Btw am I the only one who thinks that this image…

…and this one…

…share a striking similarity? The former is the AMSAR demonstrator and the image is from BAE. The latter is supposedly a RBE2AA prototype or at least passed as that.:confused:

They are the exact same radar (or more probably, mock up). Thats the AMSAR.

As I said, the plane can fly with lots of bombs under its wings.

But you won’t find anywhere a picture of a Typhoon releasing a PWII while carrying lateral fuel tanks for the simple reason that this configuration is not cleared for separation yet.

That configuration was cleared in July 2008. And it was used in Green Flag.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/23/224826/eurofighter-typhoon-proves-close-air-support-credentials-for-raf.html

You can find a rather precise description of a two+ hours mission (yes, with drop tanks) in wich were droped PII in the Air International article that i´ve mentioned before.

Which is why it wouldn’t make sense to deploy them to Afghanistan. It also explains the interest of all partners in conformal fuel tanks.

The reason why the RAF is interested in CFT has nothing to do with PII, or PIV but Storm Shadow and the landing gear , but that you already knew.

I checked it, but besides a post in a blog, there is no official sources that mentions these €2.5 billions for upgrades. I also checked the EF site news archive and didn’t found any reference to it as well, all reports regarding T3A are mentioning only 112 fighter + engines. If Cazolini confirmed that the price includes upgrade costs of older fighters, you would expect their official website to state that at first right?

AFAIK the numbers that Scorpion mentioned were given by Enzo Casolini, Hartmut Tenter and Lt Gen Antonino Altario (Eurofighter CEO, Eurojet Managing Director and Netma General Manager respectively), on July 30 2009 on the press conference right after the signing of Tranche 3A, you cant get more official than that.
Those numbers were covered by Flight Global, Aviation Week and Air International on severall articles that have already been posted on this same forúm around August/September 2009, but if you want a global view of what the T3A contract, try September 2009 Airforcesmonthly “The Perfect Partnership?” article, starts on page 60.
Yes, the contract was 9,1 billion Euros, 6,5 billion Euros to produce 112 Typhoons (including 241 engines), 2,5 billion Euros “to adress obsolecence on previous tranche aircraft”, and a “unit fly away cost” of 58/59 million Euros (Casolini has repeated this “ad nauseum” lately, including in Brasil), its official and it has been covered by the specialized press.

Not to forget that we have official figures from British and German government, stating that their orders for 40 and 31 T3A fighters, cost 3 billion Pounds and 2.8 billion Euros!

Because the contracts cover an awfull lot more than the acquisition of T3A fighters (another article for you, October 2009 Air International, “Typhoon Tranche 3 – A Game of Numbers”)… That has already been explained to you.

We can also add the official statement of the Italian government from Farnborough last year, that cancelling 25 T3B will save them €2 billions and German Government said, that they will need additional €3 billions to order the 37 T3Bs. Both these figures obviously don’t include any upgrades for older fighters and still are way above the €59 millions, so lets say there are reasons to believe EF T3 costs more.

Yep, and those numbers might have something to do with development, basing, non recurring costs, etc, etc, etc…
Numbers that dont have absolutely nothing to do with the definition of “Fly Away cost”

Don’t see your point here.

As far as I understands it, this order is for 112 fighters + engines + the funds to address block obsolescence, or in other words:

“Address block obsolescence” on the already existing T1 and T2´s…

Nope, unless they’ve qualified the configuration yesterday.

You will see plenty of pictures of Typhoon + 4 PW + tanks in flight but when it comes to release tests, suddenly all external tanks vanish and only 2 PW are carried.

Oh yeah…

I would advise the Air International article of August 2008 that describes the Green Flag deployment of IX Sqn RAF (in wich they´ve droped roughly sixty PII an PIII flying with external tanks and an LDP).
If you have any doubts what are the operational configurations that were cleared by July 2008, Wing Commander Gavin Parker describes them.

OK if you say so…

I am really surprised that a large twin-engine jet has such tiny external fuel tanks! Even the much smaller Gripen NG will get 1700L fuel tanks, and with half the number of engines!

Funny I thought the site I linked to would be kind of reliable (given the name) but it seems not!

Loke

The industry offered 1500L and 2000L external Tanks, but there were no clients.

Cleared with the Litening in the central position and PWs on the wet hardpoints. Leaving the plane to rely on internal fuel only.

While BW is indeed disingenous, the reality is that for now a Typhoon in Afghanistan wouldn’t be suited for a CAS role. Much better to deploy them in the Falklands.

The Typhoon with two external tanks and one LDP, carries four Paveways and one internal gun, that doubles the number of PGM´s that the standard Mirage 2000D the ADLA usualy uses in A´stan (while having more range), not to mention that it equals the typical RAFALE (or USAF Viper) load for the same mission.