The Royal Air Force have paused “non-essential flying” by Typhoon and Hawk jets as a “temporary safety precaution” until a technical issue is resolved.
In a tweet, the RAF announced:
“We have been notified of a technical issue which may affect the safe operation of our ejector seats in Typhoon and Red Arrows aircraft. We have paused non-essential flying as a temporary safety precaution until the situation is better understood.”
We have been notified of a technical issue which may affect the safe operation of our ejector seats in Typhoon and @rafredarrows aircraft. We have paused non-essential flying as a temporary safety precaution until the situation is better understood. pic.twitter.com/iDqOqnw88w
— Royal Air Force (@RoyalAirForce) July 22, 2022
Typhoon’s MK16A Ejection Seat
Until we know more, here’s some background on the ejection seat used by Typhoon from Martin-Baker.
“The development of the Mk16A ejection seat for the Eurofighter Typhoon was carried out at Martin-Baker’s facilities at Denham, Chalgrove and Langford Lodge. Due to the capabilities and wide operating envelope of the aircraft, Martin-Baker was presented with a series of challenges which have had to be overcome during the development of the seat, such as the accommodation of a wider range of pilot models covering height and weight requirement, as well as achieving compatibility with equipment such as the Head Mounted Display (HMD), Chemical and Biological protection units (CB) and general aircrew equipment.
The Mk16A ejection seat utilises a second generation digital seat sequencer which incorporates a strategy of continuous sensing of external environmental parameters. Under certain speed and altitude conditions, the recovery timings at which the parachute is deployed are varied in order to optimise the terrain clearance.”
Hawk’s Type 10B-2 Ejection Seat
There are over 5,500 Mk10 seats currently in service.
More on this as it develops.
From memory an Ejection Seat problem has happened before ?.
Yes sadly one of the Reds killed, when on the ground I believe.
Yes, I was there on the Sunday. Great show, and hot hot weather.
RIAT was very hot! But what a pleasure to return. In my opinion the Black Eagles stole the show.
This issue demands the closest attention by numerous organizations, depending upon whether it’s a model specific or systemic issue. A helluva lot of USAF personnel ride Maerin-Baker seats on a daily basis.
Model specific as the F35 uses Martin Baker too, and that’s not been included in the above restriction on flying.
So we can work out it must be an issue that effects the typhoon seat and red arrows seat. A shared component? Doesn’t mention other hawks.
Amazing system the ejector seats. I wonder if Martin baker are still using the gloster meteor test aircraft?
Yes
Got to be a shared component, intrinsically different seats otherwise.
Pyrotechnic cartridges according to the German airforce who also grounded their fleet. Looks like a potential issue with a production lot/batch
I recall there was some issue with the F35 MB seat initially, trying to remember I thinknit was a weight restriction. Thankfully NB sorted it.
Presumably all Typhoon customers use the same seat, so the issue will be the same for German, Spanish, Italian etc aircraft, not just UK.
Shame about the B52 ☹
I was there and the B52 was a real shame. It was certainly hot, but a fantastic day. Seeing a mock QRA was brilliant.
👍, the Koreans put on quite the display, I’d go as far as to say it easily eclipsed a Red Arrow routine.
A lesion on why you need more than one fast jet fleet at squadron level. You get a critical issue that grounds the fleet your in a mess.
Martin Baker ejection seats are in 75% of western aircraft (and a lot of others too), they have a virtual monopoly.
Martin Baker have 53% of the ejection seat market. Collins are the other major western player e.g. F15, F16 & the new T7 use Collins’ ACES.
Do you know what’s the additional cost of running two separate fast jet fleets at once?
I don’t know but the RAF always considers it worth the cost as we have always had at least 2 fast jet fleets.
Fulfilling different roles. Don’t quibble.
Ummm I think you will find they can both fulfil the same roles it’s not quibbling as many smaller nations have one airframe type doing everything. The only thing that one of our fast jet types cannot do that the other can it launch of an Elizabeth.
So are you proposing the RAF buy more F-35s to fill the Typhoon role in case this happens again? And in similar vein, should the FAA buy another kind of carrier-capable fighter in case the F-35 fleet is grounded? What other roles do you think are critical enough that two separate platforms should be operated, for redundancy?
