Six Nifty Fifties,

WRONG! Talk about making up nonsense to support a point of view!

The main reason that British Phantoms did so badly, even when allowed to use BVR rules, was that dogfight practice and hard maneuvering in RAF Phantom units was VERY limited. Other than a lucky few pilots in the exchange program, the RAF was not accustomed to U.S. Navy-style ACM training which equally emphasized BVR and learning to use close-range weapons in a lower speed, high angle of attack situation.

Without BVR missiles, it took many hours of practice to successfully defeat little jets like Skyhawks, Tiger IIs and Harriers flown by expert pilots. USAF and RAF exchange officers said they were astounded by the “Knife Fight in a Phone Booth” engagements as they rode in the rear seat of U.S. Navy Phantoms.

Bear in mind that I’m not talking about Ensign pilots just out of flight school. I mean experienced guys with enough stick time to be an instructor.

1) The Lightning was in no respect easier to master than a Phantom. It was easier to land, but that’s about it. Much higher workload, much poorer visibility.

2) British pilots knew as well as anyone how to fly the F-4 to its extreme limits, and were exploring the type’s high Alpha handling more routinely than the USAF, and even on the strike squadrons in RAFG were practising ACM (and carrying Sparrow). Nor were they routinely “thrashed by every short-range jet fighter pitted against them.” RAF and FAA Phantoms routinely beat USAFE and Luftwaffe Phantoms (and were themselves beaten by those types, but not quite as often).

Top Gun may have been a revelation for the US forces, but dogfighting had never gone away in the RAF and RN – even in the Javelin era.

The idea that “RAF Phantom pilots never distinguished themselves in ACM” and that “air to air fighting was not one of their strong points” is an offensive and utterly baseless slur. It’s also an exact inversion of the truth.

3) Occasional USN F-4 pilots may have beaten Adversary A-4s and F-5s, and F-8s, but that was far from routine.

That’s breathtakingly selective quoting, Phant.

I did not say: “The Phantom was simply no match for the Lightning – Full stop, end of story.” Quite the reverse – I pointed out the F-4’s strengths.

But I did say that; “One on one, mano a mano, in a close in fight requiring visual identification, the Phantom was simply no match for the Lightning.”

And I did so in a post that was explicitely pointing out that the OP had asked about RAF Phantom versus RAF Lightning, implying one versus one, and with rules of engagement requiring visual identification.

Which is a VERY much more qualified statement.

And a VERY different thing.

The Lightning’s sheer grunt (and, by the standards of the day, pointability) especially in max dry was what allowed it to best the F-4K/M.

What made an even more decisive difference (and what allowed the Lightning to dominate even against the RAF’s Phantom ‘aces’) was that it was an elite force.

As pilots graduated from the end of advanced flying training at RAF Valley (initially from the Vampire T11, then from the Gnat, and finally from the Hawk), they were graded by ability. Only the best went single-seat, and of these, there was a further grading, and the very best of the best went to the Lightning.

By 1974, the Valley ‘ranking’ went:

1) Lightning
2) Harrier GR1-3
3) Jaguar
4) Buccaneer
5) Phantom
6) Canberra
7) re-stream rotary/multi

Pilots who failed the Buccaneer OCU were routinely sent to the F-4 OCU.

The Lightning pilots were of a different standard, and knew it, which had an impact on capability and morale.

Nic10,

With regard to pilot quality, surely the AdlA have had a long-running and far-sighted programme under which large numbers of A-G pilots destined for Rafale (Mirage 2000N, Jaguar) have done a tour on A-A Mirage 2000s, and vice versa?

I know that I read about it somewhere.

The idea that the pilots of EC 7 are a bunch of half-wit ex Jag pilots who aren’t fully competent when it comes to A-A tactics does them a gross disservice, I’d say.

None currently. I think that Su-17, and Mil-24 have been admitted.

I disagree, JW.

Manned has advantages for recce (from line searches to Scud hunting) and for CAS/BAI.

Many targets are targets of opportunity – or turn out to be ‘not exactly where briefed’. Finding them from the cockpit of a Jaguar or Tornado is far easier than doing so on a screen, thousands of miles away.

You get a human pilot’s eyes on to a target far quicker than those of a remote operator if a FAC is talking a strike asset in, too.

But if your only experience of a fast jet cockpit is in a PC flight sim, then you’re not likely to appreciate the difference.

And while an unmanned platform can have advantages for BVR, if RoE dictate visident, or if the BVR fight deteriorates to WVR, the advantage goes decisively to manned.

I’m not normally noted for brevity.

Give me an intelligent question (rather than provocative trolling) and I’ll give a sensible answer.

But this wasn’t an intelligent question, nor was it intended as such.

Comparing it to Typhoon in supposedly having: “primitive airframe design (canard/delta),” was pure trolling (it’s a very advanced concept, actually), while neither Typhoon nor Rafale is expensive, over hyped, or underdeveloped compared to either F-22 or F-35.

Whether you rate Rafale or not (and I do rate it pretty high) it’s clearly ‘relevant’.

It’s relevant to the AdlA and MN, and it’s a competitor (albeit an unsuccessful one so far) on the export market.

So “No” (it is not ‘irrelevant’).

But on the strength of your ‘considered’ opinions on Typhoon and Rafale, and your worship of JSF, I don’t know why I’m wasting finger time typing a response to you.

Good old Simdude leading the usual coalition of anti-Typhoon trolls.

Oh dear. So you “think that the UK missed the boat on this one.” We’d better cancel the rest of the programme now, then.

We’ll ignore the fact that in Typhoon we have the second best air defence fighter in service today. We’ll ignore the rapidly growing air-to-ground capabilities. We’ll ignore the fact that it meets the requirements of the partner nations better than anything else (and those of a growing number of export customers).

Because of what you think…..

It has been a fantastically expensive [i]PROGRAMME[/i] but the [i]true COSTS[/i] of simply buying US kit off the shelf were unacceptable. A degree of support for home industry and UK jobs is desirable (as US supporters of KC-767 tell us all the time). And as an aircraft, its unit production cost* of £37.76 m/€55.08 is expensive, but not ‘fantastically so’ (rather more than a Rafale, much more than a Gripen, rather less than an F-35).

As to AESA, most Typhoon pilots would not want AESA until it can give better A-A range and azimuth than they already have. They have better net capabilities than any of the in service Stealth aircraft, which rely on bespoke data links and that can’t contribute to the SRAP. They have better SA, and better HOBS capabilities (F-22 has no HOBS missile and no helmet).

It’s silly to compare F-35 and Typhoon as ‘multi role aircraft’ since F-35’s BVR air to air capabilities are more limited, while elements of its air-to-ground capabilities are superior, by dint of stealth. The two aircraft’s capabilities are weighted very differently. As to the Super Hornet, it enjoys an edge in some areas of A-G capability, at the moment, just like Rafale, but is inferior in many others. And to claim that Typhoon will “never be a true multi role aircraft like Super Hornet” is facile.

Pfcem,
I like your analogy with the “uber prop-driven fighters of 1946”, it’s amusing and well chosen as a debating point though it’s not entirely appropriate. While many believe that Stealth is the big technology leap, it imposes huge compromises and cost. While I wouldn’t want a day one strike attack aircraft without Stealth, I don’t believe that it’s in any way essential in a multi role tactical fighter.

Ant Typhoon isn’t just “arguably better” than other non-stealth fighters before it, while F-35 is not “SO much better” ….

Sferrin,
There are only a handful of pilots who have flown F-35 so far. All of them on Lockmart’s books. A few more have flown the rig. But I have certainly heard pilots complain about F-35’s cost, technical problems, and about the uncertainties surrounding capabilities.

Spitfire 9, J-7
The requirements for Eurofighter and Rafale were never really compatible when they needed to be. France wanted and needed design leadership, and a lighter, carrier capable, exportable aircraft, with greater weighting given to A-G. Such an aircraft didn’t meet the requirements of the partner nations. It was unfortunate and regrettable but inevitable that the two programmes could not be combined.

* The recent UK National Audit Office costs inevitably quoted by the JSF fanboys are NOT a unit production cost, because they are distorted by the inclusion of fixed costs for all three Tranches. An absolutely accurate, reliable US-style flyaway cost can be discerned by dividing the Tranche 2 production contract cost by the number of aircraft in that tranche. The Tranche 2 production contract was “worth €13 Bn” for 236 aircraft – €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the rate was 0.68545, giving a unit production (flyaway) cost of £37.76 m.

And let’s avoid the distraction of the supposed Saudi bribes shall we? The fact is that the ALLEGED bribes (and Britain’s most senior law officer judged that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to support a prosecution) had NOTHING to do with Typhoon. They were connected with Tornado. Thus anybody dredging them up has an agenda, or is ignorant of the facts.

Lockheed bribed like it was going out of fashion in F-104 days, and Dassault did the same in the Mirage era. But that’s irrelevant to the F-35 and Rafale.