A Few F3 questions
Thread Starter
A Few F3 questions
Back in 1995 I did my school work experience at Leeming on the F3's and the line with 25 Squadron. The Aircraft I spent the day on had the tail code of FL. With the imminent demise of the fleet it prompted a few questions-
1. Do aircraft keep these codes through their lives or are they squadron numbers? Just curious what happened to this particular A/C. (FL also was a twin sticker from memory).
2. Despite the less than glamorous image it was explained to me that it was a workhorse that had quite a few tricks up its sleeve. Would any crews care to post a few examples of these? (obviously not asking for sensitive info want to see it's reputation restored of where it took some scalps).
Thanks
1. Do aircraft keep these codes through their lives or are they squadron numbers? Just curious what happened to this particular A/C. (FL also was a twin sticker from memory).
2. Despite the less than glamorous image it was explained to me that it was a workhorse that had quite a few tricks up its sleeve. Would any crews care to post a few examples of these? (obviously not asking for sensitive info want to see it's reputation restored of where it took some scalps).
Thanks
FL was serial ZE199. No longer in service since 2005.
Panavia Tornado F3, ZE199, Royal Air Force
www.paulnann.com Military Aviation Photo Gallery - Country: Britain: Panavia: Tornado: w0021
http://www.aviation-links.co.uk/MAMupdate40-2008.pdf
'ZE199 Panavia Tornado F3 [TV] Scrapped at Leeming, 2005'
UK Serials
'f/f 19/11/1986, d/d 19/12/1986, to Leeming 2005 RTP (Reduced to Produce)'
TJ
Panavia Tornado F3, ZE199, Royal Air Force
www.paulnann.com Military Aviation Photo Gallery - Country: Britain: Panavia: Tornado: w0021
http://www.aviation-links.co.uk/MAMupdate40-2008.pdf
'ZE199 Panavia Tornado F3 [TV] Scrapped at Leeming, 2005'
UK Serials
'f/f 19/11/1986, d/d 19/12/1986, to Leeming 2005 RTP (Reduced to Produce)'
TJ
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tail codes are Station and Squadron specific and selected by the engineers when the aircraft arrives on the sqn. In the old days, each sqn used single letters so each sqn had an "A", "B" etc. Traditionally in those days the two stick pilot trainer on many F4 squadrons was designated "Z".
Starting with the F3 force the system changed slightly although it had been used before on other fleets. The tail letters became double letters with each initial letter designating the squadron. The OCU was A, 29 Sqn B and 5 Sqn C. The codes thus became AA, BA, CA etc.
One of the exceptions was 229 OCU/56 Sqn where we had more than 26 aircraft at one point as the F3 replaced the F2. After "AZ", briefly we had as high as "A7".
At Leeming the codes were D for 11 Sqn, E for 23 Sqn and F for 25 Sqn and at Leuchars, G for 43 Sqn and H for 111.
Invariably, when a jet left the sqn it went to the MU for major servicing. Sometimes it returned and would keep its code but often it would be sent to another sqn and pick up a local code.
The F3 was a much maligned beast and the As the aircraft is effectively out of service I'm not giving much away at this stage. I'll be honest, in the early 80s none of us wanted it and a two seat F15 or the F14 would have been our preference. The reality was that we were going to get a "British" product but, despite that, the requirement was myopic so my remarks are made in that context.
It turned the corner with the introduction of the Stage 1 radar in the early 90s. That gave it a very capable radar and coincided with the introduction of JTIDS which gave a quantum leap in situation awareness. About the same time we fitted defensive aids which improved self defence. Unfortunately, integral designs for the TRD were unaffordable and the podded version needed a Phimat chaff dispenser on the other wing as a balance for the flight control system. This added weight and cost perfomance at height. Ironically, this coincided with the trend towards operations at medium levels which forced the fighters even higher. Up to that point, it would have coped at lower levels where the aircraft was typically employed.
The story of the jet was late development or lack of development. The aircraft entered service in 85 with a radar that didn't work. "Blue Circle" was a reality but contrary to popular belief, the ballast was only fitted for about 6 months until the "Y List" radars arrived. It took 5 years to reach an acceptable standard during which time the myths were rampant. The concept was always to fit JTIDS but from early in its life it was obvious that it needed AMRAAM and ASRAAM. It took until the Combat Sustainability programme in the late 90s before the MOD could be persuaded to invest. Even then, the AMRAAM fit was rejected, deferred, introduced in austere form before finally fitting the full capability everyone knew was needed from the outset. In my opinion, it took almost 12 years to get the aircraft to the maturity it should have enjoyed at ISD. Delays inevitably cost more money.
