UK Defence Forum

Tony Williams wrote:

marktigger wrote:why try and do more with 30 odd year old aircraft Typhoon with the same money spent on it will do the job so lest stop wasting money on tornado and invest in a modern aircraft like typhoon.

I'm not proposing doing it now. If you read my original post you'll see it says: "could anything have been done to improve Tornado, starting in around 2000?"

yes they did they poured billions of pounds down the drain on upgrades and refits that removed and then had to pay more to have replaced key capabilities like ability to drop paveway. Money that should have gone on Eurofighter.

marktigger wrote:

Tony Williams wrote:

marktigger wrote:why try and do more with 30 odd year old aircraft Typhoon with the same money spent on it will do the job so lest stop wasting money on tornado and invest in a modern aircraft like typhoon.

I'm not proposing doing it now. If you read my original post you'll see it says: "could anything have been done to improve Tornado, starting in around 2000?"

yes they did they poured billions of pounds down the drain on upgrades and refits that removed and then had to pay more to have replaced key capabilities like ability to drop paveway. Money that should have gone on Eurofighter.

Do you actually have any clue about what you are talking about? Because you're way off.

really so GR4 was capable of dropping and designating Paveway when it came into service ? the capability was removed and not replaced because it wasn't in the spec for the GR4 upgrade. that came from BaE and the RAF had made assumptions about PGMs that were wrong.

Wrong. There were unforseen difficulties integrating TIALD, which were quickly remedied. Nothing whatsoever do to with deletions and assumptions that you are wrong about.

downsizer wrote:Wrong. There were unforseen difficulties integrating TIALD, which were quickly remedied. Nothing whatsoever do to with deletions and assumptions that you are wrong about.

Yes the unforseen issue was it wasn't in the contract and that was quickly remedied at Bae's usual great expense.

Thats what i was told by people from both sides it was a procurement cockup

You were incorrectly informed. As much of what you post in Air related matters seems to be sadly.

Downsizer what is wrong with you? You are continually putting people down in a very negative way. This is a discussion board, not an insult board. You have an attitude problem.

Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!

NinetyFifth

Ninetyfifth wrote:Downsizer what is wrong with you? You are continually putting people down in a very negative way. This is a discussion board, not an insult board. You have an attitude problem.

Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!

NinetyFifth

Dry your eyes princess. If someone posts utter shit, I'll tell them. I don't post on, say, the CR2 thread because I know little about tanks and armoured warfare. Other people may do well to keep to their areas of expertise rather than presenting their prejudices as fact.

Ninetyfifth wrote:Downsizer what is wrong with you? You are continually putting people down in a very negative way. This is a discussion board, not an insult board. You have an attitude problem.

Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!

NinetyFifth

seconded

I'm devastated

Deleted post

All right guys, everyone chill for now.

I would like to remind all that there is a requirement to remain civil with one another. We'd ask anyone to treat others with respect, and equally, to not rise to anything either.

downsizer wrote:I'm devastated

I hear that in your voice, they both sound like never served fanboys.

Daily Fail and Torygraph both report that ASRAAM is uploaded on operational Tonkas. They have been ''çleared to fire on Ruskies'' by all accounts?! Couldn't be arsed to buy either as I was out on a run but they are available online.

Is this the Tornados currently serving over Iraq bombing isis?

The MOD's response:

There is no truth in this story.

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/10/11/2091/

-<>-<>-<>-

Front page introduction updated and expanded.

SKB wrote: British Aerospace (later BAE Systems) upgraded 142 Tornado GR1s to GR4 standard, beginning in 1996 and finished in 2003. 59 RAF aircraft are receiving the CUSP avionics package which integrates the Paveway IV bomb and installs a new secure communications module from Cassidian in Phase A, followed by the Tactical Information Exchange (TIE) datalink from General Dynamics in Phase B.

I am trying to find the interim step (it can be evidenced from the Parliamentary Defence Q&A records) that 96 were due to receive engine upgrades, but all of a sudden the real number to be retained became the 59 as per above.

So how many operational 'Tonkas' have we got left then? looks like things are going to hot up a bit from Akrotiri soon.

Digger22 wrote:So how many operational 'Tonkas' have we got left then? looks like things are going to hot up a bit from Akrotiri soon.

80. Only about 30 are ready to be used though.

How do you get to 80 (from59)?
- swap the kit around?

The HUD number (essential for such ops) is much smaller, but can actually be passed around

A recent FOI paints the picture as of August / September:

32 Tornado in the "Marham pool", shared by the three frontline squadrons (including 6 T and 6 A)
11 Tornado in XV Sqn (OCU) (including 6 T)
3 Tornado in 41 Sqn for test, dev, evaluation
32 in the sustainment fleet
3 with Qinetiq, presumably for work related to the TCAS and other

46 then?

Bang in the middle (59+30)/2 = abt that

The PM has just claimed in Parliament that the Tornado's RAPTOR pod accounts for 60% of all surveillance intel against ISIL. Quite impressive if true.