RAF 2008

[Mike]

You've gotta laugh, haven't you?

Why do they insist on putting people in charge of these decisions who obviously don't have the first clue about what they're doing? It's not like removing the faglighter from their company Jag... it's a bit more complicated to remove a gun from a cutting edge technology aircraft.

[miduppergunner]

You've gotta laugh, haven't you?

Why do they insist on putting people in charge of these decisions who obviously don't have the first clue about what they're doing? It's not like removing the faglighter from their company Jag... it's a bit more complicated to remove a gun from a cutting edge technology aircraft.

That is precisely the intention... those people are carefully chosen - so that their knowledge does not introduce does not introduce complications - like "good ideas"!!

[Mike]

That is precisely the intention... those people are carefully chosen - so that their knowledge does not introduce does not introduce complications - like "good ideas"!!

Aye... seems to be the trend in all British Management these days... was that the 12" remix version?

[Osher]

I believe in the end common sense prevailed (maybe the treasury had a brain wave, and spoke to the RAF?), and added back the deleted Mauser?

[Richard M]

I believe the decision was made to buy the mauser because to replace it with the necessary weight (concrete ballast) and rewrite the software would cost more than the actual cannons. But not to use them or have amminition for them.

Following experience in Iraq and Afghanistan the wisdom is that a gun is necessary so the decision was made to buy ammunition for it. Of course you still need to have money for training and practice, which I believe is an issue.

Best

Rich

[XV107]

After a certain Air Marshal decided to sacrifice the gun to the whims of the beancounters, the RAF embarked upon a cunning phased campaign to get it back. Under the original plan, Tranche 1 airframes would all get the gun, but no ammo, tools, etc, etc would be procured to support it. Tranches 2 and 3 would not have the gun.

The RAF then raised the issue of the FCS needing to have something there, and after much sucking of teeth, the beancounters were persuaded that it would be cheaper to put the 27mm cannon in there, rather than go out and re-write the FCS for the RAF airframes, or to procure special lumps of ballast.

Then, having ensured that the gun was back for all the airframes, the RAF set about getting the ammo. They were helped here by the USAF.USN/USMC strafing away merrily in Afghanistan and Iraq, and made a 'robust business case' that ammo was needed for the gun, which has led to the decision to restore the capability. Although this is currently being expressed as being under consideration, the annecdotal evidence would suggest that enough Air Marshals have said 'the gun is back as a capability' for it to have reached the point where the MoD would look ridiculous if it decided that the funding wasn't there to do it.

[PHREAK]

We need Phantoms!.

Should have followed the likes of Greece,Germany and Turkey and upgraded rather than scrap.

Im sure a FGR.2+ with glass cockpit,upgraded radar,Amraam,GPS etc would have served the RAF well.

Sadly it seems as soon as well develop an aircraft to the specs the design always promised the beancounters s**tcan them....The Jaguar being the most recent.

Yeah....what he said!

[entlim]

Just take the Jag as a prime example..................

[Eric2020]

I still wonder why the RAF needed this Tys*** thing. It is very much overprized! It was delayed several times, and none of the endusers will have full capabillity of this thing. I attended several press meetings, and there was at that time already an load of problems on this aircraft and counties leaving the project.

An very good solution would have been to buy F-15E E for England

It was there on time, at least much sooner than Tiffy. Does have internal gun to good effect. It carriers an full load of GBU's and AMRAAM. No problems on software and directly ready of the productionlines in St. Louis.

After 2 wars it is still very much an wanted aircraft, and above all the US congress wants more Strike Eagles than they allow F-22's

just my 2 cents

Edited October 23, 2007 by Eric2020

[Gary West]

An very good solution would have been to buy F-15E E for England

Completely disagree Eric- maybe financially this could have made sense (?) but apart from the F-15E & Typhoon being completely different aircraft (you would have had to include the F-15C or F-16 too presumably, to carry out the air supremecy role), for me one reason only is good enough to have developed Typhoon - the British Military Aircraft Industry. Yes this is a joint venture, but without it our Industry sinks further down the swanny. EVERYTHING British is over budget, and late, building developments etc - it's our British way of doing things.....sadly.

