Harrierpilot Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 ZE763 (DG) 11 Squadron ,RAF Leeming was the demo platform for the "EF3" Andy ZE758/YI was another with possibly ZE907/XI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 I remember seeing one of the 'EF.3s' in the static at Fairford one year, but I couldn't say which aircraft it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrierpilot Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I remember seeing one of the 'EF.3s' in the static at Fairford one year, but I couldn't say which aircraft it was. ZE7587/YI was at Waddington in 2003 with two ALARMs fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Watch out for Dave Gledhill's F3 book coming soon. Just finished reading this, a very interesting book. I know the F-3 was not highly liked, but It was surprising to read how bad/poor the F.3 was compared to other current fighters. Unsuitable radar for close in tracking , weapons that lagged behind opponents (even allies!) which meant that the aircraft was out ranged or forced into bad tactical positions. Its was also unloved by its pilots, being gutless at any height above sea level and poor to maneuver in any dog fight. The development and procurement of the TRD, PHIMAT, ALE-40 ETC is well described Some great personal experiences are described in the book, recommended. Shaun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 It was an aircraft designed to loiter far out in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and bang off missiles at long range against marauding Bears, Badgers and Backfires, where fighter opposition was not going to happen. It was ideal for that role but, as is so often the case, it ended up being pushed into so many roles it was never anticipated it would be involved in, and both aircraft and crews had to make the best of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Batt Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Martin, you've just described a modern(ish) day equivalent to the Boulton Paul Defiant! Do they ever learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 More like the Bf110. The Tornado was intended to be supplemented with a shorter range 'agile' fighter from the mid 90s - that became it's eventual replacement when we began downsizing. The Typhoon was supposed to replace the Phantoms in the AD role Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) I think comparisons with the Defiant are a bit harsh, Dave, but the Tornado F.3 needs to be looked at within the context of British armed forces acting as part of NATO against a very specific threat. Remember also that the Royal Navy had a very strong ASW bias which it has taken many years to move away from since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Most NATO air forces had the job of preventing WarPac forces from advancing across West Germany, and were appropriately equipped with aircraft such as the F-104 and F-16 as a result, with the knowledge that they would be regularly engaging enemy fighters. The UK, while contributing strike aircraft to the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force in the form of RAF Germany, largely had a very different scenario, sharing with Norway and US forces in Iceland the job of keeping Soviet air and naval forces bottled up in the Baltic and preventing them from breaking out into the North Atlantic. In terms of aircraft, the USAF at Keflavik operated long range aircraft such as F-4s and later F-15s, while Norway used F-104s and F-16s, partly because they were a lot closer to the threat but also because NATO anticipated fighting against the Soviets on Norwegian territory. Back in the 1960s, when the Lightning was the RAF's primary air defence aircraft and we had rows of Bloodhound missiles stationed down the east coast, it was anticipated that the Soviets would still be having to drop bombs over their targets and so the fight would happen a lot closer to the UK. Unfortunately the Soviets then developed long range air launched missiles such as the Kangaroo and Kelt which meant that we had to hit the threat further away from the British coast. This was not an ideal job for the Lightning due to its chronic short range, but thankfully we had the Phantom being released from strike duties, and eventually had three wings at Coningsby, Leuchars and Wattisham. Lightnings were retained at Binbrook. We also created an AEW capability in the shape of the Shackleton to take the fight further away from the UK. As a two-man aircraft with a good radar, armed with medium range radar guided AAMs the Phantom was ideal as a long range bomber destroyer, and it is this requirement, as I have mentioned, that the Tornado ADV was designed for. The Soviets did have aircraft capable of escorting their bomber force, in the shape of the MiG-25 Foxbat and the enormous Tu-128 Fiddler, but these were by no means agile aircraft and RAF fighters should have been capable of neutralising them along with the bombers. Unfortunately they were replaced by the Flanker, which would have given RAF aircrews a lot of headaches. As an aside, I would venture that it would have been desirable to have retained the two Lightning squadrons in Germany rather than replace them with Phantoms and instead use those F-4s to re-equip the Binbrook squadrons instead to create an all-Phantom force for UK air defence. The high speed, short range nature of the Lightning suited air defence operations in Germany better than the Phantom, in my opinion. Note that the Tornado ADV was never slated for RAFG deployment, the RAF being fully