TSR.2 How does the balance sheet look in 2013?

[alpine_modeller]

Conversely, at a Cope Thunder exercise I attended in the mid-90s, the F3s completely waxed the opposition (including wiping out several formations of F-15s for no losses) due to smart tactics and using the F3 as just one part within an air defence "system of systems" rather than relying on ACM. Of course the throttle-jockeys didn't like admitting they had to be told what to do...but it worked, and very, VERY well.

Well, its nice to know that the RAF adapted to the aircrafts limitations. I always thought the F3 was an odd concept myself. Yes, it was probably great for swatting Bears out of the sky over Norway, but how would it have coped if they were escorted by MIG-29s or suchlike ?

[JohnT]

Well, its nice to know that the RAF adapted to the aircrafts limitations. I always thought the F3 was an odd concept myself. Yes, it was probably great for swatting Bears out of the sky over Norway, but how would it have coped if they were escorted by MIG-29s or suchlike ?

I think the idea was that any intercept would have been back out of Soviet fighter range.

[dambuster]

Was this using GCI? I ask because I often hear it dismissed quite perfunctorily, I'd be interested to hear of a situation where it performed well with modern aircraft and tactics.

GCI was not used. It relied on some very clever tactics against some very overconfident USAF drivers. GCI has become rather outdated since the advent of tactical data links and airborne warning radars. In the days of the Lightning, GCI was used to get the fighters into an ideal intercept position. Now GCI as been somewhat replaced by the concept of Battlespace Management.

Peter

[Procopius]

Not to sound totally stupid, but can you elaborate, either here or -- if it's too off-topic -- via PM? My knowledge of modern air combat pretty much ends with those big full-color Bill Gunston books I read as a lad in the late 1980s.

[XV107]

I think it's safe to say that the F3 became an excellent fighter weapons platform about 18 months before we retired it...

As dambuster says, the use of data links (notably link 16) gave F3 crews extremely high levels of situational awareness so that they could put themselves (we're talking formations here) in the best possible position for AIM-120 shots against 'enemy' formations, with the not-inconsiderable acquisition range from ASRAAM's seeker giving an F3 formation the further opportunity to sneak up on the opposition and start smacking them about the head with a metaphorical piece of 4-by-2 in all sorts of tactically interesting and awkward to counter ways. Old age, low cunning and outright 'cheating' could - and did - negate the advantages more manoeuvrable opposing aircraft had. A well-handled F3 making full use of data and the AIM-120's parameters would always be a handful for anything - bar the F-22 and possibly the Typhoon - in its later days.

Obviously, if the opposition were unsporting enough to get into a visual merge, then...

Edited December 18, 2013 by XV107

[SleeperService]

Yes, they might well have been (although 1980s SAMs may not have been quite what they were cracked up to be). War on the Central Front was going to be unutterably brutal and bloody in a way that nowadays many of those who weren't around, or directly involved, at the time might find hard to imagine. I remember talking to a BAOR tank crewman who said that, if his crew did not take out 10 enemy tanks before being killed, they would have failed. But he just accepted the inevitability of getting killed if "the balloon went up" as part of the job.

Realistically the role of NATO conventional forces was to delay the Warsaw Pact advance at whatever cost for just long enough for the politicians to thrash out some kind of deal before the otherwise inevitable resort to nuclear weapons.

It wasn't only the IGB Guards who saw themselves as speed bumps The wisdom in the Army was similar but we had WW1 to draw on. No trenches but the same level of losses Even at 10 to 1 kill ratio we would still have been screwed.

Remembering back to my first tour at Bruggen in the mid 80's, the rule of thumb was if the hooter went off for real, every FLYABLE ( not necessarily serviceable !) Tornado would get loaded with 2 nukes and sent East. We (groundcrew) would jump into anything that moved and head for the Channel ports asap.

That applied in the early 80s as well. In the Army it was load up everything possible, weapons went east everything else west. Being cheerful they wanted to die in GB rather than Germany. Thank God it never happened

[DavidWinter]

I admit that I've not read every post and skimmed a lot of the thread, but it amazes me how you could easily do a search and replace of a couple of aircraft names and have a very similar story to the Avro CF-105 Arrow.

Replace TSR.2 with CF-105 and F-111 with F-101 and you're pretty much there. Right down to a "US Loan" that paved the way to stop production of a superior aircraft.

The thing that really boggles my mind was that the British government really didn't learn anything from the Canadian situation that happened not even a decade before. Well, except to know enough not to destroy every single airframe. At least you kept a couple intact in museums.

[mrvr6]

I admit that I've not read every post and skimmed a lot of the thread, but it amazes me how you could easily do a search and replace of a couple of aircraft names and have a very similar story to the Avro CF-105 Arrow.

Replace TSR.2 with CF-105 and F-111 with F-101 and you're pretty much there. Right down to a "US Loan" that paved the way to stop production of a superior aircraft.

The thing that really boggles my mind was that the British government really didn't learn anything from the Canadian situation that happened not even a decade before. Well, except to know enough not to destroy every single airframe. At least you kept a couple intact in museums.

as i understand it they slipped through the net!

[Troy Smith]

I admit that I've not read every post and skimmed a lot of the thread, but it amazes me how you could easily do a search and replace of a couple of aircraft names and have a very similar story to the Avro CF-105 Arrow.

Replace TSR.2 with CF-105 and F-111 with F-101 and you're pretty much there. Right down to a "US Loan" that paved the way to stop production of a superior aircraft.

The thing that really boggles my mind was that the British government really didn't learn anything from the Canadian situation that happened not even a decade before. Well, except to know enough not to destroy every single airframe. At least you kept a couple intact in museums.

David

you might find this thread of interest then.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234951575-avro-arrow-the-myth-debunked/

cheers

T

[mhaselden]

Obviously, if the opposition were unsporting enough to get into a visual merge, then...

A wise fighter jock once said "If you're fighting fair then you're doing it wrong!" The whole point of air combat is to kill the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Why bother with the hassle of getting into a knife-fight if you can use systems and smart tactics to slot the enemy at BVR?

[Miggers]

A wise fighter jock once said "If you're fighting fair then you're doing it wrong!" The whole point of air combat is to kill the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Why bother with the hassle of getting into a knife-fight if you can use systems and smart tactics to slot the enemy at BVR?

Very boring to go BVR,but very true.

Having seen both Tornado F.3 and Typhoon perform back to back at the same airshow,

the F.3's lack of ability to "turn and burn" after the Tiffie's sock rolling down manouverability

was quite shocking.

Scary also to think though that with the Tiffie,our Boys at last have something that can be wrung out

as well as the old MiG 29 and SU-27's.

After seeing those things pole about the sky,I think I'd have certainly wanted to go BVR with a F.3

against one.

No wonder the Yanks fell off their perch when they saw 'em going,they thought they were well

out front with the F-15/14/F/A-18 "air superiority" ilk of fighters.

[mrvr6]

bvr is a perfect tactic unless you need to use visident then you have a problem

[alpine_modeller]

bvr is a perfect tactic unless you need to use visident then you have a problem

I thought the RAF dont bother with visident (unlike the USAF / USN / USMC) ?

Edited December 28, 2013 by alpine_modeller

[dambuster]

I thought the RAF dont bother with visident (unlike the USAF / USN / USMC) ?

Depends on the Rules Of Engagement in force. I always thought that the RAF were more likely to go for visident, whereas the USAF tend to shoot first then ask questions...

Peter