Thankyou for reacting to this. I am the proud child of Royal Air Force parents. In the early 80s I was in the Air Cadets for 5 years, but chose a civilian career. My Dad is an ex RAF Police dog handler, and my late Mum was an Air Traffic Controller. Love the Royal Air Force and very proud of my parents
Benefits of dual engines: 1. Higher thrust to weight ratio so generally faster and sometimes more maneuverable. 2. If one engine fails, you generally can still fly and make it back to base on one engine which is why the Navy usually insists on having two engines on their aircraft. I'm sure there's others, but this is what comes to mind. (not an expert either, just a life-long aviation fan!)
I think total thrust would be a bit more accurate than thrust to weight since for a given total thrust that a single engine is reasonably able to provide, 2 engines at a similar technology level and half the power each would tend to weigh more. At some point though you just can’t get enough thrust from a single engine to meet performance requirements. The main argument form one engine would probably be packaging… one engine generally fitting in a smaller airframe than 2 and a smaller airframe also weight less and so needs less thrust for the same or better performance. Depending on the model the single engine F-16 and dual engine F15 have about the same thrust to weight ratio in the neighborhood of 1.1 depending on fuel and weapon load though the F15 had far more total thrust (for its much higher weight). The -16 was substantially cheaper to buy/maintain but had lower range and other things the higher weight of the F15 could fit. Even for total thrust there are some incredibly powerful single engines like the F-35 uses so 2 engines isn’t NECESSARILY higher though in practice between similar levels of engine technology and design constraints it’s almost always going to be. Depending on the type of engine like high vs low bypass, size constraints, technology level, exotic (expensive) high heat alloys being used one engine could be less weight than 2 for similar thrust and almost always is a smaller package size so it can be put in a smaller airframe that’s lower weight itself. Granted the F35 isn’t exactly a light plane, but its single engine makes 43,000 lb thrust in afterburner vs the Eurofighter Typhoon in the video using 2 engines that each make 20,000 lb thrust in afterburner.
I would say the primary factor is reduncacy so you can have powered flight to a landing site. Single engines jets you probably lose the plane while the twin jets you get off by replacing the engine. As a rule of thumb in civilian planes you don't get more range or speed with dual engines aircraft, with double the maintenance cost. But you have an extra engine to safely land the plane if one fails. Especially Navy planes opt for dual jets for this very reason if they lose power on an engine the single jet plane is at the buttom of the sea.
Reminds me of the old alert pads that we used to maintain in the B-52 world. We would still practice quick response in exercises like Global Guardian. Never worked with the RAF, but we did cross paths with the Royal Navy when I deployed to Deigo Garcia. I miss the Air Force....sometimes...
The Royal Air Force (RAF) was formed on April 1, 1918 when the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) and the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) merged.During the Battle of Britain, 16 countries were represented in the Royal Air Force's (RAF) Fighter Command squadrons, with around one fifth of the aircrew coming from overseas. The international force, known as "The Few", included volunteers from the Commonwealth, occupied Europe, and other countries.
As a civ pilot myself, never been intercepted but you known certain transponder codes will elect faster responses from other airspaces. It's not super secret but 7700 means an emergency, 7600 is a radio/coms fail and 7500 means something else that is not good to say the least.
Typically in NATO, it takes 5-6 years to become a pilot. (A year of selection and basic training, 2-3 years in military colleague, 1-2 years of fast jet training (many NATO nations do this in Texas at the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program) before going back home to learn flying in the national squadron. A couple of years later one is a two-ship lead, then one becomes a 4-ship lead, before becoming an advanced weapons instructor who can plan and lead complex missions that may have several different allied aircraft etc. All NATO nations have QRA and North of the Alps in Europe they have a shared "CAOC" (Combined Air Operations Centre) in Germany that communicates with the national control centres to provide handoff. A typical mission may look like the following. Radars in Norway see Russian bombers on a training flight taking off from Kola and flying out over the Barents Sea towards the North Atlantic. Thus two fighters are sent up to say "hello". If the route goes south, they will be handed off to British/Danish, Dutch, Belgian, French, Portuguese (etc.) colleagues. Similarly, the same "chain" happens, starting with Finland/Sweden/Poland/Germany/Denmark for flights coming down the Baltic Sea. In North America, the Alaskan Wings and the Canadian AF are most busy as Russian and Chinese like to "test the waters" regularly. These "documentaries" are always a bit hyped with the music and drama though every mission is taken equally seriously of course - it is not unheard of that pilots have defected, for example. The Russians also like to fly "nuclear attack profiles" towards all the Nordic and Baltic nations once in a while (which is annoying) and post-2014 it is reported that more and more careless manoeuvres (risking mid-air collisions) have taken place much more frequently. It is important to remember how normal this is. Norway used to have a couple of scrambles a week (less now, presumably because the Russian Air Force is busy elsewhere, but even last year they did 39 of them). It is not really newsworthy stuff. I suggest a really good (and short) documentary that shows just how civilized even the Cold War was at its peak. It is called "The fatal flyby of an aircraft carrier. Soviet versions" ruclips.net/video/6djO8zWxhCI/видео.htmlsi=_p_GiwtU5JAr-DlG and details the crash of a Russian spy-plain crashing when surveilling a US Hangarship visiting the Norwegian Sea back in 1968. It gives food for thought in our times. It must be said that the Soviet Union was a way more predictable global actor than Russia is on their own. The Soviet Union was a constellation of many nations, and this inherent "democracy" meant that they were less mad than the Russian single-nation dictatorship is today while the "Kremlin disease" of increasing levels of paranoia can roam freely Happy Ukrainian Independence Day 🎆 🇺🇦
It was nice to see my old place of work and recognise some old faces. Michael Fallon was Defence Sec. from 2014 to 2017 so it gives a bit of context to era.
In Kent ( South East England ) during the cherry/apple season we regularly see Spitfires and Lancaster bombers from ww2 flying over the farms , the Lancaster bombers apear from nowhere , a couple hundred yrds above our heads , it's impressive
I used to live in the UK for a few years, near the chanel. Seeing Spitfires fly in the sky was one of my favorite things 😄 Ive also seem them in Whitstable on an airshow. They are just so cool.
My Dad used to fly Mirage IIIs for the RAAF on high alert against China and more so Indonesia out of Butterworth. They never flew without a full combat load out apparently. The Mirage was usless to Australia unless forward deployed. Dad always said they were on edge the whole time when posted there, given historical events.
Regarding Battle of Britain, USA civilian pilots volunteered & helped our cause. 303 Squadron mixed with the Republican of Ireland pilots were very succseful. Thank you guys!
There were never any US pilots in 303 Squadron. They were largely Polish, with the odd Czech in there and commanded by a British Officer, the most famous of whom was Johnny Kent (aka Kentowski to his Polish pilots). Individual US Citizens were integrated into some of the RAF Fighter Squadrons (Pilot Officer Billy Fiske of 601 Sqn being the first), some of whom were later transferred to the nascent Eagle Squadrons As more American citizens who wanted to join the fight against the Nazis headed over the border into Canada in order to join the RAF, their numbers grew enough that they were grouped into 3 squadrons, each of which was manned completely with US pilots and known as an Eagle Squadron. These were 71 Squadron, 121 Squadron and 133 Squadron. After the US joined the war, the US 8th Air Force requested the Eagle Squadrons be transferred to the USAAF. Initially General Carl Spaatz wanted to spread the pilots experience across the 8th Air Force fighter squadrons, but the Eagle Squadron pilots wanted to stay together. They were renumbered to the 334th, 335th and 336th Fighter Squadrons. They still exist to this day, flying F-15E Strike Eagles out of Seymour-Johnson AFB in North Carolina.
