* In the last decades of the Cold War, most of the major players in the dramabegan programs to develop "fourth generation" air-superiority fighteraircraft. Since the cost of such leading-edge machines was painful, anumber of European nations decided to collaborate on development of whatwould become known as the "European Fighter Aircraft", or simply"Eurofighter", along with the more colorful name of "Typhoon". The end ofthe Cold War meant that the need for a fourth-generation fighter was not asgreat as it had been, but the Eurofighter program continued, if with delaysand changes in direction, and Europe's premier fighter is now in service.This document provides a history and description of the Eurofighter Typhoon.
* In the late 1970s, a number of European air forces were confronted with thefact that their fighter fleets were beginning to seem outdated in the face ofnew American machines, such as the F-15 and F-16, and more to the point newSoviet fighter designs, such as the MiG-29 and Su-27. These hot new machineswould certainly be followed by even hotter designs, and so the Europeans hadto keep pace.
By 1977, the West Germans were considering a replacement for their LockheedF-104 Starfighters, while the French were thinking about a replacement fortheir SEPECAT Jaguar strike fighters, and the British were interested in areplacement for both their Jaguars and British Aerospace (BAE) Harrier"jumpjet" strike fighters. The British wanted their replacement aircraft tobe low-cost, but also to have much better air-to-air combat capabilities thanthe Jaguar or Harrier. In addition, the British wanted jumpjet capabilitieslike those of the Harrier, or at least good short / rough field performance.The British had become used to working with international collaborations todevelop new combat aircraft, and cast about for partners. In the meantime,the British also conducted a series of small-scale technology-demonstrationprograms to help develop useful subsystems for such a new aircraft.
The British rethought their priorities after analysis showed theirrequirements were too ambitious for a single aircraft. They then specifiedtwo different aircraft, including a Jaguar replacement with good air-to-aircombat capabilities, designated the "Air Staff Target (AST) 403"; and ashort-takeoff Harrier replacement, designated the "AST 409". The AST 409requirement would lead to purchase of the improved US-designed Harrier IIand, eventually, towards the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but that's anotherstory. The AST 403 specification led BAE through a number of designconcepts, including the heavyweight twin-engine "P.110" and the lightweightsingle-engine "P.106B", with the P.106B being preferred.
In the meantime, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm (MBB) in Germany was consideringa number of different concepts for an air-superiority fighter under theLuftwaffe's "Taktisches Kampfflugzeur 1990 (TKF-90 / Tactical Combat Aircraft1990)" requirement. BAE and MBB then began to discuss a collaboration,resulting in 1979 in a proposed design for a "European Collaborative Fighter(ECF)", later the "European Combat Aircraft (ECA)". The ECA resembled theMBB TKF-90 design.
Dassault of France was also generating a number of advanced fighter designs,but did little to tell anyone else about them; the French position was thatif they were going to be in an international collaboration, they would be inthe driver's seat. The French attitude led to the collapse ofintergovernmental talks on collaboration in 1980. The British governmentcanceled AST 403 in 1981, while the West German government showed no interestin funding development of the TKF-90. That might have been the end of thewhole thing, but BAE management realized that European air forces would needa new fighter sooner or later, and pressed on. BAE had been working on anexport fighter-bomber design, the "P.110", basically a follow-on from theP.106B concept with ECF influence, but couldn't find a buyer to fundproduction.
However, BAE was able to inspire the Anglo-German-Italian Panavia consortium,which had built the Tornado multi-role combat aircraft, to collaborate onanother machine, the "Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA)", which was based on TKF-90and P.110 concepts. The Italians were very interested in the ACA, since theyhad an urgent need for a replacement for their F-104 Starfighters. A mockupof the ACA was displayed at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK in 1982 and atthe Paris Air Show in 1983.
As an answer to the ACA initiative, the French committed to develop afourth-generation fighter of their own, under the "Avion de CombateExperimentale (ACX)" program, which would become the Dassault Rafale. TheBritish were perfectly happy to have the French go their own way, since theFrench had shown a clear tendency to short-change the British in otheraircraft collaborations. The West German government, however, was very keenon political alignment with the French, the British being seen as too heavilytilted to the American point of view for Continental tastes, and the Germanshad misgivings about the ACA program.
In any case, ACA went ahead for the moment, with plans generated for theproduction of two demonstrators under the "Experimental Aircraft Programme(EAP)" -- if building a new fighter seemed to be taking time, production ofacronyms was at full steam. On 26 May 1983, the British Ministry of Defenseawarded BAE and Aeritalia, the Italian partner, a contract for one of theEAPs, and the expectation was that the Germans would quickly commit toconstruction of the second demonstrator.
BACK_TO_TOP* MBB wanted to go ahead with the second demonstrator, but the West Germangovernment had no interest in funding it. They didn't want to antagonize theFrench by throwing their lot in with the British and Italians; similarly didnot want to antagonize the British and Italians by throwing in with theFrench; and accordingly decided that sitting on their hands the best optionfor the moment. That effectively killed the ACA program as such, but BAEresolutely went ahead with the construction of their EAP demonstrator. Thedemonstrator was built with help from Aeritalia and some low-key assistancefrom MBB, which was still interested in the project even if the West Germangovernment wasn't keen.
As it emerged, the EAP demonstrator featured the cranked-delta / canard-deltaconfiguration of the various concepts that led up to it, but differed fromthem in having a single tailfin instead of twin tailfins. That was becauseMBB had been expected to provide the rear fuselage elements of the EAP, butwhen their funding was cut, BAE simply used the rear section of a Tornado,including the tailfin. The EAP also used the Tornado's twin TurboUnionRB.199 afterburning bypass jet engines. The intakes were placed under thebelly, and had a hinged panel on the lower lip that could be dropped open toensure airflow at high angles of attack.
This rear section was made mostly of aircraft alloys, but the rest was mostlygraphite-epoxy composite assemblies, leading jokers to call it the "plasticplane". It also incorporated a quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire (FBW) flightcontrol system (FCS) -- which was a necessity, since the EAP demonstrator was"dynamically unstable", meaning it would quickly go out of control unlesscomputers performed tiny flight adjustments at all times. Dynamicinstability helped give the aircraft high agility, though it required manylines of tricky software.
The EAP demonstrator featured a "glass cockpit", with three Smiths Industries"multifunction displays (MFDs)" using color picture tubes; a GEC-Marconiwide-angle "head-up display (HUD)"; and center-mounted "hands on throttle andstick (HOTAS)" controls. BAE also included a voice-warning system, and thecompany tinkered with a "direct voice input (DVI)" command system. Testpilots had been part of the design team for the cockpit layout, and theresult was regarded as outstanding.
The EAP demonstrator performed its first flight on 8 August 1986 andconducted 259 test flights up to its retirement on 1 May 1991. Pilots werewildly enthusiastic about the machine, one of them saying: "It goes like aferret with a firework up its bum!" It was fast, it was agile, and it wasgreat fun to fly.
There was comment at the time and afterward that Britain should have simplypicked up the EAP demonstrator and run with it, and in fact BAE had beenpromoting an operational fighter that leveraged off the demonstrator to theBritish Royal Air Force (RAF). However, it simply wasn't going to happen.The British government made it perfectly clear they didn't want to pick upthe entire tab for a new fighter, and so any such new aircraft would have tobe produced by an international collaboration. In fact, such discussions hadled to decisions on collaboration even before the first flight of the EAPdemonstrator. In hindsight, it remains an open question, one very hard toanswer, as to whether the UK would have been better off to go it alone.
