Tornado F3: 25 Years of Air Defence

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Before JTIDS, I always found the Victor tanker crews worked very hard to keep the air picture. They'd often come meet you off an intercept (if you were their only customers), and head towards the next fight whilst you tanked; all no comms as well. Nicest plane to tank off also I thought, especially at night.

[maxburner]

''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.''

Thank you! I did my best.

[soddim]

With this thread back on civilised exchanges of information from those with first-hand knowledge of the F3 it might be appropriate to pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of those who worked so hard to improve the ugly duckling. In the words of Spon Clayton 'You can't polish a turd' but they proved him wrong. Their efforts and the money prised from a reluctant treasury provided the taxpayer with an excellent machine for the air defence of UK.

Well done!

[Geehovah]

Amongst all the clap trap in this thread if anyone wants to read a single post which gives a true reflection of the F3 then re read Fox3Fox2FoxYou's post #86.

A great summary.

Having been involved in the jet from almost day 1 (Tornado F2) through implimenting the UORs for GW1 and then formalising my own mods (catch 22) in Air Def, this is the best summary here.

One of these days I'll write a book as to why MOD will never be able to take a reasonably capable design (for an interceptor) and produce a world class platform. The F3 is almost the perfect example. At all stages of its service we had technological solutions to its deficiencies (although Foxhunter taxed some very sharp minds). All we ever lacked was a touch of vision, appropriate priority and a lot of money.

[Corporal Clott]

Geehovah

Wise words on the money front. You only have to remember the F-15A to F-15C modifications. F-15A was a piece of sh!t (apart from the basic airframe) until the F-15C upgrade - lots of $$$$ spent on avionics and then a world beating combination.

Cpl Clott

[Lima Juliet]

Forget

LJ.
Quote:
... a Javelin crew got a Malaysian C-130 in 1964.

They were on our side. Wouldn't that irritate someone?

My apologies - I should have typed "INDONESIAN"

LJ

[XV277]

Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz

W
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.

There were also the occasions when Hunters went after Yemeni Migs attaking ground targets in Aden (or was it Oman?) in the 60s - I beleive some camera film showed gun strikes, but the Hunters were restricted from crossing the border to prosecute the kill. As to whether these MIgs made it home safe or not I don't know.

[Bevo]

Corporal Clott;
F-15A was a piece of sh!t

The first deliveries of the F-15A to combat squadrons was in 1976. MAC started delivering F-15C in 1979. The only initial differences between the two was the addition of 2,000 lbs of fuel in the wings and provisions for conformal fuel tanks (CFT). The avionics were identical. Later the F-15C received additional up-grades (and continues to do so with AESA radar in some).

In 1979 I would have taken the F-15A over any fighter in existence! A piece of sh!t - I think NOT.

[maxburner]

Bevo - well said. Early F15s had engine difficulties, but they were a very capable aircraft from the outset. They just got better through the years.

[Lima Juliet]

F-15A...my Sqn Boss flew them and in the 90s he said that it was not much better than the Lightning. He also said that until the F-15C came in it was not much better than an airshow jet.

LJ

[Bevo]

Well Leon, each to his own opinion. Mine is based on having logged 1850 hrs. in the Phantom (178 combat missions in SEA from Korat Thailand and a tour at RAF Lakenheath), a flight in the Lighting at RAF Coltishall in 1973, 525 hrs F-15A/C , 260 hrs. in the F-14A, and 223 hrs. in the F/A-18A (Navy exchange tour with VX-4) and flight time in “other” aircraft as the Red Hat Squadron commander from 1985 to 1989.

I enjoyed flying the Lighting and thought it was a great handling aircraft. Good performance, although some of that performance came because it wasn’t handicapped with a lot of fuel (my flight lasted all of 0.7 hrs.) HOWEVER, I would never have traded the F-15 for a Lighting going into combat.

The Eagle had at least as good performance, even better flying qualities, more fuel, and the head-up display, cockpit controls and avionics in the F-15 were a generation ahead of anything in the Lighting.

[barnstormer1968]

Bevo.

While it was nice to hear that you liked the performance of the lightning, it must be born in mind that its avionics and capabilities SHOULD have been less that the F15's as it was a much older aircraft in design.

As I am curious, how would you rate the F14, F4 and F18 in comparison to the F15 in the AD/interceptor role (at the times you flew them, and not referring the the super hornet etc).

[soddim]

I saw at first hand the OT & E effort when the F15 was introduced at Luke AFB and the rate of progress in achieving the required capability was exponential. There were problems but dollars and contractors efforts were poured into the various fixes and, once the air-to-ground role was ditched, it became a difficult opponent to beat in an F4.

