Tornado F3: 25 Years of Air Defence
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado F3 - 25 Years of Air DEfence
I too am pulled into the debate but as the author of the book, I feel some responsibility.
F3F2FY,
It is factual and honest without, I hope, retrospective 'talking-up' or too much nostalgia. Every word was cleared for accuracy by the MoD and I hope that you'll find the radar and weapons system description 'warts and all'. Pretty much everyone who contributed came up with the same independently formed conclusion: It was a bit rubbish to start with, got a whole lot better and ended-up very capable - by which time the aircraft's reputation had already been made and reinforced by those who were ill informed and / or had an axe to grind.
Read it and see, even if you hate the text - the pictures are gorgeous and £2 from every book sold goes to RAFA...
F3F2FY,
probably coloured by what I imagine is a fairly sympathetic and even affectionate description of a jet that inspired a wide range of emotions from the folks who flew and maintained her
Read it and see, even if you hate the text - the pictures are gorgeous and £2 from every book sold goes to RAFA...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
Sorry, got to come in here. The question is: 'when did the RAF last score aircraft kills after WW2?'. The answer is 'none' except possibly from RAF Spitfires in Israel in '46 or 47.
The RAF scores an air to air kill when an RAF aircraft does it. That's an aircraft on the RAF military aircraft register, operating under RAF command. Fact. Not open to discussion. Now, if you WANT to go down the 'kills are awarded to the pilot and not the aircraft' route, let's just unpack the Battle of Britain, or perhaps not? Any takers?
There is NO Navy snobbery, or playing down the role of RAF pilots in the Falklands - on Sea Harrier they were bloody good squadron members playing key roles. 1 Squadron were recognised and applauded by the Navy as the professionals they were. My unit picked an RAF guy out of the water after he was shot down, and he remains a true friend to this day.
The problems start further up the chain when inter service 'willy waving' starts. We ough to do our best to be better than that. However, the facts are there - no RAF air to air kills since WW2. It's inconvenient for some in the RAF but true.
best Regards
Engines
Sorry, got to come in here. The question is: 'when did the RAF last score aircraft kills after WW2?'. The answer is 'none' except possibly from RAF Spitfires in Israel in '46 or 47.
The RAF scores an air to air kill when an RAF aircraft does it. That's an aircraft on the RAF military aircraft register, operating under RAF command. Fact. Not open to discussion. Now, if you WANT to go down the 'kills are awarded to the pilot and not the aircraft' route, let's just unpack the Battle of Britain, or perhaps not? Any takers?
There is NO Navy snobbery, or playing down the role of RAF pilots in the Falklands - on Sea Harrier they were bloody good squadron members playing key roles. 1 Squadron were recognised and applauded by the Navy as the professionals they were. My unit picked an RAF guy out of the water after he was shot down, and he remains a true friend to this day.
The problems start further up the chain when inter service 'willy waving' starts. We ough to do our best to be better than that. However, the facts are there - no RAF air to air kills since WW2. It's inconvenient for some in the RAF but true.
best Regards
Engines
Thread Starter
The problems start further up the chain when inter service 'willy waving' starts.
As for the silly air-to-air kills stats - so what? When did the RAF (or the RN, for that matter) last drop a bucket of sunshine on an enemy?
It's called deterrence - and that's why the F3s didn't need to kill anything in GW2. The deterrent effect of the F3 air presence was in part sufficient to keep the Iraqi air force on the ground.
Engines,
For the sake of accuracy I have to point out that you are wrong. 92(F) Sqn shot down a Jaguar over Germany in the 1980s;definitely an air-to-air kill!
For the sake of accuracy I have to point out that you are wrong. 92(F) Sqn shot down a Jaguar over Germany in the 1980s;definitely an air-to-air kill!
Engines
What's your point fella? We're pretty open about the vital role the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) played in the Battle of Britain. Take a look at this official link to the Battle's Roll of Honour from the RAF's Air Historical Branch:
The Battle of Britain - Home Page
You will clearly see the names of 56x FAA pilots who fought in the Battle - no cover ups and all annotated with FAA in brackets with RN Ranks. Again, IIRC some 4x FAA pilots became aces during the battle out of a total of 188. Of the top 10 aces from the Battle some 5 were Brits, 2 were Kiwis, 1 an Aussy, 1 a Czech and 1 a Pole - no FAA in the top 10 though.
Also take a look at this:
Taken from the Battle of Britain Memorial website - again it paints a positive picture for the FAA (which until May 1939 was the "Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force"!).