BACK_TO_TOP* Beginning in late 1983, the air staffs of five European nations -- Britain,France, Germany, Italy, and Spain -- began to work together to definespecifications for a common fourth-generation fighter aircraft, to go intoservice in the mid-1990s. By early 1985, Britain, West Germany, Italy, andSpain had settled on a design along the lines of the EAP demonstrator, inconstruction at the time, while the French were insisting on an aircraftderived from the "Rafale A" demonstrator. The French position was just asblunt as it had been before: France would be in the driver's seat, theaircraft would be a French design, built by a consortium with Dassault at thehead and France as the absolute majority partner. Dassault would essentiallyparcel out such subcontracts as deemed necessary.
The friction may have been at least partly due to miscommunication. Nobodycould have objected much if the French said they were working on a program oftheir own and invited risk-sharing partners to sign on; modern internationalaircraft programs are often organized in such a way. However, if everyoneelse was thinking in terms of a collaboration in which they had a more orless equal say, the French attitude was a non-starter, to put it mildly. ABritish official dryly commented: "One wonders what France would havedemanded had it not been interested in collaboration and had it simply wantedto put us off the idea." Over the course of the last half of 1985, theFrench and the other nations involved in the discussions parted ways, thoughthe West Germans were not happy about dropping the French from the proposedpartnership.
Although Britain and Spain wanted a multi-role fighter, West Germany andItaly were only interested in an air-superiority machine. The group managedto hammer out their differences, with a general agreement on specificationsreached in December 1985. A formal specification for the "EFA (EuropeanFighter Aircraft)" was released in September 1987, with production expectedto begin in 1992. As it turned out, this was short of the mark by a decade.
* The EFA was focused on air superiority, but could perform ground attack asa secondary mission. It was to have high performance, high maneuverability,and have docile handling characteristics. It was also to have a low "radarcross-section (RCS)" and be capable of operating from short forwardairstrips. A formal development contract was awarded to the "Eurofighter"consortium on 23 November 1988, specifying delivery of eight prototypes.
The principal manufacturers in the consortium were, in order of workshare:BAE Systems of the UK (33%); MBB (later DASA) of Germany (33%), Aeritalia ofItaly (21%); and CASA of Spain (13%). DASA and CASA later became part of theEADS aerospace group, now the Airbus group, while Alenia eventually becamea component of the Leonardo group.
The "EJ.200" engine for the new fighter was to be developed by the parallel"EuroJet" group, which includes Rolls-Royce, MTU, Fiat Avio (now part ofLeonardo), and SENER (now ITP) of Spain. The EJ.200 is an evolution of theRB.199, derived from the Rolls-Royce "XG40" demonstrator engine built in theearly days of the Eurofighter program. The EJ.200 was to provide betterperformance and feature 30% fewer parts than the RB.199.
Despite these decisions, the program remained muddled. The West Germansraised a number of major objections, for example proposing that the newfighter use an improved version of the AN/APG-65 radar used on the US F/A-18Hornet instead of a European solution; and suggesting, for reasons nobodyelse could understand, that early development aircraft use General ElectricF404 engines instead of the TurboUnion RB.199. The manufacturers involvedwith the program didn't begin "cutting metal" for the initial prototypesuntil 1989.
* By 1991, everything finally seemed to be going smoothly, leading a BAEofficial to comment: "We are now comfortable in bed with Italy, Spain, andeven Germany. It's not a bed of roses, but France isn't even in the boudoir,so we have a sporting chance of making it work."
Then everything went to hell again. The Cold War was over, Germany wasre-united. The threat that the Eurofighter had been originally intended tomeet had evaporated, though as it would turn out new threats would raisetheir ugly heads only too soon, and German reunification was provingpainfully expensive. 1992 was an election year in Germany and many of thevoters were pacifistic, with a strong aversion to weapons programs.
The Eurofighter became politically controversial, with the German governmentteetering on the edge of pulling out of the project. The Germans raised sucha fuss -- forcing the consortium to go in circles to find cost-saving designchanges for the aircraft -- that the other partners seriously considered justtelling them to go, and be done with it. However, though German politicianswere making hostile noises about the Eurofighter, Luftwaffe brass insistedthat they needed the aircraft, and that it was the aircraft they needed.