@@NoProtocol With typical British humour, Colin McGregor's RAF call-sign was Obi Two. Also, have a look at the SAS soldier that became known as Obi Wan Nairobi in 2019.
@@NoProtocol 2 recommended films to watch are The Day after(USA) & Threads(UK) both based after a nuclear attack, The Day After movie helped to start the dismantling the Nuclear bomb stock pile in the USA after the President and joint chefs watched it months before the US public saw it... it was a wake up call and got way to close to realty for the US government.
even if you're just asking questions, it adds a lot to the content. questions get the mind engaged. you might ask something that a lot of people didn't think about.
It's a good question, but falling debris wouldn't have nearly as much loss of life as someone flying a passenger jet into a skyscraper in central London. They would make sure that they basically evaporated the plane.
On the engines-question: There isn't really a straight-forward answer to that. The spitfire was propeller driven and used a piston engine that, at the time, was common for aircraft before jet turbines took over. Using one piston engine in the center makes sense to reduce aircraft size, bulk and makes it easier to create sufficient ground clearance so the propeller does not hit the ground. Also, having the engine - one of the heaviest parts of the aircraft - along the roll axis makes it turn more easily. The Typhoon has two engines, but those are low bypass turbofans which allow for much faster speeds (Spitfire top speed: ~600kph; Typhoon top speed: ~2500kph). Having two means more thrust, but also introduces redundancy. If one engine was to fail, you still got one left which is crucial as - in contrast to older planes like the Spitfire - the Typhoon does not glide very well at all. If it had one engine and that one was to fail, you'd be in a lot of trouble. Of course, there are other factors like maintenance, engine production costs, and so on, but I think those are some of the main factors. If you want to learn more about aircraft propulsion, search for the two engines side by side. The Rolls-Royce Merlin for the Spitfire and The Eurojet EJ200 for the Typhoon. Amazing machines, both of them.
I think that may be less of a factor now than it used to be. I do remember reading that the US Navy didn't want the F-16 partly because they felt a single engine didn't offer the redundancy they wanted for over water operations, but the F-16 is one of the most produced military aircraft in service today and with all those thousands of planes in multiple air forces it's not really been a problem. And of course the US Navy is operating the F-35 despite its single engine, though of course if they want a stealth aircraft it's really the only thing available for them. We see the same thing with commercial aircraft and the way engines became both powerful and reliable enough that first triple engined and then four engined airliners fell out of favour and are now no longer built. I think number of engines now is probably decided by a number of factors including what you're designing the aircraft to do, how big or small you want it to be, and what other jobs you hope it might also be able to do. And obviously bigger aircraft are always going to need more power and therefore multiple engines.
Canada also picked up the F-18 over the F-16 due to the redundacy provided by two engines. Today reliability is less of an issue, but the ability to sustain an engine loss in combat is likely to remain a consideration in procurement.
My Grandma was Aircrew back in WW2. She told me the Polish pilots were the bravest she ever saw. Going up in fog because they recognized the sound of the engines.
The Russians did they same to Sweden, a couple of years ago when they flew on the limit of the air-zone. Before they left the airspace, the pilots flew on their sides and showed that they were fully armed.
I am an American living in Alaska. While I am prior military, that is not relevant. We have frequent 'visits' from Russian surface and air craft. Lots of intercepts, lots of 'playing tag', if you will. The concerning thing is that Chinese military ships have been encroaching our waters. Brinkmanship is alive and well up here.
2:17 - 40 pilots at Coningsby alone. there are two QRA crews in the uk. one in Coningsby, the other in Lossiemouth, in the North of Scotland. That's 4 jets ready to be in the sky in a matter of minutes. every day from Lossiemouth you will also see multiple P-8 submarine hunters taking off, ready to spend the next 12 hours flying in the North Atlantic, listening out for Russian Subs.
They had the technological advantage --early radar. The Germans never concentrated their efforts on destroying radar stations. Nazis failed to recognize how vital radar was to the English defense.
Here's one for you, the Royal Air Force also protects the Republic of Ireland's airspace, there was a secret agreement in 1952 between London and Dublin that would allow the Royal Air Force to Transit Irish air space, which was done quite recently escorting Russian Bombers in Irish airspace out of Irish airspace... thank you Britain and the Royal Air Force and I mean that.
My mother came from Birmingham (England!). She told me her first boyfriend was a Spitfire pilot and was lost in the Battle of Britain. The war was very close to her & her family. She was training as a nurse in a hospital near Birmingham. One surprising thing that she mentioned was how beautiful the air raids were when seen from a short distance.
Funny thing me and my brother got the raf to fly over us when we where letting off fireworks off at the beach. no joke 2 plans flu over us right where we where and circled around for a couple of minutes to watch and then went off again it was cool
One advantage a twin engine fighter (or fighter-bomber) has over an equivalent single engine aircraft is the reason you mentioned: Greater power to weight ratio, since you have twice as much power available, but with less than twice the weight. This enables the twin-engine aircraft to climb at a higher rate, have higher acceleration, as well as higher level flight speed. Another advantage is reliability, since it is far less likely for both engines of a twin engine aircraft to fail than losing the only engine in a single engine aircraft. This is especially important if you routinely have to cross large expanses of ocean: Fighters taking off from bases in the UK do have to cross the English channel on their way to mainland Europe, but that is a fairly narrow channel, so there isn't much risk of having to ditch the aircraft in the water. This is much more of a risk for American fighters or fighter-bombers which had to cross the Pacific ocean on their way to Japan. So the US army and navy both preferred to use twin engine aircraft for that reason, and as such made extensive use of the P-38 Lightning twin engine fighter in the Pacific theater. Last but not least there is the question of firepower: Single engine fighters usually have guns mounted within their wings - just the one gun per wing for older models, or as many as 4 guns (and one cannon) per wing for late-war models. Anyway, guns mounted in the wings have to be angled slightly inwards to synchronise the bullet impacts at a fixed distance ahead of the aircraft. This makes for an incredibly potent and damaging hit at the synchronised point which an experienced pilot can aim the aircraft at. However, with a twin-engine aircraft, the engines are mounted on the wings, so all the guns can be fitted into the nose of the fuselage to fire directly forwards. This provides a concentrated stream of firepower without needing to angle the guns. The American P-38 lightning and the British Mosquito are excellent examples of this in World War 2 aircraft, This approach is still used today, with perhaps the best known modern example being the A-10, with its enormous Gatling gun type rotary cannon barrels sticking out just under the nose.
Generally two engines is more efficient, so used for aircraft expected to travel longer distances. Also redundancy, if one engine is lost, you have a second to get you home.
Dual engine can be faster, but it is not always the case.. what it adds most of all is redundancy. If one engine fails for any reason, having a second allows for much more likely survival. That said, there can be major performance bonuses as well. But that is very variable from one airframe to another. Some choose a single huge engine that can be more powerful than 2 smaller engines. That can also be cheaper and lighter and have some other positive characteristics. But if that engine fails for any reason.. you have extremely limited survivability.
I know you said your jet knowledge is small , but the jet on the Thumbnail is a f-35...great vid .! ,,and yes they care where debris falls, remember the balloon that was shot down?
1 vs 2 engines... 1 is in theory smaller and reduces drag even if it is twice the size of 2 smaller engines, its also easier to maintain. 2 engines gives a bigger more draggy design but provides redundancy in case of failure or damage. Most modern fighters use 2 with the notable exception of the F35.
The benefits of two engines is power/speed and redundancy. Redundancy is important when someone is shooting at you and when you need to fly in relatively un-trafficed areas, especially over water . The power lets you carry more fuel/weapons/sensors, but obviously that's. trade off with the extra weight of the extra engine. It's a pretty complex series of tradeoffs, but redundancy, power (payload/speed).
