Eurofighter Typhoon

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post25 Sep 2020, 17:38

hornetfinn wrote:I really wonder what he is referring to here? At least Danish evaluation didn't support this and I don't know of any other real and trustworthy data about operating costs.


The closest you'll get is the UK's recent Project Tytan. Like most things to do with Typhoon its the UK driving it forward. The cost per hour has been dramatically lowered, and is apparently on track to hit the goal of a similar per hour cost as F-16. The benefit to industry and the RAF is the cost savings are re-invested in upgrades and enhancements (with one of the goals of reducing the number of fleets within fleets).

As this is UK funded the other partners will need to pay to get the benefits of the UK's work, apparently Saudi, Qatar and Oman will be getting the benefits from the UK and BAE as part of their support arrangements

https://sldinfo.com/2018/06/the-coming- ... -strategy/
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 664
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 14:14

Quadriga award launches Tranche 4 Eurofighter production for Germany
By Craig Hoyle, 12 November 2020

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/qu ... 07.article


Airbus Defence & Space has received a contract to build a Tranche 4 batch of 38 Eurofighters for the German air force, following recent parliamentary approval for the Project Quadriga acquisition.
[...]
Germany had separately signed a contract in June to acquire 110 Captor-E Mk1 AESA radars for use with its existing Tranche 2- and 3-standard combat aircraft.
[...]
“Its technical capabilities will allow full integration into the European Future Combat Air System,” Hoke adds (Airbus Defence & Space chief executive).
[...]
With the Typhoon currently in production for export customers Kuwait and Qatar, the Eurofighter consortium is also anticipating a potential repeat purchase from Spain, which is seeking replacements for its Boeing F-18s.


Those will replace 31 Tranche 1 fighters. Tranche 2 & 3 will be upgraded with AESAs, apparently.

Oh and by the way the contract for those 38 is worth 5,4 billion euros.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4291
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 15:13

The point about Rafale being a more "well rounded" performer is probably spot on, especially if the requirements involve air to everything. Absurd cost though will prevent them from acquiring it in the numbers they want. To do that, they'll probably need to buy a hodge podge of Rafale's, Mig-35's and Tejas II (or III, or whatever they're up to now), LOL.

Every western jet under evaluation just seems like too much $, ditto for the European birds. Unless.... they buy used SH Block II's perhaps, from the US Navy? Some low hour airframes might be attractive, especially considering they'd be carrier capable. That way, India could get rid of their pesky Mig-29K's, or transfer them to fly from land bases.

In the end, they'll probably have to procure most airframes from Russia, build them at home, buy used or .... come to terms with a smaller fleet.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5030
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 16:29

has any nation actually ordered the CFTs for the Typhoon? Seems like that, TVC, and AMK all became a "hey check out ways to upgrade!" that no one bought.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2899
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 18:00

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:has any nation actually ordered the CFTs for the Typhoon? Seems like that, TVC, and AMK all became a "hey check out ways to upgrade!" that no one bought.


So far its only been mocked up in 2014. There are no working models as far as I can find. There was even talk at one time of an enlarged spine, but it never had any artwork to show what they meant. I assume they were using outline of two-seater to hide extra fuel behind the pilot.
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post26 Nov 2020, 15:51

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:has any nation actually ordered the CFTs for the Typhoon? Seems like that, TVC, and AMK all became a "hey check out ways to upgrade!" that no one bought.


CFT's are officially dead. Aerodynamic issues apparently (according to Airbus). TVC was trialled on the ground but would cost a lot to implement for marginal gains (more for fuel efficiency than manoeuverability). The interesting one will be the AMK. It could well make an appearance on the Quadriga Typhoons and Spanish order, Germany in particular may be interested as they did the bulk of the development.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2162
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post14 Feb 2021, 22:23

Some words on CFTs, AMK and a CGI beast mode (maybe?)

https://theaviationist.com/2021/02/14/e ... -missiles/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Feb 2021, 10:58

Britain's Space Command training to send fighter jets to space to destroy enemy satellites

BRITAIN'S fledgling Space Command could soon be sending RAF Typhoon fighter jets to the "edge of space" to rehearse destroying enemy satellites, senior sources revealed yesterday.

