DJJFOAS is now FOAC (Future Offensive Air Capability), although there are rumblings that the programme is all-but dead for want of funds. FOAC cover(ed) both manned and unmanned capabilities. TACTOM (‘TLAM with attitude’, as a USN officer put it to me…) and Storm Shadow (or a derivative thereof) might form part of the unmanned capability, along with a UCAV system. The JSF (or JCA as it’s known to the MoD) is seen by some as the obvious GR4 replacement, although whether these would be the STOVL variant is, apparently, not clear.
Typhoon equipped with stand-off weapons, plus Paveway IV and maybe the Small Diameter Bomb (both with the addition of Diamondback wings (or similar) to enhance range is another candidate. Given that the UK has not yet signed for JCA, and that the Tranche 3 Typhoon contract could be difficult to get out of without the payment of penalties and a loss of workshare, there have been some rumours (I stress the ‘rumours’ bit!) that as the RAF is going to end up with 232, some of these might well be put to use as part of the GR4 replacement, while the JCA buy is cut back.
Currently, with Leeming having been deleted from the list of Typhoon MOBs, it seems that only 5 (or perhaps 6) rather than the originally-planned 7 Typhoon squadrons will be formed. The argument for this is that the capabilities of Tranche 2, with weapons and avionics advances require fewer than the projected 112 front line aircraft*. Five squadrons would have, at most, 80 aircraft.
The other 32, meanwhile, could be used to re-equip two (or, by reducing squadron establishment) three GR4 units. Why bother? Well, there are not enough GR4s for the whole fleet to reach the Out of Service Date – a number will run out of airframe life before the projected OSD. Re-equipping 2/3 squadrons of GR4s with Typhoons would provide 36 GR4 airframes that could be employed to alleviate the strain on the rest through the usual means of rotating available airframes in and out of storage so that the average number of flying hours per airframe is reduced.
Finally, the idea of the NPLRCA is also out there. The what?? Long Range Non-Penetrating Combat Aircraft (please NB that the acronym changes depending upon who you talk to) – essentially, a C-17 or A400M given the means to loiter outside the range of enemy air defences and to shovel Storm Shadow or similar out of the cargo bay. The Nimrod MRA4 with Storm Shadow is also a candidate, but there are probably going to be too few of them to allow them to do all their ISTAR and MPA tasks without adding strategic bombing to the list… In any event, there are mutterings that while the project is still ‘on the books’ it doesn’t have any money or people assigned to it.
I must stress that this is all based on various bits of rumour, hearsay and informed guesswork that I’ve come across in the course of my job. Sorry to ramble on with what are effectively nothing more than rumours, but hope that it might of some interest/spark some debate on what is an interesting subject (although you wouldn’t guess that it was from the tedium I’ve just posted!)
*Edit to add that the 112 aircraft figure is those in the front line at any one time. The other 120 would be in use with the OEU (17 Squadron), OCU (29 Sqn), trials units and in storage as an attrition reserve).
DJJMoggy,
Since the GR 4 is not due out of service until around 2018 (and possibly later if rumour is to be believed), Marham is likely to stay open for a bit. It is also being evaluated as a possible home for the JSF (along with Leeming, Cottesmore, St Mawgan and Lossiemouth), so it may remain after that.
DJJTransall,
Yes, I think that there is a mistake. The table bears a remarkable resemblence to this one, bar the fact that there are different rows for different models of AMRAAM on the Eurofighter site and not in the AFM table….
DJJConsul said that it was at Abingdon, Charlielima5 (I missed it first time too!) Eric Morgan’s book on the Valiant says that XD816 was loaned for display at Abingdon in 1968, and struck off charge in August 1970, with the parts going to Hendon.
DJJ“It is time to look into several history books. “
I looked at 417 for my PhD (on the First World War), according to the bibliography…. and I’m afraid that’s not the impression I get.
