Eighth RAF Typhoon squadron to form?

[Rhino power]

An eighth Typhoon squadron may be on the cards but, no overall increase in frontline aircraft numbers as the existing squadrons will lose aircraft in order for the additional squadron to form up...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-form-additional-typhoon-squadron/

-RP

[fallmonk]

Given the time it took to agree a design and field into squadrons.
How long do you think it will be before the Raf/mod starts to look at a replacement?
Or will the F-35 be the only fighter/fighter bomber in RAF service for the next 50 years ?

[bakseetblatherer]

Who's the next number plate in line, I wonder?

[just another jocky]

Will this be the Reservist sqn they've been talking about? I thought they were early batch ac for AD/QRA only not drawn from other sqns.


Perhaps my info is incorrect and/or out-of-date.

[Rhino power]

Just Another Jockey, the Tranche 1 jets have been allocated to the previously announced two extra squadrons I believe, this 'new' third extra squadron will receive jets from the already established squadrons, if I understand the article correctly. It's also a common mistake to believe that the Tranche 1 jets are AD capable only, they aren't, they have the capability to use the Litening pod and Paveway and in fact it was Tranche 1 (Block 5) jets that were used on Operation Ellamy over Libya in 2011. The Tranche 1 jets won't receive the upgrades necessary for Stormshadow and Brimstone though and aren't able to receive the AESA radar upgrade either...

-RP

[Wander00]

What is the advantage of forming a new squadron by reducing the size of existing squadrons in the ORBAT. Surely that just increases costs, although it does give a few more people "command" appointments

[MPN11]

What is the advantage of forming a new squadron by reducing the size of existing squadrons in the ORBAT. Surely that just increases costs, although it does give a few more people "command" appointments
1. Yes, a retention measure
2. Yes, broadening the base for the selection for a future CAS
3. Yes, giving the impression that UK is still punching above its weight

[ORAC]

Well if they are shrinking sans down to flight size, perhaps we can go back to having squadrons run by Sqn Ldrs, wings by Wg Cdrs and stations by Grp Cpts.

I don't mind if they give them pay increases for responsibility pay so they don't lose out, but at least it would make the rank structure saner and more logical to the civilian population.......

[MPN11]

ORAC ... and Flt Lts will command Flts, and the rest of the aircrew will be Plt Offs/Fg Offs :D

[Frostchamber]

So is this purely smoke and mirrors in terms of front line availability? The way I first read this was that the TyTAN contract would increase airframe availability from an unchanged overall pool, so that it would be possible to generate a larger FE@R from the same number of airframes - ie an extra squadron's worth in this case.

If that's not the case it's arguably less efficient to share the same availability among eight sqns rather than seven, although there are the retention and career structure plusses that have been mentioned and presentationally the ability to pass the change off as an increase...

[Easy Street]

I think improvements in the standard of simulation also increase the number of squadrons that can be sustained from a given fleet of aircraft. Look at the F-35 for example: much of what it does will only be trained for in the sim due to security considerations, so the sim needs to be capable of delivering very high quality training. Applying that same simulation technology and philosophy to other aircraft types is going to help wring more out more productivity - fewer BVR air combat exercises over the North Sea means fewer hours on Typhoon airframes, for example. If the Typhoon planning assumptions were previously based on A sqns flying B training hours per month for C years to fly a lifetime total of D hours, then (assuming D is fixed) reducing B lets A and C increase. We've seen both of those outcomes announced in the last year or so!

[MPN11]

This could also be seen as a move to 'pooled' airframes, un-badged and allocated as required to the user squadron on a daily basis. Think of the paint money saved.

Oh, why does this news make me feel so negative? Sorry, folks. :(

[Pontius Navigator]

Would it mean you could deploy a whole sqn to eastern Europe where the current sqns are too large?

[MPN11]

Sneaky thinking, PN ;)

[EricsLad]

'ow do chaps,
not being aviation related (ex Scaley ) , I have a rather odd question.
Money aside ( stupid thing to say ) , why not replace Captor in the Batch 1 airframes with a lesser sized/demanding AESA radar such as the Grippen or F16 radars that are in production ?
I rather suspect that the Batch 1 aircraft will be kept longer as there will be no realistic replacement soonish and airframe hours on later versions will be carefully husbanded.
Before anybody mentions the F35 as a replacement , whether it is appropriate or not , it and further Typhoons appear to be equally unaffordable.

[Finningley Boy]

What's the current UE of a Typhoon Sqn? I'm assuming about 16, if so, bearing in mind that at one point a UE of 10 was established for sqns in Germany in the 1970s it should be easy enough to simply move airframes around to leave about a dozen each among six units and some spares. As for airframe hours, are they being used up at a comparative high rate. Recalling the amount of movement, again, during the '70s and 80s... I can't see airframe fatigue being anything to give concern.

FB:)

[1.3VStall]

Does anyone yet have a handle on the number plates for these additional squadrons?

Might we dream that the mighty Ninety-Blue may once again get some jets to play with?

[melmothtw]

It's also a common mistake to believe that the Tranche 1 jets are AD capable only, they aren't, they have the capability to use the Litening pod and Paveway and in fact it was Tranche 1 (Block 5) jets that were used on Operation Ellamy over Libya in 2011.


True, but irrelevant to this discussion - 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)

[dctyke]

What's the current UE of a Typhoon Sqn? I'm assuming about 16, if so, bearing in mind that at one point a UE of 10 was established for sqns in Germany in the 1970s it should be easy enough to simply move airframes around to leave about a dozen each among six units and some spares. As for airframe hours, are they being used up at a comparative high rate. Recalling the amount of movement, again, during the '70s and 80s... I can't see airframe fatigue being anything to give concern.

FB:)

Sure it will be fairly easy to move airframes to create two new sqns, you just won't have the engineers to fix em. The manning situation is dire with the sqns we have at the moment never mind more.

[Not_a_boffin]

Maybe time to stand up 800NAS/801NAS to allow for ramp up to CS FoC in 2023......

[barnstormer1968]

In laymans terms does this mean the future AD force will have a radar that is less capable for AD than the Typhoons in other squadrons?

[Rhino power]

True, but irrelevant to this discussion - 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)

Yes, I know all about the (supposed) intended use for the Tranche 1 jets, I was simply highlighting the fact that they're not just AD capable, since that has been the assumption of some folks previously in other discussions...

-RP

[Martin the Martian]

Well, give or take a few months, the current seniority for inactive squadrons is:

-No.9 Squadron (96 years)
-No.12 Squadron (96 years)
-No.25 Squadron (92 years)
-No.111 Squadron (90 years)
-No.23 Squadron (85 years)
-No.208 Squadron (84 years)
-No.43 Squadron (83 years)
-No.20 Squadron (74 years)
-No.19 Squadron (67 years)
-No.15 Squadron (65 years)

I've included the Tornado squadrons as they don't have much longer left before the GR.4 finally goes.

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:


Originally Posted by Finningley Boy View Post

What's the current UE of a Typhoon Sqn? I'm assuming about 16, if so, bearing in mind that at one point a UE of 10 was established for sqns in Germany in the 1970s it should be easy enough to simply move airframes around to leave about a dozen each among six units and some spares. As for airframe hours, are they being used up at a comparative high rate. Recalling the amount of movement, again, during the '70s and 80s... I can't see airframe fatigue being anything to give concern.

FB

Sure it will be fairly easy to move airframes to create two new sqns, you just won't have the engineers to fix em. The manning situation is dire with the sqns we have at the moment never mind more.

Then what's needed is a recruitment campaign, every town throughout the land should have someone bringing a drum on behalf of the RAF, with a SWO type character, in best blue, reassuring fretful mothers that 'he'll look after their little Johnny and see he gets three squares a day, a chance to see the world and serve the colours at the same time'!:E

FB:)

[downsizer]

I vote for 9, especially given the shameful actions that gave the junior sqn F35s.... :E

[Finningley Boy]

Ok,

Here's my expected deployment;

FGR4 Sqns: 2, 6, 9, 12, 11 and 31

F2 Sqns: 1 and 3

In other words, the existing and single new FGR4 units will be re-numbered to continue the last of Tornado units. While 1 and 3, traditionally Figter units will be come the numbers of the Interceptor Sqns. I also understand there'll be more F-35 Sqns, I imagine one of the afore mentioned or 15 Sqn will provide the next RAF number plate in that regard.:8

FB:)

[Treble one]

If this squadron is going to be a dedicated AD squadron it needs a (F) squadron number plate?


Admittedly I am a tad biased but surely it has to be either 111 or 43....?

[Sandy Parts]

dctyke - or, put all the engineers in a Line Servicing Sqn and have them work on all the 'sqn's' jets in that location? Deploy with a team suitable for task and rotate the guys as needed. Avoids pinch point trades but admittedly reduces 'sqn' cohesion. Has been done successfully on other fleets.

[Finningley Boy]

Treble one, I would like to see just that; 43 and 111, but in keeping with the custom of oldest first with special status also given priority, i.e. 617, then 1 and 3, both of which also are identified as (F) Squadrons by tradition, will likely take the mantle. It will also allow the three remaining Tornado units the opportunity to continue with Typhoon in the primarily offensive support role with the FGR4s.:8

FB:)

[Rhino power]

F2 Sqns...

