RAF to scrap twin-seat Typhoons
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More a question out of curiosity here regarding the provision of Trainer versions of combat aircraft. What criteria decides whether a "T2" dual seat / dual control version is required?
Looking back in history, neither the Buccaneer or Sea Vixen had a proper T2 variant whilst the roughly similar vintage Lightning and Harrier did have dedicated trainer versions? OK, the Buccaneer had 1 or 2 twin-seat Hunter's modified with Buccaneer instrument panels to give the same cockpit familiarization - but it would not have handled the same way as the real aircraft types. Similarly I don't believe the F4 Phantom had a full T2 version either?
So how come some aircraft of the 60s and 70s had a dedicated Trainer version provided in the scope but not others? And why has the Typhoon got one but the Tornado didn't?
Looking back in history, neither the Buccaneer or Sea Vixen had a proper T2 variant whilst the roughly similar vintage Lightning and Harrier did have dedicated trainer versions? OK, the Buccaneer had 1 or 2 twin-seat Hunter's modified with Buccaneer instrument panels to give the same cockpit familiarization - but it would not have handled the same way as the real aircraft types. Similarly I don't believe the F4 Phantom had a full T2 version either?
So how come some aircraft of the 60s and 70s had a dedicated Trainer version provided in the scope but not others? And why has the Typhoon got one but the Tornado didn't?
UK F4 Phantom certainly had 2 stickers. These were operationally capable, but could have a stick put into the rear seat. All UK XT and XV 300 series were 2 stickers I think,
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I would like to see the Integrated Logistic Support model that demonstrates the most cost effective way to get GBP 50M worth of spares back into the supply chain is to cannibalize a billion currency units worth of airframes. By all means utilize the 2 seaters if you can make the case for synthetic training, but don't try and hide the fact that Typhoon spares and cannibalization have been a piss up in brewery since day one by claiming this as a saving! It's a saving on training while the supply chain continues to hemorrhage tax payers money unfixed.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: NZ
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the story who of lad who saved 5 quid in bus fare money by running home.
Upon telling his father he got a wack on the back of the head - " next time save yourself 40 quid and run home beside a taxi!"
Upon telling his father he got a wack on the back of the head - " next time save yourself 40 quid and run home beside a taxi!"
I have some knowledge of service personnel carrying out development of repairs due to expected types of enemy fire on a new mostly carbon aircraft type.
I would like to see the Integrated Logistic Support model that demonstrates the most cost effective way to get GBP 50M worth of spares back into the supply chain is to cannibalize a billion currency units worth of airframes. By all means utilize the 2 seaters if you can make the case for synthetic training, but don't try and hide the fact that Typhoon spares and cannibalization have been a piss up in brewery since day one by claiming this as a saving! It's a saving on training while the supply chain continues to hemorrhage tax payers money unfixed.
On a point of order - an ILS/LSA study can only look at a generic fleet, not specific aeroplanes. It's a stochastic analysis which doesn't work at that level of granularity. So there won't be an "ILS model" which shows what you're looking for.
€0.0001 supplied,
PDR
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a stochastic analysis which doesn't work at that level of granularity
Having been involved in ILS/LSA programmes this is fairly typical of the language some people use. Such programmes can be hideously expensive, spew out vast amounts of data which people believe because they don't know anything else. And yet the result is often either too much or too little or the wrong standard of whatever was required for support and maintenance...
The benefit in RTPing these Typhoons is not so much in the financial value of the spares harvested as in the saving on maintenance, storage and airworthiness management of aircraft that do not have the required operational capability and are no longer required for training purposes. Essentially, they had become surplus to requirements, so why waste money keeping them going? A no-brainer.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would this stack up versus giving them to the Red Arrows to replace the Hawks thereby effectively removing a type from the inventory? To make the numbers required, combine with the Tranche 2 T2's.
I thought the best savings were made by removing types...
I thought the best savings were made by removing types...
ILS (the management process) and LSA (the technical/engineering analyses) are a set of techniques used to understand the in-service consequences of design decisions, and to ensure that the interests of the future operating organisations are given due consideration during the design phase.
They also include techniques to guide the design of the "optimum" support infrastructure and (more usefully) understand what the cost/operation/support trade-off would be if an alternative support infrastructure design was used for pragmatic or external reasons (eg "if the optimum support infrastructure has no 2nd line what would the extra cost be if I wanted to keep my second line to provide opportunities for rest tours for rotated personnel which would keep their skills current"). The output of the process is all the data for repairs, spares, support equipment, tools, training, facilities etc etc
The ILS/LSA process is a list of optional tasks and studies, each of which should only be done where they can produce information that is actually needed. In fact the very first element is to identify which tasks are needed (and why) using "least is best" and "if in doubt leave it out" as the primary guidance. This selection is supposed to be done collaboratively by purchaser and supplier, but the final decision is made my the purchaser - in UK defence procurement that's either a serving officer or (less often) a civil servant, and frankly their effectiveness it patchy.
In the days when I was involved in this sort of thing the procurement was either a DLO-led one or a DPA-led one. In the DLO-led procurements the ILS/LSA tailoring would usually be pretty effective - the desk officer would have responsibility for actually delivering the thing in a working form and so had a good idea what was actually needed.
In the DPA-led ones it was usually less effective because the DPA IPTs only took a programme to the end of the design phase before handing it over to the DPA to actually deliver. The DPA desk officers would generally tailor-out almost nothing, for fear of being found to have missed something. Those programmes were expensive, and developed reams of data that were just filed away because no one actually needed them.
Anyway, the foundation of all the analyses is reliability data, and reliability data is statistical*, based on the probability of events occurring in fleets over large numbers of missions/years or whatever. If you try to apply it to a single item and/or a short timescale the results will have very little meaning.
Is that better?
PDR
* since you don't like "stochastic"
The costs of operating a bespoke bunch of 2 seater Typhoons must be considerably greater than the very (relatively) simple Hawk T1. twice the number of engines, hugely increased fuel burn and so forth.
There are sufficient spare Hawk frames to maintain the Reds up to the OSD. Not so with this finite number tranche1 2 seat Typhoons ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As suggested, would it really have been so difficult to reply in plain English? Instead of that flowery, self indulgent, 'look how clever I am', management speak, drivel...
-RP
