RAF to scrap twin-seat Typhoons

[typerated]

RAF to scrap twin-seat Typhoons | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/77413/raf-to-scrap-twin-seat-typhoon)

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is to scrap 16 UK Eurofighter Typhoons as part of a project to save GBP 800 million (USD1.13 billion) on the running cost of the service's combat aircraft fleet.

The plans to dismantle the aircraft and harvest spare parts for use on the remainder of the Typhoon fleet were revealed to Jane’s on 29th January by RAF Air Command at High Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire, in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request.

The project, known as Reduce to Produce (RTP), aims to generate GBP50 million worth of parts from each airframe “back into the supply chain”, according to the FOI data.

[typerated]

Either the story is nonsense - even if it come from Janes?

Or we are in trouble! So with one hand we get more Typhoon Sqns and with the other hand this..

[atakacs]

Well my question would be more about what was the role of those aircrafts (I guess training?) and how will it be fulfilled?

[Heathrow Harry]

Salami slicing.... and probably not the last one either......

[HaveQuick2]

These are some of the oldest and time expired Typhoons in the fleet. They are Tranche 1 jets that are increasingly irrelevant in comparison with the currently developed production versions.


This is actually a good news story, the RTP line started last year and if it recovers a huge $value of spares from each frame, then surely it is a no-brainer. The Tranche 1 aircraft cannot be upgraded to current standards, and the superb sims now available negate the need for a huge fleet of two-seaters.


Once RTP is complete on these old jets, there will still be a few of the newer standard two-seaters on strength as needed.

[Bob Viking]

HQ2 has hit the nail on the head.

Years ago we had twin seat versions of single seat jets because it was necessary. That is no longer the case.

This is not the bad news story you assume. It may (should) actually help the Typhoon force in the long run.

BV

[Valiantone]

They started this last summer. And the first jet was there outside for all to see when the Germans visited last September.


Even after spares recovery I'm sure they could do something useful with the gutted shell....?


:rolleyes:

[PDR1]

Like what?

[Valiantone]

The MoD found plenty of other uses for retired airframes that have been spares recovered.


Ok we don't burn airframes at Manston now, but something for firecrews to play with for vehicle positioning...?




They even sent one of the early Tornados to China Lake for bomb trials (that was a no brainer)

[unmanned_droid]

With all the carbon we couldn't burn them now.

BDR training would be a good application I guess?

[chevvron]

The MoD found plenty of other uses for retired airframes that have been spares recovered.


Used to be dozens of Jaguar/JP/Gnat airframes in the workshops at Halton giving valuable experience to the brats; did some of them move to Cosford?

[Fonsini]

Are they planning on building any new Tranche 3A two seaters?

[Onceapilot]

Used to be dozens of Jaguar/JP/Gnat airframes in the workshops at Halton giving valuable experience to the brats; did some of them move to Cosford?

Also, Javelin, Hunter and Sea Vixen in my day. The flat-iron was good for airframe repairs (a lot of airframe!), Hunter was good for Hydraulics and, with the Avons for engine strip/rebuild. JP was nice for ground running, wing removal/rebuild, rigging and jacking (fairly safe if it went badly!). Sea Vixen was too big and complex really, did some fuel tank and component removal/refit work on them. Great days! :ok:

OAP

[MPN11]

Even after spares recovery I'm sure they could do something useful with the gutted shell....?
:
Decoy airframes? Oh, wait, the Russians aren’t attaching UK these days.

In a previous existence, I was looking at providing all FJ bases with a small fleet of multi-spectral decoys at £12.5k apiece.

[Jayand]

Used to be dozens of Jaguar/JP/Gnat airframes in the workshops at Halton giving valuable experience to the brats; did some of them move to Cosford?
Brats? by which you mean APPO'S or apprenctices were not the exclusive users of these.
The airframes at Halton and now Cosford were/are used by aircraft mechs on their basic courses and of course the techs on their fitters courses.

[ORAC]

Are they planning on building any new Tranche 3A two seaters? Considering that there are no 2 seat F-35s as the training can be done in the simulator these days at vastly reduced cost; and the post above concerning the quality of the current Typhoon simulators. Why?

[chevvron]

Brats? by which you mean APPO'S or apprenctices were not the exclusive users of these.
The airframes at Halton and now Cosford were/are used by aircraft mechs on their basic courses and of course the techs on their fitters courses.

