The Ministry of Defence say the project to demonstration, manufacture and integrate AESA radars with the Typhoon fleet is “continuing at pace”.
Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for North Durham, asked via a Parliamentary written question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made on fitting the AESA radar to the UK Typhoon fleet.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, answered:
“The Ministry of Defence is committed to implementing an Active Electronically Scanned Array radar on our Typhoon fleet. The demonstration and manufacture phase for the UK’s variant of the European Common Radar System is continuing at pace, and in June 2020 a contract was let with our European partners to develop a common integration solution across the Typhoon radar enterprise.”
Yeah, but do we have a target ISD for an AESA installation on RAF Typhoons? Or is it all talk and little action?
You do wonder if MPs have the intelligence to formulate a question that requires a correct and succinct answer rather than one that just goes through the motions?
This question is ‘placed’. The government needs an excuse to raise this important point so they rope in a sympathetic Opposition M.P. and give him the question to ask at a given point in proceedings. Why Kevan Jones, a Blairite, lasted in the Labour Party under Corbyn is another question again.
That is one of the most BS answers I have seen in a while. What a load of waffle. That date means nothing. It looks like it will be 2030 before we see Aesa on UK Typhoon.
It’s starting to make more sense to do what other posters mentioned and put the gen 1 aesa on tranche 2 then use gen 2 on tranche 3 plus the first tranche of Tempest.
My, out of date experience of politicians, was that once they’d said or stated the words the cuedos was had and spent. Trivial things like where’s the money and completion didn’t spin. I guess little changes.
“….with our European partners to develop a common integration solution across the Typhoon radar enterprise”
Does that mean UK is joining the the German/Spanish initiative to develop an AESA for Typhoon?
No, the UK already lead most of this development, then when the mod saw how much the F35 radar was changed their requirements and requested a gen 2 instead of the gen 1 under development.
Indeed from what I remember the ‘gen1’ has been basically hanging around in prototype form for more than 10 years waiting for funds to bring it into service. Then just as they thought they had better think about it, the F35 radar showed that things had come on a bit while it sat there attracting dust and of course some aspects of it were by then relying upon increasingly out moded parts and tech so that rather than introduce it in that form, it was put through an update to bring it up to state of the art performance again and current processes, which of course means further delays. All very sad considering it’s supposed top notch potential over the years.
What a load of nonsense. In many respects Mk 0 (the old Radar 1+) as is being fitted to Kuwaiti and Qatari Typhoons is more advanced than APG-81 (F-35) – it has a repositioner, for starters.
What evidence do you have that it will be better than the AN/APG-81 that has been flying operationally for a a few years? Most of the what it does is classified so unless you have first hand knowledge of the radar you are just wildly guessing.
I’ve spoken to plenty of people who have used APG-81, and some of the few who’ve used or experienced Captor-E. Why is it contentious that a radar whose design was only finished a couple of years ago should be more advanced than one dating from the 1990s?
Been all talk and little action on AESA for years.
So little progress from the UK and Italy still dragging this out!
But Germany, Spain seem to be making more progress
Yes. 2023 is the target date for Germany/Spain AESA. This is rather optimistic since Hensoldt doesn’t have any fighter aircraft AESA. Ground and ship radars are one thing, but making it smaller and lighter for an aircraft is a different story. I would not be surprised to see that date slip, but at least they have overcome the toughest hurdle -> political will.
They’re basically using a developed version of the existing AESA being integrated for Kuwait and Qatar
No they are not. Hensoldt is developing the radar for German and Spanish Typhoons. The Kuwait Typhoons are going to be using the Gripen radar made by Leonardo. Hensoldt and Leonardo have no joint ventures etc….
That’s absolutely wrong. The Raven radar on Gripen is entirely different – it does have a repositioner, but of different design. The Qatar and Kuwait Typhoons have a version of Captor-E, MK 0 (previously known as Radar 1 Plus). The German and Spanish Typhoons will use this radar, which then will be upgraded to MK 1 standards through the addition of a new multi-channel digital receiver and new TRMs. Hensoldt are part of Euroradar, with Leonardo.
The UK has made lot’s of progress, and the radar 2 version we will get will be the finest in the world, and will surpass the AN/APG81 being mounted on gimbal will give it a far wider scan range, along with electronic attack, which isn’t available on the radar 1 version. Buying that version would simply be a waste of money.
