Saudi Arabia orders Eurofighter

[Rod]

Seems that with the F-15s getting old, flush with oil money and not many chances of them getting the F-22 Raptor, the Eurofighter was their choice. I guess they could have gone with the Dassault Rafale, but the RSAF have a long history with the British aerospace industry.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4550670.stm

[Michael Dekmetzian]

Well they're not replacing the F-15's, they're replacing the Tornado ADV's, so a British / Euro Aircraft makes sense politically i suppose.

[Rod]

Well they're not replacing the F-15's, they're replacing the Tornado ADV's, so a British / Euro Aircraft makes sense politically i suppose.

261248[/snapback]

 

I thought they had upgraded their Tornado ADVs to the IDS strike model as the F-15 took over the interceptor role.

[Manic Moran]

That is a serious upgrade/rebuild. You have to change the entire sensor package and backseat station, I'd wager, assuming that all the hardpoints are still extant.

 

NTM

[Michael Dekmetzian]

I thought they had upgraded their Tornado ADVs to the IDS strike model as the F-15 took over the interceptor role.

261251[/snapback]

 

Repeating what i've read elsewhere.

 

Saudi Arabia has signed an expanded military agreement with the UK government under which the kingdom intends to acquire at least 24 Eurofighter Typhoons to replace its current air force fleet of Panavia Tornado air defence variant (ADV) fighters.

Flight International

[Simon Tan]

Eurofighter 'Taifun' Deux, Rafale Nul.

[swerve]

That is a serious upgrade/rebuild. You have to change the entire sensor package and backseat station, I'd wager, assuming that all the hardpoints are still extant.

 

NTM

 

Apparently, re-fitting for a SEAD role is a minor change. Although it wasn't actually deployed, such a modification was ready for OIF. Enough hardpoints to carry fuel tanks & Alarms, certainly. Not sure about general mud moving, though.

 

Sounds odd to me that this is a replacement for the ADVs. I'd have thought the IDS Tornados are more in need of replacing, having more stress on the airframes, flying heavier loaded & lower. Where would this leave the F-15s?

 

The Financial Times reckons that the order is likely to be for 48, plus 24 options.

 

Saudi Arabia was about the best hope for a Rafale export deal, so this is a big blow for Rafale.

 

I'm interested in the weapons they'll buy to go with them. Not Mica Meteor (when it's available)? Asraam?

Edited December 22, 2005 by swerve

[rsetiawan]

Why dont Saudi Air Force bought Rafale instead ?

both are overpriced but Rafale do more task PLUS French dont care what the plane for PLUS Rafale is more advanced (IMO only, Im very subjective here)

[philgollin]

Are these for "new" new Typhoons (NOT Eurofighters) or ex-RAF Typhoons passed on even before being built or used by the RAF ?

 

And to what tranche do they belong ?

 

(And can anyone help me understand what is actually happening ?)

[Slater]

I know that a lot of preformance parameters are still classified, but I wonder how the Typhoon compares with the F-22 as far as radar/avionics capabilities? I would guess that the F-22 is a bit faster overall.

[swerve]

Are these for "new" new Typhoons (NOT Eurofighters) or ex-RAF Typhoons passed on even before being built or used by the RAF ?

 

And to what tranche do they belong ?

 

(And can anyone help me understand what is actually happening ?)

 

The Flight International link says

 

- Saudi Arabia will (initially, at least - other reports suggest that may only be the first batch) receive 24 Tranche 2 Typhoons from the 89 delivery slots reserved for the RAF

 

- numbers of Typhoons built in Tranche 2 will be increased by the same amount, so the RAF will get the same number in Tranche 2, but some of them later

 

- it will not affect (officially) the number to be ordered for the RAF in Tranche 3, so the RAF will get the same number overall

[Colin]

Well it certainly won't be native born Suadi's fixing them

 

How many pilots in the Saudi Air Force are native born? I suspect that it is the only arm of the military they are interested in.

[Daniel Papp]

That ~L6bn is a lot of money ($10.6bn for the first 48 A/C).

 

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21122005/325/uk-s...phoon-jets.html

[Chris Werb]

That ~L6bn is a lot of money ($10.6bn for the first 48 A/C).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21122005/325/uk-s...phoon-jets.html

261606[/snapback]

 

As always it comes down to exactly what is included in the deal.

[Guest pfcem]

I know that a lot of preformance parameters are still classified, but I wonder how the Typhoon compares with the F-22 as far as radar/avionics capabilities? I would guess that the F-22 is a bit faster overall.

261423[/snapback]

Just for giggles, let's assume that the level of technology in the radar/avionics are generally equal.

 

It would then be like comparing the F-15 (F-22) to the F-16 (Typhoon).

 

There is a lot more space available for radar/avionics in the F-15 (F-22) compared to the F-16 (Typhoon).

[FlyingCanOpener]

Just for giggles, let's assume that the level of technology in the radar/avionics are generally equal.

 

It would then be like comparing the F-15 (F-22) to the F-16 (Typhoon).

 

There is a lot more space available for radar/avionics in the F-15 (F-22) compared to the F-16 (Typhoon).

261629[/snapback]

 

Apples and Oranges there mate, not to mention more weight dedicated to avionics does not always equal better. Anyways, the Eagle, Fighting Parrot, and Raptor were all designed from the ground-up as air superiority fighters. The Typhoon was designed from the ground up for both air-to-ground and air-to-air roles, meaning avionics and sensor suites will be different, making comparisons rather amateur. As an aside, the whole Eurofighter vs. Raptor vs. Rafale vs. <insertrussianplanehere> thing is really tiring...

[swerve]

That ~L6bn is a lot of money ($10.6bn for the first 48 A/C).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21122005/325/uk-s...phoon-jets.html

 

Past Saudi aircraft purchases from Britain have included not only spares & weapons but training & ongoing support, including maintenance technicians & trainers on site, so the price has been somwhere between straight purchase price & total cost of ownership.

[Rod]

Past Saudi aircraft purchases from Britain have included not only spares & weapons but training & ongoing support, including maintenance technicians & trainers on site, so the price has been somwhere between straight purchase price & total cost of ownership.

261655[/snapback]

 

 

Don't forget the usual "commission" that some Saudi Royals get for "brokering" the dea.

 

Out of curiositu, how does a late model F-15C (with AESA let's say) compares with the Eurofighter?

[Guest pfcem]

Apples and Oranges there mate, not to mention more weight dedicated to avionics does not always equal better.

261639[/snapback]

That is why I said if we are to assume generally equal technology.

 

 

 

Anyways, the Eagle, Fighting Parrot, and Raptor were all designed from the ground-up as air superiority fighters. The Typhoon was designed from the ground up for both air-to-ground and air-to-air roles, meaning avionics and sensor suites will be different, making comparisons rather amateur.

261639[/snapback]

That is a mute point with modern multi-mode radars/sensors. If you want a F-15/16/18/22 to do air-to-air you choose an air-to-air mode, if you want it to do air-to-ground you choose an air-to-ground mode.

 

 

 

As an aside, the whole Eurofighter vs. Raptor vs. Rafale vs. <insertrussianplanehere> thing is really tiring...

261639[/snapback]

I agree.

 

I was just trying to provide Slater with some perspective as to how the radar/avionics might compare.

[FlyingCanOpener]

That is why I said if we are to assume generally equal technology.

261713[/snapback]

 

No. The Typhoon and Raptor are built to 2 completely differring requirements. Ever read the exact specifications brought up by the Eurofighter Consortium for the Typhoon, and compare it to the USAF's requirements for the original ATF requirement? Completely differring requirements. Battlefield Air Dominance is what the ATF was about, whilst the Eurofighter was not olny to provide air defence (different usage altogether), but also (to borrow from Dassault) omnirole capability. According to an interview I have from a sales brochure from Eurofighter, the purpose is pretty much to emulate to a degree the striking power of the Tornado IDS with the air defence capability of the ADV in one package. A far cry from Air Dominance wanted/needed by the USAF.

 

As an aside, since you brought it up, what A2G weapons can the F-15C carry?

[Guest pfcem]

No. The Typhoon and Raptor are built to 2 completely differring requirements. Ever read the exact specifications brought up by the Eurofighter Consortium for the Typhoon, and compare it to the USAF's requirements for the original ATF requirement? Completely differring requirements. Battlefield Air Dominance is what the ATF was about, whilst the Eurofighter was not olny to provide air defence (different usage altogether), but also (to borrow from Dassault) omnirole capability. According to an interview I have from a sales brochure from Eurofighter, the purpose is pretty much to emulate to a degree the striking power of the Tornado IDS with the air defence capability of the ADV in one package. A far cry from Air Dominance wanted/needed by the USAF.

261718[/snapback]

The Raptor has evolved since the original requirement & is even now designated F/A-22 to signify it air-to-ground role just as the F/A-18 (I have seen threads indicating that the F/A-22 designation may have been dropped but the air-to-ground capability is still there reguardless).

 

What is it you think the Typhoon can do that the Raptor can not do (note that for virtually any European weapon the Typhoon can carry these is a US weapon that can do the same job)?

 

 

 

As an aside, since you brought it up, what A2G weapons can the F-15C carry?

261718[/snapback]

It can carry just about anything you want.

 

It may have not been "certified" to do so but it can still do it.

 

Besides the lates varient of the F-15 is the F-15E Strike Eagle. Arguably the best strike aircraft in the world & it retains all the air-to-air capability of the F-15C (it is somewhat heavier & therefore of slightly lesser flight performance but not by much).

[FlyingCanOpener]

The Raptor has evolved since the original requirement & is even now designated F/A-22 to signify it air-to-ground role just as the F/A-18 (I have seen threads indicating that the F/A-22 designation may have been dropped but the air-to-ground capability is still there reguardless).

 

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. The F/A-18 was resurrected from the F-17 Cobra program to be the Navy's next strike fighter, with the idea of swing-role at the centre of the requirement, as long range fleet defence was to be held by the F-14s, whilst the F/A-18s, when not toting bonbs, could work as stop-gap air defence, and air superiority for amphibious operations by the Marines.

 

As for the designation, it's officially gone.

 

Air Force to drop ‘A’ from F/A-22

 

By Gopal Ratnam and Michael Fabey

Times staff writers

 

Three years after the Air Force added an “A” to highlight the F/A-22 Raptor’s ability to drop bombs, the service is dropping the extra letter from the stealthy jet’s designator.

 

The plane, which is expected to officially enter service in the coming weeks, will henceforth be called the F-22A — with the trailing letter indicating a first variant, not an extra role.

 

Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, who is said to have been unhappy with the F/A-22 moniker, announced the renaming in a Dec. 12 speech to an Air National Guard senior leadership conference in Baltimore, Md.

 

The decision was made in a recent meeting of senior service officials, said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, who was familiar with the deliberations. The decision was unanimous among Air Force and senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Thompson said. An Air Force spokesman said the renaming decision will be formally announced in coming days. He also said that the service intends to continue with plans to develop the aircraft’s ability to strike ground targets. The Raptor first dropped Joint Direct Attack Munitions in tests last year.

 

The Air Force has traditionally labeled its fighter aircraft with the “F” prefix, even ones with some air-to-ground capabilities. The Raptor had been called the “F-22” since its first flights as the prototype YF-22A in the early 1990s.

 

In September 2002, Gen. John Jumper, then-Air Force chief of staff, added the “A” to emphasize the aircraft’s ground-attack capabilities. The switch came as the airplane was being assailed by critics inside and outside the Pentagon as too expensive for the post-Sept. 11 world.

 

“This isn’t your father’s F-22,” then-Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said in a 2002 interview.

 

Since then, several Air Force officials have called the aircraft even more flexible and capable than the F/A designator indicated. Classified capabilities, unknown to the American public and U.S. lawmakers alike, mean that the plane might as well have been called the FB-22 bomber, F/E-22 surveillance plane, F/EA-22 electronic attack aircraft, or even an RC-22 signals-intelligence platform, they said.

 

In recent months, the plane once again faced criticism as part of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and was expected to face some cuts in order to make way for the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter. But those fears have subsided and the Air Force is likely to get its expected fleet of 180 aircraft.

 

Thompson said Air Force officials were feeling a “little expansive” after the Raptor survived attacks during the QDR debates; they decided they didn’t need the extra “A” to persuade the administration and Congress to buy the airplane.

 

Staff writer Laura Colarusso contributed to this report.

 

 

 

What is it you think the Typhoon can do that the Raptor can not do (note that for virtually any European weapon the Typhoon can carry these is a US weapon that can do the same job)?

It can carry just about anything you want.

 

I never said that the Raptor *couldn't* do it, but that its genesis wasn't the same as the Typhoon, making comparisons silly, as it's a case of apples and oranges, which you still cannot comprehend for some unexplained reason.

 

It may have not been "certified" to do so but it can still do it.

Mind backing that up with a source?

 

Besides the lates varient of the F-15 is the F-15E Strike Eagle.  Arguably the best strike aircraft in the world & it retains all the air-to-air capability of the F-15C (it is somewhat heavier & therefore of slightly lesser flight performance but not by much).

261724[/snapback]

 

Actually the latest variant isn't the Mudhen by a long shot, but rather the F-15SGs (ex F-15Ts) sold to Singapore, which differ mainly in avionics, as the -SGs have the AN/APG-63(3) radar, which are in the same family as the Mudhen's AN/APG-70s, but have software (more or less, the radar nerds here can set me straight) more or less in line with the Super Hornets. As for the best in the world, they can try all they want, but they still can't play in the weeds like the boys in the RAF flying Tornadoes.

[5150]

Isn't the Eurofighter just a Chinese copy of an M109?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Isn't the Eurofighter just a Chinese copy of an M109?

261749[/snapback]

 

I think the wingspan is a bit shorter for the M109

 

 

Though I do know some have noted the resemblance between the Typhoon and the J-10, mainly the intakes. Though a lot of it came as a result of this Photoshop job here:

 

 

Here's the 2 from approximate angles:

 

J-10

 

Typhoon

[Guest pfcem]

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. The F/A-18 was resurrected from the F-17 Cobra program to be the Navy's next strike fighter, with the idea of swing-role at the centre of the requirement, as long range fleet defence was to be held by the F-14s, whilst the F/A-18s, when not toting bonbs, could work as stop-gap air defence, and air superiority for amphibious operations by the Marines.

261735[/snapback]

I think the whole F/A thing is BS anyway. If we wanted to be correct about it, most fighters would have the F/A designation.

 

 

 

As for the designation, it's officially gone.

261735[/snapback]

Good

 

 

 

I never said that the Raptor *couldn't* do it, but that its genesis wasn't the same as the Typhoon, making comparisons silly, as it's a case of apples and oranges, which you still cannot comprehend for some unexplained reason.

261735[/snapback]

Slater asked how the radar/avionics between the Raptor & Typhoon compared.

 

I tried to put it into some kind of perspective for him - that is all.

 

What about saying that the Raptor is to the Typhoon like the F-15 is to the F-16 do you feel is so incorrect? The Raptor & F-15 are primarily air-defence fighters & the Typhoon & F-16 are multi-role fighters with less air-to-air capability but with more air-to-ground capabilities (at least in their initial versions anyway).

 

 

 

Mind backing that up with a source?

261735[/snapback]

You mean to tell me you have never seen or heard of an aircraft operating with ordinace it was not officially certified for?

 

 

 

 

Actually the latest variant isn't the Mudhen by a long shot, but rather the F-15SGs (ex F-15Ts) sold to Singapore, which differ mainly in avionics, as the -SGs have the AN/APG-63(3) radar, which are in the same family as the Mudhen's AN/APG-70s, but have software (more or less, the radar nerds here can set me straight) more or less in line with the Super Hornets.

261735[/snapback]

You are right, there have been comparatively small numbers of slightly different F-15 versions that have been procured by US allies.

 

My point was that the F-15E (or any of the newer varients based on it) are more-or-less as good as the F-15C in air-to-air & are among the best strike aircraft money can buy.

 

 

 

As for the best in the world, they can try all they want, but they still can't play in the weeds like the boys in the RAF flying Tornadoes.

261735[/snapback]

True the F-15E, being derived from a high altitude fighter, is not the best handelling aircraft at low altitude but ther is a lot more into makeing a good strike aricraft than being able to fly Nap-of-the-Earth.