Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[kitnut617]

The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

[Weaver]

One thing to remember about Granby where Tornado faced a modern airdefence system for real for the first time and failed its whole concept of low level strike was blown out of the sky literally and the RAF had to go to medium altitude attacks.

Weren't the majority of Tonkas lost on Granby shot down at medium/high level?

From memory there was only one shot down while carrying out a low level anti-runway attack wasn't there?

Four shot down during low-level toss-bombing attacks, one shot down during a JP.233 run and one hit while laser-bombing, presumably from medium altitude.

[Weaver]

The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

[scooter]

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

As I recall, and I wish I remember where I'd heard/read this, but MDD initial didn't *want* A/G capabilities on the Eagle- in fact, their motto was "Not A Pound for Ground".  It was a couple of enterprising Air Force test pilot types to look over a B and go "Hey, we could put bombs and a WSO in back."

[PR19_Kit]

As I recall, and I wish I remember where I'd heard/read this, but MDD initial didn't *want* A/G capabilities on the Eagle- in fact, their motto was "Not A Pound for Ground".  It was a couple of enterprising Air Force test pilot types to look over a B and go "Hey, we could put bombs and a WSO in back."

Yes, I've read that "Not A Pound for Air to Ground" business somewhere before too.

But almost every fighter goes the same route, they start off as a pur sang interceptor and are then found to be short on range, so they add external tanks on reinforced wing hardpoints. Once you've done that it's the start of a slippery slope and before long the previous slick wing is festooned with hardpoints and big drag producing stores and your pur sang interceptor is no more.

[Weaver]

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

As I recall, and I wish I remember where I'd heard/read this, but MDD initial didn't *want* A/G capabilities on the Eagle- in fact, their motto was "Not A Pound for Ground".  It was a couple of enterprising Air Force test pilot types to look over a B and go "Hey, we could put bombs and a WSO in back."

Not really: MDD wanted to sell aircraft, so they set about clearing the F-15A for every weapon they could think of in the normal manner. It was the Air Force who called a halt to this because they wanted it to be a "pure fighter" for political reasons. The standard F-15A/B/C/D actually has a perfectly decent, if basic, ground attack capability, with air-to-ground radar/WAC/nav modesin the avionics.

The F-15E came about because the USAF put out a requirement for a strike fighter derived from an existing type. MDD used the F-15D airframe because it was the only suitable thing they had. GD offered the F-16XL, but that was such a change from the standard airframe that it would have needed years of basic development flying and the electonic fit was purely paper. Because the F-15E airframe was already a proven flying machine, MDD could get straight into the avionics and weapons work, which made it a much more attractive proposal.

Off topic, but while I can understand the logic behind the choice of the F-15E, it's a real shame the USAF couldn't find a role for the F-16XL, given it's breathtaking performance. I suspect that political considerations meant that the air force felt it had to insist that anything F-16-based had to be a b-grade, quantity-not-quality type....

[Thorvic]

Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down.

[scooter]

Off topic, but while I can understand the logic behind the choice of the F-15E, it's a real shame the USAF couldn't find a role for the F-16XL, given it's breathtaking performance. I suspect that political considerations meant that the air force felt it had to insist that anything F-16-based had to be a b-grade, quantity-not-quality type....

This is why, Weaver, that IHMO, flag officers of any service become like ferrets or magpies when presented with "shiny objects".

Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down.

Agreed.

[Weaver]

Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down.

What exactly was the issue with the outer pylons? My 1981 book lists them as being rated to 1300lb, but doesn't explain why they arn't used.

[kitnut617]

The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

Actually, the F-15E concept was started in 1979 and the second TF-15A (which had been used to test the new CFT's) was converted as a demonstrator and first flew in 1980 in it's F-15E guise. The lengthy gestation time was because it was a project looking for somewhere to go.  If there had been interest from other parties (or even the USAF itself earlier than it did) it could have quite easily been available much earlier.  Incidentally, all the 1/72 kits of an F-15E are all based on this demonstrator (so I've been told anyway)

Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down.

What exactly was the issue with the outer pylons? My 1981 book lists them as being rated to 1300lb, but doesn't explain why they arn't used.

Evan has said that there was a cg problem, or something like that. It's interesting to note that the new Silent Eagle has them

[Mr.Creak]

Yes, I've read that "Not A Pound for Air to Ground" business somewhere before too.

At a guess it was Brab in Air Enthusiast (as Air International was called back then).
Possibly issue 2 or thereabouts, almost certainly in the single-digit issues if not No.2.
IIRC he did a 3(?)-part "series" covering planned designs.
Way back when F-15 and F-14 were just concept sketches to the public.

[Weaver]

The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

Actually, the F-15E concept was started in 1979 and the second TF-15A (which had been used to test the new CFT's) was converted as a demonstrator and first flew in 1980 in it's F-15E guise. The lengthy gestation time was because it was a project looking for somewhere to go.  If there had been interest from other parties (or even the USAF itself earlier than it did) it could have quite easily been available much earlier.  Incidentally, all the 1/72 kits of an F-15E are all based on this demonstrator (so I've been told anyway)

Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down.

