It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Road to Typhoon

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:59 PM
I think most of us know that the History of the Typhoon has been long and convoluted, even if the details escape us. I thought a little 'background in pictures' might help to show how the plane developed, albeit from a mainly UK perspective.

1- The three national designs at the time of the first ECA collaborative talks in July 1979. BAe 'ECA' (top) MBB TKF90 (middle) Dassault ACT92 (bottom)

2 - Rival Dornier design to TKF90

3- Hawker Siddeley proposals for tactical (top) and air superiority (below) for AST 403, the UK requirement that led to our part in Typhoon.

4- further UK Proposals; Hawker Siddeley proposal for ASTOVL AST403 to replace Jaguar and Harrier before ASTOVL requirement was dropped (top) BAe Wartons 'ECA again (middle) and BAe Wartons lightweight 'go it alone' proposal, the P.106, from when it looked like a joint project would be impossible to agree upon (bottom)

5 Rival BAe Warton P.103 design for ASTOVL requirement before it was removed from AST 403

6 BAe P.110 fighter proposed as a go it alone venture after RAF announced it had no interest in lightweight P.106, this was claimed to be ready for service by 1988 if adopted

7 BAe ACA design which was to be built as a flying demonstrator and tempted Italy and Germany to rejoin the UK and led to formation of 'Eurofighter GmbH'

8 ACA based 'EAP' demonstrator designed by BAe and built and flown at Warton in 1986.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by waynos]

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:13 PM
I've even read some reports that said the Typhoon aimed to Su-27 since the project had begun. I have been always wondering which postion we could make out that Typhoon is more superior than Su-27.
I've been suspecting something above till M-I.44 appeared. According to my hypothesis M-I.44 is much similar to Typhoon in aerodynamic shape.
My further wondering is that are there any much different way to Rafale?
If we make a competition between Typhoon to Su-27, who will win?

Edit for oversized image/ linked.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:35 AM
Good post waynos

another good link, with a timeline, pics and lots of details :

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:01 AM
The Typhoon was designed to be superior to the Su-27 Flanker, which was the latest known adversary at the time, all design objectives in this respect werre met. One advantage of the Typhoon over the Flanker that I remember reading of is its naturally unstable design which allows the Typhoon to 'flick turn' much more rapidly than the much heavier and aerodynamically stable Su-27.

How it compares to later Flankers I do not know though I suspect the Typhoon will need its new 3d vectring nozzles fitted to stay in front or level.

As regards the Rafale, the ECA talks with France Gernmany and the UK broke down fairly quickly as France was demanding a position in ECA which gave them programme leadership, final assembly, all flight testing and marketing control.

PS, emile, if you resize that Typhoon pic and then repost it the page size will be restored.

France realised that, if they were to go it alone, the ACT92, pictured in the first post above, was far too big heavy and expensive and quickly replaced it with the ACX, this was Frances equivalent to the British ACA and was virtually the same aircraft that was to fly under the name 'Rafale'. So there is no design commonality between the Rafale and Typhoon at all as the countries had gone their separate ways before each was designed.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by waynos]

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:44 AM
Nice find, Waynos. Strange to see how the design evoluted during the development phases! Seems like the guys there always wanted to obtain the best state-of-the-art fighter with the latest techs out.

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:57 AM
Typhoon is better than Su-series in BVR because of smaller RCS, but in clos combat the odds are roughly the same. In fact EF had problems to achieve SU-27 maneuvrability, and is certainly worse than the Su planes equipped with canards. However it can benefit form smaller size, so the enemy will not spot it by eye too easily.

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:19 AM
What is the expected in-service date of the Typhoon? I've been watching this from afar since EAP (It was my fav plane in Jane's ATF) . The whole program has a pace somewhat slower than molasses. It's really a shame, because the plane is a nice compromise between price and performance, ala Gripen.

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:46 AM
conversion squadrons are in operation at the moment.

also 17sqn started move to raf connigsby on first April

[edit on 22-6-2005 by paperplane_uk]

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:53 AM
Nicely put together Waynos, way above for that.

(btw does the avatar change with the new doc?

Thoroughly enjoyed the new series, nice to see some money spent on it, you?)