In fact, although studies were performed to investigate purchase of amore-or-less "off the shelf" solution for the Luftwaffe, covering the rangefrom the McDonnell Douglas F-15 to the SAAB Gripen to the Mikoyan MiG-29, thestudies demonstrated that no other existing aircraft was as cost-effective.That was not too surprising, since the Eurofighter had been originallydesigned to meet the specifications of the air forces of the member nations.Attempts to define a cheap-and-dirty version of the Eurofighter led to asimilar result: a cheaper machine could be built, but it wouldn't do thejob.
The insistence of the British and Spanish on a multi-role capability wasimportant to the machine's survival. The fall of the Soviet Union greatlychanged the nature of the challenge faced by European nations -- from asullen Communist monolith to the East, to unpredictable brushfire conflictsthat could spring up almost anywhere. A multi-role Eurofighter fit the newchallenges well.
* In the end, after a great deal of fuss, Germany stayed in the group. Thefighter was redefined somewhat to decrease costs in principle, with somehigh-budget elements made optional, but the general belief was that the wholesquabble had led to a more expensive aircraft, and the "savings" were merelypolitical smoke-and-mirrors. The redefined aircraft was redesignated the"Eurofighter EF2000" as a means of glossing over the fact that the originalplan envisioned that it should have been in production in 1992. The delayswere painful to the Italians, who desperately needed a replacement for theirStarfighters, and as an interim solution they leased 24 Tornado F.3interceptors from the Panavia group.
The dust settled and work on the prototypes went ahead. The first prototypeEurofighter, designated "DA1", finally flew on 27 March 1994. That prototypewas built by DASA, wore Luftwaffe markings, and was flown by German pilotPeter Weger from an airfield at Manching, Germany. There were no doubt somewho questioned the justice of letting the Germans have the honor of the firstflight -- all the more so because the German government continued toshort-change the program, not committing to proper funding until 1995, andwaffling on for two more years after that. However, it made sense in termsof keeping a happy home, and in any case both MBB / DASA and the Luftwaffehad been made at least as miserable as everyone else. The Germans didn'tgive much fanfare to the initial flight, possibly on the judgement that therewas no sense in antagonizing their partners further.
BACK_TO_TOP* The eight prototypes originally planned were built, including:
The formal decision to go ahead with production was made in 1997, withproduction contracts awarded in 1998. In September 1998, the Eurofighterorganization announced the aircraft's name of "Typhoon". This name wasassigned for export aircraft, and the organization stressed that membernations would be free to name it what they liked. However, Typhoon was agood choice for a name, since it was assigned to historically importantBritish and German aircraft, and the word itself is derived from Japanese andso reflects no linguistic bias among the Eurofighter group member nations.It doesn't appear that any of the users made much of a fuss about the name"Typhoon", and it certainly had a lot more snap than "Eurofighter".
Since the aircraft was still not in production, much less operationalservice, by the year 2000, the various factions involved in the effortgradually began to refer to the aircraft as simply the "Eurofighter" and notthe "Eurofighter EF2000". Despite all the problems and delays -- which werenot unique to the Eurofighter among the fourth-generation fighter efforts,and to an extent were inevitable in a multinational collaboration -- theresult proved no disappointment.
* As it emerged, the Eurofighter was a canard-delta aircraft, powered by twinEurojet EJ.200 two-spool afterburning bypass jet engines, with the intakes onthe belly of the aircraft under the cockpit. This position helped ensureairflow at high angles of attack. The arrangement was similar to that usedon the EAP demonstrator, except that the Eurofighter's intakes curved upacross the belly, while the EAP demonstrator's intakes had a straightrectangular cross-section. The hinged lower lip used in the EAP demonstratorwas not carried over to the Eurofighter.
Each EJ.200 engine provided 60.0 kN (6,120 kgp / 13,490 lbf) dry thrust and90.1 kN (9,185 kgp / 20,250 lbf) afterburning thrust. The first twoprototypes were initially powered by RB.199 engines. The Eurofighter wasalso fitted with an auxiliary power unit (APU) for self-starting and groundpower.