No I’m pointing out we do have two platforms, this was not a comment about our own forces as If the typhoon force was formally grounded we do have the F35s to cover QRA. Generally if something is critical and you specifically cannot manage or accept that critical failure you should always have a at least one redundancy. The carriers in reality are not critical QRA is. When you get down to it the question is can you live without it if not how do you mitigate the risk. actually look at say most capabilities within the armed forces they… Read more »
The RAF isn’t going to run two fast jet types for breakdown redundancies, period. Any more than if the Army would run two tank types for redundancy. Having “two” fast jet fleets is a coincidence, due to the decision to build the carriers the way they are. Had they been capable of operating “Naval Typhoon” they would have, and you would now see a standardised all-Typhoon fleet.
im sure you’ve managed to have more discussions about this with the head of the RAF than I have. Buts it’s a bit odd that the RAF has alway run multiple fleets even when some of the fleets were effectively redundant.Infact I don’t know a time when the RAF ever ran a single fleet…so your in-depth knowledge of why they do things helps clear that up as the evidence is all to the contrary.
Well yes, it beats me why the Spitfire, Hurricane, Hawk and so on were all in use at the same time. I suppose because those were confusing, perhaps even desperate times. More recently, the RAF operated multiple specialised jet combat aircraft because there were appreciable differences in performance that made specialised airframes desirable. For example, the Tornado was an excellent low-level bomber but a mediocre superiority fighter. Hence the need for the Phantom. Nor could either aircraft fill the role of the shipborne, expeditionary-capable Harrier. That is absolutely not the same as operating “two” fast jet fleets of similar type… Read more »
Matt the RAF has run very high numbers of different fleets all doing the same thing right up until the present day. The list provided are all Aircraft procured for the RAF for roles within the RAF ( RAF harries were never procured with deployment on carriers that came later as a happy accident). So the RAF list of never ever only having one airframe type and has been pretty fanatical in trying to keep at least two of each type in services: Nuclear bombers/strategic and medium 1)valiant 1955 to 1965 2)Vulcan 1956 to 1984 3)victor 1958 to 1993 4)… Read more »
Certainly at a surface appreciation it looks like a lot of similar aircraft doing similar things. Phantom and Lightning however did not drop bombs; neither were Jaguar, Harrier GR.1, or Buccaneer ever designed to tangle with Mig-29s and Su-27s. They were armed mainly for self-defence and would have been terrible at the air defence role. Tornado was a terrible compromise. Also, some of these aircraft replaced others and were not primarily intended to operate concurrently. Tornado in particular was supposed to replace most of the aircraft on this list. Buccaneer was simply making the best out of ex-carrierborne aircraft with… Read more »
couple if facts the RAF ordered their own buccaneers as a strike aircraft so you can to conflate the extra airframes the got form the navy. yes many can in after to replace, but the ran concurrent fleets for many years keeping up airframe types simply look at 95 they had 3 focuses good air to air platforms in the Tornado ADV ( which was a focused interceptor with different engines and airframe as well as weapons load out from the tornado GR1-4). Phantom 11 and lighting as well as a number of strike ground attacks from harrier, Jaguar, tornado… Read more »
Like I said: if you don’t know the background, design, and role of each fast jet type, you can “map” anything you like and come up with the apparent conclusion that they all do the same thing. Much like how a pistol, a submachine gun, a rifle and an artillery piece all propel a chunk of metal out of a tube at someone, nicht wahr?
Your gun analogy is not appropriate as the RAF have always had a number of airframes that covered the same type of role or could cover the same type of role. A pistol is a pistol, there are many types and characteristics but they all serve the pistol role…. as with rifles. The RAF have alway has airframes that cover the same roles if needed ( a pistol can never cover the role of a rifle). Your ignoring the evidence and using the argument of doubt, which is quit frankly the way people have always argued when presented with evidence… Read more »
Yeah, I definitely am ignoring the “evidence” you gave as I find it significantly deficient. All you’ve done is to reassert your belief that these aircraft work the way you think they do, without so much as acknowledging the dispute of this fact which I raised multiple times. As we are not going anywhere given your ironclad convictions, there’s no need to further argue the point; we’re done here.
P.S. This is an interesting bit of circular logic I just noticed in the last paragraph you wrote above; according to you, the various RAF jet types can cover the function of the other because the RAF has always had aircraft that cover the same roles.
The risk is managed because the policy has always been that the risk is managed. Interesting.
If we were in such a pickle, I’m sure the USAF and the fighters they have stationed in the UK, would be asked to cover?
The RAF would homogenise them if they could, given how much it’s been homogenising everything recently to save cost. Getting rid of Hercules to just have A400s most recently. You’ve pointed out one of many trade offs with this strategy, the other main one being not having dominance in any one tactical domain and slightly reduced mission set. I guess the trade offs are worth it though. The cost; we have a tiny fleet as it is considering our committments, and how difficult it is to train pilots. We have a small pool of pilots so it seems worth it… Read more »
Not really needed. In a war situation this would not ground the fleet. Its one thing being extra cautious during peace time, but in the event of a war caution would need to go out the window to get as many assets available as possible.
