Red Flag Hates the Tornado F3! | Tug Wilson (Teaser In-Person) 

Thank you!

Oops...

F-117 perhaps?

Consider its near Area 51 its not surprisng

What was it?

@@riccofernandez3130 That is where the USAF tests out stealth aircraft before they are presented to the public. Having an F-4 getting a radar lock on one of them would be a particularly embarrassing incident.

Cheers!

The longer nose cone probably helped aswell with aerodynamics.

Good at going in a straight line

@@MixPv4 Which is what an interceptor is supposed to do. Straight line, as fast as possible, vectored to target with the kinetic impulse giving the missiles an advantage in the anti-air engagement versus the intended target.

*F-14 enters the chat*

@@feliscorax It actually was a fighter jet though... That's why it did red flag exercises against other fighters, was in the fighter squadrons at Lossie and Conningsby. Sure it 'was' an interceptor by design, with Russia's pressing bomber threats, but it was the fighter jet of the RAF until the Eurofighter program was finally realised. Jaguar and Hawks were merely supplementary.

Sorry you haven't got any bad guys to dogfight down in NZ. Probably because it's impossible to dislike a Kiwi! Beautiful part of the world. Couldn't you pick a fight with the Aussies?

@@mbignell1 Sadly we haven't got anything that shoots bullet's / rockets ... and they have F-18's, F-35's ... there's a standing joke about them taking NZ on a weekend ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7xUYbI64QHI.html

Is that ZK-TSM? If so I used to fly it in PNG decades ago and also in the UK when it was G-BTSM. Beautiful 180.

If you can get hold of Andy H down there he'll give you plenty of F3 stories...

Was there a deluge, after they left?

I wonder how that worked out both were very fast at low level.

Didn't happen.

The early stage 1 version of the Tornado F.3 didn't have all the bells and whistles that had always been intended; so no datalink, no advanced IFF or NCTR, no active-radar guided missiles (Active Skyflash was the original intention), no visual augmentation system (VAS) and no automatic wing-sweep. In addition the radar was below specifications (be the fair the specifications had changed during development so that was always going to be a big ask). They didn't even have chaff & flare dispensers. It was a very bare-bones aircraft that didn't do much to endear itself to the crew. It took quite a few years of development to give it most of those capabilities and some of them, such as automatic wing-sweep and the VAS, it never received.

The Tornado ADV (Air Defense Variant) was never the best in the world at anything it could do. The RAF made it work and they made it work well, but the same avionics fitted to a better airframe would have beaten it. It became an effective beyond visual range interceptor which was extremely capable in skilled hands, but it was very much a make-do exercise. There is nothing an F-3 could do that an F-15 couldn't do better except landing on shorter runways. To top it all an F-15 was both cheaper to acquire and had lower total sustainment costs. The F-15 had better acceleration, a bigger weapons load, was faster carrying the same load, could carry a wider range of weapons, could carry more fuel in drop tanks, had a longer range radar and was fitted with the same datalink capability. The F-15 also performed significantly better at high altitudes, which made it better for CAP and intercept. On top of that it had excellent dogfight capability which of course was the big weakness of the Tornado. That weakness became less important as missiles and radar improved and most kills became BVR kills, but it was still a weakness. As the airframe aged readiness rates dropped because of the problems of maintaining the hydraulics and wing sweep mechanisms and the associated costs rose horribly. Towards the end of its time in service rising maintenance costs were a serious problem and it ended up costing (depending on who you ask) anything from 50% more to nearly twice as much to maintain as a similarly aged F-15.

@@FireAngelOfLondon The pilot just literally told you what it could do that the F-15 could not (at that time). But a good rant otherwise. :)

I worked with one of the test pilots of the F3 and the first ones flew with concrete in the nose as the radar hadn’t been delivered (he said)

@@davidsmith8997 Errr... no, he didn't say anything about what it could do that an F-15 couldn't (at the time, or any other time). Listen again at 2:40, it's all about it not being as bad as perceived (and objecting to the sleight) not that it was actually better than anything else. He mentioned it had the datalink, and that the exercise was all low level, but he never once said it was actually better than an F-15. On the contrary, they were being chased down by F-15's but as they were running out of fuel had to slow down (becoming the target at the back of the pack as the other F3's sailed past - easy pickings for the pursuers).

Did the yanks try and do the same with the F111 and Navy just told them straight, this ain't never going to be no fighter.

For the role it was intended to do, it was perfect. Loitering interceptor, closing the Iceland Faroes gap.

Well it never was a fighter it was an interceptor

My brother was one of them 😄

Guy Gibson did have a certain rep...

It is based at NELSAM in Sunderland.

@@Aircrewinterview Thank You very much .

The F3 was not regarded highly due to poor agility compared to the US teen-series fighters that were state of the art at the time.

@@Akm72 Wasn't 617 squadron British?

@@bjjace1 It is. They're currently flying the F-35B.

@@Akm72 So, 617 squadron held their own countrymen's aircraft in contempt? Doing that in front of another country's Air Force at a Red Flag briefing would be unacceptable in my day.

@@bjjace1 It depends on the context, we only have one side of the story based on what are now quite old memories. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Did it have a different engine from the other tornadoes, because they don't do well at bomber altitude?

@@0MoTheG it had the same engines but was more aerodynamic, therefore faster with longer range. It also had different radar and weapon systems with beyond visual range capabilities. It was perfectly capable of shooting down bombers.

@@tempusfugit9796 it had the RB.199 Mk 104 instead of the Mk 103.

@@Rover200Power the 104 had a fraction more power in reheat, otherwise same engine.

Possibly the Buccaneer was going so low the USAAF changed the parameters of the exercise

Absolutely true which no country came even close too lol it was that bad the Americans never spoke about it or wanted to admit it ever happened lol

@@sicknote1558 The mighty Vulcan.

@@georgesykes394 what a war plane back then when Britain was a country never to be underestimated a country that could always overcome any problem or situation

The RAF had a reputation for being devious, sneaky bastards for these war games and found all sorts of clever ways to make up for the capability gap.

@@hoofie2002 I believe they had a go at some of The SAC bases also!

It's always germans talking about tornados 🌪

@@sicknote1558 yeah…or blitz 3:-)

@@sicknote1558 well i know a youtube channel with mostly british guys talking about tornados. and what other plane did germany have that was somehow different than what other nations had? the starfighter? yeah...but the starfighter is not a plane where it is hard to find any interviews about it. phantom? well...everybody had it... typhoon? maybe, but there is not so many variants out yet. alpha jet would be interesting to get more info about it...but i guess the alpha jet is underrated anyhow and thus not interesting for the larger crowd. so the only modern jet left to talk about for germans is the freaking tornado...

Just don’t mention the war.

I remember one quote where the Tornado was described by a pilot as a politician's aircraft and another one where in one conflict a pilot said if a Mig 29 appeared he would be leaving the area in his Tornado immediately. I suppose the Tornado was a good aircraft in that you could probably flee the battlefield without any dishonour in a way that an army wag said the the Chieftain was a good tank to go to war in as you would probably break down on the way.

They apparently didn't have IFF or secure communications in 1990/1991, so they flew air patrols further back from the lines. They did participate with four squadrons in 2003 armed with the AMRAAM.

An RAF tornado very nearly claimed a kill during the 1990 war, they were ordered off though to allow a Saudi f15 get the kill instead, a political decision to allow some glory and prestige for the country hosting so many of the coalition troops. Once tornado later got amraam it would be able to knock anything out of the sky apart from an f14 with its phoenix. Just needed used correctly and to its strengths, kill at range then disengage before getting in close. Whilst not a dog fighter or true air superiority fighter, it was a very underrated interceptor once its early problems were resolved. For uk needs defending uk airspace it did its job well.

The F3 was more a pure interceptor than a true fighter. You could actually make it work in A2A, if you used tactics more like WWII "boom'n'zoom" tactics than getting mixed up in an energy dogfight

At that Point the Fox hunter Radar was still being developed it had not reached it full capability. Also it had skyflash semi active missles so bvr wasn’t great. Much later in its life Foxhunter faired much better and had AMRAAM, which improved its capability.

As good as we are the Buccaneer was better

@@jacktattis A Buccaneer didn't score a kill on an aggressor F-16 with a Sidewinder missile.

It depends on who’s propaganda you believe, the Iraqi air force claimed 2 F-15 kills and later confirmed them with the supposed discovery of F-15 wreckage by Bedouins, the US, of course, denies the claim and says that both aircraft returned although 1 was damaged.

@@paulm2467 I tend to believe the information I know to be trustworthy and true most of the time.

@@mikeh.753 yes, but you aren't exactly unbiased and most people believe their own government, even though they know that their government is equally as likely to use propaganda. The USA is notorious for it, all that bs about being the best country in the world, having the best healthcare, having the most freedom etc.

@@paulm2467 have you ever seen a modern day jet fighter land fly and land with less than half of one wing ?? I have and it wasn't "propaganda" it was a factual video of the actual event. That alone is a testament to the Eagles strength and the pilots training. The Iraqi pilots didn't even need to learn to land as soon as they took off they blew up. Iraq was so afraid of losing all their fighters they were literally burying them in the desert. If you believe what comes out of an Arab countries mouth, then obviously I can't convince you of ANYTHING. Go back to listening to Al Jahzira. Maybe you can learn some more interesting facts from them.

@@mikeh.753 yeah, you are an all American boy, believe what you want but never forget that it's not necessarily true, we all believe things that are wrong.

The F3 was the best in the world at what it was designed for.

Nobody ever claimed the Tornado F 3 was a fighter anyway. It was always ADV...Air Defense Variant from day one.

@@timhancock6626 Button up your number one jacket in the mess?

@@GTH360 Old saying "Join the army and see the world. Join the RAF and see the next". I did neither 😁

@@timhancock6626wow that’s dark! I hope not, for my sake!

@@GTH360 It was a joke lobbed in the general direction of us air cadets by our school RSM/quartermaster when issuing kit. He had been an army sniper in WW2 and had a wry sense of humour.