It is understood that a loud bang heard across London just after 4am on Sunday was caused by RAF Typhoon jets going supersonic.

Quick Reaction Alert, or QRA, is when the RAF scramble their fighter jets within minutes to meet or intercept aircraft which give cause for concern.

Lossiemouth generally covers the northern sector, while Coningsby provides QRA in the south, which includes looking after London and events such as the Olympics. Southern QRA transferred temporarily to RAF Northolt in West London during the Games to add to the mix of military assets ensuring their safety.

A sonic boom is a loud sound kind of like an explosion. It’s caused by shock waves created by any object that travels through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms create huge amounts of sound energy. When an object moves through the air, it makes pressure waves in front of and behind it.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

76 COMMENTS

  3. Shame we don’t have a true Southern QRA at Wattisham any more. That would reduce the need for Supersonics, if the Typhoons were based nearer to London.

    • Coningsby to wattisham is just a few mins flying time at speed, so wouldn’t make any difference to southern QRA, or the need to go supersonic.

      • Go back to 1992 & the RAF had 2 sqns of Phantoms at Wattisham. 56 sqn with 20 Phantom FGR2 & 74 sqn with 14 F-4J.
        I think it was Gordon Brown who got rid of Wattisham QRA in order to fund Afghanistan ground operations.

        • Wattisham QRA went with the Phantoms back in 1992, long before Afghan ops. It couldn’t be reinstated nowadays as the runway has been downgraded due to it’s poor condition – only light GA fixed wing and rotary. F4J’s were retired in 1990 when 74 went to surplus FGR2’s.

          • RAF Mildenhall should become a rapid response station for London and the South East, once the US Airforce leave? The runway is possibly the longest in the UK, and the infrastructure recently refurbished. QRA could be stationed there on state occasions and emergency hospital located permanently, but not necessarily operational other than when required. This airbase is too good to consign to history and cover its runway with houses.

          • I think it was still being used for QRA on an “as & when” basis. So it was available when needed.
            When did RAF Leeming go? I think it was around the same time that Wattisham got shut down from even its part time status. I think that was to fund ops in Afghanistan. I know it was before the 2012 Olympics, as many thought it was crazy to cut back QRA when that was coming to London.
            If Wattisham is still available, I would like 2 flights of Typhoon tranche 1 (8 in total), for a true Southern QRA.
            Otherwise, I know Upper Heyford was designated for housing, but those heavy duty hardened shelters will be expensive to demolish.
            Can Marham really take 138 F-35? Might be wise to shift RN FAA F-35 to Yeovilton, when the numbers rise.

          • So the AAC have Wattisham for their Apache. The RAF is still there with a parachute unit. The QRA hardened shelters were used by RAF air sea rescue Sea Kings for many years after the Phantoms left. I do not think it impossible to mix in 8 Typhoons if need be.

          • Upper Heyford is a business park.

            Yeovilton has no HAS, I would not put F35 there.

            The 3 Squadrons of F3 at Leeming were all disbanded long before 2010.
            The station remains operational.

            Wattisham may become available depending on Joint Helicopter Commands Project Belvedere.
            Much more likely to be retained by the army than reopened as an RAF Station, though the HAS and associated infrastructure remain.

          • Leeming might be a good choice for a 2nd RAF F-35 base, when numbers get to big for just Marham.

  4. Surely it makes sense to spread these across 4 or more sites but have the maintenance done at 1 or more hub sites.

    I do worry about the resilience of our infrastructure.

    • I always think we have weak coverage from the south west. if the Chinese achieve blue water CSG and use it in the atlantic, that may have to change. Or civvy traffic with faulty transponders flying from the Americas for that matter

      • That is still more than 10 years away. Their Russian knock off planes can just about take off from the carriers on low fuel.

        • perhaps, but it takes 10 years for the MOD to plan for anything, so start thinking now. doesn’t have to be a permanent QRA. An upgraded airfield with HAS and infrastructure. could even be conducted by RN with F35B from Yeovilton or Culdrose

        • Did I say that? Just said that if the Chinese achieves its ambitions of a blue water navy and carrier air power, they may well represent a threat in the Atlantic in years to come. 2021 QE goes to S China Sea, think the Chinese may well reciprocate when they have the capability.

          • Julian1, I know things get lost here as it can be a bit higglity piggilty but if we’re using the F35’s, surely we can use bases at relatively short notice and build up the support as required ? Perks of the vstol’ly stuff.

