Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

The most capable AESA will be RAF. They are already planning how to squeeze the most out of the F35/Typhoon combination and do things that they haven't been able to do before like Electronic attack.

I expect the SA Typhoons to copy the RAF and gees will be the best Typhoons.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

The Captor-D was obviously deemed more than enough for partner nations.. The main driver for Captor-E was to have a tick in the AESA checkbox so that the Typhoon stays at least partially relevant on the export market vis-a-vis F-35, Strike Eagle, Super Hornet, Gripen-E or Rafale. Those sheiks who spend billions on new hardware buy them like they were LaFerraris and Veyrons - they were told AESA was better so they wouldn't pick anything without it.

Not really, the tick in box was very much a Rafale goal, hence maintaining the old back end. The RAF's intention with the Captor-E is to provide a far more advanced warfighting capability.


Don't say.. and which airforces have ordered these?

That's what the ukarmedforces blogspot says, which is the best source we've got.


Well, that's funny. I thought a completely new back-end was more than enough physical but I guess one always learns something new, especially from people who don't have slightest clue.

The Mk1+ has the new back end, the Mk2 is a software update.


Just a small reminder - the works on AMSAR started in 1993 and CAESAR technology demonstrator has first flown in 2007. Today, in 2015 there is still no series Captor-E flying or even being produced, not even with old back-end. But hey, now they will have series deliveries of fully capable Mk2s developed from BrightAdder in just four years.. :applause: I can't wait..

Hence why it will be much more advanced than RBE2-AA - more development effort, rather than just throwing some front end modules into service.


Yes. I completely ignore it.

I've noticed.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

on EF: it's on the very top performance wise as an interceptor, and Captor E may well be the best radar to date,
it also has the sheer mass and power to be a heavy duty bomb truck,
but the customer/Germans expected to pay for upgrades and integration has other priorities, time's up,
high operational cost also doesn't help making it desirable or future proof.
Perhaps it is put best to use in an AF large enough to use two types, one dedicated fighter-interceptor,
and then UAV for ground targets

Where do people get these 'high operational costs' from? Most sources show them to be similar to the Rafale and cheaper than the Tornado. As regards progress, the UK has got tired of waiting for Germany and will go it alone. Note that the Tories have just been elected with a majority and no Lib Dems to hold them back.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

Hence why it will be much more advanced than RBE2-AA - more development effort, rather than just throwing some front end modules into service.

Are you aware that the original RBE2 was already an electronically scanned radar, because the FAF had already anticipated that electronically scanned radars were the way of the future? That it was a PESA was a transitory step to get ahead on the AESA transition because the cost/efficiency ratio of first gen AESA modules was considered too low.

It's not like the RBE2 was a mechanical array in the first place.

Nic

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

The most capable AESA will be RAF. They are already planning how to squeeze the most out of the F35/Typhoon combination and do things that they haven't been able to do before like Electronic attack.

I expect the SA Typhoons to copy the RAF and gees will be the best Typhoons.


Not sure the Mk2 is for export.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

Well I was only hypothesising considering we are talking about sometime in the next 5 years- no one should be sure of anything at this stage.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

Are you aware that the original RBE2 was already an electronically scanned radar, because the FAF had already anticipated that electronically scanned radars were the way of the future? That it was a PESA was a transitory step to get ahead on the AESA transition because the cost/efficiency ratio of first gen AESA modules was considered too low.

It's not like the RBE2 was a mechanical array in the first place.

Nic


No but it wasn't an AESA in the first place either, hence why it's limited in still having the PESA back end. The Captor-E is a ground-up AESA design built with fully matured technology.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

No but it wasn't an AESA in the first place either, hence why it's limited in still having the PESA back end. The Captor-E is a ground-up AESA design built with fully matured technology.

So what's the fundamental difference between a PESA back-end & an AESA back-end?

