Tornado or something American

[Asturias56]

Browsing through the Putnam's "The British Fighter since 1912" by Mason I came across the following in the history of Tornado development and the Phantom problems:-

"Several other American fighters were evaluated by British pilots Including the F-14, F--15 and F-16 but none proved to meet the RAF's fighter requirement in the context of NATO Strategy and tactics."

Since the F-15 and F-16 were deployed as part of NATO by the USAF and several European countries bought the F-16 can anyone shed some light on what the RAF requirements were that made the US fighters unacceptable?

Thanks

[charliegolf]

They weren't built by BAe/RR?

CG

[Lima Juliet]

Asturias56

You need to put it in perspective for the late 1970s when this was being decided:

F14A - very expensive, “A model” engine performance and reliability not very good. RADAR not deemed suitable for overland operations as it was mainly designed for blue-water fleet defence. We also had RAF Aircrew on exchange with the F14 that could give an honest appraisal.

F15A - cracking airframe, but the “A model” RADAR and avionics were poor. Again, we had Aircrew on exchange that could be honest views on the jet. It was only as the “C and E Model” that F15 became the formidable aircraft that we know.

F16A - was AIM 9 Sidewinder only in those days and single engine was unacceptable for the Iceland Faroes gap.

The requirement which Tornado ADV was designed to meet was low level all-weather day/night interception of long range Soviet aircraft in a high ECM/ECCM environment - BEAR, BLACKJACK, BACKFIRE and FENCER. At that time the more agile FULCRUM and FLANKER were not really considered. The Tornado F3 ticked all the boxes and more for the requirement of the time. Sadly, as an airframe it was left behind with the switch to more agile aircraft types in the ‘80s and had to rely on tech advances like TRD, JTIDS, AMRAAM and ASRAAM plus a constant program of RADAR improvements. That enabled it to hold its own on operations, but in close in dog-fights it would be in trouble with most fighter adversaries. But even today it had some unique capabilities over the Typhoon and F35B - low level speed is far higher and it can stay low and fast for far longer, it can fly at Mach 2.2 (unlike M1.8 and M1.6 for the new birds) and it had a 2 person crew which if working well together could do amazing things in high workload and ECM/Night environments that a single brain will struggle with. The latter is often forgotten and why several militaries still operate 2-seat fast jet combat aircraft - France has seen the value of that with Rafale B/DM/DH, the USAF with the latest F15EX and the Airbus FCAS seems to be 2-seat too. Of course the current Harrier, Jaguar and Typhoon mafia at the top end of the RAF would never go back to 2-seat fast jet combat aircraft ops as their egos couldn’t stand it!

[Archimedes]

Chris Gibson covers this in detail his book Battle Flight. I’d suggest Frank Mason’s phrasing about NATO strategy and tactics was one of the wooliest pieces of prose he produced...

From memory, although there were industrial reasons for going with the Tornado ADV (there was particular concern over the US offering aircraft at a relatively knock-down unit cost as a price worth paying for killing off any European rivals), the view was that the ADV met all the requirements for the interception role, whereas the F-16 didn’t meet the spec.

The F-14 was too expensive, too unreliable and didn’t offer any advantages if the cost cutting option of buying the aircraft without AIM-54 were chosen

The F-15 was recognised as an excellent aircraft, but in the interceptor role required two crew to manage the anticipated workload, and there was concern over radar performance, etc.

The F-14 was seen as having sub-optimal engines, and the F100 engine used in the F-15 and F-16 was having trouble at the time of the evaluation, too.

The conclusion was that for the role of knocking down Soviet bombers, the Tornado ADV would meet the spec and had huge industrial advantages. The idea was that a more agile aircraft would arrive in the 1980s (the cunning plan which led eventually to Typhoon, of course)

[Asturias56]

Thanks - I remember the talk at the time (vaguely) - the F-14 was really good but optimised for over-water - tho' when you think of it flying into the Greenland/Iceland Gap to intercept Russian bombers would have been right up its street - but was also known to be eye wateringly expensive to buy and operate . The F-16 was seen as a "toy" aeroplane and an F-5 replacement really for lesser nations. The F-15 always seemed to be deemed "unsuitable" but quite why was never really discussed much in public IIRC - considering we went out and bought a big-ish 2 seater ourselves it always seemed to be a bit political to me.

At least the RAF bought something with decent range built in for once.

Ref Mason's phrasing it sounded like he was repeating the official line - after all he wrote a book on Tornados himself - it's one of the reasons I asked the question as normally he didn't pull many punches...........

[PapaDolmio]

Never worked in the AD world or with F3 but I do remember doing a Red Flag in 94/95 when I was on Hercs and an F3 Sqn (I think 29?) were operating as Red Air along with an 8 Sqn E3D. I think it was the first time Link16 or JDTIDS had been deployed and they were giving Blue Air quite a few problems.

[typerated]

Who would have thunk it:

An underpowered multi engined, multi seat bomber - just the perfect place to start for a fighter design

Just add concrete :)

[jmmoric]

Thanks - I remember the talk at the time (vaguely) - the F-14 was really good but optimised for over-water - tho' when you think of it flying into the Greenland/Iceland Gap to intercept Russian bombers would have been right up its street - ..........

I don't even think the F-14 was deployed to Keflavik, eventhough it was officially a Naval Air Station they kept F15s there.

[Minnie Burner]

Browsing through the Putnam's "The British Fighter since 1912" by Mason I came across the following in the history of Tornado development and the Phantom problems:-

"Several other American fighters were evaluated by British pilots Including the F-14, F--15 and F-16 but none proved to meet the RAF's fighter requirement in the context of NATO Strategy and tactics."

Since the F-15 and F-16 were deployed as part of NATO by the USAF and several European countries bought the F-16 can anyone shed some light on what the RAF requirements were that made the US fighters unacceptable?

Thanks
In sum:
Not built at Warton, in addition,
F-14: too expensive.
F-15 & F-16: no probe, so cannot be refueled using UK tankers
F-18: sadly, just too late.
End of.

[Asturias56]

"Just add concrete https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif"


Ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Davef68]

In sum:
Not built at Warton, in addition,
F-14: too expensive.

From memory twice as expensive as the F3

F-15 & F-16: no probe, so cannot be refueled using UK tankers
F-18: sadly, just too late.


And all three single seaters - the two seaters were primarily training aircraft, whereas the RAF wanted a two seater with pilot and Nav/RIO/WSO with distinct roles and set ups.At least that was the excuse

[just another jocky]

Who would have thunk it:

An underpowered multi engined, multi seat bomber - just the perfect place to start for a fighter design

Just add concrete :)
So underpowered it could do well over 800kts at low level. ;)

Even carrying a concrete payload. :}

[ex-fast-jets]

Way back in about 2000, I think - I was a relatively senior chap and was in the STC (as it was then) Scottish CinC's Office who had just returned from a visit to the USA, and he was in awe of the folk who had briefed him, especially during his visit to Charleston (I think it was) where he was shown the C-17 that we were about to buy.

He couldn't get over the enthusiasm and dedication of the people - at all ranks - that he had met.

I mentioned to him (I had done 3 years on exchange with the USN, and three with the USAF, so I knew a little bit about how the US Military worked) the access that 22-year veterans had to on-base facilities after retirement (BX/PX/Commissary tax-free buying, plus medical/dental support, plus leisure activities and O'Club/SNCO Club membership etc etc) and suggested he considered what the US does for its retired military folk, compared to the UK who basically abandon their retirees. So the folk who had briefed him were enthusiastic and dedicated not just because of the product they were talking about, but because they also wanted to stay in for the 22 years needed to get the benefits that they wanted and deserved.

We then started to discuss pilot retention..........

I said that if he would get me three squadrons of F-16's and re-open Chivenor, I could make a serious impact on pilot retention - and ground crew retention to make the F-16's all work!!

At that stage, he invited me to leave his office! He just used two words...........

So back to thread - you chose. Tornado F-3 was a great aircraft, but so were/are the F-14, F-15 and F-16. Two are still going, two are not. But if I had to chose between the two that are not, I would go for the F-14 without hesitation. The final version of the F-14 Bombcat was very impressive as a multi-role platform even compared to the the final variant of the F-3 which was a very capable single-role platform.

[Lima Juliet]

ex-fast-jets
the final variant of the F-3 which was a very capable single-role platform

It had one other role apart from OCA/DCA - and that was SEAD. The EF3 was ready for GW2 but Torpy didn’t want it as he knew it would be the nail in the coffin for some of his beloved GR4s. Also, the F3OEU trialled TIALD on the F3 to give a long range VID capability and also a LGB capability.

PapaDolmio
I remember that RF well (and others similarly after JTIDS was fitted). The USAF Brig Gen had to have a ‘closed shop’ debrief with his Blue Air one afternoon - very amusing...

[ex-fast-jets]

Thank you LJ for educating me........

I was unaware - every day is a schoolday..............!!

I liked both the F-14 and F-3 - and would absolutely love to fly either again!!

[Willard Whyte]

F-18: sadly, just too late.
End of.

Although ultimately it beat the Tornado F2 in to service by over a year.

[chopper2004]

Way back in about 2000, I think - I was a relatively senior chap and was in the STC (as it was then) Scottish CinC's Office who had just returned from a visit to the USA, and he was in awe of the folk who had briefed him, especially during his visit to Charleston (I think it was) where he was shown the C-17 that we were about to buy.

He couldn't get over the enthusiasm and dedication of the people - at all ranks - that he had met.

I mentioned to him (I had done 3 years on exchange with the USN, and three with the USAF, so I knew a little bit about how the US Military worked) the access that 22-year veterans had to on-base facilities after retirement (BX/PX/Commissary tax-free buying, plus medical/dental support, plus leisure activities and O'Club/SNCO Club membership etc etc) and suggested he considered what the US does for its retired military folk, compared to the UK who basically abandon their retirees. So the folk who had briefed him were enthusiastic and dedicated not just because of the product they were talking about, but because they also wanted to stay in for the 22 years needed to get the benefits that they wanted and deserved.

We then started to discuss pilot retention..........

I said that if he would get me three squadrons of F-16's and re-open Chivenor, I could make a serious impact on pilot retention - and ground crew retention to make the F-16's all work!!

At that stage, he invited me to leave his office! He just used two words...........

So back to thread - you chose. Tornado F-3 was a great aircraft, but so were/are the F-14, F-15 and F-16. Two are still going, two are not. But if I had to chose between the two that are not, I would go for the F-14 without hesitation. The final version of the F-14 Bombcat was very impressive as a multi-role platform even compared to the the final variant of the F-3 which was a very capable single-role platform.


I noticed that over there the veterans do get better treatment and benefits but some friends who are also vets frowned at their local VA hospitals and institutions. Their concerns are of sans empathy and useful as a wet rag in a rain storm, but beyond that they are happy generally.

Thing is though in 1995 we were offered a lease of dozen or so F-16 but as the obvious stated re AAR, never happened

Kind of begs the question withPoseidon and Wedgetail will we need to rely on the likes of the 100th ARW for support as with the River Joints or will both P-8 and E-7 just stick to circuit bashing over the highlands and North Sea?

What did. you fly on exchange with USN? I take it USAf exchange was more of a Desk posting to some Command?

The Bombcat served quite well for Enduring / Iraqi Freedom as I read. Also with the Russian long range cruise missile and bomber threats, this article talks about whether the Navy is longing for a return of the Legacy F-14.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navys-secret-wish-bring-back-f-14-tomcat-75011

cheers

[ORAC]

An underpowered multi engined, multi seat bomber - just the perfect place to start for a fighter design
It was a time when large AAM carriers based on multi engine platfirms were under serious considerations as bomber killers - both in the UK and USA.

https://warisboring.com/the-royal-air-forces-flying-arsenal-was-just-a-dream/

[chopper2004]

It was a time when large AAM carriers based on multi engine platfirms were under serious considerations as bomber killers - both in the UK and USA.

https://warisboring.com/the-royal-air-forces-flying-arsenal-was-just-a-dream/

Interesting article especially with the Boeing proposal for B-1B as an air to air platform is exactly what Dale Brown mentions in several of his novels from after Flight of the Old Dog onwards. I created thread on this

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/563723-b-1b-upgraded-include-air-air-capability.html?highlight=Dale+Brown


Though his books written in late 80s to mid 90s talks about dedicated ‚battleships‘ be it the EB-52 Old Dog or EB-1 Vampire…

cheers

[ORAC]

Chopper2004,

Its an idea which re-emerges on a cyclical basis….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

[Roland Pulfrew]

So back to thread - you chose. Tornado F-3 was a great aircraft, but so were/are the F-14, F-15 and F-16. Two are still going, two are not. But if I had to chose between the two that are not, I would go for the F-14 without hesitation. The final version of the F-14 Bombcat was very impressive as a multi-role platform even compared to the the final variant of the F-3 which was a very capable single-role platform. Surely 3 are still going?? No 3 (https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/hh.jpg?w=1024)

[ex-fast-jets]

Thank you, Roland.......

Good point........

As I said before, every day is a schoolday........!!

[sarn1e]

Never worked in the AD world or with F3 but I do remember doing a Red Flag in 94/95 when I was on Hercs and an F3 Sqn (I think 29?) were operating as Red Air along with an 8 Sqn E3D. I think it was the first time Link16 or JDTIDS had been deployed and they were giving Blue Air quite a few problems.

You might be mistaken there, since we didn't have JTIDS at the time. The Red Flag you may be referring to was when 25 Sqn flew Red Air in Nov 94 alongside the Nellis F-16s; this rather discombobulated Blue Air who were not used to having bandits flown so aggressively, especially in the dark. IIRC all previous F3 Red Flag involvement had been as Blue Air.

The US-only debrief took place following a "Grand Slam" by a young F-15 sweeper on four (of his own) F-111s. It was interesting to watch as it slowly dawned on him and his excited mates that we were not where he thought we were. This was not long after the real-life Black Hawk blue-on-blue in April 94 and led to the debrief being halted by the USAF 1* (after a profuse and embarrassed apology to all present: "I know that you will all be concerned about what has gone on here") for a reflection on how the F-15 community might improve their still-new AIM-120 tactics and discipline.

Mind you, none of that was quite so exciting as having live Mk84s dropped through us one night by a B-1 that got his TOT mixed up...

[Buster15]

Browsing through the Putnam's "The British Fighter since 1912" by Mason I came across the following in the history of Tornado development and the Phantom problems:-

"Several other American fighters were evaluated by British pilots Including the F-14, F--15 and F-16 but none proved to meet the RAF's fighter requirement in the context of NATO Strategy and tactics."

Since the F-15 and F-16 were deployed as part of NATO by the USAF and several European countries bought the F-16 can anyone shed some light on what the RAF requirements were that made the US fighters unacceptable?

Thanks

Don't forget the cost and logistic attraction of having something like 80%+ commonality with the GR1 platform.
The F3 with its high wing loading and high bypass engines was always going to have certain limitations compared with a genuine fighter.
The RB199 was developed as an XG20 standard. And the GAF introduced the RB199 Mk105 with an improved LP Compressor for their ECR aircraft. And this could have been used on the F3 either for thrust increase or life improvenment.
But the RAF decided not to upgrade their engines.

[gums]

Salute!

Some good stuff from the Motherland.

I never viewed the Tornado (one model) as a pure A2A machine, but a good interceptor. The ground attack version was more in my arena in those days and the biggie for me was a huge CBU dispenser gizmo and zooming over an enema field at 200 feet to deliver.

Nevertheless, the platform and its inherent capabilities fit the NATO order of battle at the time. It would have been good for a lotta missions except CAS or CSAR, IMHO.

Lastly, the F-14 radar worked like magic over land for A2A mode back in the time period. The F-15 was same, but the F-14 had the track-while-scan and multiple launch capabilities that the Eagle did not. So 8 years later I get to the Viper and walla! A clean, black screen and the only thing that showed up was something going over 60 mph. Once deployed to Germany, we had to increase the speed of the "notch" for reasons you can grok.

The new kid on the block for RAF is gonna water folks' eyes. I just hope RAF has enuf gas to keep them flying.

Gums sends...

[ex-fast-jets]

Hi Gums.....

Loved your comment............

"............huge CBU dispenser gizmo and zooming over an enema field at 200 feet to deliver"

I don't know if that was an intentional typo, or a victim of prescriptive text - but very, very good...........!!

[ORAC]

For the enemy - **** happens…..

[gums]

Salute!

Usually careful, but I try to inject or "excrete" humor now and then.

Only time I got shot down was deleivering CBU at 200 feet or so and ran outta gas withn about 10 minutes. Nevertheless, I appreciated the idea of that big dispenser system on the Tornado for the WW3 scenario and such. One pass and haul a$$.

The war plan back then was to take out as many airfields as possible as early as possible and that Tornado and the 'vaarks at Upper Heford and the other base were the prime bomb trucks. Think the 'vaarks were tasked to go deeper and take a circuitous route cause they had longer legs.

When we finally saw the Tornado in Iraq I, I was surprised. I can tell ya from personal experience, only reason the 'vaarks did well in Linebacker was they were basically single ship and away from the primary action. I was disappointed in the Tornado losses as I thot the Vee had a lot more "training", but as we say " even a blind squirrel will find an acorn now and then". The good news was the Tornado had great munitions beside that big CBU dispenser.

In the long run, I still throw my vote with the interceptor model.

Gums sends...