The venerable JPs had a UUPI - an ultrasonic undercarriage position indicator which gave a short burst of beeps when a transmission was made with landing gear down. Inaudible to the pilots, but picked up by ATC - so if no beeps were heard, a 'check gear' call would be made.

I can recall only one of my colleagues making a gear up approach and getting a red flare. He did the same thing in a Hunter...and eventually became a navigator.

No doubt with progress, such things are no longer considered 'cost efficient'? (UUPIs, I mean, not navigators. But then again....:E )

What used to be called "brainstorming" I think.

But that phrase is now non-PC because it may offend epileptics.

And no - sadly - i'm not making that one up.......

The JP also had a small bright white lamp on the nose that flashed continuously when the landing gear was down. Another useful indication to ATC and the caravan controller during night flying.

Reading Robert Jackson's book Hawker Hunter The Operational Record*, it is interesting to note the number of fast jet pilots trained on the Hunter alone in 1955:

When once we had an air force, eh BV?

*That's me taxying in on p 48, not 'taking off' as the picture caption states! Summer of '76 and a single-seat Hunter - it was a fantastic time!

Just a shame that the Hunter F.1 could not fire its weapons at altitude without flaming out most of the time. And when it did the cartridge shells damaged the underside of the fuselage. That's always assuming the aircraft could get far enough from its home airfield before the fuel ran out.

Perhaps not the best example to use as an example of 'when we had an air force'. Now if you'd said Hunter F.4...

Cheap shot BEagle! ;)

I've never debated if it was bigger back then. Those who remember it will all undoubtedly say it was better.

I'm not going to give my 'times have changed' speech but consider this.

An entire wing of Hunters with 1950s vintage bombs and a four ship of Typhoons with modern weapons.

How many targets could each reliably claim to destroy? And which could defend itself better at the same time?

I feel sure I would have loved the Air Force of yesteryear as much as you evidently did, but as I sit, beer in hand, by the pool of a lovely hotel in Muscat I don't exactly hate my job.

BV

Another perspective:

If you began with 4 Typhoons and trained realistically for a year; at the end you would still have 4 Typhoons and all the the pilots . What would the attrition rate have done to your force strength of Hunters?

Of course, much of the improvement is down to better equipment design and maintenance, but how much of the reduction in accident rate has been achieved by improved training? A significant proportion of the accident rate of previous generations is attributable to the aircrew, who were the products of training system that is regarded as so much better than today's by the rose-tinted spectacle brigade.

And if just one of your Typhoon pilots was down with a cold, you'd have lost 25% of your fleet strength.

Quantity has a quality all of its own....

I had a bet with myself (which of course I can't prove) that the 'quantity has a quality of its own' quote would materialise imminently.

I'll grant you the illness angle. I'll still wager the targets would be better served by a 3 ship of Typhoons.

BV

Pilot illness.

Are Typhoons on a one pilot- one airframe crewing ratio then? Shirley not.

CG

BV wrote: Which assumes that the targets aren't too widely dispersed. Although the Typhoon is supremely capable, unlike the 'Hunter wing' to which you referred earlier, it cannot be in 2 parts of the world at the same time...:hmm:

From Hawker Hunter The Operational Record:

Those 120 jets were just TWU aircraft, of course 4FTS had its own Hawks too.

Whereas now....:rolleyes:??

Wouldn't the "real" choice now be between Typhoons with modern weapons and more of something as cheap to make as a Hunter that also had modern weapons?

Unless you equip the Hunter with DAS, ECM, Expendables, TRD, Link16, radar, AMRAAM, Litening pod, AAR etc then it is still not as survivable/useful in a high threat environment. Might as well go with the typhoon.

The Hunter was already hampered by the lack of any AAMs back in the 1970s...

On the topic of numbers, at the end of 1956 the RAF had 16 squadrons of Hunters stationed at Biggin Hill, Church Fenton, Duxford, Leuchars, Linton-on-Ouse, North Weald, Odiham, Tangmere, Waterbeach and Wattisham. A total of 8 radar-equipped 'night fighter' squadrons, flying either the Venom NF3 or Meteor NF12/14, were stationed at the same aerodromes, together with several RAuxAF squadrons of Meteor F8s........

BEagle,

What a lovely airshow Air Force we had! And just a year later most of it was gone, and for good reason.There was precious little for the fleets of Hunters and Javelins to do. They were defending against an almost non existent threat. The Russian manned bomber force barely existed and was being run down quickly and severely. The main threat to the UK was from the large force of MRBM's and future ICBM's and SLBM's, a threat to which there was no answer, certainly of a defensive type, the Hunters and Javelins were totally and completely ineffective against them, the main defence being the building V Force. Fighter Command was no longer responsible for defending the UK from air attack, it was purely responsible for defending the V and Thor force and letting it get off the ground, even the about to be introduced Bloodhound SAGW force was positioned entirely to defend the deterrent for a few hours.
The Tory 1957 Defence cuts removed the conventional element of RAFG and all that was left were nuclear Canberras and 2 Hunter FR10 squadrons of 9 a/c a piece, and a small AD force for our national Germany/Berlin air policing commitment.
So all the Hunters and Venoms in Germany went too, leaving a tiny RAFG and a tiny Fighter Command.

t43562.

I believe the real choice is exactly as I said. If you have read the conversation then I'm not sure how you came up with your scenario. As someone else alluded to, a Hunter with modern weapons would be a Typhoon!

BEagle.

I'm not sure why I persist with this conversation. If you haven't got it yet I guess you never will.

My overriding question is that if you are so patently unhappy with the modern RAF why don't you just let it go? I can clearly only speak for the FJ community but from where I'm sat it's not all that bad. A student passing through the modern system (different from what you remember but still very good) has a choice of Typhoon or F35 (or Creamie!). What's not to like?

As for the numbers of Hawks. The RAF needed lots of them when it had more cockpits to fill. We don't need so many any more. I know you think this reinforces your point but just as modern jets beat the 1950s vintage aircraft in terms of capability the same is true of the aircraft they directly replace.

I dearly loved the Jaguar, for instance, but a single role jet with limited loadout does not really have a place in a modern Air Force. I realise I won't be welcomed at jaguar reunions for saying it but it's true.

Anyway I'm sure you'll take issue with what I say again but that's your choice.

BV

BV

Unlike many on here, but still do anyway ;)

Of course, the biggest problem with so few aircraft types if you have fewer fallback plans when you get chopped....:E

BV, I'm not saying that the RAF should still have as many aircraft, pilots and aerodromes as was the case 60 or even 35 years ago.

But I do question the massive reduction in numbers and the creeping cancer of MFTS contractorisation of the last 15 or so years.

Hopefully there won't be, but should there ever be a surge requirement for more front line pilots, the RAF simply won't have the capacity to meet it as it once could. So few aerodromes, very few pilots on ground tours who could be spared ( a mate in the Air Box was tasked to research that before he retired - there just aren't people hidden away as there used to be) and very few training aircraft...

Nicely put BV. :ok:

Beagle, but how can you justify the expense of such excess capacity sitting idle awaiting some unquantified surge requirement?


I think it is still early days to be calling MFTS a creeping cancer. All reports from those already flying the 120TP seem very positive. Why don't we just wait and see instead of opinionating them to the dustbin so soon?