Nic

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 4,461

The PESA still needs a transmitter, AESA does not.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

No but it wasn't an AESA in the first place either, hence why it's limited in still having the PESA back end. The Captor-E is a ground-up AESA design built with fully matured technology.
No. Captor-E is largely based on Captor-D.. It isn't a Captor-D with new antenna only because such transition is not possible - some mods to high power transmitter and processing unit are required in order to adapt them for an active phased array.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Not really, the tick in box was very much a Rafale goal, hence maintaining the old back end. The RAF's intention with the Captor-E is to provide a far more advanced warfighting capability.
French already have it in series and are firmly commited to it with roadmap defining improved ECCM and GaN based modules.. Plus there are export orders from three other air forces.. If that's a tick in box, then it was a damn good one.

That's what the ukarmedforces blogspot says, which is the best source we've got.
It all depends on interpretation. If your source says that Mk2 is ready by 2019 and even if we believe it, what exactly does it mean? a) Ready to be tested? b) Ready to be deployed? c) Already produced and in service? d) Produced, in service and with full capabilities? Biased fanboys like yourself tick d) without thinking but the sad reality is you don't have a clue... currently the Mk2 is not much beyond vaporware, just like the further evolution of RBE2-AA currently developed by Thales under the PEA (Plan d'Etude Amont) program.

The Mk1+ has the new back end, the Mk2 is a software update.
Mk1 has old back-end. Mk1+ is likely to have improved processing power, better resolution in SAR mode and software update. Mk2 should have new capabilities, most likely beyond the possibilities of current hardware, therefore it's logical to expect at least a revised or even a completely new back-end.

Hence why it will be much more advanced than RBE2-AA - more development effort, rather than just throwing some front end modules into service.
Captor-E will likely never be more advanced than RBE2-AA. Thales has some solid time advantage here - unless DGA give up commitment on further Rafale upgrades, I cannot see that happening.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

So what's the fundamental difference between a PESA back-end & an AESA back-end?

Nic


The latter has an expanded architecture with extra processing power to run electronic attack and high bandwidth communications, as well improving detection. It's the difference between buying a supercar and modifying a Honda Civic.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

No. Captor-E is largely based on Captor-D.. It isn't a Captor-D with new antenna only because such transition is not possible - some mods to high power transmitter and processing unit are required in order to adapt them for an active phased array.

Not according to the information posted already. Both Mk1+ and Mk2 have a new architecture. It's isn't Captor-D with a new antenna because it's not a tick in a box solution like the rushed RBE2-AA.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

French already have it in series and are firmly commited to it with roadmap defining improved ECCM and GaN based modules.. Plus there are export orders from three other air forces.. If that's a tick in box, then it was a damn good one.

Still using the same back end though, with no clear timescale and no indication of when electronic attack will be added. That's what ticks in boxes are for - sales, whereas genuine capability is for domestic defence capability.


It all depends on interpretation. If your source says that Mk2 is ready by 2019 and even if we believe it, what exactly does it mean? a) Ready to be tested? b) Ready to be deployed? c) Already produced and in service? d) Produced, in service and with full capabilities? Biased fanboys like yourself tick d) without thinking but the sad reality is you don't have a clue... currently the Mk2 is not much beyond vaporware, just like the further evolution of RBE2-AA currently developed by Thales under the PEA (Plan d'Etude Amont) program.

"Two successive releases," implies release to service. The functionality of the Mk2 has been tested on Bright Adder for quite some time.


Mk1 has old back-end. Mk1+ is likely to have improved processing power, better resolution in SAR mode and software update. Mk2 should have new capabilities, most likely beyond the possibilities of current hardware, therefore it's logical to expect at least a revised or even a completely new back-end.

Mk1 hasn't been mentioned to. Only a Mk1+ grade is going to non-UK partners. Mk2 is a software update to the new architecture and linkage with DASS.


Captor-E will likely never be more advanced than RBE2-AA. Thales has some solid time advantage here - unless DGA give up commitment on further Rafale upgrades, I cannot see that happening.

Yeah right, in your dreams. Why? Thales rushed it into service and then sat back for quite some time, Captor-E development has been going on in the background all that time, in one guise or another, starting from around when the Rafale first came out. What we'll likely see is a leap-frog situation.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Still using the same back end though, with no clear timescale and no indication of when electronic attack will be added. That's what ticks in boxes are for - sales, whereas genuine capability is for domestic defence capability.
There is a timescale for PEA (let's call it RBE3), albeit pretty vague at this point. I've seen a date between 2020 and 2030 which is quite realistic, IMHO.

http://www.air-cosmos.com/2014/09/29/25687-futur-radar-multirole-pour-le-rafale

Domestic defense capability doesn't play a role, especially if there are other means of airborne ECM. Funny how suddenly no one can even take-off without having electronic attack radar installed while yesterday you guys didn't even know such thing existed. If there shall be a large scale conflict with China or Russia in ~2028, then even Mk2s won't save you against ICBMs. If there shall not, then even mechanical Captor-D would still do a solid job.

"Two successive releases," implies release to service. The functionality of the Mk2 has been tested on Bright Adder for quite some time.
Which pretty much confirms my claim that Mk2 doesn't exist yet, not even as a prototype. The Bright Adder technology demonstrator is to Mk2 what AMSAR was once to CAESAR and untimately to Captor-E Mk1. Now look at AMSAR timescales and tell me once again how you will be fielding series-produced Mk2s in 2019.. :applause:

Mk1 hasn't been mentioned to. Only a Mk1+ grade is going to non-UK partners. Mk2 is a software update to the new architecture and linkage with DASS.
I see it differently.. You don't make an entirely new back-end with entirely new capabilities and then name it Mk1+..

Yeah right, in your dreams. Why? Thales rushed it into service and then sat back for quite some time, Captor-E development has been going on in the background all that time, in one guise or another, starting from around when the Rafale first came out. What we'll likely see is a leap-frog situation.
So far the only one dreaming is you, reading articles full of "will be" and " will show", while RBE2-AAs are flying every day and have 100 odd units on order. Wake me up when that happens with Captor-E.

Therer are no leap-frogs in this business. Just a large number of small evolutionary steps.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 1,498

the rushed RBE2-AA.

:applause: Impressive.

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 4,461

@Lukos

Programs like Bright Adder aren't directly related to Captor-E though they may feed into it to some extend. Captor-E in its initial EIS form is aimed at export customers offering some AA and limited AG capabilities. Physically receiver and processor are retained from Captor-D with minor modifications, TPA and WGU are removed as they are no longer necessary in the AESA configuration, the TAU is replaced by the APSC and the M-Scanner is replaced by the AESA antenna mounted on the double swashplate repositioner. There is also a new provisional LRI called AAU which will be exploited at a later stage.

The OT&E variant shall include full AA and extended AG functions incl. some hardware changes already, the proposed IOC standard shall offer full AG and initial EA capabilities, whereas the EOC standard should provide full EA and some other capabilities. The "Mk1" more or less correlated to the EIS. The Mk1+ to OT&E and/or IOC and Mk2 to EOC. That's a rough correlation of the different designations. Have to cross check the currency of the four previously stated standards with the 1, 1+ and 2 standards. There might well be hardware differences between 1+ and 2 and not only software changes. Right now the focus is on getting the hardware and initial software developed and integrated with the overall weapon system. EIS was previously proposed to built on P1E, but that's increasingly unlikely.

As far as linkage of radar and DASS is concerned both were always interfacing with the attack bus. The integration is done by the AC, while interoperability is directly managed between the ESM/ECM processor and the radar processor.

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 11

MTBA for the Captor M-Scan scanner/antenna is around 1200hours,so reliability is not the overiding issue here. Original spec was for 3000Hrs MBTF. Having worked on the F3 Foxhunter for 20+ years,scanner with a MTBF of 40 hours,you can see the great improvement? The T2 M-Scan with all the latest S/Ware updates is more than adequate for the foreseable future. Cutomers are happy with it "as is" hence no rush for E-Scan

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

@ Scorpion82 and hammy20
thanks for your clarification, pretty much my impression thus far.. It also matches the claims made by Indra Sistemas.

