Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

aviation24.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#41

Post by jsiepkes »

jacobush wrote: post #36
Jerry2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they needed to do something stupid or the weight-on-wheels switch needed to malfunction. Actually, the F-16 has a switch to override the 'weight on wheels' (WOW) safety for the weapons. It's used for doing checks and maintenance on the ground. Switch was probably flipped and it did what it was supposed to do. You can see the procedure here: http://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-1-1510-224-10/css/...

But, but ... the action hero scenario then? Strafing enemy while taxiing to the runway?!

Probably more likely: Override sensor malfunction while in the air.

Kinda sucks if your multi million plane gets shot down because it couldn't fire a missile because of a 50 Euro sensor malfunction...

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#42

Post by Tharkun »

jnurmine wrote: post #40
Tharkun wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not difficult political questions. The US through NATO are forcing Belgium to buy F35s, and that'll be that. Out of all the jets allegedly in the running, only F35s can be used to drop US nukes. The very same US nukes which have been sitting around in Belgium for decades. The worst best kept secret in the country. No politician is willing/allowed to go on record about this, so they all pretend other jets ar…

It sure is silly to buy an expensive military plane if one cannot produce all parts including the engines domestically... how is hauling spares from across the Atlantic going to work in a hot situation?

Not many countries are capable of building their own fighter jets. Many use hand-me-downs from the US or Russia. Some more 'favoured' partners can buy them outright, but terms & conditions apply...

There are rumours about US intervention/approval being required when loading the F35 computer with mission details..

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#43

Post by toomanybeersies »

hnarn wrote: post #23

I might be stating the obvious here, but why is maintenance work being done on a fighter jet that is loaded with sharp ammunition? You wouldn't do maintenance on a gun when it's loaded, why would you do it on a multi million dollar fighter jet?

And yet people still manage to accidentally shoot themselves when cleaning their firearms.

Usually it's a series of failures that lead to such an incident, rather than one single critical failure. Failsafes aren't failproofs.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#44

Post by espeed »

tschwimmer wrote: post #7

I took a look at the US Air Force subreddit[0] and lots of people who maintain these jets are skeptical as to the accidental nature of this incident. According to several comments there are many physical failsafes that would need to be deactivated in order for this to happen. The incident occurred in Belgium but it’s hard to believe their F-16s are significantly different. [0] https://reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/9…

Well, if it's true, we finally have a real live answer to the age-old question in Iron Eagle: "Dad, will the Maverick fire if we're still on the ground?" [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eagle

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/quotes

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#45

Post by hnarn »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #43
hnarn wrote: post #23

I might be stating the obvious here, but why is maintenance work being done on a fighter jet that is loaded with sharp ammunition? You wouldn't do maintenance on a gun when it's loaded, why would you do it on a multi million dollar fighter jet?

And yet people still manage to accidentally shoot themselves when cleaning their firearms. Usually it's a series of failures that lead to such an incident, rather than one single critical failure. Failsafes aren't failproofs.

I'm not sure I understand your point, surely people shoot themselves by accident because they neglect to remove ammunition from the weapon, proving my point? It's not a "series of failures", it's the exact opposite, it's literally one failure.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#46

Post by Stratoscope »

Jerry2 wrote: post #28

This reminded me of Taffy Holden, UK's RAF technician, who in 1966 accidentally took off in Lightning after making an error. English Electric Lightning was one of the fastest fighter jets of its time. > The account has been widely published across the internet, but we make no apology for running the story here, as it’s a fascinating tale and it’s good to hear the original account of how Taffy Holden, an RAF Engineeri…

What a great story! Thanks for posting it.

Taffy had a great commanding officer, too. At least from the account here, a truly humble leader. But you will have to read to the end to find out.

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#49

Post by onetimemanytime »

girvo wrote: post #17
AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #9

As a Belgian I find this hilarious. This might be the most Belgian thing ever. By the way they are investigating whether this was an accident or on purpose. The chances of this being an accident are quite small.

What would the possible motive be for doing this on purpose, do you think? Also thanks for the best beer ever

Never underestimate the fact that people also "go nuts." They might regret it later but a little late and a dollar short. It happens

Re: Belgian Air Force F-16 destroyed by fire during maintenance

#50

Post by jnurmine »

Tharkun wrote: post #42
jnurmine wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure is silly to buy an expensive military plane if one cannot produce all parts including the engines domestically... how is hauling spares from across the Atlantic going to work in a hot situation?

Not many countries are capable of building their own fighter jets. Many use hand-me-downs from the US or Russia. Some more 'favoured' partners can buy them outright, but terms & conditions apply... There are rumours about US intervention/approval being required when loading the F35 computer with mission details..

But in Europe there are several fighter programs. These include JAS 39 (from SAAB in Sweden), Eurofighter Typhoon (from BAE, Airbus and Leonardo; Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy), Raphael (from Dassault in France).

They are not strictly 100% European manufacture, I suppose, but could very well be.

There being several domestic European options, obtaining hardware from USA seems counter-productive. The F35 are very expensive, their quality seems supect, they are pushed through not on their technical merits but through political pressure (e.g. Norway), there are strings attached. All this is somewhat alarming. Also, any political guarantees attached to the purchase of the F35 are suspect, as this weeks promises may change next week - we all know the new administration is rather dynamic, in good and bad.

Could one buy a few for political reasons? Maybe, but maybe one or two would not be enough and with a larger block the cost becomes an issue.

Post reply on HN