The £4.3 billion that makes up the bulk of the Typhoon funding in the Defence Investment Plan covers routine maintenance and previously agreed radar upgrades rather than new capability, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed, with the separate £1.1 billion allocation funding the extensive upgrade work still to come.
The clarification came in a written answer from Defence Minister Luke Pollard to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who asked for a breakdown of the £4.3 billion that remains once the £1.1 billion earmarked for upgrading the fleet is set aside from the plan’s overall Typhoon spend.
“The £4.3 billion funds UK Typhoon routine maintenance and previously agreed radar upgrades. This will assure the platform’s capability for the rest of the parliament and the foundation for the extensive upgrade work to come,” Pollard said, as quoted in the answer.
The response largely completes a picture that has been assembled through successive parliamentary questions. As previously reported by the UK Defence Journal, the MoD confirmed earlier this month, in answer to Fylde MP Andrew Snowden, that the plan’s £5.4 billion Typhoon line comprises the planned spend to maintain and upgrade the UK’s 107 aircraft, covering radar, communications and software upgrades, new defensive aids systems and improvements to weapons systems such as the upgraded helmet-mounted sight.
The latest answer resolves how that total divides, with roughly four fifths sustaining the fleet and honouring commitments already made, and the £1.1 billion representing the new money behind the upgrade programme intended to keep Typhoon credible well into the 2040s.
The previously agreed radar work funded within the £4.3 billion refers to the European Common Radar System Mk2, the electronically scanned array developed by Leonardo at Edinburgh and contracted before the Defence Investment Plan, which will give upgraded Typhoons a transformed sensing and electronic warfare capability and sits at the heart of the fleet’s planned evolution.
The £1.1 billion, described in the plan as upgrading and sustaining the Typhoon combat force well into the 2040s, funds the wider long-term evolution of the aircraft on top of that foundation, and Leonardo, which supplies the sensors for the upgrade, has pointed to the allocation as backing for the programme.
Expensive stuff considering we are only upgrading 40 airframes with the AESA radar.
Is that still the case ?
As far as I know
The whole fleet require the new radar.
I grew, all tranche 2 and 3 airframes, we should also do a Spanish style upgrade on the tranche 1 still in storage. Even to just have them as hangar queens.
With the advent of pilotless wingman drones, the RAF may accept the ceiling of 100+ Typhoons, where, without them, the fleet would be at the limit in terms of operational availability and attrition. Obviously, the drone is not the panacea; it certainly opens up more operational options. I can envisage a reduction in Tempest fleet numbers due to the wingman drone and this must be a factor being weighed up at the MOD?
They’ve already started harvesting them for spares, there’s no chance of a reprieve for T1s except the 4 on the Falklands
Why is everyone so desperate to keep the Tranche 1s operational. They’re high hours, high support cost and include a lot of legacy equipment that would also have to be funded for upgrade or be retro-qualled. The MOD chose instead to recover the T2 sustainment fleet to full operational status, which have hardly any hours on, and increase operational availability of the rest of the fleet. The cost of this was heavily subsidised by the cost savings from the T1 RTP programme.
I know the DM likes to play on Britain “wasting” these jets but the truth is that they had reached the end of their useful operational life on a cost-benefit basis.
If we’re concerned about the risk of attrition during a full NATO type operation then a handful of T1s isn’t going to move the needle either way. The answer there is to let the F35s clear ground defences with stealth first for ground runs and to develop a fleet of loyal wingmen drones to help protect the Typhoons in the air. Much like aircraft carriers you protect the valuable asset with a protection fleet. One of the key features of the new radar is to assist with greater multi-target tracking capabilities and have the F35 and other assets assist through data link to make the overall battlespace more manageable.
The DIP describes 110 airframes.
That includes two seater aircraft.
107 T2 and T3 plus 4 T1s
Two “loud things” flying over Surrey at the moment….assume for Faenborough. Mate says were F35s.
They are on QRA and flying Up’t North to check a large warm object spotted near Manchester, they are now safely on the way home having identified it as just the 7th “Larger hot air filled Ego Bird” seen in U.K Airspace in the last decade.
This one has been risk assessed as non threatening to anyone North of Watford Gap, but career lethal to approximately 30 other “Smaller ego Birds” sometime next week in Central London.
RSPB says thats usual behaviour as all previous sightings result in a cull of the weaker members of the species.
Long term its lifetime is limited to about 15 months as the smaller members of the species tend to devour the older larger one by biting it in the back.
