Tornado - Future GR4 questions

[Jackonicko]

Whatever happened to these lovely projects - which were being widely written about a year or two ago, but which seem to have been kicked into the long grass?:

1) TARDIS
"The GR 4 is to have a further cockpit upgrade consisting of a new Astronautics pilot's multifunction display and the BAE Systems TARDIS (Tornado advanced radar display and information system). The upgrade will enter service in 2009. As of late 2006, the GR4 fleet is being fitted with a new 12.8-inch Multi-function display in the rear cockpit to replace the circular Combined Radar and Projected Map Display (CRPMD): The BAE Systems Tornado Advanced Radar Display Information System (TARDIS) is an Active-matrix liquid crystal display.[11][12] TARDIS is currently being fitted to aircraft of the Fast Jet and Weapons Operational Evaluation Unit (No. 41 Squadron RAF), before being fitted to all GR4 aircraft."

2) REFORGER
"Qinetiq is working on an AESA upgrade for the Tornado GR4 called Reforger, with a hoped-for ISD of soon after 2010."

3) ARTS and TREV
"Hence the recent announcement of this QinetiQ-led Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) project. ARTS will explore the use of AESA and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in an air-to-surface role, including real-time target imaging, with a view to replacing the 1970s-era Decca Doppler Type 72 mechanically-scanned terrain following/ ground mapping radar system. The program represents the first use of the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle (TREV) concept, which is intended to support MoD’s aspiration to achieve faster exploitation of research by the front-line.
A combination of AESA multi-mode radar, SAR surface-looking radar and improved computing power for integration of sensor data should be able to radically improve the Tornado GR4’s situational awareness of both ground and air spaces around it. Range and target resolution should improve substantially, as should reliability figures; meanwhile, maintenance costs could be expected to drop sharply. When coupled with new weapons like the Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile, Meteor long-range air-air missile and the Brimstone anti-armor missile, an upgraded GR4 could earn a new lease on life over low-intensity and high-intensity battlefields alike.
QinetiQ has teamed on ARTS with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support."

and

"The QinetiQ release notes that the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) contract was:
”...placed by the Defence Procurement Agency’s (DPA’s) Sensors, Avionics, Navigation and Air Electronic Warfare Integrated Project Team (SANS & Air EW IPT) on behalf of MoD’s Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO) as part of the Output 6 Research Programme sponsored by the DPA’s Future Business Group (FBG). ARTS will also be supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation’s (DLO’s) Tornado IPT. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) will provide MoD with independent technical advice on the programme.”
Simple, really. Oh, and:
“ARTS will run in parallel to the multi-national Advanced Multi-Mode Solid-State Airborne Radar (AMSAR) programmes and will focus on specific areas of capability development (SAR and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR)). ARTS will also focus on platform integration and aims to raise System Readiness Levels (SRLs). It is anticipated that AMSAR will continue to provide a programme through which to raise Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and explore the potential for AESA to contribute to other capability areas.”
Recall that AMSAR is the R&D project associated with the Eurofighter’s future AESA. So to sum up:
QinetiQ, BAE & SELEX are partnered on ARTS to make AESA and SAR work on GR4s in NCW. SANS & Air EW IPT placed this TREV contract on behalf of MoD’s RAO, as part of DPA’s FBG Output 6. DLO’s Tornado IPT and DSTL will also assist, and ARTS will run in parallel with AMSAR to raise SRLs.
All clear?"

"24 February 06
MOD awards contract to QinetiQ primed team to demonstrate Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS) on a Tornado GR4A

The Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to QinetiQ to demonstrate the advanced targeting capability offered by Electronically Scanned (E-Scan) radar technology. QinetiQ has teamed with SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems and BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support to integrate an Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) on a Tornado GR4A for assessment by the RAF in 2007.

With growing interest in extending the in-service life of the GR4, the project will explore the use of Active E-Scan Array (AESA) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in an air-to-surface role, including real-time target imaging, with a view to replacing the installed mechanically-scanned terrain following/ground mapping radar system originally designed in the 1970s.

