Phantom vs Tornado
Discussion
Chapter and verse on the subject from a former Phantom and F2/F3 Nav !
https://hushkit.net/2016/05/01/interceptor-how-how...
https://hushkit.net/2016/05/01/interceptor-how-how...
Simpo Two said:
By chance I saw a programme - 'Air Warriors'? - with the Phantom and F15. It said the Phantom wasn't designed to dogfight. Mind you I always thought the Tornado was a bit lardy for a dogfight too, so maybe the newer avionics and missiles would determine the winner.
Dogfighting with an F3 was discouraged. The airframe was too fragile, and the aircraft just wasn’t designed for it. It was a patrolling missile platform that also had a gun.
Mave said:
Yeah, always struck me that the Tornado was designed as an interceptor rather than a fighter.
It was designed as a bomber.....or rather low level strike and recce.It was not designed to go high...which is why the F2/F3 were performance limited in that regard.
Great missile carrier though, and in many ways ideal for the role it was used in UK air defence.
ash73 said:
I remember the first Gulf war really exposed the low level strategy, they lost one virtually every day to small arms fire.
In its role as an interceptor it needs to perform at altitude, so it's an odd oversight. What else did they (we) expect to use in that role?
F15 or F14 would have been the obvious choice. In its role as an interceptor it needs to perform at altitude, so it's an odd oversight. What else did they (we) expect to use in that role?
ash73 said:
What else did they (we) expect to use in that role?
There wasn't anything.The oddity was that while they were looking at options before committing to the ADV version in the mid 70's, the F-15 had already flown and indeed entered service the year the commitment to the ADV version for the RAF was made, on the basis that the USA built options looked at and evaluated didn't meet the requirements....which makes me think that the Eagle wasn't on that list, or that was BS to mask the 'we must not buy from the USA again politics' from the keep jobs in the UK politics.
The fact that it was not very good at height and was crap at ACM was clearly deemed not to be an important consideration, over its excellent loiter ability, and its quality as a BVR missile carrier.
Horses for courses as they say.
ash73 said:
I suppose if its primary job (in that role) is to shoot down Russian Bears it doesn't need to be good at ACM, it needs speed/climb rate and firepower.
In that situation I'd rather have a flight of Tornados with half a dozen BVR missiles than a Lightning with a pair of sidewinders, no gun and 15 minutes of fuel.
Yes, but that only works when if you are maintaining a 24/7 CAP armed CAP rather than a/c sitting on the ground on QRA waiting for the klaxon to go, which you then need a Lightning or as we have now have Typhoon type performance off the deck and into the vertical.....if they are coming in high of course.In that situation I'd rather have a flight of Tornados with half a dozen BVR missiles than a Lightning with a pair of sidewinders, no gun and 15 minutes of fuel.
If they are coming in on the deck over the sea, then the ADV is in its element as, there wasn't anything with wings faster than a Tornado at low level, as that's what it was designed for.
The F.3 (we won't mention the F.2) did its job well enough for 20 odd years, despite its one or two shortcomings...
ash73 said:
It would be cool if we built a new Lightning. That would give Putin's visitors something to think about.
We've got that already, its called Typhoon.ash73 said:
Although the priority is probably frigates, to deal with incoming EU fishing trawlers 
Post Covid, there will be no money for defence at all.......some BIG cuts coming on the horizon.It’s not got a lot of gas... albeit more than a Lightning (of either sort, but especially the EE version).
I’ve got about 700hrs F3 followed by about 1300hrs GR4, so fire away with any questions and I’ll answer if I can.
My take is that you’re comparing aircraft of a different generation really, designed for different things - a Phantom (with gun) might well beat a Tonka in a visual fight without missiles, but a Tornado would be much less likely to get into that situation in the first place.
I’ve got about 700hrs F3 followed by about 1300hrs GR4, so fire away with any questions and I’ll answer if I can.
My take is that you’re comparing aircraft of a different generation really, designed for different things - a Phantom (with gun) might well beat a Tonka in a visual fight without missiles, but a Tornado would be much less likely to get into that situation in the first place.
ash73 said:
Tony1963 said:
I think the Typhoon, dependent on stores carried, can get to 60,000ft two or three times faster than the Lightning could! And then hang around for a bit too.
But it's a (very good) general purpose fighter; if you sacrificed maneuverability for more speed and rate of climb, and increased range, it could be an even better interceptor.frodo_monkey said:
It’s not got a lot of gas... albeit more than a Lightning (of either sort, but especially the EE version).
I’ve got about 700hrs F3 followed by about 1300hrs GR4, so fire away with any questions and I’ll answer if I can.
My take is that you’re comparing aircraft of a different generation really, designed for different things - a Phantom (with gun) might well beat a Tonka in a visual fight without missiles, but a Tornado would be much less likely to get into that situation in the first place.
Given you have actually sat in the cockpit unlike others who will continue to argue over whats best .... do you miss the Tornado and should they have kept them in service ? Whats it like going flat out and climbing ? Have you had a go at the controls ?I’ve got about 700hrs F3 followed by about 1300hrs GR4, so fire away with any questions and I’ll answer if I can.
My take is that you’re comparing aircraft of a different generation really, designed for different things - a Phantom (with gun) might well beat a Tonka in a visual fight without missiles, but a Tornado would be much less likely to get into that situation in the first place.
Yes. I have a question!
As someone whose career would have included Tornado F3, Red Arrows then BBMF Spitfire if only I didnt have had asthma "sorry, were not even accepting aircrew if youve had asthma" I was told by the recruiting office in the mid 90s... ahem!
In the age is missiles with huge ranges and very accurate targeting, why do we need fighters? If the enemy have aircraft, surely something like an F3 would deal with them before they got close. And if its bombing we want, thats not a fighter jet either.
I know they are glamarous, fabulous, clever and very exciting... but will we ever need their dogfighting ability??
Genuine question. No...duh.. answers please
As someone whose career would have included Tornado F3, Red Arrows then BBMF Spitfire if only I didnt have had asthma "sorry, were not even accepting aircrew if youve had asthma" I was told by the recruiting office in the mid 90s... ahem!
In the age is missiles with huge ranges and very accurate targeting, why do we need fighters? If the enemy have aircraft, surely something like an F3 would deal with them before they got close. And if its bombing we want, thats not a fighter jet either.
I know they are glamarous, fabulous, clever and very exciting... but will we ever need their dogfighting ability??
Genuine question. No...duh.. answers please
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff