Tornado or something American
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
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
"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
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.
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...
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...
Gums - relax - stay calm!
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...........!!
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...........!!
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$$.
The war plan back then was to take out as many airfields as possible as early as possible and that Tornado and the 'vaarks at Upper Heford and the other base were the prime bomb trucks. Think the 'vaarks were tasked to go deeper and take a circuitous route cause they had longer legs.
When we finally saw the Tornado in Iraq I, I was surprised. I can tell ya from personal experience, only reason the 'vaarks did well in Linebacker was they were basically single ship and away from the primary action. I was disappointed in the Tornado losses as I thot the Vee had a lot more "training", but as we say " even a blind squirrel will find an acorn now and then". The good news was the Tornado had great munitions beside that big CBU dispenser.
In the long run, I still throw my vote with the interceptor model.
Gums sends...
Usually careful, but I try to inject or "excrete" humor now and then.
Only time I got shot down was deleivering CBU at 200 feet or so and ran outta gas withn about 10 minutes. Nevertheless, I appreciated the idea of that big dispenser system on the Tornado for the WW3 scenario and such. One pass and haul a$$.
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...
