Typhoon Tranche 1

[Jackonicko]

I am puzzled by the decision to retire the Tranche 1 Typhoons.

1) How can seven frontline squadrons, the OCU and the TES be sustained with just the 109 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft?

2) How are these aircraft (whose support and sustainment costs are underpinned by TyTAN) not cost-effective for adversary/red air, the Falklands, and QRA?

3) How has Spain reached such a diametrically opposed conclusion that it is upgrading its 15 Tranche 1 aircraft for service through to 2040?

4) It was explained to me that Tranche 1 aircraft would not be viable post 2025, in that they would not be in line with regulatory requirements post 2025, as the RAF thinks they need to be able to operate from civil airports and in civil airspace when necessary.

Yet why would the Tranche 1 aircraft be unable to do this? Don’t they have the NG LN-251 INU/GPS, and isn’t that RNAV-5 compliant? The VOR/ILS network isn’t being switched off so you don’t have to do a GPS PBA when landing at a civil aerodrome, do you?

5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?

[NutLoose]

I posted this in the sale thread

https://eurasiantimes.com/why-eurofighter-typhoons-are-being-retired-by-the-royal-air-force/

I did think that if they are pure Air to Air surely they would be suited to use as dedicated Falklands cover. It does seem a total waste, both of resources and original funding. My bet is they have been reduced to produce to keep the rest flying.

[West Coast]

I am puzzled by the decision to retire the Tranche 1 Typhoons.

1) How can seven frontline squadrons, the OCU and the TES be sustained with just the 109 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft?

2) How are these aircraft (whose support and sustainment costs are underpinned by TyTAN) not cost-effective for adversary/red air, the Falklands, and QRA?

3) How has Spain reached such a diametrically opposed conclusion that it is upgrading its 15 Tranche 1 aircraft for service through to 2040?

4) It was explained to me that Tranche 1 aircraft would not be viable post 2025, in that they would not be in line with regulatory requirements post 2025, as the RAF thinks they need to be able to operate from civil airports and in civil airspace when necessary.

Yet why would the Tranche 1 aircraft be unable to do this? Don’t they have the NG LN-251 INU/GPS, and isn’t that RNAV-5 compliant? The VOR/ILS network isn’t being switched off so you don’t have to do a GPS PBA when landing at a civil aerodrome, do you?

5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?



Jacko, any rumor where they may end up? Wonder if the contract Red air providers would be interested assuming the Typhoons aren’t sold to another military?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Jacko, any rumor where they may end up? Wonder if the contract Red air providers would be interested assuming the Typhoons aren’t sold to another military?

Not a cat in hells chance. Tr1 is significantly less serviceable than Tr2/3. It would cost a ridiculous amount to use as a Red Air platform from a contractor point of view. Supply chain and spares are already taught for Typhoon so it would likely be worse for a civilian operated fleet. That’s just the tip of the iceberg for issues with a civilian company buying and operating them.

[DuckDodgers]

Not a cat in hells chance. Tr1 is significantly less serviceable than Tr2/3. It would cost a ridiculous amount to use as a Red Air platform from a contractor point of view. Supply chain and spares are already taught for Typhoon so it would likely be worse for a civilian operated fleet. That’s just the tip of the iceberg for issues with a civilian company buying and operating them.

Concur, it would be the last platform on the list, assuming it was ever on one. I'm also of the opinion that there won't be a contracted replacement unless procurement has been revolutionised and there's actually funding, which there isn't.

[Jackonicko]

Tr1 is significantly less serviceable than Tr2/3.

Is it though? In the UK isn't it operated under an incentivised, availability-based support contract, ensuring that it meets specific availability rates at a guaranteed and predictable cost?

[Timelord]

As I understand it, the T1 aircraft are pretty much completely different aircraft under the skin. Different black boxes, different architecture etc so I suppose that the cost of supporting that unique fleet is a saving worth making.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Is it though? In the UK isn't it operated under an incentivised, availability-based support contract, ensuring that it meets specific availability rates at a guaranteed and predictable cost?

Yes, it is less serviceable. If you know you know.

[Mil-26Man]

5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?

This is the only 'fuss' I can find, but most of it is behind a pay wall so can't see much of the detail unfortunately https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-retire-tranche-1-typhoons-with-more-than-half-of-airframe-hours-remaining

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/642787-typhoon-tranche-1-a.html#post11114366)
Is it though? In the UK isn't it operated under an incentivised, availability-based support contract, ensuring that it meets specific availability rates at a guaranteed and predictable cost?
Yes, it is less serviceable. If you know you know.

Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

This is the only 'fuss' I can find, but most of it is behind a pay wall so can't see much of the detail unfortunately https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-retire-tranche-1-typhoons-with-more-than-half-of-airframe-hours-remaining


Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.

You don’t have to buy it if you don’t want to. I’d be interested to hear your experience of it rather than reading newspaper clippings.

[Mil-26Man]

Ok Foghorn, I'll bite. Unless the purpose of you posting to a public forum is to tell everyone else that you're the expert and we should all mind our own business, why don't you explain to the rest of us, in words that we would understand, how it is that the T1 fleet has gone from being good to fly for another 20-odd years in 2015 to being knackered and ripe for retirement in 2020, and how the fleet has managed to achieve this with more than half of its airframe hours remaining?

Don't break OPSEC, obviously.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Ok Foghorn, I'll bite. Unless the purpose of you posting to a public forum is to tell everyone else that you're the expert and we should all mind our own business, why don't you explain to the rest of us, in words that we would understand, how it is that the T1 fleet has gone from being good to fly for another 20-odd years in 2015 to being knackered and ripe for retirement in 2020, and how the fleet has managed to achieve this with more than half of its airframe hours remaining?

Don't break OPSEC, obviously.

Some fantastic whataboutery right there from you. I asked you to give us your personal experience of why Tr1 is as serviceable as Tr2/3 given you said you weren’t having it. I didn’t tell anyone to mind their own business either.

[Mil-26Man]

I have no involvement in maintaining the RAF's Eurofighter fleet, hence my questions. If I had personal experience, I wouldn't need to ask the questions.

So again, perhaps you could explain to us laymen how it is the T1 fleet has become unviable in just five short years, and with more than half of its airframe life remaining?

Nothing classified, of course.

[Doctor Cruces]

Ok Foghorn, I'll bite. Unless the purpose of you posting to a public forum is to tell everyone else that you're the expert and we should all mind our own business, why don't you explain to the rest of us, in words that we would understand, how it is that the T1 fleet has gone from being good to fly for another 20-odd years in 2015 to being knackered and ripe for retirement in 2020, and how the fleet has managed to achieve this with more than half of its airframe hours remaining?

Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
A/ Politics
B/ We're broke

[Frostchamber]

The narrative around T1 seems to have followed a similar course to that around the Shar FA2. Prior to the announcement of the latter's early retirement it was a wonderful example of British ingenuity, pairing up the superlative Blue Vixen with AIM120, punching above its weight and striking fear into potential opponents. Immediately following the announcement it became obsolescent trash...

[Not_a_boffin]

This is the only 'fuss' I can find, but most of it is behind a pay wall so can't see much of the detail unfortunately https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-retire-tranche-1-typhoons-with-more-than-half-of-airframe-hours-remaining


Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.

Disclaimer - no knowledge of Tr1 or Typhoon supportability whatsoever, but some knowledge of how priorities change.

I suspect the latter is the driving force. If you have a (relatively) fixed bucket of money, you can choose to spend that in different ways as reviews pass. It may be that someone senior has made a decision that the future is optionally crewed either because we can't train and retain crews in sufficient numbers, or because uncrewed options have matured quicker than planned and - provided a cash injection can be provided - may be able to be fielded quicker than planned, thereby saving money, adding capability and/or mass. At that point, if the required cash injection requires discarding a fleet (or fleet within fleet) to realise it, a change in direction may be the decision. Doesn't mean the earlier decision was necessarily flawed, just that circumstances have changed.

Purely personal view only.

[Mil-26Man]

The narrative around T1 seems to have followed a similar course to that around the Shar FA2. Prior to the announcement of the latter's early retirement it was a wonderful example of British ingenuity, pairing up the superlative Blue Vixen with AIM120, punching above its weight and striking fear into potential opponents. Immediately following the announcement it became obsolescent trash...

Exactly this.

[Party Animal]

Tranch 1 Tiffy is not alone:

SDSR 2015 - Sentry E-3D has a bright future out to 2035

SDSR 2020 - Sentry E-3D is a knackered old piece of junk that needs to be replaced ASAP. We need Wedgetail!

[NutLoose]

Similar fate with the Jag, cheap to operate and upgrade, served in Sandy places until they wanted shot of them then suddenly became not suitable and Tornado took over thus allowing them to be binned early.

[rattman]

A little OT but did anything happen about the interest expressed by indonesia in the swiss TR1's, because if you could get them and these might be a big enough critical number to work

[ATSA1]

The list is endless....Didnt the Harriers all have extensive upgrades just before the defence review of 2010 binned them, and sold them off cheap as spares for the USMC?

Nimrod MRA4? An admitedly expensive overrun that was just coming good...

At this rate, come 2030, the F35s will be "long in the tooth" and "expensive to upgrade", so they will be cut up for scrap, so we can buy a few Tempests...

[ORAC]

The early tranche F-35Bs we bought are already too expensive to upgrade. All the reports indicate it’s cheaper to just buy replacements.

At least the Typhoon F2 has lasted longer than the Tornado F2…

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34330/british-government-says-it-might-pass-on-27m-upgrade-for-some-of-its-f-35s

[melmothtw]

Weren't the Tornado F2s simply upgraded to F3s, rather than being scrapped?

It is interesting that the two Eurofighter FCAS partners, Germany and Spain, have opted to retain some upgraded Tranche 1s and/or replace Tranche 1s with the latest Tranche 4/5s, while the two Eurofighter Tempest partners, Italy and the UK, are offloading their Tranche 1s with no replacement. Worth noting that the Italy and the UK also have the F-35, which it seems they see as their bridge through to Tempest.

[Davef68]

Weren't the Tornado F2s simply upgraded to F3s, rather than being scrapped?
.

No,most of their centre fuselages were used to rebuild the F3s that the contractor (Airwork?) buggered up by using the wrong tools.One survived at Boscombe as the TIARA aircraft

[Mr N Nimrod]

Tranch 1 Tiffy is not alone:

SDSR 2015 - Sentry E-3D has a bright future out to 2035

SDSR 2020 - Sentry E-3D is a knackered old piece of junk that needs to be replaced ASAP. We need Wedgetail!
back in 2015 when the decision was made to upgrade Sentry, I suspect the decision makers were quite unaware of the state of the RAF E3D fleet. Woeful mismanagement and underinvestment had left them in a very poor state. The ‘pause’ of Sentry operations (grounding) at the start of 2017 (?) was part of that. Some of the fleet management and decision making in the years leading up to 2015 probably bordered on utter incompetence.

And yes, for Chug, directly relating to safety and airworthiness.

And yes, those responsible got their promotions!

[Navaleye]

Are 1435flt T1 birds? If so what will be replacing them?

[Jackonicko]

I remain curious about this question:

4) It was explained to me that Tranche 1 aircraft would not be viable post 2025, in that they would not be in line with regulatory requirements post 2025, as the RAF thinks they need to be able to operate from civil airports and in civil airspace when necessary.

Yet why would the Tranche 1 aircraft be unable to do this? Don’t they have the NG LN-251 INU/GPS, and isn’t that RNAV-5 compliant? The VOR/ILS network isn’t being switched off so you don’t have to do a GPS PBA when landing at a civil aerodrome, do you?

[Mr N Nimrod]

I think I would call bull**** on that Jacko. Can’t help but feel that someone is being very selective. Which reg’s are they referring too, UK, or perhaps EU. If the latter, I wonder how many various other fleets of FJ around European nations meet whatever reg’s are being cited.

[Jackonicko]

Are 1435flt T1 birds? If so what will be replacing them?

Yes they are. Presumably they'll get four of the 107 remaining T2/T3 jets.

Leaving 103 for seven frontline squadrons, the TES, the OCU, and sustainment...... For the next 20 years.

[Jackonicko]

I think I would call bull**** on that Jacko. Can’t help but feel that someone is being very selective. Which reg’s are they referring too, UK, or perhaps EU. If the latter, I wonder how many various other fleets of FJ around European nations meet whatever reg’s are being cited.

I strongly suspect that you're right. I'd just like to make sure.

[Just This Once...]

RVSM compliance et al - if you are shepherding an airliner or just intercepting one it is best if you don't break the congested & carefully choreographed airspace by introducing a non-compliant aircraft to the mix.

As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

RVSM compliance et al - if you are shepherding an airliner or just intercepting one it is best if you don't break the congested & carefully choreographed airspace by introducing a non-compliant aircraft to the mix.

As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.

Nothing to do with Tr1 vs RVSM compliance.

[DuckDodgers]

Yes they are. Presumably they'll get four of the 107 remaining T2/T3 jets.

