Tornado F3 Aerial Ballet

[Sabre Dog]

Eight or nine years ago I witnessed (as a ground civilian) five Tornado F3 engaged in an aerial dogfight over the eastern end of Loch Tay in Perthshire. What seemed so remarkable was the low speeds (almost to the point of stalling) and the number and close proximity of the planes to each other. It went on for at least 15 minutes, at I guess between 5 and 10,000 feet. Was this a common training exercise and does anyone have any pictures of something similar?

The Tornado's appeared much more agile than I would have imagined and I don't think I've seen one do much other than fly in a straight line, even at an airshow! So could the ADV version "mix it" with it's gun?

[airpolice]

From more than a mile away you are sure they were F3s ?

[Sabre Dog]

Absolutely certain! Light grey pointy things, also not that far from Leuchars. They might have been lower, I might not be the best judge of height, but I had binoculars with me, but not unfortunately a camera.

[airpolice]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Tornado_gr4_za597_kemble_arp.jpg/800px-Tornado_gr4_za597_kemble_arp.jpg

So, not one like this? Proximity to an RAF station, even Leuchars, is not a great indication of where an aircraft is based.

[Onceapilot]

Ahh, the days of no SPILS and lots of alpha....

OAP

[airpolice]

Once a Pilot..... D'you mean back in the days when an F3 could pull more than 2G without a written explanation being required?

[dctyke]

Have seen the very same many times in past years over the Yorkshire Wolds:

F3 v F3
F3 v F15
and in the latter years up till it's demise F3 v Typhoon

and yes, I did work on F3 and know what it looks like up there in the blue yonder

[Geehovah]

Airpolice, if they were F3s they wouldn't be much like that would they?

Sabre Dog, it was fairly common to do 2v2 like, although dissimilar was preferable. As for using the gun; forget it.

[airpolice]

That's my point.

[Geehovah]

Then a bunch of GR4s doing day tactics at low level would be fairly unlikely........

[airpolice]

Geehova: But not impossible, not even unheard of in that part of the world.

As it only lasted 15 minutes it's not the whole sortie, and possibly just a chance encounter by a three ship bouncing a pair.

This is back in the days when there were enough people flying around in the UK to meet up with some passing trade.

F3s might be more likely to do this stuff 80 miles east of there, in their traditional play area.


I know I couldn't tell the difference between a GR4 & an F3 at over a mile while it was manoeuvring, even with binos. Could you?

[Courtney Mil]

With the RHWR, yes, I'm sure we could.

[glad rag]

I know I couldn't tell the difference between a GR4 & an F3 at over a mile while it was manoeuvring, even with binos. Could you?

...easy at the front, less so at the rear...proportions....and as CM said...fin...

[dead_pan]

at I guess between 5 and 10,000 feetWow, exciting stuff - a dog fight at 5 feet! At least we can be fairly confident of your ID skills if they were indeed at this heady altitude...

[Dominator2]

AP,
"I know I couldn't tell the difference between a GR4 & an F3 at over a mile while it was manoeuvring, even with binos. Could you?"
With a quote like that I hope they never let you near an ASRAAM. And to those disbelievers, yes the F3 could turn and burn a slow speed. Great to do for fun but tactically the way to an early grave. There is no doubt that the F3s optimum height to fight was ground level up to about 100ft. It also was easier to max perform at slow speed with the SPILS Out, not that I ever tried.
I would add that certainly back in the 80s and 90s the easiest way to ID the GR was the ac that was slow speed, still in 45 wing and out of ideas

[Geehovah]

I know I couldn't tell the difference between a GR4 & an F3 at over a mile while it was manoeuvring, even with binos. Could you?

I would have been sacked if I couldn't..................... It was a basic skill. Colour, shape, tanks. I could go on.....

No binos. I had TESS for a while. The VAS for Tornado never arrived. Just the old Mk 1 eyeball and basic air combat skills like any other air defender.

[ExAdvert]

I would add that certainly back in the 80s and 90s the easiest way to ID the GR was the ac that was slow speed, still in 45 wing and out of ideasHahaha! What Dominator2 said.... didn't change much throughout the next decade either ;)

[Sabre Dog]

Still no real answer to my question. I appreciate your comments.

I know perfectly well what I saw, as did the other people I was with. If I didn't know what an Tornado F3 was and wasn't interested in it, I wouldn't be on a forum like this! So why are some people so patronising? It's not quite trolling, but it is just as pointless.

Are there any former F3 pilots out there?

[gr4techie]

I would add that certainly back in the 80s and 90s the easiest way to ID the GR was the ac that was slow speed, still in 45 wing and out of ideas

The easiest way is the GR4 has two RHWR aerials on the fin, front and rear. While the F3 only has one, the rear aerial.

In the photo above the GR4 has a doppler aerial for drift, FLIR, laser ranging and marked target seeker fairings. These were not fitted to F3.

I never saw F3's fitted with outboard pylon stores / "ballast".

[Lima Juliet]

If an F16 was stupid enough to let an F3 take it slow speed you could hold off the F16 in an F3 with mid-flap selected at <200kts below 18,000ft until one of your wingmen came and sorted him out. I did this once in the ACMI against a youngster in an F16.

One small snag with mid-flap in the F3 was that if you did not retract it before firing ASRAAM/AIM-9 then you would blow a nice hole in the flap!!! :eek:

LJ

[CoffmanStarter]

Leon said ...

One small snag with mid-flap in the F3 was that if you did not retract it before firing ASRAAM/AIM-9 then you would blow a nice hole in the flap!!!

Blown flaps then :E

[Lima Juliet]

Coff, quite! :eek:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Presuming you mean 5,000 and 10,000 ft Sabre Dog.
With Low level evasion down to 250 feet, one would very rarely let the aircraft get below 400 kts.
Every aircraft is fought to make best use of its advantages over the enemy type(s).
Since the F3 had low Specific Excess Power relative to other fighters, one did not attempt to turn more than 90 degrees if one had the option. In fast, shoot straight, disappear even faster was preferable.
Because of the risk of unseen enemy, high performance fighters generally adopt the same tactics with larger numbers around.
The aircraft had better performance down low due to engine design, and with low drag also, F3 crews would attempt to drag any fight down to base height (5,000 ft for normal peacetime training).

However, with known small numbers of enemy, or if bounced, the ability to fight the aircraft slow was an essential skill which, due to its difficulty, would be practiced quite often. The aim was either to engineer one of your aircraft to be free of threats, who would then shoot the bad guys; or to pass the bad guys nose-to-nose whence one could then successfully run away (due to the low drag).
Missiles were preferable - you had lots. The F3 gun is best thought of as a sniper's rifle. Highly accurate and destructive if the enemy hadn't seen you (or couldn't manoeuvre much), but not much use in a fight in a telephone box.
2v3 seems unusual for F3s. 2 F3s v 3 Gr1s a lot more likely. 2v4 was probably planned with 1 aircraft going unserviceable before the fight.

Mind you, I have occasionally turned up at a fight with more aircraft than I said I would :E
Very naughty, very successful. Could have been 2v2 with a 'sneaker'

[sarn1e]

Quote

Are there any former F3 pilots out there?

Sadly, yes...1500 miserable hours. Great people and loads of fun times, but like flying the Admiral's Barge.

And the answer to your other question is also: yes, we did it all the time. Even though the platform was decidedly useless at it, that didn't mean that we didn't need to practise ACM/BFM - even if only as a means of surviving a "merge" or demonstrating to youngsters why not to turn...

Technique with 5,000ft minimum training height: try to maintain energy for the first turn (to run away at the first opportunity), then give up and put (very heavy) stick in lap and wait until RHWR aerial fell off (which happened occasionally), unless you turned the SPILS off for marginal performance increase while running the risk of much more exciting stuff happening. And, yes, as pointed out earlier, you could also play with the flaps.

No, it wasn't flying as slow as you thought it was, but given that they were all similar types, relative performance wouldn't have been apparent. I've watched (from a fourth-generation type) fifth-generation aircraft conducting BFM trials at 25,000ft+. Now that was slow! But if you want a rough illustration of the disparity in performance between something that can turn (F-16) v something that can't (F-4), type "F-4 v F-16 turn circle" into Google and check out the image.

