BarnesWWhen is the last Typhoon scheduled to be delivered?
The first order will end 2018 probably. But Tr1s will eventually be replaced, which will entail a new batch probably. A further 24 are being built for RSAF and the UK order is yet to be fulfilled.
Currently in progress is a 1 billion Euro contract to upgrade Typhoons with a new radar. The contract includes integration, radar production and aircraft upgrade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30114054
About 500 jobs have been secured at a defence firm in Edinburgh, with the signing of a contract to upgrade the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
Selex ES, which is based in the capital, will help develop the latest type of radar system for the fighter.
The total value of the deal is 1bn euros.
The four nation-backed Eurofighter Typhoon is produced by BAE Systems, France-based Airbus and Selex owner Finmeccanica of Italy.
BAE Systems said its share of the deal to develop the Captor E-Scan radar for the jet fighter was worth £365m.
The Eurofighter consortium described the Captor E-Scan as the world’s most advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar System (AESA).Eurofighter chief executive Alberto Gutierrez said the latest deal was “a pivotal moment” in the life of the Eurofighter programme.
He said: “It enhances a weapons system that offers a mix of capabilities that is simply unmatched anywhere in the world. It’s something that Europe should be immensely proud of.”
BAE Systems managing director of combat air, Martin Taylor, said in a statement: “This is a major step forward in the development of Typhoon.
“From the outset, the aircraft was built with capability enhancement in mind and this step is proof that we are developing Typhoon to keep it relevant for today and for the future.”
Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain had already funded the initial development of the advanced radar, before agreeing a new contract to fit the technology to the jets.
Since delivery of the first Eurofighter Typhoon to the Royal Air Force at the end of 2003, a total of 418 aircraft have been delivered to six nations – Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Austria and Saudi Arabia.
BarnesWExplosion heard on cockpit voice recorder of downed Russian airliner
BarnesWImpressive , however ICBM`s are in a different league
So except cases where an SM-3 is near an ICBM launch site – to pursue the ICBM – there isnt a functional BMD
Wouldn’t work with current SM-3 and even Block IIA is very, very marginal/doubtful. The detection and tracking time available is too limited for it to get up in time. Only the Block IIB (cancelled had sufficient range). GBI is so far proving unreliable. A simple solution is to put nuke warheads on GBI instead of HTK.
BarnesWhttp://hushkit.net/2015/06/06/the-eye-of-the-storm-captor-e-interview/
The eye of the storm: Captor-E interview
Without new orders, the Eurofighter Typhoon is perilously close to the end of its production run (the first components of the last ordered aircraft having already been made). A big incentive to potential air force customers is the promised Captor-E radar. This extremely capable set is already in development, so we spoke to the manufacturers Selex to find out more. (Apologies for the **** pun in the headline)
HK: What is the testing schedule? Testing is continuing following the Farnborough International Air show involving Eurofighter, BAES and the Euroradar partners. It is planned to align to anticipated customers’ requirements for production systems.
What is Selex’s current experience of designing and building fighter AESA’s? Selex ES has over 60 years of Fire Control Radar experience from the AI23 radar on the Lightning aircraft to present Captor-M and Captor-E radars for Eurofighter Typhoon working with the EuroRADAR Consortium. The EuroRADAR Consortium is led by Selex ES (UK) and in partnership with Selex ES (Italy), Airbus (Germany) and Indra (Spain) has invested heavily in Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar over the last 16 years. During that time a number of Technology Demonstrator Programmes (TDPs) have been completed.
When will an operational radar be completed? The operational radar is planned to be completed to meet the anticipated customers’ requirements.
When do you expect to see squadron service? This will be dictated by the customers’ requirements for entry into service either as retrofit of the existing best-in-class M-Scan radar or as fitted to new aircraft procurement.
What percentage increases over Captor will the radar offer in terms of search and tracking ranges? This information is classified but Captor-E will offer increased range performance, extended missile guidance, faster detection and tracking of multiple targets. In addition, it is expected that Captor-E will significantly improve accuracy and reduce track latency, especially against manoeuvring targets due to the extreme beam agility inherent in AESAs.
How many transmitter/receiver modules will it have? Will it require more or less maintenance than the Captor-M? The exact figure is classified but Typhoon has a large radome which does allow for a high TRM count. This increases both transmitted and received power which provides a significant competitive advantage in maximum detection range and other radar capabilities over the majority of other fielded AESAs. Captor-E will have reduced life cycle costs. Mechanically scanned arrays by design place extreme stresses on their structure and motor to rapidly reposition the antenna between alternate edges of the field of regard. The majority of the beam repositioning is now completed electronically; the much-reduced mechanical demands on the repositioner and the robust mechanics of its novel design should ensure far less maintenance. In addition, the avionics in the rest of the radar benefit from newer technology and excess processing power.
Will it offer superior detection range to RBE2 AESA and by what margin? We believe that the large power and aperture available to Typhoon offers superior detection ranges; indeed, during Flight Evaluation Trials several evaluating nations have already commented that Captor-M invariably detected targets at significantly greater ranges than RBE-2. Captor-E should enhance detection even further and improve that significant tactical advantage. If you combine that power and aperture with the innovative repositioner providing a Wide Field of Regard of ~200 degrees you have an air combat-decisive advantage. Our competitors and potential adversaries who field a fixed plate antenna with a field of regard of only ~ 120 degrees are not only stuck with the legacy tactics associated with a mechanical radar but additionally will have significantly reduced power and tracking at the edges of that field of view. Captor-E will revolutionise air combat by offering our pilots the option to ‘jump into the notch’ whilst maintaining tracking on a hostile aircraft; instantaneously reducing an adversary’s missile range and degrading his radar picture. This will offer a significant operational advantage over typical fixed plate AESA radars such as RBE2 and the APG series.
What modes will it have? The radar will have a comprehensive suite of air to air and air to ground waveforms supporting a flexible and powerful concept of interleaved multi-role operations implemented through an efficient radar resource management system as well as high resolution modes for surveillance and reconnaissance.
Will it have aggressive jamming and hacking modes? Can you explain this more. I am sure that you will understand but unfortunately this information is classified.
What bands will it operate in? I-band
How much, and what, testing has been done on the radar so far? The Full Scale Development programme has been progressing to schedule, the precise details are private to the ER partners and EF stakeholders only.
Why has it not a large flying testbed? Various Technology Demonstrators such as AMSAR and CAESAR have been flown on ‘hack’ aircraft and CAESAR flew very successfully in May 2007 on a DA5 Typhoon. The experience and trials data gathered during these programmes has led to improvements in modelling and simulation techniques which allows industry to develop complex equipment on the ground and reduce the burden on flight test programmes.
Would multi static or similar operations be possible with a Captor-E: could the radars of two Typhoons work together to detect low RCS targets? I am sure that you will understand that the details supporting detection of low RCS targets is classified but EScan technology does provide the capability for enhanced cued search and track both actively and passively. EScan technology provides the capability for enhanced cued search and track both actively and passively.
How similar will the set be to the Gripen E/F’s radar- to what extent is research pooled? Captor E and Raven are completely different radar systems. Captor-E for EF Typhoon is provided by the Euroradar consortium for which Selex ES is the lead contractor working with Selex ES Italy, Airbus Ulm and Indra Spain. Raven ES-05 is provided solely by Selex ES.
Will the new radar be heavier and use more power than Captor-M? The Captor-E system is heavier than the existing Captor-M, all provisions both mechanical, electrical and cooling are provided to allow fitting to T3 aircraft and T2 aircraft retrofit. The benefit of Typhoon’s excess thrust is that the extra weight is not expected to have an impact on performance; as evidenced by Typhoon’s agility with 6x1000lb Paveway IIs.
How long would it take to fit a Captor-E to a Typhoon built with Captor-M, what changes would have to made? How much would the operation cost? It is not a lengthy process and provisions are in place to support this.
How much will it cost per unit? This is commercial information private to stakeholders and customers.
In what ways is an AESA with a repositioner superior to a conventional AESA? In addition to the significant air combat advantages discussed above the innovative re-positioner extends the radar’s field of regard to ~200 degrees which is some 50% wider than traditional ‘fixed plate’ AESA radars. The wide field of regard provides significant benefits in both air to air and air to ground engagements allowing the Typhoon to turn away from the oncoming threat whilst continuing to track and support weapons engagements. The radar can carry out high resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging whilst maintaining a safe distance from enemy forces.
BarnesWThe point of my argument was credibility, not whether you ride to battle in a rafale or not.
Errrr…. what?
BarnesWZero capability? Well that comes in odds with all the chest beaters who swear by the capabilities of the western aircraft and how much superior they are to Russian made aircraft.
It also comes in odds to everyone who says Russian and Chinese industries are nowhere near good enough to produce viable VLO adversaries and in good numbers. Both of these have been expressed in various forms at various opportunities.If the above are true what kind of zero capability you go on about? If the above are not true why should we believe anything else that comes from similar sources?