Dual engines aren't necessarily faster (the F16 and F35 have only one engine), but they're safer (if one fails, you still have enough thrust to safely fly back home).
The Polish pilots in WWII escaped after the invasion of their nation and flew with I believe 603 Squadron alongside other nationalities and British pilots also. They were very effective and successful and they were eager to assist in defending against the threat from Germany and it's allies at that time
That spitfire flys over my house a few times a year. Firstly i hear it, then i go on the flight radar 24 app and yes it was a spitfire The Lancaster bomber passes sometimes too Im 5 miles from the airport where the last flying vulcan sits too
The spitfires & hurricanes had a single supercharged Rolls Royce Merlin engine. The American P51 Mustangs started off with a Prat & Whitney engine but on seeing the power in the Spitfires & Hurricanes changed to the Merlin engines & were built under licence in the US. I think I'm right in saying that putting 2 engines in a plane doesn't necessarily add more speed as it adds more weight. Fighter planes need to be manoeuvrable. The Lancaster bombers Had 4 Merlin engines but were built for carrying weight & not very fast.
"Ace" video. The reason I subscribe to your reactions is that you don't feel obliged to make loads and loads of observations, especially as you openly admitted your knowledge on the subject matter is limited. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
I read a book a few years ago that you may enjoy, although it has nothing to do with wartime or preparation for conflict. It is called Flying to Extremes by Dominique Prinet….
The pilot you see close to the beginning and you hear talking was in The Royal Air Force’s display team The Red Arrows formerly based at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire (near the city of Lincoln the only city in Lincolnshire) which closed former home of The Red Arrows who are based at RAF Waddington also near Lincoln. The base that is seen in the video where the planes are based is RAF Conigsby near Lincoln which appears in the video the presenter appears in the hangar of The Battle of The Battle of Britain display planes Hurricanes, Spitfires, a Lancaster Bomber and a Dakota plane an american aircraft some of the aircraft have appeared in films (as well as in The Second World War) which I have seen. There were lots of airbases in Lincolnshire during The Second World War only a few air bases are left along with The RAF Training Base RAF Cranwell which trained HRH The King and HRH Prince William.
What a great reaction, you are happy to learn which is good to see. Has anybody suggested to you to react to mark felton When Britain nuked america twice
We have Russian Planes coming into UK airspace all the time, it’s starting to get old. We also have Russian submarines going around our internet cables near Cornwall, basically threatening that they could cut them if they wanted to. But I suppose Britain reciprocated since British Planes are flying over Kursk.
This has been going on even more frequently in other European countries for decades...actually well over half a century. Anyone claiming that Russia isn't a belligerent and isn't our enemy is ridiculous. Russians themselves have proven to be foes who threaten us.
@@AlexSwanson-rw7cv they do come in to British Aerospace, but they turn round when challenged normally this is where all the photos are quite a distance away, they challenged on the radio
A kind of 'simple' way of looking at it is: more numerically and in power of engines, the better the performance (speed and latitude) you can obtain. That is balanced against weight and aerodynamics of the aircraft, as well as fuel load. Fighters tend to need to be fast and agile - if they are purely defensive they do not need quite such a large amount of fuel which reduces weight (good) but reduces endurance (bad). Weapons and ammunition also play a part in both weight and aerodynamics. Bombers tend to be larger to be able to carry a payload of bombs, etc. and need to carry a larger amount of fuel for not only the range needed, but for the multiple engines required. Regarding how to say R.A.F. feel free to either spell the letters out or to pronounce it as you did. We (English) do both. Book: Under The Wire by ... I can't sadly recall the author. Music: Distant Early Warning by Rush
The same can be said for the USA during the 9-11 attacks USAF interceptor aircraft were dispatched to bring down the suspected highjacked airliners. Several of the fighters had taken off without any ordinance to shoot the airliners down and had convinced themselves that in order to carry out their orders, were prepared to sacrifice themselves by ramming the airliners with their aircraft. They take their job of air defense seriously just as the pilots in the RAF.
I wonder u react to military stuff. Important at the moment, but always "ambiguous". Edit: I find the video interesting, everything related to warplanes is interesting to me :)
There was a squadron made up of Polish & other European pilots in the War. 603 Squadron? Search with description you'll find. It was a very succesful Squadon who attacked head on to break up the enemy formations so making them more vulnerable to attack. My Uncle on my Mother's side shot down 13 German aircraft during the War before he was shot down. My Uncle from my Step-Mother was rear gunner on the Lancasters. Now writing an Auto starting with my parents & family. My mother died 1944 from the effects of the War. It was quite a traumatic time. I'm now 82 but it is yesterday.
@@NoProtocol No worries, love your work. But yes a light twin is generally a death machine. Two engines mean double the chance of engine failure and a twin engine machine doesn't fly well one one.
@@NoProtocol Twin engine, multi engine, two donkeys, doesn't really matter, and its only light underpowered twin engine aircraft that are tricky on one engine, most military aircraft, fighters, transports or helicopters will fly incredibly well on one engine, same goes for commercial airliners.
We allow people from the commonwealth (ex Empire nations) to serve in the armed forces so we have a lot from the Caribbean, Africa, South East Asia and the Pacific Islands in uniform. The only non commonwealth that can serve are the Nepalese who can join the Gurkhas. No British are allowed to serve in the Ghurkha regiments apart from Officer ranks. A polish squadron was one of the highest scoring squadrons in the battle of britain. Unfortunately we made most of them return to Poland at the end of the war instead of letting them settle and of course it was sending them back to the Soviet Union, so many ended up in the Gulags and being severely badly treated if not executed for having helped the western world. It's only in the last 20/ 30 years that the Polish have been getting the recognition they deserved. You should check out the Battle of Bamber Bridge, interesting story about an incident involving US Serviceman based in the UK
I have always been just a bit suspicious of documentaries like this, wondering if they don't give a potential adversary access to information, shoud they view it.
I thought that too but there's no way the RAF didn't review the documentary and request changes - they wouldn't have consented to involvement if that weren't a term of the agreement. All the information is likely known to all enemies already so there's no need to hide it.
This happens all over the world. Russian aircraft in US airspace happens a lot too, usually in Alaska. It sounds real dramatic on this video but, these guys do this stuff all the time. Everybody just about does it. You get close, and watch the others reactions. How you react also tells people something.
@@NoProtocol ...Every branch for every country does drills to make sure they can perform when required to. Think about ballistic missile submarines. They go out on patrols, waiting on orders to launch nuclear missiles at their targets. They have to practice that sequence of events to make sure they can perform it. How scary is that job, knowing that if you are ever required to do it, the world as we know it now, will not exist. And every country that has ballistic missile submarines, do this.
@@NoProtocol Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate that you might have checked, but, have not yet watched them. The Chef sketch is actually featured in Series:1 Ep:1. I described WILTY incorrectly, you will see it’s a Comedy Panel Show. I hope you enjoy them.
40 pilots , small number yes , but I think quality over quantity, check out when britain nuked America twice by mark Felton , it’s. Good on e , if you haven’t already, nice vid btw 👌
I guess it's easier to get a find someone by their full name than their face. If you're searching a room faces work. Searching a country and a face isn't much use.
There's no one reason as to why a fighter might have one or two engines. It could be as simple as the required power for that design can't be met without two engines, it could be because they wanted the redundancy of a second engine in the event that one failed. As with most things there are upsides and downsides to choosing one or two engines in a design and it hinges on which trade offs they want to accept at that time.