aware of its limitations, and as Dave Fleming has mentioned the Eurofighter was originally planned to replace the two RAFG Phantom fighter squadrons. It was also due to replace the Phantoms at Wattisham and the Jaguars at Coltishall. How plans change, but c'est la vie, as they say. Could we have bought a different aircraft? Possibly, but it is not clear cut. The F-16 has been championed by many, but while ideal for continental NATO operations it was totally unsuitable for the RAF's air defence requirements; single seat, single engined and in the early 1980s only capable of carrying heat seeking short range AAMs, it was not compatible with RAF refuelling aircraft; the Mirage 2000 was marginally better in that it was fitted for probe and drogue refuelling and did carry medium range missiles, but again it was single seat and single engined. The RAF wanted a two man crew to handle the expected work load and single engine meant almost certain death in the event of engine failure at the latitudes they expected to operate at. The F-14 Tomcat was ideal, but eye wateringly expensive to purchase and operate, required a lot of maintenance man hours even then, and I doubt that we would have procured the Phoenix missile (though it would have looked the mutt's nuts in 43 or 111 colours). The F-15 Eagle was a good bet, and was probably the best candidate from those available, but again would have needed modification to operate with RAF tankers. I believe it was the only other option seriously looked at, and part of me considers it would have been a good buy in spite of the compatibility issues. The Tornado ADV had the advantage that the RAF was getting the GR.1 anyway; the logistics chain was already in place, we had a production line for it and we had the support equipment for it. Nobody expected the Cold War to end, certainly not in the way it did, and the F.3 was forced into undertaking jobs that nobody ever expected it to do. These were with varying degrees of success, but it will be interesting in the long term to see how it is remembered. Edited April 12, 2015 by T7 Models 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I think comparisons with the Defiant are a bit harsh, Dave, but the Tornado F.3 needs to be looked at within the context of British armed forces acting as part of NATO against a very specific threat. Remember also that the Royal Navy had a very strong ASW bias which it has taken many years to move away from since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Most NATO air forces had the job of preventing WarPac forces from advancing across West Germany, and were appropriately equipped with aircraft such as the F-104 and F-16 as a result, with the knowledge that they would be regularly engaging enemy fighters. The UK, while contributing strike aircraft to the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force in the form of RAF Germany, largely had a very different scenario, sharing with Norway and US forces in Iceland the job of keeping Soviet air and naval forces bottled up in the Baltic and preventing them from breaking out into the North Atlantic. In terms of aircraft, the USAF at Keflavik operated long range aircraft such as F-4s and later F-15s, while Norway used F-104s and F-16s, partly because they were a lot closer to the threat but also because NATO anticipated fighting against the Soviets on Norwegian territory. Back in the 1960s, when the Lightning was the RAF's primary air defence aircraft and we had rows of Bloodhound missiles stationed down the east coast, it was anticipated that the Soviets would still be having to drop bombs over their targets and so the fight would happen a lot closer to the UK. Unfortunately the Soviets then developed long range air launched missiles such as the Kangaroo and Kelt which meant that we had to hit the threat further away from the British coast. This was not an ideal job for the Lightning due to its chronic short range, but thankfully we had the Phantom being released from strike duties, and eventually had three wings at Coningsby, Leuchars and Wattisham. Lightnings were retained at Binbrook. We also created an AEW capability in the shape of the Shackleton to take the fight further away from the UK. As a two-man aircraft with a good radar, armed with medium range radar guided AAMs the Phantom was ideal as a long range bomber destroyer, and it is this requirement, as I have mentioned, that the Tornado ADV was designed for. The Soviets did have aircraft capable of escorting their bomber force, in the shape of the MiG-25 Foxbat and the enormous Tu-128 Fiddler, but these were by no means agile aircraft and RAF fighters should have been capable of neutralising them along with the bombers. Unfortunately they were replaced by the Flanker, which would have given RAF aircrews a lot of headaches. As an aside, I would venture that it would have been desirable to have retained the two Lightning squadrons in Germany rather than replace them with Phantoms and instead use those F-4s to re-equip the Binbrook squadrons instead to create an all-Phantom force for UK air defence. The high speed, short range nature of the Lightning suited air defence operations in Germany better than the Phantom, in my opinion. Note that the Tornado ADV was never slated for RAFG deployment, the RAF being fully aware of its limitations, and as Dave Fleming has mentioned the Eurofighter was originally planned to replace the two RAFG Phantom fighter squadrons. It was also due to replace the Phantoms at Wattisham and the Jaguars at Coltishall. How plans change, but c'est la vie, as they say. Could we have bought a different aircraft? Possibly, but it is not clear cut. The F-16 has been championed by many, but while ideal for continental NATO operations it was totally unsuitable for the RAF's air defence requirements; single seat, single engined and in the early 1980s only capable of carrying heat seeking short range AAMs, it was not compatible with RAF refuelling aircraft; the Mirage 2000 was marginally better in that it was fitted for probe and drogue refuelling and did carry medium range missiles, but again it was single seat and single engined. The RAF wanted a two man crew to handle the expected work load and single engine meant almost certain death in the event of engine failure at the latitudes they expected to operate at. The F-14 Tomcat was ideal, but eye wateringly expensive to purchase and operate, required a lot of maintenance man hours even then, and I doubt that we would have procured the Phoenix missile (though it would have looked the mutt's nuts in 43 or 111 colours). The F-15 Eagle was a good bet, and was probably the best candidate from those available, but again would have needed modification to operate with RAF tankers. I believe it was the only other option seriously looked at, and part of me considers it would have been a good buy in spite of the compatibility issues. The Tornado ADV had the advantage that the RAF was getting the GR.1 anyway; the logistics chain was already in place, we had a production line for it and we had the support equipment for it. Nobody expected the Cold War to end, certainly not in the way it did, and the F.3 was forced into undertaking jobs that nobody ever expected it to do. These were with varying degrees of success, but it will be interesting in the long term to see how it is remembered. Here here Martin well put , it pays to look back at why we chose Tornado F3 . A great history lesson. On a less series matter was the YI Tornado from Newcastle, I,ll get my coat. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougC Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) T7 Models, That's a great precis on the history surrounding why the RAF procured the Tornado ADV - it was a product of the Cold War, designed to fulfil a specific task, in concert with other AD assets (more agile fighters, SHORAD, NATO partners, etc)....... & it was actually very good at that task once the initial teething troubles with the F2's AI-24 radar were overcome..... & what aircraft doesn't have problems when it's intorduced into service? I've not read Dave Gledhill's book yet but it sounds like he was involved in the early days of the F2/ F3 & would really only have seen the negative aspects which existed at that time. He certainly wasn't around as an operator in the latter half of the F3's life. As you say, the F3 was never designed to be a dogfighter in the classic sense, like the F-16 (which, let's remember started life as a short-range, day VFR fighter). The F-15 however was a different animal & would have been the consumate choice of fighter for the RAF, either as a long-term option or to bridge the gap until EFA/ Eurofighter 2000 / Typhoon eventually arrived (much as the Italians did with their short-term procurement of F-16). However, that never happened.... mainly for political reasons as usual. The decision on whether to buy/ lease F-15's was being made around the time I was going through BFTS & I remember being in the crewroom at Linton & listening to the Parliamentary announcement that the UK would not be procuring F-15s but would continue with the F3 until Typhoon entered service...... a generation of future fighter pilots wept! When the Cold War never happened (thankfully!) we found ourselves using the F3 in roles never previously envisaged. Years of training with & against NATO partners who had better equipment than us meant that we always had to work harder to win..... or just achieve parity, so our tactics were pretty well honed. Having 2 crew helped - just ask a single-seat mate what his SA was during Phase 3 or 4 of a large excercise (+20 aircraft) & watch his blank, confused expression! Then came JTIDS, Stage 3 radar, AMRAAM & ASRAAM.......& everything changed. After 20 years in service, the F3 guys were the ones with a lot of SA & finally, the missiles to do something about it - amply demonstrated by kill ratios of 15:1 in the final Ex Red Flag in which the F3 participated. In its final few years of service, a 4-ship of well-flown, well-operated, fully-serviceable F3s with experienced crews would happily take on all comers & do a pretty outstanding job. Of course, it was never going to excell as a close-in dogfighter but the whole point was to use superior SA & tactics to kill the bad guys BVR on your terms & never enter a visual fight unless you had to. If it all went wrong (as it sometimes did), you could always use the F3's straight line speed to run away bravely! Incidentally we were the only thing on the planet that could go fast enough to provide close escort to B-1s at low level....... which was absolutely no fun at all Nowadays, Typhoon provides the all-round platform which the F3 never was (with a ground attack role thrown in to keep the ex-Jag mates happy) but for a while, the F3 was all we had & towards the end, it did a very creditable job. I do sometimes miss the old girl. Of course, I may be a little biased...... Edited April 13, 2015 by DougC 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundowner14 Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Great posts T7 and Doug C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now