As for Typhoon, it rarely flies at low level as it p!sses fuel out the back! It has a good air-to-air RADAR that allows it to detect other aircraft and this is coupled to an interrorgator that can detect Mode A (Mode 3) and Mode S. It has an IRST that can also spot anti-col lights, engine heat and aircraft-in-poor-weather. So TCAS would only really augment a good amount of sensors anyway. Also, as some have already pointed out, TCAS will only detect those that transpond - the primary means for all aircraft avoidance in Class G is 'See and Avoid' until the Air Navigation Order mandates transponder carriage in all aircraft in Class G. The lookout in Typhoon is better than many FJs.
These are all perfectly valid points.
What would concern me is, despite the raft of sensors listed, it remains stated MoD policy that they need not be properly integrated and proven functionally safe before being released for training or operational use. This basic requirement has been fully funded on every programme I've ever known (so lack of funding isn't an issue), but the Gods have consistently ruled it can be waived if it means meeting time. Or chopped if something else runs over budget. This remains common today in MoD, as many here will confirm.
This all comes under Technology and System Integration Maturity. Just look at the losses we've had because of FLAT REFUSAL to attain such maturity, with FALSE declarations made that it has been achieved. Tornado ZG710. Chinook ZD576. Sea Kings XV650 & 704 (a mid-air). And so on. The Wg Cdr Spry thread says it all. The MAA can't even get the basic definitions right, so what chance the job being done properly.
Sorry, I do not react well when two 2 Stars tell me to my face that they do not care about the risk of collision, that they'll look at it again if it happens. And when it happened, they still did nothing. This is the background one needs to appreciate when reading Dick Garwood's report. I'd bet my house no-one told him of it.
Stopping flying altogether would have an even better effect on safety.....
The point you miss is that false declarations have been made to the effect aircraft are safe, when they were not. That is completely different from you being told the truth and being able to make allowances and informed decisions.
You're ex-RN. You lost 7 colleagues in 2003. The 3 main contributory factors noted by the BoI
wholly coincided with the 3 main areas of
degradation between the AEW Mk2 and ASaC Mk7. That degradation was not noted in the RTS. All 3 directly and adversely affected collision avoidance. All 3 had been recognised years before and mitigation put in hand. All 3 were cancelled. Not replaced by alternate mitigation, but CANCELLED because someone (an unqualified civilian who had
self-delegated airworthiness authority - again, something Dick Garwood doesn't mention because it would open MoD to legal action) decided the risk would only be addressed if the risks materialised. When they did, 7 died. THAT ethos is what concerns me.