What exactly was the issue with the outer pylons? My 1981 book lists them as being rated to 1300lb, but doesn't explain why they arn't used.

Evan has said that there was a cg problem, or something like that. It's interesting to note that the new Silent Eagle has them

I've read that the latest F-15s for Saudi Arabia have them too. There's some mention of flutter being the original problem: maybe later aircraft have stronger wings, but just havn't used them until now because it's become a convention.

[XV107]

The Saudi F-15s with the outer pylons has a new FCS and has had to be recertified:

This offers some detail.

With apologies for getting into this thread rather late, and without wishing to be rude, there are some er... rather alternative perspectives on the Tornado in some earlier posts which are difficult to align with what actually happened/reality....

Six were lost on operational sorties during Granby, and as noted, only one was carrying JP233 (it went down coming off target and may, in fact, have been CFIT rather than the result of enemy action). The USAF went in low level as well. B-52s conducted low-level attacks, as did F-111 (a friend from his exchange tour to Staff College in 2000 used to recount of attacking an IRG formation at 150ft. At over M1.1 IAS...) while Donnie Holland and Tom Koritz were lost in their F-15E on 18 Jan 91 on a sortie which ingressed using TFR for a loft attack.

The idea that the RAF was flying at low level while the rest of the coalition and its own Jag force were doing everything at medium altitude is just plain wrong. The issue was that without readily available self-designation capability, the TGR force couldn't deliver ordnance accurately from medium level because of the way in which the weapons system was optimised. On top of that, the RAF's low flying abilities and possession of JP233 was regarded, at the start, with considerable favour by the JFACC (Horner) since the perception of how the Iraq AF was going to be taken out involved shutting Iraqi airfields (with revisits to keep them shut or generating far fewer sorties).

The idea that the Jaguar was a better attack platform - and I speak as a confirmed Oncaphile - than the TGR1 (never mind the GR4) is incredible. The idea that a Jaguar formation could tool about in the current environment with a mixed load of up to six PGMs (3x PWIV and 3x Brimstone), or up to 9 Brimstone and a pod,  a targeting pod, a gun, two ASRAAM, plus pods for addressing IR and RF threats from ground defences is.... interesting. Not least since to get that warload to the target [Cliché] you'd only get over the target by taxying over it[/Cliché]. What Tornado, Jaguar and Harrier brought were useful complementary features and a degree of flexibility. Chuck in the RAPTOR pod complemented by the DJRP (on GR4) and the ability to carry an air-ground load and compare that with the Jag and... sorry, you go with the GR4, even if it does come with a nav system that often smells slightly of wee and has to be rebooted by sitting it in the corner of the crewroom with a cuppa and a sudoko book once it reaches a certain number of flying hours...

In reality, a two-ship of Jags would get over a target with at most three Paveways and a pod between them (one with two underwing PGM + centreline fuel tank, the second with a single PGM, TIALD pod and a tank, a fit which was cleared for a couple of different carriage configurations).  And that would be pushing it - I have seen two-ships mustering one bomb and one pod between them.

As for the F3, we finally turned it into the interceptor that it should've been some 10-12 years later after we could've done. Whereupon, we retired it... With AIM-120, ASRAAM, JTIDS/Link 16 and old age and cunning, it caused all sorts of bother for F-15s, F-16s and Mirage 2000s amongst others on Ex. Again, I have to support the point - and Chris Gibson's research bears this out - the Tornado ADV was the right choice when the selection was made.

In terms of aircraft we shouldn't have had (and didn't get, but spent a lot of cash on) - Nimrod AEW and MRA4, perhaps?  I may have an advantage given my job at the time of SDSR, but upon reading the suggestion that a Nimrod R5 could've done the Rivet Joint's job more cheaply and more effectively, I nearly spat the Cheddar biscuit and chunk of cheese I was eating for supper across the room... 

AEW might have worked, but the project management was a disaster waiting to happen and when this was rectified, it was way too late.; MRA4, for various reasons, was always going to be a rather dodgy prospect which might have been made to work, but post the Haddon Cave report concerns over certification and the cost of the beast meant that it was always at risk.

And nice aircraft that it was/is, the Basset was a bad idea, while the Belvedere wasn't the greatest procurement choice either.

[PR19_Kit]

I may have an advantage given my job at the time of SDSR, but upon reading the suggestion that a Nimrod R5 could've done the Rivet Joint's job more cheaply and more effectively, I nearly spat the Cheddar biscuit and chunk of cheese I was eating for supper across the room... 

Could you explain that please?

[Captain Canada]

That was an interesting report ! Kinda opened my eyes about the jaguar retirement. I always thought the F.3 left too soon, and I really wish the Nimrod ( in any and all forms ) was still flying !