Typhoon Tranche 1
Thread Starter
Typhoon Tranche 1
I am puzzled by the decision to retire the Tranche 1 Typhoons.
1) How can seven frontline squadrons, the OCU and the TES be sustained with just the 109 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft?
2) How are these aircraft (whose support and sustainment costs are underpinned by TyTAN) not cost-effective for adversary/red air, the Falklands, and QRA?
3) How has Spain reached such a diametrically opposed conclusion that it is upgrading its 15 Tranche 1 aircraft for service through to 2040?
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?
5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?
1) How can seven frontline squadrons, the OCU and the TES be sustained with just the 109 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft?
2) How are these aircraft (whose support and sustainment costs are underpinned by TyTAN) not cost-effective for adversary/red air, the Falklands, and QRA?
3) How has Spain reached such a diametrically opposed conclusion that it is upgrading its 15 Tranche 1 aircraft for service through to 2040?
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?
5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?
I posted this in the sale thread
https://eurasiantimes.com/why-eurofi...yal-air-force/
I did think that if they are pure Air to Air surely they would be suited to use as dedicated Falklands cover. It does seem a total waste, both of resources and original funding. My bet is they have been reduced to produce to keep the rest flying.
https://eurasiantimes.com/why-eurofi...yal-air-force/
I did think that if they are pure Air to Air surely they would be suited to use as dedicated Falklands cover. It does seem a total waste, both of resources and original funding. My bet is they have been reduced to produce to keep the rest flying.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,935
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
I am puzzled by the decision to retire the Tranche 1 Typhoons.
1) How can seven frontline squadrons, the OCU and the TES be sustained with just the 109 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft?
2) How are these aircraft (whose support and sustainment costs are underpinned by TyTAN) not cost-effective for adversary/red air, the Falklands, and QRA?
3) How has Spain reached such a diametrically opposed conclusion that it is upgrading its 15 Tranche 1 aircraft for service through to 2040?
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?
5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?
1) How can seven frontline squadrons, the OCU and the TES be sustained with just the 109 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft?
2) How are these aircraft (whose support and sustainment costs are underpinned by TyTAN) not cost-effective for adversary/red air, the Falklands, and QRA?
3) How has Spain reached such a diametrically opposed conclusion that it is upgrading its 15 Tranche 1 aircraft for service through to 2040?
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?
5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
Jacko, any rumor where they may end up? Wonder if the contract Red air providers would be interested assuming the Typhoons aren’t sold to another military?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn
Not a cat in hells chance. Tr1 is significantly less serviceable than Tr2/3. It would cost a ridiculous amount to use as a Red Air platform from a contractor point of view. Supply chain and spares are already taught for Typhoon so it would likely be worse for a civilian operated fleet. That’s just the tip of the iceberg for issues with a civilian company buying and operating them.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn
Tr1 is significantly less serviceable than Tr2/3.
As I understand it, the T1 aircraft are pretty much completely different aircraft under the skin. Different black boxes, different architecture etc so I suppose that the cost of supporting that unique fleet is a saving worth making.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Is it though? In the UK isn't it operated under an incentivised, availability-based support contract, ensuring that it meets specific availability rates at a guaranteed and predictable cost?
5) Why isn’t more fuss being made about binning aircraft before they’ve notched up even half of their planned hours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
Is it though? In the UK isn't it operated under an incentivised, availability-based support contract, ensuring that it meets specific availability rates at a guaranteed and predictable cost?
Yes, it is less serviceable. If you know you know.
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
Is it though? In the UK isn't it operated under an incentivised, availability-based support contract, ensuring that it meets specific availability rates at a guaranteed and predictable cost?
Yes, it is less serviceable. If you know you know.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
This is the only 'fuss' I can find, but most of it is behind a pay wall so can't see much of the detail unfortunately https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ours-remaining
Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.
Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.
Ok Foghorn, I'll bite. Unless the purpose of you posting to a public forum is to tell everyone else that you're the expert and we should all mind our own business, why don't you explain to the rest of us, in words that we would understand, how it is that the T1 fleet has gone from being good to fly for another 20-odd years in 2015 to being knackered and ripe for retirement in 2020, and how the fleet has managed to achieve this with more than half of its airframe hours remaining?
Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
Ok Foghorn, I'll bite. Unless the purpose of you posting to a public forum is to tell everyone else that you're the expert and we should all mind our own business, why don't you explain to the rest of us, in words that we would understand, how it is that the T1 fleet has gone from being good to fly for another 20-odd years in 2015 to being knackered and ripe for retirement in 2020, and how the fleet has managed to achieve this with more than half of its airframe hours remaining?
Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
I have no involvement in maintaining the RAF's Eurofighter fleet, hence my questions. If I had personal experience, I wouldn't need to ask the questions.
So again, perhaps you could explain to us laymen how it is the T1 fleet has become unviable in just five short years, and with more than half of its airframe life remaining?
Nothing classified, of course.
So again, perhaps you could explain to us laymen how it is the T1 fleet has become unviable in just five short years, and with more than half of its airframe life remaining?
Nothing classified, of course.
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
Ok Foghorn, I'll bite. Unless the purpose of you posting to a public forum is to tell everyone else that you're the expert and we should all mind our own business, why don't you explain to the rest of us, in words that we would understand, how it is that the T1 fleet has gone from being good to fly for another 20-odd years in 2015 to being knackered and ripe for retirement in 2020, and how the fleet has managed to achieve this with more than half of its airframe hours remaining?
Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
Don't break OPSEC, obviously.
B/ We're broke
The narrative around T1 seems to have followed a similar course to that around the Shar FA2. Prior to the announcement of the latter's early retirement it was a wonderful example of British ingenuity, pairing up the superlative Blue Vixen with AIM120, punching above its weight and striking fear into potential opponents. Immediately following the announcement it became obsolescent trash...
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
This is the only 'fuss' I can find, but most of it is behind a pay wall so can't see much of the detail unfortunately https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ours-remaining
Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.
Has it become significantly less serviceable in the 6 years since it was decided to retain them through to 2040? I recall everyone lauding that decision at the SDSR15, saying it would take the strain of the T2/3 fleets will still providing a top-level QRA and air defence capability (not to mention the Aggressor training plans for the fleet). Now, just a few years later it now transpires that the earlier decision was flawed and that the T1 fleet is a basket case? I don't buy it.
I suspect the latter is the driving force. If you have a (relatively) fixed bucket of money, you can choose to spend that in different ways as reviews pass. It may be that someone senior has made a decision that the future is optionally crewed either because we can't train and retain crews in sufficient numbers, or because uncrewed options have matured quicker than planned and - provided a cash injection can be provided - may be able to be fielded quicker than planned, thereby saving money, adding capability and/or mass. At that point, if the required cash injection requires discarding a fleet (or fleet within fleet) to realise it, a change in direction may be the decision. Doesn't mean the earlier decision was necessarily flawed, just that circumstances have changed.
Purely personal view only.
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
The narrative around T1 seems to have followed a similar course to that around the Shar FA2. Prior to the announcement of the latter's early retirement it was a wonderful example of British ingenuity, pairing up the superlative Blue Vixen with AIM120, punching above its weight and striking fear into potential opponents. Immediately following the announcement it became obsolescent trash...
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!
Similar fate with the Jag, cheap to operate and upgrade, served in Sandy places until they wanted shot of them then suddenly became not suitable and Tornado took over thus allowing them to be binned early.
A little OT but did anything happen about the interest expressed by indonesia in the swiss TR1's, because if you could get them and these might be a big enough critical number to work
