Typhoon Radar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O-P,
If you know me (if you were F3 crew `90 to`05, our paths have probably crossed) you would know the relationship between aircrew & us "gingers" along with the banter and affection that flew both ways between us!
In the early days (w,z etc) anything that could have increased reliability would have resulted in a lot less DNCO or lead noses! remember in those early days there was a failure of some kind in the weapon system on most trips, and i am well aware of exactly what it matured into.
What I was trying to suggest was that in the combat environment it is better to have 80% 99% of the time over 100% some of the time.
Your anology to cars is quite interesting, most of the systems you mention are not essential(the gold standard if you like) but are the fancy electic bits that cause no end of problems!
At the risk of outing myself I did once own a lada, good solid reliable engineering, never let me down. I did take some stick about it untill, after a long det somewhere, I was jumpstarting much newer more modern motors with flat batteries.
If you know me (if you were F3 crew `90 to`05, our paths have probably crossed) you would know the relationship between aircrew & us "gingers" along with the banter and affection that flew both ways between us!
In the early days (w,z etc) anything that could have increased reliability would have resulted in a lot less DNCO or lead noses! remember in those early days there was a failure of some kind in the weapon system on most trips, and i am well aware of exactly what it matured into.
What I was trying to suggest was that in the combat environment it is better to have 80% 99% of the time over 100% some of the time.
Your anology to cars is quite interesting, most of the systems you mention are not essential(the gold standard if you like) but are the fancy electic bits that cause no end of problems!
At the risk of outing myself I did once own a lada, good solid reliable engineering, never let me down. I did take some stick about it untill, after a long det somewhere, I was jumpstarting much newer more modern motors with flat batteries.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whisperer,
I joined in 1982 as a Brat then served on 29, flew the F3 from '88-05. (229, 25, 111, 1435, 56, 5, 56, 25, 1435, 25). Yep, I know the banter from both sides!
I have never flown any aircraft, RAF or Foreign, Military or Civil, that didn't have some "Red or Green"...and known reliability problems.
I accept your point that in peace-time it was extremely frustrating to DNCO so many training missions due to weapon system failures. However, I flew 47 missions "sausage side" without an air abort. We both know that on operations the spares support, sortie rates and general standard/preparation of the jets led to higher reliability. That's basically saying that Sqns operating in the UK were left scratching around for spares, or the spares didn't work because they were the wrong MOD state. (Fleets within fleets)
The basic problem is that idiots pay for junk that doesn't meet the spec in the 'glossy brochure', then spend another fortune paying the same company to put it right. This normally takes several attempts.
I thought my car analogy was quite good thanks! As it happens I have just returned my new car to the dealership under my States 'Lemon' law and been given a full refund. The car wouldn't come out of "limp home mode" Don't buy an Audi! Off to buy an F-Type on Tuesday!
Would you buy another Lada?
I joined in 1982 as a Brat then served on 29, flew the F3 from '88-05. (229, 25, 111, 1435, 56, 5, 56, 25, 1435, 25). Yep, I know the banter from both sides!
I have never flown any aircraft, RAF or Foreign, Military or Civil, that didn't have some "Red or Green"...and known reliability problems.
I accept your point that in peace-time it was extremely frustrating to DNCO so many training missions due to weapon system failures. However, I flew 47 missions "sausage side" without an air abort. We both know that on operations the spares support, sortie rates and general standard/preparation of the jets led to higher reliability. That's basically saying that Sqns operating in the UK were left scratching around for spares, or the spares didn't work because they were the wrong MOD state. (Fleets within fleets)
The basic problem is that idiots pay for junk that doesn't meet the spec in the 'glossy brochure', then spend another fortune paying the same company to put it right. This normally takes several attempts.
I thought my car analogy was quite good thanks! As it happens I have just returned my new car to the dealership under my States 'Lemon' law and been given a full refund. The car wouldn't come out of "limp home mode" Don't buy an Audi! Off to buy an F-Type on Tuesday!
Would you buy another Lada?
Last edited by O-P; 28th Nov 2014 at 04:11.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it simple! Less capability and more reliability please because when it fails I have ZERO capability.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O-P,
Cool, glad we were on the same side of the fence once, I have met a few ex brats that crossed the devide, and to a man they were outstanding, I see you served with some of the best F3 units there were but how did you escape the greatness of 11 & 23!
You have seen the best of the worst transform into something really quite good, despite what the naysayers think!
You have hit the nail on the head and I could not agree more when you say "The basic problem is that idiots pay for junk that doesn't meet the spec in the 'glossy brochure', then spend another fortune paying the same company to put it right. This normally takes several attempts. " but thats MOD procurement, and none of us have enough lifetime left to solve that problem.