"We anticipate that ARTS will offer considerable improvements in performance and significantly help reduce maintenance cost when compared with the current in-service solution," explained Andrew Sleigh, MD of QinetiQ's defence business. "By replacing the mechanically scanned antenna with an array made using discrete transmit/receive (T/R) modules we can achieve greater range and target resolution whilst at the same time benefiting from an inherently more robust design."

ARTS benefits from a range of Ministry of Defence and UK industry funded research programmes in the fields of AESA and SAR technologies, and will provide a continuing route for the rapid exploitation of future research and development. The programme also represents the first use of the Tornado Research Exploitation Vehicle (TREV) concept that will support MoD's aspiration to achieve faster exploitation of research by the front-line.

The contract was placed by the Defence Procurement Agency's (DPA's) Sensors, Avionics, Navigation and Air Electronic Warfare Integrated Project Team (SANS & Air EW IPT) on behalf of MoD's Research Acquisition Organisation (RAO) as part of the Output 6 Research Programme sponsored by the DPA's Future Business Group (FBG). ARTS will also be supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation's (DLO's) Tornado IPT. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) will provide MoD with independent technical advice on the programme.

ARTS will run in parallel to the multi-national Advanced Multi-Mode Solid-State Airborne Radar (AMSAR) programmes and will focus on specific areas of capability development (SAR and Automatic Target Recognition (ATR)). ARTS will also focus on platform integration and aims to raise System Readiness Levels (SRLs). It is anticipated that AMSAR will continue to provide a programme through which to raise Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and explore the potential for AESA to contribute to other capability areas.
Press Officer: Douglas Millard"

and

"U.K. AESA Heads to U.S. For Trials
Aviation Week & Space Technology
10/08/2007, page 30

The British Royal Air Force plans to test a Tornado fitted with an AESA radar using U.S. ranges following successful flight trials in the U.K.

Tests flights of an active electronically scanned array radar on a Tornado GR4A aircraft were carried out from the Boscombe Down center during the summer. The program, dubbed the Advanced Radar Targeting System (ARTS), is being led by Qinetiq in collaboration with Selex. BAE Systems is also involved in providing some of the radar?s software.

The ARTS program remains sensitive, with the Defense Ministry reluctant to discuss the project in any detail. Unlike the multinational effort examining an AESA for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which similarly involves Selex, the ARTS program has so far been U.K.-only. ARTS, however, will also feed into U.K. aspirations to provide an AESA for the Typhoon. Initial flight trials of a Typhoon fitted with an electronically-scanned array ?variant? of its Captor radar were carried out earlier this year in Germany.

The AESA radar would form a key element of ministry interest in a further upgrade of the Tornado GR4A, known as Reforger. This would replace the aircraft?s aging Texas Instruments? terrain-following and ground-mapping systems. Reforger would be part of the ministry?s revised joint maintenance and capability enhancement program for the Tornado.

The proposed program may be limited to the GR4A, rather than the wider GR4 fleet, most likely on cost grounds. The air force has two squadrons of the GR4A operating in the tactical reconnaissance role.

The Tornado GR4 is due to be withdrawn from service in 2025. The air force faces the challenge of how to sustain the aircraft?s strike capability up until this date, and possibly beyond."

[WolvoWill]

I was under the impression that TARDIS was slowly being fitted to the fleet - seem to recall the hardware/software design was frozen a while back back and it was just a case of having it tested fully. 41sqn definitely have/had jets with it :)

Not sure on the others...

[Aeronut]

If you needed to know, you probably would.

[Jackonicko]

I get slightly fed up with that as a glib response.

I already know more than I need to.

As a journo, I don't need to know. I'm asking the question because I'm mildly interested and slightly curious.

As a taxpayer, it could be legitimately argued that I do need to know, or that I have some vague right to know whether my money has been wasted - or whether these programmes, that my money has funded, will ever bear fruit, and if not, why not.

[rata2e]

"If you needed to know, you probably would."

Halfwitted Ar$e! Are we now living in a dictatorship where we must blindly follow your mind numbing mantra? Or are we citizens living in a reasonable approximation to a fair and just democracy? Should the National Audit Office, Defence Select Committee and Freedom of Information Act all be abolished on the basis that "If you needed to know, you probably would"?

Or are you trying to convince yourself that even Trolls should be allowed to boost their tiny self esteem?

[Willard Whyte]

If you needed to know, you probably would.

Wouldn't that reply be more suited to aarse.

[Sideshow Bob]

Since when has the fitting of equipment already subjest to press releases been "Need to Know". Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are one of those people that are so full of their own self worth that they forget that they are not the centre of the universe. :ugh:

[Tiger_mate]

Being a journalist does not entitle you to short cut the Freedom of Information Act. If you want to know, use the appropriate avenues of information.

one of those people that are so full of their own self worth that they forget that they are not the centre of the universe.

They are most definately out there :E

If you needed to know, you probably would.

...is a perfectly reasonable response and gets my vote. Taxpayer or not, you do not need to know 'specific' policy, strategy, or equipment details.

[Aeronut]

"Should the National Audit Office, Defence Select Committee and Freedom of Information Act all be abolished on the basis that 'If you needed to know, you probably would?' "

erm....no....they certainly have a right to know and inform their public. It's you that doesn't need to know. This highlights my point very well.

What are you all suggesting? We ignore all those and replace them with an anonymous internet forum that becomes a free for all, with no controls?
Why openly broadcast as much as you are able? Ask yourself WolvoWill and others, whose side are you on and what purpose might the revealing of information serve?

Ever heard of Op Sec?

Where does Jackonicko publish? I'd like to see what is being fed.

[Aeronut]

If you needed to know, you probably would.

Wouldn't that reply be more suited to aarse.



Erm.........but the thread is here on Pprune! Besides, isn't that some army thing? This thread started off about Tornado.

[Jackonicko]

FoIA is seldom of much use to me - its wheels grind very slowly (often far too slowly for me to meet deadlines), and I have to admit that it goes against the grain to deliberately tie up scarce resources, by imposing a long and bureaucratic process on people who have better things to do.

In this case, a FoIA request would involve Main Building civil servants, the IPT, and probably 41(R) is unnecessary paperwork to answer what is in essence a trivial question.

Were I asking about parametrics, tactics or for detailed information about the kind of capabilities that underpin these programmes (those things that might come under the heading of 'legitimate military security) then the 'need to know' reaction would be appropriate, and I'd be a clot if I didn't go through 'proper channels', and I would not want to 'push the boundaries'.

But the bare fact as to whether or not an announced programme, whose contract award was marked by the usual press releases, has been kicked into the long grass is not a military secret, and the only reason for hiding it would be to prevent political embarrassment. Since I'm not a civil servant nor a serviceman, I don't care about the latter.

In the case of TARDIS, my question has been answered by PMs, and in one reply my attention was drawn to a piece of openly released and publicly available information (that my efforts had hitherto failed to uncover) which answered that part of the query.

TARDIS is currently being rolled out fleet wide.

My question on PPRuNe prompted someone to draw my attention to a public source answer. No rules or regs have been breached, and a journo has learned that a good news story is still good news. Not only that, but we've saved hours of time and a small hillock of paperwork. That's money saved from the defence budget, too, so it's win-win!

In the case of TREV and ARTS, I still don't know the current status, but my suspicions seem to be widely shared.

[WolvoWill]

Ask yourself WolvoWill and others, whose side are you on and what purpose might the revealing of information serve?

If we were discussing specifics of systems/upgrades and their capabilities I'd agree with you that passing comment would not serve the interests of operational security...but come on, much has been said about TARDIS and the like already in the open press, and Jackonicko *hasn't* asked for specifics about how it works or the advantages/improvements in capabilities it gives, nor have answers been posted here that detail specific capabilities of new kit for the GR4 that would be of any real operational use to an enemy.

OPSEC is fine, and were I to know anything that would compromise it, I'd naturally keep my trap shut (not as someone who is serving with HM Forces but someone who knows where his loyalties lie), but a common sense approach to what can be discussed seems far more reasonable to me than trying to prevent questions being asked around the introduction of systems that have been discussed quite openly in the aviation press for months!