They also had some taxiable JPs on the airfield which were used for traiinng Flight Line Mechanics, plus a couple of taxiable Gnats used to train engine fitters to carry out ground runs.
They needed pilots or qualified/authorised groundcrew to taxy these types of course. One day there were a couple of Gnats at the ERB which needed to go back to the hangar and rather than get a someone down from the main camp, the SNCO i/c asked us microlight pilots to taxy them!

[Jobza Guddun]

They needed pilots to taxy these types of course.

Suitably trained Sgts and Chiefs, with varying degrees of grumpiness, horribleness or buffoonery - all part of the act (in most cases)!

[Simplythebeast]

They also had some taxiable JPs on the airfield which were used for traiinng Flight Line Mechanics, plus a couple of taxiable Gnats used to train engine fitters to carry out ground runs.
They needed pilots to taxy these types of course. One day there were a couple of Gnats at the ERB which needed to go back to the hangar and rather than get a pilot down from the main camp, the SNCO i/c asked us microlight pilots to taxy them!

Taxiable Percival Provost in my day. I remember being chased around the airfield while supposed marshalling one.

[kaitakbowler]

"Taxiable Percival Provost in my day."

ISTR a couple of Pembrokes at 4SofTT, Grumpy Chiefs for the use of.

[Bonkey]

More a question out of curiosity here regarding the provision of Trainer versions of combat aircraft. What criteria decides whether a "T2" dual seat / dual control version is required?

Looking back in history, neither the Buccaneer or Sea Vixen had a proper T2 variant whilst the roughly similar vintage Lightning and Harrier did have dedicated trainer versions? OK, the Buccaneer had 1 or 2 twin-seat Hunter's modified with Buccaneer instrument panels to give the same cockpit familiarization - but it would not have handled the same way as the real aircraft types. Similarly I don't believe the F4 Phantom had a full T2 version either?

So how come some aircraft of the 60s and 70s had a dedicated Trainer version provided in the scope but not others? And why has the Typhoon got one but the Tornado didn't?

[EAP86]

And why has the Typhoon got one but the Tornado didn't?

Tornado did have twin stick versions in both IDS and ADV variants.

EAP

[CharlieJuliet]

UK F4 Phantom certainly had 2 stickers. These were operationally capable, but could have a stick put into the rear seat. All UK XT and XV 300 series were 2 stickers I think,

[Ken Scott]

Well there goes my chance of a Typhoon back-seat ride.....

[Valiantone]

They are keeping the 5 Tranche 2 twin sticks

[Two's in]

I would like to see the Integrated Logistic Support model that demonstrates the most cost effective way to get GBP 50M worth of spares back into the supply chain is to cannibalize a billion currency units worth of airframes. By all means utilize the 2 seaters if you can make the case for synthetic training, but don't try and hide the fact that Typhoon spares and cannibalization have been a piss up in brewery since day one by claiming this as a saving! It's a saving on training while the supply chain continues to hemorrhage tax payers money unfixed.

[notmesir]

Reminds me of the story who of lad who saved 5 quid in bus fare money by running home.
Upon telling his father he got a wack on the back of the head - " next time save yourself 40 quid and run home beside a taxi!"

[ORAC]

I believe the article says £50M per airframe, a total of £800M out of the £1B you quote.

[The Oberon]

With all the carbon we couldn't burn them now.

BDR training would be a good application I guess?

Sorry about the drift but who carries out any composite repairs on the Typhoon? Are the RAF airframe techs trained to do it, or is it contractor only?

[unmanned_droid]

Sorry about the drift but who carries out any composite repairs on the Typhoon? Are the RAF airframe techs trained to do it, or is it contractor only?

I have no idea, I admit I was reaching a bit.

I have some knowledge of service personnel carrying out development of repairs due to expected types of enemy fire on a new mostly carbon aircraft type.

[PDR1]

I would like to see the Integrated Logistic Support model that demonstrates the most cost effective way to get GBP 50M worth of spares back into the supply chain is to cannibalize a billion currency units worth of airframes. By all means utilize the 2 seaters if you can make the case for synthetic training, but don't try and hide the fact that Typhoon spares and cannibalization have been a piss up in brewery since day one by claiming this as a saving! It's a saving on training while the supply chain continues to hemorrhage tax payers money unfixed.

The original Tornado RTP programme (scrapping un-needed aircraft to recover parts) gave a large benefit both in financial and availability terms. I'm not involved in this one, but it wouldn't be happening if there was no business case to do it. These are T1 aircraft, so thier parts may well mitigate serious obsolescence issues, and the RAF really have no need for T1 t-birds any more.

On a point of order - an ILS/LSA study can only look at a generic fleet, not specific aeroplanes. It's a stochastic analysis which doesn't work at that level of granularity. So there won't be an "ILS model" which shows what you're looking for.

€0.0001 supplied,

PDR

[Trumpet_trousers]

It's a stochastic analysis which doesn't work at that level of granularity
Wow! I think you should run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it, then get all your ducks in a row going forward! Any chance that you could explain that in simple English?

[unmanned_droid]

Wow! I think you should run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it, then get all your ducks in a row going forward! Any chance that you could explain that in simple English?

It means, statistics only works with lots of data points.

[Buster15]

Wow! I think you should run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it, then get all your ducks in a row going forward! Any chance that you could explain that in simple English?

Having been involved in ILS/LSA programmes this is fairly typical of the language some people use. Such programmes can be hideously expensive, spew out vast amounts of data which people believe because they don't know anything else. And yet the result is often either too much or too little or the wrong standard of whatever was required for support and maintenance...

[Easy Street]

The benefit in RTPing these Typhoons is not so much in the financial value of the spares harvested as in the saving on maintenance, storage and airworthiness management of aircraft that do not have the required operational capability and are no longer required for training purposes. Essentially, they had become surplus to requirements, so why waste money keeping them going? A no-brainer.

[HEDP]

How would this stack up versus giving them to the Red Arrows to replace the Hawks thereby effectively removing a type from the inventory? To make the numbers required, combine with the Tranche 2 T2's.

I thought the best savings were made by removing types...

[PDR1]

Wow! I think you should run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it, then get all your ducks in a row going forward! Any chance that you could explain that in simple English?

Apologies - I thought I was talking to grown-ups.

ILS (the management process) and LSA (the technical/engineering analyses) are a set of techniques used to understand the in-service consequences of design decisions, and to ensure that the interests of the future operating organisations are given due consideration during the design phase.

They also include techniques to guide the design of the "optimum" support infrastructure and (more usefully) understand what the cost/operation/support trade-off would be if an alternative support infrastructure design was used for pragmatic or external reasons (eg "if the optimum support infrastructure has no 2nd line what would the extra cost be if I wanted to keep my second line to provide opportunities for rest tours for rotated personnel which would keep their skills current"). The output of the process is all the data for repairs, spares, support equipment, tools, training, facilities etc etc

The ILS/LSA process is a list of optional tasks and studies, each of which should only be done where they can produce information that is actually needed. In fact the very first element is to identify which tasks are needed (and why) using "least is best" and "if in doubt leave it out" as the primary guidance. This selection is supposed to be done collaboratively by purchaser and supplier, but the final decision is made my the purchaser - in UK defence procurement that's either a serving officer or (less often) a civil servant, and frankly their effectiveness it patchy.

In the days when I was involved in this sort of thing the procurement was either a DLO-led one or a DPA-led one. In the DLO-led procurements the ILS/LSA tailoring would usually be pretty effective - the desk officer would have responsibility for actually delivering the thing in a working form and so had a good idea what was actually needed.

In the DPA-led ones it was usually less effective because the DPA IPTs only took a programme to the end of the design phase before handing it over to the DPA to actually deliver. The DPA desk officers would generally tailor-out almost nothing, for fear of being found to have missed something. Those programmes were expensive, and developed reams of data that were just filed away because no one actually needed them.

Anyway, the foundation of all the analyses is reliability data, and reliability data is statistical*, based on the probability of events occurring in fleets over large numbers of missions/years or whatever. If you try to apply it to a single item and/or a short timescale the results will have very little meaning.

Is that better?

PDR

* since you don't like "stochastic"

[PDR1]

How would this stack up versus giving them to the Red Arrows to replace the Hawks thereby effectively removing a type from the inventory?

Far to expensive for the Reds to operate

PDR

[AnglianAV8R]

How would this stack up versus giving them to the Red Arrows to replace the Hawks thereby effectively removing a type from the inventory? To make the numbers required, combine with the Tranche 2 T2's.

I thought the best savings were made by removing types...