          • I’m talking an additional MOB, HAS, pads, upgraded facilities. If we ever end up with 138 f35s, can’t see marham taking all of them, even if they are not all in service at the same time

          • I dont think we would need QRA in the south west to cover a Chinese carrier, Typhoons from Coningsby can get to Cornwall in about 15 minutes, and with Voyager support from Brize, they can stay on station for a good few hours. And we would have plenty of intelligence on Chinese naval movements if we really felt the need to reposition aircraft to a closer airfield.

    • When daydreaming about fantasy forces, my QRA set up is 3 sqns of T1 ac: 6 @ Lossie for QRA North Sqn, A Flt; 6 @ Leeming QRA N Sqn, B Flt; 6 @ Coningsby QRA Midlands Sqn, A Flt; 6 @ Northolt QRA Midlands Sqn, B Flt; 6 @ Yeovilton QRA South Sqn, A Flt; 6 @ Mount Pleasant QRA South Sqn, B Flt. While supersonic transit times across the UK are low, *sometimes* less than timely HO of tracks from the continent would make this base set up the most responsive. Considering the availability of GCI, I wouldn’t make the ac a priority for AESA, or Pirate, but the ability to negate GCI with EA would make the functionality nice to have eventually. Also, as stated Meteor wouldn’t be a priority as 99.999999999% of business (thankfully) is Air Policing which requires VID, negating BLoS stuff.
      The numbers (for which there’s plenty of T1 I think?) would allow per Flt for 2 jets at Immediate readiness, 2 jets for trg or Stand-by readiness and 2 in maintenance; or pooling of the non-Immediate jets as a supersonic capable red force.
      If we’re ever in the position of thinking about F-35 for QRA, we’re doing QRA and F-35 wrong.

    • Errmmmmm……… Has anyone ever heard of our shiny new Carriers as a method of getting F35’s to cover the South and South West?

      • That would be a massive waste of money. The carriers are for projection and we have loads of land bases that can cover this. I think an existing base in SW or Wales is a more reasonable.and cost effective option

  5. I know I’ve mentioned this before on UKDJ, but adding a few squadrons of Grippen E’s would cleary serve in this role already cleared to use Meteor and would be useful in an anti-shipping role at roughly half the cost of a Typhoon.

    Given our budget constraints, this would make a great deal of sense not least as we will partner them on project Tempest allowing the sharing of future technologies between Grippen and Typhoon.

    Used on CAP and low-intensity conflicts like Syria as an example, airframe hours would also be greatly reduced on the Typhoon fleet.

    “Almost any weapon can be integrated, giving Gripen E/F very high weapon flexibility. This is partly due to the flexible avionic architecture.”

    https://saab.com/gripen/our-fighters/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-e-series/gripen-e/

    • It would cost a very large amount of money to buy Gripen, money that would be better spent of Typhoon and F35. And it wouldn’t reduce airframe hours in Typhoon, they would just be used for somthing else, and continued training, and participation in exercises. And the flying they do over Syria, is pretty low intensity flying, lots of flying in straight lines on patrol, and not putting alot of ‘G’s through the airframe.

        • I don’t know how much a Gripen E costs, but it won’t be cheap. And the MOD doesn’t have the cash to buy even a small number of them, and why would they? We have Typhoon and F35, both more capable then the Gripen. Buying a small fleet of less capable aircraft won’t save any money. Gripen would be a ‘nice to have’ if the MOD had billions of spare cash, and we had nothing better to spend it on. But we both know they haven’t. And if they did have a tone of spare cash, they would buy more Typhoons or F35’s anyway.

          • Personally, I say very good value for the money.

            I’ve seen it mentioned many times that the new Grippen is half the cost of Typhoon on an airframe for airframe basis. That’s twenty hardpoints instead of fourteen I believe?

            Next-gen RBS 15 Gungnir MK4 (300km+) will enter service in 2024 making this an even greater deterrent if we include it onboard Typhoon as well. It can be launched from both sea and land as well.

            So, with our limited budget, I would opt for these rather than more Typhoons. Doubling the number of airframes and concentrate on the joint development of Tempest.

            “The Air Force plans to retire its fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornet jets between 2025 and 2029. The HX-FP carries an estimated price tag of €11.4 billion (U.S. $13.1 billion), a cost that includes life-cycle service and maintenance overheads on a fleet of 64 multirole aircraft.”

            https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/01/industry-bids-are-in-for-finlands-13-billion-fighter-race/

          • I’ll leave it here, but in answer to your comment in relation to the Typhoon being a superior aircraft?

            “Gripen pilots don’t like to show their cards by demonstrating the full power of the jet’s jamming in training. But the one time they did, it completely reversed the course of the mock battle in training, Bronk said.