[XV107]

Also have to disagree, and similarly strongly. Typhoon wipes the rear end of the F-15E in air-to-air and - most importantly for the RAF - costs rather less to run than the F-15.

I don't know which press breifing Eric attended, but the only country to leave the Typhoon project was France and that was before anyone had realised that FEFA could be turned into 'Five Europeans F'ing About' rather than 'Future European Fighter Aircraft'. Greece cancelled its order because it could either build the Olympic stadium or have Typhoons, but not both. Singapore decided it couldn't trust BAE to deliver Tranche 2 standard aircraft in time, despite the fact (whisper it gently, because we'll be invaded by Rafale fans to deny it...) that the Singaporean AF chaps who flew in Typhoon wanted it ahead of the F-15.

Typhoon's delays were caused almost entirely by politics. Volker Ruhe thought that cancelling the aircraft would help win him the job as German Chancellor, and this vascillation added at least four years delay as the contract signatures slipped; the demand that a German firm be given the lead on development of the FCS added yet more (German firm, with commendable honesty, had a bash, decided it didn't have the full range of expertise, and Marconi [as was] ended up playing a much larger part in proceedings than the German government had hoped)

Not sure what you mean by 'none of the end-users will have full capability' either, Eric, since that depends upon funding rather than the aircraft; and it'd be exactly the same problem for the F-15E. I can't see dear old Prudence Brown signing up to AGM-130, GBU-15, SBD, GBU-28, etc, etc or happily signing the large cheque that would've been needed to get Storm Shadow, ASRAAM, Brimstone and possibly EPW and PW4 integrated on UK F-15Es.

Also, given a choice, fantastic aircraft though the F-15E is, I would take the view of colleagues who ought to know that given the choice of the aircraft in which to go to war, they'd take Typhoon every time. Well, apart from the Navs, obviously...

Edited October 23, 2007 by XV107

[AnonymousA667]

I still wonder why the RAF needed this Tys*** thing. It is very much overprized!

Murph and Waco who post on Another Forum both rate the Typhoon very highly. They should know about these things, they fly the latest generation US fast jets. I would like to see this myth dispelled that the Typhoon is a piece of crap - there are quite a few people who are saying it is not.

peebeep

[Tim]

The Typhoon is actually an excellent piece of kit. The entry into service is taking time because of things like the Saudi order, but at least they're gradually trickling through. The only remaining question is whether the final batch will be delivered, or whether they'll be dumped in order to finance the F35. The jury's still out on this one, as some (like myself) think we may well ultimately "navalise" some Typhoons for carrier ops (an option which isn't as complicated or expensive as people imagine, according to British Aerospace), whilst others think we'll press ahead with the J35 order which will probably mean the Typhoon purchases will be rather fewer. Certainly there's no obvious reason to take either option so the final choice will inevitably be a political one.

As for the Harriers, they're still very much in business and will remain so probably for maybe another decade. The Jaguars are all gone (tragically), and the Tornado F3's will now soldier-on for another six years or so it seems. The GR4's look set to remain in business for the forseeable future - there doesn't even seem to be an out-of-service date on the horizon as yet. The Nimrods are gradually coming along (I can vouch for that 'cause I went to see them on the conversion line a few weeks back!), and the new Batch of Hawks is on the way - even though it seems to be rather fewer aircraft than the RAF realistically needs. The Chinooks are finally being upgraded for entry into service at last, and the tanker/transport saga seems to have almost been settled, unlike the Airbus transport which still seems as far-off as ever.

The Sea King units will be going before too long, and even the Tucano's nearing the end of it's life. Guess the Dominie's may well go eventually if the training is outsourced. It's all a rather sad business when the RAF is busier than it's ever been, but as ever, the whole mess is politically driven.

As for the Apaches, even though they belong to the Army, they might well end-up sharing ramp space with RAF and Navy machines eventually if the rumoured plan to make Lyneham into a JHC "superbase" go ahead!

[Eric2020]

I for one like it very much that the UK has and keeps its own aviation industry! For tiffy it is other other story. Why buy an aircraft which is not able to hold the latest weapons unless you sign an contract for the later comming Trance 2???? Over here in the Netherlands it is almost certain that we get the Joint Strike fighter. That is because our air force and industry work together on many levels. Typhoon for us is simply too expensive and the others do not count at all. We do not get any compensation which is needed for the Dutch industry.

