Typhoon FGR4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon FGR4
I understand that typhoon has a new designator and is now to be called typhoon FGR4. Just wondered what peoples thoughts were on the matter - i'm guessing that there is no way it could have been an FGR3 because politically it doesn't convey the same success story as for example - GR4.
rab-k - correct.
As I understand it the FGR4 only refers to the latest block aircraft (with T3 being the associated twin sticker).
Double zero - I don't know what your beef is with the GR4 but it has dealt with the task placed upon it to a very high standard (particularly since 1990/91). No blue on blues. No bring back problems (unlike some single engine aircraft had until very recently), it doesn't need curvature of the earth to get airborne (unlike some recently retired aircatft
). Some of its low level stuff in GW1 may not have been 100% succesful but with the technology of the time (and the eqpt available to UK forces) I reckon it held its own. You can't blame the effectiveness of JP233 on the platform that carries it 
And I for one am quite thankful the GR1/4 didn't have to be used prior to 1990 as that would probably have meant only one thing ...
Still convinced your WEBF by another name!
As I understand it the FGR4 only refers to the latest block aircraft (with T3 being the associated twin sticker).
Double zero - I don't know what your beef is with the GR4 but it has dealt with the task placed upon it to a very high standard (particularly since 1990/91). No blue on blues. No bring back problems (unlike some single engine aircraft had until very recently), it doesn't need curvature of the earth to get airborne (unlike some recently retired aircatft
). Some of its low level stuff in GW1 may not have been 100% succesful but with the technology of the time (and the eqpt available to UK forces) I reckon it held its own. You can't blame the effectiveness of JP233 on the platform that carries it And I for one am quite thankful the GR1/4 didn't have to be used prior to 1990 as that would probably have meant only one thing ...
Still convinced your WEBF by another name!
Personally I like the FGR bit after all it is eventually replacing the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar GR3 so makes sense - although I wonder how much sway the current OF5 Typhoon SO in 1Gp had in ensuring the R bit was there, given his background!
Originally Posted by wrathmonk
Personally I like the FGR bit after all it is eventually replacing the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar GR3 so makes sense
So there must be a 'T' in there somewhere, for when Typhoon replaces the Red Arrows' Hawks.
Or will that be the T5 ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Glad
Thanks for that. I was quite sure I had seen a 3 being re-wired at Lossie to carry radar rockets.
Bowly
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tornadof3.cfm
Thanks for that. I was quite sure I had seen a 3 being re-wired at Lossie to carry radar rockets.
Bowly
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tornadof3.cfm
In the months before the 2003 Gulf War, a small number of Tornado F3s underwent a modification programme to allow them to operate in the Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) role. The modifications permitted the carriage of a pair of ALARM missiles in place of the Skyflash or AMRAAM missiles, but the modified aircraft were not in the event deployed during the conflict.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some more EF3/ALARM refs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM. I must say that I'd never heard of EF3 before. I assumed the designation would have been F3A or somesuch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM. I must say that I'd never heard of EF3 before. I assumed the designation would have been F3A or somesuch.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
I don't want to flog a dead horse (or continue to hijack the thread!) but the F3 is not a SEAD platform as Wikipedia suggests. A capability was discovered pre-GW2 that caused some raised eyebrows and everyone jumped up and down saying it was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Not the case. The wiring may well be there but it means nothing (I believe the Nimrod has the wiring to enable AIM-9's to be carried but this does not make it a fighter/interceptor). I am also certain that no F3 launched with ALARMs on during GW2.
I don't want to flog a dead horse (or continue to hijack the thread!) but the F3 is not a SEAD platform as Wikipedia suggests. A capability was discovered pre-GW2 that caused some raised eyebrows and everyone jumped up and down saying it was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Not the case. The wiring may well be there but it means nothing (I believe the Nimrod has the wiring to enable AIM-9's to be carried but this does not make it a fighter/interceptor). I am also certain that no F3 launched with ALARMs on during GW2.
