nothingburger reply
True but it does mean it’s not entirely out of the question
Im still praying that the past year of complaints regarding the A2G loadout, plus the myriad of seocndary changes they could make will be implemented. Make this a distinct airframe from the earlier Typhoons and not just the AESA.
Coupled with advanced AAMs in the hopefully near future… Not foldering makes sense long term, but short term, it needs more
So im personally expecting them to add more too the AESA Typhoons
oh I fully agree i’d prefer they just make it properly unique, but i have a suspicion they won’t.
Inb4 we get the Typhoon (AESA + New Missiles) for 430k RP.
Oh god… I dont think it likely… but… This is Gaijin we are talking about.
Also dont forget the Tornado FGR4 Centruion just for SAL Brimstone 2s.
You’re ignoring the History of the project, and also the set-up of the Eurofighter consortium which comes into the History of it.
I’ve attempted to come across here as purely factual, but given its taken me about 45 minutes to source, write, and dig up all this knowledge who knows. I’m sorry but unfortunately every point in your comment is inaccurate.
To clear this up:
Spoiler
PIRATE, not funded by Germany, nor supported by German industry, this is an Italian-British development with some marginal input from Spain but not a consortium one.
As you can see here, a West German company was bidding to be involved initially.
As you can see here, Germany refused to finance this item of development and German involvement was withdrawn before development further than exploring options for improving ADAD (a British system) progressed.
And finally you can see here that 4 years after they were no longer even referenced as part of EuroFIRST, which is the enduring case today.
Spoiler
LWS was a British-only development pursued as a requirement of Saudi Arabia carried over from P.110 and tailored specifically to Middle Eastern environments where laser targetted anti-aircraft munitions and MANPADS were assessed to be a more common threat margin, and also to support Eurofighter in a ground-attack role, which the UK was the strongest proponent of.
As you can see here, Germany was originally part of the EuroDASS consortium.
And then left with Spain as is acknowledged here in this 1996 publication.
‘EURODASS (Defensive Aids Sub-System) is being implemented for the British and Italians. Germany and Spain have not chosen this system.’
Before they rejoined in 1998
History | EuroDASS
The LWS had already been developed by then.
Germany had nothing to do with it, and didn’t fund it.
Spoiler
Airframe modifications require the support of all partner nations, that’s a fundamental contractual obligation. Secondly, look at Gripen C to Gripen E, then look at the AMK revisions, if you notice a similarity i’ll let you know that the only company that has a relation to the aerodynamics of both aircraft is BAE Systems. Airbus was primary design lead, but that does not mean no other companies were involved, having one design lead with support from other companies avoids the delays that bogged the development down earlier, as is seen on my prior articles on EuroDASS, and EuroFIRST.
![JAS 39 Gripen E's new wing design [2048x1491] : r/WarplanePorn](https://i.redd.it/jas-39-gripen-es-new-wing-design-2048x1491-v0-phndw5kdthwb1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f2bd512f43f30b1900889acf55ae857b66b5b4e)
Spoiler
All consortium members funded AMK as part of P4E, which was agreed upon, with support from all the aerodynamic partners. IIRC the funding was pursued equal to development shares which would mean the UK would’ve individually funded it to a higher degree than Airbus Germany (due to ‘Airbus’ representing both Germany and Spain in development costs). It is a consortium project because unlike what you’ve named, there’s proof every consortium member was actually part of the consortium during development, unlike the evidence i’ve just provided. Finally, not only Germany risked pilots and tested AMK.
Improving the Typhoon’s Aerodynamics – The Tactical Air Network
There’s no proof the test pilots were all German, for all you know there could’ve been Spaniards if they were Airbus, or Italians, or particularly Brits due to the Empires Test Pilots School being the primary test-pilot school in the world and being the first pilots hired by for example, Lockheed Martin to be the fourth pilot to fly the F-35A prototype and the first to fly the B.
You never know, but that’s unnecessary speculation on my part.
On the topic of the radars themselves.
Spoiler
These are not consortium projects bar CAESAR ECRS MK.0 and AMSAR (which also included France).The nation selected specific radars are individual developments available to all partner nations should they purchase them, similar to Germany’s relationship with PIRATE (having nothing to do it but entitled to be supplied with it if they so wish).
This here makes it clear that ECRS MK.0 is a consortium funded project developed by Leonardo UK and BAE, but consortium funded.
ECRS MK.1 as seen here is a Hensodlt-Indra partnership and the subsequent image shows exclusively German-Spanish funding.
ECRS MK.2 is seen here as a Leonardo UK-BAE radar funded by Italy and the UK.
ECRS Mk.0 and CAESAR are the core technologies, after that its common limitations but more or less go it alone.
TL:DR:
PIRATE: Germany didn’t fund and participate in
LWS: Gemany and Italy didn’t fund and participate in
AMK: Whole consortium funded and participated in.
ECRS MK.0: Funded by Consortium as export radar → Plausible to give to Germany and should be.
ECRS MK.1: Funded by Germany and Spain off the back of CAESAR for a Hensoldt-Indra radar.
ECRS MK.2: Funded by Britain and Italy off the back of CAESAR for a Leonardo UK-BAE radar.
My personal stance, keep them largely identical by giving Germany PIRATE (on the upgraded one) and ECRS MK.0. Standardise armament equivalently too, (that includes IRs as Italy could get both). Give the AMK kit to all of them. The only distinction I want to keep is the LWS as that’s historically motivated and just a single minor quirk which the Brits solely pursued. (But if you’ll agree on AMK for all I’m willing to compromise).
I hope you and others, have found this informative.
Plus in the Eurofighter requirements document there is a table where each nation lists the features they wanted. For the LWS Britain listed “Required”, Italy & Spain listed “Provision Only” and Germany listed “No Requirement”, meaning unlike Italy / Spain they didn’t even want their Eurofighters to be compatible with LWS.
I decided to take it in my own hands, and i made the correct ECRS
SRC is the current in game one, TWS is 560°/s
New vs Old time
Narrow: 0.6s → 0.3s
Medium: 2.9s → 1.2s
Wide: 4.4s → 1.9s
I thought the Mk.2 was closer to the ES-05 Raven than the Mk.0 in design and capability?
A most excellent writeup. I’d personally be more than happy with all three EF’s being wholly identical but I have absolutely zero problems with only the UK one having LWS.
There is still something I do not understand:
ECRS MK.0: Funded by Consortium as export radar → Plausible to give to Germany and should be.
ECRS MK.1: Funded by Germany and Spain off the back of CAESAR for a Hensoldt-Indra radar.
ECRS MK.2: Funded by Britain and Italy off the back of CAESAR for a Leonardo UK-BAE radar.
If the initial version was Mk0 but it is “better” than Mk1 then why did Germany and Spain even fund, let alone field, the Mk1?
Basically: what is even the point of Mk1 since the two “best” versions of CAPTOR-E appear to be Mk0 and Mk2
Because irl it is better than Mk.0 in many ways. They had to give it a better power supply and processor as well. The issue just is that these radars are so new that we have very few concrete data points on them to make actual comparisons. The problem is that the one concrete data point Hensoldt gave us makes the radar just straight up worse and without further info we can’t give it the advantages it should have
Namely its scan width of 180° vs the 200° of the Mk0 and Mk2, I suppose?
Yep, that’s the only concrete number Hensoldt has given us for the radar
Edit: Tho with the radar entering service early next year there’s a chance the BW will release some details about it’s performance
Well I’d be fine with Mk0 or Mk1 for my Germofighter be it with 180° or 200° scanwidth as long as its better then the CAPTOR-F I am forced to use now that loses track of a tail aspect rafale at 5km deadfront of my nose.
That it is.
Not only does it get all the AESA attributes. Like first scan track (m scans need at least 2 scans) but it’s stupidly fast. Even in it’s max width mode it makes CAPTOR-M look slow.