Hi steve
Im not considering a wartime situation here, but the everyday job of ensuring peace and security so the QRA and other key commitments for NATO and the UN etc.
kind Regards
jonathan
Makes no difference if they use the same ejector seat. Having said that we will have two types with the F35 though eight aircraft can hardly be called a fleet.
8 aircraft? U.K. has 24 of them with more coming all the time.
Are you suggesting that the U.K. buys loads more block 3 aircraft that can only carry ASRAAM, amraam, and paveway IV? Then has to purchase a big up grade and hope it works. Rather all customers put pressure on Lockheed and not buy until block 4
I am always amazed at the way I am censured every time I mention the F35. Whether you like it or not, as of today, we have one operational squadron of eight aircraft …No.617. There is another, No.207 as an OCU for RAF and RN pilots with on average six to eight aircraft. The remaining aircraft are used for weapons and systems evaluation and three of them are in the U.S. This has taken six years. As for the ordering of aircraft I do wonder whether you actually read my posts. I have said over and over again that we… Read more »
First off, we are part of the NATO alliance, and it’s not China/Russia against the UK.. And we are not sharing the F35 between the RAF and RN. They are a joint force. If the powers that be require them on the carrier, that’s what they will do, if its land based, that is what they will do, this is why we are buying F35B. Russia can’t achieve ait superiority over Ukraine so I wouldn’t give them much Hope for anything else. Chinese are a threat, but they aren’t going to be dropping bombs on Lincolnshire any time soon. And… Read more »
Same old complacent response. I really wonder if you want the F 35 at all. I said efficient use of resources, by which I mean, as you well know, the fact that we man and operate two carriers without aircraft. Please do not trot out the idea as you have done before about them being used by other forces. I do not remember anyone rushing to join our Falklands Task Force. As for what I would do, if you don’t know by now I’m not writing it all again.
Yes, I very much want the F35. I think you need a reality check about how all this works, and the realities if complex defence projects and budgets, including international relations. And the Falklands war was 40 years ago. We have moved on. As has technology and capability.
I need a reality check! Are you kidding me? I was involved in giving evidence to the last two defence reviews fighting for the maintenance of amphibious operations in the Royal Navy and in the provision of ALL the aircraft needed for ALL carrier operations to be a real force. All I get from you is the same old down the line is good enough. As for the Falklands which we have recently remembered the reason it happened was the UK government of Oh, down the line… Sound familiar.?
So you sent a letter to the MOD, how did that work out? What do you want to happen Geoff? We suddenly find the cash pilots and engineers for another 200 F35s, and another 100 Typhoons? We would all like to see more resources, but some of us stay within reason, and look at the bigger picture, and what we can do within our defence budget against the backdrop of government spending across all government departments.
You have no idea what I was involved in with relation to the Defence Reviews which is probably just as well. I’m sorry but your arguments are getting sillier by the post and seem to have more to do with objection than creation. Why don’t you try something novel and also a first. Give us all your ideas for a cohesive plan for the integration of the F35 into service with both RN Carriers and the RAF along with numbers, timescale and operational and strategic implications for the UK Then we’ll be getting somewhere.
I’ll leave that to the experts in the MOD and our Armed Force’s. You know full well why procurement of the F35 is slow. The bottom line is we can’t do it all. We are buying more F35B’s, we are funding some very capable upgrades to our Typhoon fleet that will make them the most capable Typhoons in service. We are funding Tempest and a host of new weapons. The budget only goes so far. If we get a 2.5% defence budget or even 3%, I’d buy more F35B’s once blk4 is available. We don’t need the F35A. As I’ve… Read more »
Fascinating I’m sure but I would still be interested in you coming up with a positive thought about how we move forward.
We have a 190bn10 year equipment plan that spells out the way forward with the budget that is currently available. Take a read of that as a starting point. We can’t just magic up fast jets and personal in unrealistic timeframes as you have eluded to in previous posts, even if the money was available. I don’t do fantasy fleets Geoff, I talk about what is real and achievable, and a lot has been announced in just the last few days. I don’t agree with defence cuts as much as the next guy, and we have cut to much in… Read more »
Geoff. Everyone knows the F35 has had considerable issues but firstly the F35 is far better than what it’s replacing. The Harrier(great for its era) had less range, lower payload, less sensors and zero stealth. And secondly the F35 is the only stealth fighter game in town. UK is the only country behind the US to have a operational carrier with stealth jets. Others will follow but most are 2-3 years away. That puts us 5 years ahead by my reckoning. I also follow the news on the program and yes it’s not the best read, but then I reflect… Read more »
Expat… I have no argument with anything you have said, until I get to your penultimate paragraph. I also think the F35 is a world beater and I have never said any different. My argument if about readiness and timescale.
