RAF QRA Question

[Steven]

Hi all,

Two quick questions:

I may of course be wrong but from the photographic evidence i've seen recently the QRA aircraft now appear to depart with just the short range air-to-air missiles on the wing, whereas before they used to depart with a full load out of ASRAAM and AMRAAM missiles - can anyone advise if this is correct and perhaps why this is now the case?

My second question is that QRA shouts (whether practice or live) used to use a callsign consisting of a combination of numbers and letters for example "Oscar 3 Kilo 21" whereas now they appear to use standard callsigns like "Rigid 11" - again, can anyone advise why this is now the case?

Many thanks

Steven.

[Mortz]

Steven,
Have no idea about your second question, but might be able to help with the first.
The QRA load-out is that set by the National Command Authority in line with the current threat assessment.
During my time on QRA with the Tornado F3, I have known loads from Gun+4xASRAAM+4xAMRAAM down to as low as gun only (rare). Gun+2+2 was often common in the early 2000s.
Missiles and ammunition have a fatigue life in flight hours and landings, so it is good practice to not expose your munitions to more use than is absolutely necessary to achieve the aim.

Hope that helps.

[Malcolm]

Not an answer to either of your questions, but back in the early 1990's we had a trip round Langley AFB with the 48FIS. We were taken over to the Q sheds and were able to chat with one of the pilots. He said that the normal load for an F-15 on QRA/ADIZ duty was 4 sparrows, and no sidewinders. The reason was that the sparrows required a radar return from the F-15 to find their target, so the F-15 could if required drop the radar lock to abort a fired Sparrow. He wouldn't confirm if a secondary reason was that lighting up a military target with the radar might put the fear of god into them if they thought a sparrow was on the way.

They didn't carry IR missiles like the sidewinder because once launched there was no way of stopping them.

[page_verify]

Really? An on open public forum?
Historical questions I get, but about current operational capabilities?

[Condor68]

Agree with page but on the historical side, in the eighties I used to go Sea Trout fishing on the Eden which runs along the side of Leuchars.Quite often we would see QRA Phantom launches and I got some amazing pics.On misty nights when they gave it welly the colours in the mist caused by the heat and light of the engines were amazing in the onset of twilight.Sadly in various house moves since then like a lot stuff the photos were lost.Still have the memories at least or I think I do.

Keith

[Phoon]

I believe any peacetime QRA is required to be a visual intercept so short range missiles only are needed, hence only they are carried.

[Northsky]

Absolutely agree with page . Maybe ask the RAF direct . Anybody can read this including non friendly people.

[Hawkwind26]

Absolutely agree with page . Maybe ask the RAF direct . Anybody can read this including non friendly people.

Doesn't anyone else think that any potential aggressor ( ie Russia ) already has this Intel data logged, photographed and put up at mission briefings awareness prior to any potential mission into UK airspace. Come on, they're fairly experienced at this game too.
Whilst the RAF would diplomatically reply along the lines of what is already out there in the public domain or decline because of national security and safety of their aircrews.....even under any FOI requests. A lot can also be surpringly gleaned from social media, particularly blogs from ex combat pilots.

[Nighthawke]

Same thought crossed my mind too. Reading a spotting forum is hardly cutting-edge Intel gathering. Plenty on the Internet and if you know the answer and don't want to post it then don't.
If you're really concerned report the post using the button provided.

[Northsky]

Intelligence Gathering is accumulated from many sources.

[Vulcanone]

Considering that the original poster was a moderator, I'm sure he is well aware of things that maybe not for posting. As for Not posting stuff on here

Others who should have known far better have posted movements during ops (Ellamy etc) which were quickly clamped on.

[Drinkmat]

I would agree that if anyone is concerned that security is being compromised on here, they should do something official about it. There's nothing wrong with asking questions.

If someone has restricted information that would compromise security if published, they simply don't publish it. If they do, perhaps they're in the wrong job and don't have the same understanding of security that some others do.
It could be argued that publishing a photograph of any operational aircraft on the site could potentially compromise security, if the airframe is found to have new aerials or aids fitted. Where should the line be drawn?

[Vulture 01]

Please be aware that apart from the cunning Russians and fiendish Chinese, it's possible that these comments might be read by a journalist from the Daily Mail!

Opps sorry: just re-read that and forgot that reporters able to read and the Daily Mail are not usually closely associated

[Mike]

Please be aware that apart from the cunning Russians and fiendish Chinese, it's possible that these comments might be read by a journalist from the Daily Mail!

Opps sorry: just re-read that and forgot that reporters able to read and the Daily Mail are not usually closely associated

No doubt the Fail's article would be accompanied by a stock photo of a Tornado GR.4...............................

[Steven]

Hi all,

I don’t want this thread to descend into chaos with back and forth arguments, I think the very first reply to my question made more than enough sense to me to consider the question answered.

As for the questions themselves to be a potential operational risk….

[Hawkwind26]

Good on yer, nothing untoward about asking a question. Interestingly, a documentary this week covering the 9/11 terrorist attacks showed footage whereby the big air chief in command asked what ordnance the QRA F16s were loaded with, as there was still a commercial air liner heading towards Washington. "Just, hot guns" came back the reply. "That will do, get them up."

A Tiger without teeth and claws is just a large colourful cat.

[TS010]

Good on yer, nothing untoward about asking a question. Interestingly, a documentary this week covering the 9/11 terrorist attacks showed footage whereby the big air chief in command asked what ordnance the QRA F16s were loaded with, as there was still a commercial air liner heading towards Washington. "Just, hot guns" came back the reply. "That will do, get them up."

A Tiger without teeth and claws is just a large colourful cat.

In the new National Geographic documentary 9/11: One day in America (episode 3) there is an interview with a lady F-16 pilot who was flying one of the first two aircraft airborne and sent to look for Flight 93. She mentions that both aircraft were unarmed and that they would have to ram it. The flight lead was to take out the cockpit and she was to take the tail off.

[Hawkwind26]

Good on yer, nothing untoward about asking a question. Interestingly, a documentary this week covering the 9/11 terrorist attacks showed footage whereby the big air chief in command asked what ordnance the QRA F16s were loaded with, as there was still a commercial air liner heading towards Washington. "Just, hot guns" came back the reply. "That will do, get them up."

A Tiger without teeth and claws is just a large colourful cat.

In the new National Geographic documentary 9/11: One day in America (episode 3) there is an interview with a lady F-16 pilot who was flying one of the first two aircraft airborne and sent to look for Flight 93. She mentions that both aircraft were unarmed and that they would have to ram it. The flight lead was to take out the cockpit and she was to take the tail off.

Which article does one go with! The audio tapes of the conversations that took place between the air defence hierarchy. or one of the QRA pilots. Ramming any potential jet would be more decisive than staffing with canon fire - instant perhaps. Later footage shows F15s circling over Washington.

[sherriff]

Spot-on, Vulture 01.

[Malcolm]

Which article does one go with! The audio tapes of the conversations that took place between the air defence hierarchy. or one of the QRA pilots. Ramming any potential jet would be more decisive than staffing with canon fire - instant perhaps. Later footage shows F15s circling over Washington.

The Lady Pilot wasn't on a QRA sortie, just a normal training one. If the background footage they showed was correct she was flying an F16 allocated to the District of Columbia ANG out of Andrews AFB.

I think the QRA jets that were first on the scene over NY were Mass ANG F-15's from Otis ANGB. The first jet is now preserved somewhere. I've also read that there were some F-16's out of somewhere in the mid-west (Illinois/Ohio?) which were also unarmed and tasked to go after United 93, which eventually crashed in Pennsylvania before any military assets could intervene.

The same program also showed F-16's escorting AF-1 as it flew from Miami (Homestead?) to Barksdale AFB. The images weren't clear enough (on my 12 inch black and white 405 line valve set) to tell which unit they were from - But if I had to guess I'd take a stab at FL ANG out of Jacksonville.