[edit on 22-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:00 AM
Yes, I need to find a new 10th Doctor avatar
Brilliant series, all nicely archived on DVD

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:30 AM
I wanted to write huge article about Eurofighter and all its predcesors development on my web, but I do not have enough time. So shortly

Altrought the heads of the Panavia partners first called for development of three-nation air-superiority fighter in 1979, the design has its origins in escort-fighter studies begun by MBB (now DaimlerChrysler Aerospace) in 1974. The resulting TKF90 concept had much in common with today´s Typhoon – a high agile, single seat, twin engined, delta/canard fighter. But there were to be many twists and turns before Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK were able to agree the operational requierement and sign the development contract for what was to become Eurofighter.


a different TKF proposal – Dornier rautenflugel

another Northrop/Dornier ND-102

Aeritalia pre-Eurofighter study

The first tri-national joint project team was formed in september 1979 by Aeritalia (now Alenia), British Aerospace and MBB. The result was the European Combat Aircraft concept, delta/canard drawing on the TKF90 design. In 1980, an attempt was made to bring Dassault into the project, resulting in the European Combat Aircraft concept, again a delta/canard. The barriers to participation proed insurmountable for the French, however, and in 1982 the three Tornado partners formed the joint venture Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA) programme.

BAe P.106 ECA proposal

another BAe P.110 ECA proposal

When Germany pulled out in 1983, forcing MBB to withdraw from the project, BAe and Aeritalia continued on their own, building the Experimental Aircraft Programme (EAP) technology demonstrator. After MBB withdrew, the rear fuselage from Tornado had to be used, producing the single-fin EAP. The demonstrator flew in 1986 and proved very worthwhile for development of the Eurofighter.

Meanwhile, in 1983, the air forces of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK had agreed an outline European staff target for future fighter. Industrial studies were completed in 1985, with four of the nations supporting one configuration, the forerunner to the European Fighter Aircraft (EFA). In august 1985, Germany, Italy and the UK signed the Turin Agreement, committing the three nations to project definition phase for an air-superiority fighter with 10 ton empty weight, 50m2 wing area and two 90 kN engines. Spain joined a few weeks later. France elected not to join and instead pursued development of the ACX, which became the Dassault Rafale.

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:55 PM
Great additional pictures and info there Matej!
I don't suppose you have a picture of the BAe P.120 do you? I haven't seen a picture of this since it was shown to me, new, in 1989 and I was allowed to keep it it but lost it during a house move (grrrr). I have never forgotten it but have never been able to track it down since. Maybe I should write to BAE?

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:38 PM
I just wondered Northrop has a program called N-102 which even be built a full-size mockup or that is a prototype of F-5 Freedom. I have seen that in a Jane's yearbook which published the photo and explained that do was developed to F-5 fighter.
Who could explain the relation between ND-102 to N-102?

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:48 AM
Why was the twin tail dropped....looks nicer I think, but then again what are looks for when you're being shot at?

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Infidellic
Why was the twin tail dropped....looks nicer I think, but then again what are looks for when you're being shot at?

When the ACA was designed the RAF was adament that it wanted a twin tail and so the EAP was going to have one too but in order to keep costs down it was decided to use a modified Tornado rear fuselage and fin but still have twin tails on the production fighter. After actaully flying the EAP however and seeing the weight and cost comparison between twin and single finned EFA's the RAF effectively said 'don't bother, its not necessary'.

As an aside, at the 1980 Farnborough Air Show BAe displayed a project entitled 'Post AST 403 Fighter' which had three engines! There were two 'combat' engines arranged in a similar manner to the F-14's with a space between them and inset into this space was an 'ultra efficient cruise engine' to give long unrefuelled patrol endurance. This too was a delta canard but with F-18 style 'armpit' intakes.

PS I like the twin fin layout better too.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by waynos]


posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:21 AM
personally, I'd like to see a long range version of the Typhoon will internal bomb bay, and much better range.


posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:40 AM
OK, from the beginnig...

waynos: Unfortunatelly, I do not have pic of BAe P.120.

emile: there is no relationship between N-102 and ND-102. Only one thing - in development of both planes was interested Northrop. N-102 Fang was a 1953 project of MiG-15/19 attacker. There was also improved version N-109. But instead this, Lockheed F-104 was selected. link

waynos: here is AST 403 pic

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:42 AM
I forgot. Here is the drawing, how BAe P.103 should work like...

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:08 AM
Thanks for posting ..... but does anyone know anything about the Spanish concepts, studies or models which led to the Typhoon ????


posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:20 AM
I'm not aware of any Spanish designs, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

Spain's requirement was for an F-18 replacement and they deliberated between joining Eurofighter or the Rafale for quite a long time before deciding that the Typhoon suited them best.

Whether there were any independant concept designs in the meantime I don't know.

top topics


log in