Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Typhoon Tranche 1

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Typhoon Tranche 1

Old 28th Oct 2021, 15:11
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 958
...
I've read the SI thank you.
That's OK then. And I respect your right to infer anything you like on prune. ... Out.


Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2021, 15:55
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,058
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn View Post
somehow infers that he was seen as disposable and he was just collateral. I guess if you were to say that to the pilotís face he would be less than impressed. Iíve read the SI thank you.
Now I suggest you go and read the risk register, risk RED/OTHR-I/05, relating to command eject. You'll have seen this if you've read the XX177 report in full.

I wonder what maintainer's think about the risk being mitigated from 'pilot and pax suffer major injuries' to 'worst credible outcome becomes major injuries to pax only'. End of. No further mitigation. Tolerable and ALARP. By any interpretation, my post comes nowhere near this.

What about 'changing command eject rationale'?
tucumseh is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2021, 16:22
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by tucumseh View Post
Now I suggest you go and read the risk register, risk RED/OTHR-I/05, relating to command eject. You'll have seen this if you've read the XX177 report in full.

I wonder what maintainer's think about the risk being mitigated from 'pilot and pax suffer major injuries' to 'worst credible outcome becomes major injuries to pax only'. End of. No further mitigation. Tolerable and ALARP. By any interpretation, my post comes nowhere near this.

What about 'changing command eject rationale'?
You arenít understanding this are you. I understand fully how the command eject system works on Hawk. Itís the pejorative language youíve used which doesnít fit what youíre trying to say.
Foghorn Leghorn is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2021, 16:43
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,058
Foghorn

Who mentioned understanding of the command eject system?

I take it you haven't read the risk register? Or compared it to the recommendations of the XX204 report?

Do let us know your thoughts on the policy of mitigating the risk to pilots, but not to passengers.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2021, 16:53
  #65 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,157
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart View Post
...
That of course would not directly apply to Tranche 1 Typhoon, where it would be easy to quietly exclude inadequately trained or joy-riding passengers in any remaining two-seaters, though not so easy to safely sell them on, except for scrap.

LFH
...
Indeed, since all Tranche 1 twin-stickers were scrapped years ago..... Pax in a Tranche 1 Typhoon are thus very easy to quietly exclude.....
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2021, 18:11
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 958
Cheeseholes

...
Thanks Jacko,

That makes sense - all the ASSC swiss cheeseholes are slipping nicely into place.

Back on Fred too. I bet you're pleased you started this

LFH
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2021, 17:18
  #67 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,395
Greece reportedly looking at our unairworthy Tr1 Typhoons to replace F4s
Navaleye is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2021, 17:38
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,748
Greece reportedly looking at our unairworthy Tr1 Typhoons to replace F4s
On top of their Mirage 2000s, F-16s, Rafales, and the F-35As they want?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2021, 18:03
  #69 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,157
OK I'll bite:

The accusation is that Tranche 1 Typhoons are not 'airworthy', or that their safety case is in some way inadequate.

HOW SO?

Jackonicko is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2021, 19:00
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 61
Posts: 1,611
I mind the time the RAF stood out in NATO for its handsome collection of frontline fast jet types. 30 and more years ago!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2021, 00:11
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 550
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
OK I'll bite:

The accusation is that Tranche 1 Typhoons are not 'airworthy', or that their safety case is in some way inadequate.

HOW SO?
In fact could you even argue that the safety bar is set too high - perhaps we should step back towards the WW2 model - aircraft don't have to be perfect or last forever - just able to be built in large numbers and do the job
I say this with respect to competition with China - I think China might have a more pragmatic view on aviation safety – if we don't change the way we think on so many things I’m sure we will be swamped!

But what about the people flying them? - well aviation has never been risk free - especially Military Aviation!
I often fly an aircraft with a wooden spar - a few have come unglued when loaded - so you could argue there is no safety case (the aircraft has had a glue check but it is not 100% guaranteed!).

I just fly it nice and gently - and also understanding that there is a chance it might fail...
typerated is online now  
Old 30th Oct 2021, 01:30
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,058
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
OK I'll bite:

The accusation is that Tranche 1 Typhoons are not 'airworthy', or that their safety case is in some way inadequate.

