DJJAs things stand, the GR7/ GR9 will not be cleared for ASRAAM. It is going to recieve Brimstone and Paveway IV, and possibly a new targeting pod to replace TIALD.
Rumours that someone has said ‘Hang on, we’ve got some 30mm cannons left from the GR3s, so maybe we could give it a gun after all’ are untrue…
DJJThere have been some remarkable allegations about the IAF and naval model Phantoms:
1. In 1962, unidentified pilots collected some USN F-4Bs from Wheelus AFB, Libya (Libya then being pro-West, of course), and flew them away in an Easterly direction (assumption being that they were IAF crews) – oddly, though, these aircraft were never seen again, and the IAF doesn’t seem to have flown them at all….
2. Carrier landing training was provided by the USN to over 100 IAF pilots who flew out to a USN carrier in the Red Sea, gained their carrier qualification and then…. well, the story peters out at that point for some reason.
There were marginally more credible suggestions that F-4Bs and F-4Js from Sixth Fleet carriers were provided to the IAF under the auspices of Operation Nickel Grass in 1973, but it’s now generally accepted that these reports resulted from confusion between A-4s and F-4s.
DJJThe US operated AV-8As off CVs on a couple of occasions, and has cross decked SHARs on occasion, so the Harrier hasoperated off ‘proper’ carriers with the USN…
IIRC, there’s a shot of an AV-8A (or C) aboard the USS Coral Sea in the Tony Holmes ‘Supercarriers’ book that appeared in the 1980s.
DJJWelcome back, JN.
The two Harriers are at least flown by 3 Sqn pilots….
DJJYes, but do bear in mind, though, that unless you’re having a spectacularly bad day in the cockpit, the road doesn’t suddenly pitch up to meet you and simultaneously roll to the side as you slam into it… * Even the most robust undercart might protest at that sort of treatment.
(*Add token intonation of ‘It is far better to stop then land as opposed to land then stop’ if so minded or a Harrier/SHAR mate) .
DJJDon’t think that’s entirely fair, with respect, Fonk. AFM and International AP Review give the Rafale credit where it’s due – Henri Pierre Grolleau has featured quite heavily in the pages of those two journals (and elsewhere), and his assessments can’t be described as unfavourable.
The real position, I’d suggest, is that we have ‘Good Rafale, Good Typhoon’. The customers of both types are happy with what they have/are getting; and the aircraft meet their requirements, or are on the way to doing so (assuming that the five governments concerned provide the necessary funding to permit clearances, etc, etc to go ahead).
More generally (this is not directed at you personally, Fonk) I wonder if rather than have what are now becoming rather stale debates about the merits of Typhoon vs Rafale, we couldn’t move on to point out that both are good aircraft and look at how they are going to be used?
The forum isn’t going to influence the sale of either type to any air force (well, I hope it isn’t, otherwise that air force has problems with its procurement practices), and going over the same ground time after time about Qinetiq reports, canard positions, control authority, etc, etc with nationalistic pride thrown in wildly and inaccurately (by both sides) doesn’t really add to the sum of human knowledge.
Just my 10 pence/0.67 Euros worth.
DJJFonk,
Although I’m likely to suggest that the AFM article is misleading when you get round to posting it here ( 😀 ), I think it’ll probably be in one of the May/June/July 2004 editions of AFM. The report got into the British press in May 04, so that seems about right. Hope that helps.
The report (which led to tales about how the aircraft couldn’t enter cloud) was actually a section of a Qinetiq report rather than a free-standing document, as I recall, and by the time the Select Committee on Defence got around to raising questions (a few weeks later), the issue had been sorted out. As far as I know (from the lack of nervous Typhoon drivers around and about my places of work), the RAF doesn’t seem too concerned.
Nungesser – the gun hasn’t been removed. The German, Italian and Spanish AFs all intend to have it. A decision was made to remove the gun on RAF Tranche 2 aircraft to cut costs (maintaining the weapon, maintaining ammo stocks, etc, etc). That decision has now been overturned and all the RAF Typhoons will have cannon. It is probable that the gun will not be fired reguarly on training to reduce fatigue imposed on the airframe; rather pilots will train on using the gun prior to deployment. However, there are suggestions that the demands of QRA against stray airliners (ASRAAM doesn’t do warning shots…) may militate against this.
