Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About ghb180658

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/18/1958

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

1,038 profile views
  1. Sparrows (AIM-7E2/3) were white with a light gray nose. As far as I know SkyFlash didn't get into service with the RN and there were relatively few around when I joined 29 Sqn in early 1980, so assuming you are modelling an FG1 still in Navy service then white it is.
  2. My recollection from my time on the F3 is that a 4-tank fit was NOT in the Release to Service, we could fly with either the 1500ltr or the 2250ltr tanks. It may have been technically possible and BAE may have trialled such a fit (or Boscombe Down) but I am 99% certain such a fit was never used on a Squadron; it was not needed in any of our deployment scenarios with AAR available.
  3. I believe it is the impending demise of RAF Leuchars that has triggered this. No interest in the Army for looking after old airframes knocking around their "new patch", so loose ends need tidying up before the estate is handed over. It isn't even an official gate guard so it needs a new owner and home or it will be destined for the scrap man as per the link. Geoff
  4. Correct, bleed air and BLC were on both the FG1 and FGR2. A Bleed Air Duct failure was a major emergency and a BLC Malfunction was significant as you had to get the speed back below 250kts so you could put the flaps down, as bleed air was still being pushed into the wing even with the flaps up. Checking the BLC was part of the functional pre-flights as Jabba said.
  5. ghb180658


    Integration of ASRAAM onto the GR4 was first proposed around 98/99 as it would have effectively allowed the removal of the Sidewinder from the UK inventory. The quote from BAE to do a basic integration was prohibitive so it will have taken that long to either find money in the programme, get a sensible quote, or do the integration as a UOR (probably for Libya).Geoff
  6. Other way round, late on some FGR2s had FG1 (slotted) stabilators fitted. Extendable nose wheel oleo never fitted to an FGR2 as far as I am aware. Geoff
  7. By the mid 80s we were using SkyFlash and 9Ls as the primary weapons. These were loaded for QRA(I) in UK and Battle Flight in Germany but we still had Sparrow and 9Gs available.Take your pick! Geoff
  8. Fair enough, I was on the SAR working group back then and we relied on specialist inputs regarding the pros and cons and the example I quoted was given to the group, you can tell from my Avatar that my background is not SAR - more likely to have been a potential customer and we had great faith in them. Back then the case was made that mil SARops were less restricted. Sounds like CAP999 has addressed that now but it was a documented example which I used to try and answer the question about differences. Things do change and move on; this has been coming despite much resistance and I have no doubt that Bristows will do a good job but it will be a pity when SAR Yellow is a thing of the past.
  9. Taking SAR from the RAF/RN was an issue back in the SDR in 1997. One of the arguments that won the day back then was that Coastguard Helos were on the civil register and therefore had to fly within CAA limits and rules (such as weather minima and diversions). Mil SAR flys under military rules which are less stringent - they count as "ops". Example was a mission in very poor weather in the Bristol Channel using both civ and mil assets. As the weather deteriorated the Coastguard helo had no diversion options according to CAA rules so had to RTB, Chivenor Sea King used the beach as their "diversion" and stayed on task, although unsuccessful in finding the missing person. Does this happen often? Probably not and it may have changed as capability of the new Helos move on. Is that an acceptable risk? Answer probably. Not sure what the CAA line is these days but there are differences between what the military and civil Helos are allowed to do. The other factor is that there are far fewer FJ aircraft around these days and dare I say that Typhoon and Tornado are somewhat more reliable than earlier generation aircraft. In effect the mil task these days is tiny but it is a big PR loss for both the RN and RAF.
  10. Chris, I wasn't having a go at you. The fault lies with whoever suggested to you that MOD had shut down any investigation because it was on MOD land. They can't and that comment wherever it came from implies some sort of cover up rather than trying to find out what happened and simply isn't a reflection of what you have to do following an incident like this. The process is quite clear these days (and has been for some time) that any incident like this must effectively be treated as a potential crime scene - just like closing motorways after serious RTAs - and that the (civil) Police have primacy. If there isn't a fatality or other complications then the Police are usually quite happy to hand over to the BoI but they do keep an interest and ultimately there will be a Coroner's inquiry into his death. The BoI process is also meticulous not surprisingly - we had plenty of practice back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. So I read "shutting down investigations" plus the implication that "senior officers" would be "sloping shoulders" as just part of the prevalent tone of comments so often seen which eventually gets my goat. Normally I just sigh and let it pass but my irritation came out in answering your question about Police involvement. Sadly as was eloquently put above the only person who probably knew exactly what happened can't tell us. Geoff
  11. Put simply the Police have primacy and jurisdiction regardless of whether it is MOD property or not. As the article says Lincs Police have handed a file to the CPS so the suggestion that MOD shut down an investigation I'm afraid is ill informed, albeit popular, MOD bashing. It is the outcome of the inquiry, and once the CPS decide what action, if any, it will in due course pass to the Coroner. While we are at it, on what basis is the suggestion that senior officers will develop sloping shoulders? Fact or an easy cheap jibe?
  12. Yes they did, but not sharing with the Dutch. They were on alert to cover policing the northern half of West German airspace (2 ATAF) along with the Wildenrath wing - 2 aircraft each on RS05. We called it Battle Flight. Bitburg provided the 4 ATAF element for the southern half of West Germany. The quirk here was that the German Air Force could not police their own airspace which was a legacy of the agreements by the occupying powers - USA, UK, USSR and France. France did not participate so covered by the USAF and RAF in the West and the Soviet Air Force in East Germany. The Dutch and the West Germans held NATO QRA(I) but the Germans could effectively only operate in international airspace over the North Sea and Baltic. NATO would have happily let the GAF police West German airspace but the Soviets would not agree which is why it only changed after the wall came down. Geoff
  13. I have had this discussion with both FAA and RAF pilots who have done exchange tours with the USN about possible conventional carrier ops post Invincible class. True it doesn't have to be a nuclear reactor to generate steam but my understanding is that separate boilers to produce steam were not deemed efficient enough to support combat sortie rates of a modern CAG - to do that you use a nuclear reactor or you need new tech such as EMALS. That was a determining factor in original CVF options. Answering Jens's question "what technology are the French using" - nuclear reactor to generate sufficient steam.
  14. To consistently generate enough steam for jet ops you need a nuclear reactor. Once it was decided UK would not go into nuclear powered carriers steam cats were not practical. CDG is a nuclear powered ship.
  15. Your info is wrong; I was at RAF Stanley from Nov 82 to Apr 83 and I can personally confirm that info is correct. Ten FGR2s were deployed with XV468 damaged in a landing incident and was beyond repair in theatre - they had all arrived by end of Sep 82. Those three were most likely the first to arrive. In time the aircraft were rotated and of course dropped to four aircraft when it changed to 1435 Flight. Geoff
  • Create New...