Leaving 103 for seven frontline squadrons, the TES, the OCU, and sustainment...... For the next 20 years.

So let's break this down further noting that the total is 104 as BS37 (Tranche 2) was Cat 3 and Qty 2 are with BAE for their Test Fleet (Tranche 3). Applying the DT's standard 70/30 approach between forward and sustainment fleets gives a notional 73/31 split. So now remove Qty 6 UK QRA (to enable Q1 thru 3 at both locations) and Qty 4 BFSAI, then the forward fleet is down to say Qty 63 aircraft. On historic trends let us presume 29 Sqn (OCU) utilises Qty 11 ac (reduced due to T1 twin seats scrapped and move of sorties to the sim) and 41 Sqn Qty 4 ac. That leaves just 48 ac for the remaining 7 FLSs (1, II(AC), 3(F), 6, IX, XI, and 12) with say Qty 7-8 ac each. Now factor in both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance which gives us what, say 4-6 ac AVAILABLE per day per squadron. We must not forget that all Qty 40 of the T3 jets will be flowing through the ECRSmk2 upgrade over the coming 4+ years and that both sustained op commitments (SHADER) and Air Policing will drive this number down further.

The question that should be asked is whether the money to fund the ECRSmk2 upgrade is coming out of TyTAN and whether it is that that which was factored in for T1 sustainment until its much later OSD? If not where has that money from within TyTAN gone? Again, I'd expect zero transparency from neither MOD nor industry as they'll hide behind commercial-in-confidence. They then wonder why NOBODY trusts them with public money, even more so when they don't publish the value or details of 9 figure single source contracts awarded by the Air TLB.

[dctyke]

Come on folks, it’s been ever thus in our aircraft and engineering environment for years. Achieve a certain rank, come up with some half baked money saving plan that will dazzle the MOD who will then drive it through. Get promoted and then leave your successor or the one after to pick up the pieces and take the blame for not managing it correctly. I’m surprised it’s not a module a staff college.

[Jackonicko]

RVSM compliance et al - if you are shepherding an airliner or just intercepting one it is best if you don't break the congested & carefully choreographed airspace by introducing a non-compliant aircraft to the mix.

As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.

They were originally Tranche 2s, and they were still Tranche 2s in 2014, but they've been Tranche 1s for some time.

Are the Tranche 1s NOT RVSM compliant?

[Chugalug2]

back in 2015 when the decision was made to upgrade Sentry, I suspect the decision makers were quite unaware of the state of the RAF E3D fleet. Woeful mismanagement and underinvestment had left them in a very poor state. The ‘pause’ of Sentry operations (grounding) at the start of 2017 (?) was part of that. Some of the fleet management and decision making in the years leading up to 2015 probably bordered on utter incompetence.

And yes, for Chug, directly relating to safety and airworthiness.

And yes, those responsible got their promotions!

Sorry, NM, missed your post and hence late on parade. There seems to be a continual list of premature fleet retirements at the moment, and the Sentry was not alone in being caused by lack of airworthiness. As to the Typhoon Tr 1's, as Foghorn Leghorn helpfully explains,

If you know you know

What is worse, an ever vanishing air force, one still riddled with unairworthiness, or both? Of course, one might be minded to set about reforming Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation, but that would mean lifting the lid on the subversion and its cover up of UK Military Air Safety by RAF VSOs, and that seemingly is the worse of all options...

[Jackonicko]

So let's break this down further noting that the total is 104 as BS37 (Tranche 2) was Cat 3 and Qty 2 are with BAE for their Test Fleet (Tranche 3). Applying the DT's standard 70/30 approach between forward and sustainment fleets gives a notional 73/31 split. So now remove Qty 6 UK QRA (to enable Q1 thru 3 at both locations) and Qty 4 BFSAI, then the forward fleet is down to say Qty 63 aircraft. On historic trends let us presume 29 Sqn (OCU) utilises Qty 11 ac (reduced due to T1 twin seats scrapped and move of sorties to the sim) and 41 Sqn Qty 4 ac. That leaves just 48 ac for the remaining 7 FLSs (1, II(AC), 3(F), 6, IX, XI, and 12) with say Qty 7-8 ac each. Now factor in both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance which gives us what, say 4-6 ac AVAILABLE per day per squadron. We must not forget that all Qty 40 of the T3 jets will be flowing through the ECRSmk2 upgrade over the coming 4+ years and that both sustained op commitments (SHADER) and Air Policing will drive this number down further.

The question that should be asked is whether the money to fund the ECRSmk2 upgrade is coming out of TyTAN and whether it is that that which was factored in for T1 sustainment until its much later OSD? If not where has that money from within TyTAN gone? Again, I'd expect zero transparency from neither MOD nor industry as they'll hide behind commercial-in-confidence. They then wonder why NOBODY trusts them with public money, even more so when they don't publish the value or details of 9 figure single source contracts awarded by the Air TLB.

Only four jets with the TES, DD? They had six in 2014, and ten in 2019.

[Navaleye]

Is RVSM even relevant in the vast open space of the South Atlantic? I suspect not. The rationale for scrapping T1s when other nations still consider them valuable seems very weak. In fact they should send a bunch more T1s to the Falklands and use them as a source of spare parts for the remaining aircraft.

[typerated]

With the 80:20 plan I wonder if QRA and Shader etc might just be done on the sim?

[Davef68]

The list is endless....Didnt the Harriers all have extensive upgrades just before the defence review of 2010 binned them, and sold them off cheap as spares for the USMC?

Nimrod MRA4? An admitedly expensive overrun that was just coming good...

.

There is a long established precedent in public spending that what you've spent in the past is of no relevance to budgeting - only what you might have to spend in the future.Hence airfields getting multi-miliion pound upgrades only to be closed as you can make a saving that way. Harrier was the same - the money spent on upgrades was gone, the only concern was that we couldn't afford three fast jet types,so one had to go. Same with MRA4, the question wasn't 'How much have we spent?' but 'How much do we have to spend to get it operational?' - when the answer to that was 'we don't know', it's fate was sealed.

[ORAC]

That’s not a public spending concept, its the basic economic principle of Sunk Costs.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sunk-cost

[Asturias56]

Well someone was given the job of writing a spec - so he/she has a choice - they can write what everyone really, really wants knowing it will never stand a cat in hell's chance or they can do a one liner saying"no chance of any cash for this dig up a couple of Tiger Moths"

Option 1 keeps you busy and earns the undying gratitude of those with the wish list - the other option is curtains for your career.

[Lordflasheart]

...
"Whilst we are on the subject of Tranche 1 (let us throw in Hawk T1 too) and the looming abyss of an aggressor force, ...."

It's beginning to look as if DG DSA may have sussed a little local difficulty in confirming a full safety case for the remaining, ageing Tranche 1 aircraft, given that only they and the Hawk Mk1 are not on the 'available for sale' list

Apparently some will continue to be used for aggressor training during their remaining service life until 2025 or whenever, but 'fingers crossed' the safety case won't be publicly tested (and found wanting) in the very public way that the Hawk Mk 1 safety case has been found wanting in recent years.

If past public safety case problems and multiple unimplemented SI recommendations are anything to go by, it will be fingers and toes crossed for Hawk Mk 1 until midnight on 31st March 2022.

Except for a dozen T1s for the Reds, probably under a special waiver, with perhaps a sensible change of rules to limit circus flying to 'strictly A to B, with no shenanigans in between.' Even that might now be considered a risk too far, when safer alternatives are readily available.

That of course would not directly apply to Tranche 1 Typhoon, where it would be easy to quietly exclude inadequately trained or joy-riding passengers in any remaining two-seaters, though not so easy to safely sell them on, except for scrap.

LFH
...

[Foghorn Leghorn]

...


It's beginning to look as if DG DSA may have sussed a little local difficulty in confirming a full safety case for the remaining, ageing Tranche 1 aircraft, given that only they and the Hawk Mk1 are not on the 'available for sale' list

Apparently some will continue to be used for aggressor training during their remaining service life until 2025 or whenever, but 'fingers crossed' the safety case won't be publicly tested (and found wanting) in the very public way that the Hawk Mk 1 safety case has been found wanting in recent years.

If past public safety case problems and multiple unimplemented SI recommendations are anything to go by, it will be fingers and toes crossed for Hawk Mk 1 until midnight on 31st March 2022.

Except for a dozen T1s for the Reds, probably under a special waiver, with perhaps a sensible change of rules to limit circus flying to 'strictly A to B, with no shenanigans in between.' Even that might now be considered a risk too far, when safer alternatives are readily available.

That of course would not directly apply to Tranche 1 Typhoon, where it would be easy to quietly exclude inadequately trained or joy-riding passengers in any remaining two-seaters, though not so easy to safely sell them on, except for scrap.

LFH
...

I’m curious why you think that Tr2/3 jets are ‘safer’ than Tr1 jets?

[Lordflasheart]

...
I don't think I mentioned Tr 2 or 3, Foggy. I was trying to keep it simple and avoid Fred Drift.

Feel free to start a new thread if you wish :). LFH.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

...
I don't think I mentioned Tr 2 or 3, Foggy. I was trying to keep it simple and avoid Fred Drift.

Feel free to start a new thread if you wish :). LFH.

I think that’s the point, you didn’t mention them yet you say Tr1. Which is the same airframe and avionics give or take. So, as you can see, it’s quite simple, that by saying Tr1 isn’t airworthy, then Tr2/3 are the same?

[Navaleye]

I think that’s the point, you didn’t mention them yet you say Tr1. Which is the same airframe and avionics give or take. So, as you can see, it’s quite simple, that by saying Tr1 isn’t airworthy, then Tr2/3 are the same?

And why for example Spanish T1s are airworthy and ours aren't and if they are not airworthy today then why carry on flying them for a couple of years.

[tucumseh]

Which is the same airframe and avionics give or take. So, as you can see, it’s quite simple, that by saying Tr1 isn’t airworthy, then Tr2/3 are the same?

If only it were that simple.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

If only it were that simple.

It is - in the context of what LFH is saying.

[tucumseh]

It is - in the context of what LFH is saying.

Well, I suppose if you read the MAA's regs you might think it simple. But if you consider what must actually happen to maintain airworthiness, which is a prerequisite to Continuing Airworthiness, then matters are not simple at all. Not least because MoD stopped doing it many years ago, and is finding it impossible to resurrect on older fleets. But enough of Hawk, AWACS, etc.

I do however recall two events during EFA development.

First is that, astonishingly, they were given a Configuration Control Manager. Kudos to the person who asked, as most teams do, but it had never been granted on any rotary project or programme I knew of. If you wanted to do CC, you did it in your spare time, in the evenings and at week-ends, and certainly didn't let on to anyone above 1 Star. I have seen calling notices for mandatory CC Boards sent out, and non-technical officers allowed to issue directives that no-one shall attend. Same with risk management. The funerals were always sad affairs.

Second is that, in 1996, EFA (actually, a very highly paid professor employed as a consultant) declared to all and sundry that they'd discovered a new phenomenon called 'electronic component obsolesence'. It was quietly pointed out that MoD already had three specifications and a Def Stan setting out mandated policy. That, EFA simply had to implement them. However, to be aware that in doing so they'd be breaching directives not to maintain airworthiness, of which component unavailability is a core component, and of which obsolescence is one aspect.

EFA toppled.

The two are of course linked, and I wonder if this is perhaps one reason for the decision to abandon T1. Another might be the tendency to destroy engineering records of in service aircraft, which the safety cases increasingly rely on. Hawk, again. Gliders. Nimrod.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Well, I suppose if you read the MAA's regs you might think it simple. But if you consider what must actually happen to maintain airworthiness, which is a prerequisite to Continuing Airworthiness, then matters are not simple at all. Not least because MoD stopped doing it many years ago, and is finding it impossible to resurrect on older fleets. But enough of Hawk, AWACS, etc.

I do however recall two events during EFA development.

First is that, astonishingly, they were given a Configuration Control Manager. Kudos to the person who asked, as most teams do, but it had never been granted on any rotary project or programme I knew of. If you wanted to do CC, you did it in your spare time, in the evenings and at week-ends, and certainly didn't let on to anyone above 1 Star. I have seen calling notices for mandatory CC Boards sent out, and non-technical officers allowed to issue directives that no-one shall attend. Same with risk management. The funerals were always sad affairs.

Second is that, in 1996, EFA (actually, a very highly paid professor employed as a consultant) declared to all and sundry that they'd discovered a new phenomenon called 'electronic component obsolesence'. It was quietly pointed out that MoD already had three specifications and a Def Stan setting out mandated policy. That, EFA simply had to implement them. However, to be aware that in doing so they'd be breaching directives not to maintain airworthiness, of which component unavailability is a core component, and of which obsolescence is one aspect.

EFA toppled.

The two are of course linked, and I wonder if this is perhaps one reason for the decision to abandon T1. Another might be the tendency to destroy engineering records of in service aircraft, which the safety cases increasingly rely on. Hawk, again. Gliders. Nimrod.

tuc. Thanks for some interesting stories. I do find it hard going, as do others, when you continually tar people/organisation with the same brush following the Hawk accidents and Nimrod.

[tucumseh]

I do find it hard going, as do others, when you continually tar people/organisation with the same brush following the Hawk accidents and Nimrod.

Only Hawk and Nimrod? I must be slipping.

Given the serious systemic failings reiterated by the Nimrod Review and various Coroners over the last 15 years, and that the root of those failings has been identified yet MoD still defends the individuals who caused them, while attacking the messengers, then yes, I'm afraid the narrative might seem repetitive. You should be asking why the same failings are raised time and again, and try to understand those failings.

Next week, for example, the Inquest into the death of Corporal Jonathan Bayliss opens again. In case you've forgotten, he was left behind in a Hawk T1 at RAF Valley in March 2018. MoD's submissons include a claim there were no systemic failings, and the risks that manisfested were not recognised.

There are twelve common factors with the XX177 (Sean Cunningham) accident in 2011 listed in the XX204 Service Inquiry report of 2018, despite MoD assuring the XX177 Coroner that they were being addressed.

And one can only assume the claim about risk means no-one today has read the Red Arrows risk register, an exhibit in the XX177 case. And, noting, XX177 was itself a recurrence of extant risks.

Please let us know what you think of the link I draw between the destruction of records, and inability to produce valid safety cases. Would you care to comment on how that came about, what MoD has done about it, and how such events might make the MAA nervous over other fleets? For the record, I think they're now doing the right thing, but on Hawk for example, this was known almost immediately after the XX177 accident. And on Nimrod, it was known in 2007, at latest. (And you may not know that Minister for the Armed Forces Adam Ingram was given written warning about these systemic failings one year BEFORE XV230, but the same people in MoD advised him to deny it). Why has it taken so long to act, when 'all' one had to do was implement mandated regulations? Who told them not to, and who condoned this? Might I suggest that is where your ire should be directed.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Only Hawk and Nimrod? I must be slipping.

Given the serious systemic failings reiterated by the Nimrod Review and various Coroners over the last 15 years, and that the root of those failings has been identified yet MoD still defends the individuals who caused them, while attacking the messengers, then yes, I'm afraid the narrative might seem repetitive. You should be asking why the same failings are raised time and again, and try to understand those failings.

Next week, for example, the Inquest into the death of Corporal Jonathan Bayliss opens again. In case you've forgotten, he was left behind in a Hawk T1 at RAF Valley in March 2018. MoD's submissons include a claim there were no systemic failings, and the risks that manisfested were not recognised.

There are twelve common factors with the XX177 (Sean Cunningham) accident in 2011 listed in the XX204 Service Inquiry report of 2018, despite MoD assuring the XX177 Coroner that they were being addressed.

And one can only assume the claim about risk means no-one today has read the Red Arrows risk register, an exhibit in the XX177 case. And, noting, XX177 was itself a recurrence of extant risks.

Please let us know what you think of the link I draw between the destruction of records, and inability to produce valid safety cases. Would you care to comment on how that came about, what MoD has done about it, and how such events might make the MAA nervous over other fleets? For the record, I think they're now doing the right thing, but on Hawk for example, this was known almost immediately after the XX177 accident. And on Nimrod, it was known in 2007, at latest. (And you may not know that Minister for the Armed Forces Adam Ingram was given written warning about these systemic failings one year BEFORE XV230, but the same people in MoD advised him to deny it). Why has it taken so long to act, when 'all' one had to do was implement mandated regulations? Who told them not to, and who condoned this? Might I suggest that is where your ire should be directed.

I don’t have any ire. I think it’s terribly disrespectful to say that Cpl Bayliss was ‘left behind’. That kind of pejorative language is unhelpful and wrong. All the examples you’ve cited are historical. It doesn’t make it right, but as I say, you don’t mention what’s being done today and for the future, yet you tar everyone with the same brush.

[Lordflasheart]

...
... that by saying Tr. 1 isn’t airworthy,

And why for example Spanish T1s are airworthy and ours aren't

If you want black and white, I can't help you. How many shades of grey would you recognise ? It's 'caballos de carreras para hipódromos' mi amigos.

I don't know how other countries measure their 'airworthiness' but I am given to understand the Spanish Air Force is in the process of upgrading some of their Tranche 1s to include AESA radar. That'll never catch on here. Upgrading is an idea which seems to be out of favour in the UK. "Throw it away - Buy New."

If you keep full records of maintenance, repair, modifications etc. instead of neglecting or actively destroying them while the aircraft is still in service, and ignoring mandated regulations as well, you would stand a better chance of proving and maintaining a safety case. The UK has 'bad form' in that respect.

LFH

[dervish]

Foghorn. You need to get out of transmit mode, if foghorns can do that. What do you not get about MoD telling a minister to deny warnings a year before the Nimrod accident? Of all people, tucumseh is entitled to speak of this as he wrote the warning. You need to read the evidence.
MC

[Lordflasheart]

...
I do find it hard going, as do others, when you continually tar people/organisation with the same brush ......

It is hard going, and it's very depressing too, when people/organisations continually fail in their military safety and airworthiness responsibilities in the way that the UK MoD has failed in the last thirty years. Followed by the sad and self-protective willingness to mislead and lie to government, families, law courts, inquiries, coroners and the public. That is what's depressing.

I wonder if you have read any of the books by David Hill ?

If I could recommend one to get you going, which encapsulates all the above remarks and events (and more) it would be "Breaking the Military Covenant - Who Speaks for the Dead." it's instantly available as an E-book. Another more recent and very relevant to next week's inquest, is "Red 5" which deals with XX177 and now includes a chapter on the more recent XX204.

LFH
...

[tucumseh]

I think it’s terribly disrespectful to say that Cpl Bayliss was ‘left behind’. That kind of pejorative language is unhelpful and wrong. All the examples you’ve cited are historical. It doesn’t make it right, but as I say, you don’t mention what’s being done today and for the future, yet you tar everyone with the same brush.

I understood from the SI report that Corporal Bayliss didn't make it out. Is that wrong? No? Then he was left behind. Or remained in the aircraft. Or left alone to cope. Either way, he was killed by systemic failings. Style and substance.

