Typhoon Tranche 1
The list is endless....Didnt the Harriers all have extensive upgrades just before the defence review of 2010 binned them, and sold them off cheap as spares for the USMC?
Nimrod MRA4? An admitedly expensive overrun that was just coming good...
At this rate, come 2030, the F35s will be "long in the tooth" and "expensive to upgrade", so they will be cut up for scrap, so we can buy a few Tempests...
Nimrod MRA4? An admitedly expensive overrun that was just coming good...
At this rate, come 2030, the F35s will be "long in the tooth" and "expensive to upgrade", so they will be cut up for scrap, so we can buy a few Tempests...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The early tranche F-35Bs we bought are already too expensive to upgrade. All the reports indicate it’s cheaper to just buy replacements.
At least the Typhoon F2 has lasted longer than the Tornado F2…
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-of-its-f-35s
At least the Typhoon F2 has lasted longer than the Tornado F2…
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-of-its-f-35s
Last edited by ORAC; 22nd Sep 2021 at 09:54.
Weren't the Tornado F2s simply upgraded to F3s, rather than being scrapped?
It is interesting that the two Eurofighter FCAS partners, Germany and Spain, have opted to retain some upgraded Tranche 1s and/or replace Tranche 1s with the latest Tranche 4/5s, while the two Eurofighter Tempest partners, Italy and the UK, are offloading their Tranche 1s with no replacement. Worth noting that the Italy and the UK also have the F-35, which it seems they see as their bridge through to Tempest.
It is interesting that the two Eurofighter FCAS partners, Germany and Spain, have opted to retain some upgraded Tranche 1s and/or replace Tranche 1s with the latest Tranche 4/5s, while the two Eurofighter Tempest partners, Italy and the UK, are offloading their Tranche 1s with no replacement. Worth noting that the Italy and the UK also have the F-35, which it seems they see as their bridge through to Tempest.
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Weren't the Tornado F2s simply upgraded to F3s, rather than being scrapped?
.
.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 56
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Party Animal
Tranch 1 Tiffy is not alone:
SDSR 2015 - Sentry E-3D has a bright future out to 2035
SDSR 2020 - Sentry E-3D is a knackered old piece of junk that needs to be replaced ASAP. We need Wedgetail!
SDSR 2015 - Sentry E-3D has a bright future out to 2035
SDSR 2020 - Sentry E-3D is a knackered old piece of junk that needs to be replaced ASAP. We need Wedgetail!
And yes, for Chug, directly relating to safety and airworthiness.
And yes, those responsible got their promotions!
Thread Starter
I remain curious about this question:
4) It was explained to me that Tranche 1 aircraft would not be viable post 2025, in that they would not be in line with regulatory requirements post 2025, as the RAF thinks they need to be able to operate from civil airports and in civil airspace when necessary.
Yet why would the Tranche 1 aircraft be unable to do this? Don’t they have the NG LN-251 INU/GPS, and isn’t that RNAV-5 compliant? The VOR/ILS network isn’t being switched off so you don’t have to do a GPS PBA when landing at a civil aerodrome, do you?
4) It was explained to me that Tranche 1 aircraft would not be viable post 2025, in that they would not be in line with regulatory requirements post 2025, as the RAF thinks they need to be able to operate from civil airports and in civil airspace when necessary.
Yet why would the Tranche 1 aircraft be unable to do this? Don’t they have the NG LN-251 INU/GPS, and isn’t that RNAV-5 compliant? The VOR/ILS network isn’t being switched off so you don’t have to do a GPS PBA when landing at a civil aerodrome, do you?
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 56
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I would call bullshit on that Jacko. Can’t help but feel that someone is being very selective. Which reg’s are they referring too, UK, or perhaps EU. If the latter, I wonder how many various other fleets of FJ around European nations meet whatever reg’s are being cited.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Navaleye
Are 1435flt T1 birds? If so what will be replacing them?
Leaving 103 for seven frontline squadrons, the TES, the OCU, and sustainment...... For the next 20 years.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Mr N Nimrod
I think I would call bullshit on that Jacko. Can’t help but feel that someone is being very selective. Which reg’s are they referring too, UK, or perhaps EU. If the latter, I wonder how many various other fleets of FJ around European nations meet whatever reg’s are being cited.
RVSM compliance et al - if you are shepherding an airliner or just intercepting one it is best if you don't break the congested & carefully choreographed airspace by introducing a non-compliant aircraft to the mix.
As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.
As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
RVSM compliance et al - if you are shepherding an airliner or just intercepting one it is best if you don't break the congested & carefully choreographed airspace by introducing a non-compliant aircraft to the mix.
As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.