Operationally, serious mods were needed to deploy in GW1. The baseline defensive aids fit had been delayed so interim devices were fitted under urgent operational requirements and we only formally qualified some GW mods (at great cost) in 94/95. Sadly, the reputation with the Americans was such that the jet was only employed as back stop CAP. With the lack of any credible attacks against the rear area, the aircraft rarely got into a position to engage. This still haunts the crews with unfair criticism which is posted in every F3 thread. The F3 would have given any of the Iraqi threats as good as it got. Leave aside the airframe restrictions of a high wing loader, operating at a height above its best environment but with a Stage 2 radar, AMRAAM, ASRAAM and defensive aids, the F3 crew had a situation awareness on a par with any combat airframe until the advent of Gen 5 fighters.
Without going into it, the aircraft also had a few tricks up its sleeve which would have helped employ the weapons more effectively.
The EF3 was a capable SEAD platform and but for in house bickering could have been an extremely effective escort platform. Sadly, the leadership were never convinced or saw it as a threat to other platforms IMHO.
The sad side was that many of the potential enhancements were never funded. Imagine the aircraft with a helmet mounted sight and a capable close in weapon such as ASRAAM. If an integral jammer had been fitted which was technically possible, the weight and drag of the external loads may have been avoided making the aiframe more employable. Imagine an EF3 fitted with external jamming pods with a support jamming/escort role and a training capability. Technically feasible but insufficient funding.
All in, the F3 was much more capable than its reputation and properly developed would have held its own. That said, it was designed for the North Sea fight so it was never going to be a good a high level fighter. It did many things well but, without HMS, should not have been placed in a situation where it was threatened in a turning fight.
As always, JMHO.
Starting with the F3 force the system changed slightly although it had been used before on other fleets. The tail letters became double letters with each initial letter designating the squadron. The OCU was A, 29 Sqn B and 5 Sqn C. The codes thus became AA, BA, CA etc.
One of the exceptions was 229 OCU/56 Sqn where we had more than 26 aircraft at one point as the F3 replaced the F2. After "AZ", briefly we had as high as "A7".
At Leeming the codes were D for 11 Sqn, E for 23 Sqn and F for 25 Sqn and at Leuchars, G for 43 Sqn and H for 111.
Invariably, when a jet left the sqn it went to the MU for major servicing. Sometimes it returned and would keep its code but often it would be sent to another sqn and pick up a local code.
The F3 was a much maligned beast and the As the aircraft is effectively out of service I'm not giving much away at this stage. I'll be honest, in the early 80s none of us wanted it and a two seat F15 or the F14 would have been our preference. The reality was that we were going to get a "British" product but, despite that, the requirement was myopic so my remarks are made in that context.
It turned the corner with the introduction of the Stage 1 radar in the early 90s. That gave it a very capable radar and coincided with the introduction of JTIDS which gave a quantum leap in situation awareness. About the same time we fitted defensive aids which improved self defence. Unfortunately, integral designs for the TRD were unaffordable and the podded version needed a Phimat chaff dispenser on the other wing as a balance for the flight control system. This added weight and cost perfomance at height. Ironically, this coincided with the trend towards operations at medium levels which forced the fighters even higher. Up to that point, it would have coped at lower levels where the aircraft was typically employed.
The story of the jet was late development or lack of development. The aircraft entered service in 85 with a radar that didn't work. "Blue Circle" was a reality but contrary to popular belief, the ballast was only fitted for about 6 months until the "Y List" radars arrived. It took 5 years to reach an acceptable standard during which time the myths were rampant. The concept was always to fit JTIDS but from early in its life it was obvious that it needed AMRAAM and ASRAAM. It took until the Combat Sustainability programme in the late 90s before the MOD could be persuaded to invest. Even then, the AMRAAM fit was rejected, deferred, introduced in austere form before finally fitting the full capability everyone knew was needed from the outset. In my opinion, it took almost 12 years to get the aircraft to the maturity it should have enjoyed at ISD. Delays inevitably cost more money.
Operationally, serious mods were needed to deploy in GW1. The baseline defensive aids fit had been delayed so interim devices were fitted under urgent operational requirements and we only formally qualified some GW mods (at great cost) in 94/95. Sadly, the reputation with the Americans was such that the jet was only employed as back stop CAP. With the lack of any credible attacks against the rear area, the aircraft rarely got into a position to engage. This still haunts the crews with unfair criticism which is posted in every F3 thread. The F3 would have given any of the Iraqi threats as good as it got. Leave aside the airframe restrictions of a high wing loader, operating at a height above its best environment but with a Stage 2 radar, AMRAAM, ASRAAM and defensive aids, the F3 crew had a situation awareness on a par with any combat airframe until the advent of Gen 5 fighters.
Without going into it, the aircraft also had a few tricks up its sleeve which would have helped employ the weapons more effectively.
The EF3 was a capable SEAD platform and but for in house bickering could have been an extremely effective escort platform. Sadly, the leadership were never convinced or saw it as a threat to other platforms IMHO.
The sad side was that many of the potential enhancements were never funded. Imagine the aircraft with a helmet mounted sight and a capable close in weapon such as ASRAAM. If an integral jammer had been fitted which was technically possible, the weight and drag of the external loads may have been avoided making the aiframe more employable. Imagine an EF3 fitted with external jamming pods with a support jamming/escort role and a training capability. Technically feasible but insufficient funding.
All in, the F3 was much more capable than its reputation and properly developed would have held its own. That said, it was designed for the North Sea fight so it was never going to be a good a high level fighter. It did many things well but, without HMS, should not have been placed in a situation where it was threatened in a turning fight.
As always, JMHO.
Last edited by Geehovah; 3rd Dec 2010 at 06:46.
I knew I had a photo of this one somewhere- this was taken out over the North Sea in around 1996ish...
And some others, just incase you are really keen to see more of the fleet...
And an angle you don't see every day...
I hope that these are of interest. Sorry about the poor quality of my scanner!
SB
And some others, just incase you are really keen to see more of the fleet...
And an angle you don't see every day...
I hope that these are of interest. Sorry about the poor quality of my scanner!
SB
Last edited by sunshine band; 3rd Dec 2010 at 09:25.
Suspect a bit of Photoshopping!
One of the middle ones shows 3 in frame (plus the photo ship) coming of the tanker. 4 F3s airborne? I smell a rat - either that or they walked as an 8ship!
One of the middle ones shows 3 in frame (plus the photo ship) coming of the tanker. 4 F3s airborne? I smell a rat - either that or they walked as an 8ship!
Nice images, SB. Thanks for posting!
I have noticed that the old issue of image size is creeping back into the forums?
It was agreed that 850 was the maximum width size. 850x850 being the max limit.
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...your-pics.html
TJ
I have noticed that the old issue of image size is creeping back into the forums?
It was agreed that 850 was the maximum width size. 850x850 being the max limit.
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...your-pics.html
TJ
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 250 ft agl
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the process of engagement between pilot & wso in the F3?
There are soooo many funny answers to that one. It's like a caption competition!!! Is that why there was not side-by-side seating like the F111?? Hands slipping whilst selecting switches???
I think that, if the WSO has survived the flight, he gets down on one knee and asks...
There are soooo many funny answers to that one. It's like a caption competition!!! Is that why there was not side-by-side seating like the F111?? Hands slipping whilst selecting switches???
I think that, if the WSO has survived the flight, he gets down on one knee and asks...
Their eyes met across the glowing TV TAB, his hand slid across to her DINCDU and she gasped as she watched the probe extend....
(sorry, didn't fast forward...)
(sorry, didn't fast forward...)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,537
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
17 Posts
A request for info, to help solve something that has been bugging me for years.
When 5 Sqn disbanded on the F3 they did a multi ship low level sortie through part of the Selkirk to Moffat valley.
I was in the valley that day and was really pleased to see all these F3's storming up the valley, as they just seemed to keep coming.
I was gutted therefore, as I was preparing to photograph them, when they all headed up a side valley (at the Gordon Arms Hotel, if you know the valley), before reaching my location.
There was only one of the formation who flew by me at the east end of St Marys Loch. I totally lost count of the number of aircraft involved. If anybody on here was involved/on that sortie, could you tell me just how many aircraft took part.
When 5 Sqn disbanded on the F3 they did a multi ship low level sortie through part of the Selkirk to Moffat valley.
I was in the valley that day and was really pleased to see all these F3's storming up the valley, as they just seemed to keep coming.
I was gutted therefore, as I was preparing to photograph them, when they all headed up a side valley (at the Gordon Arms Hotel, if you know the valley), before reaching my location.