What group have I tarnished with the same brush? In fact, it is MoD who has tarnished everyone in Air Systems (including, latterly, the entire MAA), by consistently claiming that all but one person (me) failed to notify ANY systemic safety failings. It said this as criticism of myself, not as an admission. In 2003 it was invited by the Information Commissioner, at my behest, to withdraw this pejorative claim against many of my colleagues, and it has consistently refused. In doing so, it rejected the fact that successive RAF Directors of Flight Safety had issued the same warnings from 1992-98, in turn reiterating what internal MoD auditors had stated since 1988.

I'm glad something is being done today and for the future. But until MoD acknowledges the historical facts, it cannot begin to understand why it's doing what it's doing, or getting a lot of it wrong. Or why it's happening 33 years after formal notification. I still have the letter I wrote on 13 January 1988, which precipitated one of the audits, which confirmed the 'savings at the expense of safety' policy later confirmed by Mr Haddon-Cave. (The auditor took about two weeks to give MoD a bigger rocket than Mr H-C managed after nearly two years). There, I suggest, is where the reason for the demise of many fleets lies. But far more importantly, the unnecessary deaths of so many aircrew and passengers.

[Lordflasheart]

...
I think it’s terribly disrespectful to say that Cpl Bayliss was ‘left behind’.

Terribly disrespectful to whom ? The SI sets out the time line of the last few seconds before the crash. You might wish to read it. I don't imagine certain parties at the inquest will be pussy-footing around that bit of the accident either.

Why do you seem to think this is all 'historical' ? It's still going on with absolutely no indication that the leopard is likely to change his spots.

Next week's resumed inquest (four days in Caernarfon Coroner's Court) into the death of Jon Bayliss, will regrettably not be an Article 2 Inquest, so the family will not therefore receive legal aid and therefore Mod is unlikely to be put on the spot.

Last weeks inquest (Oxford Coroner's Court) into the death of Guardsman Mathew Talbot in Malawi, heard that the SI "... concluded there had been several failings and made 30 recommendations."

Known problems had not been addressed. Sound familiar ?

LFH
...

[Chugalug2]

And why for example Spanish T1s are airworthy and ours aren't and if they are not airworthy today then why carry on flying them for a couple of years.

The Spanish T1's have the great advantage of not being operated under the auspices of the MOD/MAA. As to why ours haven't been grounded immediately, history reveals they never are. Many fingers are crossed and the risk is taken (not by those exposed to it of course). Sometimes it works (ACO gliders), sometimes it doesn't (witness the many airworthiness related fatal air accident threads that litter this forum). Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation is independent and outwith of the MOD there is no reason to believe the pattern will change. Ditto all that for Air Accident Investigation (which will also need to be independent and outwith of the Air Regulator).

A once world leading Air Safety system has been brought to its knees by the malevolence and incompetence of certain RAF VSOs and, even more unforgivably, by a cover up of that subversion by subsequent RAF VSOs. The chickens have taken over three decades to come back to their perches, but they are now here to stay unless meaningful reform is enacted as an urgent priority.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

...


Terribly disrespectful to whom ? The SI sets out the time line of the last few seconds before the crash. You might wish to read it. I don't imagine certain parties at the inquest will be pussy-footing around that bit of the accident either.

LFH
...

Disrespectful to the pilot, Cpl Bayliss and his family. Saying he was ‘left behind’ somehow infers that he was seen as disposable and he was just collateral. I guess if you were to say that to the pilot’s face he would be less than impressed. I’ve read the SI thank you.

[Lordflasheart]

...
I've read the SI thank you.

That's OK then. And I respect your right to infer anything you like on prune. ... Out.

[tucumseh]

somehow infers that he was seen as disposable and he was just collateral. I guess if you were to say that to the pilot’s face he would be less than impressed. I’ve read the SI thank you.

Now I suggest you go and read the risk register, risk RED/OTHR-I/05, relating to command eject. You'll have seen this if you've read the XX177 report in full.

I wonder what maintainer's think about the risk being mitigated from 'pilot and pax suffer major injuries' to 'worst credible outcome becomes major injuries to pax only'. End of. No further mitigation. Tolerable and ALARP. By any interpretation, my post comes nowhere near this.

What about 'changing command eject rationale'?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Now I suggest you go and read the risk register, risk RED/OTHR-I/05, relating to command eject. You'll have seen this if you've read the XX177 report in full.

I wonder what maintainer's think about the risk being mitigated from 'pilot and pax suffer major injuries' to 'worst credible outcome becomes major injuries to pax only'. End of. No further mitigation. Tolerable and ALARP. By any interpretation, my post comes nowhere near this.

What about 'changing command eject rationale'?

You aren’t understanding this are you. I understand fully how the command eject system works on Hawk. It’s the pejorative language you’ve used which doesn’t fit what you’re trying to say.

[tucumseh]

Foghorn

Who mentioned understanding of the command eject system?

I take it you haven't read the risk register? Or compared it to the recommendations of the XX204 report?

Do let us know your thoughts on the policy of mitigating the risk to pilots, but not to passengers.

[Jackonicko]

...
That of course would not directly apply to Tranche 1 Typhoon, where it would be easy to quietly exclude inadequately trained or joy-riding passengers in any remaining two-seaters, though not so easy to safely sell them on, except for scrap.

LFH
...

Indeed, since all Tranche 1 twin-stickers were scrapped years ago..... Pax in a Tranche 1 Typhoon are thus very easy to quietly exclude.....

[Lordflasheart]

...
Thanks Jacko,

That makes sense - all the ASSC swiss cheeseholes are slipping nicely into place.

Back on Fred too. I bet you're pleased you started this :)

LFH

[Navaleye]

Greece reportedly looking at our unairworthy Tr1 Typhoons to replace F4s

[melmothtw]

Greece reportedly looking at our unairworthy Tr1 Typhoons to replace F4s

On top of their Mirage 2000s, F-16s, Rafales, and the F-35As they want?

[Jackonicko]

OK I'll bite:

The accusation is that Tranche 1 Typhoons are not 'airworthy', or that their safety case is in some way inadequate.

HOW SO?

[Finningley Boy]

I mind the time the RAF stood out in NATO for its handsome collection of frontline fast jet types. 30 and more years ago!

FB

[typerated]

OK I'll bite:

The accusation is that Tranche 1 Typhoons are not 'airworthy', or that their safety case is in some way inadequate.

HOW SO?
In fact could you even argue that the safety bar is set too high - perhaps we should step back towards the WW2 model - aircraft don't have to be perfect or last forever - just able to be built in large numbers and do the job
I say this with respect to competition with China - I think China might have a more pragmatic view on aviation safety – if we don't change the way we think on so many things I’m sure we will be swamped!

