Cold War Intercept

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In the Gulf, RAF Chinooks were flying with many faults. If they weren't making the flight unsafe, they let it go.

That is standard procedure anyhow even in peace time. I am sure the British system is similar to ours. If there is a fault on the aircracft that is not unsafe such as heater vent inop, or 1 inch tear in left rear seat, you mark it as a / For instance the aircraft that I am flying today may have 2 to 4 faults on it right now because we are waiting on parts to arrive to fix the fault. It is not unsafe so we continue to fly it.

There are several symbols:

X: Unsafe fault, aircraft grounded.
Circle X: Serious fault but aircraft may be flown safely with restrictions. For example "Chaff Despenser inop, Aircraft restricted from known hostile environment".
/ Fault on aircraft, not unsafe to fly.
-Scheduled Inspection or maintenance due on aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The same system is used in the USAF except the circle x. The Navy and Marines use a computerized system called NALCOMIS...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We are semi computerized now. We use ULLSA.

 

[plan_D]

That's not what my dad says, unless the aircraft was needed there and then everything would be fixed. When he was on 22 Sqdn. SAR they had a Wessex grounded for a week and a half before he got there because the light on it's tail wasn't rotating. But I don't know how the RAF works now, this is just through the 70s and 80s that I know about.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If the Anti Collision Light is not working (thats the light on the tail you are talking about) you can not fly the aircraft. That is considered a X because it is used to let other aircraft see you. If it is not working you can not fly the aircraft. I am sure the RAF system is very similar to ours. I know the German system is as well as the French and the Swiss. They are all slightly different but I am sure they are very pretty much the same. You do not leave an aircraft grounded because the Tail Rotor Anti Ice is inop in the summer time. You restrict it from flying in Icing Conditions and you go on your way and fly it in the warm weather.

 

[plan_D]

I'm talking about the 70s and 80s here, not nowadays. My dad saw it was changing a lot during the early 90s, so it's probably changed an awful lot now. They'd always try and fix everything on a Lightning when it landed, because I don't think a Lightning has ever landed without a snag.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is the same with us, if we can fix it and have the parts then yes we fix it right there and then. However if the part is not available for lets say 2 weeks and it is not unsafe to fly it, then we keep flying it until then. For instance lets say the lockpin is broken on the tail wheel (it is a pin that locks the tail wheel straight and level, if it is broken then the wheel can not turn left or right) and a new lock pin is not available (which is never true) then we Circle Red X the aircraft, restricting it from ground taxi and we keep flying it. The aircraft is not going to fall out of the sky because of it, we just have to hover taxi where ever we go.

 

[syscom3]

I've been wondering about the missle load for the Lightning. Only two missles?

If the Lightning missed on its first pass, its options for reengagement were limited.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I do agree that that is quite a small weapons package.

 

[102first_hussars]

I've been wondering about the missle load for the Lightning. Only two missles?

If the Lightning missed on its first pass, its options for reengagement were limited.

As long as it has guns its not a big deal, in the early stages of the Air War in Vietnam F-4's could carry six missiles but the lack of guns cost them big time.

 

[plan_D]

The Lightning would carry two BAe Red Tops and two Aden 30mm cannon into combat. The Red Top had a range of seven miles and was designed to intercept low-level agile fighters, there was much more change that it would hit than miss a bomber. Then because of the speed of the Lightning, it's always in the situation to be able to use it's cannon which would rip anything to pieces.

 

[102first_hussars]

There yah go SYS, Now speed is not always a good thing when going to guns on a target, charging your target too fast limits the time you have to accurately aim, I mean shit if you miss you just waisted ammo and fuel.

 

[syscom3]

I suspect the Lightning would have fuel issues for a re-attack scenario.

 

[plan_D]

At the full extent of the Lightning's combat range, it would be capable of around three passes on target. The first would be able to attack two targets with it's missiles, and the other two would be against anything else in it's area of attack. If really needed plenty of tankers would already be about somewhere, if not the single Lightning can go home, but there's always the rest of the squadron to follow which would already be up in the air by the time the first (most likely two) would have to go home.

I'll have to ask my dad about doomsday scrambles, but they could have RAF Binbrook empty of all operational Lightnings (about 24 normally) in 20-30 minutes, maybe less. During that time others would be coming home, being refuelled and rearmed then sent back up.

And pilot gunnery training over Cyprus kept RAF pilots in tip-top shape for gunnery. My dad saw plenty of 'targets' splattered by firing Lightnings over the Med.

 

[HealzDevo]

Actually is it becoming a case with aircraft of 'Jack of All Trades and Master of None'? When you look at it there are compromises that need to be made to accomodate all the different capabilities these aircraft need to perform. Does this mean we could see a generation of aircraft coming that are useless against pure-purpose aircraft? That is the real question which only time will answer...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

holy crap where do you keep dragging these threads up from and what's that got to do with the topic?

either way aircraft have to go that way because it's damn expensive to have a single aircraft per job, the Typhoon's primarily an air-to-air fighter but has a secondary ground attack role, the only ones who can afford a single plane-single role plan to some extent is America with the F-22 which is a pure all out Fighter, and because of that is arguably the best fighter in the world, of course the ideal is to have one type per role but at what cost? and think how hard the logistics of that would be!

 

[Matt308]

And even the F-22 is being outfitted with air-to-gnd capability with addition of multiple SDB in the bays.

 

[HealzDevo]

All I was pointing out was that there are some things that could cause major problems in combat, with having to perform different roles, ie. add ground attack and you are sacrificing missile bays on a fighter that could be used to add in more ATA missiles...