QRA Types
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matkat, I think you find that Buccaneers never did Q.
There is an unofficial (as far as I know) usage that QRA held by the bombers was always QRA whereas that held by the interceptors was Q. Both were QRA but Q was perhaps quicker both to say and to do.
A bomber QRA, while quick, would always stop short of the scramble and may well have had pauses at cockpit readiness. A Q scramble OTOH was often crew room to airborne with no intermediate readiness states.
There is an unofficial (as far as I know) usage that QRA held by the bombers was always QRA whereas that held by the interceptors was Q. Both were QRA but Q was perhaps quicker both to say and to do.
A bomber QRA, while quick, would always stop short of the scramble and may well have had pauses at cockpit readiness. A Q scramble OTOH was often crew room to airborne with no intermediate readiness states.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
newt, correct. It gave the sy guys heartache and palpitations as it rather made the two-man principle a little tricky once the aircraft taxied.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
T O, I think you will need to reword your question.
Do you mean how was security maintained before a scramble or how it would be handled after the scramble? Or something else?
Do you mean how was security maintained before a scramble or how it would be handled after the scramble? Or something else?
I have always understood that one of the reasons for the two man rule was to prevent someone "going rogue" and delivering, even if a recall had been sent. How was this dealt with in a single seater ?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
As mentioned earlier TO, that question certainly taxed the minds of the human reliability experts. As with other purely British controlled systems, NATO always had issues of ultimate control. Would we go it alone and effectively force the nuclear issue?
Of course the Jaguar was not the only singlle-seat strike aircraft on QRA in NATO.
The main precaution was control inside the gate.
now I am speculating but once that gate was opened, if the aircraft received a scramble order, unlike Strike Command, distance from take-off to target was so short that launch was unlikely to be ordered with out release too.
In the event that there was a hold post gate opening then I believe other physical restraints were available to the fore commander.
Once airborne then it would have been strictly one man one bomb. There was no magic permissive action link as with US weapons and Dr Strangeglove. We could not afford the technology nor did we think that available technology would hae been sufficiently robust.
Of course the Jaguar was not the only singlle-seat strike aircraft on QRA in NATO.
The main precaution was control inside the gate.
now I am speculating but once that gate was opened, if the aircraft received a scramble order, unlike Strike Command, distance from take-off to target was so short that launch was unlikely to be ordered with out release too.
In the event that there was a hold post gate opening then I believe other physical restraints were available to the fore commander.
Once airborne then it would have been strictly one man one bomb. There was no magic permissive action link as with US weapons and Dr Strangeglove. We could not afford the technology nor did we think that available technology would hae been sufficiently robust.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Wholigan, distance is relative, now I call Ballykelly to Istanbul, via Kiev, a VERY VERY long way 
Seriously, the distance from dispersal to go line in most cases for the V-force was further than your targets. Like the V-force I am sure you planned to recover somewhere.
Seriously, the distance from dispersal to go line in most cases for the V-force was further than your targets. Like the V-force I am sure you planned to recover somewhere.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oberbayern
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would perhaps be inappropriate to discuss targets - even so long after we had them.
I know F-A about Jagwahs and their targets, but I assume that the crews (those who might be required to drop nukes) were assessed in a similar manner to the rest of us.
Yes, we were cleared, but the clearances weren't based solely on who we were sleeping with - or on whether that person was of the same sex.
The people who operated nuclear armed aircraft were expected to be (and the clearance attempted to prove that they were) 'reliable'.
I didn't want to go to war - had I wanted to go to war, I would perhaps have unsuitable.
I didn't want to kill many thousands of people - Again, had I done so, I would have been unsuitable.
If, however, you (Soviet bloc, in my day) intended to come to the UK and drop nukes on us (me, my friends and family) then I was quite prepared to go over and bring a little sunshine (a whole bucket full) into your life.
Deterrents work if the people you use them against believe that if they start a nuclear war, you are prepared to retaliate. They (it seems) believed that and both I and several hundred of my colleagues were prepared to retaliate.
That may be (in part) why the deterrent worked.
Yes, we had a 'two man principle' - my co-pilot held a gun on me when I went up the stepladder with my key to work on the bomb ... Silly, really - He didn't know what I was doing and anyway, if I was going to fly there (and perhaps get my arse shot off) why would I want to go with a dud?
'Two man principle'? - Sounds good (politically.)
A 'one man principle' works just as well if you pick the right guys.
I know F-A about Jagwahs and their targets, but I assume that the crews (those who might be required to drop nukes) were assessed in a similar manner to the rest of us.
Yes, we were cleared, but the clearances weren't based solely on who we were sleeping with - or on whether that person was of the same sex.
The people who operated nuclear armed aircraft were expected to be (and the clearance attempted to prove that they were) 'reliable'.
I didn't want to go to war - had I wanted to go to war, I would perhaps have unsuitable.
I didn't want to kill many thousands of people - Again, had I done so, I would have been unsuitable.
If, however, you (Soviet bloc, in my day) intended to come to the UK and drop nukes on us (me, my friends and family) then I was quite prepared to go over and bring a little sunshine (a whole bucket full) into your life.
Deterrents work if the people you use them against believe that if they start a nuclear war, you are prepared to retaliate. They (it seems) believed that and both I and several hundred of my colleagues were prepared to retaliate.
That may be (in part) why the deterrent worked.
Yes, we had a 'two man principle' - my co-pilot held a gun on me when I went up the stepladder with my key to work on the bomb ... Silly, really - He didn't know what I was doing and anyway, if I was going to fly there (and perhaps get my arse shot off) why would I want to go with a dud?
'Two man principle'? - Sounds good (politically.)
A 'one man principle' works just as well if you pick the right guys.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
M de V, my post was based on an article previously published in both popular and academic press. Would you like the target list? Starts with A. The Jaguar target I didn't mention began with N and was used in the Weapons Employment Course. It was unclassified even at the time. If you sat on a big juicy airfield the otherside of the IGB you were a target!
There have been several articles and there is the parallel history project.
There have been several articles and there is the parallel history project.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
matkat, I believe the point being made was that bombers and fighters both did QRA but that bomber pukes called it QRA and fighter jocks called it Q.
The distinction was meaningless but just one of those habits that we garage mechanics adopted.
The distinction was meaningless but just one of those habits that we garage mechanics adopted.