But what about the people flying them? - well aviation has never been risk free - especially Military Aviation!
I often fly an aircraft with a wooden spar - a few have come unglued when loaded - so you could argue there is no safety case (the aircraft has had a glue check but it is not 100% guaranteed!).

I just fly it nice and gently - and also understanding that there is a chance it might fail...

[tucumseh]

OK I'll bite:

The accusation is that Tranche 1 Typhoons are not 'airworthy', or that their safety case is in some way inadequate.

HOW SO?

I'm not sure anyone has said Typhoon T1 is unairworthy. It is for MoD to prove an aircraft airworthy, not for someone to prove it is not. More often than not it can't, and so fleets are being scrapped. In at least three cases because the audit trail has been destroyed. That is no bar to a user with different regulatory requirements, or deeper pockets, buying them up and recertifying them. Sometimes it can be as simple as not putting it to a particular use, or exposing it to a particular risk. Or in some cases, like Gliders, realising that deep pockets aren't required, just someone who can read and implement without interference.

It may be that the T1 is perfectly airworthy, against the UK's stated intent and use, but someone has done his sums and the cost/benefit of keeping it so forced the decision. This is where the difference between maintaining airworthiness, and continuing airworthiness, is most evident. Too many problems can be traced to the former, which we know MoD simply doesn't do well anymore. (A conscious policy decision). The everyday manifestation of this can be seen in many posts here, with aircrew and front line worrying (or moaning) about things that should be completely invisible to them. As Mr Haddon-Cave, and many in MoD before him said, everyone is busy, just not doing their day job.

[ASRAAMTOO]

Perhaps the RAF should give the Typhoons to the Aerobility Charity, together with a large grant from the Department of Transport. They could then refurbish them to an airworthy standard keep a couple of two stickers to fly and sell the rest on to a third party to improve their finances.

They have an excellent record of being able to recover aircraft that the RAF deemed 'irrecoverable'

Indeed if the profits were decent they might be persuaded to give some of them to the Air Cadets in order that they could buy some replacement gliders/motor glider as apparently something happened to theirs.

[ORAC]

On top of their Mirage 2000s, F-16s, Rafales, and the F-35As they want?
Gosh, an Air Force capable of operating 4 or more front line types. Then again, they see a real threat on their borders…..

Those were the days….

[Chugalug2]

In fact could you even argue that the safety bar is set too high - perhaps we should step back towards the WW2 model - aircraft don't have to be perfect or last forever - just able to be built in large numbers and do the job
I say this with respect to competition with China - I think China might have a more pragmatic view on aviation safety – if we don't change the way we think on so many things I’m sure we will be swamped!

But what about the people flying them? - well aviation has never been risk free - especially Military Aviation!
I often fly an aircraft with a wooden spar - a few have come unglued when loaded - so you could argue there is no safety case (the aircraft has had a glue check but it is not 100% guaranteed!).

I just fly it nice and gently - and also understanding that there is a chance it might fail...
1. WW2 military aircraft were regulated to the standards of the time. I flew an aircraft designed back then but that entered service shortly after the war. Between V1 and Safety Speed (below which control could not be assured following loss of the critical engine) action in the event of an engine failure was 'at the pilot's discretion'. Or in other words, you're on your own chum. That was the state of the art back then. As you say, there was a war on, and the casualty lists were long and made grim reading.

2 So your solution is to produce large numbers of knowingly unairworthy aircraft, and accept the consequential fatal accidents. How are you going to afford producing such a large number of knowingly unairworthy aircraft? How are you going to man them?

3 If the performance envelope is compromised by such unairworthiness, you will operate the aircraft with that in mind (as per your wooden spar). Is that how you will train for war? Is that how you will go to war?

4 The apologists continually love telling us that war is dangerous, aviation is dangerous, so if unairworthiness is dangerous it makes little difference. You kick the tyres, light the fires, and think of good old blighty. Good for you, but others might demure.

War isn't about dying heroically, it is about winning. To do that you must out perform the enemy. Do you think that the PLAAF's VSOs will be content with being 'pragmatic about aviation safety' if their aircraft are unlikely to reach their targets let alone destroy them? No doubt quantity has a quality of its own, but if you are likely to lose the means of controlling your aircraft, if it has a tendency to spontaneously explode following AAR, is prone to mid air collisions due to illegally fitted HISLs that have to be switched off when they blind the pilot thus making the aircraft invisible to other closing aircraft, if you have no effective fuel tank protection meaning a tracer round from an AK47 could bring you down, are fitted with an IFF lacking failure warning meaning that your own side can save the enemy the bother of destroying you, it will be the opposition celebrating success not you.

To my mind the PLAAF leadership would want to assure themselves of success, and not be pragmatic about failing to succeed. The RAF/RN leadership on the other hand seem far more attuned to your way of thinking though in being pragmatic about aviation safety as the fatal aircraft accidents that I listed were their aircraft! They were put into service often against the advice of those engineers who said they were unairworthy. The resultant accidents were predictable and predicted. We are now minus that operational capacity and tragically so many highly trained and experienced lives. The various enemies involved had very little input to make at all...

[ORAC]

Contradictory or buying both?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/07/20/indonesia-says-it-wants-to-buy-austrias-entire-typhoon-fighter-fleet/

Indonesia says it wants to buy Austria’s entire Typhoon fighter fleet

MELBOURNE, Australia — Indonesia has expressed interest in acquiring Austria’s fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets, in yet another surprise defense procurement plan (https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/05/26/downward-trend-southeast-asian-countries-cut-defense-spending/) from the southeast Asian country.

Indonesia’s defense minister, Prabowo Subianto, wrote a letter to his Austrian counterpart, Klaudia Tanner, seeking to initiate negotiations to buy all 15 Typhoons belonging to the Austrian Air Force.

In his letter, which was published by Indonesian news outlets, Prabowo said the potential purchase will assist in his aims to continue modernizing the Indonesian Air Force.

He added that he understood the “sensitivity” of his proposal, which was likely to be a reference to the continued controversy surrounding Austria’s 2002 acquisition of the Typhoon. That purchase has been dogged by questions about cost and the effectiveness of the aircraft. More recently, there have been allegations of corruption related to the original contract award.

These culminated in Austria’s 2017 decision to retire the aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/07/07/austria-set-to-replace-eurofighter-typhoons/) from service this year in favor of a “more effective and cost-effective” solution for the central European country’s air defense needs.

Indonesia’s interest in the fleet comes two weeks after the surprise announcement (https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/07/06/us-approves-75-billion-in-foreign-weapon-sales-in-one-day/)that the U.S. State Department cleared the country to buy the Bell-Boeing MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft.

