The first Instrumented Series Production Aircraft (ISPA 6) configured for the Kuwaiti Air Force has successfully completed its first flight.

The aircraft is the first to fly the Captor E-Scan Radar with Phase Enhancement P3Eb, and is a key milestone for the entry into service of Eurofighter with the State of Kuwait.

This standard is the most advanced variant of the fighter jet ever made, with a package of capabilities that builds effectively on existing enhancement programmes.

“A contract for the supply of 28 Eurofighter Typhoon multi-role fighter aircraft was signed between the Ministry of Defence of the State of Kuwait and Leonardo (on 05 April 2016) through its Aircraft Division acting as Eurofighter Prime Contractor Organisation. With Captor E-Scan radar and several new additions to the weapon system, this variant will put the Kuwait Air Force at the front-line of the fighter technology when the aircraft will enter into service with the State of Kuwait in 2020.

While other aircraft in different Eurofighter Partner Companies are testing specific parts of this configuration, including the development of the E-Scan radar in UK and Germany, this is the first flight of the entire package that will be delivered to Kuwait.”

The capability package for Kuwait includes the integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone and other air-to-surface weapons. Moreover it foresees the integration of a new advanced laser designator pod (the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod) that will expand Eurofighter’s portfolio of cleared laser designator pods; the introduction of the DRS-Cubic ACMI P5 combat training pod and an enhanced navigation aid (VOR).

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

92 COMMENTS

  1. Just going by appearance’s there are two interesting points about the Kuwaiti Typhoon in the picture – 1 it’s painted in Camo colours and 2 they don’t seem to blend in with the background.

    • Does everyone else put it at the rear. It’s always looked awful on the typhoon with a dirty exhaust mark burnt right in the middle of the jet. It must have an aerodynamic impact too. Just such a strange place to have it when no one else seems to have located it there.

    • The thrust vectoring is good for very close combat. However with ASRAAM and the helmet mounted sight the Typhoon can already fire over-the-shoulder. Perhaps the upgrade is not cost effective. Also as ASRAAM is in fact a medium range AAM it is unlikely dogfighting is required. However it would be nice to have. I think there was also a agility enhancement package that did much the same job as the thrust vectoring. I think the new radar should be fitted to all RAF Typhoons – however I think that only the latest type can support it.

      It would be fab to see a Typhoon with all the upgrades.

        • Yes that is the one… I do not know why it was never taken up by the Typhoon operators. It appears to be a relatively inexpensive way of upping the planes performance….

          Perhaps it was not seen as cost effective. However having it in your back pocket for a sticky situation makes sense to me. I still remember the story of the first F4 Phantoms that were not fitted with a gun because with missiles the gun would no longer be needed! Then came Vietnam… and they added a gun. Personally I would like to see the aerodynamics upgrade and thrust vectoring added. We do not have many planes so why not give them the best in serviceability. I do not see a role for Typhoon on the carriers. Typhoon is now a generation 4 plus design we need to be looking at generation 6 and Tempest and that is were the resources should go. No spending money on putting old planes on new ships.

          • P.S. given that the thrust vectoring work was about ten years ago I think if the operators were keen they would have taken up the technology by now. However there is still hope as there has been talk in the growth of the Typhoon jet so who knows…

        • Carrier landings would require much more than simply adding vectored thrust. It would have to be significantly strengthened too and have folding wings which would require a very big redesign.

          • That is Gripen not Typhoon. The Gripen is already designed for short flared landings and rough strips. It will however still need extensive work to make it fit for carrier landings and given that it has far greater export potential than Typhoon it makes it a slightly more viable project.

          • Apologies Lee 1,

            I thought your comments were referring to a post of mine further down this thread!

            “A Christmas conundrum for the experts on here, If a thrust vectored EJ2000 with increased power was added to the Gripen E, given its already short take-off and landing capabilities, could it take off and land on a QE carrier?”

