baloffskiMosquitoes and some other types all the way up to the Vulcan carried Strike Cameras to record bombing runs in the same way as fighters carried Gun Cameras.
So, Strike Camera Installation perhaps?
baloffskiThe French do have form for painting jets pink including one of our Harrier T Birds. The story is about half way down this page:
baloffskiGranted that is what the ideal situation would be, but in the event it needs downloading in a real hurry, that is why these bits would have been on the Crash Kit – which is designated specifically for out of the ordinary emergencies.
Even the smallest station had a an armoury which would have been staffed with plumbers and always maintained a Duty Armourer who could theoretically supervise an emergency download.
I will concede however that in normal circumstances it would not be the done thing and of all the kit in a crash bay, these would have been the least likely to be used.
So the question remains, what would be fitted to an aircraft that is about a foot in diameter and heavy enough to require four blokes to lift? I’m pretty sure it won’t be a fuel tank as the sizes are wrong. (I don’t think they are particularly suited to a 1000 lb bomb either on reflection, the tail fins would be too big).
The thick plottens!
baloffskiHernia bars they may be but I am not so sure about for drop tanks given the internal diameter will be about a foot. I think even the 100Gal skinny tanks fitted to Hunter outboard pylons were bigger than that in the middle (where the bars would be fitted).
Tornado drop tank bars were ‘half round’ when I used to do OTRs all those years ago, not too sure about the Big Jugs fitted to F3 and later Gr1/4 though.
I would be more inclined to think they would be for removing perhaps a SNEB or Bomb. At a Support Command station f’rinstance they would not have any weapon loading equipment such as R Loaders or Jammers/Wendys, so if an armed aircraft diverted in and needed the ordnance removed in a hurry, it would have to be done mandraulically.
baloffskiHigh, straight and level perhaps? Just as easy a target? Albeit a bit further away from what was being targeted, the Buccaneer was still in a war zone and no less prone than the Tornado…(?)
Kind Regards,
Scotty
By the time the Bucc was used in anger the tactics had changed to Medium level work and the enemy had nothing to touch any air asset at any height. Their C3I was non-existant and most of the Missile/AAA capability was in the hands of troops who were terrified of using them because they knew that it would be signing their own death warrants.
Some would suggest that the only reason the Bucc was used was to try and ring fence it when the planned axe fell on the RAF, post WarPac collapse. Unfortunately the arrival of ‘San and Trace’ the two TIALD pods was the final nail (of many many nails) in the coffin.
baloffskiSetting aside the Gulf War for a moment I think we need to examine the doctrine and probable tactics which GR1 would have used in WW3.
We knew what the targets were and had 50 years of intelligence gathering to refine ingress, strike and egress profiles.
There would have been a big build up during what will have been a long drawn out sabre rattling session which would include them and us putting Special Forces and Intel at every major target location ready for the off.
The off would have been the west in a defensive posture against Soviet aggression; and the war plan was entirely based about the notion of failed grain harvest in the satellite nations, starvation in Russia and a military takeover shortly followed by invasion across Germany. Or another Berlin crisis and massive Soviet mobilisation to assert their authority. Thus a reactive war footing was always maintained, as we did not have any need to invade anyone.
We knew that there was a ‘Ring of Steel’ around Moscow which in all probability was a nuclear target anyway when it got a bit tasty. However, the C3I was spread around the country anyway rendering Moscow a lesser value target.
Baghdad had a very similar defensive set up and that is why such a lot of ordnance was used in Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) and killing their Command and Control (C3I) systems.
Tornado was designed as an all weather day/night interdiction aircraft and to that end the TFR etc was designed around, leaving Marham, Laarbruch or Bruggen and making best speed to the bridges, railheads and other infrastructure which had to be taken out quickly to prevent the hordes advancing any further across Germany. These would be lightly defended with optical AAA/Manpad at best. The ECM Pod was more than capable of defeating anything radar guided the Soviets had.
When it went hot (conservative estimates anticipated the first tactical nuclear exchange on day 9 or 10) All the remaining Tornado would have had a third tank fitted on one shoulder pylon and a WE177 on the other, for a short trip to Mutually Assured Destruction.
So to use the aircraft’s Sunday name we have Tornado IdS (Interdiction Strike).
Fast forward to ’91 and we have a very short build up to an invasion.
Low quality Int and a battle plan based upon a lot of supposition of enemy force effectiveness and disposition. All really we had to go on was the Iran/Iraq war in the ’80’s which demonstrated a fine air component and reasonable ground forces with high willingness to use Chemical Warfare.
We (UK PLC) were eager to be involved from the get go and show our capability to the world. We did then (and have done since) take on missions which the Yanks would not touch with a smelly stick because of the fear of casualties. These mainly involved taking out the Iraqi Airfields using a combination of JP233 and dumb 1000 lbers. If the jets have no runway to use they cease to be a threat, pick them off later blah de blah.