DJJFollowing on from SOC’s point – as a for instance, Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop have done an Osprey book on Iranian F-14 units in action, and a larger work (published by Schiffer, IIRC) on the Iran-Iraq air war. Both are well worth reading, IMO.
Because of the lack of high-grade information about the current state of Iranian military aviation, it’s hard to know what sort of threat the F-14s would pose today. Probably not as significant as the Iranians would like the rest of the world to think, but rather more capable than some observers would suggest. I’m not certain, though, how easy it would be for the IRIAF to keep viable stocks of what are now nearly 30-year old missiles in full working order.
Edit to add – I think that the ASM based on the Phoenix was said to have optical guidance rather than laser, while Jane’s theorised that the weapon was an AIM-54 fitted with a Maverick TV seeker head. When I get access to the Jane’s online subscription at work, I’ll see if I can find it (assuming I don’t forget to do so in the first place) – I know that they carried some brief report on it a few years ago, though
DJJSOC – I don’t have to prove it; that’s down to expensive lawyers… 🙂
As I said, though, it’s entirely theoretical, and I added it as a further piece of food for thought.
If we were involved in a certain strand of MoD business *cough* IPTs *cough* the very notion that there was a slight theoretical risk would have led to this entire forum being closed down, hard disks wiped and an air of ‘Forum? About military aviation? Er… We may have had one once, but I’d have to check the files…’ approach, but I hardly expect that here.
As for your first point, I have used the report function on a couple of occasions, but what I thought were offending posts remained. That’s fair enough – this isn’t my train set – and I assumed that the decision was taken that the post was within bounds. Mods have a difficult enough job without having follow up ‘why didn’t you act on my report?’ posts – I just flagged ’em up to let someone decide!
My point about the bans, was simply to suggest that some of our posters may have been fortunate to escape a banning, and would perhaps benefit from being a little more civil in future. There are a number of people who know quite a lot, and certain posters, IMHO, would do better to read, digest and evaluate what’s said rather than turn the fuel taps on the flamenwerfer to full on in an attempt to defend their less-than strong position.
Anyway, I’m conscious that I’m in danger of taking us way off topic, which isn’t my intent – back to Typhoons with wobbly front wheels? 🙂
DJJAre you sure that ‘AM’ doesn’t stand for Albert Medal?
It was a predecessor of the George Cross, intended for those who displayed gallantry in saving life. There were two classes of award (gold and bronze), the higher class being superseded by the GC. The award itself was withdrawn in 1971, and suriving holders of the AM were invited to exchange their medals for a George Cross instead (some of the medal holders were less than impressed with this, it must be said!).
DJJNeil, thanks for that. I have a suspicion that the bars may have had a yellow edging to them in Hornet or Javelin days, in the same way as Les outlines for 3 Sqn’s bars gaining a yellow edge.
This actually shows just how much rumour is prevelant around squadrons. Jon Lake’s profile of the Lightning in the now-defunct Wings Of Fame reported the suggestion (the author was/is too sensible to report it as fact) that 74 Squadron ‘put up a black’ (literally) when in Singapore, by painting the tails of the Lightnings black, in contravention of the 1966 Air Ministry directive on markings. The rumour was that as a punishment for this, 74 was consigned to the wilderness.
In fact, the record shows that the RAF spent much of the 1970s trying to reform 74, completely destroying the rumour – but it still persists!
DJJThe story about 8 Sqn is interesting, but… the only conflict in which the groundcrew could have been left to the Turks is, logically, WW1 . And 8 Sqn served in France for all of it…
The reason for the squadron serving outside the UK lies in the fact that when reformed in the 1920s (and had there been any disgrace to the unit, there would have been no reason for it to be reformed – there were so few active squadrons and so many available numberplates, another could have been chosen), it was in the Middle East. Squadron numberplates became ‘owned’ by the AOC-in-C of a command, and could not be used unless that command made them available. For instance, the 10 Sqn numberplate was owned by Bomber Command. When it became clear that there would be no use for a distinguished numberplate for some time, AOC-in-C Bomber Command offered it to AOC-in-C Transport Command (he was asked to do so) so that it could be used for the VC 10 squadron that was about to form. 8 was an MEAF plate, and as long as the RAF had a presence in the ME, it was going to stay there. When the drawdown of forces occurred in the ME and the MEAF disappeared, the 8 ssn numberplate was put back into the hands of the Air Force Board, who then made it available for the next squadron to form – the PRO records show that it was originally considered for a UK-based Phantom squadron, but the fact that 8 remained extant beyond the point at which all three planned UK F-4 units were formed led to the numberplate being given to the new AEW unit instead.