[Sgt.Slabber]

Aeronut,

If you needed to know, you probably would. :ok:




Hat, coat, butty box....

[Op_Twenty]

Jackonicko - some people on the forum don't recognise how essential guys like you are in helping the military in times of crisis, such as now. Also, the fact that we all have all interest in military aviation is what brings us all here, journos included. Ignore them buddy, if I could give you the answers I would. I appreciate your input but have been off the Tornado now for too long to be helpful, sorry - keep posting, I enjoy your comments.

[Jackonicko]

Sergeant Slabber,

EXCELLENT BANTER!

Op-20, Wolwo, Rata2e, Willard and Sideshow, thank you for your support.

[Aeronut]

Op-20, Wolwo, Rata2e, Willard and Sideshow

Feel free to support who you wish, including unknowns on an open internet forum.

Just be careful eh?

Journos rarely help.

[Jackonicko]

"Feel free to support who you wish, including unknowns on an open internet forum.

Just be careful eh?

Journos rarely help."

I commend your vigilance and warning, but would want to reassure you that in this case it's misplaced.

Those who have been here more than five minutes may not view me as an unknown, and many know full well who I am. They will also be well aware that this journo (indeed like most of the regular PPRuNeing journos) does usually aim to help the RAF, the UK Armed Forces, and UK plc - in that order of priority.

This does also seem to be an odd battle to fight. The questions asked were innocuous, and any answer would be harmless.

[Aeronut]

"The questions asked were innocuous, and any answer would be harmless."

That's where you and I disagree.

The level of embodiment of various programmes should not be discussed however harmless you believe it to be in this case. I would dissuade the revealing of sqn (eg by WolvoWill) or potentially even tail numbers and the levels of equipment which may or may not be fitted to particular types of military aircraft from being openly discussed.

If it is information already in the open, go find it. What was probably hoped for though was the extra detail from individuals close to the projects which are not readily available. Keen to demonstrate what they know, much is revealed from which greater conclusions concerning availability and capability of assets can be drawn.

Some projects are not simple and setbacks can befall them. Sensationalist journalism can undermine efforts to overcome these difficulties. Those working the projects end up distracted by endlessly counter briefing instead of working the important issues.

No matter how well meaning your intentions might be, your reasurances count for little, as this forum is public. What about all the other Journos tuning in?

(Don't tell me........I know.....you're different from all the rest?)

You don't wish to reveal what you want the information for and MOD personnel should not provide it.

My experience has been that journalists are generally not at all helpful, concerning aircraft sustainment/improvement programmes, whether they know it or not.

Not an odd battle in my view but a very worthy one.

[Jackonicko]

“Not an odd battle in my view but a very worthy one.”

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you think this is worth getting aereated about, I’d suggest that you should perhaps get out more!

I was not asking for “The level of embodiment of various programmes”, only a “dead/not dead” status report.

You also make unjustified assumptions about my motives. I did not hope for “the extra detail from individuals close to the projects which are not readily available”, and while I appreciate that many servicemen have a problem with journos, you really do need to avoid empty and offensive accusations of ‘sensationalist journalism’.

Wolvo Will did not reveal a squadron, he confirmed a piece of information he knew to be in the public domain (as illustrated in the release quoted in the second para of my first post, and in the recent 41 Squadron article in the June 2009 issue of Air International).

[Aeronut]

Thanks for entitling me to an opinion!
Your opinion is that they should tell all on here, mine is that they really shouldn't.

Your attempts to quell that are almost aereating.

Going out now, Cheers!

[Jackonicko]

There you go putting two and two together and making six. And attributing motives to me that simply don't exist.

I don't think that anyone should "tell all". (And I am categorically not asking anyone to do that).

I would not ask anyone to post anything on PPRuNe that they thought was not already in the public domain, nor to post anything that might be of aid or comfort to an enemy.

And I was asking for a simple and very limited status report, hopefully gleaned from a press release, station magazine visit, cleared briefing etc.

