SHAH ALAM: The 500th Eurofighter Typhoon has been delivered to the Italian Air Force during a special ceremony held at Leonardo Aircraft Division’s Turin site on April 11. With 599 aircraft ordered, Eurofighter Typhoon is currently the largest collaborative industrial programme in Europe.
Eight customers have ordered the Typhoon with almost 400,000 flying hours achieved worldwide. The first Eurofighter was delivered to the UK Royal Air Force at the end of 2003. The 100th Eurofighter was delivered to the UK Royal Air Force in September 2006.
The 200th aircraft was handed over to the German Air Force in November 2009. The 300th aircraft was delivered to the Spanish Air Force in October 2011, and the 400th to the German Air Force in December 2013.
Of these 599 Aircraft going into service, a total of 451 are from the Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 production runs, so are completely identical in construction and equipment other than a few fuel and cooling pipes for the Conformal Fuel Tanks able to be mounted on the Tranche 3 fuselage.
Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 can take CAPTOR-E Radar. Note that Tranche number does not mean the Aircraft capability, it means the physical standard of the aircraft, the capability comes from the Software and Weapons / Pod Clearances and is called Phased Enhancement Programme, with Typhoon currently developed to Phase 3 Enhancement (P3E) and P4E currently in process of agreement across the various Typhoon users.
Malaysia will get Tranche 3 standard with at a minimum, P3E capability, maybe P4E depending on timing. But changing from P3E to P4E is just a software load anyway.
When these big Typhoon numbers are compared to the total Rafale order book of only 204 aircraft, there will be at least double the number of identical Repairable Items (Avionics, Engines etc.) in the global supply chain for the next 30-40 years.
This creates very good “economies of scale” for through life support which will provide the RMAF with the chance of a better Operational Expenditure after the Typhoon aircraft is in service. This is particularly important for the large expensive LRI’s such as Engine and Radar. RMAF have already experienced how fast OE can disappear on engines with their Russian equipment and even the MB-339 due to having the last remaining Viper Engines in operation.
Pictures by Jamie Hunter
Having more than 1,200 EJ200 engines in service (not counting maybe 25-30 spares across all the countries) as compared to only 408 M88 engines should be a significant point for RMAF. Especially since it is known that EJ is extremely reliable and M88 not at all and with no future fixes.
In addition to the Repairable Items advantage, having eight nations in the team who have positioned Typhoon as the backbone of their Air Force capability, rather than a few here and there such as Egypt, means that development of the weapons and aircraft through life will be guaranteed and not just dependent on the selling country making investment. Rafale is very dependent on French investment, Typhoon does not depend on the UK only.
These numbers do not include a potential second batch of 72 aircraft to Saudi Arabia, who is becoming one of Malaysia’s key political partners. So if the Saudi’s buy more, then there will be over 670 Typhoon’s versus only 204 Rafale (3.3:1 advantage to Typhoon) – Safety in Numbers.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (19)
Looks like a point to point advertorial rebutting Rafale ;)
I thought the UK is offering their surplus Tranche 1 planes to Malaysia?
Reply
As gap filler until the arrival of the new build ones. But that depends on us buying the Typhoons first
The question is, how many typhoon we can get with our tight budget. And can we get TOT of we buy that mighty typhoon.
Reply
18 as per RMAF requirement. As for TOT check out the earlier postings
Remaining Typhoon orders:
-- Germany: 18 single-seaters (9 to be delivered in 2017 and 9 in 2018);
-- Italy: 9 single-seaters and 2 two-seaters (3 more in 2017; 5 in 2018; 1 in 2019);
-- Kuwait: 22 single-seaters and 6 two-seaters (2 in 2019, 9 in 2020; 9 in 2021, 8 in 2022)
-- Oman: 9 single-seaters and 3 two-seaters (8 in 2017 and 4 in 2018);
-- Saudi Arabia: 2 single-seaters for delivery in 2017;
-- Spain: 12 single-seaters (7 in 2017 and 5 in 2018)
-- United Kingdom: 18 single-seaters.
If Malaysia orders, it would be among (if not) the last Typhoon to be built.
BTW P3E enhancement does not include the AESA radar. Only the P4E includes the AESA radar, so P3E to P4E standard does requires more than just a software load. As it is the Typhoon cannot carry quite a few new weapons in malaysian arsenal, including the AIM-9X, JDAM and Harpoon.
Through life development/upgrades are also sketchy beyond 2020, as most original Typhoon nations are unwilling to invest in major upgrades other than those currently agreed and being implemented. If we buy the Typhoon now, we would get our 1st aircraft in 2021-23 at the earliest, and if we have to use it up to 30 years (because of the high investment), that is up till 2053. Would there be any upgrades till that time? Or there would be no more upgrades past 2025?
All those "economies of scale" also does not matter if the costs of the spares and maintenance itself is expensive in the first place.
********************************************
Now lets compare to the Legacy Hornet.
A total of 1,478 was built from 1980-2000. Planned upgrades by US Navy (and US Marines) to be used up till 2030.
Engines are used by hornets, Saab gripen, KAI golden eagles, HAL Tejas.
Electronics shared with super hornets and more (AESA modules are shared with F-15 eagles)
Cleared to carry a bigger range of weapons, from US and europe.
Availability of cheap (or free) secondhand spares from retired hornets.
Low investment (by buying used) and life time that would not cause problems with having to use it past its obsoletion (that is by around 2030). Money saved could be used to get a better 5th gen MRCA in the 2030 time frame.
Define ''expensive''. There is no current gen platform that is ''cheap'' to support these days. Whether it's Rafale or Typhoon; the very fact that these platforms have a high level of automation and a much higher electronics and other systems content mean that they will be more expensive to support compared to older platforms. They will also require better human resources compared to what's needed at present. In fact, despite being ''expensive'' newer platforms will in the long run or throughout their service life be more economical to support compared to the MKMs which have a radar, gear box, nozzles, landing gear, etc, that have a lower TBO compared to Western equivalents. Even our ''low houred'' Hornets are increasingly becoming more maintenance intensive on account of the age of the various sub systems on board; requiring more checks and preventive maintenance than was the case before.
Again, buying used indeed has a ''low investment'' but gauging exactly how much we'll have to spend on used air frames for the duration of their time in service will be tricky as the older things get, there is more likelihood of things breaking down and requiring more checks for every hour flown compared to a newer platform. We have to plan not just at the ''low initial investment'' but things in the long run. No point buying now to achieve short term costs savings only to discover as the years go by that the ''cheap'' pre owned air frames we got are getting increasingly expensive to support.
There are various plus points to strengthen the argument why one should get pre owned but there are also similar plus points to indicate why one should - despite the initial high costs - buy new.
The curren gen platform includes the Hornets too. Open sources have shown both typhoon and rafale have some of the most expensive operating and aquisition costs of current fighters, regardless of the TBO of those individual components. To buy 18 of those Typhoons would cost somewhere around USD3 billion (around RM13.5 billion) and that is more than 3 times the cost of 18 SU-30MKM, and that is before adding all the operating costs. Is the Typhoon 3x better aircraft than the SU-30MKM? How much would it cost to get the used Hornets? Probably not more than usd300-400 million for 2x the quantity of aircrafts.
Buying used now means that in 2030 when those used planes have run out of flying hours and nearing obsoletion, we would just retire them and have the money then to buy the most current 5th gen fighters available in 2030. Buying something new (typhoon or rafale) now would mean we would be stuck with those brand new 4th gen fighter for up till 2050 at least, and we don't know if upgrades (costing more money) could bring those fighters on par with anything newer in 2030-2050 (which includes KF-X in indonesia, F-35 in singapore and J-20 plus J-31 in china). I don't want to see in 10 years time after spending usd 3 billion, we need to again spend usd 3 billion or more for another batch of different fighters.
I would totally agree on buying brand new now, if there is any affordable 5th gen fighter available. What I am against is buying another different but hyper expensive 4th gen fighter at the end of its production life, when newer 5th gen designs are slowly being rolled out.
Reply
The statement regarding only P4E including E-Scan is completely incorrect. E-Scan will be on all Tranche 3 Aircraft from Kuwait customer onwards and it has been included in the offer to Malaysian Government. E-Scan is an equipment fit at aircraft build, P3E / P4 E etc. is software designation. Hence RMAF will get E-Scan with P3E Capability at a minimum.
P4E is in development with the consortium and export nations now and looks at more weapons and sensors. Typhoon plans for capability update goes beyond 2025 and continues to look 5-10 years ahead. Typhoon update philosophy is new update of software every 2-3 years, customer choice whether they take it up and when.
The statement Malaysia will be amongst the last Typhoon to be built, is same for all Aircraft… Production should not be the concern, nobody makes F-18D anymore either but it is supportable because there are still lots in service! That statement equally applies to being amongst the last Super Hornet or last Rafale buyer. Super Hornet production is only kept alive with the occasional Act of Congress. Rafale has 60 more to build only versus Typhoon’s 99, so no different timeframe to Typhoon, unless KSA get the 72 more Typhoon’s they say they want. Rafale and Typhoon are all in the same competitions, so same chance of keeping production going (Finland, Belgium). The point of safety in numbers is that the investment by operators will continue as this is what everyone has
This is a glimpse of the future. As we seen with most new chinese designs, this will be in production probably in a few years time.
The J-31 prototype
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9fe8b7ef9096ced9a45346c0a0835be0-c
http://i.guancha.cn/news/2017/01/03/20170103101249614.png
... - ''The curren gen platform includes the Hornets too.''
Actually it depends on which Hornet you're referring too. Even when measured against the Super Hornet on a platform level; Typhoon and Rafale enjoy several advantages : to be expected given that both are newer designs and more growth potential.
.... - ''Open sources have shown both typhoon and rafale have some of the most expensive operating and aquisition costs of current fighters''
You keep mentioning operating costs but as I've pointed out there is no such thing as a ''cheap'' to maintain fighter with regards to current gen platforms. It doesn't exist, period.
Also, what are you comparing the operating costs of Typhoon and Rafale against? Gripen is a single engine platform, The Hornet and Eagle are not even contenders and future ''stealthy'' platforms like the PAK FA haven't even entered service. As for the the F-35 it's not only a generation ahead of Typhoon and Rafale; being a newer platform incorporating technologies others - at present - can only dream of but also costs more than Rafale and Typhoon.
... - ''I don’t want to see in 10 years time after spending usd 3 billion,''
By right even after we get MRCAs we should be looking at an upgrade or even another platform after a decade or so; keeping up with the times and on going modernisation [something the RMAF and its sisters services would like to do]. I'm no prophet but given that Typhoon forms the main line of defence of several Tier 1 NATO countries; I think we can safely assume that the operators and OEM will not allow the capabilities of Typhoon to wither over the coming decade or so with regards to progressive software or hardware upgrades.
... - ''I would totally agree on buying brand new now, if there is any affordable 5th gen fighter available.''
... - ''How much would it cost to get the used Hornets?''''
Again : there is no ''affordable'' current gen fighter available; just doesn't exist. Whilst I have continued to acknowledge that buying pre used does have its merits [no denying that]; I will at the same time refute any suggestions or notions that buying pre used [mainly to achieve costs savings] has no disadvantages or is a panacea. Everything comes with a penalty as you're aware. The plain fact remains : despite being ''low houred'' a platform [especially a 30 year old one] will get increasingly maintenance intensive as it gets older. The RMAF does not have deep pockets or an extensive support infrastructure; which is one reason why it's extremely wry of buying pre used even if short term costs savings can be achieved.
Rather than focusing on short term issues like the procurement costs of pre used platforms; I'm looking at long term issues like the total support/maintenance costs of a 30 year old platform which will get increasingly maintenance intensive as it gets older.
... - ''To buy 18 of those Typhoons would cost somewhere around USD3 billion (around RM13.5 billion) and that is more than 3 times the cost of 18 SU-30MKM,''
Indeed but this is really an apples to oranges comparison as the MKM is a much older design which contains stuff a generation behind in technology compared to the Typhoon or Rafale. To set the record straight as I've been asked whether I have anything to gain [if only] if Typhoon is selected ; I'm not a Typhoon or Rafale fan boy; merely someone looking at things objectively over a long term period based on what the RMAF's requirements are and based on what the government has already agreed in principle to fund. Personally, I still think the Super Hornet - from a logistical and training perspective - is the most logical solution but to be realistic; it's politically dead despite it still having strong backing within the RMAF.
... - '' could bring those fighters on par with anything newer in 2030-2050 (which includes KF-X in indonesia, F-35 in singapore and J-20 plus J-31 in china).''
I'd rather focus on things at a systems level rather than a platform centric perspective. With regards to what will be operated in the
'' 2030-2050'' period; if we wanted to base procurement on what will be available decades from now; we wouldn't buy anything at all.
I would have to agree with ... on getting the Kuwaiti Hornet to be a more viable stop-gap measure until 2030.
With the savings, we could embark on the AEW&C Programme, which is already long overdue.
Very impressive discussion here. For me I totally agree with Mr. azlan for not get used fighter for RMAF, its too risky and will be more costly. MKM's and other Russian fighter is much cheaper but it will bring much headache and costs for support's/maintenance issue.