Tiffy question?
Thread Starter
Tiffy question?
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I'm hoping to pick people's grey matter with a question about the Typhoon. Apart from Saudi sales and deferment of payment, is there any other reason why its taking the United Kingdom so long to stand up five squadrons, or what number of them we are likely to get. If I recall, No. 3 stood up at the start of 2006, since then it has taken 6 years to get a total of three! From 1982 to 1989, 11 squadrons of GR1s materialised and five squadrons of F3s, the latter, specifically speaking, wasn't even flying until the end of 1985. Is the answer because of the amount of time required to put such a complex aeroplane together right and train up the air and groundcrews to an acceptable standard? Or is that all bunkum and its just a case of government not wanting to pay for the damn things anyway, trying to find how many they can flog elsewhere and generally wishing the damn thing didn't exist anyway.
FB
I'm hoping to pick people's grey matter with a question about the Typhoon. Apart from Saudi sales and deferment of payment, is there any other reason why its taking the United Kingdom so long to stand up five squadrons, or what number of them we are likely to get. If I recall, No. 3 stood up at the start of 2006, since then it has taken 6 years to get a total of three! From 1982 to 1989, 11 squadrons of GR1s materialised and five squadrons of F3s, the latter, specifically speaking, wasn't even flying until the end of 1985. Is the answer because of the amount of time required to put such a complex aeroplane together right and train up the air and groundcrews to an acceptable standard? Or is that all bunkum and its just a case of government not wanting to pay for the damn things anyway, trying to find how many they can flog elsewhere and generally wishing the damn thing didn't exist anyway.
FB
It's a fair question; my guess would be that the GR1/F3 build up took place with the Defence Budget running at a substantially higher % of GDP, therefore there was more cash to go around, we were still in the Cold War so there was more of an urgency to re-equip (particularly wrt replacing the Vulcan and Lightning) and we had far more aircrew/Sqns/bases so it was easier to drop a Sqn from the front line to retrain (or simply transfer a numberplate). In addition, the Govt has really wanted to get out of 232 Typhoons so delaying the replacement of the F3 by allowing UK build slots for export made sound sense. Typhoon has suffered by politically inspired delays (from all 4 countries at different times) and by the "peace dividend".
Thread Starter
Hmmm, I've heard it said before about the bigger budget back in the 1980s, but that surely was to accommodate the bigger order of battle. The build up of a smaller fleet of aircraftshould still be possible, if it is what's been determined. The number for the R.A.F. has already been reduced from 232 to 160. Of the 160, I understand 53 of the oldest ones, the government hope to sell on second hand. This leaves 107 airframes for five squadrons, the OCU and OEU? I wonder if that's enough?
FB
FB
I might keep my powder dry for a while in this thread, but, yes, cost is a real driver and so is programme management and the appalling complexity of the politics and the nature of the consortia.
The NAO report from early lasy year. It's long, but worth a spped read:
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docI...bc6&version=-1
The NAO report from early lasy year. It's long, but worth a spped read:
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docI...bc6&version=-1
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Logic and money suggest that a slow buildup is a good solution.
Self-evidently we have sufficient assets to meet current tasks. If we had one or two more tiffy sqns they would be surplus to current requirements.
If we did stand up two more tiffy sqns now then we would be employing potentially redundant FJ aircrew from obsolete types. By standing them up some years hence we would retain the correct age spread through the force.
Squeal as you may, the GR4 is cutting the mustard in AFG and also it did in Libya. The Tiffy is doing the necessary in FI and UK and also contributed in Libya. Retaining 'old' Jag and Harrier mates would block slots in the FJ cockpits when the recruiting tap is opened.
Well, that is my take but I am sure it will all turn out differently.
Self-evidently we have sufficient assets to meet current tasks. If we had one or two more tiffy sqns they would be surplus to current requirements.
If we did stand up two more tiffy sqns now then we would be employing potentially redundant FJ aircrew from obsolete types. By standing them up some years hence we would retain the correct age spread through the force.
Squeal as you may, the GR4 is cutting the mustard in AFG and also it did in Libya. The Tiffy is doing the necessary in FI and UK and also contributed in Libya. Retaining 'old' Jag and Harrier mates would block slots in the FJ cockpits when the recruiting tap is opened.
Well, that is my take but I am sure it will all turn out differently.
Thread Starter
I think I understand your point Pontius old plum, the next three squadrons won't get the go ahead until we're clear of our current economic crisis, hence the cull of trainee aircrew recently, but wouldn't the older Jaguar and Harrier pilots provide some continuity of experience when, for instance, if, as you say, the recruiting tap is turned on again and it is then that the approval for the standing up of a further three squadrons is grant. Wouldn't that spread the experience on the Tiff rather thinly?
FB
FB
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
FB, I thought the flame throwers would be out
You are of course quite right and without naming names, numbers, or dates, there have been times when the experience levels were margarine thin.
One case I will mention, in the build up to GW1 there was a trawl at the Nav School to find out what the minimum bomb spacing had been for 1000lb stick on the Vulcan 90-way, that thin.
However while Harrier and Jaguar mates would bring more expertise to the party I suspect there is already a sufficient mix of types to provide the Typhoon MRCA with a full spectrum of experience. Any more H/J mates would, as I said, reduce the available seats tomorrow. Who knows but perhaps the man with the dartboard is already selecting 'one' from each age number so as to maintain the demographic.
silly boy, with your experience PN, you know the posters can't look beyond the next coffee break.
You are of course quite right and without naming names, numbers, or dates, there have been times when the experience levels were margarine thin.
One case I will mention, in the build up to GW1 there was a trawl at the Nav School to find out what the minimum bomb spacing had been for 1000lb stick on the Vulcan 90-way, that thin.
However while Harrier and Jaguar mates would bring more expertise to the party I suspect there is already a sufficient mix of types to provide the Typhoon MRCA with a full spectrum of experience. Any more H/J mates would, as I said, reduce the available seats tomorrow. Who knows but perhaps the man with the dartboard is already selecting 'one' from each age number so as to maintain the demographic.
silly boy, with your experience PN, you know the posters can't look beyond the next coffee break.
