BAE P.120/British EFA in a more tense Cold War

[F-2]

We all know from conception to in service for the Eurofighter was a long time. At several points it looked like the international partners would break apart. The project also had quite a few technical issues. The DA1’s first flight was delayed two years because the Germans had great difficulty developing the flight control software, the ECR-90 had to go through a number of revisions before it could be added to an aircraft AFTER it was subject to a major political battle to be the EFA. All this and the plane was only able to enter service in 2004 in a very basic state. What if however either the British went alone with their fixed intake P.120 or perhaps the Cold War remains tense and the eastern bloc lasts longer forcing the European partner nations to squabble less. Maybe the Mig-29 and Su-27 become better known to the west earlier. how quickly could they get a combat aircraft from the time of the EAPs first flight in 1986?


My ideas.

Aircraft should have maximum commonality with the EAP, what ever can be used should be. Could the EAPs flight control system be the basis of this early Eurofighter? Could the British avoid the pitfalls the Germans had? They had experience with the Jaguar.

Captor is based on Blue Vixen as is well know, I have heard of a “Super Vixen” that’s just an longer range Blue Vixen. I’m not sure if this was ever an actual design or a proposal.

The EJ200 is based on the RR XG-40 for 1986. The first development ej200 (not weight optimized) ran from 1988-1991 and the first Eurofighter DA flew with them in 1995 with talk of installing them in the EAP a year or two before that. As I understand it the EJ200 was probably the part of the program that went the smoothest and was actually ahead of schedule, so no speeding that up. However I have head that an XG-20 derived RB199 variant could have been used as an interm engine as early as 1989.

Structurally, at least in terms of composites the Eurofighter and EAP are very similar so that’s likely to be the same.

Flight magazine in 1985 gave a 1995 in service date as a goal is that achievable? Later? Earlier? How might it differ or evolve, what opportunities might present themselves?

 

[tomo pauk]

Stuff the RB.199 in the P.120 and you're set. RAF can buy it by late 1980s, and there is an actual product to offer to the countries in the 1990s, that otherwise bought F-16s and F-18s. Once EJ-200 or the equivalent is there, go with it.

 

[Hood]

Some potential engine choices beyond the XG40 if for some reason the money to continue with XG40 isn't found:
[To compare EJ200 is 13,500lbf dry/ 20,200lbf reheat]:

RB.199-34R
8,530lbf dry/ 15,300lbf reheat

RB.199-42R
9,700lbf dry/ 17,000lbf reheat

RB.199-52R
9,220lbf dry/ 14,810lbf reheat

RB.231-02
10,900lbf dry/ 15,600lbf reheat

RB.168-89R
Spey development, 12,210lbf dry/ 20,430lbf reheat

RB.409-50R
RB.199 development. Considered for modified Tornado to meet AST.403, 8,770lbf dry/ 15,475lbf reheat

RB.409-70R
RB.199 development

RB.431-10R
Straight-through Pegasus turbofan, 15,850lbf dry/ 28,030lbf reheat.

The only plausible choices would look to be maybe RB.168-89R but that's probably aging and fuel consumption would be higher, or possibly RB.431-101R but that might be too large to fit two into EAP. I think on balance in an ideal AU I'd stick with XG40.

 

[zen]

It's all in the timing.
Early enough and P.1216 will trump this if European partners fall apart. Since it would cover Heseltine who was key in pushing ACA/EFA for political reasons.

RR will make a powerful case to fund a new engine from XG40 work.

 

[Archibald]

I agree with most of the above.

I would say
- airframe as close as EAP as possible
- RB.199 from Tornado
- Blue Vixen from the SHAR mk.2, AMRAAM capable.

Should accelerate the whole thing greatly.

