On the rare occasion that somebody asks I just explain that I am hopelessly obsessed with aviation. Strangley nobody takes the pee. I expect it every time but it never happens.

Very predictable but this will always be my (and a stack of other’s) favourite…..

HIGH FLIGHT

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds – and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of – wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,
I’ve topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew –
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee
No 412 squadron, RCAF
Killed 11 December 1941

This one gets my vote.

“According to one source……”

No name, no date, no verification, no specifics on rules of engagement. It all adds up to just another B.S.story.

Sauron

Good point. Not so long ago a ‘Brit pilot serving with the AMI regarded RAF maintenence of leased Tornado F3s as very poor’. Or so the story went. However this was a claim made by an un-named Italian officer and the Brit pilot could not be identified either. What was noted however was that RAF Tornado F3 serviceability and aircraft readiness was an order of magnitude greater than the AMI both at home and away on exercise and that RAF Tornados were in perfect working order. It turned out that the AMI refer to RAF mechanics, techs and the like (not just RAF either but any British tradesman) as ‘garagiste’, ameteurist and lacking professionalism. Its just a racist slur really. Italians are perfectionists and will not allow certain things that the British regard as ‘non service affecting’ such as ad-hoc mods to cure troublesome maintenence problems. It meant that although it was non service affecting, perfectly safe, professionally maintained and technically sound, the Italians would not let it fly because it did not look like what the manual said it should look like. They therefore criticised the RAF and did not allow the aircraft to fly until the work adhered to what the manual said it should. **phew** I hope that lot made sense but it does sound a bit like points scoring to me and should be taken with at least a pinch of salt.

Lol, right.

—

On the Iranian air defense system:
# They are said not to have any integrated system, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because such a system propably wouldn’t survive a cruise missile attack.
# their radar systems are quite old and are said to not even cover all of the border in the west and along the Persian Gulf.
# so a number of SA-2/-5/-6 and IHawk batteries are placed around their major industrial centers, but their radars wouldn’t survive the first minutes. SA-10 is an unknown. SA-6 are mostly based on the strait of Hormuz.
# two to four dozen F-14 based in the south and the west
# three dozen or so MiG-29 based in the south and west
# one hundred or so F-4, F-5 and Chinese MiGs based all over the country
# four dozen or so Su-22 and Su-24; who knows what their real capability is, but a surface combatant has to keep them in mind
# their anti-ship missile arsenal is equipped with Chinese and PRK subsonic ASMs; plus SS-N-22 Sunburns which makes it somewhat uncomfy for surface combatants (they wouldn’t waste those on commercial ships I think). They could close the Straits of Hormuz with ease. That is for sure.

Their Scuds (up to 450) can reach most U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf area (but that would be a waste), almost all oil facilities in Kuwait and in the UAE and most of them in Saudi Arabia. Plus with the around ten or so No-Dong-1s they are said to have, they could reach Israel and the Suez channel. Possibly they even have one or the other North Korean Taepo-Dong capable of reaching Europe (with a B or C warhead), just for to make a statement and throw Europe’s economy into turmoil. Wasting whatever they have on U.S. forces in the region would be foolish. Their chance is to inflict max damage, to attack Israel, or even better Europe (also I don’t think they have that capability today, it should be priority number one for them to get that capability, even if it is only a single missile), widen that conflict as fast as possible and as wide as possible (maybe even to the north, depending on Russia’s stance).
[A strategy btw akin to what would possibly enable China to take Formosa w/o fighting the USN … threatening to widen the conflict as far and fast as possible, hikeing up the price for the West.]

But would Iran even try to intercept an incoming manned airstrike? Wouldn’t their political game be more helped by posing as the poor victim of imperialism and zionism? Provided their nuclear R&D is safe and sound in the belly of some distant cave? As I see it, Iran has only very limited chances to intercept an attack. Iran’s current main strength is their huge country, the impossibility to conquer them (w/o general mobilisation in the U.S. and Western Europe) and their grip on the Straits of Hormuz (were they can inflict substantial damage to the West’s and Far East’s economy by repeated attacks against oiltankers).

Well I certainly agree that taking on Iran would be a mistake and it would not be the same as taking on Iraq even during the first Gulf War. You have stated all the correct reasons for this, Iran can and will close off the Persian
Gulf and make life very difficult for the USA’s allies on the Gulf coast. I am hoping that the USA will find a more peacful way of dealing with this because the UK has already stated that they would not sanction an US led invasion of Iran and if the British won’t help who else will?

Still. Things change. Maybe if the Gulf States are attacked by Iran they might feel the need to put the boot in with the Americans, I suppose it depends how angry they get and wether they think it is in their long term interests to ensure Iran does not gain nuclear weapons. That said, Iran is as nervous of the USA as the USA is of Iran. From their point of view they need nuclear weapons to ensure their security from American aggression. As I see it US aggression is far more likely than Iranian but I understand why. I want to see nuclear weapons being decommissioned not manufactured the same as everybody else. Thats what we all want and everybody who builds them is just pushing us all in the wrong direction to that end.

Not sure whether TSR-2 could wipe the floor with ANYTHING. However it’s one of my favourites. Had it flown in say, 1971, it could have been fitted with turbofans. This would have given it even better range.

TSR-2 could quite easily have carried external stores under the wing.
In fact it would have carried F-111 / F-15 sized drop tanks.

Indeed, like the F-105, F-106 and Buccaneer, it was fitted with a generous weapons bay. With 6,000lb of bombs carried internaly, the TSR-2 could have outrun almost anything at low level for the next 20 years….

The view outside, esp for the nav was poor, true. However, although a long range interceptor versions was proopsed, the TSR-2 was 100% strike. A good view for the nav was not overly important, esp at night and in poor weather conditions. This of course could have been improved with production models.

In my view, the TSR-2 was sold too much as a tactical machine. It should have been sold to do the same job as the FB-111A and the Mirage IVA. Namely strategic strike. Should have been an out and out V-Bomber replacement.

Incidentally, does anyone have info on a 1980’s plan to put the TSR-2 back into production by the Thatcher gov’t…???? Any truth in it? Read this somewhere a while ago….

What engines were fitted? I thought they were Speys in which case they were fitted with turbofans.

Will the engines perform okay after letting the CPU control them for take off?

Nothing needs to be cleared up mate an opinion is just that, an opinion. Who is to say either of us is right or wrong?

LOL I see the Spit is a touchy subject here Phil, as well as T4T :D:D

Yes mate I know. You don’t even have to mention it and people are accusing you of something or another. I don’t think there is any point arguing when people resort to making up stories and putting thoughts in you head and words in your mouth.

“I know. I want to make a political point and make somebody feel small. How do I do it? Of course! I make something up. I make out they said something they did not actually say (whether or not it stands up to scrutiny)and use examples that I do not actually have. If I can’t win an argument fairly I shall lie through my arse and make all sorts of unfounded claims even though I have no proof of what I say and what I say contradicts reality itself”. :rolleyes:

Thats what I get bored of.

You going Duxford on the 10th October?