LOL LL! Are there any 2s still about?
I expect that Tornado F2, serial ZD902, is still active at Boscombe?
Post from late 2009
‘Active Fleet
Tornado F’s
ZD902 Tornado F.2 no marks
ZE203/GA Tornado F.3 43Sqn marks
ZE794/FL Tornado F.3 25Sqn marks
ZH555/PT Tornado F.3 111Sqn marks’
http://fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1393
TJ
There will more recent declarations. As part of the CFE treaty the UK has to declare the holdings every year.
See following link covering holdings from 1997 to 2008
‘Table 4.13 Aircraft Holdings in the UK, Germany, Cyprus & Gibraltar within the scope of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, at 1 January each year’
The key ‘2’ denotes ‘Obsolete non-operational equipment used as training aids, gate guardians and museum pieces on CFE declared sites.’
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2008/c4/table413.html
TJ
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) – Destruction/Reduction methods.
See section 4 for list of combat aircraft types covered by the treaty.
http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/protocols/exist_equip.htm
‘4. Existing types of combat aircraft are:’
http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/protocols/reduction.htm#VI
‘SECTION VI. PROCEDURES FOR THE REDUCTION OF COMBAT AIRCRAFT BY DESTRUCTION
1. Each State Party shall have the right to choose any one
of the following sets of procedures each time it carries out the destruction of combat aircraft at reduction sites.
2. Procedure for destruction by severing: the fuselage of the aircraft shall be divided into three parts not on assembly joints by severing its nose immediately forward of the cockpit and its tail in the central wing section area so that assembly joints, if there are any in the areas to be severed, shall be contained in the severed portions.
3. Procedure for destruction by deformation:
the fuselage shall be deformed throughout by compression, so that its height, width or length is reduced by at least 30 percent.’
‘SECTION VII. PROCEDURES FOR THE REDUCTION OF ATTACK HELICOPTERS BY DESTRUCTION
1. Each State Party shall have the right to choose any one of the following sets of procedures each time it carries out the destruction of attack helicopters at reduction sites.
2. Procedure for destruction by severing:
(A) the tail boom or tail part shall be severed from the fuselage so that the assembly joint is contained in the severed portion; and
(B) at least two transmission mounts on the fuselage shall be severed, fused or deformed.
3. Procedure for destruction by explosive demolition: any type and number of explosives may be used so that, at a minimum, after detonation the fuselage is cut into two pieces through that section of the fuselage that contains the transmission mounting area.
4. Procedure for destruction by deformation: the fuselage shall be deformed throughout by compression so that its height, width or length is reduced by at least 30 percent.’
http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/protocols/reduction.htm#X
‘SECTION X. PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION BY MEANS OF STATIC DISPLAY
1. Each State Party shall have the right to reduce by means of static display a certain number of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty.
2. No State Party shall use static display to reduce more than one percent or eight items, whichever is the greater number, of its maximum levels for holdings it declared at the signature of the Treaty for each category of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty.
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Section, each State Party also shall have the right to retain in working order two items of each existing type of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty for the purpose of static display. Such conventional armaments and equipment shall be displayed at museums or other similar sites.
4. Conventional armaments and equipment placed on static display or in museums prior to the signature of the Treaty shall not be subject to any numerical limitations set forth in the Treaty, including the numerical limitations set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Section.
5. Such items to be reduced by means of static display shall undergo the following procedures at reduction sites:
(A) all items to be displayed that are powered by self- contained engines shall have their fuel tanks rendered incapable of holding fuel and:
(1) have their engine(s) and transmission removed and their mounts damaged so that these pieces cannot be refitted; or’
‘SECTION XII. PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION BY USE FOR GROUND INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES
1. Each State Party shall have the right to reduce by use for ground instructional purposes a certain number of combat aircraft and attack helicopters.
2. No State Party shall reduce by use for ground instructional purposes numbers of combat aircraft or attack helicopters greater than five percent of its maximum level for holdings in each of those two categories as notified at the signature of the Treaty pursuant to Article VII of the Treaty.
3. Conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in use for ground instructional purposes prior to the signature of the Treaty shall not be subject to any numerical limitations set forth in Article IV, V or VI of the Treaty, or the numerical limitations set forth in paragraph 2 of this Section.
4. Such items to be reduced by use for ground instructional purposes shall undergo the following procedures at reduction sites:
(A) for combat aircraft:
(1) severing of the fuselage into two parts in the central wing area;
(2) removal of engines, mutilation of engine mounting points and either filling of all fuel tanks with concrete, polymer or resin setting compounds or removal of the fuel tanks and mutilation of the fuel tank mounting points; or
(3) removal of all internal, external and removable armament and armament systems equipment, removal of the tail fin and mutilation of the tail fin mounting points, and filling of all but one fuel tank with concrete, polymer or resin setting compounds; and
(B) for attack helicopters: severing of the tail boom or tail part from the fuselage so that the assembly joint is contained in the severed portion.
(2) have their engine compartment filled with concrete or a polymer resin;’
http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/protocols/poet_update.htm
TJ
Does this apply to the “Tonka” ? I thought as a defensive weapon it sits outside of START or SALT or whatever the agreement was ? Besides, they were never much of a threat and I would imagine that the “Bell” design has more chance of keeping station with a Tu-95 during an intercept than a F2 or F3 ever could !:eek:
A huge pile of carp that should never have seen service….
All Tornado variants come under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE). Only heavy nuclear capable strategic bombers such as Tu-160, Tu-95, B-2 and B-52 come under START/SORT/SALT.
TJ
Can anyone assist Hank with the history of ZE728?
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/416119-history-tornado-f3-ze728.html
TJ
That is a nice first Orao image. Very dramatic with the muzzle blast.
TJ
A quick search on PPRuNe brings up the following.
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/111797-did-you-fly-vulcan-merged-15.html
Post #284 from PN.
‘The Carrier was the Ark, the Shack was out in FEAF. They got the carrier discrete comms and simply called up for a CCA.
The Navy reputedly thought they were going for a landing rather than an overshoot.
About 64 or 65.’
See post #1400 for Vulcan flying approach to carrier.
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/111797-did-you-fly-vulcan-merged-70.html
See post #13 for Nimrod approach to carrier.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/377355-navy-pilot-ad.html
‘I dont know about Shack v’s CVN but I have been on a Nimrod doing a PAR to one in the Med. I think the guys on the deck found the 100′ overshoot even more exciting than we did …’
TJ
Well you did’nt miss much re the Typhoon. It was the quietest and most restrained display i have ever seen by one. Hopefully he’s saving himself for the actual display.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/typhoondisplay/displayprogramme/the_display.cfm
http://www.raf.mod.uk/typhoondisplay/theteam/pilot.cfm
TJ
‘Spitfire makes emergency landing in Lincolnshire’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8679033.stm
TJ
The Lancaster landed back at RAF Coningsby after its air test. All appeared to be well.
Spitfire, serial MK356, had problems today with undercarriage/hydraulics. It was in the circuit at RAF Coningsby for a lengthy period with the Pilot trying to sort out the problem. Last heard on the scanner attempting a landing on the grass at RAF Cranwell North due to the possibility of undercarriage collapsing. Sounded like a successful landing on the scanner.
TJ
EELightning wrote
The RAF would’ve lost a whole lot less aircraft and aircrew, if any, if the ALARM had been in service that little sooner so other Tornado’s could take out the airfields defence.
ALARM was used during the start of the campaign. JP233 was also deployed by Saudi Tornados.
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t118403.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/january16-22.html#16
‘January 16th/17th
The first Allied air operations against Iraqi targets were mounted overnight including attacks on the capital, Baghdad.
Tornado GR1s from Muharraq, Tabuk and Dhahran attacked enemy airfields using JP233 anti-runway munitions and 1,000lb bombs. Additionally, Air-Launched Anti-Radiation Missiles (ALARMs) were used for Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) operations. Air-to-air refuelling (AAR) support was provided by VC10 K2/3 and Victor K2 aircraft.’
http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/gulfhome.html
TJ
Syrian relations were poor. Syrian troops were part of the Coalition and fought against Iraqi forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War
TJ
Jessmo24 & Cola1973,
The UK wasn’t the only nation flying low level missions during 1991. The initial phase of the campaign was at low level for many of the players. F-111s, F-15Es and even B-52s were in those initial days flown at low level to strike targets. A number of B-52Gs suffered combat damage at low level. One F-15Es was lost during a low-level mission near Basra. Again during this low level phase other Coalition aircraft suffered damage. One French Jaguar returned with its tail shredded.
After the initial part of the low level phase CENTAF ordered the switch to medium level operatations. 12,000ft was the minimum level that weapons could be employed. Details of the low level phase were highlighted in Operation Desert Storm – Evaluation of the Air Campaign – General Accounting Office – House of Representatives.
B-52 low level info.
