Thanks for the reminder.
What does O4T stand for?
Yes, indeed. If C137 is an F3, which happens to have the radar (eg a testbed) rather than the first F3-04T, then my numbers work……
The numbers in post 40 also conflict with Jane’s, who would have us believe that the situation is:
12 F1s: 2 Bs, 10 Ms
49 F2s: 12 Cs, 22 Bs, 15 Ms
59 F3s: 36 Cs, 11 Bs, 12 Ms
60 F3-04Ts: 51 AdlA Cs and Bs, 9 Ms
180 aircraft
or
46 Ms (10 F1, 15 F2, 12 F3 and 9 F3-04T)
35+?? Bs (2 F1, 22 F2, 11 F3 and ?? F3-04T)
48+?? Cs (12 F2, 36 F3 and ?? F3-O4T)
180 aircraft
I think that Jane’s are wrong, mind you, but still…..
Bright Adder should, according to the plans, feed into the Quadrinational programme, eventually.
I am starting to believe that we should just continue with Bright Adder, making it the basis of the Quadrinational AESA programme.
By doing so we’d get an operational AESA more quickly, and I suspect that the resulting radar would also be more capable.
Because Bright Adder was already pretty far advanced when the Quadrinational AESA programme lumbered into life, I get the feeling that its remit was widened. It offered the opportunity to get an early look at the repositioner and at other AESA features, long before the Quadrinational programme could provide flying hardware. And for the Brits, Bright Adder started to look like an excellent insurance policy if the Quadrinational programme faltered, or if it looked as though it would not deliver the capabilities required by the UK.
I wouldn’t want to speak for Bloodshot, but I think he meant to say:
If it weren’t for the features seen on the radome I would say that the most logical explanation would be testing of a new radar. This radar could be CAPTOR-E or possibly even Bright Adder.
This aircraft (IPA5) was always expected to be one of the Quadrinational CAPTOR-E testbeds, whereas we’d expected Bright Adder to be tested on BT025 or BT026.
Bright Adder is notionally a technology demonstrator (for advanced AESA capabilities required by the UK, thought to include Electronic Attack), nothing more, though in fact it could stand as the basis for a production radar, and therefore is a de facto insurance policy.
There seems little doubt that Bright Adder is more developed than CAPTOR-E. It’s flying on a rotary wing testbed, and elements of it are also flying on a Piper Navajo, and probably still on the Tornado TREV (the original ARTS testbed). Whereas EF GmbH are still issuing press releases about the Quadrinational AESA describing how pilots like what they’ve been shown about CAPTOR-E in the simulator.
There have also been suggestions that the requirement for Bright Adder was more advanced and more demanding than that for CAPTOR-E, so it may be that Bright Adder is more advanced as well as more developed.
It is, however, a UK programme, so were it to become the basis for CAPTOR-E, the Germans (for example), who like to think that they lead the Quadrinational radar effort, might be just a little miffed.
Except that if Rafale C137, is the first production Rafale model F30-04T, then all of the above numbers are thrown into disarray.
@Scorpion82 :
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1610#p11627
Is this opening post up-to-date ?
Is there something similar on Rafale, detailing the full extent of changes from F2 to F3, (F3 to F3-04T is easier), what the F4 would have been, and giving details of when new iterations of SPECTRA came in, etc.?
To tidy up, it was 60 Rafale F3-04T comprising 25 Cs, 25 Bs, and 10 Ms, right?
Taking the totals on order to:
13 F1s: 1 C, 2 Bs, 10 Ms
48 F2s: 7 Cs, 25 Bs, 16 Ms
59 F3s: 36 Cs, 11 Bs, 12 Ms
60 F3-04Ts: 25 Cs, 25 Bs, 10 Ms (which is 50 for the AdlA and 10 for the MN, not 51 and nine)
180 aircraft
or
48 Ms (10 F1, 16 F2, 12 F3 and 10 F3-04T)
63 Bs (2 F1, 25 F2, 11 F3 and 25 F3-04T)
69 Cs (1 F1, 7 F2, 36 F3 and 25 F3-O4T)
180 aircraft
No, it’s not, TMor.
It doesn’t mention the post MDC software drops on Tranche 1, for example (Drop 3 is now flying, drop 2 is on service aircraft).
It doesn’t mention CORP.
And much of the Tranche 2/3 stuff is just plain wrong. Tranche 2 never flew with SRP 4, but started with 5.0 and is now on 5.1, and is about to go to SRP 10.
Don’t get me wrong. Scorpion did a great job on this and I applaud him for it, but things have moved on, and at the moment in particular, things are moving very rapidly indeed.