Were I asking questions about capabilities, parametrics or operational employment, then your caution would be entirely appropriate. I think that in this case it's misplaced, but far from wanting to "quell" it, I'm happy to point that out and leave it to people's own judgement. I welcome your warning because of the opportunity that replying to it has given me to reiterate what I do and do not want.

[isaneng]

Jackonicko, excuse my ignorance, but for whom do you write and in what capacity? I have obviously seen your name here several times, and the debate of this thread is not a new one, but my curiosity has been aroused..... And hopefully my simple question will avoid the 'need to know' comments!

[grizzled]

Of Interest

There is a new thread re the loss of a Tornado this morning at Kandahar

[Jackonicko]

Depressing news, grizz. One can only wish the crew a speedy recovery from what we will all be hoping are superficial injuries.

[Clel]

My tuppence-worth - from a working hack - is that the risk with the "tell them nothing" school of thinking is it courts "give them (the farce) nothing" in next year's SDR

[Jackonicko]

Just noticed this, and thought I'd bring it up to date a tad.

Though future GR4 mods like ARTS are long dead, it has become clear over the past year or so that a "son of ARTS" forms the basis of Bright Adder.

Bright Adder is, according to whom you speak, either:

a) A UK TDP looking at particular aspects of the UK's Typhoon AESA requirement, which will feed into the quadrinational Typhoon AESA programme.
b) A UK AESA that stands ready to form the basis of an alternative full Typhoon AESA radar if the quadrinational programme stumbles - and as such could be critical for demonstrating the credibility of Typhoon/AESA in India.
c) Both of the above.

It was said that Bright Adder would fly on a Typhoon (BT025 and BT026 were postulated as being the airframe involved).

It is said that Bright Adder is now flying.

It has been suggested that Bright Adder is flying, but on a Tornado (presumably the TREV jet? ZG707???).

It is said that the full Quadrinational AESA will fly on IPA5, perhaps fairly soon......

With Rafale's AESA in production, one hopes that some snippets will emerge that might give India some hope that the Typhoon partners are not too far behind.......

[LowObservable]

In other news, MoD is still using two-word, unusual-combination codenames that were useful in pre-Google days (unique and memorable) but make any security slip-up on the Intertubes instantly obvious.

[Jackonicko]

Typhoon lost in India, with its lack of a credible AESA programme cited as one of the reasons for its elimination.

It is said that Bright Adder has flown/is flying on a rotary wing platform, and on a light twin (a Piper Navajo, perhaps). It hasn't yet flown on BT025/BT026.

I don't know if it's still flying on the TREV, and I still don't know which Tornado the TREV was.

The Quadrinational Typhoon AESA will fly on IPA5 and IPA8, though perhaps not for some time, as the consortium supplying it are making a big deal about having shown pilots what an AESA with a repositioner could do in the simulator.

One would have hoped that they'd have done that decades ago......

[John Farley]

One would have hoped that they'd have done that decades ago......

I would never tangle words with my betters but in this case wished might be more appropriate than hoped.

[PARALLEL TRACK]

Jacko - persistent I will give you but journalist/defence expert is a stretch. Don't you have to do some trg for that line of work? Good banter though, never lost for words. We do have some history but I cannot reveal it as you would then constantly be 'tapping me up' for the gen.

[phutbang]

Whatever happened to these lovely projects - which were being widely written about a year or two ago, but which seem to have been kicked into the long grass?

I notice that QinetQ are mentioned a lot in the chosen clippings you have posted? Are you after them? QQ appears to have more of its fair share of unhappy bunnies by the looks of this site...QinetiQ-ette (http://qinetiqette.wordpress.com/)

[Jackonicko]

Parallel Track,

I fear you may be adding 2 + 2 and making a number that you assume is 4.

I am not the John Nic that you might assume, I have never been a Tornado Nav, and while I do claim to be a journo, I'd admit that 'defence expert' is a bit of a stretch.

JN


Phuttbang,

No, I'm not 'after' QinetiQ, just trying to tie down loose ends, some of which are relevant when trying to understand the pre-history of Bright Adder, and which are also interesting when trying to work out what GR4 might have become.

