If the Eurofighter nations do not move ahead on development, the future fighter market will be sewn up by the US Joint Strike Fighter
For the past five years a well-defined plan has been in place for four European air forces to introduce Eurofighter in stages of improved functionality - initial operational capability, full operational capability and later a series of enhancements, Tranche 2 and Tranche 3. But the actual form and specification for the later tranches have not been defined - and it is hurting the aircraft's export chances.
Industry, the Eurofighter consortium and its supplier base, have defined and reasonably consistent views on how the aircraft should be developed, but the four partner governments - Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK - have so far failed to detail and fund more than a small piece of Tranche 2 and nothing of Tranche 3, which is due to enter service around 2010.
There are many proposals for the future aircraft. Tranche 2, whatever it becomes, will be the less ambitious upgrade, generally improving the aircraft's air-to-surface capabilities and refining the sensors and systems. Limited funding has been provided, albeit without fanfare, to develop the next mission computer - which was already under way using private venture capital and would be required anyway as an in-service upgrade of Tranche 1 Eurofighters.
Tranche 3 offers a major opportunity to radically develop the aircraft for a new decade. Although the industry wish-list is lengthy, it is not well considered and reflects the likely needs of future air combat aircraft - improved reach, operations within a network-centric battlespace and reduced radar and infrared cross-section, among others.If more radical upgrades are required, then there are also concepts.
It is the lack of government commitment, however, that is really damaging the programme. Australian defence minister Robert Hill says the decision to abandon the country's Air 6000 fighter competition and join the US-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme last month was because, in Australia's view, the potential competition in 2010 could not match the US aircraft.
In other words, Australia apparently does not believe that Eurofighter, or the Dassault Rafale for that matter, will mature or be developed in the way that industry intends and that the market needs. Canberra does not appear to believe that the Eurofighter governments are committed to developing the aircraft beyond 2006.
Any suggestion that Austria's selection of the Eurofighter Typhoon last week nulls Hill's claim is hollow. Austria was essentially seeking an "air-policing" aircraft - an air defence dedicated fighter. Vienna also needs newfighters to enter service in the next few years, not after 2010.
Austria is not the first export selection of Eurofighter, but previous interest has not led to contracts. Greece chose the fighter, but Athens later shelved the procurement (until after the 2004 Olympics) because of funding difficulties. Norway was believed to have selected the Typhoon before it cancelled its fighter competition in 2000.
Eurofighter development will cost the four nations around £19 billion ($12.7 million). One driver for funding the programme has been to maintain the high-technology aerospace and defence industries and to reduce reliance on the USA. Another intention was the development of a product that can be successful in the global export market. Now, just as Eurofighter is poised to enter service and appears to have some chance of being a world beater, the four governments appear perfectly happy tosquander that hard-won position.
It is true that Europe, even with the addition of France and Sweden - the continent's two other fighter manufacturing countries - cannot afford to develop another aircraft to compete with JSF, and therefore the USA, in the next decade. Europe does, however, have the basis for a competitor to JSF - the Tranche 3 Eurofighter. The list of potential technology inserts already reflects the likely requirements of tomorrow's battlefield, and without the partner nations funding at least some of these upgrades, Eurofighter will come nowhere near meeting its 40-year service life requirement.
The four nations need to begin funding Eurofighter Tranche 2 and 3 to protect their own investment. Ensuring that spending also helps sell the fighter cannot be a bad thing. At the very least a baseline configuration goal should be defined quickly and funding allocated. If the governments continue to drag their feet, it will begin to look like the effort and funding expended to get Eurofighter to full operational capability have been to no avail.
Source: Flight International