Unlike the EAP demonstrator, which had a compound-delta wing, the Eurofighterhad a simpler cropped-delta wing. The trailing edge was straight andfeatured full-span split "flaperons (flap-ailerons)". There were smallstrakes on the fuselage below the cockpit, as well as above and behind thecanard fins to make sure that airflow over the wing remained effective athigh angles of attack. The canard fins were of "all-moving" configurationand had a strong anhedral droop. The straight-edged tailfin also differedfrom the curved Tornado tailfin used on the EAP demonstrator. There was alarge dorsal airbrake behind the cockpit.
The landing gear featured a nosewheel mounted under the air intakes andretracting backwards, and main gear pivoting from the wings to retract intothe fuselage. All gear had single wheels. A brake parachute was stored in ahousing at the base of the tail, and there was a retractable inflightrefueling probe on the right side of the nose.
The airframe was built of about 50% composite materials by weight and about70% by surface area, with substantial use of titanium and lithium-aluminumalloys elsewhere. Although comparable in dimensions to the Panavia Tornado,the Eurofighter had an empty weight only about 70% as great, while being morecapable in almost all regards. The advanced construction techniques alsoreduced the parts count of the airframe, with the Eurofighter having about16,000 structural elements to 36,000 for the Tornado. Maintenance wasgreatly reduced as well, with the cost of maintenance for the Typhoonestimated at 25% of total life-cycle cost, compared to almost 50% for theTornado.
The Eurofighter had a greater RCS than the US F-22 or F-35, thoughradar-absorbent material was used in the inlets and around the cockpit, andthe composite assemblies were designed with an eye towards reducing RCS.
___________________________________________________________________ EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON: ___________________________________________________________________ wingspan: 10.95 meters (35 feet 11 inches) wing area: 50.0 sq_meters (538.2 sq_feet) canard wing area: 2.40 sq_meters (25.83 sq_feet) length: 15.96 meters (52 feet 4 inches) height: 5.28 meters (17 feet 4 inches) empty weight: 10,995 kilograms (24,245 pounds) loaded weight: 23,000 kilograms (50,715 pounds) max speed at altitude: Mach 2+ service ceiling: 16,765 meters (55,000 feet) take-off run: 700 meters (2,300 feet) combat radius: 1,390 kilometers (865 MI / 750 NMI) ___________________________________________________________________
Of course, the Eurofighter featured a modern "glass cockpit", with colorflat-panel MFDs; a wide-angle HUD; and HOTAS flight controls. The pilot saton a Martin-Baker Mark 16A "zero-zero (zero altitude, zero speed escape)"ejection seat, under a frameless clamshell canopy. The back-seater in thetwo-seat version sued the same control layout as the pilot, but with a "HUDrepeater" instead of a HUD, and of course sat on the same type of ejectionseat.
The Eurofighter had a built-in 27-millimeter Mauser cannon on the right sideof the belly of the aircraft, with 150 rounds of ammunition. The RAForiginally chose to ignore the cannon, not stockpiling ammunition nor usingin training, but eventually decided it was useful after all. The aircrafthad four semi-recessed fuselage stations for air-to-air missiles (AAM), plusa centerline stores pylon and four stores pylons under each wing, for a totalof nine stores pylons. The centerline pylon and a single pylon under eachwing were "wet", permitting carriage of external fuel tanks.
Maximum external stores load was a hefty 8,000 kilograms (17,640 pounds). Inpractice, combat aircraft do not as a rule carry anywhere near their maximumstores load in operational service; one might guess that a representativestores load for a Eurofighter might be about half that. Possible storesincluded:
The Eurofighter's combat avionics were built around the "Captor" (previouslyECR-90) pulse-Doppler multimode radar. This radar was selected after thelong debate with the Germans on whether to use a European radar design, or animproved version of the US Hughes AN/APG-65. Captor was developed by the"EuroRadar" consortium, which had a varied and evolving membership thatdefies useful description.
