Tornado F3/GR4 Question.
 

Hello chaps and chapesses,

I was wondering, if there was a situation where troops on the ground needed air support and there was a Tornado F3 in the area, could the F3 be used to assist?

Vice versa with a Tornado Gr4, if they were bounced by enemy fighters, could the Tornado use its armaments to attack the enemy fighters?


Cheers
V5

In theory, yes. In practice, no - because the F3 was scrapped last year!

I was not aware of the F3 practising strafe which would have been its only effective weapon if show of force had failed.

Pontius - in the 90s the 11Gp Syllabus stipulated strafe. We used to do ours in Donna Nook. This was to support ground forces during Op DENY FLIGHT/Op DECISIVE EDGE, etc... Also, it was a valid tactic to practise against helicopters either on or near to the ground.

Also, I do know of guys getting bored in the first Gulf War trying to get a sidewinder lock on Iraqi Republican Guard tanks dug in on the Saudi/Iraq/Kuwait border. Don't know if it would have done much damage, but it sure would give the occupants a headache!

Finally, the F3 also has ALARM fitted and tested - this was for ground based RADARs. There was also a TIALD trial that went well, but was never developed as well as the ALARM piece. Either way, there was no way the senior leadership of the RAF, who consisted mostly of mud-movers, would ever let the fighter mates dabble in their business as it would probably have meant losing some mud-mover squadrons and capabilities. An example of this was ALARM - it was far more capable on F3 for TELIC, with an emmitter location system and Link 16, but a certain Air Marshal decided that he wanted to use the less capable GR4 (job/sqn protection/nepotism at its best!). What was even more maddening was that the OEU guys had worked their nuts off to get the 'EF3' ready, and with no credible Iraqi air threat (as Saddam had buried most of it), it would have given F3 another role.

LJ :ok:

LJ, I bow to your superior knowledge though I do no they made no use of Wainfleet after 2001. I was at the OEU EF3 presentation. It was most impressive and persuasive and it is hard to see why it appeared to progress no further.

I believe a Jag fired one off after some confusion with the switches after the Winders were fitted....

Can't see a 9L warhead doing a tank much damage as it is designed to expand outward, not in the direction of travel like a HEAT warhead and it's pretty tiny. That said I'm sure that in the distant past an AT variant of the winder was trialled, it may have had a different warhead...:8

Did the F3s get close enough to the Iraqi border? I thought they were hiding behind the VC10s!! :)

Did the UK ever consider something like the German ECR version of Tornado?

Pontius

If I recall correctly, during my time in PJHQ, it was the Air Component Commander (ACC) during the TELIC air campaign that made the call. Funny old thing he was an ex-Tornado Flt Cdr, ex-XIII Sqn Sqn Cdr, and ex Bruggen's Stn Cdr - nepotism would be the word I would use to describe the decision. Or maybe, one of his GR1/GR4 minions (1-star, OF-5 or OF-4) had advised him with significant bias? Either way, in my humble opinion (IMHO) it was the wrong decision for a number of reasons.

Having not been used on TELIC and with no significant 'air war' with SAMs and a full IADS, then the capability was allowed to whither and eventually die with the F3.

The saddest thing from my perspective, the decision could have stopped this happening http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/.../maaszg710.pdf. The poor old GR4a that was flying this ALARM mission was still running legacy Mode 4 IFF, whereas the F3 had Successor IFF (SIFF) which would not have failed as easily. Furthermore, F3 had Link 16 which is used as the top ID criteria for Patriot. Therefore, whoever made the decision cost 2 guys their lives - and 'no' I am suggesting a 'witch hunt' as the person who did make the decision could not have reasonably understood the consequence (IMHO).

I have no reason to believe that this type of nepotism within the RAF does not continue today with equipment, promotion and strategic decision making. However, it's always been that way (again IMHO), so I don't expect that to change. I'm sure the SHAR mates will also vouch for that!

LJ

LJ, afaik AOC 11 Gp was fully supportive but, as you say, axes to grind and not invented here. Ever since we allowed Groups to print their own hymn sheets . . .

The same sort of thing use to occur with cross-fertilisation - bomber guys going fighter or maritime or transport etc etc.

WEBF

The Tornado ECR uses HARM (High-speed Anti Radiation Missile) and this is not in our inventory. Introducing another Tornado type and weapon would be very expensive.

The F3 modded to the so-called "EF-3" was our closest effort to the ECR. It had an emitter location system to fire reactive ALARM shots (either via trangulating between 2 aircraft or via flying long legs as a singleton), the ability to take positions of emmitters via Link 16 from the likes of RIVET JOINT or NIM R1, had a Towed RADAR Decoy (TRD) for use against high order SAMs and also had some other sneaky jamming modes available (the exact nature of which is likely to still be classified). As a package and capability it was streets ahead of the GR4 at the time (and don't forget this is over 10 years ago).

LJ

Pontius

I hear you on that having transitioned between fleets several times in my career - I even get 'not invented here' as I'm FTRS now!

LJ

LJ, I was involved with this and there were reasons it did not go forward. I do not recognise any suggestion that it was a GR Mafia decision. As you have suggested, this is bouncing a little near classified info and the ideas and concepts used in the EF3 were not set aside.

Next time I run into you I will give you the skinny. :ok:

JTO

I'll look forward to that then (it might help fill in the gap that I appear to be missing).

In my PJHQ 'ivory tower' we were being told by the OEU that it was ready to deploy the capability...also the 'mafia' story came from another mud-mover type at the time. Surely, you can't deny 'mafioso' decisions happen all of the time - I've seen it in procurement, design and at tactical, operational and strategic decision levels throughout my career. It's even worse accross the Services!

LJ :ok:

Tornado F3 Air to Ground And ALAARM
 

As im typing the words ( 50,000) for the Haynes manual on Tornado F3 and GR1/4 can i add my bit- Agree with LJ - air to ground with the F3 was always an option same gun MU27 180 rounds as GR4 and a good accurate platform. As to ALAARM - i think its discussion should be limited as its still in service- officially "mothballed" it could be used again as no doubt the RAF will be sent to sort some politicians mess out in the next 5 years. The ADV had a better RHWR than the GR4 ( more accurate) so was better equipped to operate ALAARM. My opinion is that the RAF bought 165 ADVs ( at the same time as 15 F4JS) by 1990 they really didnt need so many aircraft - they soon got rid of 23 Squadron and then gave the Italians some F3s as well as scrapping the F2s so i think the RAF (AD people) were always trying to find a reason to keep more F3s than they needed hence the EF3 and the proposal to make it a wild Weasel F3 and put Sea Eagle onto it. from what ive read The F3s deployed on operation Telic did a brilliant job and the TRD worked well but was actually too complicated-intresting angle on the loss of the GR on Telic that i wasnt aware of.

As a FAC, and if presented with the situation where a true CAS platform was unavailable, I'd have used a F3 for strafe. Yes, it won't be the quickest to get on target due to the lack of a decent pod, and yes, I'd much rather have an AH turn up, but as long as biggles puts his rounds where I want him to, then I couldn't care less!

Careful Rock34.
You are uttering the heresy that some FJ stick-monkey is not the most important person / asset in the warfighting-battlespace.
:E:ok:

LJ hits the nail on the head in all respects. There are on "whys" or "whats" left, the EF was the SEAD platform of the day. Politics, again, denied its use. How moronic.

The other big factor for the potential success of the platform for SEAD was the relocation of the forward RHWR antennae from the fin to wing nibs. That gave the platform the ability to resolve the position of emitters with huge accuracy.

Thanks for your excellent input LJ.

LJ, that is depressing. The pilot's mum is my contact at my UK bank, and she was still looking for closure last time I spoke to her.