Eurofighter Question

[Palnatoke]

If we depart from the technical details, that are mostly unknown to the layman anyway, and ask on a slightly aggregated level: What's a modern multirole warplane?

I would say, It's a flying platform, that carry weapons, sensors and electronics. The platform has certain attributes, but it's not much more than that.

Taking into account that the development of electronics is on going from day to day, it follows that the new, or newly updated, is likely more advanced than the older. Your brand new airplane is electronically obsolete, or at least not "cutting edge", in a few years, if you do not upgrade it - that's how it must be.
And the same goes with the weapons and the sensors.

So the good platform needs to have an upgrade path and somebody has to have the willingness to invest "enough" money into the platform to keep making it modern.
This, imho, seems to be one problem of the JAS39 and perhaps the Rafale, but should not be a problem for the EF or the JSF (because the latter two are backed by a lot of money).

Now the platform has it's own attributes; aerodynamics, load, speed etc. But also operational attributes F.ex. the JAS39 can operate from a stretch of highway, the JSF has (some?) stealth etc.

The typical fanboy claims: "This aircraft has the best sensors, weapons and electronics" has to be followed by a "yes, for now".

And then ofcourse there is the price tag, building an airplane too expensive to use isn't a very good airplane (F22?).

I think that from this point of view it's nearly impossible to say anything definate about a given airplane/platform and it's future possibilities and potential.
You can discuss the "attributes" of the platform: The price tag, the possible upgrade path or
is it cool to operate your JAS39 from a stretch of highway?
(being Sweden going up against the USSR, the answer is probably yes, being NATO bulling Serbia, the answer is probably no) Or is stealth cool?, (a question that can only be answered when you know the cababilities of the radar, that the stealth is not designed to defeat but will have to defeat at some point in the future) etc.



Somebody said that the designers of the EF didn't take operational lessons into account, might be true - but the best example of that is the JSF.
An incredible machine designed to work against air defenses and you name it, but for a while it has been clear that the first order of business when "we" go to war against a suitable target (which is not, and will never be, our equal) is to destroy the air defense, which is done, not by old style fighters, but more and more with increasingly sophisticated robots (cruise missiles, stand off weapons etc.) and that trend is not going to be reversed, imho.
And when there is no air defense working against you, logic dictates that you don't need to evade it.

 

[wormhole]

And when there is no air defense working against you, logic dictates that you don't need to evade it.

No warplanner worth his salt is going to operate under that assumption when planning his force structure.. lucky if you go up against a weak air defense but there are potential threat scenarios where this is not the case. What was true of conflicts past may not be true of conflicts present or future.

 

[My2Cents]

Somebody said that the designers of the EF didn't take operational lessons into account, might be true - but the best example of that is the JSF.
An incredible machine designed to work against air defenses and you name it, but for a while it has been clear that the first order of business when "we" go to war against a suitable target (which is not, and will never be, our equal) is to destroy the air defense, which is done, not by old style fighters, but more and more with increasingly sophisticated robots (cruise missiles, stand off weapons etc.) and that trend is not going to be reversed, imho.
And when there is no air defense working against you, logic dictates that you don't need to evade it.

That assumes that you know the current location of all those air defenses, and the crews are probably trying every trick in the book to confuse you because their lives are on the line if you find them. So camouflage, decoys, and frequent relocations are the rule.

Ask the Russian if it worked in the 2008 South Ossetia War. They lost 4 to 7 aircraft, and had to suspend air operations until the Georgian air defenses were driven off or destroyed by ground attacks.

Or NATO in the Kosovo War where they thought that they had destroyed over 100 Serbian vehicles, but observer counts after the cease fire showed that all but 7 were decoys.

 

[Haavarla]

Ask the Russian if it worked in the 2008 South Ossetia War. They lost 4 to 7 aircraft, and had to suspend air operations until the Georgian air defenses were driven off or destroyed by ground attacks.

Not the case.
The Russian never suspended any air operation during those few days, they merly adapted to some of challanges they faced.

Reports state, that they had lots of 'blue on blue' incidence, due to bad 'battle space awareness' and poor planning. In their defence, they did have little time to plan anyrhing and such they went about, planning as they advanced inland.. Thus this was VVS and Russian army biggest challange.

 

[Palnatoke]

That assumes that you know the current location of all those air defenses, and the crews are probably trying every trick in the book to confuse you because their lives are on the line if you find them. So camouflage, decoys, and frequent relocations are the rule.

Ask the Russian if it worked in the 2008 South Ossetia War. They lost 4 to 7 aircraft, and had to suspend air operations until the Georgian air defenses were driven off or destroyed by ground attacks.

Or NATO in the Kosovo War where they thought that they had destroyed over 100 Serbian vehicles, but observer counts after the cease fire showed that all but 7 were decoys.

Agreed.
Though it's always true that you can't shoot something that you havn't detected.

I also think that vlo/lo has operational benefits, though I am unsure of the significance in the wars the users expect to fight.
So far it looks like cruise missiles, stand off weapons, UAS etc (in short: "Robots") are working very well at degrading enemy air defenses, and f.ex. NATO have yet to fight a war in which its airsuperiority is challenged.
I don't think that a F35 will replace the use of the robots that are allready used in the deep strike role against fixed targets today, and I believe that we have just begun to tap into the potential of robots - that's a technology which is still in it's infant stage!

But there are scenarios where one could make a good argument for the stealth properties of the F35 against the not so stealthy eurofighter.

As for the eurofighter and the F35: I think both are failures. The eurofighter, an intended air superiority fighter, had the "bad" fortune to be born after it's enemy had decided to disappear, leaving the owners with an overly expensive aircraft and no enemy.
The F35 is hopefully not driven by the need to protect ourselves against the USSR (though you never know!) but as an affordable "joint" platform for the US and allies; The aircraft is not "affordable" and also lacks an enemy.

I know that some claims that "we need to keep our edge against a future (phantom) enemy" but in the 20,30,50 years it will take for such a phantom to materialize and build an army/airforce/navy to challenge the US, the F35 will be somewhere between obsolete and junk.
But that is ofcourse not a problem for these people on luxury-welfare, because they would then be needed to use even more money on another grand project "to keep the edge".

Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius

"To secure the peace you must prepare the war" re-used by Fischer who wrongly thought building a grand fleet would deter any enemy from war, ofcourse the germans simply builded their own grand fleet - and we did get the cataclysmic war.

 

[riksavage]

Agreed.
Though it's always true that you can't shoot something that you havn't detected.

I also think that vlo/lo has operational benefits, though I am unsure of the significance in the wars the users expect to fight.
So far it looks like cruise missiles, stand off weapons, UAS etc (in short: "Robots") are working very well at degrading enemy air defenses, and f.ex. NATO have yet to fight a war in which its airsuperiority is challenged.
I don't think that a F35 will replace the use of the robots that are allready used in the deep strike role against fixed targets today, and I believe that we have just begun to tap into the potential of robots - that's a technology which is still in it's infant stage!

But there are scenarios where one could make a good argument for the stealth properties of the F35 against the not so stealthy eurofighter.

As for the eurofighter and the F35: I think both are failures. The eurofighter, an intended air superiority fighter, had the "bad" fortune to be born after it's enemy had decided to disappear, leaving the owners with an overly expensive aircraft and no enemy.
The F35 is hopefully not driven by the need to protect ourselves against the USSR (though you never know!) but as an affordable "joint" platform for the US and allies; The aircraft is not "affordable" and also lacks an enemy.

I know that some claims that "we need to keep our edge against a future (phantom) enemy" but in the 20,30,50 years it will take for such a phantom to materialize and build an army/airforce/navy to challenge the US, the F35 will be somewhere between obsolete and junk.
But that is ofcourse not a problem for these people on luxury-welfare, because they would then be needed to use even more money on another grand project "to keep the edge".


"To secure the peace you must prepare the war" re-used by Fischer who wrongly thought building a grand fleet would deter any enemy from war, ofcourse the germans simply builded their own grand fleet - and we did get the cataclysmic war.

Not entirely true, following the battle of Jutland the German surface fleet never left harbour again in force. The Kaiser was too worried about losing his Grand Fleet to a greatly superior RN force. Fisher's idea of overwhelming sea power may not of deterred war, but it worked partially by restricting any strategic impact the German Grand Fleet had on the outcome of the war by keeping it bottled up in harbour.

It's a shame Hitler didn't learn from that and divert time and money spent building white elephant pocket battleships and instead increase submarine production. If you look at the cost, time, steel use and crew numbers needed to build and man pocket battleships and convert that into submarine hulls/crews the war in the Atlantic would have been an Allied loss.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not entirely true, following the battle of Jutland the German surface fleet never left harbour again in force. The Kaiser was too worried about losing his Grand Fleet to a greatly superior RN force. Fisher's idea of overwhelming sea power may not of deterred war, but it worked partially by restricting any strategic impact the German Grand Fleet had on the outcome of the war by keeping it bottled up in harbour.

That’s not true, partially or entirely. The Germans sortied their high seas fleet several times after Jutland just as they sortied several times before. The WWI German naval fleet strategy was to attrite the British fleet via limited actions. They hoped to trap British covering forces of only a battleship squadron or two with their entire fleet and sink some ships. Over time this strategy would enable them to reach eventual parity in which case they could win a general fleet engagement and control over the North Sea.

Unfortunately for them the Royal Navy was supremely aggressive and sortied in strength at the drop of a hat so the overmatch situation rarely eventuated and when it did the Germans were unaware. During Jutland the German fleet broke off action as soon as they realised they faced the entire Grand Fleet. Far from a strategic or operational defeat it was in accordance with their tactics.

It's a shame Hitler didn't learn from that and divert time and money spent building white elephant pocket battleships and instead increase submarine production. If you look at the cost, time, steel use and crew numbers needed to build and man pocket battleships and convert that into submarine hulls/crews the war in the Atlantic would have been an Allied loss.

Well I’m quite glad Hitler didn’t learn any lessons from WWI because it is far from “a shame” that the Germans lost WWII. But the fleet building strategy you outline never happened. The Germans built pocket battleships while Hitler was still in a Munich prison and they were banned from building submarines. Far from being a diversion from submarines or white elephants they were very effective investments at the time for an anti sea commerce campaign.

You are probably referring to the four battleships (non pocket) that they built after the three pocket types. While in hindsight they were white elephants at the time they were built as part of a German schedule that wouldn’t see war with Great Britain and America until 1948. If this schedule had been kept then they would have been crucial units towards the Germans achieving fleet parity and overmatch against the Royal Navy.

If the Germans had never hatched the Z Plan fleet program and concentrated entirely on an anti sea commerce fleet then they would have caused a lot more damage to the allies in 1940-43. But would it have won the war? Despite the hardship suffered Great Britain did not get near the levels the Soviets suffered through to maintain their war economy. I’m sure the British would have endured as much as our Soviet allies and even in the face of the loss of most sea traffic would have hung on until the American weight of effort at sea and new technology tipped the balance in their favour in 1943.

Without a battle fleet or a significant advantage in technology the Germans could never have delivered a knock out blow despite potentially closing the Atlantic to all but fast ships. At best they would have delayed the Normandy invasion a year but it would all still end in their defeat during summer 1945.

 

[riksavage]

That’s not true, partially or entirely. The Germans sortied their high seas fleet several times after Jutland just as they sortied several times before. The WWI German naval fleet strategy was to attrite the British fleet via limited actions. They hoped to trap British covering forces of only a battleship squadron or two with their entire fleet and sink some ships. Over time this strategy would enable them to reach eventual parity in which case they could win a general fleet engagement and control over the North Sea.

Unfortunately for them the Royal Navy was supremely aggressive and sortied in strength at the drop of a hat so the overmatch situation rarely eventuated and when it did the Germans were unaware. During Jutland the German fleet broke off action as soon as they realised they faced the entire Grand Fleet. Far from a strategic or operational defeat it was in accordance with their tactics.



Well I’m quite glad Hitler didn’t learn any lessons from WWI because it is far from “a shame” that the Germans lost WWII. But the fleet building strategy you outline never happened. The Germans built pocket battleships while Hitler was still in a Munich prison and they were banned from building submarines. Far from being a diversion from submarines or white elephants they were very effective investments at the time for an anti sea commerce campaign.

You are probably referring to the four battleships (non pocket) that they built after the three pocket types. While in hindsight they were white elephants at the time they were built as part of a German schedule that wouldn’t see war with Great Britain and America until 1948. If this schedule had been kept then they would have been crucial units towards the Germans achieving fleet parity and overmatch against the Royal Navy.

If the Germans had never hatched the Z Plan fleet program and concentrated entirely on an anti sea commerce fleet then they would have caused a lot more damage to the allies in 1940-43. But would it have won the war? Despite the hardship suffered Great Britain did not get near the levels the Soviets suffered through to maintain their war economy. I’m sure the British would have endured as much as our Soviet allies and even in the face of the loss of most sea traffic would have hung on until the American weight of effort at sea and new technology tipped the balance in their favour in 1943.

Without a battle fleet or a significant advantage in technology the Germans could never have delivered a knock out blow despite potentially closing the Atlantic to all but fast ships. At best they would have delayed the Normandy invasion a year but it would all still end in their defeat during summer 1945.

I should have been more specific, I was mainly referring to those famous combatants laid down after Hitler's arrival - Bismarck and Scharnhorst Class. I recall some bright spark calculated the amount of steel, man-hours and crew requirements for these prestige projects and converted that figure into realistic U-Boat numbers. That revised figure coupled with the average performance (shipping tons sank) of a U-Boat operating in the Atlantic would 'hypothetically' have resulted in a significant spike in allied tonnage sank.

There is very good biography written during WWI by Karl von Schenk - U122: The Diary of a U-Boat Commander. He bemoans the demise of the German High Seas Fleets post Jutland, hence his request to transfer to the U-Boat service, the only branch of the German Navy prepared to take the fight to the hated RN. The book also reveals anti-Semitism was alive and well back in 1916. You can download a free e-book version, author - Sir William Stephen Richard King-Hall (English version). No mention of Eurofighter though!!!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I recall some bright spark calculated the amount of steel, man-hours and crew requirements for these prestige projects and converted that figure into realistic U-Boat numbers.

He could have just compared how much they cost...

 

[STURM]

Typhoon certainly is wee bit more advanced than that.

Not my intention to start a 'this VS that' discussion. Being a newer and much more expensive aircraft, I would expect Typhoon to be a ''wee'' more advanced but apart from the following points below, how is the Typhoon more advanced than a Su-30MKI or how is ti a better aircraft?

1. It is certainly more stealthy.

2. It has a radar, engines and other components with a higher TBO or MBTF than those on the MKI.

3. It has been integrated with a number of air to air and air to ground ordnance that has been combat tested unlike most of the stuff offered with the MKI.

4. It has a real glass cockpit - the MKI has a glass cockpit but still has some analogue dials - but does the Typhoon have a better ergonomiclly designed cockpit?

5. It has a more comprehensive self defence suite than that fitted on the MKI.

6. The Typhoon has more growth potential than the MK1.

What I would be interested in finding out is -

1. How does the Captor AESA radar compare in performance to the Zhuk, which will be fitted on the MKI's as part of an upgrade.

2. What is the hourly operating cost of the Typhoon compared to the MKI?
We know that the Typhoon is moe expensive to operate than the F3s it replaced.

3. How does Link 16 compare to the Russian data link that is offered with the Su-30 family? Assuming the IAF had sufficient numbers of AEW aircraft, would the Typhoon actually have a better network centric capability than the MKI?

 

[Twinblade]

What I would be interested in finding out is -

1. How does the Captor AESA radar compare in performance to the Zhuk, which will be fitted on the MKI's as part of an upgrade.

I can't compare the performances of either but Mki is not getting Zhuk and the bars is set for an upgrade in 2012. Rumors suggest upgrade of processors and yet officially unconfirmed (but widely accepted) modification for upgrade to active array post 2016.

3. How does Link 16 compare to the Russian data link that is offered with the Su-30 family? Assuming the IAF had sufficient numbers of AEW aircraft, would the Typhoon actually have a better network centric capability than the MKI?

I have been informed by posters on other forums that Mki, and other fighters (Tejas, Jaguar) have been equipped with ODL (Tadarin spectralink customised for HAL for compatibility with Phalcon AEWCS). MiG-29 & Mirage 2000 are also being equipped with the same and if typhoon is selected, it too would be equipped with ODL. So as far as network compatibility goes, nearly all IAF equipment ( barring MiG-21 and MiG-27) will be on the same level.

 

[Scorpion82]

3. It has been integrated with a number of air to air and air to ground ordnance that has been combat tested unlike most of the stuff offered with the MKI.

As of now the range of AG weapon options on the Typhoon is rather limited, thus far only LGBs and dual-mode bombs are integrated. It's latest short range AAMs aren't combat proven either. At the moment the Su-30MKI offers a significantly wider range of AG weapon options and I'm certain that some of them are combat tested as well in Chechenya and Georgia.

4. It has a real glass cockpit - the MKI has a glass cockpit but still has some analogue dials - but does the Typhoon have a better ergonomiclly designed cockpit?

I'm pretty certain that Typhoon's MMI is more ergonomic as the aircraft was from the outset designed for single seat operations, even in the most demanding operational environments. Typhoon's MMI is said to have been designed by pilots for pilots. Frontline pilots with a wealth experience of operating different European and US combat aircraft contributed to the development of Typhoon's MMI and a lot of effort was poured into its design. It was a long and time consuming efforts. The fact that the Su-30MKI was from the outset designed for twin seat operations might be an indirect admission that its MMI isn't developed enough to allow a single pilot to operate the aircraft in a sufficient manner. Add the fact that the Russian approach to cockpit ergonomics was traditionally less advanced and that the Indians demanded the integration of a lot of different systems from different origins, not being specifically designed for the aircraft either and I think one can safely conclude that the Su-30MKI's MMI is in the end less developed than that of the Typhoon with a lower level of automation and integration.

1. How does the Captor AESA radar compare in performance to the Zhuk, which will be fitted on the MKI's as part of an upgrade.

With virtually no data being available it is impossible to compare the performance and capabilities of the respective radars. It has been reported that the Zhuk-MAE prototype didn't meet the IAF's requirements wrt range performance, but a Zhuk-ASE for the Su-30MKI (if it happens) might be a different beast. Being much larger and probably more powerful that radar will likely be able to outrange the Captor-E. That's still just an assumption, but not a to far stretched one IMO. Radar capability isn't solely reliant on raw range performance however.

2. What is the hourly operating cost of the Typhoon compared to the MKI? We know that the Typhoon is moe expensive to operate than the F3s it replaced.

The true operating costs are rarely known. Most figures floating around in the public are stated without any references. That means it is not known on which base they are calculated. You sometimes see figures which appear to be the marginal costs between keeping and aircraft on the ground or let it fly for an hour. Other operating costs might include the procurement costs of the aircraft, which in turn might include development and overall programme costs, spread over the number of flight hours. Personal costs, costs for setting up and sustaining the logistic chain and support systems, training and even infrastructure building on airbases required to support the operations of a type may all be included or not among other things. The way an aircraft is operated and the personal costs depending on the country can have more or less significant impacts as well. I'm pretty certain the a British or German pilot or maintainer will be better paid than his Indian counter part for example. What we can safely assume is that the costs for Su-30MKI spare parts are likely to be lower on the other hand their lower TBO/MTBF will require a more frequent replacement of items which in turn could be more expensive. In the end of the day no one knows for sure as long as no adequate database is available.

3. How does Link 16 compare to the Russian data link that is offered with the Su-30 family? Assuming the IAF had sufficient numbers of AEW aircraft, would the Typhoon actually have a better network centric capability than the MKI?

A more interesting question to ask is how well would the IAF's ODL compare to the MIDS and in the Indian context the question would be whether the Indians won't in fact use the very same datalink on both aircraft. The current Russian datalink is optimised for package operations allowing up to 16 aircraft to be connected to each other in a network. It's a simplified expression, however, as in fact only four aircraft are directly connected to each other exchanging their radar images and position data. The lead can assign targets to his wingmen and can receive data from the lead of another 4-ship. You subsequently have a single host and 3 clients and the ability to exchange data with other hosts. The Indian AEW aircraft use a non compatible datalink, that's why the Su-30MKI's will be fitted with the Indian made operational datalink (ODL). There isn't much known about this ODL except that it isn't compliant with the Russian and likely not compliant with the NATO LINK16 as well. Considering the cross networking within a package the MIDS appears to be a more flexible and capable system exchanging position data, engagement status and sensor images (and in some cases even video) between up to 8 participants. The flight lead can assign targets to his wingmen as well and cooperative targeting is another plus allowing for passive target engagements by relying on the offboard targeting data received from the wingman. In a LINK16 network MIDS permits the exchange of text messages and discrete voice communications on secured channels. It ensures that a connection to the C2 (or equivalent) is established and the participants sent in their own sensor data to the C2 host which fuses them with the data of other participants and his own data if available and broadcasts them on a secured channel so that all participants in the network (up to 128 without relaying between different hosts) can receive the fused sensor picture. As India don't want to sign the CiSMOA I don't think that MIDS will be sold to the Indians and that they will in fact implement their own ODL into the selected MMRCA winner (Rafale or Typhoon) to ensure interoperability with its other assets.

 

[STURM]

Thanks for the very interesting feedback and info! Much appreciated.

I have been informed by posters on other forums that Mki, and other fighters (Tejas, Jaguar) have been equipped with ODL (Tadarin spectralink customised for HAL for compatibility with Phalcon AEWCS). MiG-29 & Mirage 2000 are also being equipped with the same and if typhoon is selected, it too would be equipped with ODL. So as far as network compatibility goes, nearly all IAF equipment ( barring MiG-21 and MiG-27) will be on the same level.

This would make a lot of sense as all the IAF's - except the Fishbed and Flogger - fighters would have a common data link. Of topic but this makes me wonder if the Super Hornet or F-16 had been selected, would the U.S. government have granted approval for a non-U.S. data link to be fitted? About 2 years ago, Thales unveiled a data link that is compatible with Link 16 and almost comparable in performance, for customers that are nor cleared to receive Link 16. Apologies again for going off topic again but does the IN's 4 Ka-31 AEW helicopters have a data link that can share data with all the IN's frontline assets?

As of now the range of AG weapon options on the Typhoon is rather limited, thus far only LGBs and dual-mode bombs are integrated. It's latest short range AAMs aren't combat proven either. At the moment the Su-30MKI offers a significantly wider range of AG weapon options and I'm certain that some of them are combat tested as well in Chechenya and Georgia.

Apart from the KAB family I can't think of any Russian LGBs that have been used in combat. Was the KH-58 used in Chechnya or Georgia? As for Typhoon LGBs - are there any other besides Storm Shadow and Paveway 2 and 3?

A more interesting question to ask is how well would the IAF's ODL compare to the MIDS and in the Indian context the question would be whether the Indians won't in fact use the very same datalink on both aircraft. The current Russian datalink is optimised for package operations allowing up to 16 aircraft to be connected to each other in a network. It's a simplified expression, however, as in fact only four aircraft are directly connected to each other exchanging their radar images and position data. The lead can assign targets to his wingmen and can receive data from the lead of another 4-ship. You subsequently have a single host and 3 clients and the ability to exchange data with other hosts. The Indian AEW aircraft use a non compatible datalink, that's why the Su-30MKI's will be fitted with the Indian made operational datalink (ODL). There isn't much known about this ODL except that it isn't compliant with the Russian and likely not compliant with the NATO LINK16 as well. Considering the cross networking within a package the MIDS appears to be a more flexible and capable system exchanging position data, engagement status and sensor images (and in some cases even video) between up to 8 participants. The flight lead can assign targets to his wingmen as well and cooperative targeting is another plus allowing for passive target engagements by relying on the offboard targeting data received from the wingman.

Picked this up from a defence blog that is now inactive.

As far as data links go, neither the Su-30MKI nor the Su-30MKM has the kind of Russia-origin airborne data links that are on board the Su-30MKK or Su-30MK2 or Su-27SMK. This is because the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM are not required to share tactical air situation data with one another, but to exchange such data with AEW & C platforms. On the Su-30MKI the data links are of Israeli origin (from TADIRAN SpectraLink) and they will be operationalised only AFTER they are commissioned into service, which will happen only after the PHALCON AEW & C platforms are commissioned into service. This has nothing to do with OPSEC.

 

[Scorpion82]

Apart from the KAB family I can't think of any Russian LGBs that have been used in combat. Was the KH-58 used in Chechnya or Georgia? As for Typhoon LGBs - are there any other besides Storm Shadow and Paveway 2 and 3?

I'm not sure what kind of weapons the Russians have used, but I could imagine that they may have used the Kh-29 and Kh-59 as well, but that's just a guess. Wrt the Typhoon the only weapon currently cleared are Paveway II LGBs (GBU-10/16 and UK PW II) as well as UK Enhanced Paveway II dual-mode bombs. The GBU-48 EPW II and Paveway IV should be ready now and will be available for upcoming block 10 Typhoons next year. Other weapons such as Storm Shadow or KEPD-350 Taurus stand-off missiles or Brimstone anti armour missiles will still take some years before being integrated.

Picked this up from a defence blog that is now inactive.

Interesting info, but how reliable is this?

 

[Jhom]

I'm not sure what kind of weapons the Russians have used, but I could imagine that they may have used the Kh-29 and Kh-59 as well, but that's just a guess. Wrt the Typhoon the only weapon currently cleared are Paveway II LGBs (GBU-10/16 and UK PW II) as well as UK Enhanced Paveway II dual-mode bombs. The GBU-48 EPW II and Paveway IV should be ready now and will be available for upcoming block 10 Typhoons next year. Other weapons such as Storm Shadow or KEPD-350 Taurus stand-off missiles or Brimstone anti armour missiles will still take some years before being integrated.



Interesting info, but how reliable is this?

Paveway III bombs are also available for the tiffie...

 

[Twinblade]

Interesting info, but how reliable is this?

Its by Prasun K Sengupta, usually not reliable, but he cites a particular clause in the Mki contract regarding non russian avionics that mentions data links and claims he was present during the flight testing at avionics integration rig at irkut.

 

[Scorpion82]

Its by Prasun K Sengupta, usually not reliable, but he cites a particular clause in the Mki contract regarding non russian avionics that mentions data links and claims he was present during the flight testing at avionics integration rig at irkut.

Ah that thief I know him. Ok so I rather consume it with care.

@Jhom
No there is no PW III integrated on the Typhoon. The sole PW III variant planned was the GBU-24 and it currently looks like it has been eliminated from the requirements.

 

[STURM]

Its by Prasun K Sengupta, usually not reliable, but he cites a particular clause in the Mki contract regarding non russian avionics that mentions data links and claims he was present during the flight testing at avionics integration rig at irkut.

Ah that thief I know him. Ok so I rather consume it with care.

What a small world

He was based in Malaysia for more than 10 years, heard he's back in India.
Amongst the Indian defence forum community, he's not very popular.
Twinblade, he's claimed to have been present at many events.

 

[Scorpion82]

Amongst the Indian defence forum community, he's not very popular.
Twinblade, he's claimed to have been present at many events.

He isn't very popular for me either as he has stolen my work 2 years ago. 5 years ago I published an article about Eurofighter Typhoon's air combat capabilities. It was posted in only two forums and included a relative detailed description of the Captor radar in its current form with a mechanically scanned array. 3 years later I stumbled across an article by this guy dubbed "challenging radars". It was published in the FORCE magazine. When reading that article I quickly figured that this guy had copy pasted the radar part from my article, but replaced Captor with CAESAR passing it for a radar it isn't. That clearly demonstrates what a crappy journalist that guy is. I have contacted the magazines editor and he promised me to clear it up, but I don't know whether he seriously did it.

 

[swerve]

2. What is the hourly operating cost of the Typhoon compared to the MKI?
We know that the Typhoon is moe expensive to operate than the F3s it replaced.

Unfortunately, we don't know that. The quoted figures aren't comparable. The British MoD has a very bad habit of giving hourly operating rates based on all costs associated with an aircraft, divided by number of hours flown in a given period. Aircraft about to be retired tend to look cheaper on this basis, as they're not being upgraded, no more are being bought, spares aren't being bought for them, training is less, etc. "Costs" can go through the roof when something is retired though, because the accountants write off its assumed remaining value. This makes the reported annual operating cost of the Type 42 destroyer extraordinarily high at the moment, as retiring ships appear in the costs column.

The other thing they sometimes do is give estimates of hourly operating costs over the lifetime of the aircraft, to smooth out the bumps inherent in the annual figures. But these have their own problems. For example, any changes in numbers bought, or expected operating tempo, or lifetime, will change the estimated operating cost, as it's (system lifetime cost/total hours of operations).

They don't distinguish between capital & operating costs. Useful if you want to compare the total cost of providing an hour of flight operations, but not if you want to separate out operating from total costs.

These total costs are sometimes compared with marginal operating costs, i.e. the difference between leaving the plane sitting in a hangar, & flying it, producing some remarkable & completely meaningless results.

As Scorpion says, you need to know the basis of calculation, & compare only like with like, & that's often not possible.