Deliverance , in his post, has explained point that I was trying to make in far more elegant terms, and probably prooves the old saying "should have tried harder at school"
Sounds like you had a good run on ops, however in them situations I often found the weapons log in ops was a greater indication of serviceability than the 700, you know what i mean!
And yes, IF LADA`s were still available, and not banned because of silly EU rules, I would have another today. I think that over the time I ran it the cost, including DIY servicing, was about £300/year, not bad for a motor that cost less than the 3 year depreciation on a "mainstream" motor.
Good luck with the F-type fella, be thankfull that the lemon law exists as it sounds like you dodged a bullet there.
Cool, glad we were on the same side of the fence once, I have met a few ex brats that crossed the devide, and to a man they were outstanding, I see you served with some of the best F3 units there were but how did you escape the greatness of 11 & 23!
You have seen the best of the worst transform into something really quite good, despite what the naysayers think!
You have hit the nail on the head and I could not agree more when you say "The basic problem is that idiots pay for junk that doesn't meet the spec in the 'glossy brochure', then spend another fortune paying the same company to put it right. This normally takes several attempts. " but thats MOD procurement, and none of us have enough lifetime left to solve that problem.
Deliverance , in his post, has explained point that I was trying to make in far more elegant terms, and probably prooves the old saying "should have tried harder at school"
Sounds like you had a good run on ops, however in them situations I often found the weapons log in ops was a greater indication of serviceability than the 700, you know what i mean!
And yes, IF LADA`s were still available, and not banned because of silly EU rules, I would have another today. I think that over the time I ran it the cost, including DIY servicing, was about £300/year, not bad for a motor that cost less than the 3 year depreciation on a "mainstream" motor.
Good luck with the F-type fella, be thankfull that the lemon law exists as it sounds like you dodged a bullet there.
Bearing in mind that I really have no right to comment (so please discount this to 0 if you like) but my experience in other technical areas is that if a product "works well eventually" then it's just because the real price of getting it right wasn't factored in at the beginning.
In fact, the work would never have happened at all without that initial dishonesty in which the customer demands, in effect, that the supplier fools them by only selecting suppliers who actually do so. It's the "something for nothing" attitude. e.g. world-beating radar for 2p but in my case - software that was promoted as being ready in 6 months that actually took us 4 years because the customer had to have "the ultimate solution" but had no intention of facing up to how much work was required.
In fact, the work would never have happened at all without that initial dishonesty in which the customer demands, in effect, that the supplier fools them by only selecting suppliers who actually do so. It's the "something for nothing" attitude. e.g. world-beating radar for 2p but in my case - software that was promoted as being ready in 6 months that actually took us 4 years because the customer had to have "the ultimate solution" but had no intention of facing up to how much work was required.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverence,
You didn't answer my question.
If you'd had the choice would it have been a legacy F18 or the F22?
You may only wish to track what you want to shoot. I however, was far more interested in the other little buggers that wanted to shoot me. Perhaps you'd have been happier in a Hawk T1a?
You didn't answer my question.
If you'd had the choice would it have been a legacy F18 or the F22?
You may only wish to track what you want to shoot. I however, was far more interested in the other little buggers that wanted to shoot me. Perhaps you'd have been happier in a Hawk T1a?
Eng
To be fair, I did accept the need to compare like with like. 
The more important point to make is that we (PE at the time) weren't too happy about the casual acceptance of a system MTBF far below the minima laid down in permanent LTC Instructions (500 hours per LRU, but averaged across the system), which in turn is what governed funding.
This is a ludicrous rule. Most avionics meet it, but radars seldom do; especially, as you say, the Transmitter chain. But, the beauty of the "old" LTC system was that the Service Owner and PE project manager had the authority to juggle funding between projects to better target its use.
Once these posts were cut, if a given kit needed a cash injection, but was always using up its funding quickly, then tough luck; yet other kit would be awash and never spend its allocation. The 500 hour rule was daft; but easily managed until the posts were cut. I couldn't begin to guess who does this now. I suspect no-one. It's meant to be the Requirements Manager.
The "but averaged across the system" bit only applied to the RN. The RAF generally assumed all LRUs had the same reliability when buying them. A too simplistic "AE + 50%". It was a subtlety of interpretation that meant the RN would have more spares of less reliable LRUs (born of some experience supporting aircraft during a 6 month deployment at sea), whereas the RAF would have unopened boxes of more reliable LRUs decades after the ISD. In turn this bred a laziness when applying the Maintenance Policy which, in my own experience, came to a head one day in 1989 when not a single Sea King HAR Mk3 had a radar, with most of the stock at Fleetlands categorised as No Fault Found. That is a huge disconnect. This perhaps explains some of the comments made by others here.
