thank
fuck no one remembers the hurricane.
Crash grounds RAF Eurofighters - for Battle of Britain Day!
The RAF was left eggfaced in recent weeks as its entire force of fighters - nowadays made up of new and horrifyingly expensive Eurofighter "Typhoons" - was grounded following discovery of faults in their ejector seats. The grounding was particularly embarrassing as it came into force on Battle of Britain Day, the 70th …
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 09:40 GMT Emilio Desalvo
The Blue Skies Of Italy...
... where in the meantime defended by a batch of de-mothballed, modernised F-16A, offered from the DOD sometimes in the '00s, when the Tornado F3s provided by the UK to cover the hole created by the EFA delays proved to be a load of crap...
The ITAF was HAPPY to see the F3s go, as the were worse of the F-104 Starfighters they where taking the place of, and we are talking about planes designed in the '50s...
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 09:48 GMT moonface
Risk management
Out of interest do the Spitfire pilots still wear a parachute, on these re-enactment flights, now they are not flying in war time conditions?
Makes you wonder just how risky it is to fly a few safe circuits in the Eurofighter, if the pilot must have a fully operational ejector seat.
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 09:56 GMT GrantB
I know where the UK can get a shed load of jets 'cheap as'
Here in NZ, we have a job lot of A4 Skyhawks going cheap - in fact they are thinking of giving them away at the moment:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10675220
They are upgraded to early F-16 (block C?) standard, capable of firing Sidewinders, and could probably fly off the RN's new carriers at a pinch. They are even kitted out for ground-attack unlike the Tornados.
MOD could buy the lot for the cost of fueling up a bunch of Tornados. NZ would even throw in a bunch of Macchi trainers, though if they rust anything like Italian cars... maybe not such a good idea.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 10:01 GMT Trygve Henriksen
MoD; don't look now, but...
The RNoAF has 15 old F-5s for sale, still weaponized. Just needs a bit of TLC to get them flying again.
(They were mothballed properly when they went out of service)
The american colonels that testflew them in 2005 said it was the best maintained F-5s they had ever seen.
Might do as a backup for the spits. ;-)
Of course, as the asking price is 'approx $10million' for the lot, they're probably disqualified by being too cheap for the MoD...
Here's a picture of one...
http://www.natotigers.org/tigerunits/detail.php?unitID=35
-
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 12:45 GMT NightFox
For you, ze var is over
To be fair I think you are well aware of the answer to that - risk is a balanced thing. There's a difference between taking a risk when there's no justification for doing so, and taking a risk because if you don't you're going to be wearing lederhosen and eating sauerkraut before the day is out.
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 14:50 GMT moonface
It's not the plane, it's the idiots in charge
Most planes fly quite happily without ejector seats or pilots wearing parachutes.
The RAF should have take the risk on this one! I meean it's only Battle of Britain Day, the 70th anniversary of the RAF fighter force's greatest victory. Suppose it gave the old boys a bit of a laugh and something to grumble about, ohhh... those lily-livered young whippersnappers these days, etc.
-
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 10:43 GMT moonface
Delta-wings=Fail then
That's pretty worrying if they can't be trusted to do a few safe circuits at a display.
According to you then, it is likely the engine might conk out, at which point, there is no hope but to revert to the ejector seat.
Sounds to me like the FAIL is with the risk assessor. Probably the type of person who wouldn't drive a vehicle without an air bag or even walk up a flight of steps without a handrail.
-
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 09:18 GMT Will Derrrick
Opposite spin...
If the RAF hadn't grounded the fleet, it'd be spun the other way by some.
"RAF Risks Hero Pilots In Deathtrap Plans For RAF Show Off" shocker where "RAF Bigwigs recklessly endangered the safety of our boys in blue on the very day we were supposed to be celebrating their predecessors. RAF bosses ploughed ahead with the needless flying of the risky Typhoon despite being warned of the problem that's already killed one pilot. This complete contempt for our modern heroes... etc". Sometimes you just can't win.
It would have been hilarious if the Russians had sent another couple of strategic bombers in UK airspace ( http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-planes-intercepted-by-raf-tornados-in-uk-airspace-25307/ ), only to have been turned away by WWII veterans flying Spitfires. That should put the fear of God into them!
-
-
-
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 00:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Actually, Spitfire Was Crap
The P51 was a much better plane, as it could escort Bombers deep into Germany.
If you like to compare that old apple against the new orange, the Eurofighter is as least as good as the Spitfire was then. Like the latter it is a great, short-range racecar with great maneuverability.
If you need a modern-day P51, just buy yourself a Sukhoi-34. Extreme Range, thrust-vector control, high payload and thrust-vectored AAMs.
The EFA is the best we could put together and it is good enough to scare off the Russkies. The F-22 is also a one-trick air-dominance pony, where European industry gets zero technology injection. But who said Britons where strategists ? Lions led by Idiots. LP is a truely British Officer !
