eagle8 AAMs is the maximum I’ve seen. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/royal-air-force-typhoons-launch-with-new-missile/
Also with AMRAAMs instead of Meteors.
Luftwaffe EF in Estonia carrying AMRAAMs on stations 2/12: https://www.zdf.de/assets/teletext-dpa-image-eurofighter-ueber-estland-archiv-100~1920×1080?cb=1528743142783
Italian test F-2000 carrying Meteors on stations 2/12: http://www.ausairpower.net/NATO/Typhoon-Meteor-2008-1S.jpg
6 BVR / 2 WVR missiles seems to be the maximum, with all 6 of those BVR weapons potentially being Meteors.
I haven’t seen any AAMs on stations 4/10 (inner wing) nor have I seen the twin rails for WVR AAMs in flight.
eagleHm I cant edit posts…
Anyway, I just wanted to add that none of the contestants actually has operational CFTs.
eagleBwah. If it has to go on a pylon it’s an afterthought. But the radar is smaller anyway.
It is an afterthought. But that also doesn’t affect IRST performance. The radar is smaller yes, but probably pretty good otherwise.
The Typhoon had Striker in 2008 but Striker II with integrated night-vision is available now, very similar to F-35 helmet.
Rafale had nothing. I.e. a substantial improvement in 2018.
The Gripen fuel fraction is below 30% and any external stores will degrade it further because it’s a smaller aircraft. Higher % weight and drag increase per store.
I’m aware. EF fuel fraction is 31.25% at 11 tons empty. So slightly lower for T3 jets. Not a big difference.
In 2008 it was an old mechanically scanned radar, which would massively affect range, detection, acquisition, NCTR/ident and subsequently SA and QRA too, not to mention the lack of simultaneous A2G/A2A, SAR, passive modes, swash plate AoR etc. The old mechanically scanned radar still won on engagement though.
Let’s not forget that Typhoon scored maximum for performance last time and won by a mile and a marginal weight increase is offset by the 1kN improvement between the Mk.100 and Mk.101. The balance is negligible relative to fuel movements.
Again you make it sound as if 2018 Typhoon is competing against 2008 rivals. In a shocking move, Boeing, Dassault, LM and Saab have decided to offer their 2018 models aswell…
Fuel could be moved before the weight was added. Of course, an unstable FBW aircraft can cope with 100kg easily but it will affect performance somewhat. Definitely not improving it.
8bn Swiss Francs. That would buy about 60 Typhoon, Rafales or F-35s, but when you start adding training course material, weapons, spares, GME and logistics support, it becomes a very small air force and of course overheads become relatively larger as numbers decline.
It will be a small force because the requirement is for 30-40 jets depending on performance and mixture of fighters and SAMs.
Everything is probably overkill for Swiss needs, F-35 massively so, but the Typhoon is by no means least impressive once you factor in Captor-E, the CFTs, integration of EPWII, UK Paveway IV, Brimstone, Storm Shadow, and DASS upgrade, new countermeasures, BriteCloud. When you go back to your chart, factor in all the improvements in the affected sectors that amounts to on top of the fact that it won Performance, Pilot Workload and Engagement with maximum points in two, that’s a very filled out chart for the Typhoon. The only unaffected sectors are probably CNI and data dissemination.
There’s needs and there’s requirements. Requirements at least are demanding. CFTs and many A/G stores are irrelevant for Switzerland. It depends of course what Swiss AF wants, but Storm Shadow is probably not on their list. GP Bombs however…
And again, EF doesn’t have exclusive rights on improving their product.
eagleTomcatViP – They preferred the Rafale last time but they selected the Gripen because of price. I believe they also have mountain hangars that only the Gripen would fit it. Any other aircraft would have to have a folding fin.
Gripen was selected for political reasons, to sell it to the public as the reasonable choice. Obviously because of price, but could have selected Rafale easily.
If NFK doesn’t fit into the caverns, they will have to be enlarged again. No folding fins.
Maybe the caverns were enlarged beyond the minimum required to fit F-18C/Ds… When that was done, dimensions of future fighters were well known. After all Jäger 90 aka Eurofighter first flight was in 1994.
eagleeagle – It matters for drag and RCS. Yes AN/ALQ-214 does have DRFM from (V)2 onwards actually. That HMCS does not match Striker II for performance. The Gripen is a much smaller airframe that will be inundated with tanks and pods to perform any mission because its fuel fraction is so low, so its clean RCS is irrelevant. Rafale isn’t much smaller, but the Typhoon radar aperture area is about 50% greater than either. The Typhoon was already close for SA and Ident and ahead on Engagement in 2008 even with the mechanically scanned unit. For aircraft performance it will blitz the other 4 as it did with Gripen and Rafale last time.