HOW SO?
I'm not sure anyone has said Typhoon T1 is unairworthy. It is for MoD to prove an aircraft airworthy, not for someone to prove it is not. More often than not it can't, and so fleets are being scrapped. In at least three cases because the audit trail has been destroyed. That is no bar to a user with different regulatory requirements, or deeper pockets, buying them up and recertifying them. Sometimes it can be as simple as not putting it to a particular use, or exposing it to a particular risk. Or in some cases, like Gliders, realising that deep pockets aren't required, just someone who can read and implement without interference.

It may be that the T1 is perfectly airworthy, against the UK's stated intent and use, but someone has done his sums and the cost/benefit of keeping it so forced the decision. This is where the difference between maintaining airworthiness, and continuing airworthiness, is most evident. Too many problems can be traced to the former, which we know MoD simply doesn't do well anymore. (A conscious policy decision). The everyday manifestation of this can be seen in many posts here, with aircrew and front line worrying (or moaning) about things that should be completely invisible to them. As Mr Haddon-Cave, and many in MoD before him said, everyone is busy, just not doing their day job.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 12:15
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Perhaps the RAF should give the Typhoons to the Aerobility Charity, together with a large grant from the Department of Transport. They could then refurbish them to an airworthy standard keep a couple of two stickers to fly and sell the rest on to a third party to improve their finances.

They have an excellent record of being able to recover aircraft that the RAF deemed 'irrecoverable'

Indeed if the profits were decent they might be persuaded to give some of them to the Air Cadets in order that they could buy some replacement gliders/motor glider as apparently something happened to theirs.
ASRAAMTOO is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 15:03
  #74 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,885
On top of their Mirage 2000s, F-16s, Rafales, and the F-35As they want?
Gosh, an Air Force capable of operating 4 or more front line types. Then again, they see a real threat on their borders…..

Those were the days….
ORAC is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 23:35
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 4,578
Originally Posted by typerated View Post
In fact could you even argue that the safety bar is set too high - perhaps we should step back towards the WW2 model - aircraft don't have to be perfect or last forever - just able to be built in large numbers and do the job
I say this with respect to competition with China - I think China might have a more pragmatic view on aviation safety – if we don't change the way we think on so many things I’m sure we will be swamped!

But what about the people flying them? - well aviation has never been risk free - especially Military Aviation!
I often fly an aircraft with a wooden spar - a few have come unglued when loaded - so you could argue there is no safety case (the aircraft has had a glue check but it is not 100% guaranteed!).

I just fly it nice and gently - and also understanding that there is a chance it might fail...
1. WW2 military aircraft were regulated to the standards of the time. I flew an aircraft designed back then but that entered service shortly after the war. Between V1 and Safety Speed (below which control could not be assured following loss of the critical engine) action in the event of an engine failure was 'at the pilot's discretion'. Or in other words, you're on your own chum. That was the state of the art back then. As you say, there was a war on, and the casualty lists were long and made grim reading.

2 So your solution is to produce large numbers of knowingly unairworthy aircraft, and accept the consequential fatal accidents. How are you going to afford producing such a large number of knowingly unairworthy aircraft? How are you going to man them?

3 If the performance envelope is compromised by such unairworthiness, you will operate the aircraft with that in mind (as per your wooden spar). Is that how you will train for war? Is that how you will go to war?

4 The apologists continually love telling us that war is dangerous, aviation is dangerous, so if unairworthiness is dangerous it makes little difference. You kick the tyres, light the fires, and think of good old blighty. Good for you, but others might demure.

War isn't about dying heroically, it is about winning. To do that you must out perform the enemy. Do you think that the PLAAF's VSOs will be content with being 'pragmatic about aviation safety' if their aircraft are unlikely to reach their targets let alone destroy them? No doubt quantity has a quality of its own, but if you are likely to lose the means of controlling your aircraft, if it has a tendency to spontaneously explode following AAR, is prone to mid air collisions due to illegally fitted HISLs that have to be switched off when they blind the pilot thus making the aircraft invisible to other closing aircraft, if you have no effective fuel tank protection meaning a tracer round from an AK47 could bring you down, are fitted with an IFF lacking failure warning meaning that your own side can save the enemy the bother of destroying you, it will be the opposition celebrating success not you.

