View Full Version : Air Defence Typhoons
TBM-Legend
4th Apr 2016, 14:16
Two squadrons of Tranche 1's
RAF to field retained Tranche 1 Typhoons as stand-alone air defence force | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/59243/raf-to-field-retained-tranche-1-typhoons-as-stand-alone-air-defence-force)
Clockwork Mouse
4th Apr 2016, 14:31
Seems sensible.
Mil-26Man
4th Apr 2016, 15:00
The RAF must have taken a common sense pill that day
UK RAF shows interest in Voyager boom | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-raf-shows-interest-in-voyager-boom)
bobward
4th Apr 2016, 15:25
Maybe if they stopped spending money faffing about converting/de-converting Voyagers for the civil charter market, the money might be available......
As always, would like to hear from the professionals whether :hmm:or not this is a simplistic viewpoint.
BossEyed
4th Apr 2016, 15:26
The UK bases its Typhoons at RAF Conginsby in England...
Well, at least they didn't write "Conningsby" - always amazed how even people who have been posted there spell it that way. :8
A thread with good news? On Proon? And received as good news? I'm having a lie down. ;)
Mil-26Man
4th Apr 2016, 15:40
Maybe if they stopped spending money faffing about converting/de-converting Voyagers for the civil charter market, the money might be available......
Who does pay for that - is it the MoD, AirTanker, or the civil operator?
drustsonoferp
4th Apr 2016, 17:01
Yet to be decided where they will be based, but they want to be in one location with other Typhoons? Perfect. Use more of Lossie for Typhoons and put the P8s next door in Kinloss which has facilities built to operate an aircraft of that ilk.
If politically expedient, it can be a P8 satellite of Lossie, leaving "Kinloss Barracks" intact. Otherwise, RAF Kinloss makes a bold return.
BEagle
4th Apr 2016, 18:14
Surely co-located with 100 Sqn at RAF Leeming would be the preferred location?
Which would be a popular choice for a posting, I would have thought.
In which case, forget Leeming - somewhere up in Jockistan, probably...:uhoh:
Jobza Guddun
4th Apr 2016, 18:17
If Southern Q can be credibly mounted from there, you may be onto something with RAF Nearmemamlake BEags!
Davef68
4th Apr 2016, 19:15
Put the T1s* at Lossie and put the multirole aircraft somewhere down south (Where do we have space for two/three squadrons of fast jets beyond Leeming? Honnington? Wittering? Scampton?)
Or re-take Leuchars.....
* Tranche 1, not the tandem ones!
Lima Juliet
4th Apr 2016, 19:25
More importantly, where are they going to find 2 Sqn's worth of Typhoon aircrew???
Jobza Guddun
4th Apr 2016, 19:45
Perhaps someone's heard there are VGS pilots looking for a cockpit....
lightbluefootprint
4th Apr 2016, 19:55
Perhaps someone's heard there are VGS pilots looking for a cockpit....
...and that wins the internet today :ok::ok::ok:
ian16th
4th Apr 2016, 19:58
Originally Posted by Jane's
The UK bases its Typhoons at RAF Conginsby in England...
Well, at least they didn't write "Conningsby" - always amazed how even people who have been posted there spell it that way. :8It ain't about knowing how to spell it, it is being able to tell the time from a clock with only 1 hand!
airpolice
4th Apr 2016, 20:00
Leon, More importantly, where are they going to find 2 Sqn's worth of Typhoon aircrew???
Here's a radical thought.
Why not make lot's of the Pilots currently in ground jobs, actually fly for a living.
Not all of them of course, just those still on flying pay but not actually flying every week.
That'll resolve the manpower shortage.
Leeming sounds good, apart from the noise issue. So does Wattisham and Coltishall, or is Colt covered with a prison now?
Tashengurt
4th Apr 2016, 20:21
Can we reliably predict which squadrons will be stood up or does it depend on people picking favourites?
Lima Juliet
4th Apr 2016, 20:25
Airsound
That's so radical that I do hope that's a joke? :eek:
LJ
Wycombe
4th Apr 2016, 21:41
Brize must be very quiet (noise wise) since the retirement of the Vickers Funbus ;-)
Plenty of room for some HAS to be built on the southside.
Out Of Trim
4th Apr 2016, 21:58
Wattisham would be good. And has two HAS sites already!
One could be 56 SQN and the other 74 SQN.. :ok:
Smart money's on somewhere that already has FJ operating. I'd put one more into each of Lossie and Con, but that's a wag. North needs close range Red Air and so does the South. Sticking them at Leeming doesn't really help either, especially when you may not be able to rely upon a tanker to extend. For me the support already there at both LOS and CGY makes it a no-brainer, regardless of the T2 and T3 uncommonalities.
Sqn numberplates will be interesting. I'd imagine they'd come from one of the following: 111(F), 43(F), 19(F), 25(F), IX(B), 31 and 12(B).
Great to know there'll be a decent aggressor for the Typhoons and Lightnings of the future though.
Valiantone
4th Apr 2016, 22:28
Didn't the Defence Secretary say at the Scottish Conservative Spring Conference the other week that they are putting one at Lossie anyway.
As for Coningsby.... It managed with 3 Sqns and the PhantomOCU before they built any HAS sites
Genstabler
4th Apr 2016, 22:43
How about Mildenhall? Yanks are leaving it.
