One Third of Typhoons May Go
The Jaguar force could be run on almost indefinitely. The existing aircraft could, I believe last until about 2012-15 with relatively little extra investment. There is also a stock of unconverted Jag GR1/1As at Cosford which could easily and cheaply be converted to GR3A standards (two already have been, in what looked suspiciously like a proof of concept). Each airframe would require a Major, the GR3A conversion (costed at about £500K per cockpit) and the 106 mod (about £2m per jet), for a total programme cost of perhaps £100 m. Each converted jet would have (on average) about 4,500 airframe hours remaining.
No-one is suggesting that the Jaguar fleet could or should be expanded, but a specialised recce/TIALD/rapid deployment two squadron wing could give useful service (alongside EF) for some years past the currently planned OSD of 2009.
Had we not just scrapped and retired all those 'redundant' Tornado GR 1s, 12-18 further GR4s could also have been produced, allowing that fleet to run on longer. Alternatively, some of these GR 1s could have been converted to a GR4 emulator standard for training, as was once proposed. Alternatively, F3s could be retained in the recce/SEAD/TIALD role once they've been replaced by the EF Typhoon. The overall Tornado force would still consist of seven frontline squadrons, but flying hours would be spread across a much larger number of airframes, which would be rotated in and out of storage.
The problem aircraft, in terms of stretching service life, is the Harrier, which requires extremely expensive structural work to meet its originally planned FI, and whose life cannot be cost effectively extended much beyond the presently planned OSD.
While this would result in the RAF soldiering on with some embarrassingly elderly aircraft, it would give great value for money to the taxpayer, who would not be asked to look on as Tornado and Jaguar airframes with fewer than 3,000 hours 'on the clock' are unceremoniously scrapped......
It could also allow a reduction in EF numbers (though perhaps not by the whole of Tranche 3) or would allow the Typhoon to last longer than is presently planned, by spreading service use over a larger fleet. Alternatively, it could allow the JSF buy to be reduced.
No-one is suggesting that the Jaguar fleet could or should be expanded, but a specialised recce/TIALD/rapid deployment two squadron wing could give useful service (alongside EF) for some years past the currently planned OSD of 2009.
Had we not just scrapped and retired all those 'redundant' Tornado GR 1s, 12-18 further GR4s could also have been produced, allowing that fleet to run on longer. Alternatively, some of these GR 1s could have been converted to a GR4 emulator standard for training, as was once proposed. Alternatively, F3s could be retained in the recce/SEAD/TIALD role once they've been replaced by the EF Typhoon. The overall Tornado force would still consist of seven frontline squadrons, but flying hours would be spread across a much larger number of airframes, which would be rotated in and out of storage.
The problem aircraft, in terms of stretching service life, is the Harrier, which requires extremely expensive structural work to meet its originally planned FI, and whose life cannot be cost effectively extended much beyond the presently planned OSD.
While this would result in the RAF soldiering on with some embarrassingly elderly aircraft, it would give great value for money to the taxpayer, who would not be asked to look on as Tornado and Jaguar airframes with fewer than 3,000 hours 'on the clock' are unceremoniously scrapped......
It could also allow a reduction in EF numbers (though perhaps not by the whole of Tranche 3) or would allow the Typhoon to last longer than is presently planned, by spreading service use over a larger fleet. Alternatively, it could allow the JSF buy to be reduced.
"Alternatively, F3s could be retained in the recce/SEAD/TIALD role once they've been replaced by the EF Typhoon. "
I thought that a couple of sqns of F3's were going to be kept on in the SEAD role now anyway, which I suppose would enable a cut in the Typhoon order? Would this in turn release some amount of funding to allow T1 and T2 Typhoons to be upgraded with a GA capability?
There must be plenty of life in the F3 fleet to enable usage as a SEAD aircraft. Loads of airframes to choose from anyway!
I thought that a couple of sqns of F3's were going to be kept on in the SEAD role now anyway, which I suppose would enable a cut in the Typhoon order? Would this in turn release some amount of funding to allow T1 and T2 Typhoons to be upgraded with a GA capability?
There must be plenty of life in the F3 fleet to enable usage as a SEAD aircraft. Loads of airframes to choose from anyway!
There are F3 airframes, sure, but there are complications. I understand that the nice low-houred, low FI aircraft coming back from Italy don't have CSP/COV/AOP, while many of the F3s which do have these mods would need the centre fuselage mod, for which they have to have their centre fuselage rebuilt in MBB's jig at Ottobrun (or somewhere in boxhead land). A decision is needed before MBB ****-can the jig. Nevertheless, doing all the required mods to all the aircraft (and finishing off the TIALD/PW/Recce/SEAD integrations which have already been started) would produce a fleet of useful aircraft at an extremely low cost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I detect a theme developing here.
Are the fast jet community saying that they do not need TypeHoon and would be content with the current platforms updated.
What a spiffing idea.
As weapons get smarter, with longer range it is difficult to see why you need a platform and a person equiped to sustain mega G-forces, to win a dogfight, surely the systems have failed if you get into that situation.
If TypeHoon was the answer, what was the question?
Is the question still valid?
Where and what threat is it designed to counter and is it still out there.
As previously mentioned the money we could save by revamping our old stuff could pay for a new Corporate CD, a new Logo (I like the RNs new one), we could get all of the RAF (I believe we would fill half fill Old Trafford) in one place and give each other a big hug and have a massive p*ss up, and then we could ask Geff Hoon to read some of the Blue Book to us.
Are the fast jet community saying that they do not need TypeHoon and would be content with the current platforms updated.
What a spiffing idea.
As weapons get smarter, with longer range it is difficult to see why you need a platform and a person equiped to sustain mega G-forces, to win a dogfight, surely the systems have failed if you get into that situation.
If TypeHoon was the answer, what was the question?
Is the question still valid?
Where and what threat is it designed to counter and is it still out there.
As previously mentioned the money we could save by revamping our old stuff could pay for a new Corporate CD, a new Logo (I like the RNs new one), we could get all of the RAF (I believe we would fill half fill Old Trafford) in one place and give each other a big hug and have a massive p*ss up, and then we could ask Geff Hoon to read some of the Blue Book to us.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You are making a fundamental error PT in assuming the Typhoon is being purchased to achieve a vital military purpose, it isn't. It'sbeing purchased to meet national industrial/political aims in retaining a military aircraft design and production capability and, of course, jobs. 
Last edited by ORAC; 12th Oct 2003 at 03:04.
