Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Slater

No more RAF two-seat Typhoons?

Recommended Posts

Probably Phase 1 airframes that won't cope with upgrading.  That's a long way from the full 2-seater fleet, and the training requirement will have tailed off as the fleet reaches its full operating size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£50million worth of parts from each airframe!! How much did they cost when new?

 

Duncan B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan, you DON'T want to know!

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 3:14 PM, Graham Boak said:

Probably Phase 1 airframes that won't cope with upgrading.  That's a long way from the full 2-seater fleet, and the training requirement will have tailed off as the fleet reaches its full operating size.

I think you'll find it's referred to as Tranche 1 airframes. Also the training requirement will be the same, and not tail off, introduction of the Typhoon has been spread over a long number of years so there will be pilots who were on the first Typhoon squadrons who will have retired from service and their successors need to be trained. It's a forever evolving situation.

 

What HAS changed, of course, is the way training is delivered and with far more capable full  mission and procedural simulators that are far cheaper than actual air time, which is where the need for twin-sweaters has tailed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tranche 1, yes.  However what I said did not imply any disappearance of training - the subject was only 12 aircraft out of the entire fleet.  However protracted the build up, the need for pilots to fill the squadrons when new will inevitably be greater than the need for replacements - which can and will be partly filled by recycling individuals from earlier tours.  Yes, they will need refreshing, but this would involve fewer hours - and, relevantly, up-to-date systems.  Yes, simulators are better now, and this probably is another factor, but if they were quite so significantly superior we would see a much larger reduction in the trainer fleer.  Perhaps that is yet to come, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting thought Graham, I know in my area of aviation, crews can train and qualify on a type as F/O without touching the real aircraft (there will be some line flying with a training Captain present).

 

I think the benefits of simulators is that they can give excellent procedures training and can create multiple scenarios you will never see in most real world flying. The art is, I guess, getting the blend correct and I've seen figures for the likes of F35 of 50:50 or 60:40 in favour of simulator work. I'd imagine the more modern types/avionic fits would lend themselves most to a blended plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have been better converting them to a kind of Wild Weasel EF jammer jet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lord Riot said:

Would have been better converting them to a kind of Wild Weasel EF jammer jet. 

That would depend on how different they are to the rest of the fleet....if the commonality is low then those twelve orphans get very expensive....and perhsps too expensive to upgrade so the best option is to mag to grid get rid.

Fleets within fleets are not a good option in a 21st century armed force with no money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the Tranche 1 dual seaters, and the reason for the scrapping is that the Tranche 1 can't be updated in the same manner as Tranche 2 or 3, meaning excessive cost for upgrades if this was to be done. Hence cheaper to reduce to spares for the rest of the fleet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not use them to replace the Red Arrows Hawks?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe Austria is in need for Tranche 1 twoseaters?? maybe not more than 3-4.... but still!

 

I may correct myself..... the Austrian Airforce might be in need for them... Austria, its tabloids and politics probably not......

 

duck and cover!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-35 has no 2 seat trainer - a reflection of just how capable modern simulators now are (before the cost of running per hour is considered)

 

As stated, although Tranche 1 Typhoons "look" similar from the out side, internally they are very different (not just the electronic wiring, boxes & software) but more significantly the actual bulkheads/frames structure (and remaining in the UNCLASS of this forum, THAT factor is highly significant).  In effect these are practically different jets, and those parts that are common, are being taken to keep the rest of the fleet running. 

 

As a Dead Sparrow replacement? Well if the published (open source) figure (£60-70 K per hour for a Typhoon) is to be believed, then running on the old mark 1 hawks (> £10 k per hour) is a no brainer.......unless the published reason for the Reds is to deliver overseas sales then perhaps the cost could be justified? But ALL the spare parts (the "quick" consumables) would have to come form an already over stretched Typhoon frontline fleet. In addition mechanics etc would need specific training (I guess?) for the above mentioned different type of Typhoon etc AND should the Dead Sparrows be taken as a "cost saving measure" anyway in the next few years, all that expense in conversion etc would be lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I  thought Austria were disgruntled with their Typhoons and were looking to retire them?

Keith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Austria is plagued by the bribe scandal associated with the Typhoon purchase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2018 at 5:05 PM, Lord Riot said:

Would have been better converting them to a kind of Wild Weasel EF jammer jet. 

Nice idea, but we ain't got the cash...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still irks me that the country charges itself to defend itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think that I’ve read anywhere what it is that makes Tranche 1 airframes incapable of upgrading to later standards. Can anyone explain to a layman please?

 

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is quite a few articles on this, combataircraft.com and airfighters.com to name a few. 

 

Basically, the Tranche 1's are optimized for A2A, but through urgent operational upgrade programs were made able to drop live munitions in time for the 2011 campaign in Lybia. 

Tranche 2 and 3 however are from the outset planned and built as multi-purpose fighters, with different brains and hardware that is more adaptable to upgrades than the Tranche 1 ever can be. 

 

This is the short, layman's term explanation. I am sure there will be more detailed explanations to follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This raises so many questions.

If these can't be upgraded, how much useful kit will they get out of them that is compatible with Tranche 2 & 3?

The quoted £50m that they will recover is that after the cost of dismantling? 

The savings of £800 sounds like a figure someone pulled out of a hat, or is that the projected savings on 16 aircraft over the next 20 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×