There was only one of the formation who flew by me at the east end of St Marys Loch. I totally lost count of the number of aircraft involved. If anybody on here was involved/on that sortie, could you tell me just how many aircraft took part.
Q for Geehovah
You say the AD guys would have preferred a 2seat 15 or the14.
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
Because the navs were ther, ready to go?Just wondering.
CG
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
Because the navs were ther, ready to go?Just wondering.
CG
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say the AD guys would have preferred a 2seat 15 or the14.
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
The problem is that having a second person in a manned aircraft will cost some performance (range, basically) and will add significantly to through life cost, so manufacturers don'tlike it because the glossy brochure doesn't look as good (no box for "capacity" plenty for "multi-sensor data fusion" etc).
It is similar for the 1 v 2 engine argument so basically, Single Seat, Single Engine, the only way to fly cheaply (but you'll get away with it most of the time) hence the configuratio of F16/F35 which have always been aimed at the cheap end of the market (
).If you can get some data on how F16 and F3 have compared in A-A on large package exercises - most (especially non experts) will be surprised.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the difference between single and two-seat fighters becomes even more marked when the aircrew are less proficient. Having served in foreign climes (no, Wikileaks, no places) where ability is less important than influence, I can testify that two seats are always better than one even if the single seat has weapon and airframe advantage.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I should have added is that 2 seats can be a lot worse than one if the crews are mismatched. You can be Douglas BAder but if the Nav keeps pointing the radar at LEO satellites you aint getting very far and the same the other way around.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q for Geehovah
You say the AD guys would have preferred a 2seat 15 or the14.
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
Because the navs were ther, ready to go?Just wondering.
CG
There'll be disagreements here but mainly because of technology. The F4 was mandraulic and the integration in the system planned for the F3 was still immature. In both aircraft the weapons system was a handful and it took one guy most of his time to use it. Had we used typical avionics of the time one guy would have struggled. APG63 was good even in the early days and the US has always been good at the man machine interface. Even so, it took a few years before it reached its peak and the F15A pilot didnt have the same SA as an F3 crew now has. It was always obvious that the single seat F15 pilots were not happy below 1000 feet where we were forced to operate both in Germany and over the North Sea at night. They could do it but a two seat pilot could devote all his time to the outside world. Had the requirement been met with a 2 seat F15 we'd have redesigned the avionics. bear in mind F15E was still a few years down the road at that time.
I'd also agree that a bad pilot was an extra supervisory load and a bad nav could easily ruin the effectiveness of the aircraft. That said, the concept was always to give a new pilot to an experienced back seater and vice versa which could improve the effectiveness of the lowest denominator.
Things nowadays are a lot different and with the improved integration in the current generation of fighters plus medium level ops, one guy is normally able to get the most out of the aircraft.
You say the AD guys would have preferred a 2seat 15 or the14.
Why the 2seat f15, It appears to have been a successful fighter in it's single version?
Because the navs were ther, ready to go?Just wondering.
CG
There'll be disagreements here but mainly because of technology. The F4 was mandraulic and the integration in the system planned for the F3 was still immature. In both aircraft the weapons system was a handful and it took one guy most of his time to use it. Had we used typical avionics of the time one guy would have struggled. APG63 was good even in the early days and the US has always been good at the man machine interface. Even so, it took a few years before it reached its peak and the F15A pilot didnt have the same SA as an F3 crew now has. It was always obvious that the single seat F15 pilots were not happy below 1000 feet where we were forced to operate both in Germany and over the North Sea at night. They could do it but a two seat pilot could devote all his time to the outside world. Had the requirement been met with a 2 seat F15 we'd have redesigned the avionics. bear in mind F15E was still a few years down the road at that time.
I'd also agree that a bad pilot was an extra supervisory load and a bad nav could easily ruin the effectiveness of the aircraft. That said, the concept was always to give a new pilot to an experienced back seater and vice versa which could improve the effectiveness of the lowest denominator.
Things nowadays are a lot different and with the improved integration in the current generation of fighters plus medium level ops, one guy is normally able to get the most out of the aircraft.
Last edited by Geehovah; 4th Dec 2010 at 07:17.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,537
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
17 Posts
Boutros, thanks very much. I had guessed between 6 and 9, as I said they just kept appearing from behind Feurs Hill. The sad part is even if they had come all the way up past me, I was at 30 on the film counter, so I had only 6 possibly 7 shots left. It was still impressive though 