Colonel Ramsay bio
‘In January 1991 he was the flight leader for the first night, low-level combat mission ever flown by a B-52G, leading 14 aircraft to strike five Iraqi airfields in the opening minutes of Operation Desert Storm.’
http://www.151arw.ang.af.mil/resources/biographies/bio.asp?id=10878
‘On 17 January 1991, seven B-52Gs, known as the “Doom Flight”, took off from Barksdale AFB in Louisiana to help kick off the air campaign. They performed a flight that lasted 35 hours and took them almost halfway around the world to launch 35 CALCMs and then go back home. The routes of the missiles were planned so that they would impact almost simultaneously, and 33 of them hit their assigned targets. That same day, the B-52G followed up this strike with the first low-level attacks conducted by the type after decades of training. Buffs swept into Iraqi airspace at an altitude of 90 meters (300 feet) to pound four airbases and a highway.
With Iraqi air defenses disabled, the B-52Gs then returned to high-altitude bombing, with three-ship formations pounding Iraqi troops concentrations in Iraq with 340 kilogram (750 pound) bombs and cluster bombs. The B-52 performed 1,600 sorties in the Gulf War and dropped 22,725 tonnes (25,000 tons) of munitions.’
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb52_2.html
Major James Riggens, USAF also highlights the initial low-level phase in the following.
‘Brilliant Attack: The Need For Autonomous Standoff Weapons in Airfield Attack Missions’
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA293645&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
See also accounts online of low level operations – B-52 Stratofortress Units in Operation Desert Storm by Jon Lake
http://www.fighterpilots.net/Iraq.htm
Account by EF-111 pilot on 17th January 1991 providing the jamming for strike packages. He highlights the following ’10 F-111Fs and 2 Mud-Eagles (F-15Es) were coming in on the deck against two different targets.’
See online pages of ‘F-15E Strike Eagle in Combat 1991-2005 by Steve Davies’
F-15E
‘On the first night of the war there were 21 F-15Es that went into Iraq. The original plan was for 18, but three more were added near the start time…… Once the refuelling was completed , we headed north and descended to low level…. We were all on the Terrain Following Radar at 200ft in radio silence – the pilots were hand-flying the TFR steering while concentrating on the FLIR picture in the HUD …..
Operations at low-level has never gone away from either the USAF nor RAF tactics. Low level is still a valid tactic and deployed on numerous training exercises such as Red Flag, etc.
TJ
pfcem , you gave us this link :
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/08/f-35c-spoiler-alert.html
which proves (if it was needed) that the F-35 has aerodynamics problems . Thank you :diablo:
Jessmo , flying low over the desert (flat and nowhere to hide) is indeed a bad idea . This is not how the Rafale would fly such missions 😉
Over Serbia (European landscape) during the Kosovo Campaign , only ONE aircraft was capable to fly low and hit Serbian targets : the M2000s , while the USAF F-16s provided the targeting (;):)) . Out of hundreds of sorties , we only lost one aircraft .
I don ‘t think we would have lost a Rafale in such game 😉Cheers .
Bluewings,
There were no French manned aircraft losses during Allied Force in 1999. You are probably thinking of the Mirage 2000 lost over Bosnia during Operation Deliberate Force in 1995? Nothing to do with Kosovo. The only manned aircraft losses during 1999 were the F-117A and an F-16CG.
The Mirage 2000 wasn’t the only aircraft capable of doing so, not sure where you are going with that one? The lower altitude missions were severely restricted during the conflict and only in certain areas.
Politics kept the majority of NATO air power at medium altitude in order to minimise losses. The last thing that NATO wanted was for aircrew to take unnecessary risks by breaking the strict 15,000 feet rule imposed. Later in the the conflict certain types such as A-10s were permitted to go lower. The aim was to keep aircrew from being captured and paraded as part of the Yugoslav war effort.
TJ
I wonder why this forum got the offhand remarks on the original post?
http://www.fightercontrol.uk
“Thanks for your assistance in advance, which is always appreciated.”
http://www.pprune.org
“Thanks for your assistance in advance, which is always appreciated.”
http://forums.airshows.co.uk
“Thanks for your assistance in advance, which is always appreciated.”
Al,
To assist I posted the request on a number of forums that I am a member of. I then edited the posts as the original post was updated.
Original post edited
‘Last edited by Stormin’; 4th May 2010 at 21:19. Reason: Realised how rude original sounded, no offence intended.’
My edits on the forums you listed.
‘Last edited by T_J on Tue May 04, 2010 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by TEEEJ : Yesterday at 21:42.
Last edited by T_J on Tue 04 May 2010, 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.’
TJ