All the numbers and dates I gave in the post today are factual so I continue to push for a speeding up of the process, otherwise why do we bother having opinions about anything.
Incidentally I think you’ll find that the USN and USMC think it’s worthwhile to have carrier loads of aircraft at sea.
The USN alone has more than twice the entire UK’s military budget (about £135bn pa). I’m not sure they have more than twice the number of F-35s.
Our issues with the F-35 are undoubtedly different, but pointing to the way they use their carriers isn’t a valid comparison either.
I was responding to Expat.
Geoff. We could do with more F35s but also fairly soon we will not have fighter rolling off UK production lines only parts for foreign assembly of Typhoons. Tempest will not be production ready for 10 years. Can you imagine the uproar if we decide to gap shipbuilding. But I realise we can’t do everything, development Tempest, build more Typhoons or buy F35s faster. Its by no means a binary choice. Yes the USMC and USN work differently, for instance they deploy to the Gulf for a period and maintain a presence. We are much more task oriented as generally… Read more »
Six of our own aircraft. I accept what you say about not being able to do everything but why build the carriers at all and crew them if it’s going to take ten to fifteen years to get 20 or so aircraft on each. It is probably the single biggest waste of resources I have seen in thirty years. When we wasted £4 billion on Nimrod everybody was up in arms but with this the response seems to be Oh, not to worry, something will happen sometime.
One issue will be the exchange rate. $ purchases are expensive and have been for many years. Back in 2008 £1 bought 2 dollars. The other issue is the F35 was promised to be F16 prices. Its only now its reaching affordable levels but the B remains an expensive variant.
So what was the alternative, different carriers? Continue with Harriers, go for Hornets or Rafaels? Do nothing? I don’t see a viable alternative.
In an ideal world I would have gone for cats and traps. Remember we did have that opportunity when Cameron’s government went on a dither for six months over this very issue and judging by a recent report some of the figures given for the change at the time were, shall we say, unusually large. Given the mess of the 2010 review I wouldn’t have got rid of the Harriers either. A criminal waste in my book. With C and T we would have had an option but the F35 is probably the best aircraft anyway. Despite my comments being… Read more »
At the time of selecting the B model I was in the we’ve picked the worst of the 3. But having seen the US have so many issues with the Ford class I’m glad we selected the B. As I said before the strategy is quite clear we’ll forward base where we can. Embark US jets and grow our own fleet. The only part you appear unhappy with is the rate of purchase of UK F35s? I’ve suggested some reasons for that in my previous posts. If we were at $2 to the pound as in 2008 and F35 would… Read more »
As you say I am concerned with the purchase rate, not so much with the existing order, but with the follow up order but it’s not really as simple as that. As things stand and from what various sources have stated we are likely to end up around 2030 with three squadrons of twelve aircraft plus OCU etc. In my opinion that is not a sufficient force for both services to be able to achieve maximum operational effectiveness. To add to the problem Block 4 upgrades are now four years behind schedule and costs are increasing. The original in service… Read more »
Debate is the purpose of these comment sections so I certainly have no issue with it. But I’m not sure debating fantasy fleets that we can’t afford is a real benefit as is using hide sight as yes we could have done something else know what we do today. So lets try and keep things in the realm of possibility Yes on block 4 its not great and the UK had to beat up the US to get UK weapons into Block 4. Possible solution is we push the US for go the same route as Israel and access to… Read more »
I have read your post but given your comments in the first paragraph I see very little point in responding to the rest of it. You don’t seem to have read a word I’ve said
On contry I was responding to your request to debate what should we do. I’ve laid out my view on key topics like engine and Block 4. They may not be palatable but there they are. I stated we should look to get to a position of 1 carrier operating at its design capacity ASAP.
THis is all well and good but I do think that we need to have the capability to deploy naval force at a meaningful geopolitical level unilaterally and without allies. We cant do such a thing in the land or air domain, we’re dependant on allies there, but we have to be able to exert hard power independently in at least one domain imo. Otherwise our influence is entirely dependent on the mood of european and US allies towards us and their situation need of us. And at times, like right now, relations with both can be bumpy. ANd as… Read more »
Name one instance where you think that would happen and not impact our partners? Our partners are also dependent on us we’ve been supporting the French in Africa as an example. If you read my posts I’ve said the F35 numbers need to increase.
I’m not trying to censor you at all. I value all opinions. I wrote my understanding of things but I’m always prepared to realise that I’m wrong. My understanding was that 48 will be in service by 2025. The further orders come after 2025. 809 squadron is standing up in 2023. Each squadron is going to have between 12-16 aircraft. (Not sure that’s the case right now) the reason for the 2 numbers is depending on if you included the 20% aircraft in maintenance or not. I don’t have the answers. If they buy more aircraft much faster there is… Read more »
Hi M.S. Sadly the remaining 24 will be delivered by2025/26, not operational You have a good point about SDR98 but as you say it is what it is. Do you want to have a look at my reply to Deprendo. Just some thoughts.
It doesn’t take three to five years to bring a cab into service.
Did I mention a single anywhere?
Perhaps I misunderstood the timeline when you wrote the following, could you clarify?
“we will not have any additional aircraft to speak of until 2025/2026 and only then will their integration into service take place with a suggested time frame of three to five years”
Hi Matt. Six and half dozen I think. I meant additional aircraft plural as in getting the extra’s into service but yes you could have taken it as for a single.
This is all disapointing and the timeframes arent good at all, and we have too little mass and too many jam tomorrow force structure and procurement decisions at once. SO i think your pessimism is well placed. But what do you suggest we do? We built the carriers. It only makes sense to have two for reserve when they are, for carrier, quite cheap. Maybe the Royal Navy should have left the carrier game to the americans and invested in subs and a large surface fleet for a large footprint. Maybe not, but the decision is made. They’re stovl; possibly… Read more »
We are as you rightly say in the F35B game but despite a lot of negativity about this situation we can if we have the will make the best of it. You will have read the arguments about RAF budget and RN budget etc but this is really a complete Red Herring. There is a Defence Budget. My own view, stated often, is that we should turn the B version into a Carrier Force, perhaps with a small number of extra airframes later on. Essentially this comes down to having four operational squadrons of ten aircraft as does the USMC.… Read more »
But it’s at squadron level deployment and we do have more that 8. It’s not just about the ejector seat this is just an example and not a critical issue per say as they are not completely grounded. But there are issues that could ground a whole fleet and if you did not have say F35 you would be a bit buggered.
But here we are talking about ejector seats, hence my reply. Also see my reply to M. S.
I know Geoff but I was using it as an indicator around a risk, it’s the risk manager in me, I’m always having to extrapolate risks based on a wide variety of things that happen to other potential risks…so the ejector seat issue is a warning that things happen to fleets and if you can help mitigate that you should. Always assume the worst will happen and be ready, because it aways does.
O.K. Jonathan. Fair enough. We have that in common .As a business man these days I’m afraid I tend to imagine the worst when it comes to suppliers, then now and then I’m pleasantly surprised.🙂
Logic would tell you it’s a service part, as the type 102 Has been around many years.
and should of been found way before now.
Correct, USAF announced the grounding of 203:T-38 Talons and 76 T-6 Texan IIs on 7/27/22, until ejection seat cartridges could presumably be tested and certified (or simply replaced in toto?). Fortunately, issue surfaced during peacetime; no corners need be cut re maintenance!
Nice, sadly it means that they will miss the Bray show in Dublin, but seeing the Battle of Britain Lancaster and Hurricane fly in was a great sight.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CgRz6tIArwL/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=
Typhoon future cockpit for those who are interested 👍
Cheers Rob, yes takes it out to cica 2040 minimum. Coupled with BVR armaments that’s a very capable platform….sadly Typhoon has suffered with regards upgrades/radar etc…as has such latent potential.
Oooh that’s a big screen. Wonder if it comes with Netflix for boring ferry flights😂😂😂😂
The Red Arrows have been cleared for Return to Flight:
https://twitter.com/RoyalAirForce/status/1550585704639602688
Well that was a short issue. Maybe someone forgot to tighten a bolt up or remove a sticker.
Is Martin-Baker still a British company?
Yes. Based in Bucks if memory serves. I’m sure they’ll soon sort this out.
Chalgrove I think.
O.K Close!🙄
Well that’s in Buck’s! 😀
MB have three production sites, Denham in the UK,Safran/MB in France & MB America, all F35 seats are from the US factory.
A great weekend.
Was there Sunday. Was a great day out, the QRA was display was cut short on Sunday as one of the Typhoons developed a fault, can’t be related surely.
Back to the Spitfire then?
It really does highlight just how few fighters we have & how vulnerable we are with a halfway house alternative that has restricted legs in its variant. Hopefully, any operational need in the meantime can be done safely. In the UK, we could hope the USAF can plug the gap with their more than adequate fighter force?
One advantage of drones – no ejector seat needed😀
At least the RAF still have some real fighters in the BBMF to provide our air defence. What a real sham really.