Indonesia has been seeking a fighter aircraft to serve alongside its fleet of 23 refurbished early-block Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Fighting Falcon jets. These are all former aircraft operated by the U.S. Air National Guard, and were delivered from 2014 onward.

The decision to seek the Austrian Typhoons, which are all Tranche 1 aircraft configured primarily for air defense missions, is a blow to Russian aspirations to sell the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker interceptor to Indonesia.

Indonesia had selected the Su-35 as its next fighter to provide continuity with its existing fleet of Su-27 and Su-30s Flankers acquired in the early part of the last decade. Negotiations (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2017/08/08/sukhois-for-palm-oil-russia-and-indonesia-announce-new-barter-arrangement/) for the Russian jets ended in 2018, but Indonesia had been reticent to sign the $1.14 billion contract, reportedly over fears that it may be subject to American sanctions.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/12/22/indonesia-gives-up-on-russian-aircraft-purchase-instead-turning-to-us-and-french-options/

Indonesia gives up on Russian aircraft purchase, instead turning to US and French options

MELBOURNE, Australia — Indonesia has admitted defeat in its attempt to buy Russian fighter jets and will now decide between the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II and the Dassault Rafale, according to the country’s Air Force chief of staff.

Speaking to media during a gathering at Halim Perdanakusuma Air Base near the Indonesian capital Jakarta, Air Chief Marshal Fadjar Prasetyo said the Southeast Asian nation is seeking a 4.5-generation mediumweight or heavyweight fighter.

He said the narrowing of the choices to the American F-15EX and the French Rafale was made together with the Defense Ministry, adding that Indonesia wants two to three squadrons’ worth of fighter jets, depending on the budget.

Prasetyo also confirmed that it was “with a heavy heart” that Indonesia would abandon its plan to acquire the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E. The country had selected the Russian twin-engine, single-seat fighter in 2015 but never signed a contract for 11 aircraft following negotiations with Russia in 2018…..

[rattman]

Contradictory or buying both?



What I have been told is that they want F-15ex and have submitted the FMS paperwork for them, they also want upgrades for the F-16's. The issue is that back in the late 90's they were under military embargo by the US over east timor. So they had to buy russian planes because they couldn't get parts for the F-16's. They want F-15's but dont want to be left in the position where they could be embargoed again. So they need something non american, they cant go russian or chinese as the a F-15 will be stopped, cant go gripen because it uses an american engine. Their choices are french Rafaels or EF. Now they are also in a project with the South Korean for the KF-21 (or what ever) so they have that and need something non american to fill that gap in case of embargo again. Some tranch one EF on the cheap might fit that bill. I was told the discussion was between UK and indo. But they also announced publically about the austrai one when replacement was first announced before the RAF announced theirs going

Just read some where else Phillipines has also signed up as part of the KF-21 program

[ORAC]

IIRC they’ve said this before. The issue being that isn’t whether it’s possible or not, it’s whether the available cash is better spent on AESA and other upgrades for the rest of the fleet and/or more F-35Bs.

But if the6 can squeeze more money out of the Treasury, good luck to them.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/upgrade-and-retention-of-tranche-1-eurofighters-technically-feasible-bae-systems-tells-uk-parliament

Upgrade and retention of Tranche 1 Eurofighters ‘technically feasible', BAE Systems tells UK Parliament

There is no technical reason why the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) could not upgrade and retain its fleet of Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, BAE Systems told the country's parliamentary Defence Select Committee in January.

In a written response to the committee submitted on 23 January, the lead UK contractor in the Eurofighter consortium said that it would be “technically feasible” to bring the RAF's remaining 30 Tranche 1 jets up to a standard where they could be retained in service rather than retired in 2025, as currently planned.

“It is technically feasible to bring a Tranche 1 aircraft to the standard of a Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 aircraft. BAE Systems has previously provided data to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that outlines the scope of structural and avionic modifications that would be required,” BAE Systems said, noting that it has not been asked to provide an assessment of the non-recurring design effort, or associated costs, to implement such an upgrade.

The assertion from BAE Systems that the Tranche 1 aircraft could be made viable for longer-term service came about 17 months after Janes reported in September 2021 that the 30 remaining jets are to be retired – an average of nearly 60% of their airframe fatigue lives remaining. Of the 30 Tranche 1 jets that are currently in the inventory, 20 are operational with 10 in storage.

[melmothtw]

IIRC they’ve said this before. The issue being that isn’t whether it’s possible or not, it’s whether the available cash is better spent on AESA and other upgrades for the rest of the fleet and/or more F-35Bs.

But if the6 can squeeze more money out of the Treasury, good luck to them.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/upgrade-and-retention-of-tranche-1-eurofighters-technically-feasible-bae-systems-tells-uk-parliament

Upgrade and retention of Tranche 1 Eurofighters ‘technically feasible', BAE Systems tells UK Parliament

There is no technical reason why the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) could not upgrade and retain its fleet of Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, BAE Systems told the country's parliamentary Defence Select Committee in January.

In a written response to the committee submitted on 23 January, the lead UK contractor in the Eurofighter consortium said that it would be “technically feasible” to bring the RAF's remaining 30 Tranche 1 jets up to a standard where they could be retained in service rather than retired in 2025, as currently planned.

“It is technically feasible to bring a Tranche 1 aircraft to the standard of a Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 aircraft. BAE Systems has previously provided data to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that outlines the scope of structural and avionic modifications that would be required,” BAE Systems said, noting that it has not been asked to provide an assessment of the non-recurring design effort, or associated costs, to implement such an upgrade.

The assertion from BAE Systems that the Tranche 1 aircraft could be made viable for longer-term service came about 17 months after Janes reported in September 2021 that the 30 remaining jets are to be retired – an average of nearly 60% of their airframe fatigue lives remaining. Of the 30 Tranche 1 jets that are currently in the inventory, 20 are operational with 10 in storage.

The issue is that every knows it's a cash issue, yet the MoD continues to frame it as 'these jets are obsolete/unsupportable and that is why we need to bin them'. If they were upfront and honest and admit it just doesn't have the cash to continue to operate them, then I'd imagine a lot of this 'should we keep them/should we bin them' questioning would go away.

[WildRover]

No worries, we are going to give away Tranche 2/3 jets. Then we won't have to spend money servicing those.

[Asturias56]

"yet the MoD continues to frame it as 'these jets are obsolete/unsupportable and that is why we need to bin them'. If they were upfront and honest and admit it just doesn't have the cash to continue to operate them, "


The MOD wouldn't know "upfront & honest" if it hit them between the eyes