|
F-4s & Hawks in the Air Defence role
Am I dreaming or did such an idea exist in the 80s and 90s - to use a pair of Hawks + one F-4 as an air defence 'unit', making the most of the formers' manoeuverability with a couple of AIM-9s plus a cannon, coupled with the F-4's radar and better situational control, plus rather more missiles.
I vaguely seem to remember hearing this in a bar somewhere in Germany but cannot find any reference to it online. Too many Dortmunders on my part? Rubbish or roughly correct? CS |
Yes it did exist it was called the Mixed Fighter Force (MFF)
|
You are correct, but MFF was a rubbish idea....
With those cumbersome AIM-9 pylons, the Hawks were just too slow. |
Originally Posted by cargosales
(Post 10408864)
Am I dreaming or did such an idea exist in the 80s and 90s - to use a pair of Hawks + one F-4 as an air defence 'unit', making the most of the formers' manoeuverability with a couple of AIM-9s plus a cannon, coupled with the F-4's radar and better situational control, plus rather more missiles.
I vaguely seem to remember hearing this in a bar somewhere in Germany but cannot find any reference to it online. Too many Dortmunders on my part? Rubbish or roughly correct? CS It was the MFF or mixed fighter force. Another mismatch was the ability of the F4 to AAR. It was really intended to counter a mass raid by Badger ASM carriers where the kill had to be around 180 miles out. |
Stupid idea. The few times it was tried the F-4s accelerated away and left the hawks needing FC control, which we could have given without all the complexity of getting them together and limiting the F-4 performance in the first place. The only real real role was as point defence of an airfield under tower control for any “leakers”. The hunters were much more fun, though Teeside never really forgave us for the grooves they left in the pan and taxiways.... Almost as ridiculous as the wartime role of the 85/100 Canberras. Go out with a Nimrod and be sent silent to investigate a suspicious surface contact. If they didn’t come back it was a bad guy..... |
The idea continued beyond the F-4 era and in the '90s someone decided that we would do it with F3s. So a bunch of us were sent from Chiv to participate in an AD exercise based from Leuchars during their TacEval. There is nothing more soul-destroying than staggering around at high level far out over the North Sea in a single engine jet dragging an empty gun and a pair of acquisition limas around. The Hawk didn't like it, the performance was rubbish and with no RWR, radar, ECM or even chaff / flares we were nothing more than an uninteresting target with limited SA. Zero chance of keeping up with even a co-operating F3 let alone anything else. Even Hawk v Hawk with acquisition missiles and gun fitted was a lesson on nose authority and energy management, or lack there of. |
Very occasionally we would tow a couple of Lightnings into the fray. They knew what they were doing once they got contact.
|
Indeed, beardy ! I recall CAP-ing on 56(F) paired with a Lightning being flown by 'Porky' Page. At the debrief he asked why we were flying so slowly and was pretty miffed when I told him it was an OC 'A' Flt edict to save our fuel allocation....
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10408888)
Almost as ridiculous as the wartime role of the 85/100 Canberras. Go out with a Nimrod and be sent silent to investigate a suspicious surface contact. If they didn’t come back it was a bad guy..... |
"Don`t tell him,Pike"...
|
A bit over 35 years ago, the use of A-7 (IIRC with AIM 9's mounted) to supplement the F-14 in the air defense grid (blue water, brown water) was in USN doctrine as the F-18 was just beginning to come on line. Only got to see it once during a exercise as I was usually on the sub hunting side of that business. (was on a cruiser and our bird was down, so I kept myself occupied in CIC, both doing and learning).
I hadn't heard of the Phantom/Hawk lash up, but it looks like a similar innovation. |
88 of the original 175 original Hawk T1s got the Sidewinder capability mods from 1983 becoming Hawk T1As.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1ceb08a267.jpg |
MFF was also a standard tactic practised in the Falklands in 1982 when RAF Stanley received the F4s. They worked in conjunction with the Lima armed GR3 Harriers; seemed to work from what we could see on the AR-1 and I don't recall Phandet or 1(F) Sqn grumbling about it either.
(or were the 'arriers armed with AIM9Gs at that time????) |
Originally Posted by Downwind.Maddl-Land
(Post 10410217)
MFF was also a standard tactic practised in the Falklands in 1982 when RAF Stanley received the F4s. They worked in conjunction with the Lima armed GR3 Harriers; seemed to work from what we could see on the AR-1 and I don't recall Phandet or 1(F) Sqn grumbling about it either.
(or were the 'arriers armed with AIM9Gs at that time????) But I still counted them all out and back. |
Hi MPN-11 (or should that be CPN-4?!)
Definitely MFF Ops conducted between Sep 82 and Feb 83; see my post #38 (last para) https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...ml#post9617499 |
I flew some MFF in the Hawk. Agreed, not the solution to LL air defence, unless you are being attacked by hoards of JP5's! What it really showed for UK AD was that we were short of real AD capability compared to the potential threat. Hmmmm...I wonder if the Hawk can get off those carriers...? :rolleyes:
OAP |
There is a wonderful line in Hugh Bichenot’s excellent Razor’s Edge (about the Falklands War from a strat/ operational perspective). It goes something along the lines of: Something is better than nothing in most walks of life - but not always in warfare. I think it might apply here. |
I always thought the Hawk would have had a better wartime role in Germany:
CAP over point targets. But mainly for CAS. Interesting to compare to the Germans using the Alpha jets, especially with the anti helicopter role. They probably would not have had a HAS but would it have mattered? |
typerated - The comparison between the GAF Alpha Jet and the Hawk T1/1A could not be more stark. The basic Alpha out-performs the basic Hawk in all regards, even if you knock the toblerones off the T1 wing. Add stores to either and performance dip for the T1 is far greater than the equivalent Alpha. The GAF Alphas were built as light attack aircraft from the outset and improved in service. Multiple hardpoints, external fuel, full spec wing, HUD, INS, stores management system, ECM, ESM, integral chaff/flare dispensers, proper gun, uprated engines et al. The only thing that was very late to the GAF Alpha was AIM-9 capability, which was introduced towards the end of their operational life. They are very different to the advanced training Alphas built for the French. If the GAF had had their way they would have selected different engines entirely for the Alpha Jet. The Hawk family did include single-seat light attack variants but they were a ground-up redesign and far removed from the humble T1. |
To the uninitiated (me) this seems rather a desperate measure.
It had occurred to me before that between Lightning becoming obsolete and Typhoon becoming available - a multi-decade period at least some of which was at the height of the cold war - the RAF simply did not have any fighters (differentiating carefully from interceptors.) What would actually have happened if a bunch of MiG-29-escorted bombers had risen into view over the north sea in about 1989? Presumably nothing nice. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.