In the 80s, the American light single-engine fighter General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon dominated the air forces of the European NATO countries. For the sake of fairness, it must be admitted that one of the first fighters of the 4th generation, operating since 1979, turned out to be very successful and enjoyed success on the international arms market. Due to its versatility and relatively low cost, the F-16 is currently the most massive 4th generation fighter (as of mid-2016, more than 4,500 units were built).
F-16 sales were expanded thanks to a flexible marketing policy, the production of fighters was carried out not only in the United States, but also abroad. So, in Belgium, 164 aircraft were assembled for the NATO Air Force. And the Turkish company TAI collected 308 American F-16s under license. A certain share of the fighter and fighter-bombers market was controlled by the French company Dassault Aviation with its Mirage 5, Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000. Until the end of the 90s, France pursued a foreign policy independent of the United States and had a weighty say in Europe. At various times, the products of the "Dassault" company were in service with the air forces of the NATO countries: Belgium, Greece and Spain.
Naturally, such industrially developed countries as Great Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, which in the past had already implemented a number of joint aviation programs, wanted to get their own "piece of the pie" on the European arms market. The fighter fleet of their own air forces in these countries also required updating. At the end of the 70s, the main NATO fighters in Europe were machines of the first and second generation, which entered service in large quantities in the 50-60s: in the FRG F-104G and F-4F, in the UK F-4K / M and Lightning F.6., In Italy F-104S and G-91Y.
The Panavia Tornado fighter-bomber and the interceptor created at its base in Great Britain, with all their advantages, were very expensive and could not adequately withstand the promising Soviet 4th generation fighters in air combat. The F-16A / B proposed by the Americans in the early 80s was mainly focused on solving shock problems, and then carried only melee missiles, and the Europeans needed an aircraft with comparable flight data, but with an average-range missile defense system and a long range.
In the mid-70s in Great Britain, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, projects of promising fighters were created independently of each other. Although the design considered the classic layout with a moderately swept wing, designs with a delta or deltoid wing, made according to the "canard" scheme, predominated.
Three projects started working in Great Britain at once. The fighter, known as the C.96, resembled the American McDonnell Douglas F / A-18 Hornet in layout, but it was rejected due to low design data and lack of modernization potential. The C.106 project was conceptually and externally similar to the JAS 39 Gripen fighter, which appeared much later. This light single-engine vehicle was to be armed with a built-in 27mm cannon and two Sky Flash missiles. The maximum design speed corresponded to 1, 8M, takeoff weight - about 10 tons. But this option did not suit the military due to the small combat load and the short range. Aerodynamically, the C.106 was similar to the C.110. But the C.110 aircraft was designed with two engines, it had to have high speed, payload and range.
Hawker Siddeley P.110 fighter model
In Germany, MVV and Dornier, in cooperation with the American Northrop Corporation, worked on the TKF-90 multipurpose fighter project, which was close to the British C.110 in terms of the canard aerodynamic configuration and design flight data. The TKF-90 was built to meet Luftaff's requirements for a 90s air superiority fighter (JF-90). A mock-up of the aircraft was first shown publicly in 1980 at an air show in Hanover. It was to be a two-keel fighter with a deltoid wing and two RB.199 turbojets.
This is what the West German TKF-90 fighter should have looked like.
But unlike the British project, it was a car with a high coefficient of novelty. Looking from the heights of the past years, one is amazed at the optimism of the West Germans. For 5-7 years, they planned to create a statically unstable super-maneuverable fighter with an EDSU, an engine with a deflected thrust vector and with modern avionics and weapons. In addition, this aircraft was supposed to have shortened takeoff and landing.
The French advanced quite far in the design of a new fighter of a new generation: at the aviation exhibition in Le Bourget, a mock-up of a fighter was demonstrated, on which it was planned to use two of the latest American General Electric F404 engines at that time. The fighter was primarily focused on fighting air superiority and providing air defense. It was distinguished by relative simplicity, had a low takeoff weight and high thrust-to-weight ratio, good takeoff and landing characteristics. The armament was to include medium-range air-to-air missiles. It also provided for the creation of a deck version for the Navy.
In 1979, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) and British Aerospace (BAe) jointly invited their governments to start work on the ECF (European Collaborative Fighter) program. In the same year, Dassault expressed interest in joining the program. It was at this stage of the project that the name Eurofighter was officially assigned to the aircraft.
In 1981, the governments of Great Britain, Germany and Italy decided to join forces and use the developed theoretical and technical solutions to create a single promising combat aircraft. A year later, at the Farnborough Air Show, a full-scale wooden mock-up of a fighter built by the British BAe was presented.