Also, 804 and 808 Sqns in the FAA were units that fought independantly of the RAF, just like 1 Sqn in the Falklands.
So your comparison is a good one in my view and whilst we, the RAF, do not detract or claim that FAA pilot's kills in the Battle belong to the RAF, then I believe the RAF have equal claim to our Pilot's kill claims in the Falklands War - and IIRC the RAF pilots were there because the FAA were short of pilots just like the RAF were short in 1940? Sadly, because the FAA pilot numbers were considerably smaller than the RAF in 1940, then historians and authors tend to blob them up as "RAF kills", just as they do for the FAA for 1982.
LJ
Now, if you WANT to go down the 'kills are awarded to the pilot and not the aircraft' route, let's just unpack the Battle of Britain, or perhaps not? Any takers?
The Battle of Britain - Home Page
You will clearly see the names of 56x FAA pilots who fought in the Battle - no cover ups and all annotated with FAA in brackets with RN Ranks. Again, IIRC some 4x FAA pilots became aces during the battle out of a total of 188. Of the top 10 aces from the Battle some 5 were Brits, 2 were Kiwis, 1 an Aussy, 1 a Czech and 1 a Pole - no FAA in the top 10 though.
Also take a look at this:
Although the naval pilots were fully integrated operationally into the RAF they wore naval uniform and guarded their Navy identities. Gardner had the flag hoist of Nelson's "England Expects" signal at Trafalgar painted on the side of his Hurricane. In general, they got on very well with Bader - "He wasn't the most diplomatic of people" Gardner said. He had very strong opinions and stuck to these no matter who he was talking to, a senior officer or otherwise. What he said had to go and that was that". In all, 56 Fleet Air Arm pilots flew in the Battle of Britain, 23 of them with the RAF. Nine were killed.
Also, 804 and 808 Sqns in the FAA were units that fought independantly of the RAF, just like 1 Sqn in the Falklands.
So your comparison is a good one in my view and whilst we, the RAF, do not detract or claim that FAA pilot's kills in the Battle belong to the RAF, then I believe the RAF have equal claim to our Pilot's kill claims in the Falklands War - and IIRC the RAF pilots were there because the FAA were short of pilots just like the RAF were short in 1940? Sadly, because the FAA pilot numbers were considerably smaller than the RAF in 1940, then historians and authors tend to blob them up as "RAF kills", just as they do for the FAA for 1982.
LJ
We can also add:
RAF exchange pilots with the USAF in Korea:
Flight Lieutenant John Nicholls (later Vice Chief of the Air Staff in 1977) got the first in December 1952 (damaging three more).
Squadron Leader Max Higson from No.43 Squadron destroyed at least one MiG-15.
Flight Lieutenant Daniel who flew with 334 FIS at Kimpo was credited with damaging two MiGs during his six-month tour during 1952.
Flight Lieutenant RTF Dickinson, shot down one MiG-15
Flight Lieutenant John Granville-White shot down one MiG 15
Flight Lieutenant Graham S Hulse shot down three more MiG 15s
No 208 Squadron took its revenge after four of its unarmed Spits were downed by the IDF/AF. That can't be confirmed, though Tim McElhaw of 208 (later OC 14 in the Canberra era) certainly got two Egyptian Spit Vs on 22 May 1948, and on 7 January 1949 Flight Lieutenant Brian Spragg of 6 Squadron, flying an RAF Tempest, shot down an IDF/AF Spitfire IX.
Sadly, the stories of these are pretty sensitive but covered in depth here: IAF v RAF
There is also persistant reporting that a Venom mate got a kill during the Suez op (perhaps on 5 November, perhaps Flying Officer Dave Williams of 249 Sqn, his victim being a Meteor), and that a Hunter got a manoeuvre kill against a MiG-17 during the Confrontation and that a Javelin crew got a Malaysian C-130 in 1964.
So, plenty of combat action outside of 1982's kills.
LJ
RAF exchange pilots with the USAF in Korea:
Flight Lieutenant John Nicholls (later Vice Chief of the Air Staff in 1977) got the first in December 1952 (damaging three more).
Squadron Leader Max Higson from No.43 Squadron destroyed at least one MiG-15.
Flight Lieutenant Daniel who flew with 334 FIS at Kimpo was credited with damaging two MiGs during his six-month tour during 1952.
