clearly designed as a somewhat assymetric compliment to either AMRAAM or MICA series.

timmymagic said:
But there is actually an easy solution to getting a cheaper MRAAM....have a look at CAMM-ER's dimensions....particularly after you take the turnover pack off....RF seeker, 2 way datalink, 120km+ from air launch. What more would you want...
Click to expand...
SAMs sit in supportive sealed canisters on their tail for their whole life.

AAMs fly exposed to maneuvers and long term heating on the aircraft. Then, during the launch, get a massive kick right to the middle.

Nothing unsolvable, but it isn't simple and easy, more of new weapon on the same core components.
 
Ainen said:
Meteor was clearly designed as a somewhat assymetric compliment to either AMRAAM or MICA series.
Click to expand...

It wasn't. It was designed as a full replacement for Amraam for the UK's fighter fleet. The only reason an order for D-3 has been made is because of F-35 Block IV delays, otherwise Amraam would have exited UK service as C-5 reached end of life.

Ainen said:
AAMs fly exposed to maneuvers and long term heating on the aircraft. Then, during the launch, get a massive kick right to the middle.
Click to expand...

Lucky CAMM and CAMM-ER are based on an AAM's components then....hence the 'Common' part of the name. Particularly for CAMM the Asraam Blk VI uses practically all components (no turnover pack, folding fins or RF seeker though).

Ainen said:
Furthermore, it is expensive
Click to expand...

Look at the price for a non-US customer for Amraam C-8 or D-3....then look at Meteor cost...they're both c$3m. For partner countries its likely Meteor is cheaper than buying from the US....and thats before you add in all the benefits of industrial work and taxation.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
It won't do much to spite the US or even reduce reliance. It'll just make Trump the first US president who actually made Europe pay for its defence. Making americans afraid by doing something they tried to get you to do for decades isn't really going to work.
Click to expand...

Should be noted that many European countries are paying not insignificant bills to US basing, while the US uses these bases as DOBs for their operations in Africa and the Near/Middle East. Without that European hub, many of the US military adventures in these areas would have been much more difficult to organise and stage. Fully agree to the not quoted rest of your post.
 
www.hurriyetdailynews.com

UK submits offer to Türkiye for Eurofighter jets - Türkiye News

The United Kingdom's Defense Ministry has submitted a formal offer to Ankara for the procurement of 40 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, with Turkish authorities currently in the process of reviewing the proposal, Turkish defense sources stated on March 13.
www.hurriyetdailynews.com www.hurriyetdailynews.com

Turkey has now received the quote for Eurofighters, reported to be 40 Tranche 4 in two lots of 20 but they are also considering taking on second hand tranche 1 as additional short term training aircraft to begin training their pilots ahead of delivery. Meteor is considered a required deal breaker by the Turks and the contract is quoted at a price of 5bn Euros.
 
Ainen said:
It won't do much to spite the US or even reduce reliance. It'll just make Trump the first US president who actually made Europe pay for its defence. Making americans afraid by doing something they tried to get you to do for decades isn't really going to work.
Click to expand...
Making Europe reliant on US defense was a deliberate choice made by the US after WWII.
 
Desertfox said:
Making Europe reliant on US defense was a deliberate choice made by the US after WWII.
Click to expand...
I think you understate the ability of European nations to decide how much to contribute and where they would purchase their weapon systems. Generally speaking, the US was never forced any country to go with the US options for kit. With some exceptions like ammunition calibers most attempts for NATO to standardize on a particular item like an MBT or fighter aircraft never worked out.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I think you understate the ability of European nations to decide how much to contribute and where they would purchase their weapon systems. Generally speaking, the US was never forced any country to go with the US options for kit. With some exceptions like ammunition calibers most attempts for NATO to standardize on a particular item like an MBT or fighter aircraft never worked out.
Click to expand...
During the Cold War, the U.S. made Turkey heavily dependent on its weapons by providing military aid through the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine, which discouraged local production and led to the closure of Turkey’s early aircraft industry. Political pressure, including diplomatic interventions, ensured Turkey remained within the U.S.' control. Embargoes, such as the 1964 Johnson Letter and the 1974 arms embargo following Turkey’s Cyprus intervention, further exposed this dependence, forcing Turkey to cannibalize aircraft and import ammunition from Libya.

