It is part of the AMK aka wing apex strakes aka LERX/LEX.

As Scorpions pointed out already, probably refers to roll rate in very specific (particularly challenging) circumstances, not across the entire flight envelope. High AoA would be my guess, too (in that regard the AoA and roll rate improvements might be related – achievable AoA possibly having been limited by acceptable roll control previously).

It not probably relates to AoA roll performance it definitely does so.

To a limited extend. It’s mainly the dogfighting performance that benefits. Hence the main argument for the AMK is the easier weapons integration especially wrt heavy stores, asymetric loadouts and loadout diversity to a lesser extend. It’s also believed that these changes might be necessary to integrate CFTs. The current CFT design looks distinctly different to the one known from the various mock-ups and renders. It’s in a nutshell sleaker, whether it will stay that way is yet another question.

http://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/flight-test-of-eurofighter-aerodynamic-upgrades-completed/

Excellent!
25% more lift
45% more AoA
100% more roll rate

A new plane… I guess it’s what Scorpion wrote about.

That’s what I have been talking about. It is noteworthy that “up to” for these values would be a better fitting description as it’s not across the flight envelope.

It’s furthermore fair to say that the max roll rate hasn’t changed at all, the performance increase here is valid for high AoA rolls where the roll rate is about double that of the current performance even at AoA limits beyond the one cleared for current production standard aircraft.

As far as the AoA is concerned an operational config would likely yield a ~25% increase of the AoA limit, with a possible override to achieve the 45% increase which was demonstrated in the flight trials. More is believed to be possible, but would most likely not be of operational relevance.

In sum the AMK plus some FCS improvements which were tested along the aerodynamics promise some serious benefits in certain parts of the flight envelope, but this increase also includes some performance recovery margin where the current aircraft falls a bit short of the certain performance requirements.

Yes, maybe a workable system would allow the developer (in this case the UK) to charge the other nations part-developmental cost as and when they decide to install the upgrades too.

Mechanisms like this already exist and the Eurofighter programme is in transition for quite some time to respond to customer requirements in a more reactive and flexible fashion. There is still a lot of room for improvement, but the fruits of the transformation have started to be earned already.

Nations are already contractimg partners to carry out developments in their respective area of responsibility aka System Design Responsibility in EF parlance. The Buisiness Case process allows customers to define requirements and present them to the rest of the partners, they can proceed if no one elde joins or share funding with other interested customers. Capabilities developed are already being shared recovering some funds from partners who buy in later and in other cases mutual support agreements are used to exchange certain capabilities in return for receiving stuff from other partners.

The programme is not that inflexible and slow in these regards as it used to be in the past.

Examples for this are numerous, for example partners have bought into the UK developed radar and DASS enhancements for example, the Drops past Drop 1 have all been developed under mutual support agreements and are even teansfered to Eurofighter managed programmes (T1EP1) and are even offered to export customers (Austria).

One problem that remains are national clearances. A NETMA clearance is always followed by national clearances which are different in any nation. The British are for example far more pragmatic than the Germans. The result of this is that the RAF is fielding capabilities sometimes 2+ years earlier!

25% right or 25% wrong :angel:

The former. One out of four listed by Sintra is spot on. As said shouldn’t be far away, so some patience is appropriate. Unless something unforesee happens at the last moment.

Sounds like one, doesn’t it? 😉

You are free to believe what you want Lukos. I rather trust in the sources that people depent on to operate the real aircraft, rather than a public website. Such websites aren’t created by experts on the matter, they are created by the IT/PR departments or even external providers who get an info package sanitized for publication and typically simple enough for the wider audience to grasp. Real professionals with genuine interest, i.e. potential export customers get more detailled and accurate briefings. While the official sources are typically the most reliable in the public domain, they aren’t necessarily fault free. The images posted from PAG at Augsburg or from aircraft still in their primer are more conclusive than simplified illustrations.

Another example where eurofighter.com was plain wrong for a long time were the graphical illustrations of weapon loadouts or even the renders or photo shopped images showing weapons like Taurus or GBU-24 on the IB wing pylons, that’s physically not possible as these stores are simply too large and would interfere with the MLG. Didn’t prevent the PR department from releasing them. Apparently not every error contained is obvious as the above one, but it should give you a clue that even the most official sources can be wrong, whether by error or even intention is yet another question. What matters at the end of the day are facts and every sane and halfway honest person shouldn’t outrightly dismiss something because it doesn’t suite his argument. As far as the intakes are concerned the countless photographs should leave no doubt that they are made from metal and not composites, even without first hand access to relevant information.

Enough said from my side on that subject.