            “Several years ago the Gripen pilots got tired of being made fun of by German Typhoon pilots and came to play with their wartime electronic warfare and gave them a hell of a hard time,” Bronk said. One of the Gripens was “reportedly able to appear on the left-wing of a Typhoon without being detected” by using it’s “extremely respected” jamming ability, ”

            https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-built-a-russian-fighter-jet-killer-and-stealth-is-irrelevant-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

          • The other issue was that the German Typhoons (sorry Eurofighter 2000s) don’t have the Pirate IRST system. So in effect are missing a significant portion of their capabilities. The Pirate IRST I would say is more important in some respects than the Typhoon’s Captor radar. For starters its passive, so won’t give the aircraft away. But more importantly will give a live optical image of the target, so it can be more easily identified. The Captor radar can do the same, but its more reliant on comparing the radar reflection with a stored data library.

            A good example to compare capabilities is when the French Rafales do mock dogfights with RAF Typhoons. Because the French know the capabilities of Pirate, they will always try to attack from behind and below the Typhoon. They will also try to not engage above 30,000ft as the Typhoon has the height plus energy advantage over the Rafale. So its sort of the same with the Gripen, you fight it using your strengths not your opponents. When the Gripen was used against USAF F15s, it had similar results. As the F15s only had radar and no IRST, but were also being guided by an AWACS. By using EW spoofing and jamming, the Gripen will not only level the playing field, but in some instances gain a significant advantage.

          • I see no reason why Pirate could not be installed. It depends on how much “free” space is available around the radar. It may be better to go down the F15/F22 route where an IRST is mounted to a weapons pylon.

            Good points raised on Qora by Anders et al. However, the Selex Raven radar is a based on the architecture of the Captor-E. The back end is the same to a point i.e. the processing and general layout. However, there are some significant differences. Thankfully, both make use of the swash-plate to increase the viewing angle of the radar. Both the Captor-E and Raven will have distinct tactical advantages over fixed AESA panel radars.

            However, because the Typhoon is a much larger aircraft than the Gripen, it can fit in more processing, memory, data handling and cooling for the radar. Perhaps more importantly though, is the cross-sectional area of the nose section where the radar antenna is housed. If you compare the Gripen E/F’s nose with the Typhoon’s. You will see the Typhoon is at least roughly half as big again. For the Typhoon’s AESA radar this means three things:
            1. You can house a much larger (CSA) antenna.
            2. The antenna can house much more antenna transmit/receive modules.
            3. The antenna’s gain (amplification) and sensitivity is directly proportional to the antenna size and number of elements.

            Therefore, for the same/similar back end, the Typhoon’s radar will have significantly more range. It will also have a lot more sensitivity, so can detect targets with smaller reflections i.e. stealthier targets further away. There is a lot of maths involved, but simply a larger sized antenna can generate a lot more power, with a much tighter transmitted beam. This means at a fixed range of say 100km, the beam’s dispersion is much smaller. Which means several things, it makes the transmission harder to detect. It also increases the amount of power contained within the spot of the beam concentrated on the target. Thus, creating a better chance of a reflected signal being detected by your larger and more sensitive antenna.

            In fairness, the Gripen’s Raven should be compared to the Rafale’s RBE2-AA AESA radar, as their antennas have a similar CSA. The Captor-E should be compared with the F35’s APG-81. Though in some respects, the Captor-E has some advantages over the APG-81, such as the increased viewing angle using the swash-plate.

          • The question remains, will we ever see it installed on our Typhoon fleet?

            Grippen already has theirs installed and working which is again a plus particularly if we factor in increased costs if partner nations like Italy drop out.

            “The fact is that, while the electronically-scanned Captor-E radar first flew on Eurofighter in 2007, and while the four partner nations have spent €1 billion on its full-scale development, so far none of the four has decided to retrofit it to its Typhoons.

            It has become even touchier since the United Kingdom decided not to retrofit the Captor-E to its own Typhoons, while the Italian defense ministry, already unable to meet its defense funding obligations, seems to consider an AESA radar on Typhoon an unnecessary expense.”

            June 20th 2019

            https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203668/aesa-radar-still-lacking-as-eurofighter-looks-to-future-improvements.html

          • is there a case to sell Typhoon to Sweden as part of a deal? Surely Gripen is no match for the latest Russian adversary so using the same logic, the Swedes should have a need too. That would allow both nations to build up experience on the two airframes as they potentially converge with Tempest.

          • I posted this link above so the chances of that happening would be slim at best. Never say never!

