Ohh, that RAF Tomcat looks nice-would be nicer in the Tremblers colours though.... :-)

The Typhoon orginally was a Jaguar/Phantom replacement - remember the idea was for the F4 to serve into the early 2000s alongside the Tornado ADV. At the time, no-one really envisaged the Typhoon replacing the F3 as actually happened.

I'm not going to make myself very popular saying this but I never could see the attraction with the F2/F2A/F3. The notion that you design a fighter with one one type of aerial opponent in mind just doesn't make sense to me, surely you build them to fight with, and beat, any opponent. I remember talking with an F3 pilot and he remarked that they never wanted to see an Su-27 - ever. Hardly inspiring.

As an aside Bill Gunston remarked that Panavia were actively seeking design proposals around the same time for a lightweight fighter flying with a single fully developed RB.199. I always wondered how that could have turned out.

I well remember the 'exceptional ECM capabilities' of the F3. Without doubt it was quite the worst fighter radar I ever saw in a jamming environment. In fact, in the early days, a co-channel radar or most F-16 radars would remove all the plots on the screen without setting a jamming spoke.

It was a great tribute to all who strived to improve it that the F3 at the end of service became an effective AD fighter.

But at the time the ADV requirement was set the notion that the Backfires could be escorted by a long range agile fighter such as the Flanker was inconceivable. Any fighter opposition was expected to be either the MiG-25 or the Tu-28/128, neither of which could be remotely considered as agile.

Dave Gledhill has written an excellent book about the aircraft, which covers almost everything about the aircraft's development and the problems they had. It starts off with the problems in drafting the requirements and continues through to the end of the service and covers most of the problems that happened with the radar. He did a lecture at an Aviation Society that I was a member of a few months back and he really does know his stuff as regards the Air environment side of air defence.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tornado-F3-...ct_top?ie=UTF8

The F3 eventually became a capable ADV, mainly through the hard work put in by the F3 OEU, the Sqn's and to some extent the RAF Air Staff. However its poor reputation went before it and ultimately led to its early demise.

My opinion is that alternative US solutions (F15/18) foundered because the Treasury deemed that a US acquisition would ruin the UK military aviation industry.

PS Dave's book is very good.

MACH2NUMBER

The F-15 wasn't the aircraft it became when the aircraft was looked at for the UKAD role, while the F-18 was very much a paper aeroplane based on the YF-17 at the time the MRCA was finally selected. F-16 couldn't meet the OR period. F-14 was really the only viable US option and even then had issues. Giving development of the AI-24 to GEC was a big mistake, that job should have gone to Ferranti (Edinburgh).

Never a truer word spoken. I believe that would have been a political decision, although I have to say that Tornado radar was kept at arms length from the rest of MoD's radar staff - for example, it was excluded from the Fire Control and Surveillance Radar IPT when it was formed in 1989. There was definitely an unwritten policy in Government (embraced at a higher level in MoD) that far too much high-tech work was going to Edinburgh, which resulted in some draconian and targeted funding cuts. This extended well into the 90s; for example, they won the Sea King AEW upgrade bid by a country mile, but a political overrule handed it to a company who didn't even bid.

The previous mention of performance in jamming was also briefly a problem in Sea Harrier, because Blue Fox development had been shut down to start production in early 1982 due to the outbreak of hostilities. But the design caught up within a year, with a superb "jamming package", and then further improved 2 years later for the Blue Fox Mk2 upgrade. I would not be too harsh towards companies in such circumstances.

As an aside, and for good technological reasons, it could be said we put all our eggs in one basket in the mid-late 70s, with the concurrent development of a number of front line radars creating a huge hump in funding. All 3 of the FAA's radars had to launch production early in 1982 (Sea Spray, Sea Searcher, Blue Fox), and the AWG-series and Blue Parrot were getting on a bit and in dire need of upgrade/replacement. Thereafter, there was a definite pecking order for funding, with Blue Fox benefiting, due to its relationship with Tornado, EFA and Blue Vixen.

And was twice as expensive as projected ADV costs

Could you clarify 'Launching Blue Fox Production' in 1982 as the radar was already in production and in service several years before that. First at sea for trials aboard HMS Hermes in 1979, In sqn service with 800NAS and 899NAS 1980 and 801NAS from 1981. Indeed the then-full production order of 34 Sea Harriers was almost complete by 1982, plus the two Blue Fox sets fitted to Hunter T8Ms. All the SHARs that went south in April 82 had Blue Fox fitted and operational... so it seems odd to state they were only just being put into 'production'. Did you mean further development?

