My village postmaster just asked me an interesting question.
His uncle (surname Horlor or Horler) was lost on the night of 12-13 or 13-14 December 1944 during a raid on Essen. His 150 Squadron Lancaster was shot down, and the other six crew are buried in a Commonwealth War Graves cemetery on the German-Dutch border.
His uncle has no known grave.
Could said uncle have been one of the three RAF aircrew lynched in Essen (and apparently never named) the following day?
Were they ever named?
Mr Q,
With respect, and I’m sorry to say it quite so baldly, but you’re talking nonsense. Every one of your points is wrong.
A2A ops are not the only area where manned is essential
It is not just peacetime constraints that make manned platforms essential for A2A
Manned CAS is NOT coming to an end
Long range manned interdiction is NOT already dead
Some UAVs may scan, but cannot do so with the effectiveness of a human
Some UAVs may have multi spectral sensors, so do most manned combat aircraft, but UAVs do NOT have a human in the cockpit, on scene.
Like so many ground-bound observers, you underestimate the value of the human in the cockpit. As a pilot, and having flown in a number of fast jet types, I do not underestimate that importance.
More significantly, if you talk to the real experts – the most senior air power practitioners, then you’ll find that most of them acknowledge that UAVs will take on wider spectrum of roles, but will remain a ‘niche’ capability, and an adjunct to manned platforms. CAS. AOC-in-C Air Command, AOC 1 Group, et al.
UCAVs are NOT the future.
They are a part of the future, and will be a more important part than they are now, but they will remain a niche tool, because while having a ‘man in the loop’ is good, having a man on the scene, in the cockpit, is better. Even leaving aside bandwidth, sensor resolution, control screen resolution and all the other issues, until a UCAV has the same ‘inverted porcupine’ sensor coverage that a human head, on a human neck, can provide, a UAV will only look where it’s told to, and not where it sees a bit of smoke, or a sudden glint, or whatever.
On 17th November I thought that the Oman deal was clearly “near, or perhaps even closer than that.”
I now believe that it’s “close to the vinegar stroke”, if not actually finalised. I believe they know where the aircraft are to come from, and how those aircraft should be replaced.
I always thought that the number was 16, not 24. I now believe it’s 12, though there may be a plan for a split buy of two lots of 12.
1) Yes
2) I could, but then I’d have to kill you.
3) Yes…. :dev2:
Further to my penultimate remark on 17th November (“All my sources suggest that Omani jets are likely to be from Tranche 3”) I would add that I am now even more convinced that the Omani Typhoons will be from Tranche 3.
I believe that the AFM (?) report that confused the issue is wrong in other material respects, too, most obviously in suggesting that the number of Omani Typhoons will be 24.
In essence, Block 8 (the first aircraft in T2) Typhoons host the same software as Block 5 (the last aircraft in T1) on new processors. The T2 aircraft have minor structural differences that allow for the retrofit of a heavier AESA array.
A BAE Spokesman described the OT001 report as: “Complete Bol-locks” to me and to other journos, and that is a direct quote.
As I understand it, the story is based on BT025 and two other jets having OT numbers associated with them on paperwork seen in No.5 hangar, and not painted on the jets themselves.
And every Typhoon has a plethora of numbers – serial, set, line, and separate set numbers for wings, forward, centre and rear fuselage, many of which may be painted on the airframe, and all of which will be in its paperwork.
Thus when I saw ZJ920 on the line, it was painted as BS011, s/n 035, and also had AV67 painted on it, with different numbers on every sub assembly.
The Oman deal is clearly near, or perhaps even closer than that, but there is no way on earth that we are close to flying or delivering aircraft to them. All my sources suggest that Omani jets are likely to be from Tranche 3.
I do, however, wonder whether there is any coincidence between the known need for Operational Test (OT?) aircraft to support Bright Adder, and the fact that we had expected an aircraft around BT026 to be the first of these……
Are there even any spare Atlantiques lying about?
The Russians represent only one part of the threat countered by QRA.
Jonesey,
Two-and-a-half squadrons per QRA base, basically, with about half a squadron tied up down south, because the best part of a Squadron will be taking the Falklands commitment on a rotational basis.