Broadly correct in terms of total fleet costs, but probably not in this case.
The costs of operating a bespoke bunch of 2 seater Typhoons must be considerably greater than the very (relatively) simple Hawk T1. twice the number of engines, hugely increased fuel burn and so forth.

There are sufficient spare Hawk frames to maintain the Reds up to the OSD. Not so with this finite number tranche1 2 seat Typhoons ?

[Rhino power]

Apologies - I thought I was talking to grown-ups.

Is that better?

PDR

* since you don't like "stochastic"

Congratulations, you win this week's, 'Most Patronising Prat' award!

As suggested, would it really have been so difficult to reply in plain English? Instead of that flowery, self indulgent, 'look how clever I am', management speak, drivel... :yuk:

-RP

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Meanwhile, all the Aussies here are suffering traumatic Kevin Rudd flashbacks. :eek:

[rjtjrt]

Meanwhile, all the Aussies here are suffering traumatic Kevin Rudd flashbacks. :eek:

What’s wrong with a little “detailed programmatic specificity”?

[flighthappens]

Broadly correct in terms of total fleet costs, but probably not in this case.
The costs of operating a bespoke bunch of 2 seater Typhoons must be considerably greater than the very (relatively) simple Hawk T1. twice the number of engines, hugely increased fuel burn and so forth.

There are sufficient spare Hawk frames to maintain the Reds up to the OSD. Not so with this finite number tranche1 2 seat Typhoons ?

Plus with the Hawks you get 9 more often than not. With Tr1 twin stickers you would be lucky to get 3...

[PDR1]

As suggested, would it really have been so difficult to reply in plain English?

I did. The issue is that it seems you can't grasp plain english. The word "stochastic" is not "flowery management speak" - it's a simple, basic word. If you hadn't come across it before it would have taken you a couple of seconds to right-click on it and discovered its meaning from Mr Google.

Ignorance on your part does not constitute a crisis on mine.

PDR

[BEagle]

I'm with Rhino power on this! Those who use words such as 'stochastic' in everyday speech are the sort of people who use biz-speak drivel such as "And, if we actually think outside the box and facilitate an idea shower with stakeholders, taking action forward together, we must be able to develop the holistic, cradle-to-grave approach of our challenges. Perhaps if we touch base offline and conversate the pre-plan when you have a window. Remember, my door is open on this issue, I’m still optimistic that, working with our strategic partners, the issues and challenges will feed through the service delivery pipeline."
:uhoh:

[Bing]

Disagree stochastic is a precise term that would never get used in management speak. Of course with such a high percentage of RAF on here maybe it's best to limit the vocabulary to the level of a Janet and John book.

[PDR1]

I'm with Rhino power on this! Those who use words such as 'stochastic' in everyday speech are the sort of people who use biz-speak drivel such as "And, if we actually think outside the box and facilitate an idea shower with stakeholders, taking action forward together, we must be able to develop the holistic, cradle-to-grave approach of our challenges. Perhaps if we touch base offline and conversate the pre-plan when you have a window. Remember, my door is open on this issue, I’m still optimistic that, working with our strategic partners, the issues and challenges will feed through the service delivery pipeline."
:uhoh:

What utter twaddle. I'm an engineer, not a manager. It's an engineering/scientific/mathematical word which is used to give a precise meaning that might otherwise take a few sentences to communicate.

Not knowing something isn't a crime - it just creates an opportunity to look it up and expand your understanding of the world around you. The crime is having such a blinkered outlook that when you encounter something you haven't seen before you start jeering and bleating to mummy about the nasty man who is using words that aren't found in the vocabulary of one with a single-digit reading age.

So the "crime" is being "actively ignorant" - childishly refusing to learn stuff.

PDR

[Herod]

"Ooh er, mother". With apologies to Frankie Howard

[Frostchamber]

Anyway, whether stochastic or not, I think I conclude on balance that the loss of a few Tranche 1 twin stick airframes doesn't make it onto my current list of most-worrying defence issues.

I do just wonder if the remaining pool of airframes, especially the 100 or so Tranche 2 and 3s, is quite big enough to rotate them through the front line out to 2040. Once upon a time there might have been a prospect of a small top up batch, but possibly not in the current climate.

