Eurofighter Typhoon - Updates and Discussions

[BMD]

It included the MBB design base, that's why the ACA was so different from the P110 and later eveloved into the EAP, but the Base design remains of MBBs initial concepts.

There were several BAe designs, not just the P110. There were the P96, P106, ECA and ECF. The ACA and EAP drew from them all.

The TKF design has a cranked delta and two fins. The EF uses the single tail plane from the P96 and P106 and the pure delta from P110 and the underneath intakes from the ECF.

A mock-up also doesn't make an aircraft. The manufacturing processes, engines and systems were all UK.

 

[BMD]

That's what is often stated, but Saab has history with delta canard designs, so it doesn't necessarily need to be based on P106.

The plan view (overhead) is identical.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

As regards the Canard position, that's the worst part of the EF, the ACA and P110 position is better for manoeuvrability.

 

[BMD]

The EF makes up for it with a larger instability margin and better engines though.

I'm looking forward to the the Franco German fighter project. Not because of the result but because of the arguments there'll be in between.

 

[Sancho]

The plan view (overhead) is identical.
View attachment 5064

Different wings, hard point layout, but as I said, not sure if BAE was involved.

 

[Sancho]

The TKF design has a cranked delta and two fins. The EF uses the single tail plane

Both P110 and TKF90 had twin tails => which was also incorporated in the joint ACA design that followed => and only changed in the joint EAP for weight reduction reasons => which finally lead to the EF design as we know it today. So if you like it or not, the design origins of EF are from MBB.

 

[Sancho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1108798063727046656

https://twitter.com/x/status/1109220626441498625

 

[BMD]

Both P110 and TKF90 had twin tails => which was also incorporated in the joint ACA design that followed => and only changed in the joint EAP for weight reduction reasons => which finally lead to the EF design as we know it today. So if you like it or not, the design origins of EF are from MBB.

It was changed due to roll rate reasons. The cranked delta was also removed. The EF uses the single tail plane from the P96 and P106 and the pure delta from P110 and the underneath intakes from the ECF.

 

[Sancho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1110922342211952640

First official confirmation of Marte ER

 

[Sancho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1110171908635611136

Excellent video by German Luftwaffe

 

[Sancho]

Qatar weapon pack

https://twitter.com/x/status/1110842460605808640

 

[Sancho]

And another important improvement for EF

Italian Eurofighter Typhoon jets wilI carry out ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) missions using the RecceLite pod.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1111342640392474629

 

[Sancho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1112985590591578113

https://twitter.com/x/status/1112386556201979904

https://twitter.com/x/status/1112231863588978693

https://twitter.com/x/status/1111493245052297216

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

For the Swiss evaluation, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the only aircraft still equipped with a radar with a mechanical antenna.

 

[A Person]

And they sent British Typhoons because they were the most modern available, even though it's normally Germany that handles the Typhoon bid in Switzerland.

 

[BMD]

For the Swiss evaluation coming up the aircraft will have AESA.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

For the Swiss evaluation coming up the aircraft will have AESA.

They said it is fitted with P3E and P3E doesn't manage AESA.

 

[BMD]

They said it is fitted with P3E and P3E doesn't manage AESA.

Don't believe what you read. There is no good reason why they wouldn't send an AESA aircraft.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Don't believe what you read. There is no good reason why they wouldn't send an AESA aircraft.

Yes there is one reason:

• Bei den zu offerierenden Flugzeugen müssen wenigstens die vier wichtigsten Subsysteme (Radar, elektronische Kriegführung, optische Sensoren und Datalink) zum Zeitpunkt der Flug- und Bodenerprobung in der Schweiz (April–Juni 2019) einen sogenannten Technology Readiness Level von mindestens 7 (auf einer Skala bis 9) erreicht haben. Das heisst, dass das für die Erprobung bereitstehende Subsystem dem definitiven Subsystem entsprechen oder diesem sehr nahe und im Flugzeug eingebaut sein muss. Zudem muss es in einer operationellen Umgebung demonstriert werden können.

Translation
For the aircraft to be offered, at least the four most important subsystems (radar, electronic warfare, optical sensors and data link) must have reached a technology readiness level of at least 7 (on a scale of up to 9) at the time of flight and ground testing in Switzerland (April-June 2019). This means that the subsystem available for testing must correspond to the definitive subsystem or be very close to it and installed in the aircraft. It must also be possible to demonstrate it in an operational environment.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Air2030 – Schutz des Luftraumes: FAQ

 

[BMD]

Yes there is one reason:

Translation
For the aircraft to be offered, at least the four most important subsystems (radar, electronic warfare, optical sensors and data link) must have reached a technology readiness level of at least 7 (on a scale of up to 9) at the time of flight and ground testing in Switzerland (April-June 2019). This means that the subsystem available for testing must correspond to the definitive subsystem or be very close to it and installed in the aircraft. It must also be possible to demonstrate it in an operational environment.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Air2030 – Schutz des Luftraumes: FAQ

And it will be since the deliveries of the actual aircraft to the customer are later this year. I would say the subsystem has reached its final state.

It does rule out your conformal array ballox though.