Tornado F3/GR4 Question. [Archive]

Lima Juliet

5th Jan 2013, 11:54

Pontius - in the 90s the 11Gp Syllabus stipulated strafe. We used to do ours in Donna Nook. This was to support ground forces during Op DENY FLIGHT/Op DECISIVE EDGE, etc... Also, it was a valid tactic to practise against helicopters either on or near to the ground.

Also, I do know of guys getting bored in the first Gulf War trying to get a sidewinder lock on Iraqi Republican Guard tanks dug in on the Saudi/Iraq/Kuwait border. Don't know if it would have done much damage, but it sure would give the occupants a headache!

Finally, the F3 also has ALARM fitted and tested - this was for ground based RADARs. There was also a TIALD trial that went well, but was never developed as well as the ALARM piece. Either way, there was no way the senior leadership of the RAF, who consisted mostly of mud-movers, would ever let the fighter mates dabble in their business as it would probably have meant losing some mud-mover squadrons and capabilities. An example of this was ALARM - it was far more capable on F3 for TELIC, with an emmitter location system and Link 16, but a certain Air Marshal decided that he wanted to use the less capable GR4 (job/sqn protection/nepotism at its best!). What was even more maddening was that the OEU guys had worked their nuts off to get the 'EF3' ready, and with no credible Iraqi air threat (as Saddam had buried most of it), it would have given F3 another role.

LJ :ok:

Pontius Navigator

5th Jan 2013, 14:16

LJ, I bow to your superior knowledge though I do no they made no use of Wainfleet after 2001. I was at the OEU EF3 presentation. It was most impressive and persuasive and it is hard to see why it appeared to progress no further.

ORAC

5th Jan 2013, 14:29

Also, I do know of guys getting bored in the first Gulf War trying to get a sidewinder lock on Iraqi Republican Guard tanks dug in on the Saudi/Iraq/Kuwait border I believe a Jag fired one off after some confusion with the switches after the Winders were fitted....

downsizer

5th Jan 2013, 14:56

Can't see a 9L warhead doing a tank much damage as it is designed to expand outward, not in the direction of travel like a HEAT warhead and it's pretty tiny. That said I'm sure that in the distant past an AT variant of the winder was trialled, it may have had a different warhead...:8

5th Jan 2013, 15:03

Did the F3s get close enough to the Iraqi border? I thought they were hiding behind the VC10s!! :)

WE Branch Fanatic

5th Jan 2013, 15:09

Did the UK ever consider something like the German ECR version of Tornado?

Lima Juliet

5th Jan 2013, 15:59

Pontius

it is hard to see why it appeared to progress no further

If I recall correctly, during my time in PJHQ, it was the Air Component Commander (ACC) during the TELIC air campaign that made the call. Funny old thing he was an ex-Tornado Flt Cdr, ex-XIII Sqn Sqn Cdr, and ex Bruggen's Stn Cdr - nepotism would be the word I would use to describe the decision. Or maybe, one of his GR1/GR4 minions (1-star, OF-5 or OF-4) had advised him with significant bias? Either way, in my humble opinion (IMHO) it was the wrong decision for a number of reasons.

Having not been used on TELIC and with no significant 'air war' with SAMs and a full IADS, then the capability was allowed to whither and eventually die with the F3.

The saddest thing from my perspective, the decision could have stopped this happening http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/pdf/maaszg710.pdf. The poor old GR4a that was flying this ALARM mission was still running legacy Mode 4 IFF, whereas the F3 had Successor IFF (SIFF) which would not have failed as easily. Furthermore, F3 had Link 16 which is used as the top ID criteria for Patriot. Therefore, whoever made the decision cost 2 guys their lives - and 'no' I am suggesting a 'witch hunt' as the person who did make the decision could not have reasonably understood the consequence (IMHO).

I have no reason to believe that this type of nepotism within the RAF does not continue today with equipment, promotion and strategic decision making. However, it's always been that way (again IMHO), so I don't expect that to change. I'm sure the SHAR mates will also vouch for that!

LJ

Pontius Navigator

5th Jan 2013, 16:09

LJ, afaik AOC 11 Gp was fully supportive but, as you say, axes to grind and not invented here. Ever since we allowed Groups to print their own hymn sheets . . .

The same sort of thing use to occur with cross-fertilisation - bomber guys going fighter or maritime or transport etc etc.

Lima Juliet

5th Jan 2013, 16:10

WEBF

The Tornado ECR uses HARM (High-speed Anti Radiation Missile) and this is not in our inventory. Introducing another Tornado type and weapon would be very expensive.