Ludendorff had concluded that the first wave of offensives against the British had failed on April 29th (rail communications intact; ports not taken; no decsive blow to separate the British and French forces). The second phase of the offensives went on – with similar lack of success – in May-July (my typo in previous), but the first phase of this ended on 11/12 June with a French counter-attack by 5 French divisions under Mangin. By the time of the ‘Peace Offensive’ (begun 15 July, ended 16 July) it was fairly clear that Ludendorff was in a spot of bother. The Americans played more of a part in the last days of the war than some historical accounts would allow, but US troops did *not* save Britain and France in 1918 as your first post implies. Yes, the US had an important role, but to describe it as decisive is, if you’ll forgive me, a simplification of what actually went on – the 7th cavalry (in the form of the US) did not ride to the rescue (although the effect on enemy morale was similar to that of the arrival of the cavalry in any decent western).
But as I keep telling my students, history is about interpretations – and I think we’ll have to agree to having a different one on this, unless we want serious thread creep (‘From Eurofighter to Jack Pershing in one incomprehensible step’)…..
DJJSorry, Sens, but that’s not the case with regard to the events of 1918. The German 1918 offensive had come to a halt by the end of June and the US troops played little part in bringing this about. They also played little part in Foch’s counter-attack in late June 1918, and certainly not in the British attacks in early July around Hamel. The Americans had little in the way of modern weaponry – if they had, they wouldn’t have had to have employed the awful Chauchat light machine gun (method of clearing jams – throw weapon away and pick up rifle from dead or wounded comrade); their aircraft were French or British made; they had no tanks, etc, etc. Had the war gone on into 1919, then I’ve no doubt that the situtation would have been different, but although John Mosier would like us to believe that America won World War I, most serious historians (British, French, German, Australian and, for that matter American) would not concur with him. The Americans played a part and did so with no little courage, but it was not decisive in 1918 and did not save the French and British from defeat. Both of the latter were planning to win the war in 1919 and certainly did not see the arrival of US troops as the thing that was going to save them from disaster.
As for WW2, I think I’m correct in saying that Stalin rather downplayed just how important Lend-Lease aid was, and its critical part in operations on the Eastern Front tends to be overlooked.
DJJThere was a rather interesting debate about these photos at
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm15.showMessage?topicID=55.topic
If you plough through to the end of it (it starts to go off topic, though!), you’ll see that the answer was that there appears (as yet) to be no answer…
DJJNot sure of the performance and specs for the WG30, but in my experience, if you mention it to Lynx pilots of a certain background, they either turn white and start shuddering or laugh hysterically. The background involves the 21 foisted on India…. There were, IIRC, some safety/airworthiness issues (although whether this applies to all the WG30s or just the Indian ones, I don’t remember).
The deal was touched upon in the press a few years ago, when they finally picked up on the fact that all was not well….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,628576,00.html
Edited to add: Did a spot of checking, and it appears that the major problems with the WG30 were:
1. insufficient power
2. product support issues, which made the type uneconomical to operate.
The type gained something of a reputation for being unsafe, which, it would appear, was a little unfair, with the two crashes in India not (as far as my informant recalls) being down to any design flaw in the aircraft.
DJJDubya The 232 is (or was to begin with) predicated on the notion that the Typhoon is likely to be in service for at least 25 and probably 30 (and given UK funding, more like 40….) years. To cut a long story short, the RAF calculation of how many aircraft would be required worked out at 232 – to ensure that there were enough airframes to ensure that there was enough fatigue life left by the not-altogether clear out of service date. There was never any expectation that all 232 would be in front line use at any one time – the idea being that something like 85 of that number being held in storage with the other 152 being shared between the 7 squadrons (112 airframes with some ‘in use reserves’), the OEU (another 4 or 5), the OCU (probably about 20 if the size of the Tornado OCUs is anything to go by), plus a few others at Boscombe Down (Qinetiq, ETPS, etc, etc).
Now, though – as I’m sure you’re aware – there’s also the point that cutting back the order will have implications vis-a-vis reduced workshare (i.e. bad for BAE Systems) and possibly penalty clauses. There are those who suggest that none of the partner nations wish to be the first to say ‘well, how about cancelling Tranche 3, then?’ since this could put them in the position of being blamed for altering the contract, and then losing workshare and paying out penalites – end result, to protect industry, buy the airframes anyway.