CAPTOR-E - Modell der Antenne mit Taumelscheibe
Das CAPTOR-E soll die AESA-Technologie in die CAPTOR-Familie einführen. Um den beschränkten Sichtwinkel fester Radarantennen zu umgehen, wird die Antenne mit zwei Taumelscheiben (engl. swashplate) gekippt eingebaut. Durch den Kippwinkel von 40° und die Drehbarkeit in alle Richtungen kann zusammen mit dem elektronischen Schwenkwinkel von 60° ein Suchbereich von ±100° in Elevation und Azimut realisiert werden. Das Back-End wird größtenteils von CAPTOR-M übernommen. Damit soll die F-Pole-Distanz im Luftkampf vergrößert werden.[84] Allerdings steigt das Gewicht des Radars dadurch um 100 kg an.[85]

Die Radarantenne soll wie beim CAESAR aus etwa 1500 TRM bestehen. Für die Prototypen ist aus Kostengründen GaAs-Technik vorgesehen, die Serienversion sollte Module auf GaN-Basis erhalten. Im Vorfeld wurden eine Reihe von GaN-Modulentwicklungen in Großbritannien und Deutschland finanziert. Letztlich entschied man sich aber laut Andrew Cowdery, Vorstandsvorsitzender von EuroRADAR, auf GaAs-Module zu setzen, da die GaN-Technologie noch nicht reif genug sei.

Gemäß Indra Sistemas werden Antenne (LRI #9), Transmitter Auxiliary Unit (TAU) und Antenna Power Supply & Controller (APSC) gegenüber dem CAPTOR-M verschieden sein. Die TAU des CAPTOR-E soll mit 12,75 kVA beschickt werden, sodass nach Verlusten 10,58 kW in die APSC fließen, welche mit über 88 % Wirkungsgrad arbeiten soll. Folglich läge die Ausgangsleistung hier bei über 9,31 kW. Die Kühlung der Komponenten soll beim CAPTOR-E durch Verdampfungskühlung realisiert werden. Die Ortungsreichweite soll bei 59 km gegen eine Lockheed Martin F-35 liegen (Stand 2011).

Nachdem die Entwicklung vom EuroRADAR-Konsortium mit Eigenmitteln vorangetrieben wurde, erklärte sich das britische Verteidigungsministerium 2011 bereit, die CAPTOR-E-Testflüge ab 2013 zu finanzieren. Zumindest die Testradare sollen noch mit einem Trial Interface Processor (TIP) ausgerüstet werden, welcher die Radardaten während des Fluges aufzeichnet. Dazu stehen 240 GB (beliebig um 2x, 4x oder 8x hochrüstbar) Festplattenspeicher mit bis zu 520 MBit/s zur Verfügung, welcher an sechs Glasfaserkabel mit je 1 GBit/s angeschlossen ist. Seit Anfang 2013 wird ein Prototyp des CAPTOR-E in IPA5 eingebaut, der Ende des Jahres fliegen soll

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,760

@ Scorpion82 and hammy20
thanks for your clarification, pretty much my impression thus far.. It also matches the claims made by Indra Sistemas.

CAPTOR-E - Modell der Antenne mit Taumelscheibe
Das CAPTOR-E soll die AESA-Technologie in die CAPTOR-Familie einführen. Um den beschränkten Sichtwinkel fester Radarantennen zu umgehen, wird die Antenne mit zwei Taumelscheiben (engl. swashplate) gekippt eingebaut. Durch den Kippwinkel von 40° und die Drehbarkeit in alle Richtungen kann zusammen mit dem elektronischen Schwenkwinkel von 60° ein Suchbereich von ±100° in Elevation und Azimut realisiert werden. Das Back-End wird größtenteils von CAPTOR-M übernommen. Damit soll die F-Pole-Distanz im Luftkampf vergrößert werden.[84] Allerdings steigt das Gewicht des Radars dadurch um 100 kg an.[85]

