New Typhoon designation

[Stephen]

According to the January AFM,the Block 5 Typhoons are now known as the T3 and FGR4 due to their multi-role capabilities.

Stephen

[Gary West]

I heard this too - lets hope the FGR's get a new scheme as well

[GrahamEM]

I heard this too - lets hope the FGR's get a new scheme as well

I'm itching to do one in another scheme, how long would it take for the decals to be produced when a new scheme is introduced ?

[Stephen]

Guys,

there isn't a new scheme just a change in designation. The 11Sqn Typhoons are still in the standard camouflage scheme.

Stephen

[Gary West]

The 11Sqn Typhoons are still in the standard camouflage scheme.

Oh yeah, forgetting that 11 are now a multi role unit. So lets hope we get one then.

[falcon]

Noticed the other day on the UK Serials website that later block 5 Typhoons were being called Typhoon FGR.4's. At that time I did think it was a typo. The website also states that some of the T.1's are now designated T.1A's.

Edited December 13, 2007 by falcon

[Bobski]

Noticed the other day on the UK Serials website that later block 5 Typhoons were being called Typhoon FGR.4's. At that time I did think it was a typo. The website also states that some of the T.1's are now designated T.1A's.

The T.1A designation is due to improvements in the fuel system (something to do with flow from the external tanks I was told).

Heard about the new designation the other week in our internal brief. It's about time we had some interesting designations again...

[zeke]

It's surprising how a little bit of news like that is actually quite a pick-me-up.

I wouldn't have thought that I actually cared that much really but as soon as I read that I actually smiled and thought to myself about the lineage from the Phantom FGR.2's and all that and it keeps the traditions going a bit...very good...

although I do wish they'd junk those stupid 'pink' national markings!...god I hate them!......and while I'm having a moan...can we please have them back in all 6 positions and not follow the Americanized (spelling) way of only on one wing?

Looks great on the Yankee planes we all love so much...but does nothing for our little roundels at all...I thank you...mutter, grummble, gibber...

Edited December 14, 2007 by zeke

[Gary West]

can we please have them back in all 6 positions and not follow the Americanized (spelling) way of only on one wing?

Looks great on the Yankee planes we all love so much...but does nothing for our little roundels at all...I thank you...mutter, grummble, gibber...

Defence spending cuts...... You wait until 2020, RAF planes will only have one roundal and that will be below the belly saying "aim here" cos we can't afford bloody weapons.

And put squadron markings back on squadron aircraft - B****x to pooled aircraft.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Gary West

[GrahamEM]

although I do wish they'd junk those stupid 'pink' national markings!...god I hate them!......

Why did they change from royal blue and red to light blue and pink ?

It looks gay and it's only the fearsome look of aircraft like the new Typhoon that save the blushes of the RAF and their pilots.

[Gary West]

Why did they change from royal blue and red to light blue and pink ?

They tone in much better with the Barley Grey schemes - the darker roundels stick out a bit against that colur Grey.

[tompot]

And put squadron markings back on squadron aircraft - B****x to pooled aircraft.

I agree with you on this, I heard that it was due to spending cuts. No regard about what happens to squadron morale, pride and esprit de corps.

[Vickers McFunbus]

Why did they change from royal blue and red to light blue and pink ?

Camoflage. Not that you wouldn't have noticed of heard the 50ft long jet aeroplane by the time you got close enough to see the tiny weenie roundel...

[Tim]

The saga of the pink/lilac roundels was just one of many flirtations with fashion that has affected the RAF (and every other air arm) over the years. It's hard to work-out where these things start but it seems pretty clear that it was all down to a Mr Keith Ferris, an artist who drew-up some low-visibility camouflage schemes for the US Navy. They were warmly received and of course the result was that the US Navy embarked on their low-vis craze which persists even to this day. The tragic aspect of the story was that every other air arm, presumably in an attempt to jump on the same bandwagon and keep-up with the US, also began obsessing with low visibility, and so the RAF began experimenting with grey paint schemes and toned-down roundels.

Of course, low-visibility is entirely subjective, and a colour scheme that works well in one patch of sky, doesn't necessarily work well in another. In truth there's no "ideal" camouflage scheme and there never will be, when aircraft are obliged to perform different tasks in different locations. The absurdity of this business is that camouflage isn't even necessary for most aircraft which will almost never be in a situation where any minor concessions to visibility would be of any consequence. As the instructors at Valley used to say (when the Hawks were grey), the paint didn't matter in any way, but it made the Hawks look like "warplanes" which was good for the student's morale. In truth, the whole saga is simply one of fashion, a bit like the new craze for adding titles. Most of these fads come and go but the obsession with greys and low-vis markings has lingered-on for much longer than most of these passing trends, so it's certainly overstayed its welcome.

It's a safe bet that the dull, homogenised unit markings on the Typhoons won't last forever. Sooner or later somebody will break the proverbial mould and then the novelty of having every unit's markings presented in the same style will no longer excite anyone, and then we will hopefully see some interesting variations. It may well be that the pink/lilac markings eventually go too, if the Typhoons follow the F3 units and adopt the darker grey paint scheme with red/blue roundels.

Oh, and while I agree with Graham that the low-vis roundels are dull (in every sense of the word), I think describing them as "gay" is a bit much! I'll try not to take offence *picks up handbag and flounces off*

Edited December 14, 2007 by Tim

[PHREAK]

FGR....now that sounds like music to my ears!

[hatchet]

Oh dammit! In my whiffing mind, the Mk.4 would have been FA and the FGR would have been the Mk.5 - a twin-seat fighter-bomber(Tornado replacement ) in dark green - dark sea grey wrap!

Seriously, I'm glad to see it get a new designation, I thought the MoD would have stayed with F. and ignored the multi-role capabilities, designation-wise. Such a great system the British one, much more adaptable than the American system.

[MikeC]

Oh dammit! In my whiffing mind, the Mk.4 would have been FA and the FGR would have been the Mk.5 - a twin-seat fighter-bomber(Tornado replacement ) in dark green - dark sea grey wrap!

... I thought the MoD would have stayed with F. and ignored the multi-role capabilities, designation-wise. ...

Why? The role desig is the role desig, if it's a Fighter it's "F", if it's Fighter Ground-attack Reconnaissance it's "FGR", why would the MoD, who probably devised and mandated the system in the first place, ignore it?

[hatchet]

Why? The role desig is the role desig, if it's a Fighter it's "F", if it's Fighter Ground-attack Reconnaissance it's "FGR", why would the MoD, who probably devised and mandated the system in the first place, ignore it?

"Feared", not "thought" would have been the right word, oops. The reason would be politics, i.e. 'let's not tell anyone it's upgraded, they might think we're using too much money'. Also, they're not too concerned about following it to the letter. Case in point, the Tornado; one could argue, that only the GR.4A (and GR.1A before it) had any real recce capability, yet they were all designated "GR." for Ground-attack and Reconnaissance. The normal, if you will, GR.1/4 should have been either GA. or FB. (FB. hasn't been used for a long time tho'). I also seem to remember, that only fairly few of the Phantom FGR.2s were actually capable of carrying the recce-pod. Hence, the RAF-birds, save for the ones with the wiring for the pod, should have been FG. or FGA.2. One could also argue, that a new designation should have been thought up for the Tornado GR.1B - maybe GMA. for Ground and Maritime Attack. And I would have liked to have seen the SEAD-capable Tornado F.3s being designated as either F(WW).3 or F.3(WW)

[WolvoWill]

FGR would be fine if the Typhoon block 5 had any real recce capability, but from what I've read thus far, it doesn't! So why not FA4?

[Gary West]

So why not FA4?

Wouldn't that be FGA.4?