There was no massive SEAD effort or SF ground troops taking out the SAM Capability and consequently we lost aircraft. The biggest player was ROLAND – a hittile not a missile. Radar guided with a very effective electro optic back up. Highly mobile and therefore SEAD resistant, it, along with MANPAD and radar guided AAA was extremely effective. You can bemoan JP233 and the need to fly straight and level for a long time to get the ordnance out, (and the oft quoted but never really confirmed 3G TFR pull up command). But it was ROLAND which claimed many kills (and as an aside when we went back in 2003, still scared the bejaysus out of me when I heard it on the RWR).
I have rambled on enough for now but I hope that this proves that there should be no comparison made between the Gulf War and WW3 – they were two entirely separate scenarios with very very different plans for prosecution.
baloffskiI think that the pictures refered to should be shown to EVERYONE who works on or around aircraft regardless of how squemish they are. I don’t care if they faint,throw up or have nightmares if it saves just one persons life then it would have been worth it. I see the ground staff at my airport regularly risk themselves around running or spooling down engines. It makes me go cold every time. Yes, I do tell them and yes I have reported this!
I am now and always have been undecided on this. It is well known that different people learn in different ways, some people only need read about something, others just need to be told; some people need to see it and some people need to get hands on. There have been many many studies into how to target everybody’s learning style but at best it becomes a happy medium.
F’rinstance you could have put a thousand pictures of dead people and told me a million times not to get too cocky about nitrogen charging, but until I heard the screams from inside another HAS of a bloke who had cocked his PSI v BAR up and blown his hand off, I was always a bit lax.
Some people will have that Road to Damascus moment after viewing the pictures and never be anything except ultra careful around intakes for the rest of their lives, others will gradually slip back into their old ways.
The only thing that will prevent this sort of thing is proper supervision. Supervision of the sort that talks about the plan, makes the plan and executes that plan. And somebody to watch over the whole event with a cool calm collected eye.
Perhaps with the Viper it would have been better to power the forklift tines down onto the pallet. (With the RB211 a proper psychometric test is in order, that could really be a Darwin Aw3ard winner). I wasn’t there for either event so it would be wrong to condemn.
People take risks in engineering both professional and amateur, every day. Ground Runners do it and vintage car restorers do it, anyone who wields a spanner on anything bigger than a dinky car will have done it. Thankfully we have all managed to get away with it.
(Perhaps I should change my signature bar when answering this thread!)
baloffskiI always go a bit cold when I see stuff like that, if a Gas Turbine goes wrong it doesn’t do it slowly and with any finesse. I would never stop anyone running jets as a hobby but I would take a lot of persuading to be anywhere nearby when they are.
I have done leak checks on RB199s in full reheat and stood behind moving Herc props on a ladder strapped to the nacelle so I could adjust it and other ‘daft’ things to get an airframe serviceable, but that was all whilst in receipt of the Queen’s shilling – these guys do it for fun!!
The recent incident with a mechanic and a 737 at El Paso should serve as a salutory warning to all – if a bloke with 40 years experience can get caught out anyone can.
(A word of warning. If you don’t know about the El Paso incident I must warn you there are some absolutely horrific pictures of the incident out there so please have a careful think before you Google. They really are graphic and certainly not to be viewed unless you are prepared to be very shocked)
baloffskiJFACTSU had one or two Hawks when they were at Brawdy but I cannot think what they would have been marked up as.
baloffskiWhat about an Air Sea Rescue Launch? I am guessing a lot here but I imagine that the engines would suck in great gouts of oggin for cooling and as it was an RAF asset it would have used the 6A prefix for guages the same as an aircraft would?
baloffskiIt all used to go to a place called Quedgeley, but I think that is a housing estate now. Orificers swords used to be held there as well and I know they went to Innsworth when Quedgeley shut, Innsworth is now some Army barracks with everything moved to High Wycombe so I kinda guess that is where it all ended up?
baloffskiThe JATO would as you say provide oodles of more power and that would be as good a reason as any not to bust the torque limits and risk possible catastrophic structural damage with the increased risk of resultant mission failure.
But short of opening the LH nacelle panel on each engine and physically checking the TD valve and FCU settings (assuming they are the same as when Credible Sport was being worked up) we will never know. Having spent a couple of years flying in and fettling Albert, I am still inclined to say it is unlikely they would alter the engine settings.
I take my hat off to the Cousins, they do preserve history as Pully’s excellent pictures show. I once heard it said that they had more C130 in museums than we had flying; and it would appear that even though the aircraft has been the most loyal servant this country has known post WWII – we are only going to save probably one example for posterity.
baloffskiIs that the Jet Art F2? This one has 2 seats, HUD and a gun fitted and looks in far better all round nick than the one Jet Art have up on Flea Bay for what looks to me like an awful lot of money.
Back to it though, cracking pictures and they have bumped Donny up my 2012 to do list quite considerably!
baloffskiIs that the Jet Art F2? This one has 2 seats, HUD and a gun fitted and looks in far better all round nick than the one Jet Art have up on Flea Bay for what looks to me like an awful lot of money.
Back to it though, cracking pictures and they have bumped Donny up my 2012 to do list quite considerably!
baloffskiHave you considered either Winston or Clementine (Meteors) in the picture instead of a second Hunter or even a JFACTSU Jet Provost?
Sign In