Oh yeah our 4th gen planes are much better than anything else out there
The other side is pretty much not capable of producing anything worthwhile in the VLO areaOh and by the way WE ABSOLUTELY NEED -ALL OF US- to buy this new hyper expensive plane that will save us from the opponent’s planes that we could already beat anyway and the ones that the opponent doesn’t have the capability to build to a standard that we would consider a threat!
How does that logic sound when spelled out?
I’d say you need to revise your arguments because no side can have the pie and eat it too!
Well if Russia and China are introducing T-50s and J-20/31s come 2020, then without the F-35, it’d be non-stealth vs stealth for much of the decade, with the exception of the F-22. I personally wouldn’t want to do Rafale vs T-50.
BarnesWIf you are going to pick another plane, then you need another contest.
Which means that the companies will have to come up with paper-plans, go through a down select to 2 or 3, build the prototypes, compete in a flyoff, pick a winner, and negotiate a contract all before the development seriously begins (think 1995 – 2001 for the JSF).
Well yeah, 15 years is really the absolute minimum time you’d need to wait before an in-service date. Whatever the alternative, the project would basically have to start roughly where F/A-XX is now, meaning that instead of having a capability that some fringe characters dislike, you’d have either zero capability, or a grossly outdated capability for the next 15-20 years.
BarnesWNo, not stop building 5th gen, simply recognise when things have gotten out of hand and make the brave decision to cancel a programme that clearly overshot its mark by a lot!
As your own words suggest, one doesn’t need the F-35, one needs the technologies that define the capabilities that this plane was meant to bring affordably.
Dedication to a plane is not support to a doctrine or a principle.
And spend another 15 years developing a new aircraft? You crazy?
BarnesWWell, actually I think you have misunderstood.
The criticism on the F-35 is based on the fact that it seems the designers have put all their eggs into one basket and assumed that noone else would be able to ever make something that can beat this planes strengths.
That is why I gave you the example, to show you that it is arrogant to assume that you’ve got a hand that others can’t beat.
Well hell everyone tries to build the best aircraft. But most of the things people criticise about the F-35 are things that would require making it less stealthy to fix. E.g. wing loading. Bigger wings, mean bigger optical/IR signature. T/W. More thrust means more heat. Slow. More speed requires more thrust and lower BPR, plus intake ramp(s).
And no, the MiG-29s shot down, were never russian planes flown with experienced pliots armed at a reasonable level. But that is besides the point.
Nevertheless, the only evidence available points the opposite way to the outcome you suggested. The Iraqi pilots had just fought a 10 year war, so of them must have been experienced in air combat. Last time Russians had fought in air-air combat was probably Vietnam I guess.
On one hand you have a school of thought here that says “buy and believe this very expensive product because noone will ever see it coming and nothing else matters”
Well what are the better realistic alternatives right now?
On the other hand you’ve got some people reading this as a very dangerous thing to do.
Again, what are the better realistic alternatives?
We are not Russians, or Chinese necessarily; The Russians as they have always done, have looked at the threat out there and designed something that they think could provide them a solution to the problem.
just like they did with their tanks, their ships, their guns, their bombs, their missiles. They are unaffected by what we say in this forum or anyone’s opinion about the F-35.
We are the ones who are debating if this is a safe and sane strategy.
Well this is all well and good but you don’t suggest an alternative and have failed to articulate why the F-35 could be a failure.
If you believe LM’s rhetoric and hence you have something that is that good, it is then very dangerous to think that noone else won’t get it. What if they do?
Well it’s still better to have it than not have it.
I have asked many times in this forum and no one has ever provided a reasonable answer; so I am asking you too..
can and F-35 track, lock and engage another F-35 ?
At a given range I would imagine they can. Against a less stealthy aircraft, the range would be greater.
If the answer is no, you have a problem,
if the answer is yes, you have an even bigger problem..
And if the answer is that you don’t have an F-35, then you’re truly screwed.
which one do you think describes best the current situation?
Probably the second but you’ve not really made a consistent point here. The F-35 has been designed to have a low a radar, IR and EM signature as possible together with the best radar, IRST and jamming IEWS possible. Others will try and do the same, of course they will. Will they succeed? Maybe, maybe not, but what’s the alternative? Continue building 4th gen? I don’t see that this conversation is going anywhere.
BarnesWSPECTRA is way more than a simple RWR you find in most fighters from the last 50 years or so.
I keep hearing this but very little evidence. It has interferometric receivers which give about 0.5deg accuracy instead of 1deg, but that’s not exactly revolutionary.
What’s more, we’re talking about SAM radars that don’t move… once you have their bearing and angle (they are usually below you, considering the fact that you’re flying high), you can pinpoint their exact position on the ground . From there on, it is relatively easy to send a buddy to clean the area and allow others to pass.
