An interesting insight from pprune on the pure AtA emphasis of the typhoon.
I joined the project just before the ESR-D was signed off and was involved in drafting specs (as an OR Rep) during the mid to late 80s. I left the project about the time you started work, although I became involved in testing later on. I struggle to recall any detailed discussion of the air to ground capability at all in my area on the defensive side of life during those early years. You would have known my colleague TB quite well as he did the similar job on the AI Sub System and you designed against his specs.
I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There’s a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases. Germany, emphatically, did not even require an A-G capability to be tested during the early years. Air to air capability was paramount and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over. Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it’s a good job that the UK “senior management” were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that’s not the point.
As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.
As I wrote the scenarios for spec compliance for one of the other sub systems and then supported much of the operational testing I am confident that I am 100% correct.
So to answer your criticism, whilst I didn’t write the requirement, I was responsible for interpreting that requirement for MOD PE and Industry. I hope, therefore, that I wasn’t ill informed. If you interpreted those specs in any other way during development, it may be quite illuminating.
To reemphasise my original point, it is mischievous for NAO to criticise a project for not delivering a capability which was not part of the original ESR-D other than as a secondary role. The aircraft costs more because industry was employed for 10 years longer than planned and Nations cut their production numbers. It should come as no surprise that it has cost us as much for fewer aircraft because the Industry contracts branches were careful to include punitive termination clauses tied to workshare.
As an aside, it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/444353-typhoon-bargain-75-over-budget-2.html
Sign In