            I also included the possibility of speed brakes added to a modified tail. Helps to slow down on carrier approach and useful in a dogfight as we saw during the Falklands campaign.

            https://www.flightglobal.com/eurojet-aims-ej200-variant-at-thrust-vectored-gripen/21234.article

          • That article makes light of the work needed to produce a carrier typhoon. The engine would need to be navalised (I am pretty sure the EJ2000 is not currently protected from salt etc). The fact that it has Canards is not something that can be fixed and these are a problem for carrier landings. Lengthening Undercarriage is not trivial, it requires quite extensive redesign of the structure (Which is why they did not do that with the crappy 737 Max – despite that being the much more sensible and safe approach). The weight saved by the radar is also not quite as simple as it sounds as it would gain weight at the back and lose weight at the front. This would need changes to systems and probably fuel tank positioning etc. The article is also critical of the F35 with strange reasoning. Stating that the F35 can carry a much smaller load when in stealth configuration is correct but a pointless comparison. The Typhoon is not stealth so it is more appropriate to compare the F35 in not stealthy config in which is compares favourably to the Typhoon. Also the agility and survivability of the F35 has been gone over many times. It is agile, it is amazing and the B version has many positives in a real war situation. The Typhoon is a great aircraft and is a brilliant compliment to the F35 but the cost and effort to produce the carrier version and then modify the carriers to have STOBAR is just not worth it. We might as well pour the resources in to Tempest and potentially design it with carrier ability from the start.

          • Far too late now to produce a Typhoon for carriers agreed, Tempest is indeed the way forward for us.

            What was interesting to note was the fact that one, it was feasible to do this at the time, and two, the reason for it being cancelled.

          • We know it was feasible as it was what the French wanted out of it. It was also part of the reason they went alone with Rafael. The problem is that it was not designed for carrier ops. I can’t see how it could be either without significant modifications. For a start the undercarriage on pretty much every carrier based fighter are attached to the fuselage or at the very least the wing root. The typhoons are mid wing mounted and so I would imagine are not able to withstand the repeated impacts of crashing into a carrier. Most high performance fighters would be able to operate from carriers given the right redesign. Even the F15 was put forward as a carrier aircraft but it also has undercarriage mounted inboard. The F18 was a progression of the F5 tiger but as we see, the undercarriage was moved inboard from the mid wing position of the F5s.(although it was also inboard on the YF17) the f16 was also put forward but that also has inboard undercarriage. The SU27 is also o viously able to operate from carriers, however guess where the undercarriage is mounted? So feasible yes but expensive.

          • There was no point compromising the Typhoon even more by adding maritime ability. None of the partner nations had carriers capable of taking one and no other nations had expressed interest in one as such. Only France could have made use of one and they left the program partly due to the other nations not wanting to add to the complexity (and weight) by adding naval ability.

            Tempest could be different though, let’s see. I think it would be a good idea as the F35 will only last so long. It will need replacing and Tempest would be the ideal replacement. Possibly their will be a VSTOL version rather than a Stobar version.

          • No. The thrust vectoring would not help a great deal with the landing. Also it would still need arrestor wires and therefore modifications to the airframe. It would also need further strengthening of the undercarriage and would need the a special version of the EJ2000 in order to not be affected by the salt.

            Thrust vectoring would help a lot with takeoff however.

          • Theoretically, a Typhoon could already take-off from one of the QE carriers without the thrust vectoring modification. This is mostly down to its phenomenal power to weight ratio, but also its latent STOL aerodynamics. A F18E Super Hornet has taken off using the ramp at Pax River (in a clean configuration), which is designed to replicate the QE’s ramp for the F35Bs. The Typhoon has a greater power to weight ratio than the F18E, but also the Mig 29K used on the Russian and Indian carriers fitted with the ramps. The Mig uses a very short take-off length even compared to the F35B’s. Admittedly, the Typhoon would have to use the full length of the deck for take-off even with the ramp. It would be able to carry a full air-air configuration of weapons and fuel, unlike the Mig 29. Mixing the load with ground support weapons would be an issue though.