(The weather is getting cold here in Frankfurt an I need some flames from you to keep me warm)
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 22:14 GMT Jean-Luc
Cluelessness wins again.
(some time in 1937, presumably)
"Mr. Prime Minister, we'd like to order some Spitfires and Hurricanes for delivery in 1939. Jolly good, got 8 machine guns each".
"Sorry, we are waiting for the much better P51, coming in 1943. You chaps will just have to tough it out during the coming Battle of Britain show I've been hearing about."
(And I ain't even a Brit)
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 23:48 GMT Nigel Wright
Wrong
By whatever metric you use, except for range, the Spitfire equivalent of the P51 at that time was markedly superior.
The P51 filled a void that the Spitfire couldn't - namely of long-range escort fighter. But don't mistake this for being superior. The Spitfire MkXiV easily out-turned, outgunned, out-dived, out-climbed and out-accelerated the P51D. They were broadly comparable in maximum speed with the Spitfire again having the lead at high altitude.
-
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 00:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Eurofightergrounded?
From the article:
"The RAF grounded its Eurofighters on September 15, the official 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Pilots were warned that they would have to fly even with faulty ejection seats in the event of any hostile incursion into UK airspace"
So basically they weren't grounded, they just had non-essential operations postponed whilst teh fault was investigated and resolved.
Bit of a big fucking leap from Lewis and the Lewis apologists to state that the UK's air defence was relegated to a few airworthy Spitfires now isn't it? Especially given the article clearly shows this is not the case.
Lewis: Normally your one-track anti-UK stance is slightly amusing, in the same way we laugh at Trigger out of Only Fools and Horses, but you really are plumbing the depths here. Can you please stop writing about defence stuff and just go back to stories about global warming where you are usually intelligent and amusing (in a good way this time) even if some of your conclusions are somewhat, well, interesting?
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 09:28 GMT Mike Flugennock
Wow, sounds even nastier...
...that what I'd first imagined when I saw this article's first reference to ejector-seat malfunction.
I was first put in mind of the very early days of testing of the ejector seats in the Gemini Command Module, when astronaut John Young commented to the effect that Gemini crewmen could expect a "very bad, but very short headache" if the hatch failed to blow properly in the split instant before the seat left the CM.
But, no... parachutes prematurely separating after ejection instead of the canopies failing to blow off properly. That's got to be even nastier; at least if your canopy fails to separate properly, it's over in an instant. Instead, these poor bastards get plenty of time to think about it while waiting for the Earth to rise up and crush them.
And, that's a hundred and eighty MILLION pounds -- PER PLANE? Jesus H. Christ. My sympathies.
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 10:15 GMT Evil Genius
Gravity is not your friend
"Most planes are also not delta-wings and can make a non-powered landing."
Last time I checked, all planes are capable of making an non-powered landing. Does this delta wing have some strange, as yet undisclosed properties?
I hear the MOD are eagerly awaiting Apple to launch the iSeat.
Paris? Well, she knows all about ejection...
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 19:08 GMT Peter Gathercole
Non-powered landing
I think that the problem is that the Typhoon is one of the new generation of inherently unstable aircraft, that are only rendered flyable by the Fly-by-Computer avionics.
I'm sure that if the avionics were still operating, it would be possible to land, but if the avionics were out, there would be virtually no chance of any type of controlled landing. Hopefully, redundant systems and power supplies should be installed to keep the systems running in the case the primary power systems fail.
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 19:30 GMT asdf
lets sell our kit to the enemy, $$$ ftl
What the hell is up with both the US and the UK selling weapons to Saudi Arabia in the first place? Granted they have lots of cash and their monoarchy is somewhat friendly to the west. The fact is though 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The people in Saudi hates us. What happens when the extremism the country has been brewing for decades/centuries explodes and the people get what they want for a government (will make Taliban look liberal). At least we were smart enough to ban selling them the F22 (for all the wrong reasons but still). Stupid greedy evil industrial military complex. Lets sell our stuff to our enemies and then claim we need new stuff as our current stuff is outdated. Why mess with a biz model that is allowed to work. Stupid war pigs.
-
Thursday 23rd September 2010 23:51 GMT Alan Firminger
Have to speak truth
The Eurofighter was, and is, not about defending UK airspace.
It was conceived as proof of concept to lead the UK aircraft industry into the glorious uplands of active stabilization of non stable airframes. No airline would buy an unproven technology, but an airforce will. The best bet was the air superiority fighter.
This got lost upon the way when the British government, as always and of course, acting with the mentality of the average taxpayer chose to share with our fellow Europeans.
The dream is still there except that the UK is out of contention. Expect Airbus to announce a series of executive jets, all, with high fuel efficiency and low cost. All deltas. Then a series of passenger airliners. And BAE might pick up a bit of the work as a contractor.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
