Should Tranche 3 Typhoon be scrapped?

[Pingu]

In my opinion, the third tranche of Typhoons should be scrapped. I've always thought the Tyhpoon is a very capable aircraft but as time goes on, I can't help but feel it's been quite a waste of money.

I always hear mixed figures but as far as I am aware, it is about 7 years late and cost has risen from £7 Billion to £20 Billion for 232 Typhoons for the RAF. (If anyone could give exact figures of R&D costs and delays etc, it would be appreciated).

I think that the money saved by cutting the third tranche could be spent on retrofittinh tranche 1 and 2 aircraft to tranche 3 standard and then extra savings should be spent on more assets of the "force mix" Tornado Replacement.

I am unsure of whether the UK intended on retrofitting the trache 1 and 2 Typhoons to tranche 3 standard after delivery of tranche 3 aircraft so again, any information would be appreciated.

At the moment, the Typhoons don't look to be as capable in some areas where it's needed. I believe that Conformal Fuel Tanks and Thrust Vectoring should be added and also, the CEASAR radar should be introduced sooner as AESA radars are becoming very numerous on other aircraft.

Thoughts please?

[kato]

At the moment, the Typhoons don't look to be as capable in some areas where it's needed. I believe that Conformal Fuel Tanks and Thrust Vectoring should be added and also, the CEASAR radar should be introduced sooner as AESA radars are becoming very numerous on other aircraft.

CFT - what for really? The Typhoon isn't a deep penetration strike bomber.
TVC - Eurojet is working on it, potential EOC for Tranche 3.
CAESAR - will most likely be offered for Tranche 3 contract in 2009. CAESAR won't be ready for operational use before 2010+ anyway.


I am unsure of whether the UK intended on retrofitting the trache 1 and 2 Typhoons to tranche 3 standard after delivery of tranche 3 aircraft so again, any information would be appreciated.

See here (http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article258.asp).

All Block 1, 2, 2B Eurofighters (115 total; that's Tranche 1) have been upgraded with the R2 program to Block 5, which is considered FOC (Final Operational Capability; meaning it includes full A2G capability).
Block 1 aircraft will be upgraded last, as they are all twin-seat trainers anyway. Also "The R2 programme is paving the way for future upgrades to Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 aircraft".

[Tornado F3]

I heard on another forum that there was a rumor that the Tranche 3 typhoon might have thrust vectoring.

well i was a bit late since Kato posted it at the exact minute lol

[Scorpion82]

TVC is unlikely as there is no requirement for the moment. CFT is still an option, but there is currently no requirement too.
A productionized version of the CASESAR is the most likely upgrade for the Typhoon, though there is currently no requirement either.

Considering that the aircraft will serve until 2040 or longer a specific number of aircraft is needed to fullfil the RAFs needs. Some operational reserves are necessary and the more aircraft you have the more you can distribute the flight hours over the single airframes. This enables you to use the aircraft longer, and is cheaper in the end. As it looks like, T3 will be very similar to T2 to save costs. We will have to wait.

I doubt that the costs have risen from 7 to 20 bln. The costs has been increased but for sure not by that amount. The 7 bln probably doesn't include all the costs including R&D, production preparation, logistics, training, spares, weapons integration etc.

[Satorian]

I consider TVC unlikely as well. Seems they'd rather focus on HMCS and a capable WVRAAM (ASRAAM/IRIS-T).

CFT might not seem needed immediately, but I think it'd be a great option and always a plus to offer during export competitions. More fuel to play with, higher average energy state or more loiter time are always nice to have. Personally, I wouldn't mind having it adapted for Tranche 3.

AESA, although industry-funded at the moment, seems very likely to be adopted to me. AESA is the new black.


By the way, the 7 billion figure is given on Wikipedia, but the source link doesn't seem to back it up. It only mentions the rise from 16.7 billion GBP (the agreed and expected price) to 19 billion GBP.

[contedicavour]

We spent so much on R&D and F35 is so many years away that we (UK, Italy, Germany, may be a bit less Spain) all need as many Typhoons as possible to replace old Tornado ADV, F16ADF, F4Fs, Mirage F1s.
By 2015 when the first F35 equipped squadron will be ready (if no delays happen) all older types of fighters will have been deleted, and it will take 10 years (ie 2025) before the bulk of F35s are procured.
So we either sign the Tranche 3 or we'll be forced to complement the insufficient Tranche 1 and 2 planes with F18E/F or Rafales... :o :mad: :rolleyes:

Oh and let's not forget the impact such a cut would have on our defence industries...

cheers

[kato]

Following from the Bundeswehrplan 2007 and 2008 documents (Bundeswehr budget allocation planning), for how the Luftwaffe deals with it:


Captor-E radar upgrade (CAESAR) upgrade is desirable and ultimately planned, but not fundable at the moment.
Total acquisition cost (for 183 Eurofighters and R&D; parts, maintenance etc not included) is 20,617 million Euro, lowered from 20,786 million Euro long-term planning since 2005 (2007 saw a expected allocation increase to 21,139 million temporarily).
Above does not include R&D and acquisition of weapons, total allocated for these:


Meteor: 738 million (-16 million)
IRIS-T: 724 million (+16 million)
Taurus: 905 million (+9 million)


Planned numbers are by each year's end (active Jan 2007 - 31 + 1 IPU): 2007 - 42; 2008 - 52; 2011 - 103; 2012 - 112
Regarding armament, both Meteor and Taurus are considered important, both to strengthen German defence R&D, and as weapon systems to be introduced.
Luftwaffe Eurofighters all take part in the R2 retrofit (to Block 5), planned to start 2006 (actually, signed February 2007).
Luftwaffe fully intends to acquire Tranche 3 (of 68 aircraft).


Above budget allocation recalculated for the RAF (232 aircraft) would give us 17.7 billion pound, btw (current exchange rate). If the 20 billion mentioned include weapons and other "dependant" programs, it would be a realistic number.

[Pingu]

CFT - what for really? The Typhoon isn't a deep penetration strike bomber.
TVC - Eurojet is working on it, potential EOC for Tranche 3.
CAESAR - will most likely be offered for Tranche 3 contract in 2009. CAESAR won't be ready for operational use before 2010+ anyway.




CFTs, even if not used in strike missions, are advantagous in air-air missions. They could negate the need for underwing fuel tanks, or at least require only the centreline tank. This would improve perfomance and reduce RCS and also improve supercruise. This would of course reduce performance in terms of agility, which the TVC would help to solve. TVC would also reduce the close-in advantage of the modern TVC flankers.

The Typhoon may not be designed as a deep strike aircraft but I feel upgrading the Typhoon with increased thrust, TVC, CFTs, AESA (which in itself provides good ground mapping and SAR abilities) would make it a very good A2G platform in a similar way to how the USAF are intending on using their F22s.

The most likely replacement for the GR4 is the proposed "force mix" idea said to be a combination of Typhoons, F35s and a UAV. Considering the force mix is a cheap solution, then surely plenty of money could be spent on the Typhoon and since it is part of a replacement for the GR4, then dedicated A2G improvements ought to be developed.

I guess on that note, the third tranche should be procured, so as to sufficiently replace numbers of Jaguars, F3s and GR4s. I just feel that the UK wont be ambitious enough to upgrade the Typhoon to its potential.

I have just read that the RAF have 112 F3s and had 75 GR3As, so how come they are being replaced on a more than one for one basis with a more capable aircraft?

[Grand Danois]

RAF procurement is meant to cover the need for several decades, so as I understand it, they wont all be put into operational use from the start. The number for the RAF include attrition and replacement over the entire operational life of the Typhoon in the RAF.

As to CFT's, you can't dump them as you can with normal tanks, which translate into lesser maneuverability and survivability. The advantage is actually rather marginal, but it is there. But it would probably have to be funded for an export customer.

[harryriedl]

RAF procurement is meant to cover the need for several decades, so as I understand it, they wont all be put into operational use from the start. The number for the RAF include attrition and replacement over the entire operational life of the Typhoon in the RAF.

As to CFT's, you can't dump them as you can with normal tanks, which translate into lesser maneuverability and survivability. The advantage is actually rather marginal, but it is there. But it would probably have to be funded for an export customer.

im for keeping the T3 damaging to its export potential
Japan would be interested in CFTs and they would fund it

[Satorian]

TVC would also reduce the close-in advantage of the modern TVC flankers.
Advantage if you are expecting a guns kill. Otherwise, with all-aspect IR missiles, HMCS and over the shoulder lobs, I think it doesn't matter much and the most probable result is a mutual kill.

As to CFT's, you can't dump them as you can with normal tanks, which translate into lesser maneuverability and survivability. The advantage is actually rather marginal, but it is there. But it would probably have to be funded for an export customer.
CFTs might have their effect through their mass (agility) and volume (drag), but do CFTs provide as much drag as drop tanks and do they limit you to 6.5g loads and 180°/s roll rate as well and apply as much torque to the wings/frame during a roll?

[Grand Danois]

CFTs might have their effect through their mass (agility) and volume (drag), but do CFTs provide as much drag as drop tanks and do they limit you to 6.5g loads and 180°/s roll rate as well and apply as much torque to the wings/frame during a roll?

IIRC there is a drag advantage/fuel savings to be had from using CFTs in the single digit percent range. However they cannot be jettisoned, which I understand to be the procedure with the standard external tanks when agility/acc/speed is needed. Hence the comparison should be between the "clean" EF and the CFT EF.

[Satorian]

And what's the agility/energy advantage of Typhoon with A-A armament versus one with A-A armament and CFTs? To me it seems like CFTs are always worth it. If they are empty, they are not going to hinder you much, as they are comparably light and close to the body. And if they are not empty, you can stick it into AB longer, which allows you to convert more energy and raise your average energy level.

[Grand Danois]

And what's the agility/energy advantage of Typhoon with A-A armament versus one with A-A armament and CFTs? To me it seems like CFTs are always worth it. If they are empty, they are not going to hinder you much, as they are comparably light and close to the body. And if they are not empty, you can stick it into AB longer, which allows you to convert more energy and raise your average energy level.

I am not saying it is not worth it. Was it up to me, every bit of widgetery for the EF would be developed. It is about requirements and where the limited development money should be spent. I seems that the CFTs will be most favourable in mission profiles where range is important - and that is why I thought of export customers with certain needs might help fund it.

To me, CAESAR and expanding the diversity of the weapon loadout is the most important thing to do with the EF, in the medium term.

[Satorian]

I agree that the AESA and weapons integration (especially A-G) and development (Meteor) should come first. But beyond that I'd immediately go for the CFTs. I just feel like the Typhoon is a bit short-stacked when it comes to fuel, because it's not just about range. When on an intercept, the pilot probably wants to stay on the AB as long as possible to gain speed and height. And the more fuel to burn the better.


I would skip TVC though and instead put that money towards other development issues.

[Super Nimrod]

My own view although perhaps a little controversial is that the Tranche 3 needs a whole new look, not just a few nice to have extra's but a major upgrade to take it closer to the F-22, e.g. enhancements to all aspects of the aircraft. By the time the decision point comes the Russians will have flown their 5th generation airframe, the Japanese should have their prototype in the air and the J-10's capabilities will be better known as will those of the F-35. The last Typhoons will have life that will take them a long way into this century and will be expected to compete with the first of the other 5th generation machines. Reluctantly, I say spend some money

[Satorian]

If you take a look at what sets jets like the F-22 and the F-35 apart, it's largely stealth. And you can't really "upgrade" your plane into a different planform, internal weapons bay and completely different materials. Everything done to the Typhoon to close the gap in terms of stealth will hit diminishing returns quickly and just won't be worth it. Additionally, with sensitive optronics/IRST sets and increasing processing power to enhance signal processing, new ground-based radars and netcentric warfare we'll have to see how of an advantage radar stealth will be in the battlefield and how much it'd be worth in money.

I think it's better to let the Typhoon program run its course, develop and deliver a solid and proper T3 configuration (AESA, CFT, weapons) and then concentrate on the next project.

And with the EU legislation progressing as is, the next development cycle should be comparably breezy and hassle-free as most things will be decided off-hand by the EU parliament instead of single member states.

[swerve]

My own view although perhaps a little controversial is that the Tranche 3 needs a whole new look, not just a few nice to have extra's but a major upgrade to take it closer to the F-22, e.g. enhancements to all aspects of the aircraft. By the time the decision point comes the Russians will have flown their 5th generation airframe, the Japanese should have their prototype in the air and the J-10's capabilities will be better known as will those of the F-35. The last Typhoons will have life that will take them a long way into this century and will be expected to compete with the first of the other 5th generation machines. Reluctantly, I say spend some money

What you're talking about is a new airframe. I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to design a new airframe around the engines, avionics etc of T3 Typhoon, but it wouldn't be T3. It'd be a new aircraft (call it Tempest :D ), & some time later.

Personally, I'd like to see it. But I'm sure it won't happen.

[Ryttare]

What you're talking about is a new airframe. I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to design a new airframe around the engines, avionics etc of T3 Typhoon, but it wouldn't be T3. It'd be a new aircraft (call it Tempest :D ), & some time later.

Personally, I'd like to see it. But I'm sure it won't happen.

It would certainly be very exciting, but it would cost a lot of money and probably take it's time. The risk is that it would be getting both costly and obsolete. I think it would be better value for money to put the funds into reaserch on better RAM coatings and external stealth weapon pods. And that's probably what will happen, I think. Not so sexy, but probably quite efficient.

[Satorian]

Personally, I'd like to see it. But I'm sure it won't happen.


Assuming that the last Typhoon gets delivered 2014-2016 will serve unti 2040, I'd expect the EUAF (European Union Air Force, which could very well exist in 20 years) to start the design process in 2025 at the very latest (2015 would be more likely) to develop the successor aircraft (which could be a UCAV though). :D

[contedicavour]

Assuming that the last Typhoon gets delivered 2014-2016 will serve unti 2040, I'd expect the EUAF (European Union Air Force, which could very well exist in 20 years) to start the design process in 2025 at the very latest (2015 would be more likely) to develop the successor aircraft (which could be a UCAV though). :D

You're way too optimistic about the EU's role in defence policy. You have 4 clusters of air forces in Europe : those that will always rely on US planes, the Typhoon consortium countries, France with its Rafale, and the Gripen countries.
Politically, getting all the EU countries to agree is a pure nightmare, never mind a defence programme worth tens of billions of euros and tens of thousands of high tech jobs.
One last thing : instead of thinking of how a Typhoon will look like in 2040, how about thinking of how our air forces will look like in 2015 with hardly any F35s in service and only the Typhoons remaining alongside ?

cheers

[rjmaz1]

IIRC there is a drag advantage/fuel savings to be had from using CFTs in the single digit percent range. However they cannot be jettisoned, which I understand to be the procedure with the standard external tanks when agility/acc/speed is needed. Hence the comparison should be between the "clean" EF and the CFT EF.

Actually i remember reading with the F-16 conformal tanks that they produced only 16% of the drag of an underwing tank of equivalent volume.

That is a HUGE advantage. The drag increase is so low that even if they cannot be jettisoned they make only a slight difference compare to a clean aircraft.

With the F-16, three external tanks have the same volume as just a pair of conformal tanks. With the three high drag tanks the cruising speed reduction is in the order of 25%. With the conformal tank the speed reduction will be less than 5%. So the conformal aircraft will travel atleast 20% faster with the same fuel load.

When the three high drag tanks are jettisoned the conformal tanked aircraft will now be travelled 5% slowly. So basically a 20% gain and less than 5% loss means you get a huge increase in transit/cruising speed for only a minimal reduction in combat speed.

Also the lower drag of the conformal tanks as it allows it to travel faster at the same thrust level or specific fuel consumption. This gives a noticable increase in range even if the fuel weight is the same. So with that increase in range the conformal tanked aircraft could use afterburners more frequently and would make up for that small reduction in combat speed.

So its win win with the conformal tanks.

This is why the F-35 is so good. Research has show that aircraft nearly always carry droptanks. So they gave the F-35 massive internal fuel. The drag of having the fuel internally is even lower than conformal tanks aparently its now in the single figures when compared to a conventional drop tank.

An F-15 would have to carry 3 droptanks just to reach the fuel capacity of the F-35. This would increase drag so much that it will need to use more power to maintain a decent combat speed. This is why the F-35 will be extremely quick considering its fairly low thrust to weight ratio.

[kato]

@contedicavour:

He's not really too optimistic.

Consider that Eurofighter development ("Fighter 90" at that time) immediately followed the last regular Tornado deliveries (which after all was another European joint development) in the early 80s.

Next project to go for wouldn't be a new fighter or strike bomber though in my opinion. What's needed is a next-gen dedicated Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The P-3, Nimrod and Atlantique MPA3 now in service with WEU/EU nations will really hit the end of the line in the next 15-20 years, even with SLEP/MLU/whatever refurbishing.

This one could (opinion based upon previous projects, like A400M) actually be realized on a WEU/WEAG European Defence Agency basis, and involve at least Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Germany, France and Italy already cooperate closely in that field.

[contedicavour]

@contedicavour:

He's not really too optimistic.

Consider that Eurofighter development ("Fighter 90" at that time) immediately followed the last regular Tornado deliveries (which after all was another European joint development) in the early 80s.

Next project to go for wouldn't be a new fighter or strike bomber though in my opinion. What's needed is a next-gen dedicated Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The P-3, Nimrod and Atlantique MPA3 now in service with WEU/EU nations will really hit the end of the line in the next 15-20 years, even with SLEP/MLU/whatever refurbishing.

This one could (opinion based upon previous projects, like A400M) actually be realized on a WEU/WEAG European Defence Agency basis, and involve at least Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Germany, France and Italy already cooperate closely in that field.

You're right that the Tornado programme was followed by Typhoon and that we should expect some follow-on... though F35 introduction is likely to mean that Tornados will be replaced mainly by the F35. So the next mega programme should be the Typhoon replacement, around 2030 earliest.

IMO MPAs certainly need replacement but are too low a priority for all the countries concerned. France developed ATL-2 which is relatively modern and won't be replaced for ages. Germany took over second hand P3s from Holland, Italy is likely to take ATR72MPA (costs so much less than a P3...).
Since Germany "defected" to the P3 and Italy isn't interested in higher capability MPAs (for lack of money), I'd expect the US to sell P8 to the richest European countries and no specific version of A400 for lack of a sufficent number of launch customers.

cheers

[Satorian]

You're way too optimistic about the EU's role in defence policy. You have 4 clusters of air forces in Europe : those that will always rely on US planes, the Typhoon consortium countries, France with its Rafale, and the Gripen countries.
Politically, getting all the EU countries to agree is a pure nightmare, never mind a defence programme worth tens of billions of euros and tens of thousands of high tech jobs.
One last thing : instead of thinking of how a Typhoon will look like in 2040, how about thinking of how our air forces will look like in 2015 with hardly any F35s in service and only the Typhoons remaining alongside ?


A shared, common security and foreign policy (GASP in Germany, Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik) is one of the pillars of the EU founding. Especially in recent months the idea of a EU military came up again, and in 20 to 30 years time we might just be there already.
And I think you underestimate the power of the Eu parliament and what far-reaching consequences EU law and directives have. Politicians don't really like to tell their peons, but the EU is a sticky fly trap: There are no regulations that govern leaving it and while only restricted by respective national constitutions in application, EU law are immediately effective for the whole EU and directives have to be turned into laws by the nations themselves, but according to the instructions given in the EU legislative directive.

Now, most countries have their military and power over military and sovereignty and military sovereignty defined in their constitution, so there still is a hurdle to climb. Even though past efforts for a common EU constitution failed (France and the Netherlands voted against it), we are already farther ahead now than we've been 10 years ago: We signed a European Human and Civil Rights Charta this year, a founding stock to a future constitution. It's going slower than some perhaps expected or wished for, but it's happening.

And if Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Germany pull in one direction and reach a consensus on something, I'm willing to bet that they can drag everyone else along.

Tornado = GB, Italy, Germany
Typhoon = GB, Italy, Spain, Germany
Next one = GB, Italy, Spain, France, Germany?

Well, speculation of course, but I think Europe will turn into a kickass confederation. :)




Well, to come back to the Typhoon: A biofuel mid-life update would actually be something worth investigating I think. Less consumption, cheaper propellant and perhaps coming from a renewable source.

[Shortfuse]

Hi guys,

I admire your technical knowledge, but please keep cost effectiveness in mind when suggesting solutions to military problems.

Yes you can build unbelievably capable aircraft to deliver an air to ground capability, but in the world today we spend the vast majority of our time blowing the crap out of opponents with a very limited capability to shoot back. Why not just have a large number of cheap AC-130 loitering above the enemy carefully picking off the targets we actually want to hit, backed up by expendable UAV's and cruise missiles for contested missions?

This is just an obvious example, but the relative cost of any solution is very important if you want a taxpayer to fund it. Before suggesting a new generation of air to air or air to ground superfighter, please justify it against other available (and usually much cheaper) strike options.

I’d rather have a large number of basic medics in the field with good support services than a handful of neuro surgeons. Reality entails trade offs.

[Scorpion82]

I think that the Eurofighter Typhoon is sufficient for the operations to be conducted by its customers over the years to come. More important than introducing more technologies with tranche 3 is to secure the T3. Recent information suggest that T3 examples will be similar to the latest T2 examples (block 15) maybe with some detail changes. Once the number of aircraft is secured it is still possible to introduce new technologies and capabilities. Current block 5 aircraft are sufficient to perform the AA role and future T2 examples will take care of AG roles, though an austere AG capability will be available with T1 as well.

[swerve]

[QUOTE=kato;112485...
Next project to go for wouldn't be a new fighter or strike bomber though in my opinion. What's needed is a next-gen dedicated Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The P-3, Nimrod and Atlantique MPA3 now in service with WEU/EU nations will really hit the end of the line in the next 15-20 years, even with SLEP/MLU/whatever refurbishing.

This one could (opinion based upon previous projects, like A400M) actually be realized on a WEU/WEAG European Defence Agency basis, and involve at least Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Germany, France and Italy already cooperate closely in that field.[/QUOTE]

Nice idea, but the Nimrod MRA4s will have many years life left in 15-20 years time. They're more or less new-build airframes.

In the relatively near future, completely new-build MRA4s could be turned out for a tolerable cost. The very high unit price for the UK is because of the development cost being spread over such a small number of aircraft. In the same timescale, if you want a cheaper, tried & tested & very reliable airframe, there's always an A320-based MPA. EADS has offered it, with variants of the FITS combat system, to a few countries.

In 15-20 years time, the A320 replacement should be in production, but if it's an all-composite fuselage like the 787, I'm not sure whether it would be feasible to fit a weapons bay.

[kato]

In 15-20 years time, the A320 replacement should be in production, but if it's an all-composite fuselage like the 787, I'm not sure whether it would be feasible to fit a weapons bay.

MPA320 has provisions for "weapon compartments". Doubt it'd be more than say two externally hooked Torpedoes and a sonobuoy launch grid.

The Atlantique and P-3 offer far more than that; not only more ASW and ASuW capability, but also airborne minelaying capacity (still important for some of those nations), and capability for auxiliary usage as a medium bomber.

Maybe a maritime strike bomber with extensive ELINT facilities, 5th-gen datalink interfaces, and some additional things - and linked "ground-based" ELINT analysis/evaluation?

There's lots of things that i could think of regarding aircraft development still :p:

[Grand Danois]

Actually i remember reading with the F-16 conformal tanks that they produced only 16% of the drag of an underwing tank of equivalent volume.

That is a HUGE advantage. The drag increase is so low that even if they cannot be jettisoned they make only a slight difference compare to a clean aircraft.

With the F-16, three external tanks have the same volume as just a pair of conformal tanks. With the three high drag tanks the cruising speed reduction is in the order of 25%. With the conformal tank the speed reduction will be less than 5%. So the conformal aircraft will travel atleast 20% faster with the same fuel load.

When the three high drag tanks are jettisoned the conformal tanked aircraft will now be travelled 5% slowly. So basically a 20% gain and less than 5% loss means you get a huge increase in transit/cruising speed for only a minimal reduction in combat speed.

Also the lower drag of the conformal tanks as it allows it to travel faster at the same thrust level or specific fuel consumption. This gives a noticable increase in range even if the fuel weight is the same. So with that increase in range the conformal tanked aircraft could use afterburners more frequently and would make up for that small reduction in combat speed.

So its win win with the conformal tanks.

This is why the F-35 is so good. Research has show that aircraft nearly always carry droptanks. So they gave the F-35 massive internal fuel. The drag of having the fuel internally is even lower than conformal tanks aparently its now in the single figures when compared to a conventional drop tank.

An F-15 would have to carry 3 droptanks just to reach the fuel capacity of the F-35. This would increase drag so much that it will need to use more power to maintain a decent combat speed. This is why the F-35 will be extremely quick considering its fairly low thrust to weight ratio.

That's a lot of info on the F-16. Agree wrt the F-35. The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF. My info is from a forum discussion on another forum (yes, I am a heretic ;)) some months ago, an darn I just can't Google it up again. So, I'll leave it here and let others comment on it. It may be that somebody here have accurate info or more informed comments.

[Satorian]

The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF.

This supposition I really don't understand. Could you elaborate on the difference? :)

[Grand Danois]

This supposition I really don't understand. Could you elaborate on the difference? :)

What I wrote in prev post plus what rjmaz1 wrote in his. As I said, wrote in on memory and can't check up.

[Satorian]

I'm sorry to be so annoying about it, but I just don't understand how the EF would benefit considerably less from CFTs than the F-16. I couldn't get that from the posts.

[Grand Danois]

I'm sorry to be so annoying about it, but I just don't understand how the EF would benefit considerably less from CFTs than the F-16. I couldn't get that from the posts.

Didn't mean to come across as if I was annoyed. :) I threw out some numbers I had seen in another discussion wrt CFTs for the EF. I used a generalisation as I went by memory, and I can't dig it up again... Was just a bit surprised as how much the F-16 benefited from the use of CFTs. Much much more than what I remembered the EF benefited from CFTs.

[rjmaz1]

That's a lot of info on the F-16. Agree wrt the F-35. The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF.
“A set of CFTs carries 50 percent more fuel than the centerline external fuel tank, but has only 12 percent of the drag.”

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm

I think you under estimate the drag benifits of conformal tanks.

If the aircraft is often seen carrying drop tanks and most mission profiles require the use of drop tanks then that aircraft will definitely benefit from conformal tanks.

The only reason external wing tanks get jetissoned is because they produce alot of drag once run empty. The conformal tanks give the advantage of having extra fuel with such little drag its like they are not their at all.

Some roles of the Eurofighter do not require conformal tanks though. For example as an interceptor they would be willing to sacrifice range by 25% if it meant top speed was increased by only 5%. Though in the strike role international customers would definitely enjoy a 25% increase in range for a 5% speed reduction. The Eurofighter will be outranged by the F-35 when it comes to strike missions, adding conformal tanks will help.

[Grand Danois]

rjmaz1,

You can of course produce the same info on CFTs for the EF? That would help clear this up.

Edit: Did find this though. Not very specific but something.

BAE SYSTEMS tests eurofighter typhoon conformal tank

16 May 2002

The first wind tunnel tests of the Eurofighter Typhoon conformal fuel tank design have successfully been completed in the high-speed wind tunnel at BAE Systems, Warton UK, using a scale model of the aircraft.

The tanks, which have a capacity of approximately 1,500 litres each could extend the range of the aircraft in excess of 25% - a major selling point in the export market, and a vital element in developing Eurofighter Typhoon's air-to-ground capability.

Work on the Eurofighter Typhoon conformal tanks is the responsibility of a partnership between BAE Systems and GKN Engage of Australia.

Commenting on this significant milestone, Steve Cain, Eurofighter Tranche 3 Airframe Team Leader at BAE Systems said: 'The new design of conformal fuel tank offers a major enhancement to an already world beating aircraft. To extend the range, which is key to certain export markets including Australia, by around 25 percent with little affect to the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft is a tremendous achievement.'

[...]

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2002/press_16052002.html

I have underlined some of what I find interesting, with respect to potential in particular roles and customers. Wonder if there is anything newer than this.

[rjmaz1]

rjmaz1,

You can of course produce the same info on CFTs for the EF? That would help clear this up.
That info you provided pretty much sums up the advantage. Two 1500litre conformal tanks giving atleast 25% improvement in range.

Thats equal if not a bigger improvement than what the F-16's conformal tanks provide.

Like the F-16's block 60's if you want to sacrifice range by over 25% and only gain a 5% increase in top speed the user can always remove the conformal tanks.
The advantage the F-16 gets from CFTs seems to be very significant compared to what can be gained from CFTs on an EF.It seems that is false and the Eurofighter will gain immensely except in the supersonic intercept role.

Though just thinking out loud this would be interesting to test out. With the extra fuel provided by the conformal tanks it would allow afterburners to be used at a higher setting to give the same endurance. For example both aircraft could sustain Mach 1.6 for 10 minutes just the conformal tanked aircraft would require a slightly higher afterburner setting which would use the extra fuel up that the conformal tanks provided.

So that would mean there is not a single disadvantage speed wise with the conformal tanks but theres a big improvement in range.

[Grand Danois]

That is pretty amazing! :D From this:

The first wind tunnel tests of the Eurofighter Typhoon conformal fuel tank design have successfully been completed in the high-speed wind tunnel at BAE Systems, Warton UK, using a scale model of the aircraft.

The tanks, which have a capacity of approximately 1,500 litres each could extend the range of the aircraft in excess of 25% - a major selling point in the export market, and a vital element in developing Eurofighter Typhoon's air-to-ground capability.


You concluded this:

That info you provided pretty much sums up the advantage. Two 1500litre conformal tanks giving atleast 25% improvement in range.

Thats equal if not a bigger improvement than what the F-16's conformal tanks provide.

Let see what information was in that piece...

1) Tests conducted prior to 16 May 2002. I couldn't find anything newer! That has an explanation later.
2) It could extend the range of the aircraft in excess of 25% That means that flying certain mission profiles like marstrike and strike, you could extend the range. That is why it is called a vital element in developing Eurofighter Typhoon's air-to-ground capability.
3) The explanation to 1); ...partnership between BAE Systems and GKN Engage of Australia. Australia went SH and JSF. So, no requirement. It corroborates what I posted prev.

If you read the stuff you posted yourself, a pattern wrt CFT and when it is used will develop...

It seems that is false and the Eurofighter will gain immensely except in the supersonic intercept role.

Ask yourself, why oh why didn't the design include more internal fuel equiv to the CFTs if it made such a huge difference or why isn't CFTs already there if it makes such a huge difference as you say?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Range probably is not a big deal for Typhoons primary customers, the europeans. Plenty of freindly airfields close to the battlepsace ensures that. the rest of the world might not enjoy those sircumstances though and range is an issue. In that case CFT's will be quite usefull and a big selling point for potential customers.

[Pingu]

I have just thought. People are saying that speed is more important than range for the Typhoon, thus arguing against CFTs.

Well, since the Typhoon is a replacement for both the F3 and the GR3A? Then why not add CFTs to the Jaguar replacements only. That way, the sacrifice of speed is unimportant.

Basically, we would have A2G Squadrons with CFTs and A2A squadrons without.

Are Tranche 2 Typhoons being retrofitted with Tranche 3 systems? To me, it makes sense to have the new build Tranche 3 Typhoons (with CFTs) as Jaguar replacements and then retrofit the Tranche 2 Typhoons with the Tranche 3 Sensors. I am unsure of how the former F3 and GR3A squadrons are being replaced though, will they still remain dedicated A2G and dedicated A2A squadrons seperately?

Also, am I right in saying that there are two F3 squadrons permantly based in the UK and soley tasked for UK air defense? The other Squadron/s used for foreign operations such as CAPs?

[Scorpion82]

@Pingu,
it's currently not even clear if T1 examples will be brought up to T2 standard. If T3 will be similar to T2 as it was recently suggested then it should be no great deal at all. But all depends on the available funds and priorities.

The RAFs squadrons will all become multirole, unlike earlier plans for dedicated units of airdefence, multirole and offensive roles. Though I think that the squadrons will have a kind of primary role.

[swerve]

Range probably is not a big deal for Typhoons primary customers, the europeans. Plenty of freindly airfields close to the battlepsace ensures that. the rest of the world might not enjoy those sircumstances though and range is an issue. In that case CFT's will be quite usefull and a big selling point for potential customers.

Which one presumes is why BAe were looking into it with an Australian firm, until it became clear Australia will not buy Typhoon. Doubtless it'll all be kept on file, & dusted off if any potential or actual customer (e.g. Saudi Arabia) expresses an interest.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Which one presumes is why BAe were looking into it with an Australian firm, until it became clear Australia will not buy Typhoon. Doubtless it'll all be kept on file, & dusted off if any potential or actual customer (e.g. Saudi Arabia) expresses an interest.

I assume the current tranches are wired and plumbed for CFT's???

@Pingu...

CFT's are not perminant. Therefore you can have them fitted for a strike mission and take them off for air superiority mission, depends what mission profile you want to run. So there is no need just to fit them to the assigned jaguar replacements when you can quite easilly take them off again.

[Scorpion82]

I assume the current tranches are wired and plumbed for CFT's???


I'm not 100% sure about that, but AFAIK at least T1 isn't prepared to receive them. But I could be wrong on that.

[Pingu]

@ Ozzy Blizzard

That's a good point, and something I forgot to consider. I guess then the point still stands that there can only be advantages from adding CFTs to the Typhoon, because in situations where they would be a dissadvantage (such as UK air defence) they could be removed. Perhaps CFTs for half of the fleet would be a cost effective idea.

This is why I ask about retrofits etc, because I imagine it is easier to retrofit sensors and software etc than structural changes. Therefore, I'd imagine that because the tranche 3 platforms will be new build, they will have structural provisions for CFTs. I imagine that retrofitting CFTs would not be very cost effective but to not retrofit Tranche 3 sensors across the entire fleet would be stupid.

[rjmaz1]

That is pretty amazing! :D From this:

You concluded this:

Let see what information was in that piece...
You can come to a very accurcate conclusition.
A 25% range increase with conformals.
3,000 litres extra fuel for the pair of conformal tanks..


We can then use other sources believe it or not to fill in the blanks.
3,000litres is roughly 1800kg of fuel
The F-16 tanks are 2,200litres and the empty tanks are 900 pounds.
The 3,000litre Eurofighter tanks would weight aprox 500kg empty.
Internal fuel is around 6,500litres or 4000kg of weight.
Empty weight is 11,000kg
Weight with internal fuel is 15,000kg
Weight with conformal tanks is 17,300kg


With this information we can now compare things such as..
We can calculate the fuel fraction of the aircraft.
We can work out the percentage increase in fuel.
We can Work out the percentage increase in range.


With this information we can compare it to the F-16 which has nearly identical percentage increases.

We can then get an idea of the drag of the conformal tanks compared to the drop tanks.

So yes it is pretty amazing that i worked out the Eurofighter would benefit from conformal tanks just like the F-16.
Ask yourself, why oh why didn't the design include more internal fuel equiv to the CFTs if it made such a huge difference or why isn't CFTs already there if it makes such a huge difference as you say? Because the original design didn't require huge range. The original requirements had very little importance for the strike mission.

Now that its a strike fighter its range needs to be longer. To compete against the F-35's its range needs to be longer.

The conformal tanks will help dramatically on the international market. Though it will still get slaughtered sales wise against the F-35. The Eurofighter is really 20th century technology.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The conformal tanks will help dramatically on the international market. Though it will still get slaughtered sales wise against the F-35. The Eurofighter is really 20th century technology.

I agree with you on that one. The combination of LO, long range, huge payload, huge versatillity and a whole bunch of state of the art systems will make the F35 the worlds premier strike fighter. Its a combination that will be very attractive in the export market. Thats why the only customer to buy the Thyphoon outside of the original consortium (correct me if i'm wrong) is Saudi Arabia. The rest of europe who aren't commited to a eurocanard are jumping on it.

[Super Nimrod]

I don't think you have the weight of the fuel right. By my reckoning 3000 litres of fuel is about 2450 kg in round figures, which is significantly more than 1800 kg

[Satorian]

I agree with you on that one. The combination of LO, long range, huge payload, huge versatillity and a whole bunch of state of the art systems will make the F35 the worlds premier strike fighter. Its a combination that will be very attractive in the export market. Thats why the only customer to buy the Thyphoon outside of the original consortium (correct me if i'm wrong) is Saudi Arabia. The rest of europe who aren't commited to a eurocanard are jumping on it.

Austria bought it and Norway is still in contact with EF GmbH and giving out occasional contracts to conduct research even though they signed the latest F-35 MoU and are also in talks about an improved Gripen. Seems like Norway is keeping its options open to decide quite late.

Jane's Defense Forecasts is pegging the Typhoon as slight favorite for the Japanese F-4 replacement competition.

[kato]

Typhoon also has some good chances in Switzerland currently.

[Scorpion82]

Internal fuel is around 6,500litres or 4000kg of weight.


As Nimrod said your multiplicator for recalculating litres to kg is worng.
According my formula 3000 l = ~2400 kg for max external fuel (3 x 1000 l drop tanks) and/or CFTs (2 x 1500 l). Internal fuel load is about 6215 l = ~5000 kg.

So max fuel load is about 9215 l with external tanks and 12215 l wich external tanks and CFT.
BTW it's not unlikely that Typhoon might receive 2000 l underwing tanks in the future. This would add a further 2000 l in total.


Now that its a strike fighter its range needs to be longer. To compete against the F-35's its range needs to be longer.

Typhoon was from the outset designed as a swingrole capable tactical multirole fighter. Aircombat performance was the priority, but at least the RAF and probably EdA required a robust secondary AG capability. It is true that the AG capabilities have become a greater priority since the end of cold war, but the main reason for Typhoon's limited range is the scenario for which the aircraft was designed.
Comparing the F-35 to Typhoon is not that suitable at all as the F-35 was designed for different purposes.


The conformal tanks will help dramatically on the international market. Though it will still get slaughtered sales wise against the F-35. The Eurofighter is really 20th century technology.

You have to take into account that the Typhoon will be a much more advanced aircraft at the time the F-35 enters service. BTW the 20th century technology is also that of all other fighters currently in service including F-22, Rafale or F/A-18E/F to name few examples. But all these aircraft will be upgraded and I don't see such a great advantage for the F-35 in the long terms. Just look at all the critics which are often brought in conjunction with Typhoon (though it is as valid for other a/C like F-22). Many say Typhoon is so late that its avionics are no advantage anymore to that of upgraded teen series. This has a core of truth, but it also applies to other designs not just Typhoon.


@Ozzy
hats why the only customer to buy the Thyphoon outside of the original consortium (correct me if i'm wrong) is Saudi Arabia. The rest of europe who aren't commited to a eurocanard are jumping on it.

Saudi Arabia is likely though no contract has been signed so far. The real first export customer is Austria which already received its first aircraft.
Norway and Denmark are both looking at different options including Eurofighter and Gripen, though they a lvl 3 partners within the JSF programme. PArticularly the RDAF seems to be interested in the Typhoon and the chances in Norway aren't that bad either. Nonetheless we'll have to wait until about 2009 before we get an answer.
The Swiss is another candidate. The Swiss is said to prefer a european solution and rumors suggest that the Typhoon is the prefered choice of its air force. Romania, Greece and Bulgaria are additional potential customers.
There might be chances in Japan, though I'm not very optimistic about that and I don't see any chances at all for India.

[kato]

The Swiss is another candidate. The Swiss is said to prefer a european solution and rumors suggest that the Typhoon is the prefered choice of its air force.

Switzerland is actually a good candidate just by exclusion. They've boiled their choices down to F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen.
Gripen gets minus points for not supporting NATO interoperability as much (eg it doesn't have Link 16 datalinks). Rafale still has a good chance. The Super Hornet - depends on how much the US is willing to shell out especially in ToT (Switzerland usually heavily modifies its aircraft in electronics), i doubt its chances personally.

Switzerland only buys aircraft if it gets "compensation sales". The "compensation sales" for the 34 F/A-18C/D bought in the 90s (parts production in Switzerland e.g.) by contract amounted to US$2.8 billion between 1993 and 2003, exactly as much as they paid for the aircraft.

[JWCook]

You have to love people who are comparing the F-35 to the Typhoon, The F-35 is still in development, it doest exist at present, AFAIK the production representative craft has not even flown.
And yet we have people comparing the systems that are current operating on Typhoon to 'planned' systems.

Lets compare the Typhoons IRST to the F-22 IRST that was planned!, My monies on the Typhoons IRST, or the F-22 planned HMD??

OK now tell me which systems will be dropped from the F-35 to make it affordable, or do you think the F-35 will be unlike any previous program?.

The price is already at a critical stage for the partner nations, anyone what to take a bet when it will over take the Typhoons flyaway price?;) or which varient may get dropped?:shudder

If you do intend to compare the two then compare the early 'planned' Typhoon big wing variant (you know the longer ranged stealthy bomber variant) to the 'planned' F-35 or at least compare it to a tranche 3 Typhoon, or the Raven/Corax sixth generation fighter UCAV's that the fifth generation F-35 will be in competition with.

wow just read this before posting - it sound like a real rant I'm having there, its not, but If we started talking about Corax vs the F-35 we'd get a similar rant from the F-35 fraternity.

Cheers I'm off to finish my red wine

[rjmaz1]

I don't think you have the weight of the fuel right. By my reckoning 3000 litres of fuel is about 2450 kg in round figures, which is significantly more than 1800 kg
I just copied the number from the F-16 article i posted earlier.

tank set holds 450 gallons (ca. 3,050 pounds, or 2,271 litres) of additional JP-5/8 fuel.

[Ryttare]

Gripen gets minus points for not supporting NATO interoperability as much (eg it doesn't have Link 16 datalinks).

That's not true. Today Gripen can use Link 16, but you have to do without the much more capable TIDLS link then. For next year Saab has announced that total interoperability between them will be introduced. This means that both links can be used simultaneusly and that data can be transfered between the systems, with the limitation that Link 16 with much lower bandwidth cant transer all data aquired from the TIDLS link.

[Scorpion82]

That's not true. Today Gripen can use Link 16, but you have to do without the much more capable TIDLS link then. For next year Saab has announced that total interoperability between them will be introduced. This means that both links can be used simultaneusly and that data can be transfered between the systems, with the limitation that Link 16 with much lower bandwidth cant transer all data aquired from the TIDLS link.

It would be interesting to more details on data transfer rates of LINK 16 and TIDLS. The TIDLS is often claimed to be superior, but I wonder why as no specific data/details are brought to back up that argument.

[kato]

That's not true. Today Gripen can use Link 16, but you have to do without the much more capable TIDLS link then. For next year Saab has announced that total interoperability between them will be introduced.

Uh, no.

Today's Gripen can't use it. Only the Gripen avionics simulator has Link 16 integrated yet. Next year, Link 16 on that simulator will get its basic certification (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2007/070611_datalink.htm).

Also, Saab will only offer Link 16 as an option for exports (to access a wider market). The integration was only started for Gripen C/D last year, and is part of a 3-year software upgrade and integration program.

[Aussie Digger]

You have to take into account that the Typhoon will be a much more advanced aircraft at the time the F-35 enters service. BTW the 20th century technology is also that of all other fighters currently in service including F-22, Rafale or F/A-18E/F to name few examples. But all these aircraft will be upgraded and I don't see such a great advantage for the F-35 in the long terms. Just look at all the critics which are often brought in conjunction with Typhoon (though it is as valid for other a/C like F-22). Many say Typhoon is so late that its avionics are no advantage anymore to that of upgraded teen.

Whilst I don't wish to particularly engage in the "debate" over the Typhoon v Lighting II debate (why don't people call the F-35 the Lightning II? Are they simply not used to it yet?) I might add something here.

The critical design reviews are complete for the F-35.

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will have AESA, HMS, an integrated FLIR/EO system (EOTS), a 360 degree distributed aperture system, an integrated ECM/EWSP system, an LPI radar and modern processors running on modern "code".

Can anyone point to another aircraft that will benefit from such systems SIMULTANEOUSLY, as WELL as "full" stealth (for lack of a better term), a high performance airframe (despite what some open sourced "analysis" of the aircraft might say), internal weapons carriage, a a huge internal fuel capacity (for a tactical fighter) AND a software package that promises to integrate the various capabilities of the aircraft to a hiterto unmatched level?

Good luck... :)

[Satorian]

So did the F-35 flights restart already after the "unscheduled maintenance"? Did the post-weight shave body already fly?

There's still a long way to go for the F-35 (which is a lot shorter than "Lightning II"), so let's reserve judgment until the first squad stood up with a production unit.


As for the F-35's advantages besides stealth and massive internal fuel load: Which of these can't be retrofitted? Which of these specifically pertain to the airframe?

[Ryttare]

Uh, no.

Today's Gripen can't use it. Only the Gripen avionics simulator has Link 16 integrated yet. Next year, Link 16 on that simulator will get its basic certification (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2007/070611_datalink.htm).

Also, Saab will only offer Link 16 as an option for exports (to access a wider market). The integration was only started for Gripen C/D last year, and is part of a 3-year software upgrade and integration program.


I think you might have misunderstod it. It says: "Currently running in Gripen’s avionics simulator, full Link 16 certification is planned for 2008."

I interpret that as that it already runs in the simulator and will be functional on operational Gripens next year. This would also be in line with other info I've heard.

It also says that "In addition to the Swedish data link, Link 16 is now an option in Gripens onboard datalink capabilities." It doesn't says an option on the market, but an option onboard Gripen. It's also consistent with what I've heard.

[Ryttare]

It would be interesting to more details on data transfer rates of LINK 16 and TIDLS. The TIDLS is often claimed to be superior, but I wonder why as no specific data/details are brought to back up that argument.

I've not heard of what the exact bandwidth of TIDLS is either. It might be classified, or simply difficult to say for sure. As a wireless connection, speed depends probably on the situation. And as data is transfered in bursts it probably also depends on how long bursts are seen as acceptable considering protection against jamming and tracking.

I don't really know the bandwidth of Link 16 either, not from the top of my head anyway. But it is generally considered that TIDLS has a significantly higher bandwidth Link 16. Now, to be fair, they are not really the same type of links, TIDLS is limited to 4 users transmitting simultaneusly and unlimited numbers of receivers. I think the number of transmitters on Link 16 is a bit higher.

But a sign of the bandwidth on TIDLS is the practical capabilities it has. According to http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf on page 7 it has the following abilities:

"In a Gripen formation each aircraft instantly knows what the others are seeing, what the others going to do next.Each aircraft has access to the radar and sensor data of the others, allowing a small number of aicraft to defend a wide area."

"Data can be exchanged with an AWACS aircraft, and by using an AWACS radar a much large air picture can be datalinked to a Gripen or a formation of Gripens, greatly increasing their combat reach. An airborne Gripen can datalink real-time combat information straight into the cockpit of another aircraft being re-armed and refuelled on the ground."

And "Even more elaborate tactics call for one Gripen to provide mid-course guidance for another aircraft’s missiles, using the datalink to set up the shot. This allows a ‘stealthy’ shooter to engage targets far beyond its own radar range, and keeps the defenders out of range of a return shot."

Someone else might have more precise info on the bandwidth of TIDLS, but I hope this gives an image of how capable it is.

[Ryttare]

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will have AESA, HMS, an integrated FLIR/EO system (EOTS), a 360 degree distributed aperture system, an integrated ECM/EWSP system, an LPI radar and modern processors running on modern "code".

Can anyone point to another aircraft that will benefit from such systems SIMULTANEOUSLY, as WELL as "full" stealth (for lack of a better term), a high performance airframe (despite what some open sourced "analysis" of the aircraft might say), internal weapons carriage, a a huge internal fuel capacity (for a tactical fighter) AND a software package that promises to integrate the various capabilities of the aircraft to a hiterto unmatched level?

Good luck... :)

No, at the moment no other fighter has exactly those features. But can anyone really say for sure that no other fighter will have similar abilities when F-35 gets operational?

But most of all, what does that really say about F-35 vs other fighters? F-22 doesn't have many of these goodies and will probably not get it for a long time. Does that mean F-35 is a better fighter than Raptor?

[Scorpion82]

Whilst I don't wish to particularly engage in the "debate" over the Typhoon v Lighting II debate (why don't people call the F-35 the Lightning II? Are they simply not used to it yet?) I might add something here.

The critical design reviews are complete for the F-35.

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will have AESA, HMS, an integrated FLIR/EO system (EOTS), a 360 degree distributed aperture system, an integrated ECM/EWSP system, an LPI radar and modern processors running on modern "code".

Can anyone point to another aircraft that will benefit from such systems SIMULTANEOUSLY, as WELL as "full" stealth (for lack of a better term), a high performance airframe (despite what some open sourced "analysis" of the aircraft might say), internal weapons carriage, a a huge internal fuel capacity (for a tactical fighter) AND a software package that promises to integrate the various capabilities of the aircraft to a hiterto unmatched level?

Good luck... :)

Hmm honestly I don't like the Litening II designation that much. Sounds somehow stupid and was previously used for the F-22, before Raptor was officially assigned.

Don't get me wrong I have no doubt that the F-35 will be an advanced and capable aircraft. I suspect it will be the most advanced at the time it enters service, nonetheless the F-35 won't feature all the proposed features from the very beginning (as it is common practise with other aircraft as well). Many of the technologies are already available on other aircraft, though I agree not to the same degree as it might be the case for the F-35 (sometimes around 2016+). The main advantage of the F-35 in terms of sensors is its DAS which will be flexible and provide all round coverage. But in terms of ESM, ECM, AESA radar I see no decisive advantage and by the time the f-35 enters service other designs will be more mature and probably feature similar technologies in many ways. In terms of flight performance we'll have to wait. I expect the F-35 to provide similar performance to the F-16 with superior range and acceleration and probably better altitude performance.
BTW you mention ECM, are there any details known about ECM capabilities? Is the F-35 going to receive it at all or will it be more limited to EA with the AN/APG-81?

New computers and software are planned for the Eurofighter as well and I don't see a reason why other aircraft shouldn't follow.

[MarcH]

Well, from memory, Link 16 and TILDS are completely different approaches. Link 16 locks you into a network with all participants within the region, while TILDS links you only with 4 partners.
Therefore Link 16 doesn't have the volume as TILDS, but gives you acces to more sources.

Back to the original topic.
My preference would be
-AESA (but only if the new modules based on GaN or diamond are available)
-improved PIRATE
-improved DASS
-EJ 220/230 with ITP's TVC nozzle
(it is said, the ITP nozzle has about the same number of moving parts as an conventional one, but offers an increase of 5% thrust and a decrease in fuel consumption by 3%, together with the uprated engines it should give by far more economical cruising at higher speeds. Albeit the savings from reduces trim-drag should be marginal, compared to a conventional layout)
-weapons integration ³ and development of stealthy weapon pods (maybe combined weapon and fuel pods ?)

[Scorpion82]

I've not heard of what the exact bandwidth of TIDLS is either. It might be classified, or simply difficult to say for sure. As a wireless connection, speed depends probably on the situation. And as data is transfered in bursts it probably also depends on how long bursts are seen as acceptable considering protection against jamming and tracking.

I don't really know the bandwidth of Link 16 either, not from the top of my head anyway. But it is generally considered that TIDLS has a significantly higher bandwidth Link 16. Now, to be fair, they are not really the same type of links, TIDLS is limited to 4 users transmitting simultaneusly and unlimited numbers of receivers. I think the number of transmitters on Link 16 is a bit higher.

But a sign of the bandwidth on TIDLS is the practical capabilities it has. According to http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf on page 7 it has the following abilities:

"In a Gripen formation each aircraft instantly knows what the others are seeing, what the others going to do next.Each aircraft has access to the radar and sensor data of the others, allowing a small number of aicraft to defend a wide area."

"Data can be exchanged with an AWACS aircraft, and by using an AWACS radar a much large air picture can be datalinked to a Gripen or a formation of Gripens, greatly increasing their combat reach. An airborne Gripen can datalink real-time combat information straight into the cockpit of another aircraft being re-armed and refuelled on the ground."

And "Even more elaborate tactics call for one Gripen to provide mid-course guidance for another aircraft’s missiles, using the datalink to set up the shot. This allows a ‘stealthy’ shooter to engage targets far beyond its own radar range, and keeps the defenders out of range of a return shot."

Someone else might have more precise info on the bandwidth of TIDLS, but I hope this gives an image of how capable it is.

These TIDLS capabilities are known to me and that is also the point. MIDS/LINK 16 provides same capabilities along with a couple of other other capabilities for communication and navigation purposes. One shouldn't forget that TIDLS is now more than 10 years in service while MIDS is only available since a few years (2003/2004 or so). At the time the Gripen entered service its datalink capabilities were unique, but today they are nothing special anymore, though there are still plenty of aircraft out there without any datalink capabilities at all or inferior DL capabilities.

[swerve]

...(why don't people call the F-35 the Lightning II? Are they simply not used to it yet?) ...

Some people don't think the name fits it. It's more characters to type. Unless one calls it "Lightning IIA/B/C", which looks silly, it doesn't define the version, which is crucially important with the F-35. Nobody likes putting numbers after a name (who called the F-4 the Phantom II?), but one can't call it just the Lightning, because that name is still taken in most (at least British) minds.

Enough reasons?

[Super Nimrod]

And some people have started to call it 'Dave' :unknown

[Satorian]

Regarding the F-35's name, I would also propose to call it "The Whale".



Don't know why, but its reminds me of a whale.

[Ryttare]

These TIDLS capabilities are known to me and that is also the point. MIDS/LINK 16 provides same capabilities along with a couple of other other capabilities for communication and navigation purposes. One shouldn't forget that TIDLS is now more than 10 years in service while MIDS is only available since a few years (2003/2004 or so). At the time the Gripen entered service its datalink capabilities were unique, but today they are nothing special anymore, though there are still plenty of aircraft out there without any datalink capabilities at all or inferior DL capabilities.

Do you have any more detailed information of the abilities you refer to. I looked it up, and the highest transfer rate of Link 16 seems to be 115 kbit/s and that seems a bit low to be as capable as TIDLS. But I might be wrong.

[rjmaz1]

Do you have any more detailed information of the abilities you refer to. I looked it up, and the highest transfer rate of Link 16 seems to be 115 kbit/s and that seems a bit low to be as capable as TIDLS. But I might be wrong.Location, altitude, speed and direction of a single object would not even require 1kbit of information. 115kbit is enough for hundreds of aircraft to be tracked in any battle space. More than enough i would think.

[Ryttare]

Location, altitude, speed and direction of a single object would not even require 1kbit of information. 115kbit is enough for hundreds of aircraft to be tracked in any battle space. More than enough i would think.

I was more thinking of the ability to use other fighters sensors. Transferring the entire radar image in real time would require much more bandwidth.

[kato]

I was more thinking of the ability to use other fighters sensors. Transferring the entire radar image in real time would require much more bandwidth.

As rjmaz1 says, I really, really doubt anyone would try transmitting raw radar image data over datalinks.

You don't need to directly access another aircraft's sensors in order to get the information from it.

If the aircraft with the radar preprocesses the image (including polygonization, clutter removal, stuff like that), and filters for the results, then transmits only that data (instead of raw radar data), it'll be a lot less.

Say a packet of 250-500 Byte or so for a single contact, including supposed aircraft identification, polygon shape data, IFF data, navigational/telemetry data (position, heading etc). That's pretty much all you need.

[Satorian]

I was more thinking of the ability to use other fighters sensors. Transferring the entire radar image in real time would require much more bandwidth.

But why would you want to transfer the whole radar image instead of the information contained within as derived by the sensing aircraft? Position, vector, identification, instruction and perhaps other miscellaneous bits are easily transmitted with a few bytes.

Gross estimate:

Position, millimeter accuracy, range > 1000 km => 40 bit per dimension => 5 Byte per dimension => 15 byte total.
Vector, accuracy of 1° and 1 kts => 10 bit each => 40 bit => 5 Byte total
ID from a 60000 unit database => 16 bit => 2 Byte
Instruction, about 250 samples => 8 bit => 1 Byte

Then perhaps another two Byte for other misc information, 5 Byte for a time stamp, between 1 and 6 BYte for a packet number, and you'd end up with

about 30 Byte per contact. Add some wrapper, handshake, protocol, sender, receiver and TTL data and you'd perhaps end up at no more than 50 byte per information packet. 400 bit per plane.

One aircraft could send information on 100 sensor contacts to 6 linked aircraft once a second, and that without any optimization or compression yet.

[kato]

This listing (http://www.tdsrg.co.uk/v1c3.htm#_Toc142278820) gives a good basic overview over various military transmission systems, including Link 16.

Additional information:
- Basic Link 16 uses 128 time slots per second of 7.8125ms length each.
- Basic Link 16 can broadcast between 3 and 12 data words (depending on packing structure) per time slot.
- Data word structure(s) can be found in above link.

For real-time application, i'd presume we'd have to fit our data within a single transmission time slot.
That would give us (maximum) one Initial Word (57 bit data), four Extension Words (68 bits data ea) and seven Continuation Words (63 bits data ea), as i understand it. That's at full Packed-4 packing transmission with 115.2 kbps.

Meaning our packet could contain at maximum 770 bits of data (96.25 byte), into which you have to stuff everything.

Edit: And i mean everything - the entire preprocessed sensor information on all contacts that you want to transmit in realtime.

[Scorpion82]

Do you have any more detailed information of the abilities you refer to. I looked it up, and the highest transfer rate of Link 16 seems to be 115 kbit/s and that seems a bit low to be as capable as TIDLS. But I might be wrong.

Bascially up to 128 participants can take part in the MIDS/LINK 16 net, each gets a time slot of 7.8125 ms to provide its own data. A host platform can collect all these data fuse them and eventually broadcast them so that all 128 participants and all other aircraft with a compatible datalink working in the right frequency can receive them. It is possible to combine a number of MIDS nets to increase the number of participants or if there are fewer you can increase the transfer rates for each member in the net.

MIDS acts as TACAN and enables relative navigation through transmitted reference points. It is possible to transfer new flight plans, airfield information or FAORs (Fighter Aera Of Responsibility). MIDS ensures a discret voice communication over two secured channels and it is possible to exchange text messages for information spreading or task distribution. MIDS equipped aircraft for example can receive almost complete sensor pictures from AWACS aircraft and other similar platforms or combined information from a number of other allied air, ground and sea assets.
It is additionally possible to link up to 8 aircraft with MIDS. These aircraft can exchange their sensor data (including thos required for passive targeting), position data, engagement status and other data such as fuel or weapon status. It is possible to assign targets for a wingman or to sea which aircraft targets what etc.

Just a short summary of the MIDS capabilities.

[Ryttare]

But why would you want to transfer the whole radar image instead of the information contained within as derived by the sensing aircraft? Position, vector, identification, instruction and perhaps other miscellaneous bits are easily transmitted with a few bytes.



There are certainly usefull to have the vectorised data that is available with Link16. But that isn't what can be called to use other fighters sensors. By being able to combine radar plots contacts can be aquired quicker. Also for ground attack a much more detailed image is very useful.

If Link16 would be so end of it all, with no need for higher bandwidth, why has then the F-22 it's own proprietary datalink?

But as I said before, Link16 and TIDLS are quite different creatures. Link16 are better for datalinking a large number of fighters and other assets. TIDLS has a better capability, but are limited to a smaller number of participants.
The best would of course be to have both, and as I said it seems as Gripen will have that next year.

[kato]

If Link16 would be so end of it all, with no need for higher bandwidth, why has then the F-22 it's own proprietary datalink?


Link 16 has often been critized for low bandwidth; there have been studies into raising the maximum bandwidth to 1 Mbps (which is apparently possible), and higher.

[Ryttare]

It is additionally possible to link up to 8 aircraft with MIDS. These aircraft can exchange their sensor data (including thos required for passive targeting), position data, engagement status and other data such as fuel or weapon status. It is possible to assign targets for a wingman or to sea which aircraft targets what etc.

Just a short summary of the MIDS capabilities.

I have to say that it sounds quite similar to TIDLS. Can all 8 transmit at the same time, and how many can receive?

Where did you find this information? I have to admit that I have not heard this before.

[Ryttare]

Link 16 has often been critized for low bandwidth; there have been studies into raising the maximum bandwidth to 1 Mbps (which is apparently possible), and higher.

But then why not do that instead of creating a new seperate system for the Raptor? Probably it was easier to do that than to improve the capabilities in such a big network as Link16.

[Scorpion82]

I have to say that it sounds quite similar to TIDLS. Can all 8 transmit at the same time, and how many can receive?

Where did you find this information? I have to admit that I have not heard this before.

Only the 8 aircraft can receive the data. Its a kind of small network for flights/packages. The data/information come from various sources, but I haven't the time to give them to you now and some things come from sources for which no links exist, because they aren't from the internet.

[Ryttare]

Only the 8 aircraft can receive the data. Its a kind of small network for flights/packages. The data/information come from various sources, but I haven't the time to give them to you now and some things come from sources for which no links exist, because they aren't from the internet.

Ok, so in this sense TIDLS is more capable, because 4 units can transmit and an unlimited number can receive. Can you tell what kind of source you have? Is it available as a book or similar?

[Scorpion82]

Ok, so in this sense TIDLS is more capable, because 4 units can transmit and an unlimited number can receive. Can you tell what kind of source you have? Is it available as a book or similar?

Does it mean an unlimited number of receivers for the 4 ship formation?
No there is no book. Unfortunately most sources I have aren't in english but german. If you have no problem with that I can give you some links, but as mentioned I can't give you links to every source.

It's important to note that the 8 aircraft can all contribute their data to the network (first receive by a host platform and then distibuted to an unlimited number of receivers) but this transmissions doesn't contain all the information the 8 aircraft can exchange between each other.

[Ryttare]

Does it mean an unlimited number of receivers for the 4 ship formation?
No there is no book. Unfortunately most sources I have aren't in english but german. If you have no problem with that I can give you some links, but as mentioned I can't give you links to every source.

It's important to note that the 8 aircraft can all contribute their data to the network (first receive by a host platform and then distibuted to an unlimited number of receivers) but this transmissions doesn't contain all the information the 8 aircraft can exchange between each other.

Up to four aircraft can be active (transmitting) on the datalink at any one time and an unlimited number can be passive, receiving data from other sources. The datalink net is effective over many hundreds of miles and extensive testing has shown the system to be unjammable.

In short, four aircraft can transmit their data at full speed simultaneously to any other TIDLS capable aircraft within range.

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf

I would like to see more info on MIDS, but my german is really weak, especially technical jargong, but I might find someone who can translate for me.

Especially more specific data on the transmitting/receiving capability within these 8 aircraft would be rally appreciated, thanks.

[Scorpion82]

Ok here are some links, maybe you can also use translation programmes.
So every Gripen broadcasts its information? That would mean more RF emissions.

german links:
http://eurofighter.airpower.at/sensorik-mids.htm
http://www.airpower.at/news07/0402_mids-lvt/index.html
http://www.link16.de/

english links
http://www.viasat.com/mids/
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/gs/MIDS_LVT.html
http://www.lm-isgs.co.uk/defence/datalinks/link_16.htm
http://www.euromids.com/product.aspx

[Ryttare]

Ok here are some links, maybe you can also use translation programmes.
So every Gripen broadcasts its information? That would mean more RF emissions.


Thanks for the links, I think I will have time to look into them tomorrow. I might come back with questions if there is something I don't understand.

No, only the maximum 4 Gripens that can transmit simultaneusly send out their data. More can transmit, but not at the same time. Those who will use any significant bandwidth are also probably using their radars so the difference these short bursts cause in emissions are hopefully quite small.