To my mind the PLAAF leadership would want to assure themselves of success, and not be pragmatic about failing to succeed. The RAF/RN leadership on the other hand seem far more attuned to your way of thinking though in being pragmatic about aviation safety as the fatal aircraft accidents that I listed were their aircraft! They were put into service often against the advice of those engineers who said they were unairworthy. The resultant accidents were predictable and predicted. We are now minus that operational capacity and tragically so many highly trained and experienced lives. The various enemies involved had very little input to make at all...
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2021, 07:37
  #76 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,885
Contradictory or buying both?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/a...fighter-fleet/


Indonesia says it wants to buy Austria’s entire Typhoon fighter fleet

MELBOURNE, Australia — Indonesia has expressed interest in acquiring Austria’s fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets, in yet another surprise defense procurement plan from the southeast Asian country.

Indonesia’s defense minister, Prabowo Subianto, wrote a letter to his Austrian counterpart, Klaudia Tanner, seeking to initiate negotiations to buy all 15 Typhoons belonging to the Austrian Air Force.

In his letter, which was published by Indonesian news outlets, Prabowo said the potential purchase will assist in his aims to continue modernizing the Indonesian Air Force.

He added that he understood the “sensitivity” of his proposal, which was likely to be a reference to the continued controversy surrounding Austria’s 2002 acquisition of the Typhoon. That purchase has been dogged by questions about cost and the effectiveness of the aircraft. More recently, there have been allegations of corruption related to the original contract award.

These culminated in Austria’s 2017 decision to retire the aircraft from service this year in favor of a “more effective and cost-effective” solution for the central European country’s air defense needs.

Indonesia’s interest in the fleet comes two weeks after the surprise announcementthat the U.S. State Department cleared the country to buy the Bell-Boeing MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft.

Indonesia has been seeking a fighter aircraft to serve alongside its fleet of 23 refurbished early-block Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Fighting Falcon jets. These are all former aircraft operated by the U.S. Air National Guard, and were delivered from 2014 onward.

The decision to seek the Austrian Typhoons, which are all Tranche 1 aircraft configured primarily for air defense missions, is a blow to Russian aspirations to sell the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker interceptor to Indonesia.

Indonesia had selected the Su-35 as its next fighter to provide continuity with its existing fleet of Su-27 and Su-30s Flankers acquired in the early part of the last decade. Negotiations for the Russian jets ended in 2018, but Indonesia had been reticent to sign the $1.14 billion contract, reportedly over fears that it may be subject to American sanctions.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...rench-options/

Indonesia gives up on Russian aircraft purchase, instead turning to US and French options

MELBOURNE, Australia — Indonesia has admitted defeat in its attempt to buy Russian fighter jets and will now decide between the Boeing F-15EX Eagle II and the Dassault Rafale, according to the country’s Air Force chief of staff.

Speaking to media during a gathering at Halim Perdanakusuma Air Base near the Indonesian capital Jakarta, Air Chief Marshal Fadjar Prasetyo said the Southeast Asian nation is seeking a 4.5-generation mediumweight or heavyweight fighter.

He said the narrowing of the choices to the American F-15EX and the French Rafale was made together with the Defense Ministry, adding that Indonesia wants two to three squadrons’ worth of fighter jets, depending on the budget.

Prasetyo also confirmed that it was “with a heavy heart” that Indonesia would abandon its plan to acquire the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E. The country had selected the Russian twin-engine, single-seat fighter in 2015 but never signed a contract for 11 aircraft following negotiations with Russia in 2018…..
ORAC is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2021, 08:26
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Contradictory or buying both?
What I have been told is that they want F-15ex and have submitted the FMS paperwork for them, they also want upgrades for the F-16's. The issue is that back in the late 90's they were under military embargo by the US over east timor. So they had to buy russian planes because they couldn't get parts for the F-16's. They want F-15's but dont want to be left in the position where they could be embargoed again. So they need something non american, they cant go russian or chinese as the a F-15 will be stopped, cant go gripen because it uses an american engine. Their choices are french Rafaels or EF. Now they are also in a project with the South Korean for the KF-21 (or what ever) so they have that and need something non american to fill that gap in case of embargo again. Some tranch one EF on the cheap might fit that bill. I was told the discussion was between UK and indo. But they also announced publically about the austrai one when replacement was first announced before the RAF announced theirs going

Just read some where else Phillipines has also signed up as part of the KF-21 program

Last edited by rattman; 23rd Dec 2021 at 08:51.
rattman is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.