            It’s true that the Gripen has better short field performance than the Typhoon. However, its power to weight ratio compared to the Typhoon is rubbish. In a straight up dogfight the Gripen would generally loose against a Typhoon (depending upon the pilot) due to the woeful performance of its engine.

          • What interests me is whether a Gripen E fitted with a thrust vectored EJ2x0

            “The new engine plan to increase the output by 30% more power compared to the original EJ200.

            “The engine will have dry thrust of around 78 kN (or 17,500 lbf) with a reheated output of around 120 kN (or 27,000 lbf”

            which was proposed to Saab could take off from the QE Carriers and possibly land unassisted with the inclusion of speed brakes fitted to the tail section as seen on the space shuttle?

            Or, would traps be required?

        • No-one has gone for the Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) so far, it hasn’t been trialed in flight. Hopefully the Germans will look into it on their new batch.

          The conformal tanks are dead as a dodo as well.

    • Yes, the RAF version will have electronic attack capabilities like the F35, but has a much wider field of view compared to the F35’s radar.

        • Thrust vectoring is one of the nice to have things, the reality of modern warfare, avionic and weapons systems however renders ‘TV’ of minimal use today.

          Taking Typhoon into account, a combination of Meteor, ASRAAM, Captor radar, ESM systems and optronics, means an Su35 (for instance) will be toasted before it gets within 40 miles.

          It simply turns a large fighter into a static target, I would take Thyphoons supersonic agility, with the massive retained energy, any day of the week as a more relevant air combat attribute.

          It can close to within Meteors firing envelope and manoeuvre out harms way at supersonic speed.

          I would concede TV would be extremely useful as a built in function on a new conventional carrier design however.

          • Yes John, I fully agree with your analysis of Typhoon. This is a Golden Platform that has immense potential…..is it too much to ask that for once ,in the post-war period, that we make the most of it?

          • Absolutely Herodotus, Tempest development ‘might’ just give renewed enthusiasm for Typhoon.

            The 2020 SDSR will be a pivotal point. Hopefully Tempest will survive and be committed to.

            However, if it doesn’t and DC decides to fully commit to of the shelf F35 variants for our future fighter force, then you can expect UK funded Typhoon development to stop dead in its tracks, with a trickle of funded Captor E upgrades and little else for the RAF.

            DC is an unknown quantity here and he will have considerable influence over SDSR2020, I guess we will find out next year.

          • “It can close to within Meteors firing envelope and manoeuvre out harms way at supersonic speed.”

            Which is one of the many benefits offered with this potential upgrade.

            operationally significant is the speed that it gives you in supercruise because obviously the pilots are very keen on low observability at high speed. This is really an immediate operational advantage. This number – 7% more thrust in supercruise – is quite a remarkable achievement.”

            TVN could reduce fuel burn on a typical Typhoon mission by up to 5%, as well as increase available thrust in supercruise by up to 7% and take-off thrust by 2%.

            https://www.flightglobal.com/eurojet-pushes-thrust-vectoring-technology-for-typhoon/89576.article

          • Put this fuel burn into context. typhoon costs circa 50k per flight hour, so 5% efficiency saving is 2.5k per hour

            across our fleet that is a substantial cost save that over several years could pay for itself.

          • That’s correct, in an article I read that the fuel-saving alone would cover the cost of installing TVN on Typhoon aircraft.

            Given all the other added benefits offered by this upgrade, it astonished me that we have never even fitted it to a test and evaluation aircraft only bench tested it.

          • It would still be an expensive update to fit TVN, that would include a rewrite of the fly by wire system. And the RAF simply doesn’t have a requirement for it. While it does bring advantages, the experience the Typhoon force has had in exercises with the F22 has shown it it usnt the be all and end all. A very capable HMS is a far better asset.

          • “And the RAF simply doesn’t have a requirement for it.”

            Fortunately, that appears not the case Robert, please note the words “planned upgrades”.

            Further Eurofighter Typhoon planned upgrades include: laser warners; enhanced DASS (defence aids subsystem); thrust vectoring for greater manoeuvrability; stand-off weapons, such as Storm Shadow and Taurus; advanced targeting pods; enhanced computing abilities; and passive missile warning systems.

            Taken together, these will keep Eurofighter Typhoon at the leading edge of swing-role combat aircraft technology.”

            https://www.eurofighter.com/about-us

          • I would agree with Robert, I’ll wager the cost to benefit exercise was carried out by BAE Systems!

            By all means, get a trails working system going,
            (useful for Tempest research)
            but if the Eurofighter consortium feels it will be a massive advantage to sales etc of Typhoon , then let them pay for the development.

            We all know it’s never as easy as first claimed, it would require a considerable rewrite of the flight control system, a massive and expensive undertaking in its own right, never mind the engine software and hardware changes required.

            Any available money needs to be put into advanced and improved sensors and weapons.

            Though the German developed leading edge extensions, coupled with a tweaked FCS, would provide a useful slow, high angle of attack capability, at an acceptable cost.

            Why has this promising mod never been employed?

          • Hi John. Yes I agree the Airbus developed aerodynamic kits would be much better value for money with most of the advantages of TVN, without the considerable added weight and maintance that comes with TVN, Two of the main disadvantages of TVN that is often overlooked.

          • Hi Robert,

            Re weight:

            “The Thrust Vectoring Nozzles would add a further 70 kg of weight, but this would merely compensate the weight saved by adopting an AESA radar in place of the current Mechanical one.”

            Re engine software and hardware changes required:

            “The key consideration is that the Thrust Vectoring Nozzle could be adopted with nearly no modifications at all on existing Typhoons, and even the software of the avionics system would merely require a relatively simple update since the new nozzle would be simply seen as another control surface.”

            Re “Airbus developed aerodynamic kits would be much better value for money with most of the advantages of TVN”:

            Please, could you explain this to me as it appears that it does nor replicate or replace anything in relation to the fitting of TVN as you mention?

            “The improvements in the already formidable agility of the Typhoon has been surprising: the LERX delays the loss of lateral stability during manoeuvres at high angle of attack, and the tests showed that in a standard AA weapons configuration with 4 BVRAAM missiles and two SRAAM, the DA5 with LERX gains a good 10% more turning rate than normal Typhoons. It is unclear if this modification can be financed and fitted at least to the Tranche 3A Typhoons.”

            A more in-depth look at Typhoon can be found here.

            http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/eurofighter-typhoon.html

          • Thank you, Robert, what I’m wondering is how the LERX kit has most of the advantages offered by TVN?

            It appears to me that they are two sets of independent advantages if you see what I mean.

            That being said, there is still plenty of life left in Typhoon and hopefully, we will take advantage of both including additional thrust provided by the EJ230 and the new precooler from Reaction.

          • The advantages are how the article explains, the big increase in the maximum angle of attack, the ability to point to nose at low speed, Improved turn rate, roll rate ect. TVN does bring advantages to fuel burn and supercruise, but is it enough for the cost. The Typhoon out performs all current fast jets, except the F22 when it comes to supersonic agility and supercruise performance in it’s current configuration.

          • I don’t doubt the advantages, but that article is 10 years old, and alot has changed since then. I think the next gen fighters (Tempest) Wil move behond TVN.

          • I think also, the Typhoons performance in it’s current configuration is phenomenal, and many multinational exercises and real operations have shown just how good the airframe and engine performance really is. The EJ200 really is a gem of a fighter engine.

  6. All these upgrades will just flow into tempest I presume, great strategy to continuing upgrading typhoon and getting fantastic testing time on all this.

  7. Just amazes me that the member nations have allowed another nation, have a better specced jet than them.

    Whilst its unlikely that we will go to war with Kuwait, its not impossible, considering their domestic politics are highly questionable.

    • Its the first full tranche 3 spec, they were supposed to be ordered by the partners but they have been slow to turn options into firm orders and so production has slowed down with Germany the only one close to firming its orders. They are funding Various enhancement packages though (Germany engine upgrade, britain sensor upgrades) as well as other developmental work building into Tempest (like this new radar threat detector which is a tenth the weight but three times as accurate as the existing version) which means if and when the partners order they will be even better than the Kuwaiti version.

    • It’s always been the same Steve, the Kuwaiti and Saudi BAC export Lightning F56/T55’s were better than the Lightning the RAF flew.

      Some things never change….

    • Hi Steve. Fighter’s get developed much quicker then home nations requirements or need. There are many versions of the F16 and F15 being flown by foreign nations that are more capable the the current USAF fleet. The RAF’s Typhoons will soon surpass the Kuwait models when it receives an even more capable ASEA R2 radar with electronic attack and the brand new Striker 2 HMS. Countries like Kuwait also have a budget to spend on new fast jets because they don’t have much in the way of a Navy to pay for, or a nuclear deterrent ect or highly a deployable Army, plus they are also only buying 28.

      • There are two key requirements for a dynamic and agile stol aircraft. One is aerodynamics, the other is the aircraft’s power to weight ratio. The Gripen has excellent short field performance, mostly due to its canard coupled delta wing design. The single F404 engine is the problem. For max weight take-offs it hasn’t the thrust for stol operations. So requires a lengthened run up for take off. The issue here is that using a pair of EJ200s is a more powerful combination. So for pure dogfighting, the Typhoon has the advantage due it’s greater power to weight ratio. What this means in real terms is that during a high g turn the Gripen after loosing all its momentum will take longer to accelerate compared to the Typhoon. This matters a lot, as the pilot who can conserve more energy whilst dogfighting will have the advantage.

        The Typhoon has stol capability, but not at max all up weight. Fit a set of Reaction engines pre-coolers to the EJ200s it definitely will have.

        The Thrust vectoring design of the F22 also has the benefit of lowering the exhaust temperature and IR signature. However, the design is 2D only (pitch and roll). The design by Eurojet for the EJ200 is a 3D design much like the SU30/35 version. It could be used instead of the conventional flying controls for pitch, roll and yaw. This would have the benefit of making the aircraft more radar stealthy, as large flying control deflections are good radar reflectors. Unlike the F22’s design it won’t lower the IR signature.

        • Agreed Davey B

          Eurojet has proposed to Saab a 102kN (23,000lb)-thrust version of its engine, called the EJ230, combined with an axisymmetric thrust-vectoring nozzle so I wondered if the Gripen E using this combination could, in theory, take off and land on the QE carriers?

          In addition, with Reaction engines pre-coolers installed there is the potential for both aircraft to use the flight deck of the QE carriers rather than only the F35B?

          I’m simply trying to find a solution to maximise the potential of the carriers without the added expense and fitting of EMALS!

          • It’s an interesting idea Nigel.

            First off we would need to add an angled flight deck, to allow bolters.

            I would have thought the proposed (on paper) EJ260 with 26000lb of thrust, coupled with powerful boundary layer controls and thrust vectoring, might just be able to operate from a QE class, though it would need the whole deck to launch and stopping would be a white buckle ride, requiring the whole length of flight deck and only in the most benign of weather conditions.

            Any rough sea would make the ship pitch on its access and mean touching down further into the flight deck …. And running out of same!

          • Further thoughts, to get the touch down speed of this proposed Naval variant down to 75 knots
            (absolute maximum) you would also need larger wings and cannards, both of which would need ‘very powerful’ boundary layer blowing.

          • A step in the right direction John!

            Could Typhoon and Gripen benefit from these suggestions?

            Fitting the Reaction Engine precooler would further increase power for carrier takeoff as well as allow the aircraft to fly higher and faster.

            So, as we know EMAL fitting costs between £2/3B per carrier, all we would require in theory, in that case, are traps. Not sure how much that would cost?

            Additionally, would it not make financial sense to redesign the tail and include a split rudder speed brake as seen on the space shuttle? reducing landing speeds even further and improvements to breaking in a dogfight scenario as we saw during the Falklands conflict.

            Just a thought!

          • Boundary layer control requires at least 20% of the engines power to generate lift as found on the fabulous buccaneer aircraft.
            However, boundary layer control does mean you can use a smaller wing (good for low level stuff). The canard on a Typhoon, much like the Rafale’s, does not generate much lift compared to the Gripen’s, so boundary layer control would be wasted on it.
            A split rudder will generate more drag, if the left and right halves don’t move with each other. To clarify, if one half doesn’t move, but the other does, a void is left between the two halves. This void creates a great deal of turbulence and therefore drag.

      • Clearly, but at a cost of fitting EMALS to the carriers (£2/3Billion) think how much it would cost to field a demonstrator if it were indeed possible which was my question, to begin with.

          • I am not sure why you would spend extra money to put a 4 generation plant on a carrier when you could use a 5 or 6 gen one…Has anyone come across the RSVL as used by F35 on QE. I know it is disconcerting for some to have a large aircraft carrier and not have a F18 style plane on it but we do not need an F18 on the QE class…. we just use some F35s in stealth mode and others in ‘beast’ mode. No 4 gen missile trucks Needed.

          • The answer is other countries who use the Grippen could potentially make use of the carriers in time of conflict.

            Secondly, they are already cleared for Meteor and many other munitions besides, the F35B will not be until 2025 and still requires the expensive Block 4 upgrade in order to do so.

          • Could this also be a good reason Rob N?

            Forces Network 9th October 2019 at 11:43am

            HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

            The overall programme is the most expensive weapons system in military history. An estimated cost from 2015 put the price at £78 million per jet, without engine or electronics.

            For everything included, the Lightnings come in at a grand total of £190 million.

            https://www.forces.net/news/what-you-need-know-about-f-35b

          • Unfortunately you have to pay a price for the new kit. The Russians and Chinese will nor stop introducing new kit so we can take a 4 gen holiday!

            While I accept the Meteor could be effective on either a F35 or Grippen – that is not the whole story as you must know. F35 offers offensive strike against advanced air defence protected targets something Grippen would struggle to do. There is a reason Grippen is cheap and that is because it is less capable.

          • I personally think that the latest Grippen E/F is a very capable aircraft designed with the future in mind at a very respectable price (£65M).

            As for defeating advanced air defence protected targets?
            https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen-ef/

            As we move forward with Tempest I’m sure more technologies will be shared between both Typhoon and Grippen making them an even more formidable package.

          • I am sure it is a very capable plane but it is less stealthy then F35 and the F35 has better data fission.

            I am very happy to think that Sweden and the UK are getting together on Tempest (with the Italians). These partners should make a fab team. I think Airbus are still trying to get the UK to join their project to get their hands on UK propulsion technology. I think the Swedish will add lots of innovation to Tempest. Having Italy with us is great too.

          • Not quite sure about the better data fusion though Rob, only time will tell I guess?

            “However, the manufacturer has confirmed that its state-of-the-art communications system cannot link up with older planes.

            This means the RAF’s F-35 pilots will have to switch to older systems to make contact with the UK’s Typhoon fighters, losing their stealth capability and becoming detectable by enemy forces.

            These technology problems could turn out to be extremely costly, with some estimates saying that we could expect delays of up to five years and additional costs.”

            https://www.forces.net/news/what-you-need-know-about-f-35b

          • Absolutely Nigel, Gripen E is an extremely capable aircraft, unfortunately it comes fowl of one of the key forces affecting combat aircraft procurement.

            Thrust, lift, drag and politics!

            US pressure has meant countries like the Netherlands and Norway etc, who would have been perfectly well served by Gripen E, have gone for the F35 instead.

          • The US have been very aggressive in pushing other countries to buy it. In some cases this goes too far e.g. Turkey bought the plane and when they did not continue to buy US they were punished…. However do not forget that 15% of F35 is UK built and so we profit too.

          • That’s true Rob, we do very well out of F35 sales, I just find it odd when countries like Switzerland rejected the Gripen E out of hand when it’s about a perfect fit for that country as there possibly could be, curious……

          • The actual tracking of the aircraft was a fix. For starters the two aircraft had their luneburg lenses fitted, which meant they had a least 4 times their normal RCS. The company who tracked them also had spotters letting them know when the aircraft took off and in which direction. So when they say they tracked the aircraft, I’m highly sceptical, especially as they didn’t release the data when asked.

            Until someone cracks both quantum computing and radar, stealth aircraft will always be incredibly difficult to detect, the laws governing electro-magnetic waves and how they interact with materials has not changed. With longwave radar you can get an idea that there’s an aircraft/object out there, but you won’t get a definitive range, height or angular direction. The radar’s long wavelength is hindering the process, it also reliant on the size of the object reflecting the radar. Rayleigh scattering can give you a hit off smaller aircraft, but the radar has to be quite close to detect it. To get a decent hit of a target, it is best if the radar’s wavelength is either equivalent or smaller than the size of the target. There are other issues effecting how the signal is reflected, but the target’s size or radar cross section plays a massive part. This is why aircraft such as the F35 are designed to be stealthy against smaller wavelength radars such as X-band. It is much easier to design in stealth features that counteract these specific frequencies. Additional stealth coatings/paints containing ferrite also go a long way at absorbing the EM wave.

            The main development of radar is in the processing and filtering. I’m pretty certain Russia is not in the same league as the US in developing CPUs. It is with the advent of new algorithms that radar has advanced significantly. This can’t be emphasised enough, its true that PESA and AESA radars have helped to maximise the signal strength available in each pulse and with AESA in particular offer true multi-mode flexibility. But it is the ability of the radar to discern from a incredibly small signal reflection, that there is a target moving against background clutter where processing has made the leap forward.

            The advent of passive/multi-static radar again is only possibly due to the advance in processing power. Imagine the coding it takes to not only synchronise but also to analyse the plethora of signal returns delivered by a multitude of mobile phone masts. Again, much like longwave radar, bi-static radar cannot give you a height measurement, so would be no good for a SAM system. It would be no good for use with shipping. However, as part of a layered defence network, it would allow you to know there’s a target out there. Whether in a peer vs peer conflict any mobile phones or commercial radio would be working is questionable. Ships could use bi-static techniques with their primary radars. But each ship would need to be operating on different frequencies, synchronised and data-linked with each other.

            An inherently stealthy shaped aircraft such as the B2 even without the absorbent coating will still have a much smaller RCS than say a F111. It’s the coating that makes the real difference and it will be in this area where more advances will be made with such materials such as carbon nanotubes. I would expect the advance in new materials going hand in hand with the algorithm development.

      • Yes, but land testing (runway and ski ramp) is all that is required along with a test aircraft if the math works out on paper to fly a Gripen E with the uprated thrust vectored EJ2000 engine.

        • It will be interesting to see what the USN does. I don’t think the F18 will be able to compete against a fully developed stealth Chinese fighter in 10 years time. Maybe if it still has better sensors and missiles it could but I think its already at its limited. The USN don’t seem to want the F35 but I can’t see anything new entering front line service before 2035-40.

      • I am pretty sure that the underc arriage at least would require a redesign/refit for carrier ops (Saab iirc have already done preliminary work on a carrier version of the Gripen but nobody has bitten – there are after all only a few nations with suitably sized carriers).

          • The idea of a Carrier Gripen was more aimed at Brazil and India – Brazil obviously doesn’t have a need for it now and India has bought Might 29’s with it’s own Tejas in development.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here