It was my understanding that the 2nd generation of the UK radar would not be compatible with Trance 1 Typhoons?
I think that is correct. But our tranche 1 aircraft are used for training, air defence, and aggressor training only, and probably wouldn’t be deployed overseas, unless it was for an air defence mission. Tranche 2 can also can take the new radar.
Notionally, no AESA is compatible with Tranche 1. The UK AESA testbed is a T1 Typhoon, however, so it is possible, but would require a lot of obsolescence removal in the avionics, and the judgement is that it would not be cost effective. However, just watch what happens to surplus T1 aircraft, which are likely to gain an AESA when resold to new operators.
Hardly. Germany and Spain have just decided on Mk 0 as a retrofit option for their in service T2 and T3 Eurofighters, with a later upgrade planned to Mk 1 (same radar, with a new digital multi-channel receiver and new transmitter/receiver modules (TRMs)
The UK is going for the more advanced Radar 2, which has a different antenna and expanded electronic attack capabilities.
It’s not really a surprise, we do this all the time.
The idea behind Typhoon was a single multi roll fighter, spread across the squadrons.
What we end up with is ‘ fleets within fleets’ as per usual.
I do recall there was a plan to retro fit AESA to batch 2 Never happened.
We might eventually get some batch 3 AESA radars fitted, at some vague point after 2025, I won’t hold my breath.
I expect much tax payers money spent and little bang for our buck, it’s the usual outcome when you mix piss poor MOD management and planning and BAE Systems 50% 50%.
I don’t understand the answer. The recent German announcement indicated that the German implementation was not to be the same as the UK so what is this “common integration solution” ??
Same i am confused. Does euro partner refer to German/Spain AESA initiative, or a Sweden/Leonardo partnership since they will need to design a radar for Tempest?
I was under the impression they are all under the one initiative. Germany, Spain and Italy are integrating the gen 1 Aesa radar. The UK has decided against decided the fund a more advanced gen 2 version to include electronic attack but its all part of the same radar program.
Not really.
1. Leonardo is working with Sweden to equip Gripen with AESA. I have read that this will be the smae radar mounted on Kuwait Typhoons
2. Germany announced it was going to fully develop and equip its own radar with Hensoldt as the contractor. Spain then joined them for their Typhoons who will replace their F18.
3. The UK is still not clear (time, contractor etc…), and this latest announcement doesn’t say much.
It seems there are 3 different versions of AESA for Typhoon. Although this article mentions a common euro solution, which raises more questions than answers.
Would agree, Germany is now building its capability and with Spain is now developing its own solution ground up. For 2 reasons, Germany has seen defence as good way to boost it economy post Covid 19 and also because they need capability to contribute the the French/German FCAS program. Defence is the best way to ensure investments stay within your country if you’re part of the EU.
This brings back the old story actually which I read recently that led up to the design that resulted in the Typhoon. Germany nearly dropped out and ended up delaying things not for the last time because it wanted its own radar solution. Meantime Britain and Italy not sure about Spain wanted the British (Feranti I believe) radar which is now the basis of the Leonado efforts today. It was always intended to develop and evolve into the AESA version as I mention above 10 plus years ago, but the current version was deemed good enough to delay that and the prospective cost of so doing time and again. Now seems that perhaps the Germans have used this as an excuse to go back to their previous stance and go their own way along with the Spanish splitting not surprisingly along the lines for the next gen. programmes.
Out of interest the original design for what is now Typhoon was to be a twin tail design from German design studies actually but when Germany delayed its commitment (while again listening to French overtures) BAE decided to move forward using the Tornado tailplane to save time and money instead for the EAP. And it only ever got modified thereafter.
Wrong. The Hensoldt radar is a derivative of Mk 0 for Kuwait and Qatar. It is in no way new from the ground up.
So basically the Rt Hon Jeremy Quin has not noticed the rest of Europe f*****g off in the other direction without him. Or he has and is ignoring it, giving a completely pointless answer anyway.
Hardly. Two of four European partners have decided to adopt a minimum change version of the export AESA.
Nope.
1) No commonality between Raven (Gripen E radar) and Radar 1+/Mk 0 for Kuwait/Qatar.
2) The new Hensoldt version of Captor-E will only be for existing German T2/3 and Spanish T3 Typhoons.