Hmm I think we need XV107 to let us know the score

Edited December 15, 2007 by Gary West

[XV107]

Arguably, when it's fitted with the Litening III pod, the Typhoon will have a limited recce capability in that it'll be able to perform NTISR (Non-Traditional ISR) sorties.

The point is that although it may not have the capability at the moment, it is intended to integrate some form of recce pod (JRP/RAPTOR - will that have to be renamed RAPTOROON?), so the R-designator isn't inappropritate.

Why not 'A' - because it doesn't have the ability to deliver parachutists. The RN forgot that the 'A' designator when added to the SHAR as F/A 2 in fact meant Fighter/Airborne Forces... Whether this is why it became the SHAR FA2 without the oblique between the letters is open to conjecture.

Edited December 15, 2007 by XV107

[hatchet]

Why not 'A' - because it doesn't have the ability to deliver parachutists. The RN forgot that the 'A' designator when added to the SHAR as F/A 2 in fact meant Fighter/Airborne Forces... Whether this is why it became the SHAR FA2 without the oblique between the letters is open to conjecture.

Well hot damn, that's the first time I've heard that the oblique is used officially by the MoD! I always thought it was some sort of "Americanisation", like when people write F-3 Tornado

BTW XV107, how come it's 'AH.' for Army Helicopter, when all other, from what I can see, helicopter designations start with the H?

Edited December 15, 2007 by hatchet

[Tim]

I've never heard anything about there being an "A" designation for Airborne Forces - where did you hear that? Surely, delivery of said people would be performed either by a helicopter ("H") or transport aircraft ("C") ? Likewise, how does a helicopter designation like "AH" denote Airborne Forces?

[Dave Fleming]

I've never heard anything about there being an "A" designation for Airborne Forces - where did you hear that? Surely, delivery of said people would be performed either by a helicopter ("H") or transport aircraft ("C") ? Likewise, how does a helicopter designation like "AH" denote Airborne Forces?

Goes back to WW2 and the Halifax etc. But then, it was consistent to use it for A for attack with Hunter and Sea Hawk designations (FGA), if not in A for Army as in AH (ARmy helicopter) or AL for Army Liason - or A in Airborne for AEW

But the truth is these designator letters mean whatever the MOD wants them to mean at the time they are allocated! It's not like the US system where each letter is consistent (albeit with some exceptions). AEW for example has letters that mean different things when used in other circumstances!

So we have gone from GA for Ground attack to just G (Phantom FG1), then GR where the aircraft had a duel recce role (Harrier, Jaguar). Then came the Tornado GR1, but the recce version was GR1A, so the GR was claimed to stand for GRound attack!! (Should have been G1 and GR1A)

Or the Phantom F-4J(UK) - couldn't call that Fmk3 in case people get mixed up with the Tornado.

There are other examples where the same letter has been used for dis-similar purposes - HAS for Helicopter Anti-submarine, and S for Strike; HAR for Rescue, R for Recce; E in AEW for Early, or E for Electronic (Andover E mk 3)

Edited December 15, 2007 by Dave Fleming

[Tim]

Halifaxes? Hmm, if it was a WWII designation it's little wonder that it's long since been forgotten I guess! Anyway, I agree that the designation business is full of exceptions and oddities. The F-4K should have been FGA1 and I guess the Tornado should have been GA1 and GR2 or, to be pedantic, just the GR1 designation which should have applied to the whole fleet, as the designation was obviously intended to cover all capabilities. The absurdity was when the "A" was added to designate a reconnaissance variant of an aircraft which was already designated as a reconnaissance aircraft! It reminds me of XH558's last few weeks of RAF service when it was fitted with an HDU but still retained reconnaissance equipment and sniffer pods. Technically, it ought to have been designated as a BK2MRR! Wonder what the final designation for the new Nimrod MRA4 really ought to be if the aircraft realises all of its potential? SMREA4 ?!

Edited December 15, 2007 by Tim