Tornado CWS delayed...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado CWS delayed...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
"We must replace all the old fuel seals and re-align all the 'adjusted' fuel pipes on the MR2 by 20XX"......."hang on, if we retire the aircraft early, we can save all that money"......."even better, let's say the savings will be used to offset the increased in-service costs of MRA4"....."brilliant - obviously we won't have to deliver on that last bit will we?"............"of course not old boy!"
plus ca change.
plus ca change.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN - not sure about any tourex tie-in, but the deadline was sailed through with some technical obstructions.
Fail to see how a system can be flight tested and cleared for use when there are integration problems.Sounds a bit like Tornado/Patriot.
Sandy Parts - Spot on. Let's wait to the 2015 SDR.
DV
It would take quite a reversal of thinking to go from a position where the third GR4 squadron was extended only a few months ago to one where all 3 get deleted in SDSR. Especially since there is a widespread sense in all 3 services that the FJ force has been cut too far already. Until Typhoon weapons integration is completed (and until they're not needed for deterrence operations in eastern Europe) then Tornado will continue to meet our leaders' needs to intervene in the Middle East - which the recently-retired ambassador to Saudi tells us will be struggling with internal conflict for at least another 10-15 years. Whether you think we should be involved or not, I can't see the HMG allowing its foreign policy standing to be affected by considerations of fast-jet collision avoidance systems.
One line in the Typhoon CWS answer by Phillip Dunne is insightful. We are told that purely mathematical risk assessments are frowned upon, so this idea that "we are not aware of any fast jet anywhere in the world being fitted with CWS" says to me that a qualitative approach is being prepared for adoption once again.
One line in the Typhoon CWS answer by Phillip Dunne is insightful. We are told that purely mathematical risk assessments are frowned upon, so this idea that "we are not aware of any fast jet anywhere in the world being fitted with CWS" says to me that a qualitative approach is being prepared for adoption once again.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would take quite a reversal of thinking...
The nascent attack capability of Typhoon might persuade the bean counters that a(nother) capability gap can be forced through, particularly give Tornado's projected OOS date of 2019. SDSR ~September, OOS early '16...
Not suggestin' that lack of CWS will be the show stopper, just that it could well be rendered moot.
One line in the Typhoon CWS answer by Phillip Dunne is insightful. We are told that purely mathematical risk assessments are frowned upon, so this idea that "we are not aware of any fast jet anywhere in the world being fitted with CWS" says to me that a qualitative approach is being prepared for adoption once again.
IIRC it was posted here on pprune that numerical assessments had not been policy for a long time. Maybe served as a reminder.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC it was posted here on PPRuNe that numerical assessments had not been policy for a long time. Maybe served as a reminder.
DV
Distant Voice
mea culpa. It may have been on the Moray Firth thread because it was in reply to you questioning how MoD arrived at the numerical figures claimed for Tornado. Purely numerical assessments were outlawed by MoD in the early 90s, reflecting CAA policy. I still have the policy directives from November 1993 which, to my knowledge, have never been rescinded.
mea culpa. It may have been on the Moray Firth thread because it was in reply to you questioning how MoD arrived at the numerical figures claimed for Tornado. Purely numerical assessments were outlawed by MoD in the early 90s, reflecting CAA policy. I still have the policy directives from November 1993 which, to my knowledge, have never been rescinded.