JN

[PARALLEL TRACK]

Jacko

My apologies indeed. It was a classic case of 1 + 1 = 3.

[Jackonicko]

Six years on, and Typhoon AESA seems to have progressed less far and less rapidly than one might have wished.

We do at least seem to be looking at the Typhoons for Kuwait and Qatar being delivered with a basic Captor-E AESA ('Radar 0') but there has to be some doubt as to whether the seemingly 'relaxed' pace of testing on the two development aircraft will be sufficient to deliver an operational, fully tested AESA in time for the first deliveries to Kuwait next year or the year after.

It should be remembered that the CAESAR ((CAPTOR Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar) TDP began in 2002, was flown in sub-scale form on a BAC 1-11 from February 2006, and was then flown on Eurofighter Development Aircraft 5 in May 2007. That radar featured a fixed, flat array, and was to have been incorporated on Tranche 3 aircraft! It was to have been retrofittable to Tranche 2 Captor-D radars but not to Tranche 1 aircraft, whose radar featured 'older, lower performance processing technology', while the front bulkhead would require mods to cope with the weight of an AESA antenna array.

Furthermore, though we were all told some time ago that there will be a single radar programme, with a single radar standard, this is obviously (again) no longer the case, with some operators looking for a more capable AESA with some new functionalities (Radar 1) and with Britain (and perhaps Germany, if it ends up acquiring further Typhoons as Tornado replacements) wanting an even more capable radar with electronic attack (EA) and other advanced capabilities (Radar 2).

Though understandably little detail is known about any of the projected Captor-E variants (which may not even have been fully defined beyond the initial Radar 0 standard), it would seem likely that Radar 0 will consist of an existing Captor back-end, with some obsolescence removal, married to a new AESA array with a repositioner (the latter two elements perhaps borrowing heavily from the Gripen's Raven AESA - also a Selex design).

Radar 0 will presumablyprovide sufficient capability to allow for the fullest exploitation of the new MBDA Meteor missile, and a degree of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground functionality, but (with the exception of the very impressive field of regard conferred by the repositioner) is unlikely to mark a revolutionary improvement over the US AN/APG-79, 81, and 83, and may be fairly directly compared to the Raven now being fitted to the Gripen E/F, albeit with a larger antenna, with more TRMs and a larger aperture, and perhaps with more power.

The UK (at least) still apparently has a requirement for a more advanced and more capable AESA than Radar 0, which might not mark a really significant improvement over the existing M-Scan Typhoon radar. The UK also requires advanced EA capabilities. This has led to the so-called Radar 2, which might also be a feature of the additional German Typhoons that are to be acquired as Tornado replacements.

The need for a more advanced AESA may be exacerbated by the Team Tempest FCAS TI programme - it would seem like a backwards step to put Radar 0 into any FCAS TI demonstrator, let alone into any operational aircraft eventually flowing from that programme.

The difficulty is that the cost of developing a new AESA, or even a significantly different version of Captor-E would seem to be considerably greater than the funding that has been allocated to Typhoon over the next decade, presumably meaning that the UK cannot 'go it alone' on a Radar 2 programme. Unless more was achieved with Bright Adder, ARTS and TREV than we ever knew? Very little is known about any of those programmes, except that they fed into the UK 'Radar 2' requirement, and that Bright Adder might have been as much about research into the waveforms required for EA as it was about hardware.

And now we know that the still unfunded Radar 2 has been offered as part of the offering to Belgium, for example, and may be pat of the Saudi requirement for an additional 48 aircraft.

Yesterday, at Edinburgh, Leonardo (Selex) did at least confirm that they had received a contract for risk reduction efforts in support of a UK Typhoon AESA. Which was big news to me, anyway. It would be nice to think that Radar 2 was a real and credible and viable option.

[Buster15]

Parallel question:
1. With RAF GR4 retirement only a few months away, does anyone know the status of Typhoon Centurion update programme.
2. Will these Typhoon be as capable as Tornado in the CAS and ground attack role.

Given the significance I has expected to hear much more about it.

[Jackonicko]

There's a big write up in this month's Air International. (Along with a piece on Typhoon on Op Shader).

In short, Centurion is on track to deliver Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon to be operational by the end of the year, and certainly by the time Tornado stops flying on Shader.

There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?).

Nor will there be a RAPTOR capability, and that is still being used, and proving useful, on Shader.

On the other hand, we have SPEAR capability 3 to look forward to on Typhoon, and SPEAR 5.

There will be ways in which Typhoon will be a better air-to-ground aeroplane than Tornado, and doubtless also ways in which it won't be quite as good, but overall the mood seems to be one of quiet satisfaction and confidence that Centurion will do 'what it says on the tin'.

The Typhoon's standard loadout on Shader includes more PWIV's than does Tornado's at the moment, interestingly.

[Buster15]

There's a big write up in this month's Air International. (Along with a piece on Typhoon on Op Shader).

In short, Centurion is on track to deliver Storm Shadow and Brimstone onto Typhoon to be operational by the end of the year, and certainly by the time Tornado stops flying on Shader.

There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?).

Nor will there be a RAPTOR capability, and that is still being used, and proving useful, on Shader.

On the other hand, we have SPEAR capability 3 to look forward to on Typhoon, and SPEAR 5.

There will be ways in which Typhoon will be a better air-to-ground aeroplane than Tornado, and doubtless also ways in which it won't be quite as good, but overall the mood seems to be one of quiet satisfaction and confidence that Centurion will do 'what it says on the tin'.

The Typhoon's standard loadout on Shader includes more PWIV's than does Tornado's at the moment, interestingly.

Thank you for taking the time to update me on this.

I have read many times that the Tornado two crew configuration has been vital in times of extremely heavy workload.

I understand that Typhoon sensors and more modern systems reduce pilot workload but wonder whether in far more challenging scenarios than Shader that still applies.

Lastly Tornado has a radar specific to the A2G role wherever Typhoon was developed primarily for the A2A role.

Any thoughts on these points, assuming you are able to respond.

[Timelord]

The Tornado Ground Mapping Radar is not of much use in Shader type scenarios

[Jackonicko]

Buster 15,

No worries!

It's not the case that Typhoon was "developed primarily for the A2A role." It was always intended to be a multi-role/swing role aeroplane (replacing Jaguar in RAF service, for example), and to have a robust air-to-ground capability, though getting the type operational in the air-to-air role was the priority of all four of the original operators. When the UK embarked on the austere air-to-ground capability, it was very much a case of unlocking latent capabilities, rather than adding new and never-considered ones!

The current M-scan Captor radar does have a number of air-to-surface capabilities, and in some ways is superior to Tornado's twin radars as TimeLord suggests. Moreover, if and when the RAF Typhoons do get an AESA radar the Typhoon will be very much more capable as air-to-ground platforms.

It's not just about workload. The Typhoon pilot enjoys great SA, and connectivity. and on occasion the RAF has chosen to use mixed Typhoon/Tornado pairs (in Libya, for example) to allow the Tornado to benefit from this.

The Typhoon's HMSS/HEA also provides real advantages in the air-to-ground role.

[orca]

Did the Tornado benefit from the Typhoon in Ellamy or the other way round?

[Easy Street]

Did the Tornado benefit from the Typhoon in Ellamy or the other way round?

Tornado, Typhoon and the air campaign all benefited to varying degrees:

Tornado benefited from Typhoon's radar and datalink capability, giving better awareness of surrounding air activity (and making it easier to find the tanker). A cynic might say that it also benefited by being less likely to scrub: a programme consisting of singletons throughout the day is easier to manage when struggling for serviceability!

Typhoon benefited from Tornado's ability to generate accurate coordinates with its targeting pod, allowing weapons to be employed under GPS guidance without the delays imposed by waiting for off-board data: by far the best way of doing business in patchy cloud conditions, strong winds, and densely-packed city streets that can be a nightmare to lase into. It also benefited from the air-ground experience of the Tornado crews, in particular the capacity available to the nav to act as a tactical controller when operating semi-autonomously (as was often the case). Some of the Typhoon pilots were not yet qualified to self-designate their EPW2 so the Tornado did the honours in those cases, just as Buccaneers had done for them two decades earlier on Op GRANBY.