In the US at designated bases/airports there are fighters on alert 5, 10, or 15. The number designates how fast you need to get off the ground. What they showed is an alert 5 and an alert 10. This exercise probably cost over 50,000 pounds. The fighters cost around 18,000 dollars each per hour of flight, then the cost of the refueler, and the cost of the plane sky news was in. It was a good propaganda piece. This was after the 2014 russian invasion of Crimea - which is when they started to ramp things back up. You're not used to this, I'm in my late 30s and this is normal modus operandi from the russians. The russians used to do it all the time during the cold war. You know how the Chinese have been acting aggressively with other boats and planes? The russians are worse.
One of the most advanced... but not THE most advanced. However, despite its reputation as the most advanced fighter, the F-22 has been defeated by clever pilots flying the (Eurofighter) Typhoon. They were German fighters in combat exercises, so take that as you will. As for where the debris falls, it depends. Obviously pilots want to have a dogfight over the least amount of population as possible. But if they are given no choice (immediate engagement, for example, or extreme threat to country) they will engage regardless. As for thrust, the newer models have multiple engines (in case one is disabled, the second can potentially fly the plane safely) as well as provide vector thrust... directing outflow to assist in direction acquisition. Two engines do, in fact, also increase the thrust and therefore minimize acceleration time to takeoff while increasing velocity.
The thing is that the F-22 is designed along US interests of power projection. Americans love to boast about its BVR capabilities. But the Eurofighter was designed for the European theater, where country defense is a much more critical issue. Americans love to claim that dogfighting is yesterday's concept, but when you defend a country against foreign incursion, and the border (and with that your area of authority) is just a few minutes away, then dogfighting is very much a relevant capability. And the Typhoon will out-dogfight most of anything. In Europe, "BVR" all too often translates to "somebody else's business", at least if we're not talking as in the video about scenarios over the open sea.
@@ohauss You say "power projection", I'm saying "hype." Let's call the whole thing off. LOL! I think you are right on the money with that! Different concepts altogether! Lots of boasting! Either way, I can't wait to see what Gen VI brings!
RAF isn't a word. It's an acronym. You pronounce it as individual letters. Not a word that rhymes with laugh. So during WW2, there were people from all over the world who joined the RAF, many as pilots. These included people who's homeland had fallen to Nazi Germany, such as France and Poland, other commonwealth countries, such as Canada and Australia, and even individuals from other countries not in the war at that time, such as the USA. When the USA entered the war, the three squadrons of the RAF made up of Americans, known as Eagle Squadrons were incorporated into the USAAF (United States Army Air Forces), the precursor to the USAF (United States Air Force). Generally, you need to be a British citizen to join the RAF now. There are certain exceptions. Dual citizens for one, people from certain other commonwealth nations too. Also Irish citizens can apply. There is a British residency requirement though. All in, to become a fully qualified, combat ready Typhoon pilot takes around 4-5 years. The location that an aircraft was shot down if it came to that would absolutely factor into the decision. The aim would generally be not to allow it to reach a heavily populated area. Though if you think about it, that doesn't leave a lot of potential time between entering our airspace and a decision having to be made. Location also plays a major role (though is not the only factor) in deciding which airports aircraft which have been intercepted should be sent to, such as Stansted, Manchester or Prestwick. Yes. The Russian threat and that from other nations has increased since this was made. Russian aircraft probing UK and NATO in general airspace has increased to the point where it's almost routine now. Hope this answers at least some of your questions.
excellent question about debris, yes the consider that. also there is a new missile that goes M8-12 that will vaporized its target so no need for concern about debris
May I suggest reacting to JOE CALZAGHE. In my opinion Joe was probably the greatest British boxer ever. He was Welsh/Italian heritage trained by his father Enzo joe was undefeated in about 50 fights holding multiple world titles. Even now Calzaghe vs Lacey is a favourite memory of when I watched it live with my father before he passed away .
Wonder if the pilots think about "cause and effect?" Meaning the politians create situations then rely on the air force or army to address anything that may arise (geopolitical factors)
The Russian aircraft coming close to UK airspace has happened for as long as I can remember and that's into the seventies, in fact we had a Chinese warship or two sail up the English Channel a few weeks back as well, thing to remember is we do the same to them, British aircraft and ships plus our NATO and further afield allies will test the reaction of Russian and Chinese defences by approaching their airspace. How the world changes, when I was a kid the Russians were our enemies, when I became a pilot they were were our friends and I got to clamber over and inside some Russian aircraft including fighters, now I'm approaching my so called golden years they are once again our enemies, the world keeps turning. I think the Russians releasing the footage flying up the English Channel was propaganda to show look we can fly in the UK's backyard. And finally a good pilot friend of mine who I knew for many years got intercepted by QRA of a foreign air force when he and his First Officer made a little mistake and they couldn't contact him, first thing he knew about it was the passengers screaming down the back as two fighters sat off each wingtip.
I served my country, ex- Royal Navy. Son is a tank commander in Queen's/Kings Royal Hussars. Was training Estonians in tank warfare for 7 months.
Thankyou for reacting to this. I am the proud child of Royal Air Force parents. In the early 80s I was in the Air Cadets for 5 years, but chose a civilian career.
My Dad is an ex RAF Police dog handler, and my late Mum was an Air Traffic Controller.
Love the Royal Air Force and very proud of my parents
Benefits of dual engines: 1. Higher thrust to weight ratio so generally faster and sometimes more maneuverable. 2. If one engine fails, you generally can still fly and make it back to base on one engine which is why the Navy usually insists on having two engines on their aircraft.
I'm sure there's others, but this is what comes to mind. (not an expert either, just a life-long aviation fan!)
I think total thrust would be a bit more accurate than thrust to weight since for a given total thrust that a single engine is reasonably able to provide, 2 engines at a similar technology level and half the power each would tend to weigh more. At some point though you just can’t get enough thrust from a single engine to meet performance requirements. The main argument form one engine would probably be packaging… one engine generally fitting in a smaller airframe than 2 and a smaller airframe also weight less and so needs less thrust for the same or better performance. Depending on the model the single engine F-16 and dual engine F15 have about the same thrust to weight ratio in the neighborhood of 1.1 depending on fuel and weapon load though the F15 had far more total thrust (for its much higher weight). The -16 was substantially cheaper to buy/maintain but had lower range and other things the higher weight of the F15 could fit.
Even for total thrust there are some incredibly powerful single engines like the F-35 uses so 2 engines isn’t NECESSARILY higher though in practice between similar levels of engine technology and design constraints it’s almost always going to be. Depending on the type of engine like high vs low bypass, size constraints, technology level, exotic (expensive) high heat alloys being used one engine could be less weight than 2 for similar thrust and almost always is a smaller package size so it can be put in a smaller airframe that’s lower weight itself. Granted the F35 isn’t exactly a light plane, but its single engine makes 43,000 lb thrust in afterburner vs the Eurofighter Typhoon in the video using 2 engines that each make 20,000 lb thrust in afterburner.
I would say the primary factor is reduncacy so you can have powered flight to a landing site. Single engines jets you probably lose the plane while the twin jets you get off by replacing the engine. As a rule of thumb in civilian planes you don't get more range or speed with dual engines aircraft, with double the maintenance cost. But you have an extra engine to safely land the plane if one fails.
Especially Navy planes opt for dual jets for this very reason if they lose power on an engine the single jet plane is at the buttom of the sea.
Reminds me of the old alert pads that we used to maintain in the B-52 world. We would still practice quick response in exercises like Global Guardian. Never worked with the RAF, but we did cross paths with the Royal Navy when I deployed to Deigo Garcia. I miss the Air Force....sometimes...