And the mere fact that they looked so slow to you (and anyone else out there sneaking around the outside of the fight) explains why Dominator2's comment about "an early grave" and operating it at 2' 6" applies.

Of course, stick a helmet-mounted sight on it with sexy off-boresight weapons and things change, but that's true for all platforms.

[Courtney Mil]

Sabre Dog, yes. It used to happen on occasions. As has been said, doing 2v2 against your own type wasn't/isn't the preferred option, but we'd do it if we had to for (for example) someone's ACL (Air Combat Leader) work-up or similar, pre-deployment prep, various other things. Or even just for stats or currency. 1v1, 1v2, similar and dissimilar ACT was part of our annual training syllabus, so, yes, we did do that. You may not have seen a lot of it because it was normally out over the North Sea.

Another possibility is that it was part of an exercise. Perhaps F-3s escorting a bomber package that had got tied up with the defenders. Lots of possibilities.

Courtney

[Pontius Navigator]

A quick glance at the title on a small screen came up as:

F3 Aerial BALLAST


hat, coat, gloves

[London Eye]

PN, I think you mean:


hat, coat, gloves, SPECTACLES!

[Exrigger]

Deliverance:

There was between 8-12 F3s converted to carry outboard pylons and stores as a trial, as the F3 wing only had the pylon housing, no control rod or operating arm.

Most of the outboard wing sweep control rods, etc came from the GR1 wings going through 16 FI wing mod program (provided the wings were only fitted to Cottesmore aircraft), the remainder were removed from TTTE aircraft wings as they did not have pylons fitted.

They were fitted at Coningsby in ASF, there was an issue with one rod that was not adjusted to its null point before doing pylon alignment checks, which rumour has it was a tad embarrassing at the time.

[Finningley Boy]

Slight subject deviation if I may, I 've heard it said, though it must be difficult to draw an accurate comparison, that the Javelin would have held it's own pretty well against the F3 in terms of manoeuvrability. Interestingly, as you step back in time from the F3, the anthology finds a more agile predecessor, F-4 (Just, but I bow to the direct experience of others here) then the Lightning! I have it on good authority and record that the Lightning, nevertheless, was outclipped by the Mirage III.:E

FB:)

[Rhino power]

I'm pretty sure you'll find the F.3 was more 'agile' than the F-4!

-RP

[Finningley Boy]

I've often wondered that RP, but I do understand that when the arrival of the Tonka was imminent on the F-4 Squadrons there was a sense that a lesser aircraft was taking over. I'm also given to understand tha F-4 certainly had a better performance at altitude.

FB:)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I was on an early F3 Squadron and did DACT against Phantoms. I was a 'stunningly average' first tourist, but drew my first DACT against a Phantom flown by 2 QWIs, and won the others.

[Finningley Boy]

F3WMB,

You learn something every day, just goes to show how powerful propaganda can be.

FB:)

[Lima Juliet]

I've often wondered that RP, but I do understand that when the arrival of the Tonka was imminent on the F-4 Squadrons there was a sense that a lesser aircraft was taking over. I'm also given to understand tha F-4 certainly had a better performance at altitude.


FB

You're right to some degree. As a working weapon system the F4 was far better than the newly acquired F3 until it started getting sorted out around the 1st Gulf War with some defensive aids and a RADAR that worked!

Same thing with Typhoon vs F3 - I can remember dropping back for a Typhoon in the Queen's Birthday Flypast to get the range right for the formation becuase the Typhoon didn't have a RADAR that worked properly. However, these days the Typhoon would run rings around an F3.

LJ

[Finningley Boy]

Many thanks Leon,

By the way, but have you ever read Lewis Page's assessment of the Tornado F3 in his comprehensive "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs"?;)

FB:)

[glad rag]

How ironic, FB how ironic.

:ouch:

[Exrigger]

Thanks deliverance, I think most of what you refer to was after my time, so was not aware they were used 'in anger' or more aircraft were 'converted'.

I was on the 16 FI wing change team 91-95 and remember the issues that some F3s had with nib and wing cracking caused by wing fluttering due to having no dampening from outboard pylons and stores, this was found when using the aircraft in a different role than the one it was originally envisaged for (I think some was playing at low level), hence why we were told that it was a trial to confirm this, which it did, apparently.