Die Radarantenne soll wie beim CAESAR aus etwa 1500 TRM bestehen. Für die Prototypen ist aus Kostengründen GaAs-Technik vorgesehen, die Serienversion sollte Module auf GaN-Basis erhalten. Im Vorfeld wurden eine Reihe von GaN-Modulentwicklungen in Großbritannien und Deutschland finanziert. Letztlich entschied man sich aber laut Andrew Cowdery, Vorstandsvorsitzender von EuroRADAR, auf GaAs-Module zu setzen, da die GaN-Technologie noch nicht reif genug sei.

Gemäß Indra Sistemas werden Antenne (LRI #9), Transmitter Auxiliary Unit (TAU) und Antenna Power Supply & Controller (APSC) gegenüber dem CAPTOR-M verschieden sein. Die TAU des CAPTOR-E soll mit 12,75 kVA beschickt werden, sodass nach Verlusten 10,58 kW in die APSC fließen, welche mit über 88 % Wirkungsgrad arbeiten soll. Folglich läge die Ausgangsleistung hier bei über 9,31 kW. Die Kühlung der Komponenten soll beim CAPTOR-E durch Verdampfungskühlung realisiert werden. Die Ortungsreichweite soll bei 59 km gegen eine Lockheed Martin F-35 liegen (Stand 2011).

Nachdem die Entwicklung vom EuroRADAR-Konsortium mit Eigenmitteln vorangetrieben wurde, erklärte sich das britische Verteidigungsministerium 2011 bereit, die CAPTOR-E-Testflüge ab 2013 zu finanzieren. Zumindest die Testradare sollen noch mit einem Trial Interface Processor (TIP) ausgerüstet werden, welcher die Radardaten während des Fluges aufzeichnet. Dazu stehen 240 GB (beliebig um 2x, 4x oder 8x hochrüstbar) Festplattenspeicher mit bis zu 520 MBit/s zur Verfügung, welcher an sechs Glasfaserkabel mit je 1 GBit/s angeschlossen ist. Seit Anfang 2013 wird ein Prototyp des CAPTOR-E in IPA5 eingebaut, der Ende des Jahres fliegen soll


Using wikipedia?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroRADAR_CAPTOR

@Lukos

Programs like Bright Adder aren't directly related to Captor-E though they may feed into it to some extend. Captor-E in its initial EIS form is aimed at export customers offering some AA and limited AG capabilities. Physically receiver and processor are retained from Captor-D with minor modifications, TPA and WGU are removed as they are no longer necessary in the AESA configuration, the TAU is replaced by the APSC and the M-Scanner is replaced by the AESA antenna mounted on the double swashplate repositioner. There is also a new provisional LRI called AAU which will be exploited at a later stage.

The OT&E variant shall include full AA and extended AG functions incl. some hardware changes already, the proposed IOC standard shall offer full AG and initial EA capabilities, whereas the EOC standard should provide full EA and some other capabilities. The "Mk1" more or less correlated to the EIS. The Mk1+ to OT&E and/or IOC and Mk2 to EOC. That's a rough correlation of the different designations. Have to cross check the currency of the four previously stated standards with the 1, 1+ and 2 standards. There might well be hardware differences between 1+ and 2 and not only software changes. Right now the focus is on getting the hardware and initial software developed and integrated with the overall weapon system. EIS was previously proposed to built on P1E, but that's increasingly unlikely.

As far as linkage of radar and DASS is concerned both were always interfacing with the attack bus. The integration is done by the AC, while interoperability is directly managed between the ESM/ECM processor and the radar processor.


Can't speak for the export variant, that will depend on who it's going to and politics but the 1+ allegedly to be released in 2017 has a completely new architecture. Bright Adder was obviously intended to heavily influence Captor-E Mk2, as opposed to just being done for a laugh to waste money.

If all the DASS connections are already in place, it may well be just a software/processor change.