Obi

Much of what was available prior to 1982 was B Models. B1 & 2 were compatible with each other, but not interchangeable with B3-8. They were very mature and reliable, and most never saw the factory again until returned for the BF Mk2 upgrade in the late 80s. I think only B7 & 8 were upgraded, but retained as the Sample and Reference, and not returned to service. Only enough mod sets had been bought for the (55?) production sets that remained after attrition. I think you are correct to say "further development" is a better term. The original version you speak of had a different Signal Processor and Receiver, and those built at that time were upgraded in about 82/3, and then all upgraded again for the BF Mk2 package. The LRUs that were visible to pilots remained the same throughout, except that the Display chemical filters were replaced with Hoya (?) glass filters. That last upgrade took a long time, partly if I remember because there was a reluctance to return kit that worked well. In the end, there was pressure to complete the BF Mk2 mid-life upgrade before Vixen entered service. There was also a problem whereby RAF suppliers made a 15 year spares buy for BF, just as she was being actively withdrawn at the rate of 3 sets a month during FRS2 conversion. As the LTC line was "SHAR radar" (whatever that may be - Fox or Vixen), this meant there was little left for Vixen, which was poorly supported to begin with. There was queue of potential buyers for the 55 sets, but no-one else was allowed it on security grounds; and if they still existed, that would still be the case even today. (India only had the original version).

I look at it from the "Continuing Design Services" viewpoint. Each of the radars I mention had a defined CDS package, with development to be completed post-Falklands. As you say, some production lines were mostly complete, others were ramped up in early 82, and others had development stopped quite early in the process. I was generalising a little. Sea Spray configuration control was quite difficult - like BF, it had multiple, incompatible variants of the same LRU. For example, you couldn't fit a T2 or T3 Transmitter, with a C1 Control Indicator, or very serious damage would occur. In other combinations, you could not expect Sea Skua to work. Of all these, I think Sea Searcher suffered most, as the CDS funding was chopped around 86 and right up until out of service date the actual build standard bore no relationship to the spec in key areas. Long time ago of course, and memory fades!

Tornado F3
 

It was intended that the F3 Mk104 engine would have a bigger Fan (62B) which was designed to give it improved zoom climb characteristics. it benefitted from improved mass flow, pressure ratio and small increase in bypass ratio. Unfortunately, the UK did not adopt this but ther GAF did for their ECR jets. In the work up to GW1, the RAF did borrow a number of these Fans from the GAF and fitted them to their F3's. This gave the engines a 4 to 5 % increase in thrust. Unfortunately, after GW1, thesse were given back to the GAF and the impression was that any enhancement to the F3 would affect the case for Eurofighter. A number of other engine enhancements were looked at to either give additional thrust or increased engine life but again, the funding was not allocated. You cannot really give an engine optimised for low level a slightly longer jet pipe and expect it to perform well at altitude. the earlier point that Typhoon 'sips fuel' is the case in point. EJ200 cycle was always optimised as a fighter engine with significantly more thrust and significantly lower bypass ratio than RB199.

Even more if you count the fact that a big chunk of the money to the UK contractors is recycled back into UK government coffers, which is not the case for a US buy.

Not just on the Airborne stuff, either. There was a whole host of new radar projects running across the whole of UK Defence during that period, Nimrod AEW3 and AI-24 at GEC, The IUKADGE mobile radars (T91 and T93), plus others. Its no wonder projects suffered from technical issues.

PMBI, but unless I'm missing something a lower bypass ratio and higher thrust would *increase* the specific fuel consumption wouldn't it?

PDR

MAINJAFAD
I beg to differ slightly. Having experience on Lightning, F4 and F15, the F15 in the mid-eighties was streets and away ahead of both as an ADV fighter and more importantly an air superiority fighter. I flew F15 A, B and D, but the MSIP model was already out there. The F15 was even then far superior to the the underpowered Tomcat, could beat the F16 which always flew light and without BVR weapons. The F15 was also pretty much a match for the early F18s which bled energy much more quickly in a turning fight..
Of course the F15 was more expensive, my point was that if we had bought it or any other of the US options our military aviation industry would have crumbled, but we would have had more capability. Politicians and economists choose the final answer. In any case I don't knock the Tornado F3 (see my previous post).
I also do not dispute your opinion on GEC v Ferranti, good ex-Ferranti people worked on the AI24 later and made some great improvements.

In Tim Mason's The Cold War Years; Flight Testing Boscombe Down - 1945-1975, there is a page or two dedicated to flying the prototype F-15A at Edwards by members of the FJ Test Squadron.

If we had gone down the F-15 route , there is also the issue of boom tanking.

Slightly digressing, in Bill Gunston's Tornado fact file (pub by Salmander) there were attempts to sell the GR1 to Australia, Spain and Canada but they ended up picking the F/A-18A/B. Likewise to Jordan, Oman, Qatar and even Iraq evaluated it in 1982.

cheers

In addition to the Boscombe Down evaluation of the F-15, there was an assessment of the YF-17 which involved a test pilot plus what we would later term as an 'OEU' pilot. I am not aware of any formal assessment by the RAF of either the F-16 or the F-14, or at least not one that involved Boscombe tps.

But the decision on Tornado ADV was taken in the mid 70s