3) Radar 2 for the UK is in development and manufacture.
Sorry, this is a long one…..
The Typhoon’s original radar the Captor-M is designed and manufactured by a consortium (EuroRadar), just like the aircraft. Hensoldt, Indra, Finmeccanica and Selex. Subsequently, Finmeccanica and Selex have now been combined under Leonardo and Hensoldt comes under the EADs (Airbus) banner. Leonardo is the lead partner of the consortium. Indra and Hensoldt were originally making the gimbal and antenna. Hensoldt in particular have been the leader in developing the AESA transmitter/receiver modules (TRMs), whilst the Edinburgh based Selex ES were developing the processing. The Captor-M has had a multitude of software updates to enhance its performance. Each partner company builds certain portions of the radar with each partner having the capability of assembling a complete radar from the supplied parts and then thoroughly testing them. Hensoldt being based in Germany will be assembling the radar for the German aircraft. Weirdly nothing has been reported about Indra doing the same in Spain?
The new Captor-E (CAESAR = Captor-AESA-radar) was first started back in 1993 with the first iteration flown in a Typhoon in 2007 which was a combination of an AESA front end married to a Captor-M back end. Unfortunately, certain Governments withheld further funding namely Spain and Germany. So the development was done by industry with some help from the UK and Italian Governments. All four partner Nations must be in agreement for full funding. The consortiums original plan of keeping the majority of the back end and just using the AESA modules for the front end would have worked back in 2010, with the initially proposed upgrading the Typhoons with the Mod 0 radar. But now its 2020 electronics have moved on, so the back end is pretty much all new.
The Captor-M built on the foundations of the Sea Harrier’s Blue Vixen. It has a greater range and sensitivity that the late Tornado F3 Foxhunter radar and reaches further even that the Rafale’s RBE2 AESA radar. The TRMs built by Hensoldt use Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) “transistors”. The Captor-E is slightly heavier than the mechanical version, but has significantly more transmitter power and therefore range. Thus, in the future, there is still scope for more improvement by replacing the GaAs transistors to Gallium Nitride (GaN). The GaN transistor is 40% more efficient than the GaAs ones. It can handle a lot more power, but significantly, produces a lot less noise when doing so.
The Leonardo Raven as fitted to Gripen E/Fs, is a derivative Captor-E. There are a number of differences, the main one is the diameter of the antenna and the number of TRMs it contains. Also because of the smaller nose volume, the Raven has less processing power. Although it is stated the Raven ES-05 is a completely different radar to Captor, it is based on it and in all other things the Raven is a mini Captor-E, complete with the antenna re-positioner. The Swedes have said its better than the equivalent AESA radars such as the F18’s APG-79 AESA.
The new Tranche 3+/4 Kuwaiti and Qatari Typhoons are the first aircraft to include all the current upgrades in one airframe. The Kuwati aircraft will be the first production aircraft to fly with the Phase Enhancement P3Eb Captor-E which is also known as Radar One Plus, or Captor E Mk0. This is the base line version and uses similar processing software as found in the Raven. There are two test aircraft (Typhoons) with this radar fitted, one in the UK and one in Germany. Both the German and Spanish Typhoons will be getting this version of the radar.
Airbus have done a modification package where a Tranche 1 Typhoon can be fitted with the Captor-E. This was done on the request by Spain. Leonardo did something similar with Italy’s Tranche 1s to bring them up to Tranche 2 standard. The Tranche 2 Typhoons have the strengthened forward nose bulkhead, but don’t have the cooling cut outs and pathways that come with the Tranche 3s. There is nothing stopping any Nation from having a Tranche 1 modified, so it can be fitted with the Captor-E, except cost.
The RAF and Italian Airforce are holding out for the next iteration of Captor-E the much fabled Radar 2. It was originally hoped that the RAF would get Captor-E by 2021, as stated by the then Defence Minister Phillip Dunn back in 2013. The UK is part funding the development of Radar 1 Plus and Leonardo has confirmed that the company is ‘on contract’ for risk reduction work in support of the UK Radar Two AESA. However, there is either no published program or it is being kept under wraps for the RAF to get AESA.
