Typhoon drops live Paveway IV's for the first time
Mud Observing Typhoon
Maybe not the best place for this but ...
a mate (east of the channel) informed me that ll(AC) Squadron Tornadoes flew their last recce mission on 30 November. He went on to say it was their last Tornado mission, their jets and people soon become 12 Sqn at Marham before the sqn becomes a Typhoon outfit at Lossie in April.
With what will the RAF be conducting tactical recce in the future? Are those huge RAPTOR Pods going to fit under a Typhoon? No, I thought not. Is their going to be a RAPTYPH Pod? No, I thought not.
So what is the oldest RAF flying squadron going to be using to acquire information (which can then be turned into 'intelligence')?
This is not a job for 13/39 sqn with their 'things' - honestly.
Anyone know? Anyone care?
(And yes I know that Numbers 2 & 3 did bump off the ground at the same time on the same day - but as an ex 'Hereward' chap we do feel slightly older.)
a mate (east of the channel) informed me that ll(AC) Squadron Tornadoes flew their last recce mission on 30 November. He went on to say it was their last Tornado mission, their jets and people soon become 12 Sqn at Marham before the sqn becomes a Typhoon outfit at Lossie in April.
With what will the RAF be conducting tactical recce in the future? Are those huge RAPTOR Pods going to fit under a Typhoon? No, I thought not. Is their going to be a RAPTYPH Pod? No, I thought not.
So what is the oldest RAF flying squadron going to be using to acquire information (which can then be turned into 'intelligence')?
This is not a job for 13/39 sqn with their 'things' - honestly.
Anyone know? Anyone care?
(And yes I know that Numbers 2 & 3 did bump off the ground at the same time on the same day - but as an ex 'Hereward' chap we do feel slightly older.)
Last edited by HAS59; 2nd Dec 2014 at 20:12.
ExMud,
I was a staff officer with the programme from about 93 onwards in AWC and later Group and was privy to pretty much all the policy meetings at Main Building. In the sense that the effort was on getting the Air Superiority sorted first, I guess you could say that the money was going there. But that was the intention from way before that.
Expensive and threatened with cancellation? In a way, yes to both. But by the time anyone was even talking about looking elsewhere the politicos of the day had already made it very clear that overseas options would not be considered - they had been many, many years before and dismissed in favour of UK plc. So, in messages of varying subtly, we were told to get on with it and make it work. Remember that by the nineties, the programme had already been through its worst times, for example the Germans trying to pull out after reunification. For the Governements it was all about "work share" which was based on the size of each country's stated purchase - some suspected that the UK stuck with the number 232 for so long because of that, but I couldn't possibly comment. Those in the know never thought it would be cancelled by that stage.
F3 had to be replaced at some stage and that, partly, was what Typhoon was about. At the time, everyone thought we would still have Tornado GR and Harrier for years to come, again hence air-to-air first. So, to your point about an agile fighter. Manoeuvrability and energy agility are good for many reasons, but for the sake of this discussion I would say that, RoE depending, there are plenty of potential scenarios where one could end up close in and manoeuvre becomes essential. Also, energy agility is essential to optimise missile Pk/effective range and missile defence.
Your last point is your best. Yes, of course we bought it because of the fun factor. And why not?
Fortunately, it all came good. And continues to do so. And, by the way, I have also been one of the biggest critics of the way the programme was run. The whole empire was so so massive, so political and so multinational, it was hardly surprising that it had its difficulties.
I was a staff officer with the programme from about 93 onwards in AWC and later Group and was privy to pretty much all the policy meetings at Main Building. In the sense that the effort was on getting the Air Superiority sorted first, I guess you could say that the money was going there. But that was the intention from way before that.
Expensive and threatened with cancellation? In a way, yes to both. But by the time anyone was even talking about looking elsewhere the politicos of the day had already made it very clear that overseas options would not be considered - they had been many, many years before and dismissed in favour of UK plc. So, in messages of varying subtly, we were told to get on with it and make it work. Remember that by the nineties, the programme had already been through its worst times, for example the Germans trying to pull out after reunification. For the Governements it was all about "work share" which was based on the size of each country's stated purchase - some suspected that the UK stuck with the number 232 for so long because of that, but I couldn't possibly comment. Those in the know never thought it would be cancelled by that stage.