Because it’s not just two aircraft, it’s two aircraft plus their replacements (how many Q jets might you scramble – back in the day it was by no means uncommon for a fourth Northern QRA pair to get airborne within one 24 hour period…..).
In days gone by, it was found that a single ‘Bear’ could tie up as many as 20 Lightning QRA sorties, and if four ‘Bears’ came in sequence (or all popped up from low level from different points of the compass), the UK could soon be run out of fighters.
And how often do you want QRA to ‘come around’ for your pilots? If you have 18 CR/LCR pilots per squadron, two on QRA at a time, QRA will be coming around for one day in nine, assuming that the boss, the XO, the QWIs et al all take their share, and ignoring the fact that several crews will be ‘down South’. And then there’ll be the days they’re nominated as Q3/Q4, ready to take over if Q1 and Q2 are scrambled.
It’s a 24 hour duty, too, so they’re not going to be working a normal working day the next day.
You quickly find that while a squadron is standing Q, it really can’t do much else. And if you’ve given your fighter squadrons a capable multi role Typhoon, you’re going to want them to be doing all sorts of training and maintaining all sorts of currencies.
In Cold War days, it became clear that one QRA commitment was best shared between two airfields, each with two squadrons – Leeming and Leuchars doing Northern Q, Binbrook and Wattisham Southern.
It takes five squadrons to do QRA to a certain level, assuming a particular level of threat. If you wanted to be able to tackle a larger number of simultaneous threats, or a carefully co-ordinated succession of feinting threats, you’d need twice that number, or three times.
the SDSR has the stated aim of increasing UK Typhoon numbers and Air to Ground capabilities by 2018 now officially.
as quoted on Ares:
“The report also notes that by March 2018, the U.K. plans to have completed its effort to “accelerate Typhoon force growth and increase multi-role capability.” “
To my mind that seems long enough to get AESA with full A2G and electronic attack modes, Stormshadow, Brimstone and Meteor. But is it likely to include conformal tanks to allow more weapons or range? That seems like an increase to me…
are there any more scraps of flesh to put on the bones yet i wonder?
With P1E and the various A-G SRPs planned to arrive before March 2018, ‘increasing multi role capability’ by then could be interpreted as willingness to accept further delay……..
As to accelerating force growth, it’s hard to see how they can.
Any ‘slop’ at 29 (R) will again be taken up by Saudi training, while the apparent failure to establish local assembly at Dhahran leads me to suspect that any ‘ramp up’ at Warton will need to be huge simply to fulfil export orders, and the second squadron at Leuchars (let alone the third) look a very long way away.
And with the retirement of the F3 and an active Russia and Argentina, what exactly are the Typhoon force going to do with an A-G capability? It was always said that it took five squadrons to do UK AD, QRA and the Falklands, and even if it can be done with four, it’s going to be a VERY long time before there’s much spare Typhoon capacity available for A-G training and deployment.
In any case, there’s more than enough to do to get Tranche 2 where it should already be.
It’s a great aircraft, with bags of potential, but you have to get frustrated at the number of times we seem to have to wait for the hapenny worth of tar to arrive (and to watch in quiet frustration as various players take unwavering aim at their own feet) to actually exploit that potential.
Having read most of this thread, I am wondering why the USAF likes the F35A over the F35C?
Cost.
The USAF can buy six F-35As for every five F-35Cs.
With a 1,760 aircraft requirement the USAF could buy 1760 F-35Bs for a given price, but just 1,466 F-35Cs – nearly 300 fewer.
If the USAF bought 1760 F-35Cs, it could buy 2,112 F-35Bs – 352 more.
Revising Toan’s figures:
EF-2000 FGR50: 8
EF-2000 T51: 4 (op capable)
F-15C/D: was down to 78 some time ago – nb: there’s already one in the museum!
F-15S: 70 some time ago
Tornado IDS: 87 (80-84 being upgraded)
Tornado ADV: Grounded and withdrawn – 1 in museum, 17 sold back to BAE
F-5 E/F: Probably now all grounded.
Eg: about 236 fast jets in service, plus the Hawks. So certainly “much less than 380.”
Thanks HQ2! That confirms what people were saying!