I know that at events like this they need to be careful, but i’ve always wondered what would terrorists ahve to gain by attacking something that is an inherently global event like the World Cup or Olympics? It’s a lot different plowing planes into buildings that symbolise global capitalism in one of the central cities of the West, and hitting a stadium full of people from every nation on Earth celebrating something that (as far as I know) no religion has a problem with. And lets not forget that even the states we know to sponsor terrorism take part in these events, so the terrorists would **** off their financiers too.

It doesn’t follow any ideological or political point that I can find, it just demonstrates a contempt for humanity as a whole.

Back to topic, so its just the handful of Gripens on patrol then? That does seem a little thin by comparison to most large events. I’d heard that SA have a pilot problem too, something to do with trying to equalise the race mixture of fighter pilots and tossing out some of the good pilots based solely on race.

On the other hand, if they don’t approve such a project ASAP, they can kiss goodbye to two export prospects, India and Japan. Neither will want a Typhoon with a M-Scan Captor when others with AESA are being offered.

I thought that one of the possibilities for Japan was to let their industry develop an AESA of their own. Although an AESA really would help for India.

Did you see the smiley?

If you did and still need an answer, google youtube “airbus crash” for the video of the computer system flying the jet into the trees despite everything the crew tried to do to prevent this from happening.

Ah so a malfunction is proof computers can’t work as well as a human? Humans never malfunction and the majority of aviation accidents aren’t due to human error?

Yeh I saw the smiley but I was curious as to what you meant, the airbus reference had the whiff of bashing about it.

Tango, why did you post the same video again?

And you can clearly see the undercarriage down, that Telegraph report was wrong.

From a layman’s point of view what got me was how little time the pilot had under the fully inflated chute before hitting the ground, it’s only about 3 seconds.
I’d have thought that a “zero-zero” seat would have taken the pilot higher, so that in a worst case scenario there would be room to steer away from the burning aircraft.

He didn’t seem to land too close to it in the video, and the rockets always seem to kick the occupant out at a slightly different angle to vertical.

And time doesn’t matter as long as it’s enough for the pilot to survive the landing.

This is only a supposition, but wouldn’t the Alpha jet be a better training introduction for going on to front-line fighters (all RAF fighters being twin-engined) in having two engines, ie to practice the handling of two engines, single engine flight, assymetrics etc?
It has to be said though that the Hawk just looks so much more modern!

Harrier? Eventually F35?

The RAF seem to be perfectly happy with Hawk, seems no reason to change.