Flight Lieutenant RTF Dickinson, shot down one MiG-15
Flight Lieutenant John Granville-White shot down one MiG 15
Flight Lieutenant Graham S Hulse shot down three more MiG 15s
No 208 Squadron took its revenge after four of its unarmed Spits were downed by the IDF/AF. That can't be confirmed, though Tim McElhaw of 208 (later OC 14 in the Canberra era) certainly got two Egyptian Spit Vs on 22 May 1948, and on 7 January 1949 Flight Lieutenant Brian Spragg of 6 Squadron, flying an RAF Tempest, shot down an IDF/AF Spitfire IX.
Sadly, the stories of these are pretty sensitive but covered in depth here: IAF v RAF
There is also persistant reporting that a Venom mate got a kill during the Suez op (perhaps on 5 November, perhaps Flying Officer Dave Williams of 249 Sqn, his victim being a Meteor), and that a Hunter got a manoeuvre kill against a MiG-17 during the Confrontation and that a Javelin crew got a Malaysian C-130 in 1964.
So, plenty of combat action outside of 1982's kills.
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3F2FY
Excellent posts!
I have ordered my copy of the book; even though I am a 20+ year vet on the jet, doubt if I will get a mention. Perhaps you ought to write a book with your interesting insight into the operational aspects of the aircraft.
Excellent posts!
I have ordered my copy of the book; even though I am a 20+ year vet on the jet, doubt if I will get a mention. Perhaps you ought to write a book with your interesting insight into the operational aspects of the aircraft.
Thread Starter
....aaaaaaaaaaand back in the room!
RedCoaster, that is indeed an accurate summary of the book's qualities. I had no real idea how much things had moved on with regard to the F3 Air Defence System's capabilities until I read your excellent book.
And boy, would I have liked to have flown 800KIAS+ at errm, '250' ft!
Two main factors show up time and again - the development of tactics and the use of Link16. AD force tactics have always been the province of hard-working QWIs, hence the old 180x0 AIM7EIII/AIM-9G attack/re-attack thing we learned at CGY on the F4 became the 150 ARA when I was (briefly) on 56 at WTM. A much better tactic - and that was just one example. Even as cr@p as I was, a bit of knowledge and some synergy regarding A/A gunnery techniques helped me to a 52% score on one APC trip - not bad for the old F-4! Tactics and technique, skill and trickery!
But Link16 must be the ace in the hand, surely? Being able to see what was going on at (some distance) from the fight must have given you a tremendous advantage?
I've campaigned long and hard for link-enablement in tankers. As far as the tanker is concerned, it gives the crew some SA and reduces the danger of fratricide. Not just for the tanker - I'm pretty sure that a switched-on crew watching the F-15/BlackHawk activity during OP.BOLTON might perhaps have stopped a tragedy. Equally, when an F-14 mistakenly plugged in to our jet during GW1 and wouldn't disconnect when told (we had a large CF-18 attack formation inbound and the F-14 had mis-id'd his tanker), we could have given him a snap to his assigned tanker. A minor use of Link16, but trying to persuade others of the mission-critical need for Link16 in a 21st century tanker is, well, not always easy! And, of course, the tanker acts as a relay for other users, whilst contributing high time and position quality and its own specifics to the network without the crew ever needing to lift a finger.
AD is a system, not a jet. That means everybody from the clerk who pays the cook who feeds the groundcrew who service the jet, the people who operate the jet, the jet itself, the missile system, the tactics, the AWACS team, the Link, the tanker-wanquerres - everybody and everything.
But sad spotters still think a 'good' fighter is something which flies 'cobras' at some airshow.....
With the latest chunterings about a 'no fly zone' in Libya, one last hurrah for the F-3 force with a push to a Mediterranean base must surely be a possibility, even at this late stage?
And boy, would I have liked to have flown 800KIAS+ at errm, '250' ft!
Two main factors show up time and again - the development of tactics and the use of Link16. AD force tactics have always been the province of hard-working QWIs, hence the old 180x0 AIM7EIII/AIM-9G attack/re-attack thing we learned at CGY on the F4 became the 150 ARA when I was (briefly) on 56 at WTM. A much better tactic - and that was just one example. Even as cr@p as I was, a bit of knowledge and some synergy regarding A/A gunnery techniques helped me to a 52% score on one APC trip - not bad for the old F-4! Tactics and technique, skill and trickery!
But Link16 must be the ace in the hand, surely? Being able to see what was going on at (some distance) from the fight must have given you a tremendous advantage?
I've campaigned long and hard for link-enablement in tankers. As far as the tanker is concerned, it gives the crew some SA and reduces the danger of fratricide. Not just for the tanker - I'm pretty sure that a switched-on crew watching the F-15/BlackHawk activity during OP.BOLTON might perhaps have stopped a tragedy. Equally, when an F-14 mistakenly plugged in to our jet during GW1 and wouldn't disconnect when told (we had a large CF-18 attack formation inbound and the F-14 had mis-id'd his tanker), we could have given him a snap to his assigned tanker. A minor use of Link16, but trying to persuade others of the mission-critical need for Link16 in a 21st century tanker is, well, not always easy! And, of course, the tanker acts as a relay for other users, whilst contributing high time and position quality and its own specifics to the network without the crew ever needing to lift a finger.
AD is a system, not a jet. That means everybody from the clerk who pays the cook who feeds the groundcrew who service the jet, the people who operate the jet, the jet itself, the missile system, the tactics, the AWACS team, the Link, the tanker-wanquerres - everybody and everything.
But sad spotters still think a 'good' fighter is something which flies 'cobras' at some airshow.....
With the latest chunterings about a 'no fly zone' in Libya, one last hurrah for the F-3 force with a push to a Mediterranean base must surely be a possibility, even at this late stage?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
I think we're in danger of agreeing loudly (sort of).
At the squadron/practitioner level, there is respect and willingness to recognise professional fighting people. Official records always record the truth scrupulously.
However, at the 'political' level, there is no doubt that the Battle of Britain is ALWAYS credited to the RAF - and rightly so. And in the same way, the Falklands was a triumph for the Navy and the FAA.
But the FACT is that 'the RAF' (an RAF aircraft under RAF command) hasn't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1945 (possibly 46). I have to point out that the same is not true for the FAA. The main reason for this is that most of the wars that have presented air to air combat were in places that meant that FAA fighter aircraft were the ones involved. I don't suppose anyone wanted it to be that way, and it wasn't some 'RN snobbery' that made it happen that way - just geography and timing, plus a good bit of human failings.
Yes, we were, the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF, and proud of the fact.
Let's just cap this by paying tribute to all those who flew and fought the F3. Not an easy job, but done well and bravely.
Best Regards
Engines
I think we're in danger of agreeing loudly (sort of).
At the squadron/practitioner level, there is respect and willingness to recognise professional fighting people. Official records always record the truth scrupulously.
However, at the 'political' level, there is no doubt that the Battle of Britain is ALWAYS credited to the RAF - and rightly so. And in the same way, the Falklands was a triumph for the Navy and the FAA.
But the FACT is that 'the RAF' (an RAF aircraft under RAF command) hasn't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1945 (possibly 46). I have to point out that the same is not true for the FAA. The main reason for this is that most of the wars that have presented air to air combat were in places that meant that FAA fighter aircraft were the ones involved. I don't suppose anyone wanted it to be that way, and it wasn't some 'RN snobbery' that made it happen that way - just geography and timing, plus a good bit of human failings.
Yes, we were, the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF, and proud of the fact.
Let's just cap this by paying tribute to all those who flew and fought the F3. Not an easy job, but done well and bravely.
Best Regards
Engines
BEags
You are so on the money about JTIDS, but sadly the great "Networked Enabled Capability" (NEC) Holy Grail has never materialised in the UK Forces. Why? Because each DEC (or CAP these days), Program Team and FLC has its own agenda. Sadly, I saw more NEC working with my US cousins than I ever did with my own Forces. Time and again it would be the F3 and the E3 "on the net" in a UK COMAO with everyone else completely "cluedo". Things got a little better when Typhoon came along, but Nimrod, VC10 (mostly), Tristar, Puma, Merlin, Chinook, GR4, Harrier, Jaguar, C130 and Hawk were conspicuous in their absence!
Also, the integration of JTIDS in F3 was superb (took a couple of years to get right though): no separate displays (ala F15), data-link tracks incorporated on TAC Display and RADAR Display with the ability to text message between assets including secure voice up to Secret.
You are so on the money about JTIDS, but sadly the great "Networked Enabled Capability" (NEC) Holy Grail has never materialised in the UK Forces. Why? Because each DEC (or CAP these days), Program Team and FLC has its own agenda. Sadly, I saw more NEC working with my US cousins than I ever did with my own Forces. Time and again it would be the F3 and the E3 "on the net" in a UK COMAO with everyone else completely "cluedo". Things got a little better when Typhoon came along, but Nimrod, VC10 (mostly), Tristar, Puma, Merlin, Chinook, GR4, Harrier, Jaguar, C130 and Hawk were conspicuous in their absence!
