History Question - So how good was the Phantom FGR1/2 then, really?

[Tim T]

The new issue of Aviation Classics is devoted to the Phantom and there is a lot of good background on the Spey engined versions. I think that a lot of the comments here are backed up by it. Like most of the series it is well worth a read.

I have no connection with the publication or the publishers, just raising it as another point of reference.

[Truro Model Builder]

I believe it was McDonnell that originally suggested the Spey for a British Phantom when they touted the F-4 to the Admiralty in the early 1960s. The idea was more thrust=better performance. Unfortunately, as has been documented, the Spey had a bigger cross section, was heavier and required major alterations to the engine bay which resulted in a heavier aircraft with a wider cross section. The Spey-Phantom was therefore slower and less agile than the J79-Phantom, though I believe that at high altitude the turbofan Spey performed better than the US engine. Certainly once the Tigers reformed on the F4J(UK) I believe that most new Phantom pilots wanted to be posted to No.74 as their aircraft were seen as being 'better' than the FG.1/FGR.2.

As regards the move from low level strike to air defence, Phantoms and Buccaneers served alongside each other -superseding Canberra PR.7/B(I).8s and Hunter FR.10s- before the F-4 was replaced by the Jaguar and re-roled to air defence to allow the Lightning to be (mostly) phased out. No Phantoms were ever directly replaced by Buccaneers in RAFG or No.38 Group.

With regards to Tornado F.3s in the first Gulf war, both RAF and RSAF aircraft were tasked with Saudi air defence only. The less charitable amongst us might believe that it was because the US didn't want anyone else to shoot Iraqi aircraft down, but I'm not venturing an opinion either way on that one. I will say that the F.3s in theatre by the time the offensive started were more than capable of taking on any Iraqi aircraft.

Digressing from the Phantom, the F.3 has always had a bad rep -mainly because it wasn't an F-16- but it was designed to patrol at long range from its bases and defend against attack from aircraft such as Bears, Badgers and Backfires. Fighter opposition was not envisaged in that role, unless it came in the form of the Foxbat or Fiddler, long range aircraft that were no more agile than the bombers they were escorting. The Flanker did come as a rude awakening, admittedly, but in such a scenario -for which the F-16 would have been totally unsuitable- the F.3 was the ideal aircraft. By the time it was withdrawn from service it had matured into a fine aircraft, and its crews seemed quite confident in its abilities.

[Giorgio N]

IMHO the Phantom was a huge leap in capabilities compared to the Lightning. The Lightning has spectacular acceleration and speed, but was behind the Phantom in every other aspect. The performance edge of the Lightning was also not really that necessary with the development of longer ranged ground based radars and in real life none of the interceptions carried out by the Lightnings would have seen such performance put to use.

The Phantom had longer range but most importantly was a totally different weapon system, with a warload much superior to the Lightning and much better avionics. In the end it was more suited to the needs of UK air defence.

In Germany things may have been slightly different as the reaction times there were much shorter (enemy aircrafts could reach their targets in minutes after crossing the border) and here the fast response time of the Lightning may have been of more use... in any case the fact remains that the Phantom was a superior combat aircraft from every point of view. It remains to be seen if the variants used by the RAF were the right choice or not, but this is another story.

Speaking of evolution of aircrafts design, one thing should be mentioned: the F-4B entered service with a combat unit exactly 12 months after the Lightning (July 1961 for VF-74 on the F-4B, July 1960 for 74 Sqn. with the Lightning). The fact that the Lightning was replaced by a variant of an aircraft that first entered service only one year later is IMHO an indication of how advanced the Phantom was when it left the drawing board. It offered a quantum leap in capabilities not only on the Lightning but on every other aircraft in service in those days.

The Tornado F.3 is a difficult "animal" for aviation enthusiasts.... it was designed for a very specific task and clearly its introduction had more to do with industrial/economic reasons that to operational requirements. It was adequate at covering the needs of UK air defence thanks to a good radar (at least after it started working properly) and very good range. In terms of capability, it was "evolutionary" compared to the Phantom, not revolutionary as the Phantom had been compared to the Lightning. It was not the best fighter of its era for sure and maybe the F-15 would have been a better choice (good radar too, good range too but totally different performances).

[Procopius]

With regards to Tornado F.3s in the first Gulf war, both RAF and RSAF aircraft were tasked with Saudi air defence only. The less charitable amongst us might believe that it was because the US didn't want anyone else to shoot Iraqi aircraft down, but I'm not venturing an opinion either way on that one. I will say that the F.3s in theatre by the time the offensive started were more than capable of taking on any Iraqi aircraft.

I largely agree with you, however, a RSAF F-15 was vectored to and shot down two Mirage F1s. Kenneth Pollak, in Arabs at War claims the Saudi pilot panicked and had to be talked through the shootdown by the USAF.

[Truro Model Builder]

Yes, I've heard the same thing as well. It was certainly milked for all its worth as a newsworthy story by the coalition forces, as I recall, and I've also heard that RAF F.3s were pulled off the intercept to allow the RSAF to shoot them down. How true that is, I have no idea.

[PLC1966]

Gulf War 1, first fighters covering Cyprus were 92Sqn Phantoms who were on APC. (EDIT: Although reading above I can live with them replacing F3 as they moved forward to Saudi). Indeed 92Sqn lobbed a jet in the Med to mark their presence if I remember rightly, should just have repainted their badge down at the APC line, would have been easier !!