The F3 modded to the so-called "EF-3" was our closest effort to the ECR. It had an emitter location system to fire reactive ALARM shots (either via trangulating between 2 aircraft or via flying long legs as a singleton), the ability to take positions of emmitters via Link 16 from the likes of RIVET JOINT or NIM R1, had a Towed RADAR Decoy (TRD) for use against high order SAMs and also had some other sneaky jamming modes available (the exact nature of which is likely to still be classified). As a package and capability it was streets ahead of the GR4 at the time (and don't forget this is over 10 years ago).

LJ

Lima Juliet

5th Jan 2013, 16:12

Pontius

I hear you on that having transitioned between fleets several times in my career - I even get 'not invented here' as I'm FTRS now!

LJ

Just This Once...

5th Jan 2013, 16:17

LJ, I was involved with this and there were reasons it did not go forward. I do not recognise any suggestion that it was a GR Mafia decision. As you have suggested, this is bouncing a little near classified info and the ideas and concepts used in the EF3 were not set aside.

Next time I run into you I will give you the skinny. :ok:

Lima Juliet

5th Jan 2013, 16:43

JTO

I'll look forward to that then (it might help fill in the gap that I appear to be missing).

In my PJHQ 'ivory tower' we were being told by the OEU that it was ready to deploy the capability...also the 'mafia' story came from another mud-mover type at the time. Surely, you can't deny 'mafioso' decisions happen all of the time - I've seen it in procurement, design and at tactical, operational and strategic decision levels throughout my career. It's even worse accross the Services!

LJ :ok:

Scruffy Fanny

5th Jan 2013, 18:43

As im typing the words ( 50,000) for the Haynes manual on Tornado F3 and GR1/4 can i add my bit- Agree with LJ - air to ground with the F3 was always an option same gun MU27 180 rounds as GR4 and a good accurate platform. As to ALAARM - i think its discussion should be limited as its still in service- officially "mothballed" it could be used again as no doubt the RAF will be sent to sort some politicians mess out in the next 5 years. The ADV had a better RHWR than the GR4 ( more accurate) so was better equipped to operate ALAARM. My opinion is that the RAF bought 165 ADVs ( at the same time as 15 F4JS) by 1990 they really didnt need so many aircraft - they soon got rid of 23 Squadron and then gave the Italians some F3s as well as scrapping the F2s so i think the RAF (AD people) were always trying to find a reason to keep more F3s than they needed hence the EF3 and the proposal to make it a wild Weasel F3 and put Sea Eagle onto it. from what ive read The F3s deployed on operation Telic did a brilliant job and the TRD worked well but was actually too complicated-intresting angle on the loss of the GR on Telic that i wasnt aware of.

rock34

5th Jan 2013, 18:45

As a FAC, and if presented with the situation where a true CAS platform was unavailable, I'd have used a F3 for strafe. Yes, it won't be the quickest to get on target due to the lack of a decent pod, and yes, I'd much rather have an AH turn up, but as long as biggles puts his rounds where I want him to, then I couldn't care less!

Finnpog

5th Jan 2013, 19:12

Careful Rock34.
You are uttering the heresy that some FJ stick-monkey is not the most important person / asset in the warfighting-battlespace.
:E:ok:

Courtney Mil

5th Jan 2013, 20:30

LJ hits the nail on the head in all respects. There are on "whys" or "whats" left, the EF was the SEAD platform of the day. Politics, again, denied its use. How moronic.

The other big factor for the potential success of the platform for SEAD was the relocation of the forward RHWR antennae from the fin to wing nibs. That gave the platform the ability to resolve the position of emitters with huge accuracy.

Thanks for your excellent input LJ.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

5th Jan 2013, 20:47

Therefore, whoever made the decision cost 2 guys their lives

LJ, that is depressing. The pilot's mum is my contact at my UK bank, and she was still looking for closure last time I spoke to her.

MAINJAFAD

6th Jan 2013, 02:03

The saddest thing from my perspective, the decision could have stopped this happening http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/.../maaszg710.pdf (http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/pdf/maaszg710.pdf). The poor old GR4a that was flying this ALARM mission was still running legacy Mode 4 IFF, whereas the F3 had Successor IFF (SIFF) which would not have failed as easily. Furthermore, F3 had Link 16 which is used as the top ID criteria for Patriot. Therefore, whoever made the decision cost 2 guys their lives - and 'no' I am suggesting a 'witch hunt' as the person who did make the decision could not have reasonably understood the consequence (IMHO).