[AnglianAV8R]

I'm with Rhino power on this! Those who use words such as 'stochastic' in everyday speech are the sort of people who use biz-speak drivel such as "And, if we actually think outside the box and facilitate an idea shower with stakeholders, taking action forward together, we must be able to develop the holistic, cradle-to-grave approach of our challenges. Perhaps if we touch base offline and conversate the pre-plan when you have a window. Remember, my door is open on this issue, I’m still optimistic that, working with our strategic partners, the issues and challenges will feed through the service delivery pipeline."
:uhoh:

Ok, we seem to be in agreement.
Run that one up the flagpole and see how it flies. ;)

[Tarnished]

A huge expense in EVER having a twin seat version in the first place. It was only done because no one had the guts or the hard evidence to prove that the synthetics would be good enough to meet the modern safety case.

Oh, and to allow certain of the high priced help to get to fly it without putting in the hard hours (and clogging) ground school.....

Oh, and to allow the marketing campaigns a chance to do the same.

Tarnished

[57mm]

As ever, Tarnished, straight to the point. :ok:

[KPax]

Back to the original post, I believe that of the 8 Tranche 1 Typhoons currently in Storage, none of them are twin sticks.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can help a bit here. (I'm an engineer, too).

I'd agree (sorry PDR1) that using the word 'stochastic' is really asking a bit too much of the average pilot. As an engineer, I always made sure that when I was explaining technical matters to ANY audience, I did so in a way that they could understand. That said, there's never any excuse for lack of manners and sarcasm, from either side. Forums like PPrune should be informal, but rude? No.

Actually, I had to look up 'stochastic', and I got this (fairly clear) definition:

Situations or models containing a random element, hence unpredictable and without a stable pattern or order. All natural events are stochastic phenomenon. And businesses ... are stochastic systems because their internal environments are affected by random events in the external environment. Stochastic is often taken to be synonymous with probabilistic but.... stochastic conveys the idea of (actual or apparent) randomness whereas probabilistic is directly related to probabilities and is therefore only indirectly associated with randomness.

So, as I read it, 'stochastic' refers to random events, as opposed to 'probable' events. However, that does rather cut across PRD1's statement that:

'...the foundation of all the analyses is reliability data, and reliability data is statistical*, based on the probability of events occurring in fleets over large numbers of missions/years or whatever.'

I absolutely agree with PDR1 on that last statement. Where I would, very respectfully, part with him would be an assertion that an ILS/LSA analysis is 'stochastic'. In my experience, it's normally probability based, but if the newer analyses have found a way to include randomness then, hey, fill yer boots.

OK, explanation for non-experts (like me). Any ILS/LSA analysis for a new aircraft (or any new system) has to use a large number of assumptions and predictions, particularly those associated with anticipated usage and the predicted reliability of components and systems. So here's the unvarnished truth - any initial spares/support package is liable to be really, really wrong. What smart project managers do is take the output from from ILS/LSA analyses and apply a good stiff dose of common sense to it. Then ensure that when the stuff enters service, it is subjected to formal fault reporting, with a comprehensive 'blacklist' to make sure that key (high cost and/or mission critical) components assessed as U/S are properly investigated to find out what went wrong.

Then, they regularly adjust their support/spares packages to make sure that what they're sending to the front line matches what is actually happening. Here's the problem. Many PMs now working in DE&S don't even know what a 'blacklist' is, never mind a defect reporting form. So kit enters service without the essential feedback loop to adjust the spares provisioning. This is not an opinion, I've seen it happen on multiple (and recent) programmes.

To the subject. Dismantling aircraft for spares is only ever economic when you have surplus aircraft you don't need any more. And even then it's marginal, given the costs to actually remove the kit, get it reconditioned and certified, repackaged and reloaded on to the ILS system. Oh, and the parts you get out of this process are 'part lifed', unless you pay for them to be reset to zero hours. That said, given the state of the MoD budgets these days, even a marginal pay back is worth it. Yeah, strip the mothers.

This also shows that the Typhoon fleet is now too big for the job it's now required to do. The T1 buy was probably driven by the same 'broad brush' (i.e. bum) calculations I saw being used to justify Harrier T10 numbers on JFH. That, plus a realisation that sim hours can be far more useful that burning holes in the sky (or providing a handy 'hack' for the CO to fly around in).

Best regards as ever to all those juggling the fleets, it's never easy with less money,

Engines

[Brian 48nav]

Blimey and there's me thinking for years that ILS stands for Instrument Landing System!

My late F-i-L was an engineer at RAE Farnborough, or Boffin as I used to call him. He didn't have much of a sense of humour either - seems to be an engineer characteristic according to TP son at Airbus!

[ORAC]

Brian, exactly what I thought the first time I heard ILS in a Systems Engineerung environment - now I are one....

I'd agree (sorry PDR1) that using the word 'stochastic' is really asking a bit too much of the average pilot. As an engineer, I always made sure that when I was explaining technical matters to ANY audience, I did so in a way that they could understand.

I can recall being told by an engineer that when describing FMICW to pilots, when it got to the parts when they processing involved processes such as fast Fourier transforms he tended to describe it as as FM (f***ing magic) or WMM.....

[PDR1]

Where I would, very respectfully, part with him would be an assertion that an ILS/LSA analysis is 'stochastic'. In my experience, it's normally probability based, but if the newer analyses have found a way to include randomness then, hey, fill yer boots.


Probability-based events ARE "random"; that's essentially what a probability density function is telling you. Reliability analysis divides an items life into three phases:

1. The "infanty mortality" phase - early failures are presumed to be mostly due to manufacturing defects, and the probability of a manufacturing defect remaining present in-service decreases exponentially with time/usage/cycles etc. That's actually the technical purpose of burn-in testing (aka "Production Reliability Acceptance Testing"*)- to get the item through the infant mortality phase so that the probability of manufacturing defects remaining was acceptably low.

2. The "Wear-out" phase - the back end of the item's life when stuff is starting to exhibit wear/degradation. The probability of this happening is exponential with respect to time/cycles/usage etc. There are types of equipment that don't have a wear-out characteristic, but they are much rarer than most people think.

3. The bit between the two which is misleadingly called the "constant failure rate" phase. In this phase you expect to see a failure rate which looks fairly similar when measured over a long enough period - failures per year, failures per 100,000 cycles or whatever, so that when plotted it looks like a flat(ish) line. In this period we say the failures are "random" when what we actually mean is "the time between each failure is random". The total time covering any 100 failures may be a nearly constant figure, but those 100 failures will be randomly clustered into clumps rather than being evenly-spaced through the period.

All three of these phases model well using the exponential probability distribution. So we have an initial exponentially decreasing phase, then a flat-line phase, then an exponentially increasing phase. The probability of a failure at any time is given by the sum of the three phases, and when you sum the three probability densities you get a plot that looks like a bathtub (the infamous "reliability bathtub curve" - that's where it comes from).

HTH,

PDR

* yes, we do know what that looks like as an acronym. Blame the Americans - they put it in the mil-spec

[Valiantone]

Kpax


Currently 9 and a half, if you include the fuselage of the one that made a mess of China Lakes runway 10 years ago

[k3k3]

I right clicked on Stochastic, Google drop down menu said "Translate to English".

[Davef68]

A huge expense in EVER having a twin seat version in the first place. It was only done because no one had the guts or the hard evidence to prove that the synthetics would be good enough to meet the modern safety case.

Oh, and to allow certain of the high priced help to get to fly it without putting in the hard hours (and clogging) ground school.....

Oh, and to allow the marketing campaigns a chance to do the same.

Tarnished

The decision to develop a two seat version goes back to the late 80s. Was it appreciated that the capability of synthetic training would be sufficient that a pilot could make his first flight on type solo?

Again, a stop could have been made at production ordering, but was their sufficient confidence in simulator training then?

As a counter, the US decided around the same time not to develop a two seat version for the F-22.

In some ways, the issue is compounded by the fact these 16 aircraft were intended to be a much smaller part fo the Typhoon fleet than they are, when our original buy was scheduled to be 230 aircraft

[scorpion63]

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSs2cbKnNadXwA6xNLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTEycnF1cmNpBGNvbG8Da XIyBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjUxNDFfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1517525659/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fStochastic_screen ing/RK=2/RS=PEDLfYDDxPGu1GWluniuG4bQ5hk-

Just saying !!

[Trumpet_trousers]

Ignorance on your part does not constitute a crisis on mine.
Thanks for confirming that you appear to be overdrawn at the spermbank

[EAP86]

A huge expense in EVER having a twin seat version in the first place. It was only done because no one had the guts or the hard evidence to prove that the synthetics would be good enough to meet the modern safety case.

