The Royal Air Force’s upgrade to the European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mk2 for its Typhoon jets has reached several significant milestones, according to a new update from the Ministry of Defence.
In response to a question from Conservative MP James Cartlidge, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle provided details on the progress of the radar system, which is designed to enhance the combat capabilities of the Typhoon.
Eagle confirmed that the ECRS Mk2 programme passed the Critical Design Review (CDR) for the production radar system in June 2024 and completed ground testing on a Typhoon trials aircraft in July.
“The European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mk2 programme has achieved several positive milestones in the past four months, notably passing the production radar system Critical Design Review (CDR) in June 2024 and the completion of prototype ground testing on a Typhoon trials aircraft in July 2024. Teams across the Ministry of Defence and industry are working to meet the major milestone of a first flight of ECRS Mk2 over the coming weeks.”
The latest developments build on previous testing conducted at BAE Systems’ flight testing facility in Warton, Lancashire, with support from Leonardo UK, which developed the radar at its Edinburgh and Luton sites.
The ground-based tests, completed in July, included rigorous electromagnetic testing in an anechoic chamber to ensure the radar’s functionality and performance in real-world combat conditions.
Group Captain D’Aubyn, the RAF’s Typhoon Programme Director, remarked in July, “Embodiment of this prototype new radar into the test aircraft is a positive step on the continuous evolution of Typhoon’s control of the air capabilities, maintaining its sovereign Freedom of Action and preserving its technological advantage.”
The ECRS Mk2 radar represents a significant upgrade from the older Captor-M systems, introducing high-powered jamming capabilities to suppress enemy air defences and engage targets from beyond the range of threats. According to Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), the radar will “transform the Eurofighter Typhoon’s control of the air, bringing a world-leading electronic warfare capability which will allow the aircraft to simultaneously detect, identify, and track multiple targets in the air and on the ground.”
The RAF has ordered 40 ECRS Mk2 radars for its Tranche 3 Typhoon aircraft, with potential expansion to up to 67 additional radars for the Tranche 2 aircraft. Germany and Italy are also considering incorporating the Mk2 into their Typhoon fleets, further underscoring the system’s international appeal.
Does this go hand-hand-hand with the cockpit upgrade?
Those potential 67 need to happen pulse Doppler is last century. Who knows how many potential export deals were scuppered due to perceived dated technology. I wonder if we will actually get any exports now we’re finally fielding up to par equipment.
Captor M is still a very, very capable radar system.
I agree, but I do think it’s now time.
If you’re exporting it’s not only about capability, but perception.
Typhoon Export Customers can choose what Radar Spec they use on their Aircraft,this has always been the case.
What were the options up until the hensoldt was available? If not from existing Typhoon portfolio I assume they would then have to pay for fit, radome trials and integration etc
In reality they want off the shelf with full OEM support?
‘The Hensoldt’? The first AESA available for Typhoon, CAPTOR-E Mk0, was designed by the EuroRadar consortium. Currently flying on Kuwaiti and Qatari Typhoons. AESAs had been flying on Typhoons since the early 2000s, it’s not been the only reason for poor export.
Export radars would have degraded capability? I understand the Saudi and other nations US Aesa on F15 has less capability , which makes sense. The world is changing about who to trust, especially nations tempted by BRICS for instance.
With Radar 2 tech going into Tempest , I doubt we will export outside EU partners
Given that we will probably end up selling GCAP to Qatar and the Saudis, I see no reason to be so cautious with the radar tech that will one day go into it.
Not Japan?
By the time this radar reaches operational squadrons we will have to ask how advanced it is. Typhoon is due to leave service 15 years from now and about 10 years before this reaches operational squadrons. I can see the last few radars being installed on aircraft a few years from the razor blade factory.
Now we are developing an entirely new radar for Tempest.
This is why the RAF is so small compared to other air forces.
I would bet typhoon will still be knocking about in the mid to late 2040s..look how long it’s taken to get 2 squadrons of f35..even if GCAP starts initial production in 2035…getting 6 squadrons will take a very time.
Don’t rule out 2050 to quickly.
I have no doubt a lot of the tech and programming knowledge will be leveraged from ECRS and used to inform future requirements for GCAP
So, get my maths right, total Typhoon fleet of 107 – 67 ECRS Mk2 candidates, leaves 40. So, which Typhoon Tranche would this leave with Captor M?
the Tranche 1s that are due to leave service shortly …
Which is crazy
Hi H, I stand to be corrected but I don’t think that’s right. I think we’ll be left with 107 after the Tranche 1s go. Maybe Jon’s reply to me further down is where my maths should be!
