Eighth RAF Typhoon squadron to form?
 

An eighth Typhoon squadron may be on the cards but, no overall increase in frontline aircraft numbers as the existing squadrons will lose aircraft in order for the additional squadron to form up...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/roya...hoon-squadron/

-RP

Given the time it took to agree a design and field into squadrons.
How long do you think it will be before the Raf/mod starts to look at a replacement?
Or will the F-35 be the only fighter/fighter bomber in RAF service for the next 50 years ?

Who's the next number plate in line, I wonder?

Will this be the Reservist sqn they've been talking about? I thought they were early batch ac for AD/QRA only not drawn from other sqns.


Perhaps my info is incorrect and/or out-of-date.

Just Another Jockey, the Tranche 1 jets have been allocated to the previously announced two extra squadrons I believe, this 'new' third extra squadron will receive jets from the already established squadrons, if I understand the article correctly. It's also a common mistake to believe that the Tranche 1 jets are AD capable only, they aren't, they have the capability to use the Litening pod and Paveway and in fact it was Tranche 1 (Block 5) jets that were used on Operation Ellamy over Libya in 2011. The Tranche 1 jets won't receive the upgrades necessary for Stormshadow and Brimstone though and aren't able to receive the AESA radar upgrade either...

-RP

What is the advantage of forming a new squadron by reducing the size of existing squadrons in the ORBAT. Surely that just increases costs, although it does give a few more people "command" appointments

1. Yes, a retention measure
2. Yes, broadening the base for the selection for a future CAS
3. Yes, giving the impression that UK is still punching above its weight

Well if they are shrinking sans down to flight size, perhaps we can go back to having squadrons run by Sqn Ldrs, wings by Wg Cdrs and stations by Grp Cpts.

I don't mind if they give them pay increases for responsibility pay so they don't lose out, but at least it would make the rank structure saner and more logical to the civilian population.......

ORAC ... and Flt Lts will command Flts, and the rest of the aircrew will be Plt Offs/Fg Offs :D

So is this purely smoke and mirrors in terms of front line availability? The way I first read this was that the TyTAN contract would increase airframe availability from an unchanged overall pool, so that it would be possible to generate a larger FE@R from the same number of airframes - ie an extra squadron's worth in this case.

If that's not the case it's arguably less efficient to share the same availability among eight sqns rather than seven, although there are the retention and career structure plusses that have been mentioned and presentationally the ability to pass the change off as an increase...

I think improvements in the standard of simulation also increase the number of squadrons that can be sustained from a given fleet of aircraft. Look at the F-35 for example: much of what it does will only be trained for in the sim due to security considerations, so the sim needs to be capable of delivering very high quality training. Applying that same simulation technology and philosophy to other aircraft types is going to help wring more out more productivity - fewer BVR air combat exercises over the North Sea means fewer hours on Typhoon airframes, for example. If the Typhoon planning assumptions were previously based on A sqns flying B training hours per month for C years to fly a lifetime total of D hours, then (assuming D is fixed) reducing B lets A and C increase. We've seen both of those outcomes announced in the last year or so!

This could also be seen as a move to 'pooled' airframes, un-badged and allocated as required to the user squadron on a daily basis. Think of the paint money saved.

Oh, why does this news make me feel so negative? Sorry, folks. :(

Would it mean you could deploy a whole sqn to eastern Europe where the current sqns are too large?

Sneaky thinking, PN ;)

Stupid question time.
 

'ow do chaps,
not being aviation related (ex Scaley ) , I have a rather odd question.
Money aside ( stupid thing to say ) , why not replace Captor in the Batch 1 airframes with a lesser sized/demanding AESA radar such as the Grippen or F16 radars that are in production ?
I rather suspect that the Batch 1 aircraft will be kept longer as there will be no realistic replacement soonish and airframe hours on later versions will be carefully husbanded.
Before anybody mentions the F35 as a replacement , whether it is appropriate or not , it and further Typhoons appear to be equally unaffordable.

What's the current UE of a Typhoon Sqn? I'm assuming about 16, if so, bearing in mind that at one point a UE of 10 was established for sqns in Germany in the 1970s it should be easy enough to simply move airframes around to leave about a dozen each among six units and some spares. As for airframe hours, are they being used up at a comparative high rate. Recalling the amount of movement, again, during the '70s and 80s... I can't see airframe fatigue being anything to give concern.

FB:)

Does anyone yet have a handle on the number plates for these additional squadrons?

Might we dream that the mighty Ninety-Blue may once again get some jets to play with?

True, but irrelevant to this discussion - RAF to field retained Tranche 1 Typhoons as stand-alone air defence force | IHS Jane's 360

Sure it will be fairly easy to move airframes to create two new sqns, you just won't have the engineers to fix em. The manning situation is dire with the sqns we have at the moment never mind more.

Maybe time to stand up 800NAS/801NAS to allow for ramp up to CS FoC in 2023......