Dissimilar Air Combat. F3 Tornado.

[Tikka]

Hi.
Military aviation enthusiasts are often interested in things like 'How good would aircraft X perform against aircraft y'. On that basis i thought i would paste a link to the following vid as it is a new one.

RAF F3 Air Defence Variant of the Tornado 'fighting' such greats as the F14, F15 and F16.

Love the quote about close range engagements with American fighters. 'Like being in a knife fight in a telephone box'.



Thankfully we have a much better Fighter in the Typhoon now.

 

[Astro14]

The Tornado had good speed, decent acceleration, very modest turn performance. Much like the F-111, it was a single platform built for two missions: strike and interceptor.

I will give the video a watch, but bottom line, from those* who have flown the Tornado, is that it gets eaten alive by the 4th Gen US fighters in a dogfight. Sky flash was a decent missile, comparable to the AIM-7M. So, radar engagement put them on equal footing**, until AMRAAM.

But in the “phone booth”? The Tornado was at a severe disadvantage. It was built as an interceptor: fast. Good range. Built to stop an inbound Soviet bomber. But it lacked good turn performance. In a turning fight, with a 4th Gen fighter, that really put the Tornado crews at a disadvantage.


*The USN and the RAF had a good pilot exchange program. Several RAF pilots/navs and a couple RN aviators were on staff at VF-101 flying the F-14. Several F-14 aviators flew the Tornado on exchange tours in RAF Coningsby, including a couple good friends of mine.

**I’m excluding the F-14 AIM-54 Phoenix in this discussion. It was in a class by itself. More than double the range of the AIM-7/Skyflash. Multi shot capability. AIM-120 has changed that, decades after AIM-54, but it still didn’t have the AIM-54 range.

 

[Astro14]

Some thoughts: His assessment of the AIM-54 against a fighter is in error. It was frequently underestimated and misunderstood. His two circle description is good. The F-14 over Scotland out turned him in one turn, that’s a crushing defeat. His RHWR confidence is interesting, but while he notes that he could see the big F-14, he doesn’t recognize that the F-14s could see him. The power out of the AWG-9 was almost an order of magnitude above that of the Tornado. It let us see little targets at long range.

The “side door” entry advantage was a good start - and the unobserved fighter often gets a quick kill, but even then, he notes the F-14 had a big turn advantage in visual and he knew they would lose.

His description of the F-15 is great, “not afraid of anything”. The “wall” was a common sight off the Virginia Capes. Wily tactics were a great choice against the F-15, and really, the only, choice against an airplane that had better speed, acceleration, radar, and turn performance. It’s how the F-5s and A-4s had to fight (and sometimes won) against us.

I’ll give the rest of it a watch later, as I’ve got to go.

This guy is great. Love his descriptions. He understands fighter combat. Great to hear him describe it.

The kind of guy I would love to run into at a pub somewhere. Preferably The Eagle Pub in Cambridge. Stumbled upon that gem of a pub when visiting IWM Duxford a few years ago.

 

[Tikka]

Hi Astro.
Thank you for replying. I always enjoy reading your input.

I did raise an eyebrow when he mentioned the AIM-54. There is another F3 pilot who was stationed at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. He trained against US Navy F14 from the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the eastern mediterranean. He states that the F14 was not allowed to use AIM-54, as the big mach 5 missile would take him out before the fight even began.

I imagine for you guys that this was a hugely enjoyable part of your life as a fighter pilot.

 

[Astro14]

We had the “big stick” and we knew it.

The USAF F-15 guys would tell you it was easily defeated, and then ask us not to use it in training (well...if it’s so easily defeated, why aren’t you willing to face it?).

My buddies loved their time with the RAF. To compare and contrast equipment, airplanes, flying and culture was always fascinating. I loved the RAF guys that I worked with over here. Well...all but one*...

I’ve spoke a bit about the F-15 in my Tomcat thread. A pure fighter. Incredible record in air combat. Wish I had been able to fly it.

Its only flaw? Can’t use it from a carrier.


*An instructor, a nav, who I flew with as a student. He was a Squadron Leader (O-4) and I merely a LTJG (O-2). He was a bit condescending, quite arrogant. Sharp, but a pain to fly with. My class of students didn’t care for him. I saw him a few decades later, at RAF Lossiemouth, he was still a squadron leader and by then I was a USN Captain. “Sir” to him. To his credit, he was polite, and appropriate, and quite pleasant to talk with. I believe he had given up promotion to stay in the cockpit. A fascinating choice. One we don’t have in the USAF or USN Fighter communities.

Wonder what he remembered about those days instructing in the F-14...probably thought all of us, wild, young, aggressive aviators were out to get him killed...

 

[Tikka]

Hi Astro.
A quick look at Wiki states that the Iranians had 78 kills with the AIM-54. This includes 2 Exocet missiles and a Chinese made anti ship missile. The Missile certainly worked as advertised.

Have you any thoughts on the Typhoon? I have been led to believe it is about as good as any fourth generation fighter. Even in the traditional, close in dog fight where the old F3 was at a distinct disadvantage.

Also the new Meteor Missile is supposedly an improvement on AIM-120.

 

[IndyFan]

Hi Astro.
A quick look at Wiki states that the Iranians had 78 kills with the AIM-54. This includes 2 Exocet missiles and a Chinese made anti ship missile. The Missile certainly worked as advertised.

Have you any thoughts on the Typhoon? I have been led to believe it is about as good as any fourth generation fighter. Even in the traditional, close in dog fight where the old F3 was at a distinct disadvantage.

Also the new Meteor Missile is supposedly an improvement on AIM-120.