This, in turn, led to the decision to invest in and revive the indigenous arms industry after 1974, ultimately culminating in the development of various indigenously developed next-generation aircraft that Turkey flies today.
 
(Hopefully) final negotiations?

Deputy Minister of National Defense Musa Heybet received the British Ambassador to Ankara Jill Morris and the accompanying Defense Attaché Colonel James Davidson Torbet and the Head of Trade, Strategic Export Policies Neil McKillop.

In the meeting, which was also attended by Defense and Security Director General Major General İlkay Altındağ and Procurement Services Director General Mehmet Avcı, views were exchanged on defense and security and cooperation in the defense industry, and the ongoing Eurofighter procurement process was discussed.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1902729140723196225
View: https://x.com/tcsavunma/status/1902729140723196225




As you guys know, I'm not really positive about either the F-16V or the Typhoon deals. I think if a foreign stop-gap is to be procured, it has to be the F-35. But I'm also too darn tired of this dragging feet...

They're already six years too late in making a move on the Eurofighter, and they want to prolong everything even further?!

They're about to introduce the first new addition to the fleet in -almost- 20 years' time when the LRIP J-36 enters service and the USAF inducts the EMD F-47s...
 
Bad, dumb timing for a Turkish Eurofighter deal. Lets wait and see, but would not hold my breath.

Even if the Turks/Brits have managed to get a precautionary agreement with the Germans on this deal (what I assumed), signing a deal with Erdogans regime right now would end in a disturbance in German/British relations.
The parties of acting Kanzler Scholz (SPD) and Imamoglu (CHP) do have some good relations and the upcoming Kanzler Merz will probably have to form a coalition with SPD too. Article in German

Edit: For the 10.000th time too, it can be your opinion that “nobody gives a crap about [Turkish] internal politics” when it comes to Turkish military acquisitions by western countries, but that is not my experience. I’m stating just the obvious consequences and not some “wishful thinking”.
 
Last edited:
had said:
Bad, dumb timing for a Turkish Eurofighter deal. Lets wait and see, but would not hold my breath.

Even if the Turks/Brits have managed to get a precautionary agreement with the Germans on this deal (what I assumed), signing a deal with Erdogans regime right know would end in a disturbance in German/British relations.
The Parties of acting Kanzler Scholz (SPD) and Imamoglu (CHP) do have some good relations and the upcoming Kanzler Merz will probably have to forma a coalition with SPD too.
Click to expand...
Why are you so hung up on internal politics, dude? Whenever Turkey is mentioned, you come here with the same old talking points...

And for the 10.000th time; these are the matters of security and alliance between countries, not parties, so nobody gives a crap about internal politics. Especially if the "good side" in your argument has extensive deals with some of the worst countries on the face of the planet.
 
www.janes.com

UK retires Tranche 1 Eurofighters

The United Kingdom has retired from service most of its remaining early model Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, retaining only a small number to provide air...
www.janes.com www.janes.com

Tranche 1s in British Isles retire. 4 remain in service in Falklands until 2027. Of the retired airframes, 10 will be used for spare parts.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
www.janes.com

UK retires Tranche 1 Eurofighters

The United Kingdom has retired from service most of its remaining early model Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, retaining only a small number to provide air...
www.janes.com www.janes.com

Tranche 1s in British Isles retire. 4 remain in service in Falklands until 2027. Of the retired airframes, 10 will be used for spare parts.
Click to expand...

I wonder if any consideration has been given to refurbishing them and donating them to Ukraine?
 
Kiltonge said:
Plus 29 for 'disposal' or 'in storage for disposal' says the Janes article, whatever that means. I don't think any of them are near their fatigue life.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately disposal means 'Reduce to Produce' in this case...they'll be broken for parts to supply the rest of the fleet.
 
F-2 said:
Honestly the T1 jets couldn’t be upgraded, had structural problems, seemed to have very little capability and didn’t last very long in service inspite of being expensive. Why wasn’t this a bigger scandal?
Click to expand...
The Spanish Air Force upgraded their T1's and intend to operate them till, at least 2040.
 
Last edited:
F-2 said:
Honestly the T1 jets couldn’t be upgraded, had structural problems, seemed to have very little capability and didn’t last very long in service inspite of being expensive. Why wasn’t this a bigger scandal?
Click to expand...

They could be upgraded, but could never reach the T2 and T3 level. I've never heard of 'structural problems' more that their structure was one of the issues that prevented upgrade to T2 and T3. Capability wise was more a case of the nations choosing to not upgrade them with additional capabilities and spending money on T2 and T3.

It should be a scandal...but one that ultimately leads nowhere...the decisions were taken in the 90's to save the programme from cancellation so we are where we are.
 
NMaude said:
T1s for Ukraine would be handy if they're just used to hunt and destroy Russian cruise-missiles and drones.
Click to expand...
T1's with the proposed E-Scan antenna added to the existing Captor back end would be sufficient for Ukraine's needs for the next 20 years as an multirole aircraft. Particularly given their kinematics and having at least half of airframe hours left. Asraam, IRIS-T, Amraam, Enhanced Paveway II and Litening III are already there. You could add Enhanced Paveway III, LaGS, JDAM, APKWS easily. More complex A2G weapons, like Storm Shadow, could be added. Initially it would be a more limited installation, like the SU-24's have got, but using tablets for weapons has become a thing for South Korea and Turkey so there are other routes. You'd probably want another platform alongside, like Gripen C, that could be upgraded to handle some other A2G tasks or AShM.

Doesn't look like it will happen though...despite the fact its the best game in town by a margin, particularly given US politics and European support...
 
timmymagic said:
T1's with the proposed E-Scan antenna added to the existing Captor back end would be sufficient for Ukraine's needs for the next 20 years as an multirole aircraft. Particularly given their kinematics and having at least half of airframe hours left. Asraam, IRIS-T, Amraam, Enhanced Paveway II and Litening III are already there. You could add Enhanced Paveway III, LaGS, JDAM, APKWS easily. More complex A2G weapons, like Storm Shadow, could be added. Initially it would be a more limited installation, like the SU-24's have got, but using tablets for weapons has become a thing for South Korea and Turkey so there are other routes. You'd probably want another platform alongside, like Gripen C, that could be upgraded to handle some other A2G tasks or AShM.

Doesn't look like it will happen though...despite the fact its the best game in town by a margin, particularly given US politics and European support...
Click to expand...

It's not as easy as you believe and the CAESAR demonstrator was anything, but not an operational radar. Apart from the fact that you guys seem all to be okay that our governments throw billions at that corrupt black hole, I'm definitely not. The radar is just one aspect. There is much more to it and it's going to cost a lot of money.
 
F-2 said:
Honestly the T1 jets couldn’t be upgraded, had structural problems, seemed to have very little capability and didn’t last very long in service inspite of being expensive. Why wasn’t this a bigger scandal?
Click to expand...

"It is technically feasible to bring a Tranche 1 (T1) aircraft to the standard of a Tranche 2 (T2) or Tranche 3 (T3) aircraft. BAE Systems has previously provided data to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that outlines the scope of structural and avionic modifications that would be required."

 
Scorpion82 said:
It's not as easy as you believe and the CAESAR demonstrator was anything, but not an operational radar. Apart from the fact that you guys seem all to be okay that our governments throw billions at that corrupt black hole, I'm definitely not. The radar is just one aspect. There is much more to it and it's going to cost a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Not my area but is anyone else finding this difficult to parse? IIUC:

It's not as easy as you believe...
Click to expand...

Refers to @timmymagic's "the proposed E-Scan antenna added to the existing Captor back end"?

...CAESAR demonstrator was anything, but not an operational radar...
Click to expand...

If the CAESAR demonstrator leads to Captor-E, then it is operational under another name (as Spanish Captor-E ECRS Mk1s).

...that corrupt black hole...
Click to expand...

Refers to Euroradar? To Eurofighter itself? To upgrading T1 Typhoons at all? Or ...

My motivation here is mere curiosity. I have no dog(s) in whatever fight this is.
 
EmoBirb said:
Given the context, how could there be any other possibility
Click to expand...

The sentence structure of that paragraph was: radar/black hole/radar. If you are correct about context, where you see a single possibility, I see a non sequitur.
 
Apophenia said:
If the CAESAR demonstrator leads to Captor-E, then it is operational under another name (as Spanish Captor-E ECRS Mk1s).
Click to expand...