I'm guessing from your PPRUNE name that you may recall that during design and development EF was forbidden from referring to the twin seat version as a "trainer". The 2 seater always struck me as an odd requirement given the fidelity of modern simulation and the additional costs involved. I wondered whether it might have been that some senior officers were concerned about aircrews' ability to live the aircraft's performance from an aeromedical perspective. Some IAM people did hold opinions on this 'risk' causing some annoyance in the industry TP population. I think history shows that the risk wasn't very real.

EAP

PS as an aside to all, my Google lookup defines 'stochastic' as "having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely" which works quite well for me.

[PhilipG]

As a point of interest does anyone have an explanation as to why the French Air Force seem to have a roughly equal force of single and two seat Rafales?

I am assuming that the answer is not just the nuclear role as the Naval single seaters are nuclear capable.

[pr00ne]

Short sighted conservatism?

[ACW599]

Ok, we seem to be in agreement.
Run that one up the flagpole and see how it flies. ;)

No, no, no. We need to hit the ground running, keep our eye on the ball, and make sure that we are singing off the same song-sheet. At the end of the day it is not a level playing field and the goalposts may move; if they do, someone may have to pick it up and run with it. We therefore must have a golf bag of options hot-to-trot from the word "go". It is your train set but we cannot afford to leave it on the back-burner; we've got a lot of irons in the fire right now.

We will need to un-stick a few potential poo traps but it all depends on the flash-to bang time and fudge factor allowed. Things may end up slipping to the left and, if they do, we will need to run a tight ship. I don't want to reinvent the wheel but we must get right into the weeds on this one. If push comes to shove, we may have to up-stumps and then we'll be in a whole new ball game.

I suggest we test the water with a few warmers in the bank. If we can produce the goods then we are cooking with gas. If not, then we are in a world of hurt. I don't want to die in a ditch over it but we could easily end up in a flat spin if people start getting twitchy.

To that end, I want to get around the bazaars and make sure the movers and shakers are on-side from day one. If you can hit me with your shopping list I can take it to the head honchos and start the ball rolling. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the box and may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but together we'll be the best thing since sliced bread.

There is light at the end of the tunnel and I think we have backed a winner here. If it gets blown out of the water, however, I will be throwing a track. So get your feet into my in-tray and give me chapter and verse as to how you see things panning out. As long as our ducks are in a row I think the ball will stay in play and we can come up smelling of roses.

Before you bomb-burst and throw smoke it is imperative we nail our colours to the mast and look at the big picture. We've got to march to the beat of the drum. We are on a sticky wicket, we'll need to play with a straight bat and watch out for fast balls.

I've been on permanent send for long enough and I've had my ten pence worth. I don't want to rock the boat or teach anyone to suck eggs. We must keep this firmly in our sight picture and not under our hats or it will fall between the cracks. If the cap fits, wear it, but it may seem like pushing fog uphill with a sharp stick. Did you all get that?

[cessnapete]

Wow a masterpiece!!!

[Valiantone]

Meanwhile the RTP continues....:rolleyes:

[Easy Street]

Two-seat Rafales? Wikipedia is your friend:

Initially, the Rafale B was to be just a trainer, but the Gulf War showed that a second crew member was invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions. Therefore, in 1991 the Air Force switched its preferences towards the two-seater, announcing that the variant would constitute 60 percent of the Rafale fleet

Slightly sloppy language in that quote. As has been pointed out the ‘strike’ (nuclear) role can be carried out by a single-seat Rafale; that’s because the targets are (hopefully!) rigorously pre-planned and tend not to move. It’s dynamic conventional missions such as armed recce and interdiction which increase the challenge for a single pilot.

Remember that Typhoon was treated as a ‘pure’ fighter during its development, so the logic invoked by the FAF would not have applied despite the design decisions being taken in a similar timeframe. Back in those days the assumption was that Tornado would be replaced by something else, so if Typhoon grew into attack roles it would be only as a Jaguar (and possibly Harrier) replacement. Fast forward to F35 development, and improvements in sensor and computing technology saw ‘sensor fusion’ finally displace the second crew member for all mission types. This rather begs the question of Typhoon’s current suitability for the full range of air-to-ground missions, having neither the designed-in sensor fusion of the F35 nor the flexible computing power of a second brain. An upgrade from Litening III will probably be needed to ease the pilot’s task while tracking moving targets, which will need to be done very accurately if Typhoon is to be able to replicate Tornado’s Brimstone capability.