Interesting comment from Deliverance about tracking targets. I do recall that, in this respect, the RN's SHAR2 requirement was to track more targets than EFA/Typhoon, which the Ferranti Chief Designer found quite strange. It meant having to regress to a slightly older design. (Both were under development at the same time, BV leading). That was about 1986/7 so may have changed after that. What these discussions always bring home to me is the differing views on what kit should do. Please have sympathy for the poor old project manager who has to make sense of it!
Not a fair comparison given they were generations apart in technology and decades apart in terms of service. The Parrot update was primarily to one LRU; the rest of the system was on the upward leg of the bath tub curve. That said, Parrot reliability went up after 3rd line was given to Industry.
The more important point to make is that we (PE at the time) weren't too happy about the casual acceptance of a system MTBF far below the minima laid down in permanent LTC Instructions (500 hours per LRU, but averaged across the system), which in turn is what governed funding. This is a ludicrous rule. Most avionics meet it, but radars seldom do; especially, as you say, the Transmitter chain. But, the beauty of the "old" LTC system was that the Service Owner and PE project manager had the authority to juggle funding between projects to better target its use.
Once these posts were cut, if a given kit needed a cash injection, but was always using up its funding quickly, then tough luck; yet other kit would be awash and never spend its allocation. The 500 hour rule was daft; but easily managed until the posts were cut. I couldn't begin to guess who does this now. I suspect no-one. It's meant to be the Requirements Manager.
The "but averaged across the system" bit only applied to the RN. The RAF generally assumed all LRUs had the same reliability when buying them. A too simplistic "AE + 50%". It was a subtlety of interpretation that meant the RN would have more spares of less reliable LRUs (born of some experience supporting aircraft during a 6 month deployment at sea), whereas the RAF would have unopened boxes of more reliable LRUs decades after the ISD. In turn this bred a laziness when applying the Maintenance Policy which, in my own experience, came to a head one day in 1989 when not a single Sea King HAR Mk3 had a radar, with most of the stock at Fleetlands categorised as No Fault Found. That is a huge disconnect. This perhaps explains some of the comments made by others here.
Interesting comment from Deliverance about tracking targets. I do recall that, in this respect, the RN's SHAR2 requirement was to track more targets than EFA/Typhoon, which the Ferranti Chief Designer found quite strange. It meant having to regress to a slightly older design. (Both were under development at the same time, BV leading). That was about 1986/7 so may have changed after that. What these discussions always bring home to me is the differing views on what kit should do. Please have sympathy for the poor old project manager who has to make sense of it!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OP,
Given the choice between two U.S. aircraft then I'd take the one that works. It took a while for the F-22 to become reliable too. But if you throw in Tornado or Typhoon I'd rather take an F-18C into combat right now thanks. And probably for the foreseeable future.
I didn't mean I didn't want to detect them, just not waste processing power tracking all those I'm not targeting.
I can assure you that I would not be happy in a T1A as effectively that is what I am flying every time the radar fails, which is all far too often for my liking. Perhaps I'm the only one that has these failures and actually everything is fine. I doubt it though. And as for the F3 being so servicable on ops, why then for a 2 ship mission would 4 jets need to be started with the best 3 getting airborne and then once at the border the air spare would go home? Great servicability indeed.
Given the choice between two U.S. aircraft then I'd take the one that works. It took a while for the F-22 to become reliable too. But if you throw in Tornado or Typhoon I'd rather take an F-18C into combat right now thanks. And probably for the foreseeable future.
I didn't mean I didn't want to detect them, just not waste processing power tracking all those I'm not targeting.
I can assure you that I would not be happy in a T1A as effectively that is what I am flying every time the radar fails, which is all far too often for my liking. Perhaps I'm the only one that has these failures and actually everything is fine. I doubt it though. And as for the F3 being so servicable on ops, why then for a 2 ship mission would 4 jets need to be started with the best 3 getting airborne and then once at the border the air spare would go home? Great servicability indeed.
gr-proud to be one of the many unsung heroes.
Del,
I think he said your arguemt is valid. I think (forgive me if I'm second-guessing) the point is that failures CAN happen in any op. Backups can mitigate that AND (I think this is the point), by making the raid more complete, make it safer.
That said, I do not disagree with your main point that British Forces have been pushed into the expectation that our kit will have way more failures that it should.
I think he said your arguemt is valid. I think (forgive me if I'm second-guessing) the point is that failures CAN happen in any op. Backups can mitigate that AND (I think this is the point), by making the raid more complete, make it safer.
That said, I do not disagree with your main point that British Forces have been pushed into the expectation that our kit will have way more failures that it should.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more important point to make is that we (PE at the time) weren't too happy about the casual acceptance of a system MTBF far below the minima laid down in permanent LTC Instructions (500 hours per LRU, but averaged across the system), which in turn is what governed funding.