During my time on the F3 OCU at Coningsby (86-87) was when the problem first appeared, if I remember correctly, and the lower wing nib panels had to have the stringers replaced with better made ones to try and stop the cracking, before sorting out the actual root cause and getting rid of that, which they eventually appeared to do.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

From the point of view of the Phantom Navs' Union (engage them at your Peril, oh worthless scum!!), the early F3 was worse than the Phantom. We struggled mightily to get a decent air picture. A good, experienced ex-Phantom nav could usually get something workable out of the F3 kit; sometimes using exotic radar modes, at other times swearing and thumping seemed to work. All this was at the expense of navigating and system management.
Fortunately, being generally average I got crewed with experienced navs, but happened to be quite good at nav and systems, so it all worked out pretty well for me. The Stage 1 radar was the first step which produced something decent.
Geehovah's our expert here, of course

[27mm]

Pah! I fart inyour general direction, having flown the glorious F2. This was a brilliant machine for air displays and jollies, as it had no other use; no radar at all at all to start with and when we did get one, the target in the hud was bigger than the td circle. The radar itself was brilliant at tracking weather, but not much else. Then there was the single IN, the MECU engine control system which flashed up more reheat warnings and surges than I care to remember and the standby ADI, which in the trainer rear cockpit was mounted at the base of the stick!
Probably missed some bits, but you get the picture...:{

[Schnowzer]

All comments true when comparing jet to jet. But jet + crew to jet + crew. My plan was pretty straight forward:

1. Hit the merge make it a vertical fight because few pilots fight well looking backwards and most wonder jet drivers have been told to use gods G to max perform.
2. Get to 150 kts and keep going, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying!
3. Convert to a death spiral.
4. Watch the mighty F15 - 18s take lead in the vertical.
5. Flatten at base and watch the tent pegs strike the ground!
6. Call "knock it off, knock it off" and head to the bar.

Eh voila! :ok::cool:

[Flap62]

Schnowzer,

Would loved to have met you (maybe did!) and worked at your plan. 150 kits would have been just enough to still leave me an option to go vertical, could you?

[LaxeyStu]

Many thanks Leon,

By the way, but have you ever read Lewis Page's assessment of the Tornado F3 in his comprehensive "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs"?;)

FB:)

I have read this book and it's a really engaging read.
I knew that Tornado ADV F3 had severely limited performance, which I think would surprise a lot of the public, especially those of us who naively thought as youngsters that the RAF had a sort of 'Top Gun' style fighter capability.
I do accept that a certain capability was matured for the F3 after several years, but I think Page says that no matter what radar, missiles and data link you have, if you don't have the flight performance to escort an airliner, you must be severely limited in usefulness. The F3 seems to have eventually become a capable way of launching missiles at distance, but presumably they couldn't take the F3 anywhere near other fighter aircraft of the day.

[WB627]

I have read this book and it's a really engaging read.
I knew that Tornado ADV F3 had severely limited performance, which I think would surprise a lot of the public, especially those of us who naively thought as youngsters that the RAF had a sort of 'Top Gun' style fighter capability.
I do accept that a certain capability was matured for the F3 after several years, but I think Page says that no matter what radar, missiles and data link you have, if you don't have the flight performance to escort an airliner, you must be severely limited in usefulness. The F3 seems to have eventually become a capable way of launching missiles at distance, but presumably they couldn't take the F3 anywhere near other fighter aircraft of the day.


Lost that Top Gun capability when we retired the Phantoms :{

What it is about the RAF that it has to the first air force in the world to retire realy useful aircraft? DC3, Phantom, C130 etc etc etc and not just by a couple of years, only to replace them with aircraft that were not realy up to the job :{

[LaxeyStu]

Lost that Top Gun capability when we retired the Phantoms :{

What it is about the RAF that it has to the first air force in the world to retire realy useful aircraft? DC3, Phantom, C130 etc etc etc and not just by a couple of years, only to replace them with aircraft that were not realy up to the job :{

Id be interested to gauge what the views are on this.
I had thought that basically Lewis's comments about the ADV were generally accepted, that either they'd got the requirements wrong (in essentially forgetting about flight at altitude), or more likely that they had to accept the 'fighter version' of IDS come what may, and tailor the requirement to suit.
Certainly by the early 2000s, they couldnt wait to get EF, and ADV was binned as quickly as possible.
However there seem to be many people saying that, 'no, the ADV was really good and met the requirements, and was a perfectly acceptable fighter for the job they needed'
It did have the aspect of having good endurance, which is something EF has less of it seems.

[ORAC]

We never had it with the F-4K/M and only had it for a few years with the F-4J. The Spey wasn’t great above 25K.

[WB627]

We never had it with the F-4K/M and on,y had it for a few years with the F-4J. The Spey wasn’t great above 25K.

So I guess we have to go back to the Lightning for that Top Gun capability, other than once they left the ground they were critically short of fuel :E

Edit - Only carried 2 missiles and only some marks had guns :{

[LaxeyStu]

Lost that Top Gun capability when we retired the Phantoms :{

What it is about the RAF that it has to the first air force in the world to retire realy useful aircraft? DC3, Phantom, C130 etc etc etc and not just by a couple of years, only to replace them with aircraft that were not realy up to the job :{

Off-topic, but in what way is the A400M not up to the job?

[ORAC]

I spent the major portion of my professional life in an era when the plan was 4 ships of F-4 sitting on CAP at 15K watching for and intercepting formations of Jags, Bucks, F-111s attacking at 250ft using their PD. Seemed a real defence compared to a couple of F-6s at 25K with pulse only

For some obscure reason the prevalent theory was that the Russians would, if they attacked, use the same tactics.

An AVM was given a tour of a Backfire at a Russian airbase in the 90s, when we were sort of friendly, and was puzzled when he couldn’t find the TFR and asked why they didn’t have one.

Turned out their attack plan was to come in at 50K+ supersonic and launch their As-4/AS-6s at max range using heavy ECM.

So, if it had come to a shooting match, the F-4 would, with a 20K look-up/shoot-up (and looking down instead of up) would have just as useless as the Lightning. But they were much more capable on QRA, especially the F-4M.

But in Top Gun terms - God had a Lightning as a sports car…


https://youtu.be/PZnsEKKa_p4

[wiggy]

I spent the major portion of my professional life in an era when the plan was 4 ships of F-4 sitting on CAP at 15K watching for and intercepting formations of Jags, Bucks, F-111s attacking at 250ft using their PD. Seemed a real defence compared to a couple of F-6s at 25K with pulse only

For some obscure reason the prevalent theory was that the Russians would, if they attacked, use the same tactics.

An AVM was given a tour of a Backfire at a Russian airbase in the 90s, when we were sort of friendly, and was puzzled when he couldn’t find the TFR and asked why they didn’t have one.

Turned out their attack plan was to come in at 50K+ supersonic and launch their As-4/AS-6s at max range using heavy ECM.



Not sure who the AVM was but that cunning Russian plan (Backfires, high level, high speed, etc) was known about and trained for on at least a couple of F-4M Squadrons well before the 90's...quite how it would have worked out ...........................

[Martin the Martian]

I have read this book and it's a really engaging read.
I knew that Tornado ADV F3 had severely limited performance, which I think would surprise a lot of the public, especially those of us who naively thought as youngsters that the RAF had a sort of 'Top Gun' style fighter capability.
I do accept that a certain capability was matured for the F3 after several years, but I think Page says that no matter what radar, missiles and data link you have, if you don't have the flight performance to escort an airliner, you must be severely limited in usefulness. The F3 seems to have eventually become a capable way of launching missiles at distance, but presumably they couldn't take the F3 anywhere near other fighter aircraft of the day.

Totally unbiased in everything he writes, of course.:}

[LaxeyStu]

Totally unbiased in everything he writes, of course.:}
What is his bias?
The rationale of the book is to say "we should define sensible reasonable military objectives for the armed forces, and provide the best equipment our money will buy"
In the case of Tornado ADV, he says that the priority there was to spend the money with British industry, resulting in a sub-standard fighter.
There are contradictory points such as "actually ADV was eventually quite good and the performance was good enough..." and that it was overall a cost-effective reasonable compromise.