As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Yes they are. Presumably they'll get four of the 107 remaining T2/T3 jets.
Leaving 103 for seven frontline squadrons, the TES, the OCU, and sustainment...... For the next 20 years.
Leaving 103 for seven frontline squadrons, the TES, the OCU, and sustainment...... For the next 20 years.
The question that should be asked is whether the money to fund the ECRSmk2 upgrade is coming out of TyTAN and whether it is that that which was factored in for T1 sustainment until its much later OSD? If not where has that money from within TyTAN gone? Again, I'd expect zero transparency from neither MOD nor industry as they'll hide behind commercial-in-confidence. They then wonder why NOBODY trusts them with public money, even more so when they don't publish the value or details of 9 figure single source contracts awarded by the Air TLB.
Come on folks, it’s been ever thus in our aircraft and engineering environment for years. Achieve a certain rank, come up with some half baked money saving plan that will dazzle the MOD who will then drive it through. Get promoted and then leave your successor or the one after to pick up the pieces and take the blame for not managing it correctly. I’m surprised it’s not a module a staff college.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
RVSM compliance et al - if you are shepherding an airliner or just intercepting one it is best if you don't break the congested & carefully choreographed airspace by introducing a non-compliant aircraft to the mix.
As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.
As for 1435 Flt they were not Tranche 1 jets in my time, even from the start of the transition from F3. It could have happened since of course but it was never the plan.
Are the Tranche 1s NOT RVSM compliant?
Originally Posted by Mr N Nimrod
back in 2015 when the decision was made to upgrade Sentry, I suspect the decision makers were quite unaware of the state of the RAF E3D fleet. Woeful mismanagement and underinvestment had left them in a very poor state. The ‘pause’ of Sentry operations (grounding) at the start of 2017 (?) was part of that. Some of the fleet management and decision making in the years leading up to 2015 probably bordered on utter incompetence.
And yes, for Chug, directly relating to safety and airworthiness.
And yes, those responsible got their promotions!
And yes, for Chug, directly relating to safety and airworthiness.
And yes, those responsible got their promotions!
If you know you know
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by DuckDodgers
So let's break this down further noting that the total is 104 as BS37 (Tranche 2) was Cat 3 and Qty 2 are with BAE for their Test Fleet (Tranche 3). Applying the DT's standard 70/30 approach between forward and sustainment fleets gives a notional 73/31 split. So now remove Qty 6 UK QRA (to enable Q1 thru 3 at both locations) and Qty 4 BFSAI, then the forward fleet is down to say Qty 63 aircraft. On historic trends let us presume 29 Sqn (OCU) utilises Qty 11 ac (reduced due to T1 twin seats scrapped and move of sorties to the sim) and 41 Sqn Qty 4 ac. That leaves just 48 ac for the remaining 7 FLSs (1, II(AC), 3(F), 6, IX, XI, and 12) with say Qty 7-8 ac each. Now factor in both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance which gives us what, say 4-6 ac AVAILABLE per day per squadron. We must not forget that all Qty 40 of the T3 jets will be flowing through the ECRSmk2 upgrade over the coming 4+ years and that both sustained op commitments (SHADER) and Air Policing will drive this number down further.
The question that should be asked is whether the money to fund the ECRSmk2 upgrade is coming out of TyTAN and whether it is that that which was factored in for T1 sustainment until its much later OSD? If not where has that money from within TyTAN gone? Again, I'd expect zero transparency from neither MOD nor industry as they'll hide behind commercial-in-confidence. They then wonder why NOBODY trusts them with public money, even more so when they don't publish the value or details of 9 figure single source contracts awarded by the Air TLB.
The question that should be asked is whether the money to fund the ECRSmk2 upgrade is coming out of TyTAN and whether it is that that which was factored in for T1 sustainment until its much later OSD? If not where has that money from within TyTAN gone? Again, I'd expect zero transparency from neither MOD nor industry as they'll hide behind commercial-in-confidence. They then wonder why NOBODY trusts them with public money, even more so when they don't publish the value or details of 9 figure single source contracts awarded by the Air TLB.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Is RVSM even relevant in the vast open space of the South Atlantic? I suspect not. The rationale for scrapping T1s when other nations still consider them valuable seems very weak. In fact they should send a bunch more T1s to the Falklands and use them as a source of spare parts for the remaining aircraft.
Originally Posted by ATSA1
The list is endless....Didnt the Harriers all have extensive upgrades just before the defence review of 2010 binned them, and sold them off cheap as spares for the USMC?
Nimrod MRA4? An admitedly expensive overrun that was just coming good...
.
Nimrod MRA4? An admitedly expensive overrun that was just coming good...
.