Captor was derived from the "Blue Vixen" radar fitted to the BAE Sea HarrierFA.2. It featured a mechanically-scanned antenna -- leading to the label of"Captor-M" when derivative variants were introduced -- and its capabilitiesincluded:
The radar was complemented by an "infrared search and track / forward-lookinginfrared (IRST / FLIR)" sensor, mounted just to the left of the front of thecockpit. This sensor was designated the "Passive Infra-Red Airborne TrackingEquipment (PIRATE)", and was a very capable piece of gear. As an IRST, itcould scan while tracking and ranging multiple targets, and as a FLIR, itprovided a selectable wide-angle or narrow-angle field of view, with theoptics directed by the pilot's helmet-mounted sight. A full PIRATEimplementation was not provided in initial production, with early machinesupdated later.
The Eurofighter included a "Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS)" built by the"EuroDASS" consortium. The Germans pulled out of the consortium due tosignificant cost increases in DASS, and for a time Luftwaffe Eurofightersweren't even going to have a countermeasures suite. That was an impracticaldecision, driven entirely by politics, and the Germans rejoined in 2001.
As with PIRATE, a complete DASS was not available in early production. Infull development, DASS featured threat-warning systems and activecountermeasures; it was fully automated, allowing it to detect, identify, andprioritize threats, as well as take countermeasures automatically. DASS was fully integrated with the Eurofighter's avionics systems. DASS elementsincluded:
Finally, the Eurofighter was fitted with the "Link 16 MultifunctionalInformation System (MIDS)" datalink, though again this item wasn't availableat the outset. All avionics were integrated by six digital buses, includingtwo fiber-optic buses. The digital flight control system was designed inlevels, with early Eurofighters featuring simple functionality, and improvedfunctionality added in stages.
BACK_TO_TOP* The first production standard Eurofighter, a two-seater, performed itsinitial flight on 5 April 2002, and was followed within days by two moreproduction aircraft. Initial delivery of a production aircraft (to Spain)was in September 2003. An experienced RAF pilot summed up the reaction tothe machine: "When I was introduced to the F-15 [Eagle], it represented aquantum leap forward from my beloved [English Electric] Lightning -- but thequantum leap I experienced going from Lightning to Eagle was repeated when Ibegan my involvement with Typhoon."
Pilots reported that the Typhoon was not merely fast and powerful, it wasalso incredibly agile. Despite the agility and inherent instability, it wasnot all that challenging to fly, due to the very intelligent FCS -- whichalso provided automatic spin and stall recovery capabilities. The cockpitlayout was very intelligent as well, a clean sci-fi arrangement withrationalized displays and control inputs, a far cry from the era of "steamplant" fighter instrument panels of the Lightning and its contemporaries. Asa Luftwaffe pilot commented:
BEGIN_QUOTE:
[The Typhoon] is the most powerful combat aircraft in Europe, and itscarefree flight handling characteristics are brilliant. The flight controlsystem makes sure the aircraft can't be put outside of its envelope, so I canconcentrate 100% on operating it as a weapons system.
END_QUOTE
The Eurofighter is now in service with all four Eurofighter member nations.Each air force is obtaining aircraft from local manufacture:
Although each nation's Eurofighters are being delivered from a differentmanufacturer, in fact the construction of sub-assemblies is parceled outbetween the different companies. It was recognized in earlier cooperativeprograms that full duplication of production at manufacturing sites in eachmember nation was absurdly wasteful. In essence, factories in eachEurofighter member nation provide parts for a "kit", in the form of majorsub-assemblies; each factory then obtains all the sub-assemblies and fitsthem together. The sub-assemblies are designed in a modular fashion toensure that they can be pieced together with relative ease.
* There have been sales outside of the "Big Four":
Other deals didn't pan out. The Dutch also considered the Eurofighter, butwent with the US F-35 instead; the Eurofighter lost out in a South Koreancompetition against the Boeing F-15K; and Singapore dropped the Eurofighterfrom a competition for a heavy fighter, leaving the Rafale and F-15 to fightit out, with the F-15 winning in the end.
The first combat action of the Typhoon took place in 2011, with the NATOintervention in the Libyan Revolution that ousted Libyan dictator MoammarQaddaffi. Typhoons cooperated with RAF Tornados in air strikes againstLibyan loyalist forces, with the Tornados performing "buddy designation" oftargets for the Typhoons -- the Typhoon force not being quite up to speed onself-designation at that time. From late 2015, RAF -- and Saudi -- Typhoonsparticipated in strikes against Islamic State insurgents in Syria. SaudiTyphoons also performed strikes in the course of the country's war in Yemen.
From 2012, Typhoons have participated in large-scale North American trainingexercises such as RED FLAG, with the Eurofighter demonstrating a clear edgeover F-15 and F-16 fighters, and at least matching the US Air Force's premierF-22 Raptor. The 400th Typhoon was delivered in late 2013, with the programcontinuing to advance -- after its protracted and rocky start.
BACK_TO_TOP* The Eurofighter was originally introduced with minimal capabilities, to beupdated in a series of block revisions. The blocks were segments in a setof production "Tranches":
The Saudi Eurofighters were based on Tranche 2. Tranche 1 machines could notbe brought up to full Tranche 2 standard, but they were updated via the "R2"program to the extent it was possible to do so. The RAF, as mentioned,obtained a strike capability for their Tranche 1 machines.
A total of 148 Tranche 1 machines was delivered:
In 2017 the Austrians, having found their Eurofighters unsatisfactory,announced they would be phased out from 2020. They claimed their Tranche 1machines were too limited and difficult to upgrade; they went so far as tosue the consortium in 2017 for fraud in the sale of the aircraft. Consortiumofficials replied that the Austrians had obtained the aircraft stripped ofsignificant systems to cut costs, and so it was ironic that the Austriansthen complained they didn't have everything they wanted. They added thatTranche 1 Eurofighters were reasonably upgradeable, and were perfectlyadequate for the air-defense role -- which is what the Austrians obtainedthem for. The RAF had considered early retirement of their Tranche 1machines and decided they were worth hanging on to. An Austrian appealscourt dismissed the lawsuit in 2020, saying in effect that the Austriangovernment didn't have a case.
A total of 299 Tranche 2 machines was delivered:
Of course, following Tranche 2, work began on a "Tranche 3". Difficulties incoming up with a solid definition led to splitting Tranche 3 into "Tranche3A" and "Tranche 3B". First flight of a Tranche 3A machine was in late 2013,with final deliveries in 2020. Elements included:
The Kuwaiti, Omani, and Qatari machines were in Tranche 3Aconfiguration, giving deliveries and orders for 176 Tranche 3A machines:
The Kuwaiti and Qatari Typhoons were delivered with the Captor-E ECRS Mark 0AESA radar. The Kuwaitis also ordered Lockheed Martin Sniper targeting podsfor their Typhoons, these being the first Typhoons to carry that item.
Tranche 3B was effectively abandoned -- but in 2020, the German governmentdecided to sell off the Luftwaffe Tranche 1 machines and buy 38 newEurofighters under the "Quadriga" program. Of course, they will be up to thelatest spec, with the "Captor-E ECRS Mark 1" radar, an improved Mark 0.Airbus, after thinking it over for a while, decided to call them "Tranche 4"machines. Spain also decided to buy 20 Tranche 4 machines -- following thatup in 2023 with an intent to buy 25 more, either in Tranche 4 or a possible"Tranche 5" configuration. That gave total deliveries and orders to date of148 + 299 + 176 + 83 == 705 Typhoons:
That is well lower than what was envisioned at the outset, quantities beinggradually reduced all through the program. However, more Eurofighters willbe built. The Germans have a requirement for a new Electronic CombatReconnaissance (ECR) / Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) to replacetheir Panavia Tornado ECR machines, with an ECR-SEAD version of theEurofighter seen as a possible solution. However, this was complicated bythe fact that the Tornados were a nuclear strike asset -- Germany has nukesunder a dual-key arrangement with the USA -- and the Eurofighter is notqualified for nuclear strike.
Nonetheless, in 2022 the Germans indicated they were moving ahead on theEurofighter ECR / SEAD variant, which was labeled the "EurofighterElektronischer Kampf (EK)", or rendered in English as "Eurofighter ElectronicWarfare (EW)". As far as the nuclear strike role goes, the Germans wouldlike to acquire F-35s.
Incidentally, Britain's RAF has a set of designations for their Eurofighters:
The Spanish have given their Typhoons the designation of "C.16".
* Typhoons in service are being continually upgraded. They get ongoingtweaky "Performance Enhancements (PE)", particularly in software. BothGermany and Spain plan to update their Typhoons with the Captor-E Mark 1radar fitted to their Tranche 4 machines, while the British RAF wants toobtain a new "Captor-E ECRS Mark 2" radar for their Typhoon, well moresophisticated and powerful than the ECRS Mark 0/1. Italy is collaboratingwith Britain on the ECRS Mark 2; in-service date is expected to be 2030.
Eurofighter users are working to expand the Typhoon's weapons capabilities,the British effort being known as "Project Centurion", known as the "Phase 3Enhancement (P3E)" effort to the Eurofighter group. All RAF Typhoons werebrought up to P3U standard, able to employ Brimstone, Storm Shadow, PavewayIV, and BVRAAM, along with support for the Litening targeting pod; atriple-store rack was eventually developed for Brimstone carriage. Thosesingle-seat Typhoons more or less dedicated to the strike mission becameFGR4s. Other users, who have adopted different stores, are pursuing theirown qualifications, though obviously there is some leverage between them.
The British and French are now collaborating on a "Future Cruise / Anti-ShipWeapon (FC-ASW)" to replace the British Storm Shadow standoff missile andSCALP, its French counterpart, as well as Harpoon and Exocet antiship missilesin British and French service respectively. It will be carried on BritishTyphoons and French Rafales, and will also be adapted to surface launch. It is still in early development, with no schedule available yet.
In May 2019, the Eurofighter consortium began the Eurofighter "Long-TermEvolution (LTE)" program to enhance the airframe and engines. It willfeature smarter and more capable electronic warfare systems; improveddatalink connectivity; updated cockpit environment, with a large centraldisplay; flexible power and cooling technology; and EJ200 engines with morethrust, reliability, serviceability, and survivability.
LTE also involves an "Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK)", with tweakssuch as strakes and improved trailing-edge flaps to improve agility, with theenhancements easily retrofitted to older machines. Another enhancement is anincrease in the loadout of AAMs, previously limited to eight, by adding dualstores racks.
BACK_TO_TOP* Early versions of this document tried to give a blow-by-blow description ofthe gradual level of upgrades to the Typhoon in service, but that turned outto be both confusing and very hard to nail down. I finally decided just togive general descriptions of the tranches, and not worry about theincremental block evolution of each tranche. I took a similarly broad-brushapproach to upgrades.
* Sources include:
The Eurofighter website was also consulted for current news items.
* Illustrations credits:
* Revision history:
v1.0.0 / 01 aug 02 v1.0.1 / 01 aug 04 / Review & polish. v1.0.2 / 01 jul 06 / Review & polish. v1.0.3 / 01 nov 06 / Review & polish. v1.0.4 / 01 nov 08 / Review & polish. v1.0.5 / 01 oct 10 / Simplified tranche comments. v1.0.6 / 01 sep 12 / Combat in Libya. v1.1.0 / 01 jan 14 / Clarifications on tranches & production quantities. v1.1.1 / 01 dec 15 / Review & polish. v1.1.2 / 01 nov 17 / Review & polish. v1.1.3 / 01 oct 19 / Review & polish. v1.2.0 / 01 sep 21 / Review & polish. v1.3.0 / 01 sep 23 / Review, update, & polish. (**)BACK_TO_TOP