The Royal Air Force (RAF) was formed on April 1, 1918 when the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) and the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) merged.During the Battle of Britain, 16 countries were represented in the Royal Air Force's (RAF) Fighter Command squadrons, with around one fifth of the aircrew coming from overseas. The international force, known as "The Few", included volunteers from the Commonwealth, occupied Europe, and other countries.
Even before it was called the Royal Flying Corps, the Air Battalion of the Royal Engineers were tasked with learning this new skill called flying.
@@bobbonner1314 Taught me something I was surprised I did not know. Ta
Always nice to see that smile 😁
As a civ pilot myself, never been intercepted but you known certain transponder codes will elect faster responses from other airspaces. It's not super secret but 7700 means an emergency, 7600 is a radio/coms fail and 7500 means something else that is not good to say the least.
7500 means you get escorted by a pair of fighters with their missiles hot.
Typically in NATO, it takes 5-6 years to become a pilot. (A year of selection and basic training, 2-3 years in military colleague, 1-2 years of fast jet training (many NATO nations do this in Texas at the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program) before going back home to learn flying in the national squadron. A couple of years later one is a two-ship lead, then one becomes a 4-ship lead, before becoming an advanced weapons instructor who can plan and lead complex missions that may have several different allied aircraft etc.
All NATO nations have QRA and North of the Alps in Europe they have a shared "CAOC" (Combined Air Operations Centre) in Germany that communicates with the national control centres to provide handoff. A typical mission may look like the following. Radars in Norway see Russian bombers on a training flight taking off from Kola and flying out over the Barents Sea towards the North Atlantic. Thus two fighters are sent up to say "hello". If the route goes south, they will be handed off to British/Danish, Dutch, Belgian, French, Portuguese (etc.) colleagues. Similarly, the same "chain" happens, starting with Finland/Sweden/Poland/Germany/Denmark for flights coming down the Baltic Sea. In North America, the Alaskan Wings and the Canadian AF are most busy as Russian and Chinese like to "test the waters" regularly.
These "documentaries" are always a bit hyped with the music and drama though every mission is taken equally seriously of course - it is not unheard of that pilots have defected, for example. The Russians also like to fly "nuclear attack profiles" towards all the Nordic and Baltic nations once in a while (which is annoying) and post-2014 it is reported that more and more careless manoeuvres (risking mid-air collisions) have taken place much more frequently.
It is important to remember how normal this is. Norway used to have a couple of scrambles a week (less now, presumably because the Russian Air Force is busy elsewhere, but even last year they did 39 of them). It is not really newsworthy stuff.
I suggest a really good (and short) documentary that shows just how civilized even the Cold War was at its peak. It is called "The fatal flyby of an aircraft carrier. Soviet versions" ruclips.net/video/6djO8zWxhCI/видео.htmlsi=_p_GiwtU5JAr-DlG and details the crash of a Russian spy-plain crashing when surveilling a US Hangarship visiting the Norwegian Sea back in 1968. It gives food for thought in our times.
It must be said that the Soviet Union was a way more predictable global actor than Russia is on their own. The Soviet Union was a constellation of many nations, and this inherent "democracy" meant that they were less mad than the Russian single-nation dictatorship is today while the "Kremlin disease" of increasing levels of paranoia can roam freely
Happy Ukrainian Independence Day 🎆 🇺🇦
It was nice to see my old place of work and recognise some old faces. Michael Fallon was Defence Sec. from 2014 to 2017 so it gives a bit of context to era.
In Kent ( South East England ) during the cherry/apple season we regularly see Spitfires and Lancaster bombers from ww2 flying over the farms , the Lancaster bombers apear from nowhere , a couple hundred yrds above our heads , it's impressive
I used to live in the UK for a few years, near the chanel. Seeing Spitfires fly in the sky was one of my favorite things 😄
Ive also seem them in Whitstable on an airshow. They are just so cool.
My Dad used to fly Mirage IIIs for the RAAF on high alert against China and more so Indonesia out of Butterworth. They never flew without a full combat load out apparently. The Mirage was usless to Australia unless forward deployed. Dad always said they were on edge the whole time when posted there, given historical events.
Regarding Battle of Britain, USA civilian pilots volunteered & helped our cause. 303 Squadron mixed with the Republican of Ireland pilots were very succseful. Thank you guys!
Strange, I always thought 303 sqdn was made up of Polish pilots not American and Irish ones. 🤔
There were never any US pilots in 303 Squadron. They were largely Polish, with the odd Czech in there and commanded by a British Officer, the most famous of whom was Johnny Kent (aka Kentowski to his Polish pilots). Individual US Citizens were integrated into some of the RAF Fighter Squadrons (Pilot Officer Billy Fiske of 601 Sqn being the first), some of whom were later transferred to the nascent Eagle Squadrons
As more American citizens who wanted to join the fight against the Nazis headed over the border into Canada in order to join the RAF, their numbers grew enough that they were grouped into 3 squadrons, each of which was manned completely with US pilots and known as an Eagle Squadron. These were 71 Squadron, 121 Squadron and 133 Squadron. After the US joined the war, the US 8th Air Force requested the Eagle Squadrons be transferred to the USAAF. Initially General Carl Spaatz wanted to spread the pilots experience across the 8th Air Force fighter squadrons, but the Eagle Squadron pilots wanted to stay together. They were renumbered to the 334th, 335th and 336th Fighter Squadrons. They still exist to this day, flying F-15E Strike Eagles out of Seymour-Johnson AFB in North Carolina.
Ewan McGregor and his brother (RAF pilot) have a great documentary on the history of the RAF.
I’ll have to look for it!
@@NoProtocol With typical British humour, Colin McGregor's RAF call-sign was Obi Two. Also, have a look at the SAS soldier that became known as Obi Wan Nairobi in 2019.
@@nicksykes4575 British humour, indeed 🤣🤣🤣
@@NoProtocol 2 recommended films to watch are The Day after(USA) & Threads(UK) both based after a nuclear attack, The Day After movie helped to start the dismantling the Nuclear bomb stock pile in the USA after the President and joint chefs watched it months before the US public saw it... it was a wake up call and got way to close to realty for the US government.
even if you're just asking questions, it adds a lot to the content. questions get the mind engaged. you might ask something that a lot of people didn't think about.
It's a good question, but falling debris wouldn't have nearly as much loss of life as someone flying a passenger jet into a skyscraper in central London. They would make sure that they basically evaporated the plane.
There are establishments "near" London that would create far more worry than a London "skyscraper" AWE being one.
On the engines-question: There isn't really a straight-forward answer to that. The spitfire was propeller driven and used a piston engine that, at the time, was common for aircraft before jet turbines took over. Using one piston engine in the center makes sense to reduce aircraft size, bulk and makes it easier to create sufficient ground clearance so the propeller does not hit the ground. Also, having the engine - one of the heaviest parts of the aircraft - along the roll axis makes it turn more easily.
The Typhoon has two engines, but those are low bypass turbofans which allow for much faster speeds (Spitfire top speed: ~600kph; Typhoon top speed: ~2500kph). Having two means more thrust, but also introduces redundancy. If one engine was to fail, you still got one left which is crucial as - in contrast to older planes like the Spitfire - the Typhoon does not glide very well at all. If it had one engine and that one was to fail, you'd be in a lot of trouble.
Of course, there are other factors like maintenance, engine production costs, and so on, but I think those are some of the main factors. If you want to learn more about aircraft propulsion, search for the two engines side by side. The Rolls-Royce Merlin for the Spitfire and The Eurojet EJ200 for the Typhoon. Amazing machines, both of them.
Duel engines can make an aircraft faster, but its preferred in case of redundancy, if there is a engine failure, you've always got one more!