Leon

I was in theatre when this event happened and a few weeks after the incident, I happened to get to chat with some of the Patriot operators at my location about all of the friendly fire incidents that their brethren up north had been involved in (it wasn't just the GR4, they killed a US Navy F/A-18 and its pilot as well and also lost a radar when the F-16CJ that they locked up on didn’t take any chances and loosed off a HARM in quick order). That was the first I heard of the Patriot battery engaging the Tornado thinking it was an ARM and they also called the individual who fired the missile a Muppet! This link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/ops/oif-patriot.htm) gives a good overview of the problems the US Army had with Patriot during OIF.

There is always the case that where would the EF’s be based, well there was only really one location where the infrastructure was already in place and the deal with the land owners were Air to Air and support assets only (though the Yanks did operate HARM shooters from there, but they were there before Telic/OIF kicked off). Given that getting any extra items into that place was a nightmare (especially ARM’s for offensive use, which we hadn’t used on the aircraft in the time we had been there) there is a good chance that the upper echelons decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.

Easy Street

6th Jan 2013, 02:07

Bouncing back to the unanswered part of the original post:

with a Tornado Gr4, if they were bounced by enemy fighters, could the Tornado use its armaments to attack the enemy fighters?

Yes. Tornado GRs have always had the ability to carry 2 AAMs, AIM-9L for the majority of the aircraft's service life but also ASRAAM for the last couple of years. Regular trial/training firings of both types of missile still occur against towed flares and the capability can certainly be described as mature. The gun can also be used air-to-air and this is also trained for.

A bomber's preferred tactic is always to avoid merging with the enemy, because that typically means jettisoning weapons and immediate mission failure (this is true even for swing-role types such as F15E and Typhoon). Tornado GR air combat could be described, charitably, as 'pigs dancing ballet' but that is largely down to the effects of high wing loading (inherent in the design of a low-level bomber) and low maximum thrust (because the engines were designed for fuel efficiency, to maximise combat radius). With decent straight-line speed and an excellent missile in ASRAAM the GR4 still has some things going for it - and with the imminent addition of Link-16 capability it will get easier to avoid trouble. Or, to enter trouble with enough situational awareness to get a rapid ASRAAM shot away and get the hell out!

Nautilus Blue

6th Jan 2013, 05:18

I remember reading ages ago of the idea of using GRs with AAMs to 'sneak up' at low level on enemy AEW aircraft. Was this seriously considered or just a civilian/amateur/video game fantasy?

Backwards PLT

6th Jan 2013, 07:28

Leon spot on about EF-3.

As far as other A-G capability it would be purely emergency only, nothing else available. The gun was very accurate in A-G on a range but due to the way it did range finding it wouldn't necessarily be so in a real world situation. SOme people seem to be linking it to Iraq but iirc it was first introduced for the Balkans. I nearly got to go to Solenzara. :(

Likewise the GR for AA would be self defence only, and not great at that given turn performance and the limitations of AIM-9. However with the move to ASRAAM and the addition of off-board cueing, I would say self defence would be very good, but I wouldn't plan to use it deliberately.

Nautilus I think that would either be an opportunity shot due to luck (plus brilliant crew skills, ofc ;)) or video game fantasy!

Dan Winterland

6th Jan 2013, 08:45

Some video of F3s with strafing at about 8:20.

1435 Flight Falkland Islands - YouTube (http://youtu.be/mKCLJ0O7J6w)

Lima Juliet

6th Jan 2013, 10:39

I also got called to do "show of force" by a FAC over Bosnia (if I recall they were called "air presence missions"). A small British convoy was under fire and asked us to come down low and fast. They stopped shooting at the convoy...because instead they started shooting at us! I also remember seeing the corkscrew smoke trail of something fired at us, but it looked like it failed to guide.

There were quite a few of these flown by F3s during the mid 90s.

Fox3 - As for responsibility. The decision to not use EF3 was not the single decision that sealed the fate of the GR4 in 2003. Using the "Reason Swiss Cheese" model any of the following could have intervened:

- deciding to deploy EF3 (although the GR4 would probably be fragged to do something else)
- deciding to advance the modification program for GR4 SIFF
- insisting on a 100% ground check of Mode 4
- insisting on SHORAD checking the outbound Mode 4s
- insisting on a 100% check of Mode 4 by AWACS or RED CROWN on check in
- insisting that any failure of Mode 4 return is immediately reported by any Mode 4 interrogator (AWACS, SAM, Fighter Jet, Ship and EW RADAR)
- understanding and rectifying the Patriot software parameters

The final unsafe act being the Patriot operator releasing the system to engage the wrongly identified GR4.

Any of these could have saved the crew. That is why there should not be a 'witch hunt' as I do not believe any single person, or group of persons, was/were responsible (again IMHO).

If it is any consolation, the Mode 4 fitted to the jet had been used 1,000s of times by both marks of Tornado on previous Operations since 1990. If still flying Tornado today, I would quite happily get in it again and fly with this Mode 4 system. It was quite reliable, but did fail occasionally, and so as an operator everyone had to be alive to this fact. Sadly, on that fateful day the whole system of checks failed and cost some good mates their lives.

LJ

Dominator2

6th Jan 2013, 10:56

I had the luck to be on the F3OEU throughout the period that we developed the ALARM, ELS,TIALD capabilities, put ARAAM AND ASRAAM into service and developed the HMS. So much potential and yet so little realised.
The RAF has historically had a problem in that the air-to-air and air-to-ground comunities have been divided. The GR4 force has it's origines in Bomber Command. Even during the Falklands War there were lessons to be learnt but were ignored. The F4 gave use the oportunity to meld the two disciplins together and the moment was missed.
Had we not been involved in a turf war at Group level over the past 20 years we could have developed a number of capailities. Our aim on the F3OEU was to develop and demonstrate new capabilities.
The Tornado F3 as a platform was a superior ac to the GR. Not only due to fuel and engines. The ac was designed from the outset to have JTIDS. The RHWR fit was suited to ELS. The nav fit was twin LINS GPS. The radio fit was 2 x Havequick, HF, Secure Com and JTIDS voice. The NVG fit was superior to GR4. TTD was fitted and operational. Once a Data Bus was wired to the weapons stations anything was possible.
Many lessons to be learnt, do you think we (the RAF) will?

Courtney Mil

6th Jan 2013, 11:04

One of the main benefits of putting ASRAAM in with the bombers (either on the bombers or on embedded fighters) it that it changes the attckers' freedom to get mixed up with them. Knowing that ASRAAMs are pointed at you changes the mindset wonderfully.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

6th Jan 2013, 11:23

..and as has been used in several wars, you only have to embed fighters once for them to have to assume you'll do it every time. Robin Olds, etc.

maxburner

7th Jan 2013, 18:50

Good post Dominator. Having spent some time on the OEU and then in MOD I think the average front line pilot or nav would be amazed at the opportunities missed to update an in-service aircraft , in case the update should jeopardize a future programme.

On the ASRAAM topic, it's an amazing missile. I was lucky enough to fire one at M1.4 during the clearance programme. We counted down to firing, both of us looked for it, but it was off the rail so quickly and left so little smoke or trail we never saw a thing! A high speed, invisible hitile coming at you would be a depressing prospect.

The B Word

7th Jan 2013, 21:35

Tremblers F3 strafing @ Donna Nook

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j229/lowflynet/d-nook.jpg

The B Word

Squirrel 41

7th Jan 2013, 21:56

B Word -

Looks like good sport, esp. minus tanks!

S41

Easy Street

7th Jan 2013, 22:08

Could the F3 use radar ranging or was it all radalt-based?

iRaven

7th Jan 2013, 23:57

Being a pedant, RADAlt is RADAR ranging (in height!). :ok:

The F3 used RADAlt for air-gnd and RADAR for air-air gunnery - although there was 'wiggly string' CCIL (Computer Calculated Impact Line? Can't remember) that predicted where your rounds might fall at various ranges without any RADAR help.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

8th Jan 2013, 00:06

I remember the QWIP saying that actually using same in air combat would be like "trying to shove wet spaghetti up a polecat's bum".

Having tried it in ACT, I agree!

Courtney Mil

8th Jan 2013, 13:27

Continuously Computed Impact Line.

Dominator2

8th Jan 2013, 15:55

On the A/G ranging the F3OEU did trial radar ranging using the Fox Hunter. With the help of a small fury animal (ferret) we developed using a pulse radar mode. It looked fairly good even over hilly terrain. Unfortunately our trial of Live Strafe on Sennybridge was cancelled due to weather. Due to clearance limitations we never got our chance to prove it against APCs and tanks. The good thing was it worked really well up to 25deg dive angles.