As for how good the jet was, Red Flag 89-1, Oct-Nov88 confusingly enough. Merv Sadler of 19(F) Sqn took out six F-15's in one sortie according to the DACT system working the range. To be fair he was among the top pilots on the Sqn at the time however it does give a pointer, it could do a job. Pers Sec no issue here as the Gent has since passed away.

And I'm sorry but these how good/how bad/whats best/whats worst threads are fairly pointless IMHO. Whilst great for getting out dits, they generally do not take into account issues such as abilities of pilots and their training stream, serviceability of the aircraft (i.e. a great a/c but comes down u/s every sortie), what mission profiles it is being used on, weapons types carried by the aircraft, political climate at the time it is in service which may influence its use, what stage of its service life you are talking about as mods and upgrades will affect the aircraft....you can see where I am going with this, whether you agree is a different matter.

[Procopius]

And I'm sorry but these how good/how bad/whats best/whats worst threads are fairly pointless IMHO. Whilst great for getting out dits, they generally do not take into account issues such as abilities of pilots and their training stream, serviceability of the aircraft (i.e. a great a/c but comes down u/s every sortie), what mission profiles it is being used on, weapons types carried by the aircraft, political climate at the time it is in service which may influence its use, what stage of its service life you are talking about as mods and upgrades will affect the aircraft....you can see where I am going with this, whether you agree is a different matter.

It's certainly always difficult to be sure of the actual quality of any weapons system not used in a sustained general war; I am sure, had World War II somehow never come to pass, that there would be heated arguments about the relative merits of the Bf109 and I-16 based on their brief interactions in the Spanish Civil War.

I suppose, for any aircraft not used by the RAF in mortal combat during the Cold War, one could measure its success or lack thereof by whether or not the groundcrews hated it and whether or not its serviceability was good enough to ensure that the Squadron CO was able to generate enough flying hours for everyone to ensure his promotion.

[Giorgio N]

And I'm sorry but these how good/how bad/whats best/whats worst threads are fairly pointless IMHO. Whilst great for getting out dits, they generally do not take into account issues such as abilities of pilots and their training stream, serviceability of the aircraft (i.e. a great a/c but comes down u/s every sortie), what mission profiles it is being used on, weapons types carried by the aircraft, political climate at the time it is in service which may influence its use, what stage of its service life you are talking about as mods and upgrades will affect the aircraft....you can see where I am going with this, whether you agree is a different matter.

The advantage when speaking of aircrafts now out of service is that things like serviceability, weapons, missions requested, politics etc are well known. Granted, the greatness of an aircraft depends on may aspects but 20 years later I'd say it's possible to assess properly how good or not and aircraft has been.

[PLC1966]

Giorgio N, I can see what you are saying however even when it comes to something as simple as the servicability of aircraft you have to reflect on its use which would have led to issues later so at it simplest, generally the view is....

Lightnings, took off at a hell of a rate, climbed, fired missiles, guick dogfight, and back down to Binbrook or The Wash, whatever was nearer....

Phantoms, Gods own aircraft, spent a number of years getting stressed, strained and stretched in low level bombing and recon roles, before assuming the take off at a good rate, fire missiles, a bit longer dogfight and come down supported by gods own hands fighter role....

Tornado, designed as a missile platform, took off at a good rate, loitered until refuelled if required, sees target very long way away, launched missile, directed Hawks onto targets, landed. I think as far as the F3 goes, dogfighting really was not the best idea, certainly before the arrival of HOTAS.

So once again, although all three are out of service we are no further ahead how can we equate the three against each other......

[Truro Model Builder]

I guess it all comes down to a number of different points:

-how good was the aircraft in meeting the requirement it was designed for?

-how much effort was made by air and ground crews in ensuring that it met that requirement?

-how well did it adapt to other roles that was demanded of it?

-how well could it be developed to take advantage of new technology?

-how well did it continue as an adequate fighting machine throughout its service against and alongside newer technology?

That is very simplistic, and I doubt few aircraft could score well in all those categories. I'm sure that other questions could be listed as well. I agree with PLC1966; you cannot equate the Lightning, Phantom and Tornado against each other no more than if you added the Spitfire and Siskin into the mix.

[Giorgio N]

The understanding of how succesful an aircraft has been and the identification of the features that made the aircraft succesful is a common process in aerospace engineering: one of the first steps in the design of every aircraft is to look at other aircrafts, past and present, and identify features that are wanted and others that are unwanted in the new design.

Another process that is common, this time in the military, is the assessment of how correct tactics and strategies may or not have been. This is extremely important as every combat aircraft is designed to specifications that fit within certain tactics and strategies.

So yes, if necessary it's possible to compare if the Phantom has been more effective than the Siskin or not, even if decades divide these two types. It's of course even easier to compare the Lightning and the Phantom since these were actually aircrafts of the same age.

[Slater]

Well, I'm of the opinion that the Lightning was more photogenic than the Phantom. And looks are hugely important

[PLC1966]

Well GiorgioN, you proved by your own thread 28 that there is generally no clear method of comparing best & worst of a loose genre of aircraft, lots of blurred edges. Your own comparison of the F-15 and F3 shows how tenious these comparisons are.

As I quoted earlier, an RAF Phantom FGR2 pilot taking out F-15's on Red Flag , too many variables are involved in these things to make them black and white issues

However my friend, this is the internet, everyone is allowed an opinion, and who is to say who is right and wrong.

Cheers.

PLC1966