I think that may be less of a factor now than it used to be. I do remember reading that the US Navy didn't want the F-16 partly because they felt a single engine didn't offer the redundancy they wanted for over water operations, but the F-16 is one of the most produced military aircraft in service today and with all those thousands of planes in multiple air forces it's not really been a problem. And of course the US Navy is operating the F-35 despite its single engine, though of course if they want a stealth aircraft it's really the only thing available for them. We see the same thing with commercial aircraft and the way engines became both powerful and reliable enough that first triple engined and then four engined airliners fell out of favour and are now no longer built. I think number of engines now is probably decided by a number of factors including what you're designing the aircraft to do, how big or small you want it to be, and what other jobs you hope it might also be able to do. And obviously bigger aircraft are always going to need more power and therefore multiple engines.
@Dasyurid it was a factor for some airforces, the RAF prefer twin engine aircraft, and it was a requirement for the Typhoon.
Canada also picked up the F-18 over the F-16 due to the redundacy provided by two engines.
Today reliability is less of an issue, but the ability to sustain an engine loss in combat is likely to remain a consideration in procurement.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 i don't want to see a plane where the engines engage in duels
My Grandma was Aircrew back in WW2.
She told me the Polish pilots were the bravest she ever saw. Going up in fog because they recognized the sound of the engines.
I was watching this the RAF and i looked into your channel and you have so good boxing vlogs and others to so I've subscribed 😊
Hello , great channel , i live in Lossiemouth Scotland.You always know when they are intercepting planes as their engines are twice as noisy.
Believed to be last living Battle of Britain pilot , Paddy Hemingway, celebrated his 104th birthday in Summer 2024.
The Russians did they same to Sweden, a couple of years ago when they flew on the limit of the air-zone. Before they left the airspace, the pilots flew on their sides and showed that they were fully armed.
The Swedes are nice people, but they have a steel backbone.
I am an American living in Alaska. While I am prior military, that is not relevant. We have frequent 'visits' from Russian surface and air craft. Lots of intercepts, lots of 'playing tag', if you will.
The concerning thing is that Chinese military ships have been encroaching our waters.
Brinkmanship is alive and well up here.
The cold war part deux.
Geoffrey Wellum, First Light. Excellent book.
2:17 - 40 pilots at Coningsby alone. there are two QRA crews in the uk. one in Coningsby, the other in Lossiemouth, in the North of Scotland. That's 4 jets ready to be in the sky in a matter of minutes.
every day from Lossiemouth you will also see multiple P-8 submarine hunters taking off, ready to spend the next 12 hours flying in the North Atlantic, listening out for Russian Subs.
They had the technological advantage --early radar. The Germans never concentrated their efforts on destroying radar stations. Nazis failed to recognize how vital radar was to the English defense.
Here's one for you, the Royal Air Force also protects the Republic of Ireland's airspace, there was a secret agreement in 1952 between London and Dublin that would allow the Royal Air Force to Transit Irish air space, which was done quite recently escorting Russian Bombers in Irish airspace out of Irish airspace... thank you Britain and the Royal Air Force and I mean that.
That's recently kicked off in the Irish parliament with an Irish MP who is not happy about it, a bit short-sighted I think
My mother came from Birmingham (England!). She told me her first boyfriend was a Spitfire pilot and was lost in the Battle of Britain. The war was very close to her & her family. She was training as a nurse in a hospital near Birmingham. One surprising thing that she mentioned was how beautiful the air raids were when seen from a short distance.
No Protocol Awesome Video Today!!🔥🐐🐐💎
The QRA pilot "Jon" is this year Red 1, the leader of the Red Arrows aerobatic team.
If you liked that video, you should review a video of RAF and USAF fighter planes flying low level through the Mach Loop in Wales.
Great video ✔️ love it 💪😎 thanks!
Wooo, this kinda made my day. Awesome
I always wonder why cameras are ever allowed behind the curtain for these kinds of things. I'd think it would all be classified.
Shading!!! Wooot!!!
Funny thing me and my brother got the raf to fly over us when we where letting off fireworks off at the beach. no joke 2 plans flu over us right where we where and circled around for a couple of minutes to watch and then went off again it was cool
One advantage a twin engine fighter (or fighter-bomber) has over an equivalent single engine aircraft is the reason you mentioned: Greater power to weight ratio, since you have twice as much power available, but with less than twice the weight. This enables the twin-engine aircraft to climb at a higher rate, have higher acceleration, as well as higher level flight speed.
Another advantage is reliability, since it is far less likely for both engines of a twin engine aircraft to fail than losing the only engine in a single engine aircraft. This is especially important if you routinely have to cross large expanses of ocean: Fighters taking off from bases in the UK do have to cross the English channel on their way to mainland Europe, but that is a fairly narrow channel, so there isn't much risk of having to ditch the aircraft in the water. This is much more of a risk for American fighters or fighter-bombers which had to cross the Pacific ocean on their way to Japan. So the US army and navy both preferred to use twin engine aircraft for that reason, and as such made extensive use of the P-38 Lightning twin engine fighter in the Pacific theater.
Last but not least there is the question of firepower: Single engine fighters usually have guns mounted within their wings - just the one gun per wing for older models, or as many as 4 guns (and one cannon) per wing for late-war models. Anyway, guns mounted in the wings have to be angled slightly inwards to synchronise the bullet impacts at a fixed distance ahead of the aircraft. This makes for an incredibly potent and damaging hit at the synchronised point which an experienced pilot can aim the aircraft at.
However, with a twin-engine aircraft, the engines are mounted on the wings, so all the guns can be fitted into the nose of the fuselage to fire directly forwards. This provides a concentrated stream of firepower without needing to angle the guns. The American P-38 lightning and the British Mosquito are excellent examples of this in World War 2 aircraft, This approach is still used today, with perhaps the best known modern example being the A-10, with its enormous Gatling gun type rotary cannon barrels sticking out just under the nose.
Generally two engines is more efficient, so used for aircraft expected to travel longer distances. Also redundancy, if one engine is lost, you have a second to get you home.
Jez Atridge just sounds like a fighter pilot name doesn't it? I can just imagine Maverick vs Jez. He'd be great in a UK version of top gun.
i agree
Dual engine can be faster, but it is not always the case.. what it adds most of all is redundancy. If one engine fails for any reason, having a second allows for much more likely survival. That said, there can be major performance bonuses as well. But that is very variable from one airframe to another. Some choose a single huge engine that can be more powerful than 2 smaller engines. That can also be cheaper and lighter and have some other positive characteristics. But if that engine fails for any reason.. you have extremely limited survivability.
I know you said your jet knowledge is small , but the jet on the Thumbnail is a f-35...great vid .! ,,and yes they care where debris falls, remember the balloon that was shot down?
1 vs 2 engines... 1 is in theory smaller and reduces drag even if it is twice the size of 2 smaller engines, its also easier to maintain. 2 engines gives a bigger more draggy design but provides redundancy in case of failure or damage. Most modern fighters use 2 with the notable exception of the F35.
I believe we have U.S. Airforce based in the UK as well,so I'm told.
The benefits of two engines is power/speed and redundancy. Redundancy is important when someone is shooting at you and when you need to fly in relatively un-trafficed areas, especially over water .
The power lets you carry more fuel/weapons/sensors, but obviously that's. trade off with the extra weight of the extra engine. It's a pretty complex series of tradeoffs, but redundancy, power (payload/speed).
Dual engines aren't necessarily faster (the F16 and F35 have only one engine), but they're safer (if one fails, you still have enough thrust to safely fly back home).
The Polish pilots in WWII escaped after the invasion of their nation and flew with I believe 603 Squadron alongside other nationalities and British pilots also. They were very effective and successful and they were eager to assist in defending against the threat from Germany and it's allies at that time
That spitfire flys over my house a few times a year. Firstly i hear it, then i go on the flight radar 24 app and yes it was a spitfire
The Lancaster bomber passes sometimes too
Im 5 miles from the airport where the last flying vulcan sits too
The spitfires & hurricanes had a single supercharged Rolls Royce Merlin engine. The American P51 Mustangs started off with a Prat & Whitney engine but on seeing the power in the Spitfires & Hurricanes changed to the Merlin engines & were built under licence in the US.
I think I'm right in saying that putting 2 engines in a plane doesn't necessarily add more speed as it adds more weight. Fighter planes need to be manoeuvrable. The Lancaster bombers Had 4 Merlin engines but were built for carrying weight & not very fast.
Avro Lancastrian VH742, was fitted with two Rolls-Royce Nene jet engines it was just a test bed only.
On You Tube - Charlie Broomfield's Rover SD1 with a 27litre V12 Rolls-Royce Meteor engine (the same base engine as used in the Spitfire)
@@kylereese4822 Some people are just broken 😂😂😂
"Ace" video. The reason I subscribe to your reactions is that you don't feel obliged to make loads and loads of observations, especially as you openly admitted your knowledge on the subject matter is limited. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
I read a book a few years ago that you may enjoy, although it has nothing to do with wartime or preparation for conflict. It is called Flying to Extremes by Dominique Prinet….
The pilot you see close to the beginning and you hear talking was in The Royal Air Force’s display team The Red Arrows formerly based at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire (near the city of Lincoln the only city in Lincolnshire) which closed former home of The Red Arrows who are based at RAF Waddington also near Lincoln. The base that is seen in the video where the planes are based is RAF Conigsby near Lincoln which appears in the video the presenter appears in the hangar of The Battle of The Battle of Britain display planes Hurricanes, Spitfires, a Lancaster Bomber and a Dakota plane an american aircraft some of the aircraft have appeared in films (as well as in The Second World War) which I have seen. There were lots of airbases in Lincolnshire during The Second World War only a few air bases are left along with The RAF Training Base RAF Cranwell which trained HRH The King and HRH Prince William.
What a great reaction, you are happy to learn which is good to see. Has anybody suggested to you to react to mark felton When Britain nuked america twice
We have Russian Planes coming into UK airspace all the time, it’s starting to get old. We also have Russian submarines going around our internet cables near Cornwall, basically threatening that they could cut them if they wanted to. But I suppose Britain reciprocated since British Planes are flying over Kursk.
This has been going on even more frequently in other European countries for decades...actually well over half a century. Anyone claiming that Russia isn't a belligerent and isn't our enemy is ridiculous. Russians themselves have proven to be foes who threaten us.
Near UK airpsace, not into it. Also got a citation for UK aircraft over Kursk as that seems incredibly unlikely.
@@AlexSwanson-rw7cv they do come in to British Aerospace, but they turn round when challenged normally this is where all the photos are quite a distance away, they challenged on the radio
There is a difference between UK airspace and area of responsibility.
@@AlexSwanson-rw7cv I meant that British planes were being used by the Ukrainians. XD
A kind of 'simple' way of looking at it is: more numerically and in power of engines, the better the performance (speed and latitude) you can obtain. That is balanced against weight and aerodynamics of the aircraft, as well as fuel load. Fighters tend to need to be fast and agile - if they are purely defensive they do not need quite such a large amount of fuel which reduces weight (good) but reduces endurance (bad). Weapons and ammunition also play a part in both weight and aerodynamics. Bombers tend to be larger to be able to carry a payload of bombs, etc. and need to carry a larger amount of fuel for not only the range needed, but for the multiple engines required.
Regarding how to say R.A.F. feel free to either spell the letters out or to pronounce it as you did. We (English) do both.
Book: Under The Wire by ... I can't sadly recall the author.
Music: Distant Early Warning by Rush
The same can be said for the USA during the 9-11 attacks USAF interceptor aircraft were dispatched to bring down the suspected highjacked airliners. Several of the fighters had taken off without any ordinance to shoot the airliners down and had convinced themselves that in order to carry out their orders, were prepared to sacrifice themselves by ramming the airliners with their aircraft. They take their job of air defense seriously just as the pilots in the RAF.
Yes, the pilots will be aware it's a drill.
Book Recommendation: Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen
I’m not familiar with this author, I’ll search it! Thank you
Ive watched your videos at least a year and just now realized that im not even subscribed😅
Well better late than never i guess, keep it up 👍
The training is endless. They never stop training.
I wonder u react to military stuff. Important at the moment, but always "ambiguous". Edit: I find the video interesting, everything related to warplanes is interesting to me :)
Random video recommendation, “ How The US Created the Most Insane Invincibility Glitch” by RealLifeLore
The Typhoon fighter plane is to be replaced by the Tempest in the 2030's, which will be the first fighter plane that can operate without a pilot.
Might not be, I think the Yanks have already done some air to air with an AI fighter
There was a squadron made up of Polish & other European pilots in the War. 603 Squadron? Search with description you'll find. It was a very succesful Squadon who attacked head on to break up the enemy formations so making them more vulnerable to attack. My Uncle on my Mother's side shot down 13 German aircraft during the War before he was shot down. My Uncle from my Step-Mother was rear gunner on the Lancasters. Now writing an Auto starting with my parents & family. My mother died 1944 from the effects of the War. It was quite a traumatic time. I'm now 82 but it is yesterday.
Twin engine in a light plane - the second engines job is to take you to the scene of the crash.
Thank you for this! Also I didn’t name it correctly, I’ll have to remember “twin engine”
@@NoProtocol No worries, love your work. But yes a light twin is generally a death machine. Two engines mean double the chance of engine failure and a twin engine machine doesn't fly well one one.
@@NoProtocol
Twin engine, multi engine, two donkeys, doesn't really matter, and its only light underpowered twin engine aircraft that are tricky on one engine, most military aircraft, fighters, transports or helicopters will fly incredibly well on one engine, same goes for commercial airliners.
We allow people from the commonwealth (ex Empire nations) to serve in the armed forces so we have a lot from the Caribbean, Africa, South East Asia and the Pacific Islands in uniform. The only non commonwealth that can serve are the Nepalese who can join the Gurkhas. No British are allowed to serve in the Ghurkha regiments apart from Officer ranks.
A polish squadron was one of the highest scoring squadrons in the battle of britain. Unfortunately we made most of them return to Poland at the end of the war instead of letting them settle and of course it was sending them back to the Soviet Union, so many ended up in the Gulags and being severely badly treated if not executed for having helped the western world. It's only in the last 20/ 30 years that the Polish have been getting the recognition they deserved.
You should check out the Battle of Bamber Bridge, interesting story about an incident involving US Serviceman based in the UK
Hello 😁
Hi! Wow, thanks for getting here so quickly
I have always been just a bit suspicious of documentaries like this, wondering if they don't give a potential adversary access to information, shoud they view it.
I thought that too but there's no way the RAF didn't review the documentary and request changes - they wouldn't have consented to involvement if that weren't a term of the agreement. All the information is likely known to all enemies already so there's no need to hide it.
This happens all over the world. Russian aircraft in US airspace happens a lot too, usually in Alaska. It sounds real dramatic on this video but, these guys do this stuff all the time. Everybody just about does it. You get close, and watch the others reactions. How you react also tells people something.
Thanks for adding this perspective, I had no idea
@@NoProtocol ...Every branch for every country does drills to make sure they can perform when required to. Think about ballistic missile submarines. They go out on patrols, waiting on orders to launch nuclear missiles at their targets. They have to practice that sequence of events to make sure they can perform it. How scary is that job, knowing that if you are ever required to do it, the world as we know it now, will not exist. And every country that has ballistic missile submarines, do this.
