Scorpion82Like Loofah Boy said, the flight control systems are redundant. That of the Typhoon is a quadruplex system.
Scorpion82It’s not just about cost, but also capability. The Gripen is cheaper but also less powerful. No one of the customers is likely to train their pilots better with Gripen. The FH would be the same.
Scorpion82Well block 1 aircraft used the less powerful EIS version of the EJ200 MK101 and the internal fuel load was lower (just applies to the twin seaters as there were no block 1 single seaters). There were different versions of the FCS with the early ones posing servere restrictions for maneuvering. As all aircraft are supposed to be brought to a common block 5 configuration this won’t matter in the future at all. The rest were mainly additions/improvments to the avionics and integration of various weapons.
Scorpion82I’ve heard that the Typhoons in RAF service will carry the designation Typhoon FGR4. Is this the case?
Going back a few years would a single Tornado FGR varient have served the RAF better than the two seperate F/GR varients did?
Sorry to move the topic of the thread slightly 😮
The RAF uses following designations for its tranche 1 Typhoons.
Typhoon T.Mk1 = block 1 twin seater
Typhoon T.Mk1A = block 2/2B twin seater
Typhoon F.Mk2 = block 2/2B single steaer
Typhoon T.Mk3 = block 5 twin seater
Typhoon FGR.4 = block 5 single seater
I doubt that a FGR variant of the Tornado would have been feasable. The ADV differs in a number of areas from the IDS. Fighter specific modifications including engines, longer nose with new radar and revised fuselage stations for the carriage of BVR AAMs.
Scorpion82Just to correct some thoguhts here, I will quote wihtout naming the poster.
also the GR4’s will be replaced by the Typhoon eventually !!
Well I spoke to one of the pilots at Lossiemouth and he correctly said, in 10 years, the base will have Typhoons.
This pilot is wrong or knows something know one else knows, including the RAF headquaters.
At the moment it is not planned to replace any Tornado GR.4 with the Typhoon. I wouldn’t be surprised if the RAF eventually do it (replacing GR.4s with the Typhoon), but it is definitely not planned. And no Lossimouth isn’t intended to become an operating base for the Typhoon.
I’m sure they are based at RAF Coningsby, Am I correct?
That’s correct all current RAF Typhoon squadrons (No.17R, No.29R, No.3F & No.11F) are based at RAF Coningsby. The next RAF base where Typhoons will be based will be RAF Leuchars from 2011 onwards earliest. It was originally planned to base additional Typhoon squadrons at RAF Leeming, but this plan is left open and will also depend on the RAFs future base concept and if the service receives its full complement of 232 aircraft.
What was that first Typhoon called we had?
it was a black one, I don’t see that about anymore?
The aircraft was designated DA2 (ZH588). DA2 was the first british Typhoon prototype, one of 2 built by BAE Systems. The aircraft which was first flown on April 6th 1994 was the prototype with the most flight hours/flights and was withdrawn in december 2006 when the tranche 1 development was completed. As TEEJ said the aircraft can now be found in the RAF Museum at Hendon. BTW the aircraft received the black paint in 2000 to cover a large number of pressure sensors applied to the airframe. Before that time DA2 used a 2 tone color scheme.
Scorpion82I would presume the initial Typhoon to go down will be F2, the FGR4 are too useful elsewhere.
No they will have block 5 software (FGR.4), but they won’t use the version with austrere support.
You made no mention of Block 8, Scorps. And I’m not yet a mind reader.
Quite apart from the fact that the RAF will hardly get any Block 8s, and that those they do get will be used by the OEU and for Saudi training, I don’t see the UK sending its newest Typhoons (those that haven’t been shaken down post delivery) down to MPA. What would be the point, even if there were enough of them to support a four aircraft det?
Ah well, I see it was my fault. Wrong quote. My post was intended be a reply to whitfcs post:
the RAF will be getting 7 of the first Tranche 2 Typhoons. I understand that these aircraft will only have the F2 software and not the ‘austere’ air-to-ground software of the FGR4.
I erronously quoted Fedaykin.
Scorpion82Scorps,
All RAF FGR4s (which means all RAF tranche 1 aircraft) will have Block 5 software AND hardware via the R1/R2 upgrade, and all have or will have the austere A-G capability.
There won’t be ANY RAF Block 5 aircraft that don’t have ‘austere support.’
Have I said something different? My post refered to the block 8/tranche 2 models which lack the austere package, but which also use the SRP 4 of block 5/tranche 1 aircraft at the beginning before being upgraded with P1E when it becomes available;)
Scorpion82Why not?
They will be upgraded later to the P1E standard. Would be a doubled effort, to costly and not really neccessary.
Scorpion82On that note I wonder how the ramp up is going to start operations at MPA, have the fit tests happened yet for the C17 to fly the airframe down.
I would presume the initial Typhoon to go down will be F2, the FGR4 are too useful elsewhere.
No they will have block 5 software (FGR.4), but they won’t use the version with austrere support.
