What Jet Should The RAF Have Bought? | Roy Macintyre

Former Tornado F3 pilot, Roy Macintyre, shares his thoughts on the potential aircraft that might have entered RAF service instead of the F3.

Enjoy!

Help keep the channel going:

Follow us:

[MrHwsmp]

Read a good article on the decision process that led to the F.3, based on declassified government documents of the time. The choice had to be made in the mid 1970s at the latest, but there wouldn't be any budget available until the mid 1980s after the GR.1 buy was mostly over. That meant that a large amount of crystal ball gazing was required. The RAF were adamant that it had to be a two-seater, to deal with the amount of jamming expected from Soviet bombers. The choices looked like this at the time:

F-14 with Phoenix - suffering with severe engine problems at the time, and under threat of being cancelled by congress before 1980. Phoenix cost a horrendous (for the time) £1m per shot, so the RAF training standard of one live shot per crew per year would have cost a fortune.

F-14 without Phoenix: as above, plus over-sized and over-priced for the weapons capability.

F-15A: Single seater, also suffering from engine problems at the time, and under threat of cancellation due to the lobbying of the Fighter Mafia. RAF was also unimpressed by the ECCM capability of the APG-63 radar.

F-15B: met the two-seat requirement, but would need a completely new rear cockpit developed at UK expense, which might rival the development cost of the Tornado ADV but wolud have less national control over the result.

F-16: Single seater, no BVR missile capability (at the time), low-powered radar, short-ranged.

F-4 Phantom with upgrades: Production line scheduled to close in 1979 at the time, so the UK would either have to pay McDD to keep the line pen for 5-6 years or buy the line off them and move it to the UK. Either option would involve investing a significant sum of money in an old platform.

Dassault ACF: Single-seater and an entirely paper project at the time, which did not in fact, get built.

Tornado ADV: fairly expensive, but most of the money would be spent in the UK rather than abroad. By the time it was ready GR.1 production would be winding down so the timing was right. The ADV conversion only involved changes to British made parts, so it wouldn't disrupt the international programme. Low maneuverability and acceleration at altitude wouldn't matter against bombers, and the good fuel consumption would not only increase time on station, but also reduce the number of very expensive tankers required.

[peterstickney]

Having worked on the Vampire and Hunter, and analyzed the Lightning, the comment that the F-16 and F-18 didn't have the range (While true) was kind of amusing.

[soulsphere]

Talking purely about capability and with the benefit of hindsight, the F-15E would have been the best long-term option. More versatile than both the Tornado (ADV and IDS) and Typhoon and with an 18, 000 hour service life. They would have been able to replace the Lighting, F-4 and Buccaneer with a single type and a world beating type at that that would still be in service today.

Of course this is putting aside industrial considerations, which are of course important.

[Ian-Saxon]

Loads of great comments on a very polarising subject.
Another full Roy Mac interview eagerly anticipated.
Thanks again Mike and Roy.

[marcusott]

Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.

[mvfr]

The AWG-9 fire control radar in the F-14A and B didn't have medium prf. Granted this is some years before the D and the APG-71. The AWG-9 was not entirely suited to overland congested airspace found in 1980's Cold War Europe.

The early APG-63 in the F-15A had some issues. Generally this would be corrected with MSIP in the F-15C.

Both the Tomcat and Eagle are very large and very expensive. Yet the F-15 did far better in the export market than the F-14.

I still think the Tornado F3 was the best choice, but if forced to pick it would be the F-15C.

[IrishCarney]

I really like the Tornado and Typhoon being so highly versatile than they can have ground-attack, interceptor, nuclear bombing, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare variants. Basically enabling an air force to have only one aircraft type for all its combat roles, creating huge cost savings in acquisition, maintenance, logistics, and training, in turn enabling having more actual planes. Their being multi-national also greatly simplifies joint operations between NATO partners. A shame the French couldn't have been kept on board via a carrier Typhoon

[HerbertDuckshort]

I remember a U.S. Air National Guard F15 Squadron ( basically the T.A. with aircraft ) visiting RAF Wildenrath in the early 80s where I was ground crew on the Phantom FGR 2. A U.S. Crew Chief showed me round a F15. It was like Star Wars. I was totally gobsmacked. I later had the pleasure of completing a F15 servicing course at USAF Ramstein. Still my favourite aircraft.

[damionneranginui]

Raptor and A10 replacement. That's such a brilliant little jet too. My opinion only. I just read up on the replacement to the warthog but the yanks are very tight fisted with that. Sadly. BTW, the new NATO/English developed typhoon looks amazing. I just love that wing configuration. The plane is very competent as far as I've read. Good O

[jonsouth]

Going for an American-built Aircraft at that time would have been a disaster for the UK defence industry and would have made the UK a permanent colony of the US when it comes to defence procurement, When it comes to buying weapons there are other factors in play not just the weapon itself. Even if we had some sort of licence deal to build components in the UK it still would have killed what was left of the UK's indigenous arms manufacturing capability. If the UK had gone F15 you can kiss not only Eurofighter goodbye but also Stormshadow and many many other products not only now but in the future. I am eternally grateful that we didn't go F-15 and hope that all future policymakers are as wise as the ones who rejected it.

[shredjoe]

F3 but designed for Blue Vixen radar and AMRAAM. Although with hindsight i'd love to have seen a PCB Pegasus engine into a canard delta type airframe - a Harrier/Gripen. So a Sea Harrier FA2 which could really turn (yes i know it's off topic but it's fun).

[AlanToon-fyhg]

The F-15 's would still be in service today, had they been selected.

[davidewhite]

When looking for a replacement, at the time the F-16A did not have BVR capability, it's initial fitment was AIM-9 and gun pnly, with a very limited radar. The production classic Hornets fell short of achieving their advertised range, in twenty year I served in the RAAF I never saw a Hornet without at least one centreline tank except for airshows, the shortfall in range is why the RAAF quickly pursued a tanker fleet. This would not have been a problem with the RAF's existing tankers because the Hornet has the probe and drogue system.. Capability wise the Hornet would have been acceptable, having a BVR missile capability and decent (at the time) APG-65 radar, neither which the F-16A had until the late 80s

[AndrewSmith-rhkt]

Basically anything else wouldve been a better choice than the f3. F15c certainly the pick of the bunch at the time though

[jasonbarnes]

Yes, but the F-15E's first flight was five years after the ADV's introduction; the AMRAAM's was six. The F-15C was the only Eagle option at the time, unless we'd extended the F-4s somewhat.

[ZZGE]

Some facts: F-15 and F-14 are almost the same size. The F-15 is slightly longer while the F-14 has a slightly wider wing span when the wings are fully out. Total wing loading (as a result of higher lift/drag coefficient) on the F-14 Tomcat was lower than the F-15 making it generate more lift, but at high altitudes the F-15 wing was more efficient since F-14 wings folded at lower IMN resulting in less lift. As a result, F-14 was better optimized for lower altitudes (below 25.000 feet) and F-15 was better optimized for very high altitudes (30, 000+ feet). Also, compared to the E model, the F-14 empty weight was less (again, talking about two seaters as the F-15C was lighter by 10, 000 lbs). However, the big motor F-14s made about 10, 000 lbf more thrust than the F-15C to counter the added weight giving it a better than 1:1 thrust to weight in fighter configuration and internal gas.

[marcofava]

4:04 cut to a couple of decades later and the USA and the French are still at it, Rafales to UAE instead of F35's and AUKUS Submarines for Australia instead of Barracudas

[kmrtnsn]

For what they paid for Typhoons they could have gotten F-15s or F/A-18E/Fs at a 2:1 ratio.

[michaeltagg]

F14 was originally thought of, more appropriate to UKAD, being the 'Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier'

[bobthebomb]

Another problem with the F15/16 option is a lack of tankers to support them. Neither the Victor nor the VC10 had a boom.