The exact content of SRP10 (P1EA) and SRP12 (P1EB) is hard to pin down, as P1EA includes more than 40% more than was originally contracted (some of it pulled forward from P1EB) and P1EB also has ‘as much’ new content.
EF GmbH apparently don’t want to talk about P1E until Farnborough.
Beyond P1E, all bets are off, as the Saudi programme and Contract One seem to be ushering in a whole new way of integrating new kit on the aircraft outside the grindingly slow quadrinational SRP release process. This promises to erode Rafale’s weapons integration advantage pretty quickly.
Two steps to easy integration:
1. Add UAI support to next Blk batch (Fighter Mfg does this)
2. Add UAI to whatever weapon you have (Weapon Mfg does this)Problem solved.
They’re looking at data driven weapons.
It may be ‘welcome news’, but its long overdue, and it underlines how very short sighted the consortium has been up to now when it comes to weapons integrations.
If the Suadis integrate AASM how much easier does that make it for another operate to “stick” them on their aircraft?
As long as they can buy them, then the weapon is integrated, and the software will be already on the jet.
If I was being fanciful, I might see AASM as a likely weapon for the Norvenich Typhoons. Germany hasn’t got PWIV or EGBU-16, and laser JDAM hasn’t been integrated. Germany has to buy something for its P1E Typhoons, or integrate a new-to-Typhoon weapon.
AASM would give a weapon that would complement Tornado capabilities.
But they’ll probably just buy some PWIV.
sorry, I’m having a slow day today (mentally at least), but are Eurofighter integrating any of these weapons at the moment or are they all possibilities if a customers wants it?
I hate to sound a bit like a Rafale fan :o:(:eek:, but we have seen Typhoons (years ago) with weapons underwing that still are not integrated…….
Until recently, the situation was that the only way that weapons could be integrated on Typhoon was as part of the core quadrinational programme.
All such integrations had to be funded by NETMA (and thus by the partner nations) and there was no scope for Industry to fund any such work itself, for the export programme.
That core quadrinational programme in turn relied on agreement between all four partner nations, whose priorities and timetables all vary, and thus the order and timing of weapons integrations have to be reconciled and thrashed out.
And even the ‘enthusiasts’ for A-G capabilities on Typhoon (and especially for advanced/complex weapons) do not need them (and do not want to pay for the cost of integrating them) for some years, since they already have Tornados in service.
Make no mistake, if you were able to roll up to Coningsby on Monday and present them with a fully cleared, fully integrated Storm Shadow, they’d have no use for it for years. Air-to-air, QRA, the Falklands and a smidgeon of basic A-G is more than enough to keep the three frontline squadrons fully-occupied. 17 might play with it, and do some useful work, but actually it would be viewed as a bit of a nuisance. An unwelcome distraction, even.
The RAF simply don’t have a fleet of Mirage 2000s to share the AD role with, to take a turn on QRA, etc. If that has to be done (and it does), only the Typhoon can do it.
Though the UK’s CP193 showed that a single-nation weapons integration was possible, it did still require the permission of the other partner nations, who could have vetoed it had they felt that it would have diverted resources (eg development aircraft, IPAs, test aircrew and personnel) from core programme activities.
All of this has made it hard for EF GmbH to integrate weapons before they are needed by the core programme partner nations, even though their lack may have (must have?) damaged the aircraft’s prospects in various export campaigns.
Dassault have had it easier, because most of the weapons export customers want were also urgently wanted by the domestic customer.
That’s the ‘history’, and finally (too late?) things are changing, though we’re only learning about this now. Belatedly there seems to be a recognition that while the RAF (say) might not need Storm Shadow until (say) 2018, export customers might need that capability earlier.
Weapons not required by the partner nations are already being integrated, and indeed at least one has already been integrated. The Saudi Tranche 2 jets are dropping LGBs and they don’t have any of the LGBs cleared by the partner nations for CP193 or CP210 (P1E), and indeed are doing so in advance of P1E. And now they’re apparently on the verge of integrating AASM Hammer.
Furthermore the recent Contract One signature now allows partner nations to integrate weapons outside the core programme, without any risk of such integration work being ‘vetoed’. The UK has already committed to integrating Brimstone and Storm Shadow and will do so independently via this route if it has to.
Zoller now says that export customers will have the same ability to push the pace of weapons integrations, even if the weapon required is not a priority for the partner nations.
And as it has done with AESA development, industry has self-funded some forward development work on advanced air-to-ground capabilities in support of the export campaign.
Yes, plenty. The aircraft that went to the Falklands were photographed with and without before they left, for example.
The ‘radome’ aft of the belly radome is the hatch for Provincial’s patented air drop system.
I’m trying to work out if the pencils are SLAR or MAD…..