Typhoon FGR4
 

I understand that typhoon has a new designator and is now to be called typhoon FGR4. Just wondered what peoples thoughts were on the matter - i'm guessing that there is no way it could have been an FGR3 because politically it doesn't convey the same success story as for example - GR4.

Wouldn't convention dictate that the associated T-ship get the '3' designator?

T1
F2
T3
FGR4
etc.:confused:

GR4 ' Success Story '

Well after 30 odd years of trying I suppose it is in its' way...:ugh:

As the F3 is now a strafer/HARM shooter should it not be designated FG3? (Or even FB3!)

rab-k - correct.

As I understand it the FGR4 only refers to the latest block aircraft (with T3 being the associated twin sticker).

Double zero - I don't know what your beef is with the GR4 but it has dealt with the task placed upon it to a very high standard (particularly since 1990/91). No blue on blues. No bring back problems (unlike some single engine aircraft had until very recently), it doesn't need curvature of the earth to get airborne (unlike some recently retired aircatft:p). Some of its low level stuff in GW1 may not have been 100% succesful but with the technology of the time (and the eqpt available to UK forces) I reckon it held its own. You can't blame the effectiveness of JP233 on the platform that carries it :ugh:

And I for one am quite thankful the GR1/4 didn't have to be used prior to 1990 as that would probably have meant only one thing ...

Still convinced your WEBF by another name!

The Fart 3 is not a HARM shooter (or ALARM for that matter). Silly idea given up ages ago....

Ok, so how do people feel about an FGRx designator - flows nicely from the Phantom FGR2 but how about an F/A - 4??

Personally I like the FGR bit after all it is eventually replacing the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar GR3 so makes sense - although I wonder how much sway the current OF5 Typhoon SO in 1Gp had in ensuring the R bit was there, given his background!:E

So there must be a 'T' in there somewhere, for when Typhoon replaces the Red Arrows' Hawks.

Or will that be the T5 ?

Ah yes...the RAFAT version ....

The Typhoon Fighter [Ground] Attack Recce Trainer :p

The Fart 3 is not a HARM shooter (or ALARM for that matter). Silly idea given up ages ago....



Wrong! I claim my £5 please!!

Glad

Thanks for that. I was quite sure I had seen a 3 being re-wired at Lossie to carry radar rockets.

Bowly

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tornadof3.cfm

Im sure some officer down in whitehall has been tasked with naming what it should be !!! A few million pounds wasted on a name and he will get his promotion , thats the way the RAF works aint it !!! call me cynical !!

I am intrigued! Please tell me when the F3 has fired an ALARM or HARM either during war or peacetime.

Bowly

I see where you are coming from but I'll be bloody surprised that they havn't at least been test fired; Benbecula maybe?

Bowly found this reference so far:

Tornado EF3 http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil_pe.../news_ef3.html

Some more EF3/ALARM refs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM. I must say that I'd never heard of EF3 before. I assumed the designation would have been F3A or somesuch.

EF3s were 11 sqn weren't they?

Sure was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._XI_Squadron_RAF

Chaps,

I don't want to flog a dead horse (or continue to hijack the thread!) but the F3 is not a SEAD platform as Wikipedia suggests. A capability was discovered pre-GW2 that caused some raised eyebrows and everyone jumped up and down saying it was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Not the case. The wiring may well be there but it means nothing (I believe the Nimrod has the wiring to enable AIM-9's to be carried but this does not make it a fighter/interceptor). I am also certain that no F3 launched with ALARMs on during GW2.