Cold War Intercept

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-27-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

I know in the caf the maintainers shifts lasted until all were servicable

firstly if you mean the Canadian AF it's the RCAF, and secondly the RCAF didn't operate the lightening so what're you on about?

Quote:

the thing had no legs which is a huge disadvantage for an interceptor

not really, summit's picked up on RADAR, an intercepter's sent up to greet it, once the threat's dealt with come back to land, it's pretty much straight up and straight down again, it's what intercepters are designed for!

pbfoot · 11-27-2005, 01:19 PM

it is not the rcaf and hasn't been since 1968 further i was complimenting the raf guys for keeping a complex early interceptor airborne its a tough job I almost bet that if you could get 2-3 launches out of any early interceptor without a snag or 2 it was a good day and i think you'll find an intercept was more complex then pointing the a/c at the target the gci guys have to sort out targets from decoys there is ecm involved and the lightning for all its attributes did not have good range

Glider · 11-27-2005, 01:27 PM

FJ the F35 is one of my favourites. There was one version which had a more powerful engine but they didn't do anything about the amount of fuel it could carry. As a result, in certain conditions it could still be accelerating when the fuel ran out, a scary thought.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-27-2005, 01:44 PM

Man Lanc even I could figure out what pbfoot was talking about.

plan_D · 11-27-2005, 08:43 PM

The Lightning didn't need a long range, it was stationed in Britain and Germany. Both areas of operation for the Lightning were small, and it was clearly a defensive fighter. The range was never a problem that hampered the ability of the Lightning as a point defence interceptor. It followed the same defensive attitude that the RAF had for decades before with the Spitfire, short range but excellent ability.

The RAF ground crews were/are good. The Lightning never landed without a snag but most were just minor problems, that would still let it fly in desperate situations. In the Gulf, RAF Chinooks were flying with many faults. If they weren't making the flight unsafe, they let it go.

The Lightning did have short range, but it didn't need long range. It wasn't an escort fighter or anything.

The Lightning was maintenance intensive, but the RAF ground crews kept them flying all the time because they were well trained. It doesn't matter how hard something is to fly or fix as long as people are trained properly on them.

The Lightning had a high stall speed, and a high landing speed but the RAF pilots were trained. They knew the capability and inability of the Lightning. The Lightning only had two speeds, fast and stop ...and the RAF pilots knew it.

But all the "problems" of the Lightning don't defeat the fact that it was the best interceptor on the planet for decades. And even today would be hard to beat to target.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-28-2005, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

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 · 11-28-2005, 10:02 AM

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-28-2005, 01:14 PM

We are semi computerized now. We use ULLSA.

plan_D · 11-29-2005, 01:37 AM

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 · 11-29-2005, 11:41 AM

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 · 11-30-2005, 04:00 AM

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 · 12-01-2005, 12:24 PM

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 · 12-01-2005, 12:29 PM

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 · 12-02-2005, 01:24 PM

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

102first_hussars · 12-03-2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.