            “Gripen, especially the E-model, is designed to kill Sukhois. There we have a black belt,” Helgesson told Yle at a presentation in Finland, where Sweden is trying to export the jets.

            Russia’s Sukhoi fighters have achieved a kind of legendary status for their ability to out-manoeuvre US fighter jets in dogfights and pull off dangerous and aggressive stunts in the air, but Gripen may have cracked the code.”

            https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-built-a-russian-fighter-jet-killer-and-stealth-is-irrelevant-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

          • RAF Tornado F3’s got kills against Indian SU35’s. In exercises back in 2007. It’s no big deal for a Gripen to shout about really. That article reads like somthing from the Daily Mirror ?

          • That’s Russia’s latest fighter, which begs the question, if its no big deal as you put it, why are you prepared to spend twice as much on more Typhoons or additional F35’s as you clearly mentioned in an earlier thread if the Grippen can fill that role?

            Quite a bit to shout about I’d say!

      • There’s very little point in purchasing the Gripens. This is because we pretty much have a dedicated QRA aircraft in the Tranche 1 Typhoons. Due to their limited air to ground capabilities they were kept purely for air interception duties. In some respects the Gripens is a better aircraft as the E/F version can carry Meteor, whilst at the moment the Tranche 1 Typhoon cannot.
        In the short term I don’t believe we will go to 3 fighter types, in the future yes, Typhoon, F35 and perhaps Tempest. But in these days of austerity, the extra cost for training, maintenance and logistics. I don’t think the RAF will push for Gripen, especially as there’s more justification for the dedicated ECR Typhoon.

        • Thank you for your informed comment DaveyB, I thought you would be interested to read the link below as to the comparisons between the Gripen-E-F and F35 radars.

          Between now and the introduction of Tempest into front line service (15yrs at best) my concern is having enough aircraft short term on a limited budget that can engage potential aggressors in air combat as well as defend against large surface fleets hence my suggestion, the Grippen E/F.

          Already capable of filling both roles from 2024 onwards when the MK4 Gungnir enters service and roughly half the price of Typhoon, would it not make sense to sell off our tranche 1’s to European allies for example and use the money to by these aircraft instead? Future-proofed well into the 2040s.

          I’ve included a post above on costings based on 64 aircraft.

          On a side note, could the Pirate IRST system be fitted to the Grippen E?

          Look forward to hearing your sensible and informative reply as ever.

          https://www.quora.com/How-does-an-F-35-radar-compare-to-the-radar-fitted-to-a-Gripen-E-F

          • I should have said selling the Tranche 1 and using the monies from the sale to help in the funding of the Grippen E/F.

            We currently have 53 T1 67 T2 and 40 T3 Typhoons totalling 160 aircraft. And as you quite rightly say the Trance 1’s are unable to use Meteor at present.

          • Oops, see above.

            In some respects the Tranche 1 Typhoon equipped with the Captor-M will be outclassed by the Gripen’s Raven radar. Due to the arrangement of the captor’s flat panel array it would be comparable with the Raven in terms of detection range fidelity. I mean when the reflected signal can be properly interrogated and matched to a known threat signature. The Captor-M has phenomenal range for an “old school” pulse-doppler radar. However, at range as I mentioned above with limited beam-forming the beam will be quite widely dispersed. The Gripen’s Raven although not as powerful is more economical, as the majority of the power will be transmitted in a very narrow beam.

            The Tranche 1 aircraft, I think would not be popular with other countries, as it’s not a true multi-role aircraft like the upgraded Tranche 2/3s. Italy spent a shed load to upgrade their Tranche 1s to the Tranche 3 equivalent.

            I can see the merits of the Gripen. But I think we would be better off keeping the Tranche 1s for QRA and buying an additional 20 ECR Typhoons to generate another squadron plus spares. The Tranche1s although older, have not been used as much as the Tranch2/3s. If there was a will, it would be great to see them rebuilt to Tranche 2/3 standard.

            I’m in two minds about the RBS-15. This is because it only has one sensor in a pulse-doppler radar. It has the a similar speed, operating profile and weight of explosive to the Harpoon. But is reliant on its radar to track the target. A ship, especially a top-end frigate, will not only have its anti-air missiles, but both an active and passive countermeasure system. So if it gets past the air defences the countermeasures may still spoof it. I really do like the Kongburg Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Yes, its smaller with a smaller warhead. But I think its more suited to taday’s needs. This is because it not only has a two-way data link, but uses an imaging infra-red seeker as it main sensor. Therefore, it will generate a live image of the target, which can be fed back to the pilot to make sure its not spoofed. Or perhaps more importantly when operating in mixed shipping lanes stays on the designated target. I think RBS-15 is more suited to the all out war scenario, where we know their are no friendlies or neutral shipping around.