F3 had to be replaced at some stage and that, partly, was what Typhoon was about. At the time, everyone thought we would still have Tornado GR and Harrier for years to come, again hence air-to-air first. So, to your point about an agile fighter. Manoeuvrability and energy agility are good for many reasons, but for the sake of this discussion I would say that, RoE depending, there are plenty of potential scenarios where one could end up close in and manoeuvre becomes essential. Also, energy agility is essential to optimise missile Pk/effective range and missile defence.
Your last point is your best. Yes, of course we bought it because of the fun factor. And why not?
Fortunately, it all came good. And continues to do so. And, by the way, I have also been one of the biggest critics of the way the programme was run. The whole empire was so so massive, so political and so multinational, it was hardly surprising that it had its difficulties.
HAS,
Shiny Two was going to disband next year. The PM has extended them until 2016 because of ops against ISIL. Whilst their role will eventually move on, maybe that proves your point in that there is no one to take in on right now. Of course, the equipment and the Tornado crews will still exist, just not on Two.
Shiny Two was going to disband next year. The PM has extended them until 2016 because of ops against ISIL. Whilst their role will eventually move on, maybe that proves your point in that there is no one to take in on right now. Of course, the equipment and the Tornado crews will still exist, just not on Two.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Air-to-Air role isn't fully complete yet, the Typhoon might be qualified as an interceptor and a short-medium range dogfighter, but it doesn't yet have a front-line BVR capability. According to the RAF, that (Meteor BVRAAM) is due to be in service by 2016.
For anybody interested, scroll all the way to near the bottom of this page for weapons: Eurofighter Typhoon | The world's most advanced fighter aircraft
Back to the ground capability, how long will it take to get this far with Storm Shadow and Brimstone?
For anybody interested, scroll all the way to near the bottom of this page for weapons: Eurofighter Typhoon | The world's most advanced fighter aircraft
Back to the ground capability, how long will it take to get this far with Storm Shadow and Brimstone?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEANWHILE, the IRANAIANS are using old F4s
Iran is using old F4 phantoms to bomb ISIS targest in western Iraq. So, there you go.
Quite frankly, P47 thunderbolts could be good enough for certain air to ground roles.
Quite frankly, P47 thunderbolts could be good enough for certain air to ground roles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iran is using old F4 phantoms to bomb ISIS targest in western Iraq. So, there you go.
Quite frankly, P47 thunderbolts could be good enough for certain air to ground roles.
Quite frankly, P47 thunderbolts could be good enough for certain air to ground roles.
I'd be willing to bet that they will want to buy the US' Harriers once they are retired.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP, I like the Phantom just like everybody else, but it's an old machine that NATO air forces don't need any more.
An Air Force buying and operating Phantoms these days like Iran and Japan is a bit like buying an old VW Beetle. Yup, it will do the job you want it to do, and it will do it fairly well - it might need a bit of extra maintenance than most to keep it going, but it won't do anything as well as a '14 plate Audi TT that has been tested well with any major problems corrected.
An Air Force buying and operating Phantoms these days like Iran and Japan is a bit like buying an old VW Beetle. Yup, it will do the job you want it to do, and it will do it fairly well - it might need a bit of extra maintenance than most to keep it going, but it won't do anything as well as a '14 plate Audi TT that has been tested well with any major problems corrected.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHornet.
Stop it, you are doing it again !
I will let you into a secret.
If you were an ISIS fighter in a ground position the rounds coming from an F4s gun pod would be just as fast and just as deadly as when the aircraft was brand new!!
The bombs dropped would go bang just as loudly too.
It's worth remembering that when Iran acquired their F4s and F14s direct from the USA they were very much in 'the good lads club' and were buying top notch gear, not cast offs.
Stop it, you are doing it again !
I will let you into a secret.
If you were an ISIS fighter in a ground position the rounds coming from an F4s gun pod would be just as fast and just as deadly as when the aircraft was brand new!!
The bombs dropped would go bang just as loudly too.
It's worth remembering that when Iran acquired their F4s and F14s direct from the USA they were very much in 'the good lads club' and were buying top notch gear, not cast offs.
Originally Posted by SHornet
Typhoon might be qualified as an interceptor and a short-medium range dogfighter, but it doesn't yet have a front-line BVR capability.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnstormer, my point is that most of their equipment is old, and wouldn't stand a chance against new kit. One of their top Naval officers reportedly said that they have been conducting exercises to sink US Navy ships - that surely constitutes a threat?