🤣
Have a look at who he’s appointed as a political advisor.
Aircraft maintenance… So the UK Gov paid Airbus, Leonardo and (of course) BAE to make the damn things, and MOD are giving them a further £4.1b, to upgrade and maintain them.
Maybe the MOD should ask BAE to fly them as well.
Loool what??
Remember when that was done in-house, save for the outside contractors? I am positive an RAF aircraft specialist technician is cheaper than paying BAe a big chunk of money for their work which includes a whopping profit margin, Labour (including profit margin) and hardware/consumables. There has to be a more cost-effective method than constantly feeding the defence giants with money.
Exactly this.
Money to the MIC! The priority.
Meanwhile the forces get some fabulous equipment, but far too few.
I want a better balance between good enough and gold plated, and more in-house rather than outsourcing.
Inhouse is always cheaper, and always will be. People have been ‘conned’ into believing otherwise. Real honest example… 1987, and a toolmaker was paid £7.00/hr, which was considered a ‘reasonable’ wage. The company who employed that toolmaker, were charging a client £64.00/hr, for that work.
The ‘client’ was more than happy to pay that money, as they had been talked into closing their own toolroom. (2 of those toolmakers, ended up working for the ‘new company’)
The cost of employing that toolmaker was more then his £7 an hour wage thought. Pension, NI, sick pay. The equipment he need to do his job
That’s correct, but NOT £64.00 an hour.
The new statement does confirm that both tranche 2 and 3 fighters will get the new radar. Thank goodness. The MOD have seen sense at last.
I’m not sure that it does.
Another gem! A very exciting press release followed by nothing as usual. Silly me, I thought we were going to do something interesting.
If this means that all the Typhoons get upgraded that’s great, but if it’s still only 40 it’s lousy value for money. How many new Typhoons for £4.3 Billion ?
This is still a grey area.
I’d not be the least surprised given HMG MoDs track record of being milked dry.
ECRS MK2 will be an extremely capable sensor. And yes, that means they are expensive. Very expensive.
And still a generation behind AN/APG-85
No new Typhoons. Billions for maintenance and radar upgrade. No more F35’s. Cosmic 🙄
And bye bye half the Chinook force ( at least temporarily ) and Shadow, to add to the gaps created by cutting ( sorry “retiring sunset capabilities” ) in Islander, Defender, Hawk, Hercules, Puma, Sentinel, Sentry.
Indeed, cosmic!
Hopefully we get a hundred CCA, though I’m not holding my breath on anything the DIP promises post 2030.
All Typhoons will be upgraded. Just not all will receive the new radar.The upgrade packages aren’t just the radar. Striker 2 DHMD, defensive aids, communications, possibly the new wide area display.
Spending billions to leave the bulk of the fleet with an obsolescent Captom M is pathetic waste of tax payers money quite frankly…
Great fir BAE Systems and Leonardo shareholders though, so there are at least some winners here…
Upgrade the lot, or dont bother and run the fleet ‘as is’, steadily replacing with batches of F35A post 2030 and GCAP when it comes online.
Well, that’s going to be a motivator! OK Johnny, you are in the fighter without the good radar, defence aids and of course missiles. You can always throw some house bricks at Ivan and Chang as you pass them. I get the same face those pilots will give, when I tell an Obs team they are in the Transit with the broken toilet and non-functional battery-powered air conditioning for the next 36 hours.
And yet many on here argue we should have kept the very obsolete tranche 1s. Can’t have your cake and eat it. All Typhoons are being upgraded and have received many Phased Enhancements over the years. And will continue to do so
Indeed. What with the binning of multiple armoured vehicles as well by the army on the grounds of l’m not sure what, streamlining appears to be the order of the day. The bang for our buck diminishes daily.
Though we’ve made enough mistakes before saving pennies not upgrading kit so it’s not so much the money spent, but how many, and what’s cut on the quiet.
Speaking to Typhoon front line pilots this time last year the number one item on their wishlist. New Radar. Whilst the F35B caused them no problems due to its limitations leveling the playing field. The A and C variant is a problem for them. Thinking being similar problems would become apparent with fifth generation aircraft from other nations.
At £1.1 billion for the radar upgrade seems they are still only progressing for the 2+38 radars that’s £28 million per airframe. Cheaper than the £50 million per airframe at the start. That’s what you get for a small production run.
Wonder if that includes the upgraded cockpit to take advantage of the GaN capability. Wonder if it’s going to have more TR/Rx modules than the F-35 Block 4 AN/APG-85 radar. If it doesn’t then it’s sh1t definitely not worth the money even with the repositioner
This is not a better radar than AN/APG-85, nothing like the sane ballpark and none of the clever systems to leverage the improved capability.
F-35 is, and remains, decades ahead of any other western fighter.
Why would you say ECRS.2 is not better than AN/APG85? There’s suggestions that ECRS.2 is comparable to AN/APG-85 if not better? Only thing i can think is data fusion but isnt LTE program and the cockpit upgrade picking that up? And I believe the ECRS.2 upgrade includes said cockpit upgrade? I’d be very alarmed if it isnt seeing as this is seen as a technology demonstrator for Tempest.
Technically the Typhoon has a wider nose cross section than the F35, so should be able to house more transmitter-receiver modules (TRM) in the antenna array. However, Google AI through publicly available information, just brought up that APG-85 uses some 2400 TRMs compared to ECRS’s 1500 to 1600. Meaning the APG-85 with at least 800 more TRMS, should be the more powerful radar. However, its antenna array is fixed to the bulkhead, thus limiting its field of view, compared to the ECRS 2 on the “Repositioner”. Swings and roundabouts!
Leonardo are saying it has significantly more TRM’s than other fighter aircraft, but they have not disclosed any numbers. The most significantly difference is the architecture of the ECRS.2 to other GaN radars systems is that it has a mix of GaN and GaAS TRM’s. The advantages of older GaAS TRM’s to GaN is that the receiver sensitivity is better for low noise signals. If you can improve the uplink signal (return) ultimately the radar range is increased, and detection fidelity is also increased. With the swash plate ECRS.2 is a better option than a normal AESA fixed array radar. Greater overall range (Downlink and Uplink), wider field of regard (more airspace scanned), greater missile guidance when notching (though probably not an issue if you have stealth), improved performance when in multi mode operations (Electronic Attack and Scanning in the Air to Air environment). I just hope that data fusion is F-35 stylee
Hi Ruth, I’m glad that you’ve found Leonardo are actually fitting more TRMs to the ECRS2. I always thought the TRM count as found in publications to be pretty low, especially when compared to the F35s (APG-81 and APG-85). The nose of the Typhoon offers much more space. If memory serves it’s at least a third bigger than Rafale’s or Gripen’s. A lot of this was so that it could fit a really large planar array that on its mechanical gimbal, allowed it to swing fully left and right.
This is a problem for the majority of AESA radars, as they are fixed to the bulkhead. Meaning they generally have a field of regard of 120 degrees. But why is this a problem?
It’s mostly down to how the data link between the aircraft and the beyond visual range air to air missile (BVRAAM) interacts. In a lot of much older generation radars the data link was a separate antenna, mounted to the primary radar antenna. It was then incorporated in to the primary radar, due to the ability of radars to transmit multiple frequencies and signal multiplexing. This meant for a legacy radar, the aircraft could almost turn through 90 degrees away from the target, but keep the radar looking at the target whilst updating the missile with course corrections. But with a fixed AESA, the most an aircraft can turn away is around 60 degrees. Meaning it will close the distance to the target, where you really want to maintain a parallel or receding distance. With the ECRS2 and its “swash plate”. The radar is able to have a field of regard of around 180 degrees (possibly more). Therefore the Typhoon can maintain a separation distance whilst keeping the missile updated on the target.
Interesting about the mix of GaN and GaAs, it was my belief that GaN was just better than GaAs in all respects. Happy to be proven wrong. I know GaN components are notoriously expensive to manufacture compared to GaAs, which may also be a factor.
Receiver sensitivity is one part of the radar equation, which brings together not only the output power, the gain of the antenna, the operating frequency (wavelength), but also the radar cross section (RCS) of the target. Each separate part is pulled together to give an overall view of the performance of the radar against a target of a known RCS value. What the equation however, does not do, is give a value of its performance after the “signal” has been received, i.e. how good the filtering is, the signal processing hardware or the capability of the software. A lot has ben said about the componentry of the TRMs, but not much about the signal processing side of things. Since the advent of graphics cards that could handle complex floating point calculations, that are used to render animations. Graphics cards have been the next evolutionary jump in radar performance. Where they can take a minute received signal, and using complex Fourier analysis calculations, determine that yes that target is valid and is a threat amongst all the received background clutter and induced internal noise.
I can guarantee the sensor fusion will be at least on par with the F35. But in reality, it is being designed to the next level, as it will incorporate a form of AI to support the pilot. The AI will form a core part of managing the sensor fusion, especially when there are feeds from CCVs to add to the picture.
Thanks interesting read, I think 5G Mobile Telecoms helps in new radar design! Using 64 or 32 Mimo but up to 1000+ simultaneous users flicking every millisecond. Your comment here was very poignant from some of the statements from BAE Systems at Farnborough the last 2 days “ I can guarantee the sensor fusion will be at least on par with the F35. But in reality, it is being designed to the next level, as it will incorporate a form of AI to support the pilot. The AI will form a core part of managing the sensor fusion, especially when there are feeds from CCVs to add to the picture.”, seems BAE is all in with sensor fusion, just look at the size of that display on Typhoon Tranche 4/5! Not to mention CCA’s it seems to me outside the USA, the UK development is up there with them. Also I liked the photo of GCAP rear fuselage, how bloody smooth it was, if people want to slag off F-35 we wouldn’t have the capability to build that thing. That initial £2 billion was money well spent. Obviously BAE UK don’t have true access to the F-35 EW system, but some trickle knowledge must now be in the UK domain. ‘Hey Mr. New Hampshire EW wizard” do you want to come work for BAE Systems UK for more money💵
Seems like a collosal sum. Hopefully worth it.
I think we need to scrap them and replace with cheap Drones.
I propose a meeting (or 300 over the next 15 years) so we can thrash out a plan.
I’m interested that UKDJ hasn’t noted that the second E7 Wedgetail has flown this week and is due at Southend for kitting out with its RAF uniform on Monday. In the 1960s the ATC cadets wore 1950s kit and the trousers itched being wool. I assume the E7 will not be wrapped in cotton wool.
Saw that too, Wyn.
Good news doesn’t get comments pal.
Which is a shame since any Defence Journal should not look like it’s just there to moan. Flight Global is properly indifferent, it seems to me.
Bad news gets more comments. Simple as that really.
Im am a bit disappointed with E7 seems there was no improvement on the radar to the one implemented for the Aussies. USAF had good reason to ditching it. Saab radar was a a better option, if not Saab radar on 737 platform. Another colossal fcukup by MoD for the cost and overrun
As I understand it the radar is the same but upgraded to iron out earlier problems. Global Eye is good but has 5 stations instead of 10 so command an control of larger numbers of aircraft possible. It also has better 360 degree coverage and a longer radar range. Whilst the Global Eye can do maritime as well (which I assume means surface shipping) I guess that’s why we have Poseidon – which hunts subs too. And of course the US have not, in fact ditched Wedgetail, they are buying 7 to start with. And the US ones will also be built by STS in Birmingham, I believe.
Wyn seeing as threats are mainly cruise missiles and drones for the UK the S-Band antenna of the global eye and the higher fidelity of tracking would of been better. Because it uses GaN modules it can give better targeting tracks at longer distances than Wedgetail for a lower power consumption. E-7 can see Stealthier aircraft better than the GlobalEye but the fidelity isnt good enough for longer distance targeting tracks. The number of workstations in a modern day AE&W aircraft means nothing in today’s automated data linked Battlefield. F-35’s data fusion makes most of the decisions faster than a human controller. The only mute point on GlobalEye is persistence due to no Air to Air refueling capability so you need to buy 1 more than a Wedgetail fleet to meet the same level of persistence. I think the Fidelity of the targeting track issue was the biggest concern for US Airforce not wanting the E-7 as they will be meeting a bigger forces of Stealth Aircraft, the E-7 having to get in Closer to give better targeting tracks against J-20 and now J-36/50 threats and there long range PL-15 and PL-17 missiles. That’s why they wanted to rely on E-2D as they run at a higher band than E-7. It’s not a question of how soon you can see them it’s how quickly can you give targeting tracks.
Just to add, the E7 is getting the same upgrades as the latest Australian update. This includes new signal processing hardware and software. Admittedly an L-band radar will always have a lower resolution than a higher frequency S-band. Which is predominantly due to the longer wavelength. However a lot of these disadvantages can be overcome with modern signal processing and software. Additionally the Northrop Grumman built MESA radar that the E7 uses, is of the older generation. That uses Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) components, compared to the latest generation like the Saab Erieye-ER, which use Gallium Nitride (GaN). Which means an GaN AESA radar will be capable of handling a lot more power, whilst generating a lot less self-induced noise, which increases receiver sensitivity and filtering capability. This is the major change between the original Erieye and Erieye-ER radars. Hence why Erieye-ER has nearly double the range over the legacy Erieye. Northrop Grumman already have experience in building GaN bases AESA radars, e.g. the F35’s APG-85 radar. So there’s nothing stopping the MESA from being upgraded to GaN. It will significantly improve not only the detection distances, but also the ability to resolve what the object it has detected is with a lot more confidence. By upgrading to GaN, it may solve the range issue against Chinese 5th and 6th gen jets.
There are a couple of issues with the E2D, which is not really the UHF based radar, but more the airframe. The Hawkeye airframe is maxed out on hardware that can be fitted internally. Being UHF, certain components have to be that little bit bigger, which eats in to space needed for signal processing. To define what an object is that has been detected by a UHF radar, requires a lot more signal processing, which is due to its longer wavelength 100cm to 30cm (300MHz to 1Ghz). Which allows for a lot more noise and clutter to be detected. The other issue is the shape of the antenna array fitted inside the mechanically rotating dome on top of the Hawkeye’s fuselage. The dome only allows for an antenna array which is wide but not very tall. This means the beam shape is not circular, but more of a beaver tail. Meaning although narrow in one plane, it is wide in the other. Therefore it will by design detect more noise and clutter.
Whereas the 4 antenna arrays on the E7 are split between two large rectangular arrays port and starboard, with two smaller arrays in the nose and tail of the “top hat” fairing. The two large rectangular arrays will generate a more circular beam, whereas the nose and tail arrays will generate a similar beaver tail beam. In essence this will mean the MESA radar can concentrate more energy at a specific object. through the two side arrays, thereby giving it better resolution. But crucially the B737 airframe is much roomier, so you can cram in more hardware for signal processing, cooling etc. Which is where the MESA could match the E2D’s radar in instrumented detection range, i.e. against a known target with a known radar cross section. With the GaN upgrade, possibly matching its resonant detection range.
I bow to your superior knowledge – thanks all this is really helpful.
Wyn seeing as threats are mainly cruise missiles and drones for the UK the S-Band antenna of the global eye and the higher fidelity of tracking would of been better. Because it uses GaN modules it can give better targeting tracks at longer distances than Wedgetail for a lower power consumption. E-7 can see Stealthier aircraft better than the GlobalEye but the fidelity isnt good enough for longer distance targeting tracks. The number of workstations in a modern day AE&W aircraft means nothing in today’s automated data linked Battlefield. F-35’s data fusion makes most of the decisions faster than a human controller. The only mute point on GlobalEye is persistence due to no Air to Air refueling capability so you need to buy 1 more than a Wedgetail fleet to meet the same level of persistence. I think the Fidelity of the targeting track issue was the biggest concern for US Airforce not wanting the E-7 as they will be meeting a bigger forces of Stealth Aircraft, the E-7 having to get in Closer to give better targeting tracks against J-20 and now J-36/50 threats and there long range PL-15 and PL-17 missiles. That’s why they wanted to rely on E-2D as they run at a higher band than E-7. It’s not a question of how soon you can see them it’s how quickly can you give targeting tracks.
Are we still only getting three Wedgetails?
Yes. It should be 5, of course.. or better 7. We have already bought an extra 2 radars.
Before we all get too over excited.
Typhoon is the last major western fighter to mount an old school radar.
Everyone else has gone AESA since 1999 onwards
This is not a major gee wizz, it’s replacing a decades obsolete radar with something credible and modern.
Lets put this into perspective. Even the B-52 will have an AESA before the RAF Eurofighters
Chalk and cheese, different radars doing different jobs – the B52 radar is an update from F18 radar whilst the Typhoons are getting something much more capable for a different job.
And both aiming for 2030, so we’ll see!
Point being a 1950’s designed bomber getting AESA radar in the same time frame the Royal Air Force getting its first. Of which the AN/APQ188 still has an Air to Air mode. Not saying it’s going to use it but the USAF has recently stated it wants a 1000Km air to air missile. Yes I know APQ188 will not have the range for 1000km but the B-52J will be able to carry a missile that does. Space based radars was the right decision by the USAF, it didnt need to be global coverage just the right inclination for China to the US Coast. Russia has six Sattelites for GPS jamming of the whole of Europe, and space based AE&C would negate Stealth, and if it was Low Earth Orbit the delay isnt an issue.
Again, thanks for this.