Not so sure about that. It would give a rough location about over a mile wide at 100km and over half a mile wide at 50km. I guess that would give you somewhere to search with a TGP but it’s not accurate enough for targeting
that is, if there’s only that one single radar that bothers you
Well there’s the problem, in an extremely dense environment, how does it cope?
BarnesWI am not denying that, however the horizon for this to happen approaches very quickly. Perhaps quicker than the F-35 et all joining air forces around the world.
Rival powers will suffer the same time-lag we do in starting such a project and finishing it.
BarnesWBut that is just it, isn’t it? This is an assumption and nothing more. As an example, if you took that stance in the 80’s and went out looking for a fight with the MiG-29, you’d be handed your a$$ in every engagement.
Technologically you may still think the MiG-29 is inferior to the F-16 and the F-15, and it may have been, but it would still hand you your a$$ in a fight.
It is hubris to assume that just because someone else isn’t matching what you are doing, they are having inferior results to you.
In the example I gave you, you dismissed it all too quickly without thinking for a moment, that a flight of neurons (or similar) have extremely low RCS, no emissions, since they have no radar or active sensors and extremely low IR signatures..
if you accept that the F-35 systems can pick these things up, then you are accepting indirectly that there is a chance the F-35 will be picked up.
Something that neither you nor LM is currently considering as a likely possibility.
Well what are you basing criticism of the F-35 if not an assumption, or worse than an assumption really, assumptions based on collection of lies.
MiG-29 – never did in Desert Storm, or Operation Allied force.
Well, let’s be honest about this, nEUROns, Tarani, FCASes and UCLASSes are some way off. Both the US, UK and France are working to a solution in that regard but it’s somewhat wishful thinking to assume they’re coming before 2030-2035. There are however also real practical issues with allowing them to identify targets for themselves in either a CAS or CAP environment and an RF umbilical cord could certainly be affected by jamming, a lot more so than radar. Using them as aerial mines however, would be somewhat expensive. Something cheaper like a MALD maybe has options.
BarnesWYou are aware of the fact that AN/ALQ-99 has been used during the Vietnam War in 1972, right?
And you’re aware that the Prowler has been updated, with updated versions of the ALQ-99 post Vietnam right?
Exactly, the NGJ will offer much greater capabilities, so will its peers produced outside of the US, so the whole jamming thing with F-35’s internal electronics is just blowing hot air. as the NAVY guys said, a fortunate by-product. and you call Dassault dishonest…
Not really, the EA-6B and EA-18G’s current jamming hardware is still damn good. I’ll be surprised if any other IEWS is as good as the F-35’s, or 85% of the other two. It’s not like claiming ridiculous all-aspect stealth via 3 small fixed jamming arrays that don’t even cover the full threat volume, on an unstealthy airframe loaded to the brim with stores.
BarnesWwhy would you want to “spot” the aircraft if you have a video channel with high magnifying capabilities that can do it for you… Rafales can visually identify targets (aircraft) and even the armaments they carry (externally, obviously) at distances up to 50km (27nm) away ( according to wiki: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale – sorry for posting french version, the english speaking one isn’t as complete about the systems) . Now, if the french do it today, don’t you think that most, if not all, other players will/do try their best to get similar capabilities ? With the RoE over the last few decades, BVR missiles could pretty much never be used in BVR, as they required the positive identification of the aircraft in front of the shooter. If you can identify it 50km away, you can launch your missiles long before the other guy can confirm who you are and shoot at you (unless his RoE allow him to shoot without having to see you first)
Oh wow, so at 40km an OSF sensor that’s now floating downwards on a piece of debris will be able to see the stealth aircraft that’s blown it to pieces. Sadly OSF also doesn’t allow targeting, without a few laser pulses and a second Rafale, so there is no passive BVR targeting ability.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafale39s-export-prospects-318499/
Actually you’ll find the F-15Cs in Desert Storm had NCTR and made ~16 shots from beyond 10nm. Of the other 13, only 5 involved dog-fighting. Pretty sure a modern AESA will also do NCTR. Also very sure EOTS can see from a greater range than OSF.
BarnesWAlthough I disagree, could you please explain/ elaborate on why you think this can’t be done by the other side too? Aren’t you overconfident?
Okay, I’ll play along, suppose it can. What do you do? Build a non-stealth aircraft and turn a fair fight into a certain loss?
I think the F-35 will have the edge on technology based on history. Plus, consider this, optically/IR, which of these do you think is easiest to spot? J-20 is bigger still.
Sign In
