on a carrier...hth

Aircraft have to be specially adapted or even designed for use on carriers, that is not usually an option for Air Force, as opposed to Navy, aircraft. the Typhoon's range is usually quoted as1,800 miles, for example. In flight refuelling is very common practice. Source of my information: father in law was a USAF Colonel and spent some time as a test pilot, also gaining comparison experience on a number of NATO types not used by the Americans.

Never said it didn't happen, but I very much doubt active assets in Afghanistan/Iraq return to Uncle Sam for maintenance and re-arming etc. local bases are used. To suggest that a Typhoon takes off from Mainland USA to carry out strikes in the middle east is a little silly.

Please pay attention

It was never suggested planes fly from the US to take part in Middle East missions, I was merely trying to clear up a point about the range and capabilities of modern military aircraft, aided by some information from my jet piloting father in law.

Obviously we failed.

Got a bee in your bonnet about this, ain't we?



FWIW, it's standard operating procedure for US fighters to travel long distances via air-to-air refuelling. AFAIK they do this either by being accompanied by a long-range tanker that itself is refuelled at a scheduled waypoint, or by being met by tankers at certain waypoints. They can also carry external fuel tanks that greatly expand their range - probably enough to cover the hop from North America to the UK where I assume they would have a stopover anyway. I'm sure Euclid's father can elaborate and correct me if necessary.



You can't just stick any old fighter on an aircraft carrier. For one thing, what would you do with the carrier's fleet? For another, they can't actually even land on the carrier. You may as well stick them on a cargo ship, which in terms of maintenance (ie, disassembling the aircraft for transport) and time is logistically ridiculous.



I'm not sure why it would be a 'little silly' for a fighter to leave its home country and base to be repositioned as part of a build-up of assets. No-one is suggesting they return to the US for maintenance or rearming, clearly that would be idiotic and would be carried out at whichever overseas base it repositions to, but how do you think they get to those bases in the first place? They fly. That's what aircraft do.

Yep.

Am I right in remembering some RAF Tornado's bombed some targets in Libya from UK bases? Or have I made that up?

You're correct, 3,000 miles thanks to mid-air refuelling.



But that pales next to the 'Black Buck' Vulcan bombing runs of the Falklands War, about 4,000 miles in total and a complex refuelling plan. The fact they did very little damage is immaterial - though they did hit the runway at Stanley.



I think the Vulcan held the record for the longest ever bombing mission until a squadron of B-52s flew from the US to Iraq in 1991. Just looked it up and that was a 14,000 mile trip, although they used forward refuelling as opposed to the complex plan required by the Vulcan over water.

Appreciate you pointing the above out. I didn't have the patience.....

I watched a programme on the mission to bomb the runway at Stanley, incredible really. I think they used up to 12 aircraft, just to get that one aircraft to the Falklands.

so what are the fighter jets expected to do if there was actullay a bomb on board the plane ? or a hijack



shoot it down over manchester city centre?

Was it always due to land at Manchester or was it diverted there?

You are raising an horrific and almost unimaginable endgame, but yes, obviously people in charge of security of the UK will certainly have specific plans and contingencies if the worst came to pass.



What those would be, I obviously don't know but yes, one option is clearly to shoot the plane down. If it had been hijacked then that is one decision that someobody would ultimately have to make and I don't need to list the pros and cons of it here as if you think about it, they are obvious. The circumstances where the choice would be to shoot it down would be "hardly any" but you have the choice if you have fighter jets deployed, and you don't have the choice if you don't.



We had this discussion on here ad infinitum re 9/11. I think a fair summary is that if they had known in advance that the planes would definitely hit the twin towers, and if shooting down the plane was possible over water or relatively empty countryside, then it may have been done. But sadly the hijackers didn't file a flight plan and so one horrible consequence of shooting the plane down (amongst a million) is that you would by definition never ever know or be able to prove that it was the lesser of evils. Instantly a hundred conspiracists would lodge proof that the plane was only going to be detoured and land safely, as some protest, and the nasty government cynically killed its own people when there was no need.



It's analogous to when some unfortunate child meets a nasty end and then there are a hundred criticisms and recommendations so that it "will never happen again". But what is normally overlooked is that had the social workers and other agencies done all those things, there would by definition never be any proof that they had "saved that child's life". And they would probably be roundly criticised by many for (eg) taking the child into care, etc. The main difference is that the criticism for shooting down a plane and killing deliberately hundreds of civilians would be the mother of all shiitstorms.



If a plane is over a populated area then I wouldn't envy the person ultimately having to make those decisions but as I say, it is reasonable to have the option, even if you might almost never imagine circumstances where you would actually use it.