Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.
JSF, First operational sortie of Typhoon with PWIV has just been flown today. Storm Shadow and PWIII are the two other weapons that Tornado can carry and Typhoon can't. Both are bit overkill in the current operational environment, though as you right in that they may be required (though if there is something that needed Stormshadow to kill it, a PWII or PWIII would be a much cheaper option in this air environment).
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 4th Dec 2015 at 19:56.
Nope not according to any public sources and I don't walk past the open hanger doors of 41 Sqn on the way to the office anymore to get a peek on what's hanging off the pylons of their Typhoons or Tornadoes. The question is however irreverent. First raid on Syria by the Tornadoes used Paveway only. If the Tornado carries Raptor and max Brimstone load, a Typhoon carries 4 PWIV, plus Litening pod and they are launched as a pair, its the about the same weapon load as 2 GR4's doing the same mission. (Plus there are at least a couple of AIM-120's to boot if you look closely at the photos of the armed Typhoons (not that I can see the RAF using them)).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
17 Posts
Tornado can't carry RAPTOR and Brimstone simultaneously.
It's pretty obvious to me that the point of deploying Typhoon in the ground-attack role is that the Tornado fleet is stretched to its sustainable limit and any additional ground-attack capability added by Typhoon, even if it is "just" more Paveway IVs and Litening pods, is a good thing. Bear in mind the Tornado squadrons came into SHADER straight off the back of Afghanistan, and also took part in operations over Nigeria for a bit last year - it's not as if they have stored up a reserve of good will to burn in an extended surge, and we expect this to go on for years (the Government cited SHADER when it extended the third Tornado squadron to 2018). Sustaining the fight without prompting a flurry of PVRs - which would be particularly damaging among the WSO cadre, an endangered species - requires a cautious approach to deployment ratios. It's already at 1:2, which is pretty brutal by historic standards. Relocating all three squadrons permanently to Akrotiri might allow a greater effort - or it might result in a flood of PVRs from those unwilling to relocate. A bit risky, I would suggest.
It's pretty obvious to me that the point of deploying Typhoon in the ground-attack role is that the Tornado fleet is stretched to its sustainable limit and any additional ground-attack capability added by Typhoon, even if it is "just" more Paveway IVs and Litening pods, is a good thing. Bear in mind the Tornado squadrons came into SHADER straight off the back of Afghanistan, and also took part in operations over Nigeria for a bit last year - it's not as if they have stored up a reserve of good will to burn in an extended surge, and we expect this to go on for years (the Government cited SHADER when it extended the third Tornado squadron to 2018). Sustaining the fight without prompting a flurry of PVRs - which would be particularly damaging among the WSO cadre, an endangered species - requires a cautious approach to deployment ratios. It's already at 1:2, which is pretty brutal by historic standards. Relocating all three squadrons permanently to Akrotiri might allow a greater effort - or it might result in a flood of PVRs from those unwilling to relocate. A bit risky, I would suggest.
All this yakking on about operational capabilities of Typhoon / Tornado needs to STOP RIGHT NOW!
As does discussion concerning ROE.
The RAF is prosecuting military operations against the evil known as daesh - that's all you Need to Know!
As does discussion concerning ROE.
The RAF is prosecuting military operations against the evil known as daesh - that's all you Need to Know!
All this yakking on about operational capabilities of Typhoon / Tornado needs to STOP RIGHT NOW!
As does discussion concerning ROE.
As does discussion concerning ROE.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
downsizer,
WSO about to re-open to DE recruitment
Is this correct? Is this mainly for the Tornado fleet, or does it include P-8/ISTAR?
If it's for Tornado:
Recruitment from high street/OASC assessment? Minimum 2-3 months.
IOT - 32 weeks
WSO training? Minimum of say 6-12 months.
Tornado OCU - 6 months
Total time to provide an inexperienced WSO on the front line? 24 months? Start January 2016, earliest output say January 2018.
GR4 OSD 2019?
How does that work?
Then there's the issue of career prospects after 2019, leading to possible difficulties recruiting in the first place!
WSO about to re-open to DE recruitment
Is this correct? Is this mainly for the Tornado fleet, or does it include P-8/ISTAR?
If it's for Tornado:
Recruitment from high street/OASC assessment? Minimum 2-3 months.
IOT - 32 weeks
WSO training? Minimum of say 6-12 months.
Tornado OCU - 6 months
Total time to provide an inexperienced WSO on the front line? 24 months? Start January 2016, earliest output say January 2018.
GR4 OSD 2019?
How does that work?
Then there's the issue of career prospects after 2019, leading to possible difficulties recruiting in the first place!
downsizer,
WSO about to re-open to DE recruitment
Is this correct? Is this mainly for the Tornado fleet, or does it include P-8/ISTAR?
If it's for Tornado:
Recruitment from high street/OASC assessment? Minimum 2-3 months.
IOT - 32 weeks
WSO training? Minimum of say 6-12 months.
Tornado OCU - 6 months
Total time to provide an inexperienced WSO on the front line? 24 months? Start January 2016, earliest output say January 2018.
GR4 OSD 2019?
How does that work?
Then there's the issue of career prospects after 2019, leading to possible difficulties recruiting in the first place!
WSO about to re-open to DE recruitment
Is this correct? Is this mainly for the Tornado fleet, or does it include P-8/ISTAR?