Maybe you are misreading. It’s 40 Tranche 3 for certain, plus maybe 67 further for Tranche 2. There’s no 40 left over. I think there are 4 Tranche 1s, down in the Falklands that are not scheduled for disposal or upgrade.
I hope you are right Jon.
I do wonder if part of Italy’s goal with GCAP (other than actually just wanting to be part of a cutting edge fighter programme for the benefits that brings) is to try and bring some of the technology that is geographically locked in Leonardo UK into Leonardo as a whole.
Radar technology IP is owned by UK Government.
Italy-Leonardo have radar tech of their own. Raven ES-05 will be next Gripen radar and the land and naval have their own advanced radars.
Leonardo are certainly busy these days, it would seem. In almost sixty years living in Edinburgh, I’ve never seen them, in any of their incarnations, Ferranti etc., so intent on recruiting new talent that they would do as they did recently: start covering entire double decker buses with a very eye-catching recruitment ad. I know this project has been ongoing for a good while, and work on the sensor suite (their term) for Tempest seems to have begun.
The work must be there…
Radar is one of the areas where the EF/Typhoon partners have different approaches.
It’s interesting that Germany and Italy have order more Typhoons ,think it would be wise if we did the same has F35s numbers in doubt plus not really an interceptor and of course if Tempest never happens or is delay . 🤔
Why cannot UK buy F15EX fighters better than F35 in cost and weapons loads and ceiling height
Because no matter the upgrades to the F15. It is still a day 2 fighter, whereas the F35 is a day 1. What this means is that if the F15 was used on day 1 for SEAD, air superiority mission or behind the lines interdiction. There is a very good chance that a significant number will be shot down.
The F35 has all the aces except weapons load. So long as it maintains its low observability. It will have a significantly better chance of doing its mission but also surviving.
Besides we have Typhoon for the day 2 missions.
This looks like a good system, although I am not sure of the range. Does anyone know if a version of this radar could be used on future warships. It might reduce cost of design, improve ship-aircraft co-operation and reduce wieght high up in a ship. Also I very much like one of the possibilities being looked into, a x-band AESA in space as the active radar with the aircraft CAPTOR-E in passive mode.
Hi Ron, the Mk2 is supposed to be equivalent to the F35’s APG-81. As such it will be a game changer compared to the current Captor-M. You are right it could be used as a surface based radar. However, it will need a few modifications. As the radar will be used more often at full power, its cooling system will need improving.
Secondly it is no longer handicapped by the requirement to have the antenna array constrained by the size of the Typhoon’s nose. It could therefore have a much larger antenna array. This will enable it to have a higher power output. It will also need its software modifying as it will need to account for more ground clutter. So yes in essence the radar could be used as a warship based radar.
There is a compromise to be hard in relationship between an AESA antenna array size and how high it can be placed on a ship. This in turn affects the radar power output and receiver sensitivity. Take the Sampson, with its back to back arrays mounted some 40m above sea level. By placing it as high as possible extends the radar horizon. As AESA arrays contain both the transmitter and receiver, which makes it much heavier than the traditional mechanically scanned radars.
If you compare the antenna size to that used by the Arleigh Burke’s SPY-1D (regardless that SPY-1D is PESA and not AESA), which operates in the same S-band. Sampson’s array is about 2/5’s that of the SPY. Which means the SPY can emit power power and have a higher receiver sensitivity. Sampson’s arrays are smaller thereby enabling them to mounted higher. The SPY-1D due to their size but also their weight must be mounted low. Thereby the ship’s radar horizon is much smaller than the T45’s.
As to spaced based radar has been an aspiration since we first put satellites in space. We have had radar satellites since the 70’s. There resolution has got better over the years, where the images they produce can show the type of ship in transit.
X-band radar operating from space does have a few issues. As an example, if we look at the THAAD’s AN/TPY-2 radar. It is an AESA radar that operates in the C-band. It can detect objects with a very small radar cross section over 1000km away. But to do so its antenna array module is 12.8 meters long, 2.6 meters high, and weighs 34 tonnes. It requires three other units for cooling, power and signal processing that each require a 40ft ISO. The power unit supplies the transmitter-receiver unit with 1.1MW of energy. Which allows the transmitter to bang out around 81MW.
All radio frequency emissions are affected by the atmosphere. Where it interacts with gases, water and dust Cathay makes up the air. The higher the frequency the more it’s affected. This attenuation affects x-band radars significantly more than lower frequency s-band. Where for the same power output, an s-band radar will detect objects 2 to 3 times further than an x-band radar.
For a space based radar operating in the x-band. If you want to detect to fighter or the smaller cruise missile types of targets. You will need to have similar power as the THAAD’s radar. It will therefore require a solar array significantly bigger than that used by the international space station, unless it’s nuclear powered. Admittedly you could make a smaller system that uses less power. But it will need to be in low earth orbit. Which will significantly shorten its life span due to the incessant pull of Earth’s gravity.
Hi Davey, thanks for that gave me a good idea of the possibilities. I should have realised the issue with x-band in space as I often used diffrent uplink/downlink bands mostly Ku/L in sat comms. As for the AN/TPY-2 I did not know that that it was so big and required so much power, god don’t let a duck fly in front of the thing instant roast dinner.
Speaking about SAMPSON vs SPY for some reason I still prefer to have a three face rotating array as high as possible with SMART L-MM with four fixed arrays in the same mast if possible. However, I am trying to understand if or how a ship could have the same radar picture as the aircraft in real time so that either could have their radars switched of in active mode. The only way that I can see that working easily is if both the ship and aircraft had the same radar.
So I suppose how would you get an S Band, L-Band and X-Band all working as one system so that the aircraft can see what the ship sees without being active, or the ship can see what the aircraft sees again being in passive mode.
The sharing of radar data is and can be done today through tactical data links. This can be via Link-11, 16, 22, multifunction advanced data link (MADL) and cooperative engagement capability (CEC) for example.
A good example is the E2C/D Hawkeye. Initially to talk to a Tomcat it could only use voice, but then came the data link 4. Which allowed secure messages (text) to be sent to the aircraft. It later got Link-16, which allows voice (rarely used) and data to be transmitted. This data could be displayed on a head down display. As either vectoring information or as a graphical display. Later this would become a four stacked Link-16. Where you’d use four transmitters to interleave the signal to get more bandwidth.
The stacked Link-16 enables a radar picture to be transmitted in near real time. So this is more like a screen grab. Though you can also transmit some other data with the picture.
MADL and CEC is the next step. Which has a huge bandwidth, think 5g compared to 3g. This allows not only the radar picture but also the unprocessed radar data. So the “receiver” can do its own signal processing.
The CEC in particular allows a radar picture to shared amongst a fleet. Allowing the of the rest of the fleet to operate passively.
The ship’s combat management system (CMS) has the ability to take the radar data from a number of separate systems, that are operating at different frequencies. Then overlay or interleave the pictures together.
Today the combination of the tactical data link and a ship’s CMS does allowing the sharing of near real time radar data. Whereas MADL on the F35 allows the aircraft to share data amongst other F35’s covertly and securely. Plus it can share its data with other suitably equipped platforms or vice versa.
It’s well beyond an APG-81 equivalent, both in technology and intended role/function. Mk2 has a heavier focus on wideband EW and includes more modern technology, 81 is already aging and the US is readying its successor.
I feel we have to be careful on how much we “big up” Radar 2 over the F35’s APG-81. Yes it is newer, and contains newer components and software. But it has yet flown or had any results published. Whereas from what has been published on the APG-81, shows it is a generational leap in capabilities over what has gone before, even the F22’s APG-77.
As per Radar 2, the upgrade from APG-81 to 85, their is little detail on the upgrade. Which in the public domain is very top level.
I would like to think Radar 2 has been built on the real life performance that have been found when operated by the RAF/RN. Then this was fed into a user requirement. That says Radar 2 must be capable of doing x, y and z, but better than the APG-81. So it’s very likely that Radar 2 and APG-85 will be very similar on performance,
The radar Germany blocked twenty odd years ago? That’s progress in the international co-operation sphere for you.
Potential expansion to tranche 2. Ermmm not a snowball in hells chance of that happening.
Neither will Germany buy it, they have their own version being developed by Hensoldt.
The Typhoon in my opinion is a very formidible combat aircraft and has a very diffrent role to play than the F35B. I do not understand why the UK MoD are scrapping the Tranche 1 aircraft. I seem to remember that it was because is was air to air only but there seems to be an upgrade R2 package for air to ground. Germany, Italy and Spain are buying Tranche 4 aircraft with the Germans doing a design for a two seater electronic warfare SEAD aircraft. This role is very much missing in the RAF. There also seems to be background talk of a Tranche 5 what ever that means, thrust vectoring anyone.
Someone posted that the Typhoon will be around until the 2040s, Germany is looking at the 2060s, it is possible that it is for their SEAD aircraft but still not bad for what was in reality a British project.
Now that Germany is becoming a F35 customer. It is difficult to see the rationale behind proceeding with the Typhoon ECRS version. The F35 can do the job better and more safely. Whereas the Typhoon has to be a lot more cautious when conducting SEAD.
I still feel that the two seater Typhoob would be better suited as a loyal wingman mothership. Where the back seater operates the drones, leaving the pilot up front to fight the Typhoon.