 

[F-2]

Some potential engine choices beyond the XG40 if for some reason the money to continue with XG40 isn't found:
[To compare EJ200 is 13,500lbf dry/ 20,200lbf reheat]:

RB.199-34R
8,530lbf dry/ 15,300lbf reheat

RB.199-42R
9,700lbf dry/ 17,000lbf reheat

RB.199-52R
9,220lbf dry/ 14,810lbf reheat

RB.231-02
10,900lbf dry/ 15,600lbf reheat

RB.168-89R
Spey development, 12,210lbf dry/ 20,430lbf reheat

RB.409-50R
RB.199 development. Considered for modified Tornado to meet AST.403, 8,770lbf dry/ 15,475lbf reheat

RB.409-70R
RB.199 development

RB.431-10R
Straight-through Pegasus turbofan, 15,850lbf dry/ 28,030lbf reheat.

The only plausible choices would look to be maybe RB.168-89R but that's probably aging and fuel consumption would be higher, or possibly RB.431-101R but that might be too large to fit two into EAP. I think on balance in an ideal AU I'd stick with XG40.

I certainly agree the XG40 should be the ultimate goal of the project, but I do think an enhanced RB199 (xg-20 derived? Similar to the mk105 on the ECR) would make a fine interm engine. The flight envelope is different but the size and weight are around right.

It's all in the timing.
Early enough and P.1216 will trump this if European partners fall apart. Since it would cover Heseltine who was key in pushing ACA/EFA for political reasons.

RR will make a powerful case to fund a new engine from XG40 work.

My point of divergence in this scenario is after the EAP has flown, the idea being to use as much from it or just of the self as feasible.

 

[Hood]

I certainly agree the XG40 should be the ultimate goal of the project, but I do think an enhanced RB199 (xg-20 derived? Similar to the mk105 on the ECR) would make a fine interm engine. The flight envelope is different but the size and weight are around right.

Yes it might have worked out ok, EAP seemed to have faster acceleration during testing than the Tornado with the RB.199, but it depends how seriously the RAF were going to take high AoA combat and in consequence they might have wanted more thrust.

 

[tomo pauk]

RAF will have more thrust once EJ.200 is there.
Timeline might look like:
- Mark1: fighter-only; RB.199 engines
- Mark2: fighter bomber with all the bells & whistles; EJ.200 engines

RAF might do themselves and to the British industry a nice favor if they settle for the imperfect new fighter now, rather than to wait many months for a perfect one.

 

[F-2]

I was originally a bit concerned because the RB199 was unfavorably compared with the Rafale A and the DA2 was over shadowed by the RC01 (and Su-37 but who wouldn’t) in 86 and 96. I thought that might hurt it in the export market. But that might be me being neurotic. Certainly the RB199 would be fine for the P120 multirole as the British need it. It’s just not the insane high speed supercruise beast the Germans wanted, but their not that import hear.

 

[tomo pauk]

German concerns are a non factor here, since the aircraft is British-only. Germany can certainly buy the P.120 with better engines once those are available.
A lot of fighters in 1990-2010 were over-shadowed by the latest Flanker versions. People were still buying F-18s and F-16s, plus Mirage 2000s. The Eurocanards were late, too late to fight for the foreign market, parially due to the bickering between UK, Germany and France, partially because the Cold War ended. British going with P.120 avoids the foreign influence, production can start a few years before Cold War ends, leaving the P.120 as the only non-Russian new-gen fighter that countries can buy right now. No political baggage as with US hardware, too.

 

[F-2]

German concerns are a non factor here, since the aircraft is British-only. Germany can certainly buy the P.120 with better engines once those are available.
A lot of fighters in 1990-2010 were over-shadowed by the latest Flanker versions. People were still buying F-18s and F-16s, plus Mirage 2000s. The Eurocanards were late, too late to fight for the foreign market, parially due to the bickering between UK, Germany and France, partially because the Cold War ended. British going with P.120 avoids the foreign influence, production can start a few years before Cold War ends, leaving the P.120 as the only non-Russian new-gen fighter that countries can buy right now. No political baggage as with US hardware, too.

What about the Rafale. The original in service date was 1995-1996 and that only was delayed due to the end of the Cold War. In this scenario that wouldn’t be the case.

 

[kaiserd]

The Eurofighters for the RAF were intended to first replace Jaguars with the Tornado F.3 to follow.
Hence an “early”/ on time Typhoon, be it UK or multinational (“foreign influenced” wording used above by an other contributor) would have needed to be multi role, and if they weren’t they would have been too early too little improvements replacements for the Tornado F.3 that would have just entered service.

The Eurofighter that actually entered service with the RAF was better and more advanced thanks to the delays and thanks to the UK European partners, and ironically thanks to these delays it was actually better timed as replacements for the aircraft it superseded. And a UK-only Typhoon would have been quite the different and inferior beast and it is hard to see such an aircraft doing as well, let alone better than, the actual Eurofighter Typhoon re: export orders (struggle even more against F-15 and F-16 variants, etc).

 

[F-2]

The Eurofighters for the RAF were intended to first replace Jaguars with the Tornado F.3 to follow.
Hence an “early”/ on time Typhoon, be it UK or multinational (“foreign influenced” wording used above by an other contributor) would have needed to be multi role, and if they weren’t they would have been too early too little improvements replacements for the Tornado F.3 that would have just entered service.

The Eurofighter that actually entered service with the RAF was better and more advanced thanks to the delays and thanks to the UK European partners, and ironically thanks to these delays it was actually better timed as replacements for the aircraft it superseded. And a UK-only Typhoon would have been quite the different and inferior beast and it is hard to see such an aircraft doing as well, let alone better than, the actual Eurofighter Typhoon re: export orders (struggle even more against F-15 and F-16 variants, etc).

My hope for this scenario is to at least maintain Italy and possibly Spain as partners. German private industry without the German government would be great if at all possible with a bug in later.

 

[robunos]

RAF will have more thrust once EJ.200 is there.
Timeline might look like:
- Mark1: fighter-only; RB.199 engines
- Mark2: fighter bomber with all the bells & whistles; EJ.200 engines

RAF might do themselves and to the British industry a nice favor if they settle for the imperfect new fighter now, rather than to wait many months for a perfect one.

Trouble is, as I see it, is that once your 'Mark 1' becomes a reality, the UK withdraws from the multi-national program, in order to cut costs, which in turn means the EJ200 gets chopped . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[kaiserd]

Why would

The Eurofighters for the RAF were intended to first replace Jaguars with the Tornado F.3 to follow.
Hence an “early”/ on time Typhoon, be it UK or multinational (“foreign influenced” wording used above by an other contributor) would have needed to be multi role, and if they weren’t they would have been too early too little improvements replacements for the Tornado F.3 that would have just entered service.

The Eurofighter that actually entered service with the RAF was better and more advanced thanks to the delays and thanks to the UK European partners, and ironically thanks to these delays it was actually better timed as replacements for the aircraft it superseded. And a UK-only Typhoon would have been quite the different and inferior beast and it is hard to see such an aircraft doing as well, let alone better than, the actual Eurofighter Typhoon re: export orders (struggle even more against F-15 and F-16 variants, etc).

My hope for this scenario is to at least maintain Italy and possibly Spain as partners. German private industry without the German government would be great if at all possible with a bug in later.

Why would an inferior more expensive (and potentially/probably canceled) Eurofighter Typhoon be better or more desirable to anyone?

 

[F-2]

Why would

The Eurofighters for the RAF were intended to first replace Jaguars with the Tornado F.3 to follow.
Hence an “early”/ on time Typhoon, be it UK or multinational (“foreign influenced” wording used above by an other contributor) would have needed to be multi role, and if they weren’t they would have been too early too little improvements replacements for the Tornado F.3 that would have just entered service.

The Eurofighter that actually entered service with the RAF was better and more advanced thanks to the delays and thanks to the UK European partners, and ironically thanks to these delays it was actually better timed as replacements for the aircraft it superseded. And a UK-only Typhoon would have been quite the different and inferior beast and it is hard to see such an aircraft doing as well, let alone better than, the actual Eurofighter Typhoon re: export orders (struggle even more against F-15 and F-16 variants, etc).

My hope for this scenario is to at least maintain Italy and possibly Spain as partners. German private industry without the German government would be great if at all possible with a bug in later.

Why would an inferior more expensive (and potentially/probably canceled) Eurofighter Typhoon be better or more desirable to anyone?

Well it’s not meant to be better, more what could they come up with if they were forced to get an aircraft into service earlier.

 

[kaiserd]

If that was the single overriding focus for the RAF then that would undermine the whole point of the project and a US fighter purchase (with token UK content/ involvement) is the likely result.

 

[F-2]

If that was the single overriding focus for the RAF then that would undermine the whole point of the project and a US fighter purchase (with token UK content/ involvement) is the likely result.

Maybe but it’s just a fun thought experiment.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Eurofighter that actually entered service with the RAF was better and more advanced thanks to the delays and thanks to the UK European partners, and ironically thanks to these delays it was actually better timed as replacements for the aircraft it superseded. And a UK-only Typhoon would have been quite the different and inferior beast and it is hard to see such an aircraft doing as well, let alone better than, the actual Eurofighter Typhoon re: export orders (struggle even more against F-15 and F-16 variants, etc).

Thanks to the delays, Eurofighter was incapable to compete vs. US aircraft between 1990 and 2005. Delays were a bug, not a feature.

 

[kaiserd]

And how would an inferior RB.199 engined, less capable avionics version of the Eurofighter competed better than the actual Eurofighter against rivals in that period?
And why would the RAF want a Tornado F.3 replacement a handful of years after it had entered service or a Jaguar replacement with what would have been then very limited/ verging on inferior air to ground capability?

Wouldn’t nearly all potential export customers very likely have made the same procurement decisions anyway? Strike Eagle variants where probably overall more capable than any of these theoretical earlier less-than-Super Typhoons and they (like cheaper but still capable F-16 variants) would have advantages of being tied in with US military aid, targeting pods, smart weapons, etc.

 

[tomo pauk]

And how would an inferior RB.199 engined, less capable avionics version of the Eurofighter competed better than the actual Eurofighter against rivals in that period?

By the virtue of actually being there.

And why would the RAF want a Tornado F.3 replacement a handful of years after it had entered service or a Jaguar replacement with what would have been then very limited/ verging on inferior air to ground capability?

Jaguar in the RAF service had no radar, ergo it's usability during the night and during adverse weather was close to zero. Radars were used already in ww2 to blind bomb; A-7 have had radar to help out in the 1960s, Tornado IDS and F-16 in the late 1970s. Bomb/missile load would've been much better on the P.120.
RAF can wait for the Jaguar replacement to be made 1st, then buy the F.3 replacement.

Wouldn’t nearly all potential export customers very likely have made the same procurement decisions anyway? Strike Eagle variants where probably overall more capable than any of these theoretical earlier less-than-Super Typhoons and they (like cheaper but still capable F-16 variants) would have advantages of being tied in with US military aid, targeting pods, smart weapons, etc.

Strike Eagle required two things: loads of money, and will of American government to sell the actual aircraft. In 1990s, the 1st requirement was tricky due to the 'Peace Dividends', ie. shrinkage of military budgets. F-16 still required American go-ahead, plus the will of the Americans to actually provide the military aid - as it was well known at Pakistan, India, Indonesia etc.
A non-perfect but existing P.120 in the 1990s can actually compete also in Greece, Turkey, Spain, Italy, Germany (since there is no joint program), Finland, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Brazil, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Australia, Singapore - unlike the EF Typhoon as we know it.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

And how would an inferior RB.199 engined, less capable avionics version of the Eurofighter competed better than the actual Eurofighter against rivals in that period?
And why would the RAF want a Tornado F.3 replacement a handful of years after it had entered service or a Jaguar replacement with what would have been then very limited/ verging on inferior air to ground capability?

Wouldn’t nearly all potential export customers very likely have made the same procurement decisions anyway? Strike Eagle variants where probably overall more capable than any of these theoretical earlier less-than-Super Typhoons and they (like cheaper but still capable F-16 variants) would have advantages of being tied in with US military aid, targeting pods, smart weapons, etc.

I have to agree. I see no reason why the RAF would want a F3 replacement so soon after it entered service. An EAP derived aircraft will probably bring very little in terms of capability over the F3. Rather than fast track an EAP derivative - invest in F3 and fast track its capabilities like including AMRAAM much faster.

Re the export scenario, its hard to beat the US offers. P120 would probably offer little in the 1990's that a heavily invested in F3 doesn't. The UK are still aligned with the US so an advanced AMRAAM equiped F3/P120 will still need their export approval. Otherwise its the much inferior Skyflash and there a Sparrow equipped Hornet will probably be cheaper.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

I have to agree. I see no reason why the RAF would want a F3 replacement so soon after it entered service. An EAP derived aircraft will probably bring very little in terms of capability over the F3. Rather than fast track an EAP derivative - invest in F3 and fast track its capabilities like including AMRAAM much faster.

This for my part as well. The Tonka F.3 was the right aircraft for the time IMO. When it ceased to be the right aircraft for the time, it was replaced by the Typhoon. I might have liked to see the latter in numbers a year or two earlier perhaps but the F.3, especially with AMRAAM, ASRAAM, JTIDS and a hardly ancient Foxhunter, filled the UK AD role admirably and deterred a great many threat force shenanigans unsung when deployed variously to boot! Any intermediate fighter wasn't necessary.

That shouldn't be taken to mean this thread isn't an interesting thought exercise however!

 

[Hood]

ECA/EFA was meant foremost to replace Jaguar, that was the intent, but its aerial fighting ability grew from self-defence to air superiority over FEBA. It was probably the first dogfighting fighter the RAF had since the Hunter 40 years earlier.
Now of course swing-role was a catchy 1980s term but avionics probably weren't cutting edge. What we're probably likely to see in this scenario is a mix of Harrier GR.5 passive ground-attack capability (FLIR/LRMTS) with a Vixen-esque multi-mode radar.

Would it be superior to the fully upgraded 1990s Jaguar we ended up with? Maybe not massively in terms of ground-attack capability but it would have perhaps offered AMRAAM upgrade for the RAF if not fitted with it by service entry. It's notable that Tornado ADV, Jaguar and Harrier all reached their most potent peaks just before they retired.

Would it be inferior to the Eurofighter we know? In several areas yes, but then its taken the best part of 30 years to get to peak Typhoon so we might not be that far behind but EAP would be aging now, though that would mean Tempest would be soon or EAP gone in favour of F-35.

Would a fighter EAP sell exports? Probably not, maybe Kuwait instead of F/A-18s, Saudi likely to stick with F-15Es post Desert Storm.
I don't think this is an optimal outcome for an AU world but it is potentially a what-if that could have happened.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

That shouldn't be taken to mean this thread isn't an interesting thought exercise however!

I agree here. The thought experiment of getting Typhoon say 10 years earlier is interesting. Realistically however, there would be little value in it I feel. Rafale was available much earlier than Typhoon yet it also failed to flood the market with customers "not wanting the US connection". Typhoon would be no different - especially if its at best an F3 in a new air frame. RB199 was always going to be less than stellar in the fighter role. For all the issues, Typhoon actually slotted in neatly with the F3 at the peak of its capabilities to begin its workup. Had the cold war really continued past 1989 I foresee a lot more investment in F3 and maybe even a Phantom upgrade with EFA developed to surpass both by the year 2000.

Fact is the US is cheap for high capability. European options are usually more expensive due to lower numbers ordered and usually still have US NATO ties in them be it weapons or avionics like Link-16.

 

[zen]

More historical revisionism.
And I note a dismissal of RAF agility requirements.
Presumably some people think the RAF and MoD are wrong?

 

[Deleted member 2278]

More historical revisionism.

Que?

Presumably some people think the RAF and MoD are wrong?

 

[Scott Kenny]

More historical revisionism.
And I note a dismissal of RAF agility requirements.
Presumably some people think the RAF and MoD are wrong?

Is the MoD ever actually right?

(as opposed to Treasury, which we all know is the single greatest threat to HMMilitary.)