Not counting Aegis with the latest Standard Missile variants, I can't help but wonder if the carriers are less protected today than they were with the F-14/Phoenix combo. Especially with a newer AESA radar and a continually upgraded Phoenix. I still to this day don't understand why there wasn't at least an upgraded Tomcat fielded, say an F-14E.

I'm sure they thought the F-35 would be fielded more quickly at the time. And I really don't know the capability of the F-35. Maybe it is a better option with the latest AAMs and its stealth. Not sure how its range compares to the F-14. But its data link should give it more in terms of situational awareness, for sure. But an upgraded F-14 would have at least done a better job of filling the gap. I do see the Navy now seems to be proceeding with plans for a Gen 6 fighter, so we'll see.

I think the Typhoon could surround a squadron of F3's with one airplane and one arm tied behind its back. The F3 would be meat on the table for it in a close-in fight.

 

[y_p_w]

Hi Astro.
A quick look at Wiki states that the Iranians had 78 kills with the AIM-54. This includes 2 Exocet missiles and a Chinese made anti ship missile. The Missile certainly worked as advertised.

I would take all claims from Iran with a strong sense of suspicion.

I seem to recall that the US has never had a successful use of the Phoenix in actual combat. Part of that may be due to how few times it’s been used.

 

[Astro14]

I talked about that in my F-14 thread. We carried the Phoenix missile, but the rules of engagement did not allow long range employment, there were simply too many friendly aircraft in the skies.

Further, the Iraqi jets turned and ran every single time an F-14 radar lit them up. They lost a lot of airplanes to Iranian F-14s, and had a healthy respect for the fighter. They did not fear the F-15 as much.

A fatal mistake, in every single case.

 

[Tikka]

I would take all claims from Iran with a strong sense of suspicion.

I seem to recall that the US has never had a successful use of the Phoenix in actual combat. Part of that may be due to how few times it’s been used.

Hi
Yes, i hear what you are saying. Firstly, wiki data is not the best, that is why i always quote it as a source.

Iranians are not the best source of information either, but they did kill a lot of Iraqi aircraft as pointed out by Astro14. They did use the F14 and it was armed with AIM-54. This would lead me to conclude it was a success in a no holds barred shooting war. Thank God our side never had to find out in a similar conflict.

 

[y_p_w]

Hi
Yes, i hear what you are saying. Firstly, wiki data is not the best, that is why i always quote it as a source.

Iranians are not the best source of information either, but they did kill a lot of Iraqi aircraft as pointed out by Astro14. They did use the F14 and it was armed with AIM-54. This would lead me to conclude it was a success in a no holds barred shooting war. Thank God our side never had to find out in a similar conflict.

The thing about the Phoenix is that it sounded great in practice. However, launching from that far away seemed kind of risky. Certainly the point of the F-14 was to be a big platform to carry the Phoenix. I even noticed them being mounted in The Final Countdown. However, that's not what made the plane a star in the public eye.

 

[Tikka]

Hi
For anyone who likes the cut of his jib, he has two other short videos of his life and the F3. The Scots make wonderful orators.

He says that one advantage the F3 had over F15C was the two man crew. I suppose two well trained brains are better than one. Is that fair?

I did not realise that the F3 was fitted with an auto wing sweep mechanism from the factory, this was disabled by the RAF technicians. Our man says he preferd the manual sweep. I did not really understand his explanation as to why the RAF disabled it.

Interesting comment about RAF F4 being slower than American despite more powerfull engines.

 

[Tikka]

Not counting Aegis with the latest Standard Missile variants, I can't help but wonder if the carriers are less protected today than they were with the F-14/Phoenix combo. Especially with a newer AESA radar and a continually upgraded Phoenix. I still to this day don't understand why there wasn't at least an upgraded Tomcat fielded, say an F-14E.

I'm sure they thought the F-35 would be fielded more quickly at the time. And I really don't know the capability of the F-35. Maybe it is a better option with the latest AAMs and its stealth. Not sure how its range compares to the F-14. But its data link should give it more in terms of situational awareness, for sure. But an upgraded F-14 would have at least done a better job of filling the gap. I do see the Navy now seems to be proceeding with plans for a Gen 6 fighter, so we'll see.

I think the Typhoon could surround a squadron of F3's with one airplane and one arm tied behind its back. The F3 would be meat on the table for it in a close-in fight.

Hi Indyfan.
I wonder about carrier protection too. Our new Queen Elizabeth carriers only have CIWS protection. They rely on a Destroyer screen. Maybe the planners presume that any future large scale combat will be conducted alongside the US Navy so will receive support from them?

Russia knows it can't outspend NATO and America in particular. It can't build huge Nimitz and Ford class ships so it develops a cheap counter measure. These being hypersonic cruise missiles to swamp defences. I wonder how long the big carriers will last in a full blown shooting war? Let's hope we never find out, but the world is as unsettled as at any time since the cold war. Ukraine, Iran, Taiwan.

 

[edyvw]

Hi Indyfan.
I wonder about carrier protection too. Our new Queen Elizabeth carriers only have CIWS protection. They rely on a Destroyer screen. Maybe the planners presume that any future large scale combat will be conducted alongside the US Navy so will receive support from them?

Russia knows it can't outspend NATO and America in particular. It can't build huge Nimitz and Ford class ships so it develops a cheap counter measure. These being hypersonic cruise missiles to swamp defences. I wonder how long the big carriers will last in a full blown shooting war? Let's hope we never find out, but the world is as unsettled as at any time since the cold war. Ukraine, Iran, Taiwan.

With who? Any power that can sink a carrier is part of Mutually Assured Destruction. The true balance of power envisioned with the Peace of Westphalia actually was realized after WWII and the Soviets developing nuclear weapons.

 

[Tikka]

Russia is developing hypersonic anti ship missiles for the primary purpose of countering carrier battle groups.