It’s more an issue of spares availability as some obsolete components aren’t in production anymore. Hence the CORP and efforts to qualify other newer equipment on the T1s. That increases fleet commonality and ensures that relevant spare parts remain spareable. Often enough it’s just a formality, but there is a rat tail of logistical amendments entailed to it. You need amended documentation and the link between a part number and aircraft build standard in ESS and much more. What looks simplistic to the external observer may get pretty complicated.

Transfering fuel to keep the CG in place is common practice. Whether or not the CFTs affect stability issues at high AoAs is a question that I can’t answer. They are located in between the fuselage strakes and fin so they may have an impact, but that’s speculation. CFTs are more relevant for AG missions anyway so the AoA performance won’t matter that much anyway.

That’s why a growing number of T2 and even T3 LRIs are being qualified on T1s via the Drop programme and partially by national mods. It’s a phased approach in contrast to a radical retrofit to T2 like standard, as has been done with some of the T1 built IPAs.

The costs for sustaining the T1 fleet buys into the budget for the remaining fleet. The dissimilar standards mean that different upgrades need to be developed and a separate stock of spares to be maintained. Arguably it is possible to upgrade the T1s to a T2 equivalent standard and I definitely agree with you that retiring aircraft which are on average not more than a quater through their service lifes is a pretty counterintuitive decision. Hopes remain that delays in the F-35 programme and the nearing retirement of the Tornado may give the T1 fleet a second chance. T1s are still being upgraded, though we know that a fresh upgrade is no guarantee to preserve these aircraft as the Harrier GR.9 in particular has shown. We’ll see how it ends.

guys, this thread gets very difficult to follow :very_drunk:

lol good one ! :eagerness:

Only chit chat, so nothing that’s worth to be followed. 😉

2x1000L + 1x1500L = 3200 kg IIRC

Anyway, correct my calculation for those numbers; 4810 kg fuel. 96,2% assuming 5000kg internal capacity is right. Can you source it?

Fuel weight varies dependent on fuel density. So you are both right and there is another truth as well. I have posted a cockpit shot of DA7 years ago already the AC sitting on the ground and the fuel read out on the HUDCP ROL and MHDD show 4934 & 4940 kg respectively. Approx 5 t is with medium fuel density (F34) IIRC. It’s about +/- 200 kg dependent on the fuel used.

Concerning the built numbers for the RAF EEL, Swerve and Sintra are all right. It’s true however that about 160 ac have been built and delivered to the RAF AND RSAF. No block 20 example has been delivered anyway as this standard isn’t cleared yet i.e. Waiting for its type acceptance.

Seems like Austria will replace their airforce with Hungarian Gripen C… http://kurier.at/chronik/oesterreich/ungarische-gripen-sollen-wien-sichern/71.253.890

😀

Austria is thinking about “let our neighbor do the airpolicing for us”, as is the case for some other European nations.

Rail launched, it seems.

Thx:eagerness: