RAF Air-Air Combat

[maninblack]

There has been plenty of stuff over the years that I have read about the SHAR combats in the South Atlantic but does anyone have a clue when was the last RAF air-air combat?

Not a FAR troll, a genuine question.

[Archimedes]

Depends ...

If you mean by an RAF pilot in an RAF-owned plane then you can either choose the Confrontation with Indonesia (Jackonicko has alluded before now to some evidence to suggest that an Indonesian aircraft was shot down by, I think, a Javelin). Failing that, WW2.

If you mean by an RAF pilot, then I think the Falklands, when RAF bods on loan to the SHAR force did rather well. Also a number of victories gained by RAF pilots in Korea on exchange with F-86 outfits and, I believe, with 77 Squadron RAAF.

And stand by for the umpteenth airing of comments about the accidental shoot-down of the Jag by the Phantom...

Edit - oops. Forgot about the little fracas with the Israelis and the Egyptians in 1948. Couple of losses and a couple of victories there. Also, a Canberra was shot down during the Suez crisis, and a Valiant detected the emissions of something - probably an EAF Meteor NF - stuggling to try and reach it (it didn't).

[chippy63]

Wasn't the present CAS decorated (DFC?) for his air combat achievements during the Falklands campaign?

[Archimedes]

Chippy63 - yes, he was awarded the DFC, but not for air-air work. He was CO of 1(F), and although the GR3s were wired for carriage of AIM-9 so they could fill in for lost/shot-down SHARs, the attrition rate for the SHAR was lower than predicted. The GR3s stuck to ground attack work instead.

[talking_radalt]

I was working with a Brown Job who was spouting questions that seemed to be along the lines of:

When was there last an 'Ace' in the RAF? Think he said an Ace was 3 Air - Air kills.

When was the last Air - Air kill? Not counting blue on blue.

These were his arguements for not having Air to Air Combat capability. I'm NOT saying I agree - I just wondered on the accuracy of his arguement and this would be the forum.


THIS IS NOT TALKING RADALT - BUT HE WAS LOGGED IN AND IT SAVED ME LOGGING IN - silly boy - ah - internet cabins in the desert. Mr C Hinecap. :cool:

[chippy63]

Thanks, Archimedes.

[Archimedes]

C.Hinecap:

1. When was there last an 'Ace' in the RAF?

Never - the RAF (and RFC before it) never officially recognised 'ace' status. Last one was WW2 if you apply the criteria below, though.

2. Think he said an Ace was 3 Air - Air kills.

No - the generally accepted level is five. However, applying his standard, the answer is 1982 - Dave Morgan (on loan to the FAA) scored 3 (as did 'Sharkey' Ward).


3. When was the last Air - Air kill? Not counting blue on blue.

Presume you mean generally, and involving US/UK/ NATO forces? If so, Kosovo 1999. I have a suspicion that there may have been some air-air subsequently over Ethiopia, and possibly Yemen, but would need to check.

4. These were his arguements for not having Air to Air Combat capability.

This is an interesting phenomenon that's taking on worrying proportions. Because the bad guys usually take the view ' If we fly, we'll die' and stay out of the way, there are now siren voices arguing that air-air capability is pointless.

If the US/UK/NATO get rid of a credible air-air capability, you can bet that the opposition will be sending out wave after wave of upgraded cheap and cheeful fighters with BVR capability (AMRAAMski, Archer, Derby, etc) hunting for HVAs. They'll also start mixing it with friendly a/c providing CAS and the like, as well as making life uncomfortable for land component types.

The Iraqis attempted air-air in GW1 (one F/A-18 was shot down by a MiG-25); the Serbs tried it in 1999; you can guarantee that the Iranians, who still have a (limited ?) capability with F-14 and Phoenix (and HAWK SAM converted for the A-A role!!) would have a bash at it, and so would the North Koreans. Air-air capability is important still, even if it is only to say to the opposition 'Come on, have a go if you think you're hard enough' so as to put them off flying.

Let me end with two quotes, which although from WW2 remain valid, since they talk about allowing your opponent to control the air:

“It is necessary to win the air battle before embarking on the land battle. If this is not done, then operations on land will be conducted at a great disadvantage.” Monty, 1944

"Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success."

Rommel, 1944. The quote may be a little un-PC these days, but the point remains the same.

[maninblack]

Indonesia? Interesting. I know that Korea was a definate for RAF Air-Air action.

It seems a perfect advert for keeping an Air-Air capability at a decent strength, make it not worth their while to get out of bed.

[soddim]

Some interesting points being made here and it is good to see that prune contributors are not seduced by the arguments in favour of spending all our defence money on offensive capabilities. As Archimedes says, if one abandons one's air defence capabilities one allows the aggressor a cheap option to attack high value targets with impunity. In any case, without a secure base there can be no sustained offensive action and without air superiority or at least a favourable air situation there can be no offensive air action without heavy losses.

The foremost requirement of air power is to achieve and maintain air superiority and only when this is achieved can offensive air action be sustained.

It is also perhaps worth considering the political situation post Gulf War 2. Although in this conflict the political will to mount offensive action was there from the beginning, it might be a long time before we see the leader of a UK socialist government prepared to do this again even if WMD are eventually found in Iraq. It is generally the case that the politicians are reluctant to take offensive action until after they are attacked. In these circumstances it makes no sense at all to allocate any money to offensive capabilities until a sensible air defence capability is afforded.

What we need is a sound defensive capability and sufficient offensive potential to deter the strongest potential aggressor. I doubt at the moment that we have sufficient air defence forces in UK to protect ourselves against even the French - don't scoff, intentions change overnight, capabilities take longer.

[A Civilian]

Does anyone remember the late 90's early 2000 when everyone thought the future was bright and rosy without the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads. Then 11/9 happened but it was soon followed by Afghanstan so we all thought things would get back to normal with a bright future. But then one and a half years later Iraq happened and things were not so bright, in fact things look quite bad:( Considering that it took a year and a half for Iraq to happen whats going to happen in another year? how many more of our allies and going to be neutrals or perhaps even enemies?

If as Soddim suggests we wont help out the US with its next Axis of Evil tick will it be time for our embassy in this rogue country to get an "accidential" visit from a USAF dropped precission guided bomb :uhoh:

With the US turning on everyone left right and centre the future doesnt look to bright to me so hell yes I think we should start buying every fighter we can make cause I havent a clue who are allies are anymore.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Chaps - esp Archie.

Many thanks for the wise words. I had wondered on teh truth behind what I had been told and lo, it came to pass that PPRUNE would come up with the goods!

A word of warning. This thread is in danger of not sinking to purile lows. It may become a point of sanity.

RAF chaps have got bigger wi!!ys than the rest of you put together!

There - saved the day.

Again - thanks.

Mr C H. :ok:

[pr00ne]

Soddem,

If you think we currently have a Socialist Government you have a very limited political outlook!

I find your opinions on UK AD quaintly out of date and simply not relevant to the world we currently inhabit.

There is NO current air threat to the UK, there is a threat but that's a different matter. That threat is from suicide bombers, car bombers, aerosol sprays and the like and I dont care how many shiny AD assets you have they cannot defend against that threat. I also fail to see how an AD capability, no matter how extensive, can cope with a highjacked airliner veering of course whilst on approach to LHR over central London.

Now there is a need for a deployable Air superiority capability, and we don't exactly sit at the top table there with the F3 do we?That need will be admirably filled by Typhoon. Typhoon outfits, both AD and dual roled, will also give us a more credible AD capability in the UK than we have had for many a year.

The world has changed, we no longer face a threat from formed Armed Forces as such. The threat that is out there can best be dealt with politically by tackling the root cause and by having deployable flexible forces.

Me? I'd spend the whole lot on throbbing tandem rotor jobbies, SF, OS, AAR and Int.

[BlueWolf]

Excellent reasoning, pr00ne.

So good, in fact, that Helen Clark has a job waiting for you.

Moron.
:yuk:

[moggie]

I know the question asked "no blue on blue" - but wasn't the last RAF Air-to-Air kill the Bruggen Jag that came off second best to the Wildenrathe F4?

That was post Falklands, after all, and I don't recall any kills in the FRY or Iraq (first edition or sequel).

[pr00ne]

Bluew****r,

Slight difference betwen me and Helen Clark, I would leave the RAF with a fully operational fleet of 7 Typhon squadrons, 3 Harrier GR7 squadrons and 7 Tornado GR4 squadrons.

Now whose the moron?

[soddim]

pr00ne – what we actually have is a government with socialists in it that depends upon socialists for funding. If you think Tony Bliar is the government, think on.

You might be right about the threat today but can you be sure that it is also the threat in, say, 10 years’ time or even next year? My AD views might be more traditional than yours but if you cannot defend your home base then sooner or later someone who does not like you or what you do will take a pot at it. AD aircraft are but one part of that defence but I thought that was the bit we were discussing.

There is a current air threat to UK and it is currently addressed by AD forces. Whilst terrorism is difficult to combat with conventional military force, that is no reason to ignore the threat.

Yes, the Typhoon should give us a better AD capability if it works as it should and if we deploy enough – two very big ifs. If in the meantime we get carried away with an all offensive policy then our AD force will be further depleted.

As for the tandem rotor jobbies, throbbing or not, you must have had your tongue in your cheek!

[Matoman]

Assuming that the Indonesian incident never occured and ignoring the famous F4 v Jag incident in Germany, I don't think there has been an occasion since WW2 when an RAF pilot in an RAF plane has shot another 'enemy' plane down in air-to-air combat.
However, there have been two instances since WW2 when RAF aircraft have been shot down in air-to-air combat. The first was on 7 Jan 49 when 3 Spitfire FR18's of 208 Sqn were lost in air-to-air combat with two Israel Spitfire IX's (flown incidently by an American ex-Bell X1 test pilot and a Canadian who had been decorated by the RAF in WW2). Later that same day a Tempest of 213 Sqn was also shot down in an air-to-air engagement with another Israeli Spitfire IX.
The most recent ocassion an RAF aircraft has been shot down in an air-to-air engagement was on 6 Nov 56 when a Canberra PR7 was shot down by a Syrian MiG-15.

www.spyflight.co.uk

[BlueWolf]

NO current air threat to the UK pr00ne! Ooh look, it's stopped raining. Let's take the roof off and sell it, and use the money for something important, like a garden party. After all, it's never going to rain again, is it....and if it does, we can always borrow a tarp from the neighbours.

Quote: I also fail to see how an AD capability, no matter how extensive, can cope with a highjacked airliner veering of course whilst on approach to LHR over central London

Beg pardon? And just exactly what the hell else is meant to deal with such a situation? Also has it not occured to you that if the airliner in question has got as far as the final approach to Heathrow, perhaps ATC and the RAF are aware that it is highjacked and have done something about it already? (using, of necessity, an AD capability...)

F3 may not be the flashest kid on the block, but it works. "Typhon" as you so eloquently put it, has yet to enter service, let alone prove itself. In the meantime, you are going to deploy.....lots of helicopters? Hmm.

As to "whose" the moron, probably still mine, unless of course you are a New Zealander - or did you mean "who's"?

English spoken here, old chap. Just for future reference.

[Archimedes]

Matoman - the RAF has definitely scored air-air victories since WW2 (although admittedly not long afterwards), in the form of a couple of Egyptian AF Spitfires brought down in 1948.


Just to add to your comment about the last A-A loss, there was at least one other before that, when a Lincoln was shot down over Eastern Germany. IIRC, it had strayed over the border because of a nav error - a genuine one rather than a made up reason to cover an ELINT flight? - and was brought down by a couple of MiGs. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the Lincoln had fired its guns, but there's no evidence to suggest that it hit anything.

While I was checking up on the ref to the EAF Spitfires (to make sure I hadn't imagined it), I also discovered a reference to the fact that a Venom might (stress might) have given an EAF MiG-15 a battering (but not destroyed it) during the Suez campaign (I am referring to an alleged a-a engagement). As a matter of interest, does anyone know if that's accurate?

[Samuel]

I was at Tengah 1965-66, and I vividly recall the very, very strong rumour of an Indonesian C130 being downed,after dropping a load of paratroops up near the Thailand border. It was equally strongly rumoured that a Javelin from 60 Sqn had done the deed. I've not seen any comment that supports that it actually happened.

Slightly tangential to the discussion here, I know, but does anyone here really belief an order could/would be given to shoot down a civilian airliner on approach to the Tower of London? Terrorists are hardly likely to be broadcasting the target when they leave the approach, so on what basis could an order be given to shoot it down?

[pr00ne]

Bluewotsit,

Pardon my spelling, in a hurry!

"No air threat to the UK" That's what I said 'cos there aint one!!

If you think there is, pray tell from whom? Who the hell is threatening us?

I still maintain that you can have as many AD roled squadrons as you like and you will not defend London from a determined hijacking attack. How the hell could the RAF do anything about it? If you get to the airliner before it hits what the hell do you do, shoot it down in flames? The result would be a large fire ball on central London, you'd merely have a catastrophe half a mile from where it was intended.

Of COURSE my comment about throbbing tandem rotor jobbies was tongue in cheek, how else does one refer to them?

[Jackonicko]

Matoman,

The extent of combat operations during the Indonesian confrontation is still politically sensitive. I looked hard to find evidence of the reported Javelin/C-130 incident, and of a 20 Sqn Hunter/MiG-17 manoeuvre kill, and while I have no doubt in my mind that both incidents occurred, I have found nothing but hearsay evidence to support either.

But then some years before that, I heard equally unsubstantiated rumours of RAF Canberra aircrew being detached to fly overflight missions of the USSR in B-45 Tornados borrowed from the USAF, and in U-2s, and even in specially modified RAF Canberras ('Operation Robin'). The B-45 and U-2 rumours have now been confirmed by real evidence, though at the time they seemed less plausible than the Indonesian stories.

The Israeli incident in which Tim McElhaw and others were shot down by IDFAF Spits is perhaps best described as being something other than air combat, since the RAF Spits were unarmed. There are suggestions that the Squadron subsequently took its revenge, but that this was 'hushed up' in order to avoid escalating the situation. When shot down, they had been misidentified as Egyptian AF aircraft.....

Archimedes,

Re the Lincoln: It would have had a job, since no live ammunition was carried on that sortie.

Re the Venom and the MiG: Heard that too, and the name of the pilot. Understood that it was hushed up because of where it happened......

Proone,

It's going to be six EF squadrons, so I'm glad to see you're going to restore the seventh. I'm puzzled as to how you're going to get seven GR4 Squadrons through to their OSD with only 140 aircraft, however. If you want to maintain OS and attack numbers you'd best keep the Jags and keep the F3s - even if you use the latter just for ALARM/TIALD/Vicon.

[pr00ne]

Jackonickers,

Officially still 7 Typhoon tea bag outfits, can't tell you how I know or I'd have to shoot you. Tranche 3 being canned would still allow for this.
You'll be harping on about the gun next?!!?

7 GR4 sqns will clearly NOT make it to OSD, even if FOAS is anywhere near on time. F3 with maybe ALARM/TIALD/RAPTOR could last a bit longer than any of us think. (or DLO plan)

BTW,

There were so many rumours about the Indonesian Herc floating around in my day, a FEAF Air traffiker of my acquaint was SO sure about it.........

[Heimdall]

Archimedes

You're absolutely correct the RAF did score a number of air-to-air victories over Egyptian Spitfires in 1948 and an RAF Lincoln was shot down by MiG-15s on 12 Mar 53.

Jackonicko

The rumours about the 60 Sqn Javelin v Indonesian C-130 have been doing the rounds for many years and, until those who decide such issues adopt a more pragmatic view of events long ago, sadly they are likely to remain unresolved and just rumours. The 20 Sqn Venom/Hunter v MiG-17 manoeuvre kill during the Suez War is interesting, but can hardly be an issue which needs covering up. Frankly it's time we had a FOI Act so that these and other issues can be cleared up once an for all, particularly the Canberra overflight of Kapustin Yar in 1953.

I think that a case of mistaken identity was the most likely cause of the 208 Sqn Spitfire FR18s v Israeli Spitfire IXs incident on 7 Jan 49, particularly as the Egyptians were equipped with similarly marked Spitfires. In addition, even though they were in effect flying as mercenaries for the IAF, the two pilots involved had flown either with or alongside the RAF in WW2 and would have been highly unlikely to have acted the way the did if they had known the correct identity of the FR18s. The incident later in the day when an unarmed RAF Tempest was shot down is harder to explain, as by then the identity of the FR18s must have been established. Then again, if the Israeli's were later prepared to openly attack a US warship such as the Liberty, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised at what happened back in 1949. I would be interested to hear what the rumours are about 208 Sqn taking it's revenge - perhaps they shot-up the IAF airfield where the Spitfires were based and knocked a few out - I hope someone has the answer.

www.spyflight.co.uk

[Archimedes]

JN, I wonder where I read that about the Lincoln carried ammo? I'm certain that I read the item, but haven't a clue where. I suspect I'll be having a bit of a search through some books this
afternoon.

(I'm sure you're right, but am now - metophorically - scratching my head about my source).

[Jackonicko]

Though the Lincoln came from the Central Gunnery School, it was off for a fighter affil exercise, and loading the guns was therefore not deemed wise..... It may be that ammunition was carried (but not linked to the guns) for ballast, and I do recall reading that this was occasional practise on the type.

With regard to the Venom/MiG, it wasn't 20 Sqn (who did the Hunter/MiG manoeuvre kill in the Indonesian Confrontation) and it wasn't over Egypt.

[Archimedes]

I found the reference to the Lincoln being armed - it was in Tony Geraghty's history of Brixmis. The Brixmis team that went out to the crash site was, apparently, convinced that the guns were loaded, and that the BOI report (which blamed the navigator for getting lost) was inaccurate. Subtext being that the affil ex was just a cover.

This, of course, doesn't mean that the Brixmis team got it right (for instance, the Russians might have been tempted to doctor the crash site by introducing 20mm ammo to the scene... - 'We are very sorry, comrade, but you will understand that once the aircraft fired at our fighter...') - but it is an interesting little tale...

[ARXW]

On the IDF/AF-RAF encounter:

Although the IAF had gained overall air superiority in its encounters with the various Arab air forces, the prospect of facing the RAF was not one to be taken lightly and orders were issued to prevent a repeat of the combat with the British. These however, were soon ignored when four IAF Spitfires led by Ezer Weizman (former president of Israel) encoutered RAF Tempests looking for their four missing aircraft. In the ensueing dogfight, Bill Schroeder shot down an RAF Tempest, killing its pilot, David Tattersfield, while Weizman severely damaged another.
With the final result 5:0 in favor of Israel, a fierce British retaliation was expected. This failed to materialize however, apparently after the British government came under fire at home for intervening in Arab-Israeli affairs.

Seems the IDF/AF are a very trigger happy force (a fact proven time and again in later conflicts).

It is interesting that even the RAF may have had to do quite a bit of 'hushing up'.Thought that was the privilege of other AFs!

This is interesting as it is quite similar to what happens in the country where I come from: Did you know that there has actually been F-16 air to air combat losses after all? (Not like the company spread brochures proclaiming a 120-0 kill ratio or whatever it is for the F-16). Seems that one F-16 was in fact missiled down by a Mirage 2000, a few years back, as well as Phantoms and other F-16s manoeuvre killed.

Best part of it all is that although it now seems that the particular F-16D was almost definitely shot down, the backseater who was the only one to make it out of the stricken jet was allegedly an Israeli exchange officer...

[Gnadenburg]

Not like the British to steal Australian thunder but the purported shootdown of an Indon C130 was rumoured to be by a RAAF CAC27 Sabre. A Sidewinder kill.

The Urban Myth continues! The Sabre pilot has a name too. He was tragically killed in a civillian accident a few years ago.

RAAF spy missions against the Indons common. Low level and high level sorties, Canberra bombers in the main . No details have been released and I doubt they will in the present climate.

One of spy pilots a Pprune contributor. Missions from Darwin and Singapore. Gday EP.

Would a RAF, F15 equipped , have had a different air-air record?

[Steve Davies]

ARXW,


I am not aware of any LOCKMART brochures proclaiming the F-16 to have a 120:0 kill ratio! In fact, the most succesful fighter ever - the F-15 - only has a kill ratio of 105.5:0, so it sounds to me like someone is pulling your chain.

Indeed, I don't think that there has ever been that much of a secret made of the F-16D shootdown - it was covered by Air Forces Monthly magazine, complete with a picture of the surviving crewmember in SAR stretcher! I think that it highly unlikely that a picture of him would be released if he were IDF...

[ARXW]

Hello Steve,

I know my numbers. The reference to 120:0 was meant to highlight the zero losses which is the most noteworthy part ,since I couldn't remember the precise number of kills (whose significance ends with the description 'several' I guess).

I don't know if LOCKMART ever published their data on F-16 combat performance which they certainly have, but the significance is that just about everyone in the west knows what F-16.net is saying below wrt F-16s kill ratios:

You add the total number of "KILLS" and it comes to 74, of which 64 have resulted in official pilot recognition. These all came within the span of around 50,000 combat missions. During those missions there were NO F-16's downed in air combat. As I mentioned earlier, there was one F-16 downed in a fratricide involved with the Pakistani Air Force when a flight leader was tracking a Su-22 (Fitter H) and fired an AIM-9L, but the missile switched lock.

On the F-16D shootdown:given that it has taken 7 years for any sort of official reaction then I guess it is safe to say that it was not really advertised when it happened.

Funnily enough, not even the Turkish leader (No.1 Capt Mustafa Akman) saw his wingman being shot down. He saw the F-16 going down enveloped in fire and he thought he suffered another inflight fire...The 2v2 fight had split to two far apart 1v1 and in of these the Mirage2000 outmanoeuvred the F-16 in a high g fight and dispatched it with a Magic 2 shot.

A year earlier another turkish F-16 was lost in a 4v2 fight against two Mirage F-1s when he failed to switch fuel feed to a full tank and lost an engine...Therefore the 74:0 score becomes a 37:1 ratio (still not bad)!

Whether the recovered aviator in the backseat of the F-16D in '96 was Israeli or not that's still a rumour that I couldn't verify, except to say that the alleged aviator (LCOL Cicekli (http://ta-nea.dolnet.gr/data/D2003/D0523/1el9a.jpg)) did not speak a word in Turkish during his treatment in Greece, whatever that may mean. In any case even if was IDF the IDF would not have been able to prevent his photo circulating would it?


I'm surprised the RAF is still to come clean with shootdowns that may have happened 40 or more years ago...

Does anyone know btw, if kills scored over Manchuria (ie China, or ..the 'wrong side of the Yalu') during the Korean war were being credited as confirmed kills?

Did the RAF high scorer of that war (Graham Hulse S/L?) survive the war or was he shot down in a2a combat?

[Archimedes]

ARXW,

I suspect that since the Turkish F-16 losses are not universally accepted to have resulted from combat, they aren't credited.

The second point is that Greece and Turkey are (theoretically) NATO allies and aren't meant to be shooting each other down... If you put together the lack of acceptance with the presumed lack of a war/limited war/military conflict of any sort, then you can begin to see the rationale.

[soddim]

Deliverance - did I read you correctly as comparing the Phantom with the F3? Shock and horror - you made the same mistake as Mike Elsom in 1980 when he was in OR and spent his time telling the World how good the F2 was compared with the F4.

I seem to remember air combat training against the Phantom in a Lightning in 1967 and flying the Phantom in ACT the early 70's. I sincerely hope that an aircraft entering service in the 80's with a weapons system much-modified since then would compare very favourably with the Phantom!

However, the F3 still does not match the Lightning or the Phantom at high level, although it now has an infinitely better weapons system and loads more help from external sources.

Having said all that I agree with your sentiments on AD. It is nonsense to promote offensive capability as more important than AD.