It’s also worth noting that it is generally held that there are not enough Tornado GR 4 airframes to reach their projected out of service date. One suggestion, as Leornato notes, is that this will lead to some of the all-singing all dancing Tranche 3 aircraft replacing some GR 4s, with those GR4s surviving until 2018 being replaced by the JSF – end result, the RAF (plus the two FAA squadrons) has an all Typhoon/JSF fast jet fleet, with fewer JSF being required (and before we get into a capability debate, the cost issue is the driver here).
In answer to your second question, if the plan were to be implemented, yes – a GR4 squadron would have about half the number of aircraft currently allocated to it – the overall number of Tornados would remain the same though – twice the number of squadrons – however, please see below…
Leornato I am also slightly sceptical. However, the RAF officers (who’d better remain nameless – Chatham House rule and all that …) who I’ve heard mention this didn’t seem to think that this would be so much of a problem. We’ll have to see if they’re right if it happens, I suppose. The solution might lie in smaller squadrons (eight or nine aircraft instead of 12 or 16), each with two flights, and making more use of centralised resources for servicing, etc, etc. But we’ll see!
DJJJust to clarify a couple of points, if I may…
The order of formation of Typhoon Squadrons has been confirmed in a couple of RAF in-house (but unclassified) publications as being 3 at Coningsby, followed by 6 at Leuchars. 11 Squadron, which disbands on the F3 later this year, will be the third unit.
The RAF buy of 232 Eurofighters (although tranche 3 hasn’t actually been signed for yet) includes attrition reserves. The plan was for 7 Typhoon squadrons, each of 16 aircraft, plus the OEU (17 Sqn) and the OCU (29 Sqn). There will doubtless be a few test/evaluation aircraft too. The suspicion at the moment, though, is that there will be 5 rather than 7 Squadons.
As Leornato says, there are strict rules about squadron seniority. The longest-serving squadrons will always be first in the queue to reform; the more junior number plates will be the first to disband. The only two exceptions to this rule are 617 and 120 Squadrons. Why? Normally, an RAF squadron has to have 25 years of accumulated service before being awarded a standard, but 617 and 120 were awarded their standards early as recognition of their work in WW2. This has ‘protected’ them in the past, and more senior units have been disbanded – the most recent example being the disbandment of 206 Squadron. 206 is/was senior to 120, but the ‘rule’ about the standard came into force. 617 should have disbanded in 1968/69 as the most junior Vulcan squadron, but because of the ‘rule’, 83 Squadron was chopped instead.
The RAF is currently looking at the idea of turning what are currently flights into squadrons.
Thus, by way of example and using the Tornado GR 4, you currently have 2, 9, 13 and 31 Squadrons (off the top of my head) at RAF Marham. The ‘A’ Flight of each of these units would stay as that squadron – but the ‘B’ Flights would be given a number plate of their own.
The order of seniority is a little complex (for instance, 2 Squadron is most senior squadron in the RAF rather than 1 Sqn), but if this approach is taken (and it is being discussed quite seriously, I gather) we would see the reappearance of several well-known number plates. The squadrons that are currently Reserve status (15, 17, 19, 29, 45, 55, 208 et al – and which aren’t being disbanded as the Jag and F3 go) would probably remain with the aircraft they currently have, since another rule that appears to have come into use is that the numberplate mustn’t be being used for anything else. It may be that the plan leads to the ‘reserve’ designation being dropped as well, but the rumours about this are far less clear.
Sorry for the length of this, but HTH
DJJIf it’s any help, there’s a review of the A-20C kit at:
DJJDGH,
if you go to http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/val2.html, you get a quick overview, while http://www.aim72.co.uk/valb2.jpg, although of a model kit, shows the major difference – the huge u/c fairings that enabled the centre section of the wing to be much more robust (no holes for the undercart required!). You can get an overview of the Valiant at http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/valiant/ (recommended for the other aircraft covered on the site too)
Sign In