📞 "London"
From your previous post, Did the Armstrong & Miller episodes and the WILTY clip play OK, or were they blocked ?
They weren’t blocked at all! Thank you for adding the chef clip especially
@@NoProtocol Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate that you might have checked, but, have not yet watched them. The Chef sketch is actually featured in Series:1 Ep:1. I described WILTY incorrectly, you will see it’s a Comedy Panel Show. I hope you enjoy them.
40 pilots , small number yes , but I think quality over quantity, check out when britain nuked America twice by mark Felton , it’s. Good on e , if you haven’t already, nice vid btw 👌
Check out the 13 hours that saved
Britain about the battle of Britain
do they call it "RAF" or "R.A.F."? one word or the series of letters? I always thought it was the later...
raf as a word is fine
it's interesting that they don't want their surnames known but they're okay letting their faces be shown.
I guess it's easier to get a find someone by their full name than their face. If you're searching a room faces work. Searching a country and a face isn't much use.
There's no one reason as to why a fighter might have one or two engines. It could be as simple as the required power for that design can't be met without two engines, it could be because they wanted the redundancy of a second engine in the event that one failed.
As with most things there are upsides and downsides to choosing one or two engines in a design and it hinges on which trade offs they want to accept at that time.
react to "Good Night, Oppy"
Lossiemouth RAF have issues with Russian planes all the time and their pilots are out training all the time, noisy when flying away from you.
Amazing love the video protocol stay motivated Dream big 1 mill on the way
In the US at designated bases/airports there are fighters on alert 5, 10, or 15. The number designates how fast you need to get off the ground. What they showed is an alert 5 and an alert 10. This exercise probably cost over 50,000 pounds. The fighters cost around 18,000 dollars each per hour of flight, then the cost of the refueler, and the cost of the plane sky news was in. It was a good propaganda piece.
This was after the 2014 russian invasion of Crimea - which is when they started to ramp things back up. You're not used to this, I'm in my late 30s and this is normal modus operandi from the russians. The russians used to do it all the time during the cold war. You know how the Chinese have been acting aggressively with other boats and planes? The russians are worse.
One of the most advanced... but not THE most advanced. However, despite its reputation as the most advanced fighter, the F-22 has been defeated by clever pilots flying the (Eurofighter) Typhoon. They were German fighters in combat exercises, so take that as you will. As for where the debris falls, it depends. Obviously pilots want to have a dogfight over the least amount of population as possible. But if they are given no choice (immediate engagement, for example, or extreme threat to country) they will engage regardless. As for thrust, the newer models have multiple engines (in case one is disabled, the second can potentially fly the plane safely) as well as provide vector thrust... directing outflow to assist in direction acquisition. Two engines do, in fact, also increase the thrust and therefore minimize acceleration time to takeoff while increasing velocity.
The thing is that the F-22 is designed along US interests of power projection. Americans love to boast about its BVR capabilities. But the Eurofighter was designed for the European theater, where country defense is a much more critical issue. Americans love to claim that dogfighting is yesterday's concept, but when you defend a country against foreign incursion, and the border (and with that your area of authority) is just a few minutes away, then dogfighting is very much a relevant capability. And the Typhoon will out-dogfight most of anything. In Europe, "BVR" all too often translates to "somebody else's business", at least if we're not talking as in the video about scenarios over the open sea.
@@ohauss You say "power projection", I'm saying "hype." Let's call the whole thing off. LOL! I think you are right on the money with that! Different concepts altogether! Lots of boasting! Either way, I can't wait to see what Gen VI brings!
British or Commonwealth citizens can serve in our armed forces
Thanks for answering this one!
They're protecting Britain's sky's, while at the same time, the invaders are coming in by dinghy.
I remember you...... !!!!!!!!
You're intelligence.... plus curiousity............. ❤❤
RAF isn't a word. It's an acronym. You pronounce it as individual letters. Not a word that rhymes with laugh.
So during WW2, there were people from all over the world who joined the RAF, many as pilots. These included people who's homeland had fallen to Nazi Germany, such as France and Poland, other commonwealth countries, such as Canada and Australia, and even individuals from other countries not in the war at that time, such as the USA. When the USA entered the war, the three squadrons of the RAF made up of Americans, known as Eagle Squadrons were incorporated into the USAAF (United States Army Air Forces), the precursor to the USAF (United States Air Force).
Generally, you need to be a British citizen to join the RAF now. There are certain exceptions. Dual citizens for one, people from certain other commonwealth nations too. Also Irish citizens can apply. There is a British residency requirement though.
All in, to become a fully qualified, combat ready Typhoon pilot takes around 4-5 years.
The location that an aircraft was shot down if it came to that would absolutely factor into the decision. The aim would generally be not to allow it to reach a heavily populated area. Though if you think about it, that doesn't leave a lot of potential time between entering our airspace and a decision having to be made. Location also plays a major role (though is not the only factor) in deciding which airports aircraft which have been intercepted should be sent to, such as Stansted, Manchester or Prestwick.
Yes. The Russian threat and that from other nations has increased since this was made. Russian aircraft probing UK and NATO in general airspace has increased to the point where it's almost routine now.
Hope this answers at least some of your questions.
I wonder how Brexit changes things with NATO?
Type in >top guns raf lossiemouth on channel 4
Hi.
Happy Saturday
it's not the Raf, but the R, A F,
Last!
excellent question about debris, yes the consider that. also there is a new missile that goes M8-12 that will vaporized its target so no need for concern about debris
May I suggest reacting to JOE CALZAGHE. In my opinion Joe was probably the greatest British boxer ever. He was Welsh/Italian heritage trained by his father Enzo joe was undefeated in about 50 fights holding multiple world titles. Even now Calzaghe vs Lacey is a favourite memory of when I watched it live with my father before he passed away .
R.A.F.
Wonder if the pilots think about "cause and effect?" Meaning the politians create situations then rely on the air force or army to address anything that may arise (geopolitical factors)
The Russian aircraft coming close to UK airspace has happened for as long as I can remember and that's into the seventies, in fact we had a Chinese warship or two sail up the English Channel a few weeks back as well, thing to remember is we do the same to them, British aircraft and ships plus our NATO and further afield allies will test the reaction of Russian and Chinese defences by approaching their airspace.
How the world changes, when I was a kid the Russians were our enemies, when I became a pilot they were were our friends and I got to clamber over and inside some Russian aircraft including fighters, now I'm approaching my so called golden years they are once again our enemies, the world keeps turning.
I think the Russians releasing the footage flying up the English Channel was propaganda to show look we can fly in the UK's backyard.
And finally a good pilot friend of mine who I knew for many years got intercepted by QRA of a foreign air force when he and his First Officer made a little mistake and they couldn't contact him, first thing he knew about it was the passengers screaming down the back as two fighters sat off each wingtip.
Is saying "Raf" for the RAF a thing? That just took me for a loop buds, I don't know what to say eh
why? Raf is common. You must not know anyone in the Raf
Not pronounced "raf" but "R. A. F." Like you'd pronounce the letters in "U.S.A.F."
Raf and Yousaf are perfectly acceptable
@@DropdudeJohn OK, now try R.C.N. or J.M.S.D.F. And it's too bad that your pronunciations of RAF and RAAF sound the same.
She's still the most beautiful girl on the internet. Maybe even the planet. 🤔
By the way, the RAF is never pronounced the as the 'raf' It's always the individual letters.
Actually mate, many people in it call it “raf”, one word. There’s a thread below of veterans saying so