What would you do?

[EGNX]

I'll have to disagree. Maybe so, I am only 16 but I feel that I would be 100% capable to sacrifice my own life to save the lives of many others... I know it would be very tough and unfair on my own family but one grieving family is alot worse than 100... I would know in my heart of hearts that my family would have some comfort in knowing I died for a purpose, and saved many lives in doing so... Obviously I would never want to be in that sort of situation, but if I ever was, then I would always try and do the right thing.

once you have seen a few dead bodies

Sadly thats allready occured... http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1163617739

[Hagar]

I'll have to disagree. Maybe so, I am only 16 but I feel that I would be 100% capable to sacrifice my own life to save the lives of many others... I know it would be very tough and unfair on my own family but one grieving family is alot worse than 100... I would know in my heart of hearts that my family would have some comfort in knowing I died for a purpose, and saved many lives in doing so... Obviously I would never want to be in that sort of situation, but if I ever was, then I would always try and do the right thing.

Maybe this is what the Air Vice-Marshal was trying to find out. If I'm right I suspect you would have failed the test.

Sorry but I agree 100% with Matt.

[EGNX]

Sorry but I agree 100% with Matt.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their views, and I think your right in saying that this is what he wants know about RAF pilots. But, I would presume that he would want his pilots to sacrifice their lives to save others in the right situation. This is where it all gets blown out of context and everybody thinks his trying to get them to become 'suicide' pilots to achieve a mission objective.

[Hagar]

Sorry but I agree 100% with Matt.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their views, and I think your right in saying that this is what he wants know about RAF pilots. But, I would presume that he would want his pilots to sacrifice their lives to save others in the right situation. This is where it all gets blown out of context and everybody thinks his trying to get them to become 'suicide' pilots to achieve a mission objective.

I'm sorry but no Western military commander worth his salt wants anyone under his command to play at heroes & deliberately commit suicide in cold blood. Some commanders have to send people out on extremely dangerous missions with very little chance of return. The crews know this & accept it but they always believe that there is a chance that they will make it back safely. This is the way it's always been & there's no need to even mention it. Either this chap has been misquoted or he's a complete idiot & not fit for the job.

[fighter25]

No, I wouldn't. It's not a case of whether I'd be saving other lives by taking my own, it's the fact that such actions shouldn't be necessary these days. If I'm sitting in an unarmed jet, and I've spotted the enemy, I should be able to call in reinforcements to take them out for me.

What if.... you where the only airborne fast jet within 40 miles of a fully loaded 747 that has just taken off from Gatwick and has be hijacked by terrorists with the intention to crash it in the centre of London at rush hour. It is estimated that the 747 will be at its target within 10 minutes. Obiously you are unarmed as you are on a routine training flight. No other fast jet aircraft will be able to reach the 747 before it hits its target. So it is up to you, to forcefully use your aircraft to bring down the 747 as quickly as you can and with the least loss of life possible...

Would you do it? Or just fly home for tea and biscuits...?

I would do that.

[bok269]

I really dont think any of us could say for sure if we would do it while we are sitting in a comfortable place (home, etc.) discussing a hobby we all love (Flying and Flight sim) with a rational state of mind.  In the heat of the moment in battle things are much different.

Problem with terrorism is that when one senior leader is killed, another takes his place.  So, whether or not you actually saved someone's life is questionable.

[expat]

I'll have to disagree. Maybe so, I am only 16 but I feel that I would be 100% capable to sacrifice my own life to save the lives of many others... I know it would be very tough and unfair on my own family but one grieving family is alot worse than 100... I would know in my heart of hearts that my family would have some comfort in knowing I died for a purpose, and saved many lives in doing so... Obviously I would never want to be in that sort of situation, but if I ever was, then I would always try and do the right thing.

once you have seen a few dead bodies

Sadly thats allready occured... http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1163617739

Yes I remember that thread. Not a nice experience. You seem to have handled it well though.

Problem with terrorism is that when one senior leader is killed, another takes his place.  So, whether or not you actually saved someone's life is questionable.

Now that hits the nail directly on the head.

Matt

[DaveSims]

A couple of US Air Force pilots had this very scenario on September 11, 2001.  The aircraft that had been vectored to intercept the aircraft that crashed into a field were unarmed, but the only aircraft available.  One of the pilots was fully prepared to crash his F-16 into the airliner, but the aircraft crashed before reaching it.  Before 9/11, it wasn't uncommon for most Air Force fighters to fly unarmed, or carrying dummy weapons.  No one anticipated a need for live weapons for such an occurence.

[C]

Mmm, interesting...

Firstly - the story originated in The Sun - via a thread on another well known internet forum - which has the word "rumour" in its name. Take it with a large pinch of sensationalist salt.

Secondly, it is very possible the AVM in question (I've only met him once, and been in his presence a couple of other times - generally listening to him) was taken out of context. He is a great advocate of the modern way of operation of the forces, and particularly of course the RAF. Included in this is the fact that RAF personnel, particularly (as is relevant to this case) the Officer cadre, are "Warfighters" first, "Officers" second and only third is their professional specialisation (pilot/adminner/doctor/eng etc).

This would fit in with that ethos, and as with all things in war, it would be up to an individual at the time to decide on their course of action. Many in previous conflicts have carried out such types of action, both fatally and non fatally. It is not something you would find out about until you were in the situation either I expect. No one however, could reasonably order it.

As for the London scenario - why do you think the Q jets are kept at Coningsby?