Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

From what I know about aviation history, the RAF Tornado ADV replaced the F-4K/M Phantom. During the transition period it is likely that there were many Tornado ADVs and Phantoms in RAF service, simultaneously. I imagine that there were plenty of training sorties that pitted Phantoms against Tornados. Can anyone tell me who fared better? I'm interested in how WVR and BVR engagements turned out? Anyone care to comment or site some sources. I honestly don't think the Tornado ADV was that much better an interceptor than the Phantom and that the RAF could've updated their birds with the Tornado's avionics and still had the same capabilities. Then let the Typhoon replace the Phantom like the German Air Force is doing.

F-16.net Sponsor

Hmm...

kind of makes me wonder about the Luftwaffe and Marineflieger Tornados mixing it up with the Luftwaffe F-4Fs as well. Good comparison study idea there, discofishing!

Anybody got any info on these pair ups?

Quote:

kind of makes me wonder about the Luftwaffe and Marineflieger Tornados mixing it up with the Luftwaffe F-4Fs as well

My perspective: Back during the Cold War all of NATO trained hard, I'm sure it happened at least a few times. I wonder if the Germans realized that the Tornado was great for interdiction/strike missions but not so much for close in dogfights. In my opinion the RAF versions of the Phantom were so similar performance-wise to the Tornado that I think the MoD wasted much money on developing the Tornado ADV. They should've gone ahead with an upgrade program for the Phantoms like the Germans, Greeks, and Turks, etc. The ADV didn't catch on with too many users. Saudi Arabia purchased a significant number, but probably prefers their F-15s. the Italian AF leased ADVs, but traded them in when the lease was up for F-16A ADF aircraft. I just don't see any advantages the ADV had over the F-4 other than avionics.

The Tornado can out-perform the Rhino, is more maintenance friendly, and can carry newer and better weapons.

You are correct, the K and M model Rhinos are almost identical. The RAF picked up several of the K's when the RN retired them in 79, and flew them for another 10 years.

As for dogfighting, I don't think that the Tornado has ever been in a position where it was close enough to kill a MiG, but the Air Defense model carries the AMRAAM, so it does have a good BVR capability.

If I were a Fulcrum driver, I wouldn't blow off a Tornado as a lesser threat. There was a group of suits in the U.S. who once thought that the Rhino would never need a gun, because the close-in era was over. Enter the MiG-17...

TC,

Lets talk 1985-ish not current technology. I just think the RAF didn't get a huge step in fighter technology. The USAF did with the F-15, the USN did with the F-14/F-18 as well as the USMC.

Oooh good thread!

Initially, the F2/F3 did not give much capability over the Phantom, the radar was not fully developed and except when very low down they had around the same manouverability. Lower down, the Tornado edged it. Initially, the three advantages that the Torn had were look down BVR and very long enduranceand a superb EW suite..

Later on the Torn was developed into what it should have been in the first place, Amraam, Link16 (JTIDS), Asraam, SEAD. The EW kit in the ADV was developed from that of the ECR and was considered comparable if not better.

Re: MIG combat. During Allied force, two Serb Mig-29s were cdetected and the closes fighters were a pair of Italian ADV on CAP. The AWACS vectored two F15s of the grim reapers to intercept instead. This was the closest it ever got to air to air combat.

Andy

Anyone know of any specific instances where RAF Tornados trained against F-4 Phantoms of any type?

FOUND SOMETHING!!!

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Airc ... om_RAF.htm

RAF pilot saying he had 2500 hrs in Phantoms and enjoyed flying it more than the Tornado F3.

TC wrote:

The Tornado can out-perform the Rhino, is more maintenance friendly, and can carry newer and better weapons.

The first None US fighter in Europe to carry AMRAAM was the F-4F! I believe the upgraded Phantoms can actually carry anything the Tornado can. Dont Turkish Phantoms now have the same weapon system abilities as an F-16 block 50?

The book Top Guns by Hugh McManners has a chapter at Maple Flag where the F-3 Tornado goes against the F-4F. It says they have very close maneuvering capablilities in the air. The F-4F was giving them a hard time because the Tornado didnt have AMRAAM yet and they were developing tactics using the Tornado's data link to enable Tornados to sneek up on Phantoms with their radar off because the Phantoms refused to get closer than 10-15 miles, they were staying at a distance to maximize their AMRAAM abilities.

