Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Eurofighter Typhoon analysis by APA

Some of this is a bit dated (as it doesn't include the Block II variant of the Super Hornet) but it is a good analysis to put things into perspective since the Typhoon has been mentioned re: Japan.

The following quote points back to the original intent of creating the Typhoon.

"The strength of the Typhoon is its very modern and comprehensive avionic package, especially that in the RAF variant, and its excellent agility when operated around its optimum combat radius of about 300 NMI (a figure to be found in older Eurofighter literature, which has since disappeared with the export drive to compete against the bigger F-15 and F-22)."

Unless Japan can conjure up the F-22, the Typhoon is still the best of the 3 options facing Japan for its F-4 replacement.



Anonymous said...

Its quite a poor analysis, the Typhoon information was dated when published, and its plain wrong in quite a few areas. (especially Supercruise and avionics)

Carlo was bagging anything and everything not F-22, this is just one of those slanted pieces.

geogen said...

The Euro consortium needs to be proud of what they've produced.

A couple of the capabilities I'm curious about are; how effective is it's Electronic Attack and Stand off Jamming role when employing the Thales EA pod?

And how truly effective is this new 'look-through-the-floor' spherical view HMSS helmet, and how reliable is its weapon sys voice command function? That sounds like some serious game-changing situational awareness, let alone some serious air-dominance capability for the warfighter.

One has to wonder why SA wouldn't just expand it's fleet of these babies, rather than the F-15SA?? (I say that as an advocate for more USAF F-15E gap-fill mods).

BTW, which make MAWS sensor is featured on a tranche III Typhoon? If anyone knows?

I'd have to concur though, that w/ respect to JASDF the Typhoon would arguably provide the best overall option of the three, especially after AESA integration.

If the follow-on blk-IV F-35 had been mature by 2016 as originally estimated though and if it could have been acquired for anywhere close to what the original estimates were for an ~ FY14 (late LRIP) PUC cost, then I'd have no problem advocating that path as top choice for the bulk of fighter recapitalizations.

The reality today however, is requiring balance of capabilities, sustainability and of course, meeting a recap schedule without monumental risk of gaps.

RS said...

"Its quite a poor analysis, the Typhoon information was dated when published, and its plain wrong in quite a few areas. (especially Supercruise and avionics)"
As you are no doubt an expert, so much so that you are anonymous, please give us your technical reply, complete with your sources of information showing what you believeto be correct.
Strange people like yourself bag APA, but do not ever have the ability to present any thing regarding the same intellectual input.Those contributing to APA publish their names and qualifications, what are you qaulifications?
Pathetic and sad.
I await your reply?

nico said...

Nice to hear from Geogen again!

With economic crisis and earthquake damage/reconstruction, will price trump interoperability with USA? Could Eurofighter offer such a discount that would make it just to attractive for Japan to walk away? Could Meteor be a determining factor compared to vanilla AMRAAM?

IMO Japan should go for deep upgrade of in service F15s and buy a new batch of F15E or Ks.It would be cheaper to operate and you would reduce one type of fighter in service compared to introducing Eurofighter with all that entails. Don't see them going for F35 as I have a hard time believing they will get a good price or delivery in 2017 or 18.

Anonymous said...

The architecture has changed to rugged Power PC's from the older Motorola 68020.

The data buses are bigger than those stated in the article.

The Ej200 engine is cabable of sustained supercruise, this was something I directly told the good doctor Kopp before the article was published!
e.g. Max M1.4 with 2009 engines and for as long as the fuel lasts

Basically ignored the superior supersonic manoeuvrability over the teen series, equate it with the F15 supersonic agility (Typhoon is far superior) Typhoon range figures were under quoted.

Even quotes an f18 pilot who flew the simulator for performance metrics!!

LWR isn't only Forward sector.

Thats just from a cursory glance.
Sources - me
Expert level - better than average.

anonymous because I choose to be, but its not hard to guess. ;-)

RS said...

Your qualifications?

RS said...

Again you hide behind the"anonymous tag".Only cowards.
In addition Eric noted that the article was a little old. APA contributors are hobyists?Compared with an anonymous source are kidding.
Your sources, your published articles, your peer revieved material, let us see it?
And you are close to those who fly these aircraft?Who are they.
Typhoon is far superior you say, I can see some of that, but please detail your expert resources.I am always willing to read and learn.
What range does the Typhoon have, please quote your source?
At supercruise how long does the fuel last? Your sources and references please.
Please detail.
Your references and qualifications?

Ultra Anonymous shush shush said...

"Sources - me
Expert level - better than average."

This bloke would have to be a moron.
What a response.
Now from me, I am a world renowned Aeronautical engineer and say to you that you are sprouting crap. I have sources in DOD, DMO the Chinese military and the Russian Airforce.

Dr Kopp is exactly correct because I say so and you are wrong.I can not give you my exact qualifications.
There is no supercruise, the radius of th Typhoon is less that a spitfire and it is slower.
level of expertise -genius
Anonymous because if I revealed who I was you would have to kill me.
Angus is my cousin.

geogen said...

Hey Nico ~

Not to detract too much from the thread... I feel a tranche IIIB EF deserves an opportunity to prove itself. I think it would be perceived as adequately cost-effective and worthy.

But all fair analysis and seemingly pragmatic suggestions you made as an alternative plan with respect to JASDF, although I'd still be curious what the actual Procurement cost is for a tranche IIIB eurofigter, as well as it's operationals.

Yet, I've had no problem myself questioning in the past why not study an updated F-15 option too, if only for 40 jets? Why not new F-15 instead of the Super Hornet or at least in addition to it in an evaluation?

Personally, I've thought a valid cost-effective solution would have also included to enhance and modify the F-2 as need be... just expand that fleet - reduce the number of operational airframe types in the mid-term to 2 that way. Procurement and Life Cycle would be cheaper than new F-15 plus it would have supported an existing industry in place (now gonzo).

That jet, supplemented by a jointly-developed ATD-X (w/ Boeing?) could have been a good over-lapping "high-low" Tactical mix. ATD-X could have been a potential strategic fall-back for USAF too - same airframe and engines, different avionics, etc.

Can Japan really afford new F-15 or Typhoon by 2016, plus an entirely separate ATD-X program simultaneously??

I'm sure a lot of fighter recap plans would look drastically different today, knowing just 3-4 yrs ago what is public info today.