Captor-E differs from CAESAR by more than only the antenna and integrating that radar entails a rat tail of associated work and modifications required on a T1 aircraft. That's going to be a pretty expensive and time consuming task. It's not a job done over the night.

In a nutshell it isn't feasible the way most of you guys seem to believe it is.
 
Scorpion82 said:
Captor-E differs from CAESAR by more than only the antenna and integrating that radar entails a rat tail of associated work and modifications required on a T1 aircraft. That's going to be a pretty expensive and time consuming task. It's not a job done over the night.

In a nutshell it isn't feasible the way most of you guys seem to believe it is.
Click to expand...
Scorpion, I ask because you seem to know. Was CAESAR ever intended to become an operational radar and it was simply overtaken in time or was it always meant as a demonstrator like AMSAR. Also are any of the E-Scan captors related to it?
 
F-2 said:
Scorpion, I ask because you seem to know. Was CAESAR ever intended to become an operational radar and it was simply overtaken in time or was it always meant as a demonstrator like AMSAR. Also are any of the E-Scan captors related to it?
Click to expand...

AMSAR has been an RD programme to advance and mature the AESA technology for airborne fire control radars in general. It was a government sponsored joint programme between Britain, France and Germany. The experience gained fed into national, or multinational programmes.

CECAR (Captor E-Scan Risk Reduction) was a government sponsored initiative for a Captor based AESA solution and CAESAR was eventually the Captor AESA demonstrator funded by industry. Ofcourse CAESAR fed into the eventual Captor-E, but Captor-E isn't just a productionised version of CAESAR, as some here seem to believe.

Actual Captor-E development was launched by industry on 1st July 2010, the official development contract was signed on 19th November 2014. The Captor-E was then formally designated as Radar 1+. The British always had greater aspirations and ran national RD programmes and touting the Radar 2 version. As it became evident that the original Radar 1+ specification could not be met with the Radar 1+ hardware configuration the Eurofighter Enhanced E-Scan Radar study was launched in ca. 2016. In order to keep things aligned the ECRS (Eurofighter Common Radar System) project was launched, but while the designation ECRS was carried on, a real harmonisation never really happened.

The original Radar 1+ never materialised, the hardware configuration is what we now know as ECRS Mk0, but the software is much different, compared to what the Radar 1+ specification defined. It's more the Export Interim Solution (EIS) that was envisioned to satisfy export demands. We find that radar now on Kuwaiti and Qatari aircraft and software development is far from being finished.

The actual software envisioned for Captor-E is developed in parallel, while hardware development has split up between the German/Spanish ECRS Mk1 and the British Mk2, the latter being essentially the Radar 2 (or outturn of that programme, the original configuration and objectives were not exactly the same).
 
To add to the above, original Radar 1+ development assumed P1Ea as a development baseline. It wasn't clear when the radar would be actually integrated and the related capability standard was therefore not defined either. With the Kuwaiti order a capability standard was defined, P3Eb, but that's applicable to Kuwait only (or was). The so called Export Interim Standard of Captor-E essentially became today's ECRS Mk0.

The Core Nation's P3Eb package is not 1:1 identical to the package for Kuwait that has eventually been titles P3Eb1. For the Core Nations it's P3Eb2 and that includes only the extant Captor-M. ECRS Mk1 Step 0 integration on German and Spanish aircraft is subject of the P3Ec Step 1 contract building on top of the P3Eb2 baseline.

P3Ec Steps 2 & 3 are envisioned to address a range of capability requirements from Core and Export operators, hence the occassional reference to "Consolidation Package". It does include software updates for the ECRS Mk0/Mk1 Step 0 (which are essentially the same except for different TRMs).

ECRS Mk1 Step 1 development has been contracted in parallel to P3Ec Step 1. Britain runs the Mk2 as another separate contract and under P4E all radars shall be integrated in a kind of common avionics product. The weapon system shall then be capable of recognising the radar installed and enable the associated capabilities. That's the purpose of the "Common Radar Interface" (CRI). There is a planned transition to the new software (task based, rather than mode based) with P4E and this will massively change how the radar is actually operating. TBM has in fact been the original Radar 1+ specified software capability.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom