Back to news

January 29, 2021 | International, Aerospace

Future Fighter Investment Is Keeping Eurocanards Competitive

Tony Osborne

Europe may be gearing up for the development of two next-generation combat aircraft, but its trio of so-called Eurocanards have managed to hold sway in the international fighter market.

As little as five years ago, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter seemed set to rule the roost in Europe, and the production of the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale was deliberately drip-fed as industry extended production in hopes of securing a place in future fighter contests.

Today, however, production of both types looks assured: Export sales and top-up orders from domestic nations will take production of both aircraft well into the late 2020s and their service lives out to 2060-70. Meanwhile, development of Saab's Gripen E continues apace, and the aircraft it was supposed to replace, the C/D model, now looks set to enjoy a career with the Swedish Air Force into the 2030s, paving the way for a new upgrade path into a future as a firm fixture on the international fighter market.

“There has been a confluence of military, political, financial and industrial considerations that has kept these aircraft in production,” says Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Because these platforms were originally designed for Cold War-era threats, the expectation was that if the Cold War had continued, the successors to these platforms would have already entered the inventory or at least been well into development.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting reduction in tensions instead saw the pace of fighter development slacken. Financial concerns put future fighter needs on the back burner, and largely incremental upgrades were delivered by industry to keep their skills ready for future programs.

“In recent years, however, the deterioration in the security environment and renewed concerns with Russia have given the European fighters and their American counterparts a second wind,” Barrie says.

The F-35 is another key factor. Some European countries view the U.S. fighter as a threat to their national industry and sovereignty, and the type is perceived as having strings attached to security and operational uses. Furthermore, the cost of operation has so far been high, and the weaponry options that come with European platforms are not available on U.S. platforms. Both the Eurofighter and the Gripen, however, are integrated with many different U.S. munitions. All three European fighters can now use the ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, and export customers can also access standoff weapons such as the Storm Shadow, Scalp and Taurus KEPD 350 air-launched cruise missiles, all largely free of strict U.S. regulation—a significant element for Middle East customers.

Yet even with their replacements now on the distant horizon, the future development road map for the three European fighters appears more certain than ever.

Both the French-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and the UK-Italian-Swedish Tempest initiatives look set to benefit the platforms they will replace.

French plans call for the Rafale to remain in service until 2070, supplementing the New-Generation Fighter (NGF), which will be at the heart of the Future Combat Air System when it enters service around 2040 (AW&ST Nov. 25-Dec. 8, 2019, p. 46).

The F4 upgrade for the Rafale includes improvements to the aircraft's communications suite and delivers additional weaponry. The F5 upgrade, meanwhile, planned for the early 2030s, will enable the Rafale to make use of the FCAS' remote-carrier concept and introduce a virtual cognitive assistant to support the pilot in high-workload situations. Work on the artificial intelligence is already underway through the Man-Machine Teaming advanced study program launched by Thales and Dassault in March 2018.

Plans for F6 and F7 upgrades, likely to emerge in the 2040s, are envisioned to align with the upgrade path for the NGF.

One of the drivers for the Rafale's retention is France's aim to have a two-type fighter fleet: one to meet high-end threats and another lower-cost platform to take on less complex threats.

Currently, the Rafale takes that lead role, and the Dassault Mirage 2000 supplements it, but once the NGF enters service, the Rafale will augment that platform.

A wave of Rafale orders has helped to sustain that development activity, led first by Egypt and Qatar and then followed by India after the long-drawn-out agreements were finalized.

Greece joined the Rafale operators club in January, the first European customer outside France to do so, with an order for 18, including several second-hand aircraft from French Air Force stocks.

The Rafale is also in contention in Finland and Switzerland, and an export deal is said to be close in Indonesia. Top-up orders from France are in the offing, too: Twelve are on order to offset those aircraft being delivered to Greece, while another 30 Rafales are planned for delivery in 2027-30.

The four Eurofighter partner nations—Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK—managed to draw out production for domestic use over 17 years, keeping production warm for potential future orders. This was a strategy that finally paid off in 2016: Kuwait ordered 28 aircraft, and a year later Qatar ordered 24. The two orders boosted the business case for investment in an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the aircraft, and Germany's Quadriga order will bring new enhancements to the AESA sensor. The order for 38 Tranche 4 Eurofighters to replace its Tranche 1 fleet keeps the production lines and platform development moving and adds an improved AESA radar and updated electronic warfare systems to the type's optional extras list. Another top-up order should come later this year from Spain, whose Halcon requirement calls for the purchase of an additional 20 airframes.

The Eurofighter also will benefit from both the Tempest and FCAS development streams, but much of how this will pan out is still subject to agreement among the four nations.

Jointly, they have been studying proposals for the Eurofighter's Long-Term Evolution (LTE) described as a midlife update for the platform. Studies for the LTE, launched by the four-nation consortium at the Paris Air Show in 2019, aim to expand on the performance-enhancement packages already being rolled out across the fleet and build on the fighter's mission-system architecture, defensive-aids suite and human-machine interface. The LTE studies also will consider a wide-area display cockpit as well as the integration of new weapons and enhanced engine performance.

LTE will likely feature on the planned Tranche 5 Typhoons that Germany wants to introduce to replace its Panavia Tornado fleet. Airbus has suggested the first LTE aircraft could fly in 2027-28.

Other opportunities are in the offing, too. Like the Rafale, the Eurofighter is competing in Finland and Switzerland, and the potential exists for further orders from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia might use the platform to replace its Tornado fleet, which is due to exit service around 2030. Agreements signed by Riyadh in 2018 for another 48 aircraft are yet to be exercised.

Output from the LTE study has been submitted to Eurofighter customers for review and consideration, Eurofighter's head of strategic marketing, Raffael Klaschka, tells Aviation Week.

“We are actively supporting that process, and we will continue to do so until it concludes. . . . A positive outcome will allow us to progress toward the next phase of the program and bring Typhoon LTE aircraft into service through the latter half of the decade,” Klaschka says. “We are confident that the LTE study report contains cost-effective long-term solutions that will maintain Typhoon's position as a world-leading multirole fighter aircraft, providing the foundation for the continued development of the weapon system well into the 2060s.”

In support of the FCAS introduction, Airbus is proposing a combat cloud network for both the Eurofighter and Rafale that would be ready for operations in 2030 and might even pave the way for use of remote carriers—unmanned aircraft that are envisaged to accompany the FCAS into hostile airspace. The UK also is discussing the use of its Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft alongside the Typhoon as an additive capability before the Tempest enters service. Additionally, the UK is advancing plans for a more capable AESA radar with an electronic-attack capability (AW&ST Sept. 14-27, 2020, p. 28).

Development of Saab's Gripen E is continuing rapidly; efforts are now taking place across two continents with the arrival of Brazil's first aircraft in-country in late 2020.

Saab views the Gripen E as a new-generation fighter aircraft. Because of the differences between the E and C/D models, the company argues there are now four Eurocanards. Although production of the Gripen C/D is currently on ice, Saab has said it could quickly restart production should new orders for the older version emerge.

“Gripen E is a completely new aircraft,” says Mikael Franzen, vice president and head of marketing and sales at Saab's aeronautics business. “Of course, we use this very optimized configuration that we have on Gripen, but we have redesigned the complete airframe internally. . . . Pretty much every system in there has been redesigned.”

The Gripen E is a stockier, heavier machine than its predecessor. Broader wing roots allow it to carry 40% more fuel, and wider air intakes feed the more powerful General Electric F414-GE-39E turbofan engine. Two additional belly-mounted pylons expand weapon load capacity, while faceted wingtip pods feature an enhanced electronic-warfare capability. Its empty weight is up by 1,200 kg (2,650 lb.) to 8,000 kg, and all-up weight is increased by 2,500 kg to 16,500 kg, yet the jet has been designed to remain within the strict parameters that allow the Swedish Air Force to use the newer version from its network of austere bases and road runways. Internally, Saab has focused on the development of advanced sensor and electronic-warfare capability, while a federated architecture separates critical flight control systems from the tactical systems.

Saab says the federated approach will make the Gripen E's avionics and mission systems more easily and quickly upgradable; tactical upgrades could be written, tested and installed in weeks rather than months or even years.

“The technology is working, and we are talking weeks rather than months or years for upgrades,” Franzen says.

The challenge will be for customers to adapt to this new rapid pace of change. Air forces will need to develop ways to approve the new upgrades and then train their pilots to be able to fight with the modified aircraft, Franzen adds.

The Gripen E's new sensors should allow it to surpass the capability of the Gripen C/D when it reaches the front line in 2023. Among the systems onboard is what Saab refers to as human-machine collaboration: If the pilot is focused on an air-to-ground task, for instance, the aircraft systems will continue to monitor the aerial picture and warn the pilot if a potential threat emerges ahead.

Sweden would like the aircraft to be able to carry a standoff weapon by the end of the decade, and Brazil sees its Gripen Es carrying a cruise missile, the domestically developed MICLA-BR, in the coming years.

Meanwhile, the Swedish government's decision to keep 40 Gripen C/D aircraft in service to supplement the Gripen E fleet in response to the enhanced threat posed by a resurgent Russia has prompted Stockholm to consider how to keep the older, smaller Gripen model relevant into the 2030s, which could bolster its chances on the international market once again, too. The last Gripen C/D sale was to Thailand 13 years ago, but the fighter has struggled to find a sale since; at least one country has cited a lack of AESA on Gripen C/D as a reason for its rejection. Saab subsequently self-developed and flew an X-band AESA in the Gripen last year, and that could form part of the platform's development road map, particularly for the retained Swedish fleet.

Franzen says the study work will initially focus on removing obsolescence from the aircraft before looking at capability areas. “We will, of course, try to get all of the ground support system [and] planning stations into one track to support both aircraft,” he says.

The Gripen E orderbook stands at 96 aircraft: 60 for Sweden and 36 for Brazil. But Brazil has ambitions to double or triple that number. Like its European rivals, the Gripen is competing hard for Finnish requirements.

Saab is developing a road map for the Gripen E, likely to build off Sweden's partnership with the UK and Italy on the Tempest technology work.

Both British and Italian industry have cited Sweden's experience with the rapid development of the Gripen E as a key ingredient to achieving success with the Tempest.

Ironically, after years of ferocious competition, Europe's fourth-generation fighters will be intrinsically linked together and will end up sharing technologies developed through the political and industrial links established to help replace them.

On the same subject

  • New COVID-19 bill extends contractor reimbursement, but no new funding

    December 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    New COVID-19 bill extends contractor reimbursement, but no new funding

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of lawmakers has unveiled a $748 billion coronavirus relief proposal that includes an extension of a prized reimbursement program for federal contractors, but without the billions of dollars previously sought by defense firms. Defense officials have warned they will need to tap modernization and readiness funds if Congress does not appropriate at least $10 billion for defense contractors' coronavirus-related expenses, as authorized by Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. However, the new proposal doesn't appropriate funding for the Section 3610 reimbursements. Negotiations on a final relief deal are ongoing, but the package includes a Section 3610 extension through April 30, 2021. The provision applies to all federal agencies, but it has been of particular interest to the Pentagon and defense industry. Added funding could come in the $1.4 trillion omnibus spending package for fiscal 2021, which is expected this week, or it could come with the next Congress and the incoming Biden administration in 2021. The defense industry has of late pushed for the extension of Section 3610 first, over added appropriations. “You have people who can't feed their families, you have people who are going to get evicted, you have people whose unemployment insurance is going to run out. They need Congress to pass this legislation,” Arnold Punaro, National Defense Industrial Association chairman, said of the new bipartisan relief package. “We prefer the defense industry have 3610, and we believe we'll have an opportunity with the new administration to make the case to them that it's still an important provision,” Punaro said, adding that the extension gives the incoming administration time to work on a “much more comprehensive approach.” Fifteen defense companies implored Congress on Friday to extend the program. In a letter to congressional leaders, they argued the extension is needed to maintain national security, but also “thousands of critical employees who would be difficult to replace within the industrial base.” “As COVID-19 rates hit record levels that were unanticipated not only when the CARES Act was enacted but just weeks ago, agencies are shifting work plans, reducing hours and taking other steps to ensure the health and safety of the workforce,” the letter stated. The reimbursement window was extended until Dec. 18 under the continuing resolution Congress passed on Friday. Originally the support was to stop at the end of fiscal 2020 in September. NDIA was among eight trade organizations that signed a Nov. 20 letter to Congress urging an extension of Section 3610. There have been a spate of similar letters from lawmakers to congressional leaders in recent weeks. “The current authority has saved thousands of NASA and defense contractors from being furloughed,” Florida Republican Rep. Bill Posey said in a letter with nine other lawmakers. “If the authority is not extended, many contractors — through no fault of their own — will face dire economic and financial consequences if they are restricted again from conducting their regular work on a NASA center or defense program and may be limited or unable due to the nature of their work to do so through a telework alternative.” Senate Intelligence Committee acting Chairman, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., pressed congressional leaders earlier this month to extend Section 3610. “Section 3610 has proven to be an important means of providing necessary relief during the pandemic to critical Intelligence Community industry partners ― and particularly to small businesses that provide highly specialized capabilities ― to retain key national security capabilities,” they said in a joint letter.

  • US Army taps RTX for $117 million infrared sensor deal

    July 6, 2023 | International, Land, C4ISR

    US Army taps RTX for $117 million infrared sensor deal

    The new contract is the culmination of "many years of research and development on what is an extremely complex" topic, an Army official said.

  • What’s industry role in DoD information warfare efforts?

    July 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR

    What’s industry role in DoD information warfare efforts?

    Mark Pomerleau Government leaders are telling industry they need help with integration as the Department of Defense and individual services push toward a unifying approach to information warfare. Information warfare combines several types of capabilities, including cyber, intelligence, electronic warfare, information operations, psychological operations and military deception. On a high-tempo battlefield, military leaders expect to face against a near peer or peer adversary. There, one-off solutions, systems that only provide one function, or those that can't feed information to others won't cut it. Systems must be multi-functional and be able to easily communicate with other equipment and do so across services. “A networked force, that's been our problem for years. Having built a lot of military systems, a lot in C4 and mission command, battle command, we build them and buy them in stovepipes. Then we think of integration and connecting after the fact,” Greg Wenzel, executive vice president at Booz Allen, told C4ISRNET. “My whole view ... networking the force really is probably the best thing to achieve overmatch against our adversaries.” Much of this networking revolves around new concepts DoD is experimenting with to be better prepared to fight in the information environment through multi domain operations or through Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). The former aims to seamlessly integrate the capabilities of each domain of warfare – land, sea, air, space and cyber – at will. It also aims to integrate systems and capabilities across the services under a common framework to rapidly share data. While not an official program, JADC2 is more of a framework for the services to build equipment. “It's more likely a mish-mash of service level agreements, pre-scripted architecting and interoperability mandates that you got to be in keeping with those in order to play in the environment,” Bill Bender, senior vice president of strategic accounts and government relations at Leidos, told C4ISRNET of JADC2. “It's going to take a long journey to get there because, oh by the way, we're a very legacy force and ... a limited amount of technology has the interoperability that is absolutely required for that mission to become a reality.” The “information warfare” nomenclature can feel nebulous and hard to understand for industry officials that provide solutions to the Pentagon. “It's a pretty broad definition. I think it's something that the DoD is struggling with, that's what we're struggling with in industry and it also makes it challenging because no one really buys equipment that way,” Anthony Nigara, vice president for strategy and business development in L3Harris Space & Airborne Systems, said. “No one really buys stuff to an abstract term like information warfare.” Others agreed that the term “information warfare” may be too broad, an issue that's further complicated as each service tackles information warfare in their own way. Most members of industry C4ISRNET talked with on the need to integrate described the key theme of a more networked force as a unifying way to think about the new push to information warfare. “There's a lot of discussions about the Joint All Domain Operations or the multidomain operations. When we look at that and we want to say ‘okay, what is information warfare really mean to everyone?” Steven Allen, director of information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. “We look at it as how can we get the right information to warfighters in order to fight or how do we get the right information for them to plan? How do we move all that data across whether it's different levels of security or different levels of the warfighting and the data associated with it.” Others expressed the need for contractors to be flexible with how DoD is describing its needs. “Industry has learned to be flexible in responding to messaging calling for new situational awareness capabilities while other established capabilities were being mandated for use in cyber exercises,” Jay Porter, director of programs at Raytheon Intelligence & Space, said. The push to a more information warfare-centric force under the guise of larger concepts to defeat adversaries is pushing the DoD as a whole to fight in a more joint manner. Paul Welch, vice president and division manager for the Air Force and defense agencies portfolio at Leidos, explained that there's a consistent view by the services and the department that they must integrate operations within the broad umbrella of activities called information warfare just as they're integrating warfighting capabilities between the services and across the domains. This goes beyond merely deconflicting activities or cooperation, but must encompass true integration of combat capabilities. Some members of industry described this idea as one part of convergence. “When I talk about convergence, my observation is there is a convergence in terms of a family of technologies and of a family of challenge problems and how do they come together,” Ravi Ravichandran, chief technology officer of the intelligence and security sector at BAE, told C4ISRNET. Ravichandran provided five specific challenge problems the military may have in which a married suite of technologies can help provide an advantage against adversaries. They include JADC2, overmatch or the notion of assembling technologies in a way better than enemies, joint fires where one service's sensors may be acquiring a target and passing that target off to another service to prosecute it, sensing in the electromagnetic spectrum and strategic mobility to get forces and resources to a particular place at a particular time. Similarly, Welch provided the notional example of an F-35 flying over an area, seeing something on its sensors and sending that information to either an Army unit, a carrier strike group, a Marine Corps unit, or even a coalition partner to seamlessly and rapidly understand the information and act upon it. These sensors must be incorporated into a joint kill chain that can be acted upon, coordinated and closed by any service at any time. Allen noted that when looking at information warfare, his business is examining how to take a variety of information from sensor information to human information to movement information and pull it all together. “There's a lot of discussion on [artificial intelligence] AI and machine learning and it's very, very important, but there's also important aspects of that, which is hey what's the technology to help the AI, what's that data that's going to help them,” he said. “We tend to look very closely with the customers on how do we really shape that in terms of the information you're getting and how much more can you do for the warfighter.” By bringing all these together, ultimately, it's about providing warfighters with the situational awareness, command and control and information they need to make decisions and cause the necessary effects, be it cyber C4ISR, intelligence or electronic warfare, Nigara said. Porter said at Raytheon's Intelligence & Space outfit, they view information warfare as “the unification of offensive and defensive cyber missions, electronic warfare and information operations within the battlespace.” Integrating EW and IO with cyber will allow forces to take advantage of a broader set of data to enable high-confidence decision-making in real time, he added, which is particularly important in the multi-domain information environment to influence or degrade adversary decision making. From a Navy perspective, the ability to share data rapidly across a distributed force within the Navy's distributed maritime operations concept will be critical for ensuring success. “We will certainly have to include the mechanisms with which we share information, data and fuse that data from node to node. When I say node to node, a node may be a ship, a node may be an unmanned vehicle and a node may be a shore based facility,” Kev Hays, director of information warfare programs at Northrop Grumman, who mostly supports the Navy, said regarding areas Northrop is investing. “Linking all those participants into a network ... is critically important. We have quite a bit of technology we're investing in to help communicate point to point and over the horizon and a low probability of intercept and low probability of detection fashion.” Ultimately, the information space is about affecting the adversary's cognitive space, they said. “When it comes to information warfare, it's a lot less tangible ... It's not tank on tank anymore. You're trying to affect people's perception,” James Montgomery, capture strategy lead for information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. As a result, he said, it is critical to take the time with the customer to truly understand the concepts and capabilities and how they all fit together in order to best support them. “Really spending time with them [the customer] and understanding what it is that they're attempting to get at. It helps us better shape the requirements but it also helps us better understand what is it they're asking for,” he said. “When you're moving forward and attempting to come together with both a software hardware based solution to something, it takes a lot of talking time and a lot of touch time with that customer to understand where their head's at.”

All news