We’ll be unlikely to find out whether sensor fusion is sufficiently mature for F35 to have dispensed with a WSO until the type’s first combat results hit the media. No pilot is going to confess publicly to finding targeting a bit tricky! In the meantime, I was intrigued to see on a recent thread a French-German concept drawing of a stealthy combat aircraft... with two seats!

[chevvron]

As a point of interest does anyone have an explanation as to why the French Air Force seem to have a roughly equal force of single and two seat Rafales?

I am assuming that the answer is not just the nuclear role as the Naval single seaters are nuclear capable.
There were no 2 seat F117s or F22s were there?

[Martin the Martian]

ACW599-

Now that's what I call blue sky thinking.:ok:

[AnglianAV8R]

We really do need a 'like' button

[Pure Pursuit]

The FAF operate their Rafales very, very well indeed. Their MC will more often than not be found sitting in one of the back seats, running the mission without having to try and lead his four ship.

Equally, the Super Hornets thoroughly embarrassed the Typhoon guys out on exercise recently, not least down to the flexibility that 2 seats offer. Pilot in the front concentrating on the air picture whilst the guy is able to prosecute ground targets at the same time. They are significantly better at multirole than Typhoon is.

Sensor fusion is much improved now and both F22 and F35 probably take away the need for a guy in the back but, I think Typhoon could have done with someone in the back on multirole stuff. I’m sure the Typhoon mates will disagree!!

[Bigbux]

We will need to un-stick a few potential poo traps but it all depends on the flash-to bang time and fudge factor allowed.


Flash to bang time is actually quite important if you are walking away from a blind having lit the safety fuse. And you would be surprised at how useful the stochastic modelling of explosive sensitivity is.

However, mentioning such things on this forum is never that wise as it introduces the concept that other people know clever stuff- and a small element of the 2 -winged master race just can't handle that.:E

[unmanned_droid]

The FAF operate their Rafales very, very well indeed. Their MC will more often than not be found sitting in one of the back seats, running the mission without having to try and lead his four ship.

Equally, the Super Hornets thoroughly embarrassed the Typhoon guys out on exercise recently, not least down to the flexibility that 2 seats offer. Pilot in the front concentrating on the air picture whilst the guy is able to prosecute ground targets at the same time. They are significantly better at multirole than Typhoon is.

Sensor fusion is much improved now and both F22 and F35 probably take away the need for a guy in the back but, I think Typhoon could have done with someone in the back on multirole stuff. I’m sure the Typhoon mates will disagree!!

Interesting. I remember being told that the typhoon pilot could easily handle the job of a back seater with modern software and equipment. Furthermore, I had been told that trials had been carried out which showed the ability of the pilot to handle more than one UCAV and fly his own mission at the same time. Guess the promises made have still some way to go before being reality.

[The Helpful Stacker]

However, mentioning such things on this forum is never that wise as it introduces the concept that other people know clever stuff- and a small element of the 2 -winged master race just can't handle that.:E

Perhaps they should have tried harder at school?

;)

[PDR1]

Perhaps they should have tried harder at school?

;)

If they'd tried harder at school they wouldn't have had to become pilots...

:E :E :E

PDR

[PDR1]

Interesting that so much jeering was triggered by a single use of the word "stochastic", yet no one commented on the clearly B/S use of "Sensor fusion" in respect to Typhoons. I went over to the hangar and checked - none of the sensors are fused to anything, and none of them are driven by (or in any way connected to) fusion reactors.

:)

PDR

[unmanned_droid]

Interesting that so much jeering was triggered by a single use of the word "stochastic", yet no one commented on the clearly B/S use of "Sensor fusion" in respect to Typhoons. I went over to the hangar and checked - none of the sensors are fused to anything, and none of them are driven by (or in any way connected to) fusion reactors.

:)

PDR

Sensor Fusion had a better marketing manager?

[Herod]

If they'd tried harder at school they wouldn't have had to become pilots...
As enny fule no

[PDR1]

Sensor Fusion had a better marketing manager?

Or perhaps a bigger marketing budget

:)

PDR

[Rigga]

I seem to recall that the Torpedo RTP produced/is producing loads of.....flaps, slats and wings and structural things and loads of components and an amazing amount of small spare parts - that no-one could use because they had no usable records of their previous life!
It was an amazing way of sorting the scrap materials though.