If it's for Tornado:
Recruitment from high street/OASC assessment? Minimum 2-3 months.
IOT - 32 weeks
WSO training? Minimum of say 6-12 months.
Tornado OCU - 6 months
Total time to provide an inexperienced WSO on the front line? 24 months? Start January 2016, earliest output say January 2018.
GR4 OSD 2019?
How does that work?
Then there's the issue of career prospects after 2019, leading to possible difficulties recruiting in the first place!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN,
Short service commissions have been back for quite some time I believe, indeed I think that was the only entry route for WSOs towards the end. While that approach may answer what you do with new WSOs post 2019, it doesn't address them reaching the frontline quickly enough to be of use in helping the current strain on the Tornado fleet.
One also has to ask why anyone with half a brain (one presumes even pilots credit WSOs with half a brain?) would volunteer to join a trade that the RAF has already shut down once?
Short service commissions have been back for quite some time I believe, indeed I think that was the only entry route for WSOs towards the end. While that approach may answer what you do with new WSOs post 2019, it doesn't address them reaching the frontline quickly enough to be of use in helping the current strain on the Tornado fleet.
One also has to ask why anyone with half a brain (one presumes even pilots credit WSOs with half a brain?) would volunteer to join a trade that the RAF has already shut down once?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
High is quite agree. They were questioning the future of the navigation branch 25 years ago.
Although the redundant WSO on retirement of the relevant airframe could then fill the SO slots that real pilots don't want.
Although the redundant WSO on retirement of the relevant airframe could then fill the SO slots that real pilots don't want.
Because they won't realise that, these kids just want to get in the air, to quote someone senior! And since when does the RAF do joined up thinking?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future for WSOs is ISTAR.
SDSR10 projected RJ and Sentry as the only future core assets. Now we have both of those for at least 20 more years. Sentinel is being retained. Shadow fleet increasing by 60%. About 100 more RPAS crews are needed, plus 24 P8 crews - that's 48 WSO's on that one alone.
I'd say recruiting now is essential, but starting up a training pipeline is going to be difficult.
SDSR10 projected RJ and Sentry as the only future core assets. Now we have both of those for at least 20 more years. Sentinel is being retained. Shadow fleet increasing by 60%. About 100 more RPAS crews are needed, plus 24 P8 crews - that's 48 WSO's on that one alone.
I'd say recruiting now is essential, but starting up a training pipeline is going to be difficult.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag
"I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head 're j u st what Typhoon brings to the party.."
Just an airframe that can (maybe) lug the weapons, that has more years left in service. Is it cost - effective??????
OAP
"I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head 're j u st what Typhoon brings to the party.."
Just an airframe that can (maybe) lug the weapons, that has more years left in service. Is it cost - effective??????
OAP
It's a shame that the ROE thread has gone, although predictable.
It seems that ROE are the British Government's dirty little secret, although not much of a secret since they are saying that no civilian casualties have been caused thus far in the Iraq/Syria air strikes. Ergo we only drop when there are definitely no civpop in the vicinity. Not exactly rocket science for ISIL.
But how well does this strategy really serve us and the subjugated of Raqua? Pretty well tells ISIL that they are safe in a populated urban environment as long as they ensure some civilians are within a typical blast radius. What about the situation where ISIL are about to enter and occupy a town and could be hit, but there are a few (10 or so) non-combatents in the close vicinity. The RAF can't drop a bomb/missile and so ISIL go on and enter the town and proceed to round up 100 civilians for execution. Who is well served in that situation? certainly not the denizens of the town that has just been taken. And because we are not really being effective, hey presto the, the whole thing just goes on and on and people begin to wonder if these expensive planes and missiles are worth anything? Then they start calling for ground troops and air power gets generally dismissed as not being a decisive option.
I also question why some PPRUNERs are so sensitive over 'OPSEC'? The outlines of the ROE are pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. I am sure no serving military would ever post the exact nature of the ROE on this forum, so why can't we speculate and admit the obvious? It is this shutting down of all other (informed or not) opinion that led us into the whole Iraqi WMD / years in Afghan.
Flug
It seems that ROE are the British Government's dirty little secret, although not much of a secret since they are saying that no civilian casualties have been caused thus far in the Iraq/Syria air strikes. Ergo we only drop when there are definitely no civpop in the vicinity. Not exactly rocket science for ISIL.
But how well does this strategy really serve us and the subjugated of Raqua? Pretty well tells ISIL that they are safe in a populated urban environment as long as they ensure some civilians are within a typical blast radius. What about the situation where ISIL are about to enter and occupy a town and could be hit, but there are a few (10 or so) non-combatents in the close vicinity. The RAF can't drop a bomb/missile and so ISIL go on and enter the town and proceed to round up 100 civilians for execution. Who is well served in that situation? certainly not the denizens of the town that has just been taken. And because we are not really being effective, hey presto the, the whole thing just goes on and on and people begin to wonder if these expensive planes and missiles are worth anything? Then they start calling for ground troops and air power gets generally dismissed as not being a decisive option.
I also question why some PPRUNERs are so sensitive over 'OPSEC'? The outlines of the ROE are pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. I am sure no serving military would ever post the exact nature of the ROE on this forum, so why can't we speculate and admit the obvious? It is this shutting down of all other (informed or not) opinion that led us into the whole Iraqi WMD / years in Afghan.
Flug