Rhino power
5th Apr 2016, 00:06
Put the T1s* at Lossie...
* Tranche 1, not the tandem ones!
The tandem ones are all T.3's now, Dave, no T.1's left in service... ;)
-RP
Ivan Rogov
5th Apr 2016, 10:32
Easy basing answer, move one Sqn of the Tranche 2/3 jets to Cyprus and one to the Falkland Islands and the Tranche 1s fill in the space left in Lossie and Connnnnnningsby. The new bases give a more desirable and not so desirable location to reward and chastise personnel as appropriate, and reduce strain on existing UK Sqns deploying all the time (especially as Airshow season is soon here ;) ).
If I submit this as a GEMS will I get £5?
WhatsaLizad?
7th Apr 2016, 02:03
The basing decision has been made and the Typhoons have been deployed. The air crews were given the final say and it was determined that the UK/Commonwealth asset most deserving of Typhoon air defense assets was the Gosling's Rum distillery in Bermuda. As one junior officer noted, "one never knows when the Yanks will go bat-chit crazy and we must be prepared for anything". :E
Courtney Mil
7th Apr 2016, 10:12
You could probably safely put money on no new or reopened bases and no commitment to anything north of the border until threats of Brexit/second Scottish referenda are passed.
pr00ne
7th Apr 2016, 11:56
Courtney Mil,
While that is undoubtedly the logical thing to do, it didn't stop them announcing that the new P-8 fleet is to be based at Lossiemouth and that Lossiemouth will also be the base of at least one additional Typhoon squadron.
stewyb
7th Apr 2016, 12:07
My money would be on Lossie and /or Coningsby to get the T1 Typhoons with no further bases becoming involved (mostly due to financial pressures). Would not surprise me if P8 was eventually sent to Waddington with the US EC135's mooted to be going to Waddington, transferring to Fairford once Mildenhall closes.
CM, Great point. Of course there's always a school of thoght to say put more into Scotland to make the consequences of Scottish independence less palatable when resources are removed afterwards.
Finningley Boy
7th Apr 2016, 21:26
MSOCS,
You are quite right,but the trouble with people like the SNP leadership, as it generally goes, is they'd argue that all assets north of the border, whatever the imbalance, are rightfully their allotted portion of HM Forces. Strategy in deployment of HM Forces to defend all UK interests seems to be too complicated beyond the one for you one and one for you argument. Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson have already tried to make the case that Scotland is deprived of a sufficient naval force to guard its shores because no Frigates and Destroyers
are either based in Scotland or are to be seen patrolling from the shore regularly.
FB:)
melmothtw
8th Apr 2016, 06:26
You could probably safely put money on no new or reopened bases and no commitment to anything north of the border until threats of Brexit/second Scottish referenda are passed.
While that is undoubtedly the logical thing to do,
CM, Great point. Of course there's always a school of thoght to say put more into Scotland to make the consequences of Scottish independence less palatable when resources are removed afterwards.
You are quite right,but the trouble with people like the SNP leadership, as it generally goes, is they'd argue that all assets north of the border, whatever the imbalance, are rightfully their allotted portion of HM Forces.
Er, you guys know it's not the English Royal Air Force, right?
Valiantone
8th Apr 2016, 10:49
Well I will be surprised if they go anywhere else other than Coningsby and Lossiemouth.
V1
Mel, a separate Scotland would no longer be part of the "United" Kingdom. We all did this one over and over last time right?
It is the "UK" Ministry of Defence.
Clearly there would have to be shared defence responsibilities as our collective homeland protection as an island nation would trump political spats.
Finningley Boy
8th Apr 2016, 11:17
melwothtw,
That is certainly the common perception and not just among English people either, Scots folks, indeed especially in the SNP are more than happy to believe the complete nonsense that any military presence north of the border, not sporting a Kilt and Tam o' Shanter or Glengarry, is part of an English Conservative Force of Occupation, and quite despairingly regard themselves as proudly holding more in common with the folk of Iraq rather than being citizens of the UK and therefore directly served by HM Forces, wherever they originate from, be it; England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or anywhere else across the Globe for that matter.
FB:)
Heathrow Harry
8th Apr 2016, 11:40
"our collective homeland protection as an island nation would trump political spats"
ho ho ho.............. the Nats could ask for NATO protection - dont see why it would be our problem.....................
melmothtw
8th Apr 2016, 12:07
Mel, a separate Scotland would no longer be part of the "United" Kingdom. We all did this one over and over last time right?
Quite MSOCS, but until such a separation happens it is still very much part of the United Kingdom (indeed, the 'United Kingdom' doesn't exist without it), and so any suggestions to not base assets or personnel north of the border would not only be illegal, I'd suggest, but also highly counter productive for those wishing to preserve the Union. Ironic that.
Davef68
8th Apr 2016, 13:11
Valiantone,
It would make sense for a lot of reasons - the question remains is there enough room at either base.
Quite, Mel. I support putting more there. That's why I also raised the point that putting more there would bolster the argument to remain as a Union.
We all know that politics will find other, legal, reasons to not base more assets North of the border if they want. Even if the real reason is in anticipation of renewed separatism. Machiavelli has always been with us!