Hopefully Typhoon will be ready early next year when it goes to Afganistan. And do not think I dislike the shape of Typhoon, but I purely look at the systems and that they have to work at all times.

We will also get an Joint Helikopter Base, and the base will hold Apache, cougar :shithappens: Chinook and the arriving NH-90 also way too late and Lynx, yes British!!

[AnonymousER99]

But the Harrier Gr9 is only afew years old and the first Tornado Gr4 flight was in 97.

The only 'old' frontline aircraft we have is the F3 and that's only about 20 years old.

Think of some other frontline aircraft and they're not really that modern either. F-16 and F/A-18 both first flew in 1978 and even the Mirage 2000 was introduced into service 23 years ago!

Lets not forget the Mighty Eagle which is 30 plus years old and still holds its own!!

[Gary West]

The Chinooks are finally being upgraded for entry into service at last,

Meaning the HC.3's?

[XV107]

For tiffy it is other other story. Why buy an aircraft which is not able to hold the latest weapons unless you sign an contract for the later comming Trance 2????

Eric - there is absolutely no reason why the Tranche 1 airframes can't carry the 'latest weapons'. You're mistaking incrememental integration of capabilities and funding for aircraft capability. If the government of any partner nation had wanted, say, Storm Shadow integrating on the Tranche 1 airframes, that could have been done. It would've required specific reference in the contract for this, and partner nations chose not to do so for service entry. It made far more sense to bring the aircraft into service with its air-to-air capability as the main concern before moving onto T2, which will bring in more weapons.

The answer to your question is 'because that's the way the partner nations decided to bring the aircraft into service'. If the RAF had F-15Cs rather than Tornado F3s, there'd have been a strong chance that the RAF's Tranche 1 airframes would've had a wider range of AG weapons integrated from the start; it appeared that replacing the F3/F-104/F-4F was more urgent, so T1 majors on air-air capability. Planning for incremental development and integration of kit, weapons and capabilities is common sense, not some failure with the aircraft design.

[Tim]

Problem is that people get bogged-down with magazine-speak. Ultimately, a Typhoon is a Typhoon, and obviously any airframe can be upgraded or re-roled as necessary. There's way too much gossip about the Typhoon amongst ill-informed enthusiasts, which is simply feeding the old rumour mill and creating all kinds of bizarre misconceptions, when in reality it's a great aircraft. I'm reminded of all the flack that the poor Tornado F3 used to receive (still does sometimes) even though it too was (and is) an excellent aircraft. The F3 did precisely what it was designed to do, and did it very well. As we know, the proverbial goalposts were changed and the F3 was simply ill-suited for the mission (or at least some of the missions) it was given. That doesn't make the aircraft in any way deficient though, it just illustrates the government's poor procurement abilities - again! I think the same applies with the Typhoon, in that it could be argued that the aircraft can do this or can't do that, but the basic airframe is a good piece of kit - the rest is down to decision-making on precisely what the RAF (or more precisely the government) want the aircraft to do and how much money they're prepared to spend.

Oh and yes Gary I meant the infamous HC3's!

Edited October 23, 2007 by Tim

[spike7451]

The GR5 entered RAF service with No 1 squadron in September 1992.

The front wheel collapsed on a Tiffie last year Daz, after it touched down at Coningsby - no big deal though

Think you've got the dates a bit muddled,I was on my A-EOD course at Wittering in 1989 & the Harrier GR5 was in service then.The was still GR3's on the ramp but more GR5's.

Merv

[Ian]

whilst others think we'll press ahead with the J35 order which will probably mean the Typhoon purchases will be rather fewer.

Wow.... we're getting DRAKEN'S.... when ??

Ian

[Ian]

The Sea King units will be going before too long,

2012.... according to the SAR crew I was with a couple weeks ago. But as referred to many times on this thread, these things can change in a New York minute !

Ian

[Gary West]

2012.... according to the SAR crew I was with a couple weeks ago. But as referred to many times on this thread, these things can change in a New York

Ian - keep your ear to the ground. I heard a rumour that the 84 sqn Griffin that's over here at the moment from Cyprus, is partly being evaluated for UK SAR use. I'd love to know if that was true or not?