ASA fighter model
He received the designation ACA (Agile Combat Aircraft - Highly maneuverable combat aircraft). According to plans, this aircraft in the late 80s was to replace the Tornado fighter-bomber in serial production. It was assumed that this would be a relatively simple and inexpensive fighter, with a normal take-off weight of about 15 tons, developing a maximum flight speed of 2M, capable of surpassing most existing machines of its class in maneuverable combat. In order to accelerate the implementation and reduce the cost of the project, it was planned to use a number of components and assemblies of the Tornado aircraft. Using TRDDF RB. 199-34 Mk. 104 with an afterburner thrust of 8000 kgf was supposed to provide a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than one.
However, it soon became clear that the parties had too different ideas about what kind of combat aircraft they needed. The research participants were never able to work out general requirements. The Royal Air Force wanted a medium-weight multi-role fighter capable of aerial combat, interception and strike operations at sea. France needed a light supersonic fighter-bomber with a takeoff weight of up to 10 tons, capable of maneuvering air combat. The Luftwaffe wanted a fighter to gain air superiority; there were quite enough strike vehicles in the FRG. Due to disagreements, no specific decisions were made and consultations continued.
But in comparison with the Panavia Tornado project, negotiations on the conclusion of an intergovernmental agreement on the beginning of practical work were very sluggish. At the end of 1983, the parties at the level of the chiefs of staff of the Air Forces of Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy and Spain managed to agree on the basic requirements for a new aircraft called EFA (European Fighter Aircraft - European fighter aircraft).
In the early 80s, the air forces of the European NATO countries had quite sophisticated attack vehicles: Jaguar, Alpha Jet and Tornado, but there was no own light fighter that could compete with the American F-15 and F-16 in air combat … In addition to the high thrust-to-weight ratio and the presence of a large thrust reserve when flying in cruise mode, the new aircraft had to have a high angular turn rate at subsonic and supersonic speeds. A promising fighter was supposed to have the ability to conduct missile combat at medium distances while maintaining the ability to strike at ground targets. Based on the experience of conflicts in the Middle East and Southeast Asia in the 60s and 80s, it was decided to significantly increase the number of air combat missiles on board.
The formation of the appearance of the EFA aircraft was completed in the second half of 1986. Numerous developments obtained by the Europeans in previous projects were implemented in a promising fighter. But the final technical appearance was determined by the specialists of the British British Aerospace. It was a single-seat twin-engine, statically unstable duck-type aircraft with an all-revolving PGO equipped with an EDSU. An innovation is the so-called "smiling" unregulated ventral air intake, which has a lower RCS compared to the rectangular air intake. According to calculations, this aircraft layout in combination with a statically unstable layout and EDSU should have provided a reduction in drag and an increase in lift by 30-35%. During the design, measures were introduced to reduce radar signature, reducing the likelihood of hitting missiles was ensured by the DASS jamming system (Defense Aids Sub System).
Particular attention was paid to reducing the cost of the life cycle of the new fighter, as well as autonomy in combat conditions, reducing vulnerability, increasing reliability and maintainability. When shaping the technical appearance and characteristics of the EFA, much higher requirements and standards were applied compared to early European combat aircraft projects.
However, even at the design stage, serious contradictions arose between the parties. The French have once again become troublemakers. Representatives of this country insisted on using French-made engines, besides, they wanted to get a fighter with a lower take-off weight, since they also envisaged the creation of a deck version. Negotiations on this issue came to an impasse, in August 1985 France refused to further joint work and Dassault began an independent development of the Rafale fighter.
By that time, 180 million pounds sterling had already been spent on the work under the EFA program, the main financial burden was borne by the UK. At the conclusion of the agreement on the EFA program, it was envisaged that the costs would be divided equally between the governments of the participating countries and the development companies, but the West German and Italian governments were in no hurry to allocate funds, and the main expenses of £ 100 million fell on the industrialists.
Eurofighter consortium logo
In 1986, the consortium Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH was officially registered in Munich. The costs of research and construction of prototypes were divided between the countries in proportion to their projected purchases: Germany and Great Britain 33% each, Italy - 21%, Spain - 13%. The consortium includes companies: Deutsche Aerospace AG (Germany), BAe (Great Britain), Aeritalia (Italy), and СASA (Spain).
The Eurojet Turbo GmbH consortium was registered for the development and production of EJ200 aircraft engines by the British company Rolls-Royce and the West German MTU Aero Engines AG in Hallbergmoos near Munich. Later it was joined by the Italian Avio SpA and the Spanish ITP.
EJ200 aircraft engine
In the design of the engine for "Eurofighter" the main "locomotive" was the British company Rolls-Royce, which had extensive experience in the design and manufacture of aircraft engines. West German firm MTU Aero Engines AG, a subsidiary of MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH, known as a developer and manufacturer of diesel and gas turbines, began developing aircraft engines after the industrial giant Daimler-Benz acquired Deutsche Aerospace AG. This division of the Daimler-Benz concern possessed an impressive high-class machine park and modern technologies for processing metals and alloys, without which, of course, it was impossible to create a modern aircraft engine. The Italian firm Avio SpA and the Spanish ITP were responsible for the design and manufacture of attachments and accessories and engine management systems.
