GAF Tornado deployment

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Certa_Cito, Apr 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi guys, as an ex scaley I´m a bit confused about a report that was on the german radio this morning and thought that some of you guys (or even the odd blue job) could shed some light on the matter:

    In a report this morning they stated that 6 Tornados are deploying to Afghanistan in a recce role. So far no problems, not even for a scaley ! 10 Tornados will be taking off from their base in Schleswig-Holstein and flying the first leg to Sardinia. Once there, 2 aircraft will be dropped off before deploying on the second leg to UAE where a further 2 aircraft will be dropped off before the final leg to Afghanistan.

    Redundancy I can understand, but planning in a 66% redundancy seems somewhat high. My question: Is this normal, or is the GAF playing it safe ??
  2. I suspect that the Luftwaffe suffers from the same spares availability issues as we do. I'm not a GR4 guy but it's no secret that the Tornado requires a fairly heavy support tail in relation to the Jag, Harrier and more modern types. This is why we elected to deploy GR7 to the more austere bases in Afghanistan and leave the GR4 to operate from Al Udeid for TELIC.

    Therefore, I guess the Luftwaffe redundancy is aimed at ensuring the right number of frames arrive in country.

    Hope this helps.
  3. I didn´t realise that the support tail was THAT heavy. Cheers for the answer MM. Cleared things up nicely :thumright:
  4. And will give the Erics loads of "Holiday" time ;)
  5. Good point there as well me n bee :lol:
  6. I'm an ex Tonca Engineer, moved on to crapper things. Whenever we deployed Toncas over any real distance, the only thing you could be sure of is a trail of dead jets all over the place. Its an aging jet thats constantly having it life extended. For instance, the yanks sell off F16's that get over 1500 flying hours on the airframe. I know some Toncas that are upto over 6000 FH, a lot more than they were planned for.
    The GAF Toncas arn't even modernised either, ours are all GR4's now, with further updates like TARDIS in the offing. The Jerry toncas are still all GR1s from way back, so the avionics is in a shocking state sometimes. Its usually Avionic/electrical problems that cause these to breakdown, mainly mission problems rather than true airframe/engine problems, and if the crap hits the fan the aircrew can usually work around these problems.
  7. I bet audio cassette tapes are getting hard to source now!
  8. The GAF may have elected to build-in more redundancy for this push than on normal deployments because of the eternal problem of diplomatic clearances. Some (eastern) countries will only offer a very small window (perhaps 72 hours) for overlight/landing permissions and if this expires the whole application has to be re-submitted from scratch, with perhaps a 15 working day lead-time. Even relatively minor technical problems can be hard to solve quickly away from a main base and this window can be very easily used up - stranding jets the wrong side of a dip-clear barrier. At least with spare aircraft they can keep pushing east, ending up with the required number in-theatre and then pick-up the stragglers on the way home. It may seem OTT, but it is very sensible method if your force can bear the manpower/airframe burden.
  9. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    As a ex-Tornado Armourer,It sounds like the GAF have deployed the ECR varient which is a dedicated Anti-Radar/Recon jet, Whereas the RAF GR4/A is primaily a bomber first.