Scorpion82I am curious: what capabilities would make Norway prefer Typhoon to Gripen? Granted the Typhoon is larger and can carry a larger payload. Gripen on the other hand has a very short turn-around time. Typhoon has the much-hyped supercruise (which NG also will have, maybe probably less super although we can’t tell until it’s been tested).
However will those advantages be enough to defend the higher costs? Presumably it will also be much more expensive to operate.
Do you see other advantages? To me it seems both will become very capable 4.5 gen platforms around 2015, with AESA radars, IRST, improved data link, electronic warfare systems, etc. etc.
If you consider that fighters never operate in a vacuum, that missile range and capabilities are also very important (and improving), and that tactics and training also play an important role, I am not sure if Typhoon will have much of a “real-world” advantage but I may be wrong… (and probably somebody will tell me why :))
L
So how much shorter is the Gripens turn around time in comparison to the Typhoon? Many claim the Gripen has an advantage here, but no one can come up with concrete data which proves that point.
Until now Gripen NG is nothing else than a paper aircraft. Some of the technologies will be tested with the Gripen Demo aircraft which somewhat resembles the Gripen NGs configuration. So far there is no customer for the Gripen NG at all. The Typhoon is more expensive to procure and operate given its larger size and twin engine design. But it is not neccessarily much more expensive to operate let alone more maintainance intensive taking the second engine apart.
The Gripen is currently the better developed multirole fighter, but that is just a matter of time when Typhoon can use a broader range of weapon options.
The Typhoon is basically more powerfull and will enjoy an edge in that area. In its current form the Typhoon features already systems such as LWR, MAWS or TRD which are just offered as potential options for the Gripen NG. Typhoons current Captor radar is much more powerfull and the current Gripens lack an IRST/FLIR device as well. So far there is much proposed for the Gripen but by far not everything presented or available. This is of course true for the Typhoon as well at least when it comes to its proposed multirole capabilities which are basically limited for the moment.
Scorpion82I won’t quote anybody but in many aspects people were more amazed by the Rafale’s capabilities than with the Eurofighters.
Would be interesting to know what capabilities are meant…
Scorpion82What sort of range can we expect from a Tranche 3 Typhoon with CFT and underwing/centreline tanks? The weight of fuel will affect maximum super cruise speed, but will the extra drag/shape of the conformal fuel tanks?
A saw a range figure years ago stating combat radius would be 1800 km+ with 3 tanks and CFTs. The CFTs are likely to increase drag but probably not as much as the external tanks. A Typhoon with CFTs instead of drop tanks might perform better, but the tanks can be dropped, while the CFTs can not.
Scorpion82It is said that the capacity of the CFT for Eurofighter is around 1500 kg fuel per tank.
1500 l not kg.
It is said that Rafale could reach:
A. The striking radius of 1,850 km+ with 4,700 ~ 4,800 kg internal fuel, two 1,250 kg CFTs and three 2,000 L tanks (which is roughly equal to 7,300 kg external fuel in total), two SCALP-EG CMs, and two to four MICA AAMs for self-defense.
Again 1250 l not kg. Where is it stated that the 1850 km range figure is based on a 2 x CFT+3 x 2000 l tank combo? The Typhoon combat radius is given with up to 1400 km for a strike mission with Hi-Lo-Hi profile or 10 min CAP and that is achieved with 3 x 1000 l tanks. With the Rafale carrying twice the external fuel using 3 x 2000 l tanks a 1850 km range figure is quite reasonable.
C. The combat radius of 1,850 km+ with 4,700 ~ 4,800 kg internal fuel, three 2,000 L and two 1,250 L tanks (which is roughly equal to 6,800 kg external fuel in total), and six to eight MICA AAMs.
Just six MICAs in such a configuration, but it’s no operational configuration at all. 5 drop tanks are used for ferry flights or refueling missions at best.
Scorpion82Well the CAESAR demonstrator was funded by the EuroRadar consortium. AMSAR and othger projects like CECAR are government funded. The CAESAR trials with DA5 were indeed financed by the german defence procurment agency (BWB). CAESAR was just a demonstrator Captor-E seems to be a new design.
Scorpion82A well reasoned response I suppose if you are in denial.
Let me see if I got this straight. Eurofighter GmbH, the manufacturer of the product publishes something that you would think would be in their interest to show in as best a light as possible yet you call it nonsense and would rather use old, out of date information and hearsay.
Yup, I can see I will not be spending too much time on this forum. I have better things to do than to argue with people who have a hard time separating fact from rumour and fiction. The sad thing is you have your head stuck in the sand when what you really should be doing is asking the MOD and BAE what we are getting for 68M.
It’s of course true that every manufacturer puts its product into the best light. What I mean is that various sources spoke about higher supercruise speeds over years. You have comments from pilots, data published by the different manufacturers and customers and yet a single aviation magazine publishing a different value without any explaination must be right:rolleyes:
OMG we were all fooled all the time and anything else than the worst is wrong.
So prove anything of what you have claimed… (just in a dive, engines being unuseable after that…)
Sign In
