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

91–100 of 130 posts

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

#91

Post by refurb »

ElBarto wrote: post #86
_delirium wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US-designed, but partly Belgian-manufactured. These things are always political/economic horsetrading, and as part of the deal, Belgium got one of the F-16 production lines placed in Charleroi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...

Well, when the news is all about security and Chinese hacks and untrustworthy hardware I find it strange to rely 100% on foreign hardware for one's airforce. Europe isn't an American colony. If anything it should be the other way round.

Considering how little the EU spends on the military compared to the US, it shouldn’t be surprising at all.

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

#92

Post by ElBarto »

refurb wrote: post #91
ElBarto wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when the news is all about security and Chinese hacks and untrustworthy hardware I find it strange to rely 100% on foreign hardware for one's airforce. Europe isn't an American colony. If anything it should be the other way round.

Considering how little the EU spends on the military compared to the US, it shouldn’t be surprising at all.

That's a strawman to the point...

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

#93

Post by kopo »

ElBarto wrote: post #37
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.

I find it sad that European airforces buy so many US planes.

And here I was wondering what Belgium needs an AirForce for, leave alone an F-16. Whoever attacks they are going to surrender in 3 weeks anyway and act as battlefield rental space as they always have throughout history. Pointless waste of resources. Just a testament to top quality American marketing.

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

#94

Post by agurk »

nradov wrote: post #69
noir_lord wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even we (the UK) can't (or least couldn't at the time) get access or permission to modify the source code on the F-35 and we (as a minor but only Level-1 project partner) partially build it. IIRC the only country that can is Israel and they got a specific exemption. Honestly I find the way our government rolls over to the US frustrating at times, As the customer we should hold a firmer line - flip side is though that…

The UK government boxed themselves into a corner by designing their new aircraft carrier to only handle STOVL aircraft. And the only such aircraft available is the F-35B. If they had designed their carrier with catapults like the French did then they would have had a couple other aircraft options, and thus more negotiating power.

A CATOBAR setup was included in the designs at one stage but later scrapped for cost reasons. Building a carrier with a ski-ramp is a lot cheaper.

The disadvantage is as you point out, severely limited types of aircraft for operations. The advantage of the cheaper design was that two carriers could be produced - France, with a similar economy and military to the UK size-wise, has only one fixed-wing carrier.

Two carriers is a game changer, as it allows year round operational readiness. For the Charles de Gaulle it spent ~900 days at sea in its first six years[0] - less than half the time.

Always having a carrier ready with "compromised" aircraft has many advantages over a lower availability with better aircraft.

[0] https://www.copybook.com/fact-files/charles-de-gaulle-aircra...

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

#95

Post by the-dude »

Yeri wrote: post #90
the-dude wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belgian nuclear plant suspected sabotage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station#201...

How is that related?

Another strange incident in Belgian critical infrastructure.

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

#97

Post by rsync »

hcrisp wrote: post #76
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…

On a related note, I saw a video at the Pensacola Naval Air Museum of the USS Forrestal fire. Not a maintenance error, but an electrical anomaly caused a Zuni rocket on a McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantom to fire, striking an external fuel tank of a A-4 Skyhawk. The flammable jet fuel spilled across the flight deck, ignited, and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161. Future Sen…

We had to watch that video during naval basic training. IIRC, McCain was not merely on deck, but was strapped into his airplane.

I also remember that they were pushing fighter jets overboard rather than attempt to extinguish them as there was magnesium on fire that could not be put out quickly with the resources they had and they were afraid they would just melt through the ship, like thermite.

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

#98

Post by chiph »

rutgerv wrote: post #26
girvo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Could always be a personal conflict with other technicians/personnel, of course - or a curious form of sabotage. However, on the political front, renewing the F16s in Belgium has been a point of some controversy. The other EU countries (and the US, through the NATO) expect us to stay up to date with military hardware, but Belgian politicians are hesitant to actually spend the money, as it puts the budgets under heavy…

I was in Belgium last year (visiting where dad fought at Elsenborn Ridge[0]) and something I was curious about - after Belgium had been occupied in WW-I, and it became obvious during the inter-war years[1] that Germany was rearming, why didn't they launch a crash defense program?

With Russia now becoming increasingly aggressive, I would think the time to prepare a deterrence is now.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elsenborn_Ridge [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxkk8CuejV4

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

#100

Post by cptskippy »

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…

That quote makes it sound more deliberate and less a terrifying accident.

The Lightning was a high speed interceptor tasked to shoot down nuclear bombers, to say it was fast is an understatement.

He wasn't certified to fly that aircraft and was troubleshooting an electrical problem that couldn't be reproduced in the hanger. So he was taking short taxis down a closed portion of runway without a canopy. The equivalent of a car mechanic reving your engine in the parking lot.

The reheater (aka afterburner) on the Lightning was the last position on the throttle and there was a lock once engaged.

He wasn't having any luck reproducing the issue and so was going faster with each attempt. He accidentally engaged the reheater and went flying down the runway.

Before he could manage to disengage the reheater he had to avoid another aircraft and after that the runway ran out so he had to choose between crashing and taking off.

Once up it took him 4 approaches to bring it down without a canopy.

Post reply on HN