As already mentioned, the main financial burden and most of the technical research at the first stage of the project were taken by the British. In 1986, British Aerospace began testing the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Program).
This prototype was created to test new technical solutions and as a technology demonstrator. The EAP aircraft, like the projected Eurofighter, had a "duck" scheme, and its design had a high percentage of assemblies and parts made of composite materials and titanium alloys. On the creation of this machine in the UK spent 25 million pounds sterling. The second prototype was supposed to be built in Germany, but the German leadership did not allocate funds for this. However, after successful tests, the "partners" partially compensated for the costs. The share of Great Britain was 75%, Italy - 17% and Germany - 8%. In general, West Germany turned out to be the weakest link in the program for creating a "European fighter" - repeatedly putting the project in jeopardy or delaying implementation due to disputes over technical details and the amount of funding.
British Aerospace EAP experimental aircraft
It is safe to say that without the British experimental aircraft EAP, the Eurofighter would never have taken place. For the first time, the plane took off on August 8, 1986 from the Wharton factory airfield. The prototype was equipped with RB.199-104D engines, the same as on the British interceptor Tornado ADV. Already in the first test flight, the EAP exceeded the speed of sound. And in September it reached a speed of 2M. The EDSU was tested on the plane and proved its full performance. They also tested new cockpit equipment, which included multifunctional displays, which were used instead of the usual dial gauges and indicator lights.
Demonstration flight of an EAP aircraft at the Farnborough Airshow
The first public display of the EAP experimental aircraft took place in September 1986 at the Farnborough Air Show. During test flights, which lasted until May 1, 1991, the aircraft took off 259 times, demonstrating high reliability and excellent maneuverability. Although the built-in and suspended weapons on the EAP aircraft were not initially provided, at public displays it took to the air with mock-ups of the Sky Flash and Sidewinder air combat missiles.
After successful tests of the EAP, which showed very encouraging results, in 1988 a contract was signed for the construction of pre-production Eurofighters. Design work continued over the next five years using data from the EAP trials. The initial order after the end of the tests provided for the construction of 765 fighters. By country it was distributed as follows: Great Britain 250 aircraft, Germany - 250, Italy - 165 and Spain -100.
Compared to the experimental vehicle, the EFA fighter has undergone a number of changes. Externally, the most noticeable difference was the delta wing with a sweep angle of 53 ° (the EAP had a delta wing with variable sweep). The EAP aircraft, which was tested in the vicinity of air bases, did not need a long flight range. On the pre-production prototypes, the fuel supply on board was significantly increased. Fuel tanks are located in the fuselage and wing consoles. Several drop tanks can be placed on external nodes. There is an in-air refueling system. The share of carbon fiber reinforced plastics in the EFA aircraft under construction has increased, significant changes have been made to the design of the canopy and the layout of the cockpit, which significantly improved the visibility. The fuselage and wings of the aircraft are 70% composed of composite materials, the rest is aluminum and titanium alloys. The high proportion of composite materials in the airframe provides a low ESR. The aircraft cannot be called completely invisible, but its visibility in the radar spectrum is significantly reduced.
EAP and EFA projections
In 1990, the project stalled due to fierce disputes between Great Britain and Germany regarding the fighter's radar. The Germans categorically insisted on the installation of the MSD 2000 station on the Eurofighter, which is a joint development of the American corporation Hughes Aircraft Company and the German company Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft AG. The design of the MSD 2000 radar had much in common with the AN / APG-65 radar installed on the F / A-18 Hornet.
Exhibition sample of radar ECR-90
The British wanted to have a much more promising radar with AFAR ECR-90 from Ferranti Defense Systems for fighters. The parties managed to agree after the British Defense Secretary Tom King assured his West German counterpart Gerhard Stoltenberg that the British government would allow German companies to participate in the production of the radar.
However, the elimination of the "Soviet military threat" and the reduction of the defense budgets of NATO countries severely slowed down the progress of the project. After the unification of Germany and the replenishment of the Luftwaffe with MiG-29 fighters from the GDR Air Force, many in the Bundestag generally doubted the advisability of continuing the Eurofighter program. A number of German politicians expressed the opinion that it would be wiser to leave the consortium, receive an additional batch of MiGs from Russia to pay off its external debt, and conclude a service agreement. Yes, and in Great Britain, which was the main financial and technical "tractor" of the project, against the background of decreasing military spending and cutting the air force, the need to build and adopt a new fighter for service seemed dubious to many. In turn, the United States, trying not to miss out on a potential market, lobbied hard for its F-15, F-16 and F / A-18 fighters, offering them on credit and at preferential prices. As a result, the project implementation process practically stopped for about two years, and its future “hung in the air”.