There are no F.2's any more, all single seaters are FGR.4's and the twin-sticks are T.3's...

-RP

[Finningley Boy]

There are no F.2's any more, all single seaters are FGR.4's and the twin-sticks are T.3's...

-RP

I thought the Tranche 1 aircraft that are intended to make up the two dedicated Interceptor units were F2s?:confused:

FB:)

[Heathrow Harry]

"first with special status also given priority, i.e. 617,"

I can see the DMail headlnie already

" Air Force Bosses kill off Dambusters!" (optional to add "OUTRAGE!!")

[Rhino power]

I thought the Tranche 1 aircraft that are intended to make up the two dedicated Interceptor units were F2s?:confused:

FB:)

No, all Tranche 1 F.2's were re-designated FGR.4 when they received the 'austere' air-to-ground upgrade from Block 5 onwards, the first Block 5 jet was ZJ939, jets from previous Blocks were upgraded to this standard as well so the entire F.2 fleet eventually all became FGR.4's.

-RP

[Finningley Boy]

No, all Tranche 1 F.2's were re-designated FGR.4 when they received the 'austere' air-to-ground upgrade from Block 5 onwards, the first Block 5 jet was ZJ939, jets from previous Blocks were upgraded to this standard as well so the entire F.2 fleet eventually all became FGR.4's

Ok copied!

FB:)

[melmothtw]

Will the designation not pertain to their role (air defence - F2) rather than their capability (multirole- FGR4)? Genuine question.

[dctyke]

dctyke - or, put all the engineers in a Line Servicing Sqn and have them work on all the 'sqn's' jets in that location? Deploy with a team suitable for task and rotate the guys as needed. Avoids pinch point trades but admittedly reduces 'sqn' cohesion. Has been done successfully on other fleets.

Cannot argue it has worked on heavy fleets and flying training. Not so sure about war fighting pointy things though. The bean counters would welcome it as I'm sure they could find savings in it. As long as the balloon doesn't go up and the sqns don't demand the eng manpower at the same time at dispersed locations.

[Treble one]

Your proposed squadron realignment does seem sensible FB-however just wondering how the boys currently flying FGR4's in 1 and 3 squadrons with all those shiny new toys to use coming up in the multirole environment will feel about having to fly a less capable airframe?


Surely better to have a core of pilots experienced in AD (From an F3 background rather than Harrier/GR4) in these new squadrons and reform with old numberplates as I suggest? (There's even at least one Phantom driver left flying the Typhoon now IIRC)


Just a thought?


I'm sure they'll do what they are told....or leave....

[Rhino power]

Will the designation not pertain to their role (air defence - F2) rather than their capability (multirole- FGR4)? Genuine question.

Not really any point with another re-designation, The 'F' in FGR.4 will be the same role as the 'F' in 'F.2', so it would be pointless...

-RP

[Davef68]

Will the designation not pertain to their role (air defence - F2) rather than their capability (multirole- FGR4)? Genuine question.
No, the Phantom was air defence only for years, but still retained FGR2 designation. Just because an aircraft is only roled in a particular task doesn't affect it's capability.

Now there might be an argument for the more capable aircraft being redesignated FGR5 or 6...

[XR219]

Now there might be an argument for the more capable aircraft being redesignated FGR5 or 6...

Absolutely, but it appears whoever is in charge of these things has decided in their infinite wisdom that all Typhoons from Tranche 1 Block 5 standard up to and including Tranche 3 shall be known as either Typhoon T3s or FGR4s.

[Finningley Boy]

Your proposed squadron realignment does seem sensible FB-however just wondering how the boys currently flying FGR4's in 1 and 3 squadrons with all those shiny new toys to use coming up in the multirole environment will feel about having to fly a less capable airframe?


Surely better to have a core of pilots experienced in AD (From an F3 background rather than Harrier/GR4) in these new squadrons and reform with old numberplates as I suggest? (There's even at least one Phantom driver left flying the Typhoon now IIRC)


Ah yes trebleone, but what I'm suggesting is; the current 1 and 3 gangs have quick run round with some buckets of paint and brushes and re-badge their jets as say... 9 and 12. Then the new (sort of) AD dedicated sqns do the same thing with their jets marking them as 1 and 3 Sqns respectively! The only problem really woul be transfer of mess silver and other bits and pieces from crew rooms to their respective new homes!:uhoh: Nothing should go missing I'm sure!!:ok:

FB:)