“Top Gun” fighter pilots have been selected for training missions aimed at combating Chinese and Russian military and communication satellites in times of war. Simulated exercises are set to get under way before flying training exercises take place. Training flights without missiles would see Typhoon pilots fly to 40,000ft before embarking on a 20,000ft vertical climb. During a real-life attack they would target enemy satellites and release anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles at 60,000ft, before returning.

Russia and China have already developed ground, air and sea-based ASAT missiles capable of destroying GPS and telecomms satellites.

The plans are revealed just two weeks after Air Commodore Paul Godfrey – a seasoned Typhoon
pilot – was appointed as the first head of UK Space Command.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston has warned that while it is still considered “contentious” to talk about space as a military domain, it would be “tantamount to negligence” if the UK armed forces failed to take seriously the threats posed to crucial satellite functions such as communications and GPS navigation.

“A future conflict may not start in space but I am in no doubt it will transition very quickly to space, and it may even be won or lost in space,” he said. “So we have to be ready to protect and, if necessary, defend our critical national interests.

We have already seen nations such as China, Russia and others developing anti-satellite capabilities.”

While the UK does not yet possess anti-satellite missiles, the US has had the technology since the 1980s, when one was fired from a fighter jet to down an old weather satellite.

Russia has now demonstrated two types of space weapons: direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles which launch from the ground, and a space-based system said last year to have been fired from another satellite.

Last year the Pentagon confirmed China already has ground-based missiles that can hit satellites moving in “low Earth orbit”.

RAF sources last night added that while the UK is driving discussion of responsible behaviour in space at the UN, it would be “folly not to explore fully the capabilities required for satellite denial”.


The US’s current SM-3 anti-satellite missiles can be mounted under the wings of RAF Typhoons.

Justin Bronk, research fellow at the RUSI think tank, said: “The benefits of having ASAT based on a ship or plane is that you can fire it from wherever you want.

“It doesn’t take a Typhoon long to reach the equator.”

But even if the UK acquired SM-3s, because of their length they would have to be fitted under the wings of Typhoons which may cause an issue with weight distribution.

Mr Bronk added: “It’s not an insurmountable problem but it certainly makes sense to use Typhoon simulators – where Typhoons fly up to 40,000ft before pulling up to get a zoom climb to 60,000ft – in order to clear the asymmetry issues.”


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/14 ... satellites
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Feb 2021, 11:09

Why would they want to carry the SM-3 under the wing in the first place??? Seems like the center line would be a "no brainer"....(just saying)
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post24 Feb 2021, 18:34

Clearance issues with the nose gear, the external tank only just clears the nose gear doors and an SM-3 is longer (I think).

Same thing with the inner-most pylons, they have to limit what is mounted on them due to the main gear behind. Hence why Storm Shadow is mounted on the next pair out.

I note that artists impression showing multiple meteor.... the inner pairs position would foul the main gear too.

Andy

Image
Andy Evans Aviation Photography
www.evansaviography.co.uk
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5030
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post24 Feb 2021, 21:22

6 LGBs, no targeting pod, and four empty AMRAAM stations.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post24 Feb 2021, 21:56

It was an early fit/demo flight by a development aircraft, back then there were also plans for the targeting pod to be fitted on a front shoulder station too but in the end they went with the centreline pylon instead.

I used the shot to show the clearances for the pylons/stores with the undercarriage.
Andy Evans Aviation Photography
www.evansaviography.co.uk
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5030
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post24 Feb 2021, 22:42

Okay, that's fair.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Feb 2021, 01:42

boff180 wrote:Clearance issues with the nose gear, the external tank only just clears the nose gear doors and an SM-3 is longer (I think).

Same thing with the inner-most pylons, they have to limit what is mounted on them due to the main gear behind. Hence why Storm Shadow is mounted on the next pair out.

I note that artists impression showing multiple meteor.... the inner pairs position would foul the main gear too.

Andy

Image



GOOD POINT........
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 9 guests