Hello, very new here so I hope this has not been covered before.
I am a bit confused regarding the RAF and the replacement aircraft it is pushing through currently.
Now as far as I can see the current aircraft are used as such..
Tornado F3= Interceptor/Air defence
Harriers / Tornado GR4 = Strike aircraft/Ground attack
Now I am aware that the Typhoon and the F-35 will be starting up soon (F-35 might only be for the Navy though, this is one of the things I am confused about)
My question is this, is the Typhoon coming in different flavours to fill these roles, or is the Typhoon intended just to replace the Tornado F3?
If so what will fill the ground attack role? Isnt the Harrier getting a bit old now? Are they planning to replace these aswell with another VTOL aircraft?
Typhoon is replacing Tornado F.3 and Jaguar. It is swing-role, in that it can act as both a fighter and bomber without any modification.
Harrier is to be replaced by the F-35B (STOVL variant). The RAF and FAA currently operate "Joint Force Harrier" consisting of two FAA and two RAF squadrons both operating GR.7/9. This mix is likely to continue when the F-35 finally enters service.
There are currently no plans to replace the Tornado GR.4/4a
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French
Will the Tornado stay in service? Got a family member in the RAF and he speaks very highly of the Tornado. It seems to do its job from what I have read on other pages here aswell.
Right now there are no plans to replace it...
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French
Tornado GR4 probably will be replaced by Typhoon/JSF, merely through the relatively large numbers of those aircraft ordered (232 Typhoons and 150? JSF) and the RAF/RN's relatively small pool of pilots.
Typhoon - certainly at tranche 3 - will be able to do everything Tornado GR4 can do but less 'observably' (is that a word?) and with no requirement for fighter escort. given that choice - and it will be choice, given the lack of sufficient pilots to fly all the Typhoons, all the Tornado GR4's and all the JSF at the same time - no sane individual will say "i'll take the GR4!".
much as i love the Tornado, its inability to operate acceptably in the 'hot n high' theatres means that its come to the end of its usefullness. lets remember that the RAF/RN is having to thrash the shite out of the harrier force in the 'stan because of the unavailability of anything else that can cope with the altitude, despite knowing that in doing so its quite likely that the harrier force will have used up its life long before the two remaining CVS are replaced - hopefully - by the new CV's and Dave'B'.
the RN is probably going to become a helicopter/amphibious force for the period between the Harriers giving up the ghost and CV/Dave'B' coming into service because Tornado can't do the business at Kandahar, Typhoon can, and its being rushed into A2G service so it can provide some relief for the Harrier force. that alone says that it will be removed as the 'weapon of choice' ASAP. great for low/cold, and fabulous for scaring the shite out of an Argentine fleet heading east, but it can't do the bisiness in an area we never considered we'd have to fight in.
Last edited by dave angel; 11 Jun 07, at 19:11.
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
Agreed, the GR4 is too big and too resource intensive to be a "secondary theatres only" bird. I'm all for modern AFs keeping a number of cheaper, simpler planes to fullfil such roles (the A-10 is a personal favourite for this, since it really is perfect for a theatre where you have no air threats like Iraq or A-stan), but yesterday's top dogs are too expensive for such work. Indeed, perpetual upgrades and increasing maintainance needs only make them more-so over time.
Out of curiousity, how much does an Air Combat Pilot make?
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."
I'd have to check, but I suspect the constraint on the GR.4s is probably more to do with runway availability than hot & high performance. I'm certainly not aware of them having problems with it in Iraq operating at medium/high altitude.
Harriers of course are designed to operate from very austere sites, even those with no runway at all. Given that we're operating in the far south of the country and the nearest runway sufficient for Tornados is probably Kabul (itself very busy) I would suggest runways are probably a more likely constraint than performance.
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French
again sorry a bit of a n00b with aircraft, but if they phase out the Harrier, and replace it with f-35's and Typhoons what are they gunna use when there are rubbish runways (or no runways at all)?
Spose it will fall to a VTOL version of the F-35?
i think runway length at Kandahar is an issue, but its only an issue because of Kandahars height and climate. F-16's and A-10's operate from K'har, as will Typhoon, so its definately a Tornado issue rather than a Kandahar issue.Originally Posted by pdf27
i did ask on Pprune as to why GR4 wasn't in the 'Stan when Harrier force is being ranted and was told that Kandahar airfield was too hot and too high for GR4 to operate with an effective war/fuel load. the Germans are using Tornado up north, at Mazari Sharif (sp?) and Termez in Uzbekistan, using GR4's from Kabul or Mazari Sharif doesn't seem all that practical for support ops in Northern Helmand, Kabul is 350-odd miles from Lashkar Gah (700 mile round trip) while Mazari Sharif is 400 miles (800 miles round trip). consider the loitering needed and it doesn't look good - particularly given the already massive constraints on AAR in the area
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
.
again sorry a bit of a n00b with aircraft, but if they phase out the Harrier, and replace it with f-35's and Typhoons what are they gunna use
gunna use? I thought you were British. Are you? If so kindly use the English language in a proper manner, paying attention to spelling, grammar, punctuation and the use of capital letters where appropriate.
when there are rubbish runways (or no runways at all)?
Spose it will fall to a VTOL version of the F-35?
Last edited by glyn; 12 Jun 07, at 12:44.
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
While I am not the world's spelling champion, I think trying to spell correctly aids in communication as does the use of punctuation and capitalization.
I have no idea what a november zero zero bravo is, but if there is rubbish on the runway, we have a truck that sweeps it away. I just hate it when the airport is untidy.
Makes sense. It may well be a wing loading issue rather than a power issue then - Tornado is a strike aircraft so designed for flight at low level in Europe during WW3. That implies a high wing loading to damp out turbulence, thus giving higher landing as well as takeoff speeds. It's a STOL aircraft, but they may not want to operate it like that routinely...
F-16 and Typhoon will have the relatively low wing loadings implied by their job as fighters, as well as bags of excess power. A-10 I'm not sure about, but again I suspect it will have quite a low wing loading.
Kandahar is only 3,000ft AMSL so it probably only gives them problems on very hot days...
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French
How good is the Harrier? I have heard that they are loathed by the maintenance personnel. And how useful are VTOL aircraft in general? I'm talking Yak-38, JSF, Harrier, ...
I thought Harriers were quite well liked, even my the ground crews?
They seemed to hold up well in the Falklands, and are being used for CAS in Afganistan.
I get the impression that VTOL helps when operational areas are bad, especially if there are bad runways. Also probably means you can have a few taking off and lading from a carrier at once because they can just come in like a chopper letting other aircraft take off normally.
(I could be totally wrong in the above. If anyone has can clear this all up I would also be interested to know the truth)
no idea about its maintainence footprint, but if you've got a decent runway - and your other options are F-16, Typhoon etc.. its utter crap, but if you've not got a decent runway and your options are Harrier or... err... nothing its a godsend.
V/VSTOL aircraft are relatively slow, carry relatively small payloads and have relatively limited range, however in the Falklands Harriers shot down some 15 Argentine Skyhawks and Mirages and other much faster jets than itself with no A2A losses, Harrier GR9 is cleared for - and uses - all the modern stuff like PavewayIV and EPWIII, AGM-65G2 and Brimstone, so its no slouch.
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: