TSR.2 : Bombing the myth

As I said earlier the idea of putting Aim9 on the Lightning never got far due to the limitation of the seeker head. Mounted on the same rail as a Firestreak or Red Top so far back a missile on the port side would have been unable to detect a target on the right side of the Lightning as its seeker was masked.

I don’t have your depth of knowledge about such things – but the F8 Crusader had twin sidewinder launch rails mounted high on the sides of the forward fuselage.

Presumably it too suffered from the same ‘masking’ problem?

Ken

As I said earlier the idea of putting Aim9 on the Lightning never got far due to the limitation of the seeker head. Mounted on the same rail as a Firestreak or Red Top so far back a missile on the port side would have been unable to detect a target on the right side of the Lightning as its seeker was masked.

I don’t have your depth of knowledge about such things – but the F8 Crusader had twin sidewinder launch rails mounted high on the sides of the forward fuselage.

Presumably it too suffered from the same ‘masking’ problem?

Ken

Dave your absolutely correct lots of people use wiki and end up with frankly a load of BS which then gets re written as gospel- perhaps the most famous are certain Lightning pilots who claim to have reached 80,000 feet Mach 2.4 and over taken Concorde all of which are now “fact” as it says so on the web!
Having done a bit of research there was of course the proposed swing wing Lightning which frankly was as about as likely as Thunderbird2 flying with the RAF. As I said earlier the idea of putting Aim9 on the Lightning never got far due to the limitation of the seeker head. Mounted on the same rail as a Firestreak or Red Top so far back a missile on the port side would have been unable to detect a target on the right side of the Lightning as its seeker was masked. Added to the complexity of the cooling bottle needing to go into the launcher rail. As for Aim 7 Sparrow the AI 23 simply wasn’t up to it so fitting Sparrow would have involved a new radar etc etc etc.
Back to the F4 the whole UK vs US F4 is a whole big story. What always amazed me was in peacetime RAFG Phantoms had to fly with the gun – unloaded- on pretty much every sortie. I think we worked out it took an entire underwing fuel tank just to carry it about on an average sortie – what a waste.
Arthur Vine left 228 OCU and became a sim instructor at RAF Bruggen on the F4.
Sadly Merv Paine retired from the RAF in the late 90s but died suddenly soon after- he was a cool dude. Arthur Vine flew Mustangs with 19 Squadron in the war – he once showed me some film of him shooting German steam trains – very surreal as they seemed to die like dinosaurs when they blew up- hissing steam and then rolling onto their sides. Seems we have got seriously side tracked from TSR2 which I agree would have been a long time in service before it was the wonder aircraft it seems to be now

Dave your absolutely correct lots of people use wiki and end up with frankly a load of BS which then gets re written as gospel- perhaps the most famous are certain Lightning pilots who claim to have reached 80,000 feet Mach 2.4 and over taken Concorde all of which are now “fact” as it says so on the web!
Having done a bit of research there was of course the proposed swing wing Lightning which frankly was as about as likely as Thunderbird2 flying with the RAF. As I said earlier the idea of putting Aim9 on the Lightning never got far due to the limitation of the seeker head. Mounted on the same rail as a Firestreak or Red Top so far back a missile on the port side would have been unable to detect a target on the right side of the Lightning as its seeker was masked. Added to the complexity of the cooling bottle needing to go into the launcher rail. As for Aim 7 Sparrow the AI 23 simply wasn’t up to it so fitting Sparrow would have involved a new radar etc etc etc.
Back to the F4 the whole UK vs US F4 is a whole big story. What always amazed me was in peacetime RAFG Phantoms had to fly with the gun – unloaded- on pretty much every sortie. I think we worked out it took an entire underwing fuel tank just to carry it about on an average sortie – what a waste.
Arthur Vine left 228 OCU and became a sim instructor at RAF Bruggen on the F4.
Sadly Merv Paine retired from the RAF in the late 90s but died suddenly soon after- he was a cool dude. Arthur Vine flew Mustangs with 19 Squadron in the war – he once showed me some film of him shooting German steam trains – very surreal as they seemed to die like dinosaurs when they blew up- hissing steam and then rolling onto their sides. Seems we have got seriously side tracked from TSR2 which I agree would have been a long time in service before it was the wonder aircraft it seems to be now

As we all know they didn’t but there was certainly a feasibility study done sometime between 85-88, because I was involved in it and that’s when I was there. F6 is correct in what he says about the trials of other weapons. By the way I think you’re getting mixed up with continuous wave and IR missiles, they don’t transmit. Leading edge heating is…..kinetic heating!

Apologies to you too as I thought you were yet another Wikipedia expert, respect if you did fly or nav the ‘Toom. I was a Flight Systems guy on the OCU between 74-78 when Dave Shaw ran the ship, instructor’s names I remember are Nick Ireland (spoke to Nick about three years ago), Merv Paine, Dave Roome, Arthur Vine…don’t know if you knew Arthur but he must have been 50 odd at the time and a WWII veteran I think on Typhoons or Tempests, his son flew Shackletons while Arthur flew a supersonic fighter which was a cause of some mirth. The USAF (and Marine Corp) guys gave me the lowdown on the performance viz a viz the RAF and US ones although I will concede that there may have been some national pride involved.

The story about bunting with the SUU on is true, I was a little amazed myself. It was off Cyprus. Weren’t they a drag monster on the centreline or something?

As we all know they didn’t but there was certainly a feasibility study done sometime between 85-88, because I was involved in it and that’s when I was there. F6 is correct in what he says about the trials of other weapons. By the way I think you’re getting mixed up with continuous wave and IR missiles, they don’t transmit. Leading edge heating is…..kinetic heating!

Apologies to you too as I thought you were yet another Wikipedia expert, respect if you did fly or nav the ‘Toom. I was a Flight Systems guy on the OCU between 74-78 when Dave Shaw ran the ship, instructor’s names I remember are Nick Ireland (spoke to Nick about three years ago), Merv Paine, Dave Roome, Arthur Vine…don’t know if you knew Arthur but he must have been 50 odd at the time and a WWII veteran I think on Typhoons or Tempests, his son flew Shackletons while Arthur flew a supersonic fighter which was a cause of some mirth. The USAF (and Marine Corp) guys gave me the lowdown on the performance viz a viz the RAF and US ones although I will concede that there may have been some national pride involved.

The story about bunting with the SUU on is true, I was a little amazed myself. It was off Cyprus. Weren’t they a drag monster on the centreline or something?

EE Lightning Weapons

F6 – I always respect your posts and Dave if I’m wrong I apologise – However I still don’t think Lightnings would have carried anything other than fire streak or red top- in the early 1960s late 1950s Aim 9 B was pretty hopeless look at the PK rates from Vietnam and Aim 7 even worse. The Lightning Radar AI 23 was never meant for either weapon. Again if anyone can point me to any reference I’d be happy to change my thoughts. Fitting a Sparrow to the Lightning just is impossible. I googled Lightning and weapons and a web site mentioned a trial of fitting Genie missile under the fuselage – I don’t think this would be possible.
back to the F4 and going supersonic I spent a very unpleasant 24 hours in 1984 waiting for the complaints to flood in having chased an F104 across the North German plains at Mach 1.02 I assume the German farmers took pity on us…….

EE Lightning Weapons

F6 – I always respect your posts and Dave if I’m wrong I apologise – However I still don’t think Lightnings would have carried anything other than fire streak or red top- in the early 1960s late 1950s Aim 9 B was pretty hopeless look at the PK rates from Vietnam and Aim 7 even worse. The Lightning Radar AI 23 was never meant for either weapon. Again if anyone can point me to any reference I’d be happy to change my thoughts. Fitting a Sparrow to the Lightning just is impossible. I googled Lightning and weapons and a web site mentioned a trial of fitting Genie missile under the fuselage – I don’t think this would be possible.
back to the F4 and going supersonic I spent a very unpleasant 24 hours in 1984 waiting for the complaints to flood in having chased an F104 across the North German plains at Mach 1.02 I assume the German farmers took pity on us…….

[QUOTE= gravity drop- ie at trigger press the rocket fired off the rail and was in flight where as the Aim 9 tended to leave the rail and drop slightly before guidance .[/QUOTE]

….and bend the end of overwing LAU’s 😉 ( sorry – thread drift :rolleyes: )

[QUOTE= gravity drop- ie at trigger press the rocket fired off the rail and was in flight where as the Aim 9 tended to leave the rail and drop slightly before guidance .[/QUOTE]

….and bend the end of overwing LAU’s 😉 ( sorry – thread drift :rolleyes: )

EE NEVER thought of putting Sidewinder or Sparrow on the Lightning. The Aim 9 would not work on the Lightning due to problems with Obscuration. The well known photo of a Lightning fitted with Sidewinder was taken at RAF Valley and was meant as a joke!
Red Top was probably the first air to air missile with a head on capability that didn’t require CW (continuous wave ) illumination of the target. Its seeker head actually used the friction of the wing leading edge for acquisition head on not the reheat plume. Fire streak was good at Low level due to the fact that it did not suffer from a phenomena known as gravity drop- ie at trigger press the rocket fired off the rail and was in flight where as the Aim 9 tended to leave the rail and drop slightly before guidance .

Don’t know where you get your gen from Salad but lets just agree to disagree. I spent three years as a RT/Firestreak guidance specialist, I’m not going to argue the toss, we’ll just leave it at that.

EE NEVER thought of putting Sidewinder or Sparrow on the Lightning. The Aim 9 would not work on the Lightning due to problems with Obscuration. The well known photo of a Lightning fitted with Sidewinder was taken at RAF Valley and was meant as a joke!
Red Top was probably the first air to air missile with a head on capability that didn’t require CW (continuous wave ) illumination of the target. Its seeker head actually used the friction of the wing leading edge for acquisition head on not the reheat plume. Fire streak was good at Low level due to the fact that it did not suffer from a phenomena known as gravity drop- ie at trigger press the rocket fired off the rail and was in flight where as the Aim 9 tended to leave the rail and drop slightly before guidance .

Don’t know where you get your gen from Salad but lets just agree to disagree. I spent three years as a RT/Firestreak guidance specialist, I’m not going to argue the toss, we’ll just leave it at that.

SF

I believe EE did investigate in depth the possibilities of fitting Sidewinder, Sparrow, Falcon and Genie missiles, even completing full size wooden mock ups of 2 and 4 sidewinder missile packs.

It was done in late 58 and Sidewinder was still in it’s infancy and didn’t make it preferable over the Blue Jay, other brief investigations included the Nord AS30 missile, Zuni rockets and Napalm, also Bullpup missiles but most of these investigations were just that and never made it past the drawing board.

Regard

John.

SF

I believe EE did investigate in depth the possibilities of fitting Sidewinder, Sparrow, Falcon and Genie missiles, even completing full size wooden mock ups of 2 and 4 sidewinder missile packs.

It was done in late 58 and Sidewinder was still in it’s infancy and didn’t make it preferable over the Blue Jay, other brief investigations included the Nord AS30 missile, Zuni rockets and Napalm, also Bullpup missiles but most of these investigations were just that and never made it past the drawing board.

Regard

John.

Facts

EE NEVER thought of putting Sidewinder or Sparrow on the Lightning. The Aim 9 would not work on the Lightning due to problems with Obscuration. The well known photo of a Lightning fitted with Sidewinder was taken at RAF Valley and was meant as a joke!
Red Top was probably the first air to air missile with a head on capability that didn’t require CW (continuous wave ) illumination of the target. Its seeker head actually used the friction of the wing leading edge for acquisition head on not the reheat plume. Fire streak was good at Low level due to the fact that it did not suffer from a phenomena known as gravity drop- ie at trigger press the rocket fired off the rail and was in flight where as the Aim 9 tended to leave the rail and drop slightly before guidance .

Facts

EE NEVER thought of putting Sidewinder or Sparrow on the Lightning. The Aim 9 would not work on the Lightning due to problems with Obscuration. The well known photo of a Lightning fitted with Sidewinder was taken at RAF Valley and was meant as a joke!
Red Top was probably the first air to air missile with a head on capability that didn’t require CW (continuous wave ) illumination of the target. Its seeker head actually used the friction of the wing leading edge for acquisition head on not the reheat plume. Fire streak was good at Low level due to the fact that it did not suffer from a phenomena known as gravity drop- ie at trigger press the rocket fired off the rail and was in flight where as the Aim 9 tended to leave the rail and drop slightly before guidance .

It was proposed by BAe but rejected on cost grounds. No surprise there then although to be fair the Lightning didn’t have long left to go. As I remember EE originally planned for the Lightning to have Sidewinder and even Sparrow capability.

The Red Top was an all aspect missile as cf. the Firestreak which was rear aspect only. Actually the Firestreak was a very good missile considering the guidance system was all valve and it had to have an ammonia cooling system! RT’s main adversery was considered to be the Blinder and head on against supersonic targets with afterburner plume and high kinetic heating it was very good. Where it wasn’t so good was head on against less kinetically heated targets ie subsonic.

I had rather a nice and unusual memento presented to me when the Lightning finished, a Lightning inside a Firestreak nose cone. The observant among you will notice that the model has RT on the rails!

It was proposed by BAe but rejected on cost grounds. No surprise there then although to be fair the Lightning didn’t have long left to go. As I remember EE originally planned for the Lightning to have Sidewinder and even Sparrow capability.

The Red Top was an all aspect missile as cf. the Firestreak which was rear aspect only. Actually the Firestreak was a very good missile considering the guidance system was all valve and it had to have an ammonia cooling system! RT’s main adversery was considered to be the Blinder and head on against supersonic targets with afterburner plume and high kinetic heating it was very good. Where it wasn’t so good was head on against less kinetically heated targets ie subsonic.

I had rather a nice and unusual memento presented to me when the Lightning finished, a Lightning inside a Firestreak nose cone. The observant among you will notice that the model has RT on the rails!

Edit: I can speak from experience about the Lightning as I was part of the investigation team that looked at why the Red Top was such a poor performer. In fact even in the mid 80’s we did a feasibility study into whether we could put four sidewinders on it.

I’d be interested to hear the conclusions.

Edit: I can speak from experience about the Lightning as I was part of the investigation team that looked at why the Red Top was such a poor performer. In fact even in the mid 80’s we did a feasibility study into whether we could put four sidewinders on it.

I’d be interested to hear the conclusions.