US aircraft carriers ?easy targets? in event of clash ? Iranian naval commander ? RT News
US aircraft carriers ?easy targets? in event of clash ? Iranian naval commander ? RT News
RAPTOR
Further to my last, (after a bit of digging around) it appears the RAPTOR pod will continue to be used by 'recce capable flights' up to the current out of service date for Tornado of 2019. These 'flights' will probably be ex-II(AC) crews operating under the soon to reform 12 Sqn number.
What will happen to 'Tac-Recce' after 2019 is anyone's guess.
What will happen to 'Tac-Recce' after 2019 is anyone's guess.
HAS59- There have not been separate Tornado recce squadrons (or flights) for years. All GR4 aircraft, squadrons and crews are capable of RAPTOR as well as all the other roles.
As you said though, it has just been announced that the third GR4 Sqn at Marham will become 12 when the fifth Typhoon Sqn forms as II (AC) at Lossie.
As you said though, it has just been announced that the third GR4 Sqn at Marham will become 12 when the fifth Typhoon Sqn forms as II (AC) at Lossie.
Last edited by Timelord; 3rd Dec 2014 at 09:36. Reason: Breaking news
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHornet.
Lots of the kit involved in this conflict is very old, and some of the kit is a lot older than the Iranian F4s are.
Just ask yourself a few questions:
Were the Iranian F4 missions succesful?
Should the Turks give up their F4s on your say so? While an F4 was lost recently (with the loss of crew QUALIFIED to fly) there is no reason that a more modern aircraft wouldn't have suffered the same fate doing the same mission.
I could say that IF and when you join up you may have to get used to working alongside forces whom will also have public plans to do you harm, but history should already have shown you that in war or conflict enemies can become uneasy friends and visa versa.
Holding a grudge just isn't always an option when politicians are involved, and just as Iran may say things against the West publicly the USA also had detailed plans to invade Canada not that long ago !!
Lots of the kit involved in this conflict is very old, and some of the kit is a lot older than the Iranian F4s are.
Just ask yourself a few questions:
Were the Iranian F4 missions succesful?
Should the Turks give up their F4s on your say so? While an F4 was lost recently (with the loss of crew QUALIFIED to fly) there is no reason that a more modern aircraft wouldn't have suffered the same fate doing the same mission.
I could say that IF and when you join up you may have to get used to working alongside forces whom will also have public plans to do you harm, but history should already have shown you that in war or conflict enemies can become uneasy friends and visa versa.
Holding a grudge just isn't always an option when politicians are involved, and just as Iran may say things against the West publicly the USA also had detailed plans to invade Canada not that long ago !!
Barnstormer, my point is that most of their equipment is old, and wouldn't stand a chance against new kit. One of their top Naval officers reportedly said that they have been conducting exercises to sink US Navy ships - that surely constitutes a threat?
An Air Force buying and operating Phantoms these days like Iran and Japan is a bit like buying an old VW Beetle
In case you are not aware in the 1970's the Shah of Iran turned to western equipment and training to make a modern military. Orders from the USA included F-4, F-5, P-3, various helos, 747, C-130, F-14 etc, and others from other sources including France. With the removal of the Shah and the revolution in Iran in 1979 support from the USA and most western countries was lost. Iran has managed to keep these aircraft still in limited service for decades through black market spares purchces, re-engineering and other means.
Iran turned to Russian and Chinese support and has partial success operating some of this equipment, and obtained a few squadrons of Iraqi aircraft including Mirages, transports, MiGs and SU's, fleeing Iraq in the first gulf war.
So cut off from western support due to sanctions, an off and on relationship with Russia/China, and an internal industry that has really only had success in unlicensed repordiction what do you see as the alternatives for Iran? Sure they would like to have modern equipment- who wants to let them have it? No one. Irans nuclear ambitions make most uneasy. Sanctions have been in place.
Yes they are still using aircraft delievered in the 1970's BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE. Even "old" equipment can still serve, and remains a threat. Is it on par with the latest gear? No.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Courtney,
I concur with all you have said - accurate and concise. Being totally pedantic, EF2000 wasn't quietly dropped in 2000 - the jet was christened Typhoon in 1998
I concur with all you have said - accurate and concise. Being totally pedantic, EF2000 wasn't quietly dropped in 2000 - the jet was christened Typhoon in 1998