          • NSM would do the job admirably as you quite rightly say and with a reasonable stockpile of both these and the RBS-15 Mk4 severe as a very useful deterrent to any possible adversary for a relatively low investment overall.

            As I mentioned in the post above lol, can we hope to see AESA fitted to our Typhoon fleet in the future?

            https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203668/aesa-radar-still-lacking-as-eurofighter-looks-to-future-improvements.html

          • Yes, I believe so!

            Kuwait will field the first Typhoons fitted with Captor-E. This will be the radar 1 standard. The Luftwaffe has announced that they will start fielding Captor-E from 2025 (but haven’t said what version).

            The MoD have held back, why? I am convinced part of the reason is due to the feedback from pilots/engineers working on the F35 program. The APG-81 is a generation leap over previous radars in capability. This is especially true when you include the ability to use it as a wideband data-link and narrowband jammer. These two features alone haven’t really been used before on a production aircraft’s radar. The APG-81 is truly a multi-role flexible radar. It can do a multitude of different waveform techniques from mimicking legacy radars, to new wideband techniques including inverse synthetic modes used for ground mapping. The F22’s APG-77 set the precedence on multi-role capabilities, the APG-81 has taken it a stage further.

            Leonardo, Qinetiq and BAe have been working on enhancements for the Captor-E, one of which is called Bright Adder. The aim of which is to give the radar the same capabilities of the APG-81. It is really hard to describe the advances that have been made with the APG-81 over other radars. One of the easy answers would have been to fitted APG-81 to Typhoon, but the Eurofighter consortium would have vetoed it. So Leonardo/BAe have had to stump up a significant amount of cash to develop Captor to a similar standard. The RAF will be getting Captor- E but at the radar 2+ standard. I suspect, at a similar time as the Luftwaffe’s announcement i.e. fielded by 2025.

            Here’s a thought for you? The USMC MUX program is a project to build a close air support drone to support the beach-head. The program has been redirected to include airborne early warning as a priority, so the USMC has a native AEW capability. The drone that’s supposed to be used, is the Bell 247 Vigilant tilt-rotor. The radar that is being rumoured to be fitted, is a development of the F35’s APG-81.

          • Pleased to hear we are not stalling on this one.

            As for the thought, very interesting indeed! Let us hope the government of the day stumps up defence spending for this and other much-needed projects that we require, including speeding up the delivery of Type 26 and 31’s.

    • No way you could really use a Meteor long range missile since all air contacts would need to be VID’d before firing on them fearing shooting down a commercial or private aircraft.

      • Disagree. Two different scenarios:
        1. Aircraft operating on QRA, which is responding to an aircraft alert issued by ATC which is not answering communications. Yes, you would need to do a visual identification of the target. The pilot will try to get the aircraft to respond to commuincations by radio whilst checking the cockpit for duress or incapacitation. The pilot will try using visual communication starting with a whiteboard message. If that fails they will use other means to get their attention.
        2. Wartime. A target has been detect by an AWACs or by the Typhoon’s radar and matches a known profile stored in the threat library. The aircraft is not responding to identification friend or foe and is approaching from a known threat vector. Your air or ground controller has stated there are no planned flights in that area equals weapons free.
        Don’t forget Meteor has a two way data link. So the pilot can see what the missile’s radar sees. It could also be used to match a known profile.

  8. Maybe a couple of Hawks could do for the ‘internal’ stuff instead of the high end gear. Dunno, just with all this talk of Grippens or whatever, could we not just go with what we’ve got ??

    Hawks = Type 31 ?????

    • Dunno. I think there is still a decent sized pool of Hawk T1, how many are operational I do not know.

      RAFAT ( Red Arrows ),4 FTS, with a mere 28 Hawk T2’s, 100 Squadron, 736 NAS, and the AMF ( Aviation Medicine Flight ) are all we have. All with other roles in high demand.

      So using dets of that pool of aircraft elsewhere for short range QRA , just seems a bit naff when the Typhoons are there.

      I know 88 of the Hawks were modified to carry Sidewinder and work as pairs with F3’s in the Cold War but that was rather different.

    • The issue with Hawks is they are too slow. The whole point of QRA is that its last minute and you need to arrive on scene as soon as f’ing possible to ensure if a plane has been high jacked or lost communication it can be identified as soon as possible and guided to safety.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here