Drag and RCS? Yes but not IRST performance. That was the point. EF’s IRST is not superior because it’s integrated. It might be superior if it’s… well, superior.
Didn’t Rafale not have an HMCS in 2008, whereas EF did? Results don’t inspire confidence that somehow Rafale with HMCS is now worse.
Not many tanks and no pods are required for air defence missions (except SH). Fuel fractions are actually pretty comparable now, provided Gripen won’t gain even more weight.
Agreed Typhoon has the advantage in radar size. But it had the same advantage in 2008. Given an aperture area 1.5 times greater it surely didn’t impress in detection, identification and acquisition. What makes you think only EF got better in the meantime?
Only one plane actually got improved performance, that is the Gripen. Slightly better TWR, again provided weight is kept at 8 t. No idea about Rafale weight gain, but it probably didn’t lose any. EF gained 100 kg thanks to the AESA alone, and that’s in the nose, i.e. needs balancing. Structural reinforcements for CFT support and increased MTOW surely added a few pounds aswell. It doesn’t really matter though, there’s plenty of power.
Every aircraft is known for problems in the Luftwaffe because they don’t maintain them properly and have most of them sitting in a state of inoperability. Can’t blame the plane for that.
The press and the public can and do. It’s not as bad as in Austria, where Typhoon is useless junk for probably the majority. But it is known as the “Problemflieger”.
Maybe Germany should not be allowed to run export campaigns in the future so the jet can be sold as British. But there won’t be a next time in Switzerland, hopefully.
The only plane they can afford is the Gripen, but to say the Typhoon is ‘underkill’. Underkill how exactly? The F-35 has the most impressive systems by a mile but the Typhoon is at least on par with the Rafale, SH and Gripen E on systems this time around.
No the budget is 8 billion Swiss francs. Surely one can afford some Typhoons with that amount.
Typhoon as a weapon system just doesn’t impress very much, that’s why I don’t consider it overkill as someone has suggested. If that’s overkill, so is everyone else.
eagleThe Swiss market is tailor made for the Gripen E/F, capabilities be damned. IMO, this is a two horse race: Gripen/Rafale. The shame is that there are probably Typhoon tranche 1 that could be available for lease (looking at Spain, Germany), that would meet Swiss needs at the fraction of the cost of a new procurement.
The Gripen is burdened with the loser and paperplane image though.
And T1 Typhoon? So Swiss AF will run out of spares a few years after delivery? No one wants T1. I’d rather have used F-16s.
eagleeagle – The SH does not have proper airframe-integrated IRST, not sure about DRFM jamming. HMCS might be available for the Rafale, but to date it is not integrated and I don’t know of any plans to do it for the FAF. That chart is also massively out-of-date. Gripen’s radar is much smaller, as is the Rafale’s. And you did say ‘least impressive on systems’ but you have now at least retracted that as regards the SH. I would also argue that the Typhoon comes out on top on aircraft performance and pilot workload still, whilst it will be far more competitive on all radar-related categories, which actually amount to 6 of the other categories, of which there are only 16 in total.
For IRST performance, it doesn’t matter if it’s mounted internally or podded. SH is equipped with AN/ALQ-214 internal ECM and ALE-55 towed decoys, don’t know about DRFM.
Egyptian and/or Qatari Rafales have HMCS, don’t they?
Much smaller radar? Maybe but the Gripen is also a smaller airframe with probably lower RCS, same for the Rafale I guess. So I wouldn’t be so sure EF in 2018 has the advantage in detection. Same for all radar related categories actually, since all the radars have been updated.
SH is the outsider as I said, but at least in A/G and recce its superior.
Actually I think Typhoon’s chances are very slim aswell. The aircraft is mainly known for its problems in German and Austrian service in German speaking Switzerland, while French speaking Switzerland is pro Rafale anyway. Note: as with the idea that F-35 is super expensive, actual facts don’t really matter… it’s just the public opinion or image.
eagleExport AESA radar is due later this year or early next year, production contracts have already been signed. It will also have the second largest AESA radar. It also has DRFM jammers and IRST, which is more than can be said for the SH. It also has longer range AAMs than the SH. In fact, a plane flying in the middle of Switzerland would be able to shoot down aircraft across the borders. It also has HMCS, which at present the Rafale does not have, with the Striker II option also available. I think you’ve made a very callous statement based on something that was only half-true 10 years ago.
Eagle, in what particular way is the Typhoon the “least impressive regarding systems” by comparison with the Gripen E, the SH and the Rafale in a Swiss scenario?
Everyone has AESA, jammers and IRST (well F-35 has EOTS). HMCS too, it’s also available for Rafale.
The SH is the only jet without Meteor, but I consider the SH a total outsider anyway.
Back in 2008:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tCTo3lXMWEAEQl3n.jpg Views:t0 Size:t53.4 KB ID:t3848680″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3848680″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”CTo3lXMWEAEQl3n.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
But what about updates? Well all jets have seen updates since 2008.
F.e. Gripen and Typhoon have esentially the same radar and IRST, but the rest of Gripen’s systems are brand new. I hesitate to link to BEST FIGHTER FOR CANADA (all caps, really?), but the cockpit pics speak for themselves. http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c…/cockpits.html
Also, I forgot A/G and recce is actually still a requirement for NFK. That’s where EF scored lowest.
eagleThis duo of GE404 is among the most noisy engine pack mounted on any 4th gen aircraft IMO. I don’t claim my eardrum to have any form of scientific probing quality, but this feeling is generally shared among others.
Probably that this point could be a valid issue during the discussions.
I’d say 2 EJ200 are louder. But it’s probably as near as makes no difference to quote J. Clarkson.
The big difference is more likely take off profiles. I.e. is take off without afterburners possible, and what angles of climb are possible. Gripen is most likely the only contender to always use burners.
Not sure if noise is part of the evaluation. At least it’s not mentioned in released requirements.
eagleJust because it’s printed does not make it true, even if it’s not a “tabloid”.
Of course not. But the belief that the F-35 is incredibly expensive has become general knowledge of some sort. So not even journalists who usually do some research (as opposed to tabloids) don’t research or do it poorly… because why look up some numbers when everyone knows its the most expensive option anyway.
F-35, like Gripen, will have to face an uphill battle in the PR department, that’s for sure. At least, any referendum will be held before type selection this time. But still, politicians would have some serious explaining to do in the event they select F-35 or Gripen. Not sure if they’re keen on doing so.
And that’s in addition to of the general debate whether any new fighters are needed at all.
eagleArmasuisse 2030 RFI asks the pricing of a) 30 airframes or b) 40 airframes and c) a fleet of medium range SAM´s.
Thats called a) halving the Swiss fast jet fleet, b) two sqn´s capable of QRA 24/7, c) replacing a huge amount of Rapier SAM units by a much smaller force of medium range SAM´s, and thats it. What it certainly does not call is for “serious tactical deterrence”, you dont do that by replacing six sqn´s of combat jet with thirty or fourty airframes.
That about hits the nail on the head.
A more serious deterrence has been buried with TTE (Tiger Teil Ersatz, Tiger partial replacement aka Gripen deal from 2012). TTE would have included regaining A/G and recce core capabilities, building a knowledge base that could have been increased in a reasonable amount of time in a crisis (“Aufwuchskern”).
eagleSry Mags, but swiss now have a 24/7 QRA. Not that it is so important in the debate.
Not yet, it’s now 6 to 22 h every day, since January 1st this year. Full 24/7 QRA will be available at the end of 2020:
https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/…-id-73559.html
Payerne residents are not amused. :sleeping:
eagleSwiss probably know what’s better for them. Switzerland has always maintained a strong army while being neutral and at peace since a long time. I won’t see their approach changing any time soon, especially when populism, set ablaze like a stray of gasoline by the social media, is ravaging Europe here and there (Europe as understood in the geographical term) and beyond it’s economical zone of influence. It is then even more important for them today to get some serious tactical deterrence. As I understand this, their RFI completely translate this idea, calling for a better secured Switzerland… and not for a protective buddy.
Swiss armed forces are strong only if you look at numbers of potential boots on the ground. Equipment is poor. The air force will be reduced to 30-40 fighter jets, without any strike or recce capability. The newest RFI actually does away with any serious aerial war fighting capability. 24/7 QRA with the option to sustain a CAP of 2 jets for sometime is required.
For comparison, Singapore maintains strong armed forces.
eagleSecond hand versions of whatever Germany, Austria or France are operating probably makes a lot of sense for the Swiss, send your pilots and techies across the alps form training and get spare parts via a train journey. Keep it cheap and simple. Having said that, Austria tried the very same idea with Eurofighters and is not happy.
That doesn’t make sense at all. Second hand what, Mirage 2000? Swiss Hornets are newer. EF T1? No, thanks.
eagleCan we please define what is overkill for Switzerland? We’re talking about a neutral country surrounded by friendly nations who hasn’t fought any other country since 1815 and has never fought an air war/campaign ever. I would therefore submit that all 5 entries are overkill. The height of this aircraft’s duties will involve accompanying airliners with faulty transponders.
“Underkill” because the Typhoon is the least impressive regarding systems.
The questions about general Swiss needs are another matter.
Sign In
