|
The Telegraph has stated that the missile was fired:
"A statement from the Spanish Ministry of Defence confirmed that a missile had been accidentally fired by one of their Eurofighter jets". That there was so much concern about the missile hitting other airborne aircraft also suggests that it was fired rather than jettisoned. Reports indicate that the likely location of the missile is ten's of kilometres from where it was released, again suggesting a fired missile rather than jettisoned.[/QUOTE] That seems an interesting approach to missile firing, launching without a target in view. Of course an AMRAAM can expect to get cues from the launcher to engage its seeker, so maybe the launch sequence is more accommodating. Can anyone help clarify? |
JSF TC, Quick re-attack. Can I challenge your fact that one could jettison FA2 AMRAAM? My challenge is based on the jettison panel only having pads for the five weapon stations excluding the gun pod racks - vertically in line with the selector switches for the pylons themselves, which were below. The ‘Clear Aircraft Bar’ punched them all at once. The guns were switched on with switches to the left. How would one have jettisoned a missile without a switch that did so? I also recall the second easiest Question of the Day: How do you jettison an AMRAAM? Answer: You can’t. I standby to be corrected! I don’t suppose you have ACM or FRCs? I can only find the Tac FRCs and they don’t refer. I did enjoy re-discovering the GR7/9 sidewinder jettison drill: Master Mode: A/A Late Arm: Live Trigger: Pull Sequentially |
Originally Posted by orca
(Post 10220817)
JSF TC, Quick re-attack. Can I challenge your fact that one could jettison FA2 AMRAAM? My challenge is based on the jettison panel only having pads for the five weapon stations excluding the gun pod racks - vertically in line with the selector switches for the pylons themselves, which were below. The ‘Clear Aircraft Bar’ punched them all at once. The guns were switched on with switches to the left. How would one have jettisoned a missile without a switch that did so? I also recall the second easiest Question of the Day: How do you jettison an AMRAAM? Answer: You can’t. I standby to be corrected! I don’t suppose you have ACM or FRCs? I can only find the Tac FRCs and they don’t refer. I did enjoy re-discovering the GR7/9 sidewinder jettison drill: Master Mode: A/A Late Arm: Live Trigger: Pull Sequentially |
Post by orca (" I also recall the second easiest Question of the Day: How do you jettison an AMRAAM? Answer: You can’t.") fits with my faded memory of Typhoon. During development the system would not jettison a functional AMRAAM but it would jettison a dummy AMRAAM (a kind of missile manakin) from the fuselage stations. I am not sure how it works on operational aircraft.
|
To "safely" jettison a missile it needs to go in an inert state.
You can lob a 'winder of a rail as only the (seperate) motor fire line is energised. Whoosh.... Same with 'flash/sparrow, as has been said, energise the eru carts and the rams throw it away inert. If 'flash or sparrow were on a rail you still have seperate motor fire lines to, this time, let it help itself away, but remembering you now have an inert, very explosive, high speed, sub telegraph pole stooging about the atmosphere. Unfortunately I will have to stop here, any further comment on more "modern" equipment would be ill advised....but I think you get the jist... |
Orca,
Good questions. 27+ years ago, in the early 90's, I worked flight test (FTE) on the original Sea Harrier/ AMRAAM development at BAe Dunsfold and then at Eglin AFB. Time dulls the details, but we certainly had a jettison capability on our development test aircraft (ZA195 and XZ439). We used that jettison capability to prove the safe separation of AMRAAM CATM/ MSV inert shapes over Lyme Bay ahead of the Eglin firing trials. I was not specifically involved in those initial separation trials, but I recall (maybe incorrectly) that the C/L station jettison switch on the WCP was used. It is possible that we wired our test jets up differently than the subsequent production fleet jets to get that specific capability. I do recall that we flew the AMRAAM test missiles (IAV, IMV, ITV) specifically non-jett by not fitting the LAU cartridges, as those test weapons were not cleared for jettison. I could have sworn from memory that we had a Emergency Jett capability for the fuselage AMRAAMs, useful to help out as a last-chance during a poor ski-jump launch. Again, production jets may have been different than our highly modified test aircraft that we worked with. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10220779)
The Telegraph has stated that the missile was fired:
"A statement from the Spanish Ministry of Defence confirmed that a missile had been accidentally fired by one of their Eurofighter jets". That there was so much concern about the missile hitting other airborne aircraft also suggests that it was fired rather than jettisoned. Reports indicate that the likely location of the missile is ten's of kilometres from where it was released, again suggesting a fired missile rather than jettisoned. Of course an AMRAAM can expect to get cues from the launcher to engage its seeker, so maybe the launch sequence is more accommodating. Can anyone help clarify?[/QUOTE] Errr..Nope. |
Regarding jettison of Air to Ground munitions, it takes as many steps (switch actions) to jettison them as it does to drop dem on a target. CG |
Didn't the F4 have a 'Clear Aircraft' button that blew everything from the wings and fuselage in one action? IIRC, was used at Leuchars when a Q jet became temporarily unsure of position and short of gas.
|
CG, The advice you were given was spot on. In the simulator the Clear Aircraft Bar only needed to be depressed a few millimetres and all the stores on the five stations would go. However, in fairness to the earlier poster - his machine has a different system for different reasons. |
https://news.err.ee/859836/stray-mis...ts-pilot-error Stray missile investigation suggests pilot error An internal Spanish military investigation has concluded that the accidental firing of an air-to-air missile in Estonian airspace by a NATO jet on 7 August resulted from pilot error, according to Spanish daily El País, quoted in Estonian daily Postimees. While the overall investigation into the incident continues, anonymous military sources claim that fault lies with the pilot in the misfiring of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), from a Spanish Airforce Eurofighter Typhoon. The paper claims that investigative tests show the pilot initiated the missile firing sequence during training. Normally, safety mechanisms should stop the actual launching in such cases, so the incident is reportedly rare. However, weapons systems on the Typhoon multi-role, multi-national fighter are particularly complex and varied. The missile was fired over Pangodi village, near Tartu, and is thought to have impacted in or near the Endla bog, about 100 km north. The Estonian/Russian border lies about 60 km east of Pangodi. The plane was flying at around a 6,000-metre altitude at the time. Six hundred hectares of Endla bog was searched in the following days using equipment, with a further 200 hectares checked visually, yielding no trace of the missile or its debris. No reported casualties or material damage resulted from the incident, though brush fires broke out in the aftermath of impact. Other investigations into the misfiring are still ongoing. |
Presumably it would have proximity fused with the nearest solid matter?
|
I presume that at some point it safed and ultimately acted as a lawn dart and is below the limit of their metal detectors. |
Do these things fall intact when the fuel is exhausted and not self-destruct? Would it not explode on landing or is the fuzing not set up for that?
Seems a shame to make a present of the damn things to a potential enemy. No chance it flew off into Russian territory, is there? |
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 10245571)
No chance it flew off into Russian territory, is there?
The world would have likely heard about it had that happened. As we have not heard ... |
I can only think of one Safe Arm Device or similar which ‘safed’ in deceleration having successfully ‘armed’ in acceleration - and that was a design fault! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.