Its a very interresting book. The F-4 certainly does loose in the maintenanc and fuel consumption departments.

discofishing wrote:

From what I know about aviation history, the RAF Tornado ADV replaced the F-4K/M Phantom. During the transition period it is likely that there were many Tornado ADVs and Phantoms in RAF service, simultaneously. I imagine that there were plenty of training sorties that pitted Phantoms against Tornados. Can anyone tell me who fared better? I'm interested in how WVR and BVR engagements turned out? Anyone care to comment or site some sources. I honestly don't think the Tornado ADV was that much better an interceptor than the Phantom and that the RAF could've updated their birds with the Tornado's avionics and still had the same capabilities. Then let the Typhoon replace the Phantom like the German Air Force is doing.

I think the biggest problem with the F-4K/M Phantoms were the engines. The Speys simply did not work well. The long delay for the afterburners (reheat) to light was a huge problem, not to mention maintenece issues. The book Phantoms from the Cockpit has very interesting information about the Spey problems. it was so bad that early on the Phantoms would have soon been out of action if the cold war had gone hot. I do see your point, keep the F-4 in service and place the Tornado development money into the Typhoon program.

To my understanding the F3 wasn't meant to replace the F-4, but the Lightning and the Typhoon was meant to replace the F-4. Things changed and the Tornado F.3 became the sole RAF "fighter" and is now replaced by the Typhoon.

I don't know about the RB199 MK104, but the RB199 in general is not well suited for supersonic speeds and high altitudes. The F.3 was meant to intercept bombers at long range, not to dogfight with air superiority fighters.

Scorpion82 wrote:

The F.3 was meant to intercept bombers at long range, not to dogfight with air superiority fighters.

good point. As was the Phantom from Navy carriers.

It seems to me the Lighting/Phantom made a good team. The Lightning with quick close to home dogfighting abilities and the F-4 for longer range interception. Seem odd to have replaced the Lightning with a fighter that was not a dogfighter.

I really don’t see where the discussion is. The Tornado F.3 was indeed a compromise and long-range interceptor to boot, but it handily outperformed the British Phantoms and anything else then in British service. It was more maneuverable than either the Lightning or the slatless British Phantom and it easily out accelerated the two as well. The F.3 is aerodynamically pretty clean and it has a very good fineness ration (no doubt helped by the 5 foot fuselage extension over the IDS). Great loiter capability, a good sustained high-speed dash and an infinitely variable automated sweep wing, endowed with a bunch of high lift devices, were other attributes.

And then of course the avionics totally outclassed the F-4M. In fact the British rejected the F-14A in part because of its aging electronics so the Phantom’s 1960s steam gauge cockpit was easily a generation behind. The Spey powered F-4s were beasts and the pilots loved them but they were realistically no match for the F.3.

None of the above means an F.3 is in the F-16/F-15 class WVR, but at longer ranges and over the North Sea, it got the job done.

skicountry wrote:

It was more maneuverable than either the Lightning or the slatless British Phantom and it easily out accelerated the two as well.

Really? Easily out accelerate the Lightning? I thought the Lightning had acceleration similar to an F-15?

"Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The contemporary Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min), the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min). The recent Tornado F3 does 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).

Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison of the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that "acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500m]".

Spooky wrote:

skicountry wrote:

It was more maneuverable than either the Lightning or the slatless British Phantom and it easily out accelerated the two as well.

Really? Easily out accelerate the Lightning?

Good points Spooky.

The evidence I provide is anecdotal based on conversations with co-workers who were either Tornado or Phantom pilots/navs. Never knew a Lighting pilot.

Be that as it may, a number of credible sources provide corroborating evidence. For instance, Mike Spick’s “Modern Fighter Combat” (1987) notes the F.3 “outmanuvers any other aircraft in RAF service… acceleration is remarkably good…Tornado F.3 out-accelerating both the Lightning and Phantom quite comfortably.”

The F.3 can look like a dog on paper. Lower t/w ratio than Lighting/Phantom, lower fuel fraction than Phantom and a higher wing loading than either. But the fly-by-wire controls, enlarged glove vanes, infinite variable sweep, high-lift devices, and extremely clean shape make up for most of those shortcomings (at least against those older jets). Do I think a Lightning can take it in a climb from take-off? For sure. But in a level acceleration, everything I’ve heard says a Tornado will walk away from the Lighting (while carrying 8 vs 2 missiles and actually having enough fuel to get beyond the airfield outer marker).

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

RAF Tornado ADV vs. F-4K/M Phantom II