National Defence Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Andrea Nappi]

Although the design started with a NATO requirement in 1986 and became operational in 2004, the first tranche of aircraft, namely the initial 148 machines, was mainly dedicated to the air-to-air role, with only a limited air-to-service capability. With the second tranche, the current standard that is now being delivered, we have significantly increased the growth capacity, memory capability of the computers, speed of the computers to allow the new air-to-ground capabilities to be embedded and still allow a lot of growth potential for the new weapons and the new sensors that we, together with our co-nations, are planning to integrate.

We have already established a program whereby, on a two-year basis, we have a package of capabilities to be released in service. We already have contracts for capabilities to be released in 2012, 2014, and we're about to discuss the requirements that would be integrated into the program in the years after.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Would you be offering Canada the tranche two airplane or the tranche three airplane?

[Andrea Nappi]

Virtually there is no difference in terms of hardware except from the progressive cure of obsolescence. In terms of capability, there is no difference between tranche two or tranche three aircraft. Of course, all newly built aircraft will have to be tranche three.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The tranche three aircraft has the electrically scanned radar, correct? That's had about five flights so far.

[Andrea Nappi]

The current standard of the aircraft does not have electronic scan radar. However, we have already started a program for developing and integrating an in-scan capability on the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the plan is to have this capability in the fleet by 2015.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Has any country bought or paid for or developed or committed to buying a tranche three aircraft yet?

[Andrea Nappi]

No, there is no formal commitment from any of the nations on in-scan radar. The initial study is being funded by industry, and we have a commitment to make progress on the activity on industry funds for a good part of 2011, when the nations will, I hope, have a common requirement for an in-scan radar capability to be integrated on the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You talk about stability of the price of the Typhoon. What's the fly-away cost of a Typhoon today?

[Andrea Nappi]

We are not in a position to comment here, because this is commercially sensitive data.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Would it be fair to say that, plus or minus, it's in the 120 million euro area?

[Andrea Nappi]

The fly-away price? That's far too high.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

How far too high?

[Andrea Nappi]

Far too high--more than 10%.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We do have information, sir, and it is not far from that.

[Andrea Nappi]

We're talking about the fly-away price, not system price.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No, I understand.

Do you want to talk about stealth for a second? We talked about that.

Mr. Worning, as I said, Billy and Ricardo pass on their regards, something about ice-cold aquavit and room temperature raw fish. I don't know what that means.

In any event, in looking at that airplane, it looks pretty clean until you look at the intakes. What role does the front face of the engine play in terms of radar reflectivity?

[Andrea Nappi]

I can respond to that, because in my early days as an engineer I was working on this very subject. The duct is shaped to avoid direct view of the engine. This is one element. We have provisions for allowing the insertion of radar-absorbing material in the duct so we could further reduce the signature of the engine. We also have the mechanical provisions to insert a vane that would split the duct to further reduce the visibility of the front end.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I want to turn to the other picture in your book here, with a fully loaded Typhoon with all the external stores, which, obviously, to do a mission you would need to carry. That doesn't look very stealthy to me.

[Andrea Nappi]

Well, as Chris was saying before, what you really want is the survivability of your aircraft, because of the money costs, because of the life it carries, and all sorts of reasons. The survivability is the result of observability, so low observability, but also the capability to escape once you have been detected.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's not very low observability.

[Andrea Nappi]

And relying only on the low observability may be a fatal mistake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nappi.

I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.

So that I'm clear, on the high-level mandatory requirements, you said you could meet all of the DND requirements, and if there had been a competition, you would have been able to compete based on those requirements.

[Andrea Nappi]

Confirmed.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

You were never formally ever asked by DND, by the government, at any time to provide any information that would help them in their decision-making?