I forget what the reason for the yellow in 47 Sqn’s colours is off the top of my head (with apologies to the multitude of ex-squadron members I know…), but that has nothing to do with cowardice. From what I can recall, it has something to do with the intervention in Russia.
100 Sqn’s yellow colours come from the colours of Stamford (yellow & blue), with which the sqn was heavily associated in its early years. 31 Sqn’s colour is gold (hence ‘Goldstars’).
One of the key points to research about this ‘yellow streak’ legend is when the squadron adopted its colours (e.g. fighter bars in the inter-war period) and then to work out whether or not the cowardice story has any truth to it. As can be seen, 8 Sqn couldn’t have abandoned their groundcrew to the Turks since there was no occasion other than WW1 when this could have happened, and the squadron wasn’t able to. For instance, 33 Sqn was using yellow numbers on its aircraft during the 1930s. Also check whether battle honours were issued after a campaign where cowardice was alleged – would this have happened if there was a suggestion of such behaviour? Doubtful…
A further problem is that the ‘abandonment’ of the ground crew often arose when the squadron was ordered to fly its aircraft out so as to avoid capture (think of the scenes at the start of Battle of Britain, where those Hurricanes that can fly head for the UK while a serious-looking Chiefy sets light to the unserviceable ones). This was often the only decision the high command could take, and the groundcrew were left to fend for themselves – not through cowardice on the part of aircrew, but because of necessity.
DJJYes, cracking pics, but I think that at least three are later than 1944. The top left is a Firebrand, bottom left a late Seafire (XVII, I think) and then the Hornet. None of these were in service in June 1944 – the Firebrand was on its way to being a bit of a disaster and the bubble-canopied Griffon-engined Seafires didn’t appear until later.
Strikes me that these are from the time when Victorious was in use as a training carrier without an embarked air wing (so about 1947 – 1950). The ship paid off in 1950 to undergo modernisation, finally re-emerging from the dockyard eight (!) years later.
DJJThat takes me back….
“Slide number one: On……. Off”
to
“Slide number thrity: On. Off.”
DJJRob,
That’s appalling.
This is (or was until recently) just the sort of story that local TV stations like (and maybe even Watchdog if you can stand the thought of being interviewed by Nicky Campbell). A friend of mine from college days is now a reporter for BBC news nationally. Her first report, though, was for local radio, covering a dodgy landlord…
I’d also suggest getting in touch with your local MP. Not sure which constituency you live in, but you can find out who the MP is by clicking on http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alcm.cfm and scrolling down to the appropriate initial letter.
Get in touch with the BBC/ITV first. Then get in touch with the MP, preferably talking directly to them rather than a constituency worker. Tell him/her that the media seem very interested in your story. It is quite likely that the MP will perk up at this, since they’ll know that they can get some free publicity (looking sympathetic, trying to help out, etc), while ignoring you isn’t an option (‘Uncaring MP refuses to help, I’m at wit’s end, says local man’ headlines).
Then, get back to the media. It is likely that your MP will mutter something along the lines of ‘this sounds disgraceful’ when speaking to you. If you feel sufficiently bold enough, tell the media that your MP was appalled, and is getting involved. Story is then (even) more newsworthy.
Then, get in touch with the local press – freeby papers that come through the door each week as well as the local evening paper(s). Your story isn’t the ‘cat found asleep on sofa’ that bedevils the pages of most local rags, so they’ll be interested too. If you can find a friendly solicitor who’s willing to profer the opinion to a couple of reportersthat as it stands, the law on this sort of thing is a bit of an ass, then even better.
Once the press start running with this sort of thing, then the target starts running for cover. In the case my friend covered, it transpired that the landlord hadn’t been entirely honest with the Inland Revenue about his income, and his efforts to hold onto a £800 deposit ended up costing him , IIRC either a five-figure or a £5000 tax bill (I don’t remember the exact details, since the story was recounted to me at a rather biblious post-graduation ceremony about twelve years ago…).
Just a thought, butwhatever approach you take, I hope that this gets sorted out for you.
Sign In