There was never a mutual self-defence consideration, due to the lack of air threat. Another important consideration was that Typhoon at the time was only equipped with EPW2, which did not have anything like the flexibility of PW4 in terms of cockpit-selectable fusing and impact options. Tornado's PW4 and especially DMS Brimstone were therefore the weapons of choice, and mixing the formations effectively doubled the daily length of time during which aircraft with these weapons were on station.

I gather that mixed formations have been used more recently for short periods on Op SHADER, at times when maximum daily DMS Brimstone coverage was desired during urban operations. As Typhoon now has A-G experienced pilots, PW4 and a coordinate generation capability, and Tornado has a datalink of its own, there doesn't seem to be many other reasons to do it.

[Buster15]

Tornado, Typhoon and the air campaign all benefited to varying degrees:

Tornado benefited from Typhoon's radar and datalink capability, giving better awareness of surrounding air activity (and making it easier to find the tanker). A cynic might say that it also benefited by being less likely to scrub: a programme consisting of singletons throughout the day is easier to manage when struggling for serviceability!

Typhoon benefited from Tornado's ability to generate accurate coordinates with its targeting pod, allowing weapons to be employed under GPS guidance without the delays imposed by waiting for off-board data: by far the best way of doing business in patchy cloud conditions, strong winds, and densely-packed city streets that can be a nightmare to lase into. It also benefited from the air-ground experience of the Tornado crews, in particular the capacity available to the nav to act as a tactical controller when operating semi-autonomously (as was often the case). Some of the Typhoon pilots were not yet qualified to self-designate their EPW2 so the Tornado did the honours in those cases, just as Buccaneers had done for them two decades earlier on Op GRANBY.

There was never a mutual self-defence consideration, due to the lack of air threat. Another important consideration was that Typhoon at the time was only equipped with EPW2, which did not have anything like the flexibility of PW4 in terms of cockpit-selectable fusing and impact options. Tornado's PW4 and especially DMS Brimstone were therefore the weapons of choice, and mixing the formations effectively doubled the daily length of time during which aircraft with these weapons were on station.

I gather that mixed formations have been used more recently for short periods on Op SHADER, at times when maximum daily DMS Brimstone coverage was desired during urban operations. As Typhoon now has A-G experienced pilots, PW4 and a coordinate generation capability, and Tornado has a datalink of its own, there doesn't seem to be many other reasons to do it.

Good to hear that Typhoon has a few advantages over the 40+ year old Tornado especially as it was developed for a Swing Role.

To me the real question is whether Typhoon will be as capable, adaptable and flexible toward the end of its service life as Tornado has been and still is.

Just as the GR4 has been able to evolve from its Cold War role, Typhoon will face even more demanding requirements than those posed by Op Shader.
In particular maintaining its relevance against the fast developing threats from surface to air and 5th and even 6th generation fighters.

[orca]

So in Ellamy the Typhoon gave the Tornado some SA and in return got coordinates, lasing, expertise....sounds like the Typhoon needed the Tornado! (Previous poster seemed to suggest other way round).

[Jackonicko]

There was some Typhoon lasing for Tornado, too, in Libya.

But yes, in 2011 an immature Typhoon probably benefited slightly more from the use of mixed pairs than did Tornado, but the reverse is probably true on Shader.

[Davef68]

There will be no ALARM, Paveway III, Sea Eagle, WE.177, JP233, BL755 capability - but then all of those have long vanished from Tornado (perhaps not PWIII and ALARM?)..

Alarm was supposed to be withdrawn in 2014, but I recall seeing an article suggesting it had returned to service after that, but a later article in 2017 suggested they had been retired and disposed of.

[insty66]

From Janes ALARM retirement (https://web.archive.org/web/20140201222605/http://www.janes.com/article/32800/uk-retires-alarm-missile)