What we do know is that Radar Two will be an incrementally improved version of CAPTOR-E, it will incorporate maximum commonality with Radar One Plus, especially in its hardware and operating interfaces, though it is likely to have a “different antenna”. This will still incorporate a re-positioner, but may not have embedded IFF on the antenna, which can be disruptive to using the array as a means of communicating with other aircraft. There have been several reports of Captor-M being jammed when flying over Syria. With a number of pilots complaining that they believe even the Captor-E Radar 1 version would struggle. Is this a reason for the delay and us not jumping in bed with Spain and Germany? There was definitely a wake-up call, when pilots reported back on the F35 APG-81 capabilities. The existing Radar 1 version has not been designed with an electronic attack mode in mind. It is a true multi-role radar where it can do air to air and air to ground modes simultaneously, complete with a concurrent synthetic aperture mode for ground mapping and moving target logging. Radar 2 has this, but is “supposed” to include the electronic attack mode along with the same ability as the APG-81 to use the radar as a data link. There are some reports by Leonardo, where reading between the lines, that it could have better performance than the APG-81.
It’s a pity that the Kuwaiti Typhoons are not having the aerodynamic modification kit (AMK), which included leading edge root extensions and extended trailing edge flaps. The kit also featured reshaped side-of-cockpit ILS antennae covers, turning them into 70° delta strakes. These enhancements would significantly make a difference to aircraft’s dogfighting abilities. The LERX would also reduce wave drag at supersonic speeds.
The next published upgrade for RAF Typhoons will be adding the Striker 2 helmet, upgrading PIRATE IRST, networked weapons integration (UAVs?), enhancements to the Lightning pod, and an aircraft software enhancement package. There is also rumours of additional engine work, but nothing descriptive.
Nope. Germany and Spain have selected Mk 0>Mk 1 for their Tranche 2/3 and Tranche 3 aircraft. No decision yet on Quadriga and other new build Typhoons for Germany which may use Radar 2.
It means a common hardware installation, software drops will be the difference between gen 1 radar, and gen 2. And also common integration between the rest of the Typhoons avionics, power and cooling systems. The back end of the radar is basically a Captor radar, with a new AESA antenna mounted on a moving gimble that gives it far wider scan angles compared to say the AN/ANG81 in the F35. Gen 2 will offer electronic attack, and more capable of detecting stealthy aircraft, plus other sneaky stuff that will be classified. It will be worth the wait ?
Nope: There is no hardware commonality between the Export radar (MK 0) the eventual German radar (MK 1) and the UK radar (Radar 2). It is not accurate to use the terms Gen 1 and Gen 2.
Hi Jon. You say in your own article radar 2 will have maximum commonality with radar 1 plus, especially with its hardware and operating interfaces. is the export radar mk0 a very different system to radar 1 & 2?. Cheers ?
Hi Robert.
Originally, Leonardo and MoD sources sought to downplay the differences between Radar 1+ and Radar 2 – as they were then known. There was a political imperative to present a common E-scan programme.
At that time, Radar 2 was presented as being much the same as Radar 1+, but with a new antenna. More recently, it has emerged that Radar 2 is effectively an all new system, with little hardware commonality.
The export radar (Radar 1+, now known as Mk 0) is virtually identical to the radar for the German/Spanish AESA retrofit. The German T2/3 aircraft and Spanish T3 aircraft will initially be retrofitted with MK 0 before these radars are upgraded to Mk 1 standards with the addition of new TRMs and a new digital multi-channel receiver.
Thanks for the clarification Jon, I am now better educated. Good article by the way ?
Common hardware and driver installation and just the software different.
Good question. I suspect that we’re talking about a common interface for the original M-Scan, Mk 0, Mk 1 and Radar 2.
From what I have read, E Scan will be a good and fairly large aesa radar, but uses much of the back end from the old radar. The UK was working on one with all new back end stuff and electronic warfare capabilities. Apparently, we have said that if it’s not at least as good as the one on the F35, we wont consider it. However, it seems to have gone very quiet on the net in the last few years, so who knows what we will get if anything.
A LITENING 5 pod seems do do everything a basic gen 1 AESA E-Scan does passively for about $1.4m each. Could have much lower running costs than CAPTOR-E and still be upgraded. No EW radar jamming facility but could this be the reason for the recent publicity about Spear-3 EW?
That’s just nonsensical, Mike.
Jon, Have you read the latest brochures about Litening 5 from Rafael and Northrop Grumman? They are most interesting but the point I was trying to make is that this bit of kit plus Spear- EW could make a handy upgrade for Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons until E-Scan becomes available for Tranche 3. I hope I have clarified my point.
I have. I am familiar with Litening. It does not do what an AESA does, and cannot give anything like the SA of even the most primitive AI radar, nor can it support AMRAAM/Meteor. It has a part to play, certainly but as an adjunct to the primary sensors.
Thanks for your explanation Jon (most helpful) but where do you get your knowledge from? Do you work for Leonardo UK or MoD?
I’m a full time aerospace writer. In the last year I have spoken to numerous people at Euroradar, BAE, Selex, and the MoD.
At last we have a specialist journo on whom we can trust for accurate, factual explanations not like some in the mass media. Hooray!
Whilst Litening does not have the attributes of a primary radar. It has been proven by both the German and US Air forces that it can be used as a “poor man’s” IRST. AMRAAM can definitely use the data derived from an IRST to attack another aircraft (as used by our Typhoons). The aircraft’s data link will give mid-course updates and can tell the AMRAAM when to go active. The USAF have not integrated the Litening pod with AMRAAM in this respect. So they are only using it as a passive situation sensor.
Typhoon does have a known problem, that Rafale pilots in particular take advantage of. It has a blind spot directly below and behind it. The PIRATE IRST is still a World leader in searching for and detecting opposing aircraft. However, positioned where it is on the nose, it cannot look directly down or behind the aircraft. Having spoken to a number of friends who fly Typhoon, they have said they have used Litening in this capacity to look directly below the aircraft. However, they did say it is not designed for sensor fusion so there are number of separate images to scan. What they have said they’d like, is for a PIRATE to be mounted below the aircraft. So by joining the two images together, you have a similar system to the F35’s Electro-Optical Targeting System, i.e. all round vision and can “look through” the aircraft.
That’s nonsense – based on the claims by Até on Hush Kit. His ‘tactic’ was comprehensively rubbished by real Typhoon pilots on PPRuNe.
No, what is mentioned in the Hushkit archive “was” correct. But obviously our pilots became wise to the tactic. I have two friends still currently flying Typhoons and they have said the French tactic was used against then successfully, but the French overplayed their hand by trying to use it a lot. We developed a counter which mitigated the issue. The requirement of having a downwards looking PIRATE still stands.
No, it wasn’t. The French tactic could only work against a single Typhoon flying straight and level, with no wingman, operating without DASS, and without any support from AWACS, radar, other platforms. And only if the attacking aircraft remained entirely emission free (making him vulnerable) and approached from dead astern before climbing to engage (vulnerable again). The tactic would not work outside of an academic training sortie. It’s absolute and complete bollocks.
Correct, it was only used in mock dogfights. As you quite rightly state, it should not work against an aircraft that has AEW coverage. The tactic is sound against any high flying aircraft, especially if its flying predictably. By flying low level and emission free. The Rafale’s OSF IRST will be looking straight up, where the opposing aircraft will be contrasted against the sky’s background. Yes, the aircraft has to climb and remain in the other’s blind spot, which is more than doable if timed correctly. But any aircraft with an IRST can perform the same tactic. However, if Rafale launched either a RF guided or IR seeking missile at the Typhoon, its Praetorian DASS will detect the launch. So the best chance for an aircraft to sneak up to another, would be to get really close and below it, then do a manual gun attack without activating the radar or using the laser range finder. It’s also possible that the Typhoon’s Praetorian active missile approach warning system, may detect the approaching aircraft from below, depending on the closure rate.
What the Hushkit article did not say, was the Rafale tactic would be carried out by a pair. One would be flying very low level emissions free, whilst the other would be at medium altitude trying to lure the Typhoons towards it, thus allowing the other Rafale to get behind them. This was all done within visual range prior to the initial close.
One of the tactics for countering this tactic, is to have the Typhoon pair perform a lateral scissor manoeuvre. Another simple one is to extend the distance between the pair.
Nonsense. This is simply too silly to dignify with a lengthy reply. Do you seriously think it’s that easy to sneak up on a Typhoon?
Silly, perhaps, but true! Don’t forget this tactic developed by the French was done in the mid 90’s when both jets had just come into service. So both the RAF and Armée de l’Air were investigating and developing how their respective aircraft could be used.
Against a Typhoon today, even operating on its own, the pilot would have to be asleep for another aircraft to sneak up to it undetected. As hinted above, the Typhoon does have a means of detecting approaching “objects” from below and behind it!
What my friends alluded to though, is that they would like something similar to the F35s blending of EOTS and AN/AAQ-37 to give a seamless “passive” all round view. At the moment they are limited by using a combination of PIRATE and Litening (still more than what a F22 has). Litening has a maximum down and rearwards view of around -35 degrees (from the vertical). They would like a full 180 downwards view for not only searching for a target, but also lasing it. Whilst the aircraft ‘s DAS uses “active” RF to detect approaching missiles.
Why did they not mount the IRST on the end of the starboard wing where the decoys are housed, the front of the wingtip pod is empty so had the space. From there it wouldn’t have obstructions.
Because you want the IRST close to boresight.
The Typhoon’s wing pods contain the ECM antennas, so there would be no room for an IRST.
It does not matter if the IRST is located near the aircraft’s centreline. If it was mounted on the wing tip, this would be a known fixed distance, where its angular moment is easily worked out. Therefore, all distance to object calculations would then take this into account.
Perhaps we should Buy F-35 radars for Typhoon tranche 2 and then fit the mod 2 E-Scan to tranche 3. I am not sure if EASA can be fitted to tranche 1.
I dont think it can, the airframe would need reengineering and cost too much to be worthwhile.
Why buy a previous generation E-scan that has no repositioner for any Tranche of Typhoon?
How’s goods the f35 Radar in comparison to gen 1 AESA?
The E-Scan mod 2 could be better then the F-35 radar. It is obvious that the RAF thinks E-Scan mod 1 is not as good as the F-35 radar.
The E-Scan has one notable advantage over F-35/F-22 radar. The Typhoon has lots of room in the nose and can fit a very large mechanical pointed plate. This in effect gives the Typhoon a much better area of reguard compared to the usual EASA radars..
So a mod 2 E-Scan will have a better radar coverage. Also it will be more modern and will have to be at least as capable as the F-35 radar to satisfy the RAF.
The assumption that Mk 0 and MK 1 are inferior to APG-81 is dubious, at best. Compared to that F-35 radar, all Typhoon E-scan options have a repositioner, for starters, so all have a bigger field of regard. They’re also newer, with newer processors, TRMs, etc.
Please try and read what I wrote. I made no assumptions about the early E-Scan, I only mentioned that the RAF want something better hence the mod 2.
I covered the extra radar coverage in my comment.
You start with a fundamental misconception, Rob. It is NOT “obvious that the RAF thinks” that Captor-E in Mk 0 or Mk 1 form “is not as good as the F-35 radar.”
Captor-E already enjoys some advantages over APG-81 in the F-35 – Radar 2 is intended to provide further advantages, and new capabilities including use of the AESA as a data link and for jamming.
It is kinda strange that politicians that have made their lifetime goal of not answering straight questions, can’t see that a written question like that would not get a straight answer.
The question needs to be much more specific rather than massively open to interpretation like that one.
I can understand that a question asked in a live debate might not come across as what you wanted, but a written question you have time to think through how the answer would arrive.
A contract was let to develop. Typical mod speak meaning that at least a decade down the line it’ll be decided that its going down a dead end and we have wasted millions.
The MoD may be committed but is the government.
Has anyone asked Cummings after all there is little guarantee he has told even Boris about his plans and even if he has it’s highly unlikely it will have stuck in the bit between his ears.
Dont the government hand the money to the MOD and they decide what it gets spent on within that budget?
A December 2018 article that runs through the development of Captor-E and may help clarify some of the questions being asked.
https://monch.com/mpg/news/ew-c4i-channel/4578-ef-radar.html
What a fabulous article…… !!!
Who is this Kevan Jones chap? He seems to be asking a lot of defence related questions for an MP for South Durham. Unless there’s a major MOD site or something there I don’t know about?
Long track record of interest in defence:
Former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Veterans at the Ministry of Defence
Shadow Minister for the Armed Forces 2010-2015
Member of the special Select Committee set up to scrutinise the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2011.
Member of the Public Bill Committee for the Defence Reform Act 2014
He also is a member of the Defence Select Committee.
“Continuing at pace”, an unbelievably slow pace. Conformal tanks due for just before retirement.
Do we know of the RAF are planning to update both the Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 with Radar 2 ?
The latest plans appear to suggest that Tranche 2 won’t now be retrospectively upgraded and a ‘silver bullet’ force of tranche 3 will be the only examples to receive the radar.
This can just keeps getting kicking down the road and the potential number of airframes so equipped, keeps shrinking.
I really don’t know what the RAF are thinking when it comes to keeping Typhoon up to date, especially with the emerging threats. Yes, the Captor-M pulse doppler radar is probably the best mechanical radar fitted to any fighter in the World today. However, the World keeps spinning and current aircraft will be having more up to date radars fitted. Then there are the new aircraft that are coming into production soon, such as the SU57 Felon and China’s J20 and J31 aircraft. Russia have also stated that the N036-1-01 X-band radar the Felon is getting will also be fitted to their Su35s
Mechanical pulse doppler radars with a flat plate antenna like the Captor-M, generate side lobes emissions, not as much as the older dish antennas, but still significant. Side lobes are wasted emissions that aren’t part of the main beam. However, because they are radar beams, they will reflect off an object, where the timing gate of the radar’s receiver will let them back in along with the main beam. These side lobes can be reduced by using antenna suppression techniques and filtering in the receiver.
However, if you are clever enough, an enemy can use this as means of spoofing your radar. i.e. generating false targets. This has become more of an issue for radars that use linear frequency modulation, because of its predictable waveform generation. But even more so with the use of digital radio frequency radio (DRFM) or direct digital synthesis (DDS) surveillance and countermeasures. DRFM has the ability to make an exact copy of a radar’s transmission, whilst DDS can sample the transmission. So the transmission can be manipulated and retransmitted back to the original radar. Because the spoofing signal not only mimics the transmitted signal but can be returned with a larger amplitude. The radar can be saturated and the filtering overwhelmed, thus making it believe the false targets are real.
The Captor-M radar uses frequency modulation techniques as do most fighter radars. Like the previous Foxhunter it uses frequency hopping as a means of electronic counter measures. However, its frequency range is limited and the time it takes to hop between those frequencies can be considered slow much like a PESA but especially when compared to an AESA radar. A PESA radar is much like the mechanical one in that it has a limited number of frequencies it can transmit, because they are still generated by a transmitter section behind the antenna. The signal is fed from the transmitter, through waveguides to the antenna where it is split and fed to the beam steering element (time delay circuits). This means it has electronic beam steering which is so much faster then mechanical.
This is why it is fundamentally imperative that the Captor-M is replaced by the Captor-E. The Germans with the Radar 1+ have focused on improving the digitization of the Captor’s receiver and processing. This is fundamental to the performance of the radar, as they have massively expanded its frequency bandwidth. This in turn changes it from a narrow band to a wideband radar. An AESA radar removes the need for a separate transmitter, receiver and waveguide sections. It clumps them altogether in a single module. These modules are then replicated to build an array, that becomes the antenna face. The space that was used for the transmitter and receiver sections are now used for processing, memory, power supplies and cooling. With AESA, we now have the capability of not only incredibly fast electronic beam steering, but also multiple transmitted beams that operate on different frequencies simultaneously. It can also hop to new frequencies almost instantaneously over a much larger frequency range. An AESA radar can significantly suppress the amount of side lobes it generates due to the method of creating the beam in the first place, by generating suppression pulses, either side of the beam to counteract a sidelobe using interference. This is crucial for electronic counter-counter measures, as it means its harder for DRFM and DDS systems to mimic the radars transmissions that are in time with the radar’s transmitted sequence. Especially when the waveform can now be modulated by a form of digitization.
Thanks Davey, excellent response.
So in effect if we want the Typhoon to remain relevant we need to move to AESA. As both T2 and T3 are supposed to serve throughout the 2030’s unless we update both that won’t be the case.
So in your opinion should we be joining the Germans now rather than delaying years or can we get the R2 the RAF want in similar time.
It’s a difficult decision to make. The problem with the Radar 2 version, is that there is very little information on its progress or when it will be produced. I would like to say we should get the Radar 1+, but that all depends on whether the rumours are true, that it is in fact a completely different radar and component wise is incompatible with Radar 1+.
However, the version that Germany and Spain will be getting is the same as what Kuwait are getting, but with enhanced software. This would at least be a very good starting point and if the Radar 2 only has a new antenna array but keeps the Radar 1+ back end, at least there is a development path. It would also mean that as Radar 1+ is in service, the normal teething issues can be worked out in partnership with the other Nations speeding up its full operational capability.
What were the operational differences that made the Germans/Spanish branch of one way and the British/Italians another. I know the latter have F-35 but it must be more than that neither have sufficient numbers of F-35 and with finances tighter in future and block 4 delayed till 2026 at least and staggering upgrade costs for earlier F-35 it makes sense to hold off on F-35 till block 4.
In which case we need to push Typhoon forward. We can’t wait while Russia/China are getting ahead and if not adversaries themselves they could sell to those that are. Time is not on our side we need to make a decision on either 1+ or 2 and get on with it.
That’s a very good question. Both Germany, Spain and I’m going to include France, as you quite rightly point out, do not have the F35, whilst both Italy and the UK do. Is this enough to sway the doctrine of the countries down different paths? I would say yes! Without seeing what the F35 brings to the party, it is easy to overlook. Oh look, it’s just a new stealthy aircraft, which is actually quite slow and isn’t as handy in a dogfight. However, it cannot be emphasized enough, that the F35 as a complete package is game changing. Not just the stealth, or the sensor fusion, or the secure and discrete data communications, but perhaps more importantly the electronic warfare it can conduct.
The Radar 1+ upgrade will significantly enhance the Typhoon’s capabilities. However, it does not add anything new to the existing roles it undertakes. Whilst with Radar 2, you are now adding an organic electronic warfare capability, complete with possibly an advanced secure data-link. What led to this requirement over the enhancements of Radar 1+. The assumption is the feedback from both the Italian and UK pilots who flew the F35s. Obviously there is very little information on how good the aircraft’s electronic attack is. I don’t think it will be in the F18 Growler league, but I honestly believe it won’t be far behind.
The UK has not had a dedicated electronic warfare aircraft since the Canberra T17s trainers, whose role was taken over by Cobham. Sure, individual aircraft have had their own self protection jammers. But these systems really were for defence and not offense. The F35 with its APG-81 changes that, and Radar 2 will “also” have this capability. Thus giving a Typhoon with Radar 2 a distinct advantage compared to other Typhoons fitted with the Radar 1+.
In which case let’s hold off further purchases of F-35 till block 4 arrives and hopefully the unit price is lower in full rate production and in the meantime go full steam ahead with Radar 2 for both Tr2 and Tr3. With that in place we can order more F-35 at leisure from 2026 onward plus we’ll have a better understanding of what force mi we want longer term.
Good article suggests current plans are only to put Radar 2 on Tranche 3 aircraft https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34940/eurofighters-new-radar-is-nearly-ready-but-royal-air-force-wants-an-even-better-one
An extremely thorough reply Davey, excellent.
It seems to me that we’ve been promised AESA for Typhoon since 2012 ish, ‘it’s in development and just round the corner’.
Well Typhoon is at the halfway point of its career and still nothing in sight!
We have a limited budget to work with and the RAF is concentrating on ‘ bomb truck’, I don’t blame them, thats the mission the aircraft is being used for and integration of the GR4 arsenal has taken priority.
It’s air mission currently entirely consists of shepherding Russian aircraft away from the UK and Baltic States, something it’s rather overqualified to do and obviously perfectly capable with the M scan Captor.
It’s a concentration on yesterday’s wars basically.
As Davey rightly points out, should integration of one of the radars not take place, we could find ourselves in a precarious position with the emerging Chinese/ Russian threat.
Especially as relationships break down and destabilise with both countries and they potentially could start selling high end fighters to unstable countries like Iran and North Korea.
I know this question is not about AESA but it refers to Typhoon capability:
Can anyone say if SPEAR-3 is planned to be rolled out to both the Typhoon and F-35 fleet or is it just one of the type, I’ve seen confusing comments recently so would like to know if someone can definitively say. Thanks.
Spear 3 has been programmed in for both our F35s and Typhoon. There has also been rumours that RAF would like it on the P8.
If the integration money can be found, it would be an excellent choice for the P8, perhaps Protector too?