Also, the integration of JTIDS in F3 was superb (took a couple of years to get right though): no separate displays (ala F15), data-link tracks incorporated on TAC Display and RADAR Display with the ability to text message between assets including secure voice up to Secret.
Thread Starter
Leon, one problem with the VC10 was perhaps that not all variants are Link16-enabled? So the chances of getting the right variant for a COMAO were perhaps limited - unless, of course, the organisers had mandated that Link16-enabled tankers were required as an essential part of the COMAO.
But, as our CSROs always used to remind us, the only way to survive is through knowledge, equipment and will. You can provide the best kit there is and know what it's cpapable of, but if you can't be ar$ed to use it, then what's the point? I saw this time and again when checking VC10K captains - those who couldn't be bothered to switch on the RWR, let alone run the BIT checks, would always be asked for an explanation during the debrief. I just hope that the same thing isn't true with Link16....
But, as our CSROs always used to remind us, the only way to survive is through knowledge, equipment and will. You can provide the best kit there is and know what it's cpapable of, but if you can't be ar$ed to use it, then what's the point? I saw this time and again when checking VC10K captains - those who couldn't be bothered to switch on the RWR, let alone run the BIT checks, would always be asked for an explanation during the debrief. I just hope that the same thing isn't true with Link16....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Over here
Age: 62
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle and Leon,
Spot on with your comments about JTIDS. The real shocker was the cancellation of the full fleet LINK16 implementation in the early 90s. Hence we had yet another mini-fleet within a fleet by the mid-90s, where the Coningsby guys had TIDS and were loath to share it when the rest of us needed it. I started as a sceptic because I felt AMRAAM was more important, but I became a convert after one trip (still wanted the Slammer though).
The greatest travesty of all was the RAF giving up the lead on data-link employment and not rolling out the 'lite' terminals that were being developed across as much of the inventory as possible. Every RAF fast-jet, helo and tanker should be on the net, but the RAF threw away the chance through a mixture of ignorance and prejudice. NEC? We not only missed the boat - we sank it and are still treading water.
Spot on with your comments about JTIDS. The real shocker was the cancellation of the full fleet LINK16 implementation in the early 90s. Hence we had yet another mini-fleet within a fleet by the mid-90s, where the Coningsby guys had TIDS and were loath to share it when the rest of us needed it. I started as a sceptic because I felt AMRAAM was more important, but I became a convert after one trip (still wanted the Slammer though).
The greatest travesty of all was the RAF giving up the lead on data-link employment and not rolling out the 'lite' terminals that were being developed across as much of the inventory as possible. Every RAF fast-jet, helo and tanker should be on the net, but the RAF threw away the chance through a mixture of ignorance and prejudice. NEC? We not only missed the boat - we sank it and are still treading water.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts
To all those people who have been writing utter uninformed drivel here is something to ponder whilst you type away. A few weeks ago 111 ( F) Squadron intercepted and shadowed a Bear "H" off the UK coast - at night at low level. Through his NVG;s the back seater could see the Bear and the Lights of the UK in one frame. That sums up the F3- defending the UK- Not as some of you have put it " a waste pf money" . No doubt you have sat in your warm bungalow typing away your vitriol oblivious to the fact "someone" is looking after you. Frankly those who knock the RAF crews doing QRA 24/7 need lining up and shooting. For the record i flew 1200Hrs + on the F3, and sure it wasnt the best but it did the job it was designed for. The guys who fly it today get far less time in the cockpit than i ever did and i take my hat off to them- Oh and Tourist who ever you are, were you by any chance an only child, or bullied at school??
Last edited by Scruffy Fanny; 17th Mar 2011 at 09:26.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the Korean total my uncle, John Lovell, had a PLAAF MiG15 kill flying an F-86Fwith the 25th Fighter Interceptor Squadron , 51st Fighter Wing on 27th June 1953 - John Lovells flight commander was John Glenn
Jock Maitland was also on loan there
Jock Maitland was also on loan there
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Can I just say I'm sad to see the F3 go. Having squipped on both 43 and Tremblers including GW1 I spent many many happy days on those Squadrons.
I don't know if was good bad or indifferent but it was what we had at the time and those times were good.
Just regret I never pressed for a gash trip in one. Bugger!
I don't know if was good bad or indifferent but it was what we had at the time and those times were good.
Just regret I never pressed for a gash trip in one. Bugger!