I was therefore very disappointed when a UK team visited to evaluate the aircraft as an alternative to the proposed F3 and reported back that it was less suitable.

I formed the opinion that they were telling the senior staff what they wanted to hear instead of the obvious truth.

Much later the commons defence committee asked a senior air force officer whether if we went to war he would prefer to be flying an F15 or an F3. When he answered F3 he was asked why and replied 'because it had an exceptional ECCM capability'. Yes, he was right - at that time it was the easiest radar in the western world to jam - you didn't even need a jammer to get into the F3 radar and wipe out plots.

Yes, we progressed ourselves after that but we could have had a better capability a lot earlier and saved a lot of defence budget money.

[Bevo]

barnstormer1968:
it must be born in mind that its avionics and capabilities SHOULD have been less that the F15's as it was a much older aircraft in design.

Yes I am aware of the difference in design date on the Lighting, I was not sure Leon was as I was answering his post.

... how would you rate the F14, F4 and F18 in comparison to the F15 in the AD/interceptor role (at the times you flew them, and not referring the the super hornet etc)

At the risk of major thread creep here is my comparison of the aircraft you mentioned.

The F-4 was of course not in the same league as the other fighters you. I flew F-4C,D,E,J,S versions and the RF-4C. The most updated version was the F-4E with Loran. Some folks have claimed that their first aircraft was their love. Sorry, the F-4 was not mine. I did not have the opportunity to fly the German F-4F with APG-65 radar.

I flew the F-15A/C before the F-14A or F/A-18 and my first impression of the F-14 was that it was a step back from the F-15. The HUD on the F-14 was not very good and I usually only used it to find the target using the TD diamond. The AWG-9 radar had a tremendous amount of power but was not as sophisticated as the F-15/F-18. The F-14 was designed for fleet air defense and the primary mission was to intercept Russian bombers before they could launch long range missiles against the carrier. In that role it was a good aircraft as the variable sweep geometry allowed it to loiter on CAP but still dash when needed. The AIM-54C missile had long advertised range, however, for any long range shot you still had to illuminate the target for an extended period of time before it went active so the effective range (for a high Pk) was much shorter. In a turning fight the F-14 was very underpowered as the P&W TF-30 had so much bleed taken to prevent stalls that the thrust to weight wasn’t much more than the F-4. Also, you could always tell the speed of the F-14 by looking at its wing sweep. I would have liked to have flown the F-14D with the GE-F110 engines. A little story: on returning from a flight at VX-4 one day and exiting my F/A-18 I heard what sounded like the largest light bulb in history shattering on the ramp. Turns out the armament folks had dropped an new AIM-54C (dry) while loading it on the F-14 next to me and what I heard was the radome shattering. About $1M in development missile gone. Not a good day for the CO.

The F-15C – F/A-18A is an interesting comparison. The F-15 had better thrust to weight but the F/A-18 had better high AoA capability. The HUD, cockpit controls, and radar were very similar and my transition to the F/A-18 was relatively easy because it was so similar to the F-15 in cockpit layout and controls. The radars were both Hughes designs and were very similar, however, the F-15 had a larger antenna and I always had the impression that the F/A-18 design pushed the receiver to obtain similar ranges to that of the F-15. This seemed to result in more false targets. The track-while-scan implemented first in the F/A-18 was nicer and not installed in the F-15C at that time. And the multiple displays allowed more flexibility and more data to be displayed. It is interesting that although the radars were both Hughes the F/A-18A at the time did not include “mother code”. As a result if two F/A-18s were locked on to a target at the same time and one launched an AIM-7 the missile was confused and would not guide. This was updated later but it is interesting that it was not included in the initial design.

There is lot more to these comparisons but this is a quick overview.

So for the interceptor role against bomber targets the F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54C was the best. In an air defense role it would have been a close call between the F-15 and F/A-18A with the edge going to the F-15 in my opinion.

As an aside the current F-15E export versions retain tremendous AD capability with an IRST added to the AESA radar and great range and increased thrust from the GE-F110 engines. I would love to have flown the Su-27 also but didn’t get the chance.

[Bevo]

soddim
Much later the commons defence committee asked a senior air force officer whether if we went to war he would prefer to be flying an F15 or an F3. When he answered F3 he was asked why and replied 'because it had an exceptional ECCM capability'. Yes, he was right - at that time it was the easiest radar in the western world to jam - you didn't even need a jammer to get into the F3 radar and wipe out plots.

Interesting. I am sure not in a position to comment as I know very little except what I read about the F3. And given the passion of this thread that is probably just as well.

[Ali Barber]

Would that be the "full and comprehensive ECM suite comparable to any modern day western fighter"? Don't think we were even at Z-list then. The man was a **** of the highest order.