Syscom, how can you argue with someone who was there? Maybe it was the fault of the Tornado's radar but unless pD says that that is want the problem was I am inclined not to believe it.
The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was partially the Tornado's radar, but the Lightning is also a very small aircraft. The pictures are misleading, they are small. The Lightning pilot's loved it and actually told the Tornado pilots; "You're supposed to be attacking us!" but they just couldn't because without the over-wing tanks, the Tornado's couldn't pick them up.
You think the Lightning is big, syscom? Go see one for yourself.
You think the Lightning is big, syscom? Go see one for yourself.
Found some pictures for size reference. All links are in properties on right click.
Note the overwing tanks.
In relation to the F-16.
In relation to a Tornado and a Hawk?
Note the overwing tanks.
In relation to the F-16.
In relation to a Tornado and a Hawk?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
WRONG! The YB-49 was almost undectable to radar. Why? It's RCS was low nothing to do with materials. - documented and proven.....syscom3 said:
What makes an aircraft stealthy is a COMBINATION of a low RCS and the RAM material you spoke about. Many of the delta wing fighters of the 60s had a low RCS when no stores were carried....
Read "Skunk Works" bt Ben Rich.....
Glider
Captain
The Lightning is quite a large aircraft, from the side. However, as the engines are over/under to use a shotgun expresion, from the front the radar signature is probably little more than a Mig 21.
As you both agree it was almost certainly a problem with the Radar as Navy F4's could pick up the Lightning which was resolved as time went on. The radar in the Tornado is now quite good but getting a little dated, the problem was with the plane it was mounted in.
The Lightning was definately the fighter of choice at the height of the cold war. Other planes claim credit for firsts that the Lightning had been doing for years. Going supersonic without afterburner, head on Infra red missiles, auto tracking of targets with the radar I could go on. I wouldn't be quite so quick to assume the F106 would win in a head to head. The Lightning has a habit of surprising people.
I know that during exercises the Lightning would often heavily outscore anything else because of its ability to fight in the vertiical. F104;s and F4's in partiicular as this was seen as their best tactic. F5's would often win if and only if, the Lightning pilot was tempted into a turning fight. Then again, F5's would do that to almost any other allied plane of the time.
Its worth noting that Saudi Lightning's were staioned in Egypt on the border with Isreal for a time after the 1973 war. Most Arab countries did that to show support and whilst no fighting took place, the IAF often intercepted the planes on patrol. As far as I am aware, they never intercepted a Lightning.
By the way FJ your Dad sounds like a heck of a pilot. It would have been interesting to see what he could do with a Lightning.
As you both agree it was almost certainly a problem with the Radar as Navy F4's could pick up the Lightning which was resolved as time went on. The radar in the Tornado is now quite good but getting a little dated, the problem was with the plane it was mounted in.
The Lightning was definately the fighter of choice at the height of the cold war. Other planes claim credit for firsts that the Lightning had been doing for years. Going supersonic without afterburner, head on Infra red missiles, auto tracking of targets with the radar I could go on. I wouldn't be quite so quick to assume the F106 would win in a head to head. The Lightning has a habit of surprising people.
I know that during exercises the Lightning would often heavily outscore anything else because of its ability to fight in the vertiical. F104;s and F4's in partiicular as this was seen as their best tactic. F5's would often win if and only if, the Lightning pilot was tempted into a turning fight. Then again, F5's would do that to almost any other allied plane of the time.
Its worth noting that Saudi Lightning's were staioned in Egypt on the border with Isreal for a time after the 1973 war. Most Arab countries did that to show support and whilst no fighting took place, the IAF often intercepted the planes on patrol. As far as I am aware, they never intercepted a Lightning.
By the way FJ your Dad sounds like a heck of a pilot. It would have been interesting to see what he could do with a Lightning.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Glider said:
Thanks Glider - He told me he would love to fly a Lightning, I guess he got to play with them in the 80s with the F-5s (he spent time in the Netherlands assisting them deploy their F-5) and was possibly one of the guys D spoke about. He said he never seen an aircraft climb like a Lightning!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
YB-49 was a flying wing with a low (for its day) radar cross section on the horizontal. Plus dont compare low powered airborne radars of the 50's as compared to the modern airborne radars of the 70's and 80's. Thats like comparing apples and oranges.
The Lighting is still pretty big. Look at the size of its tail and the fuelage. Even if its size is similar to the F16, it still has a big fat RCS. That fuselage is tall, and there are plenty of right angles at the wing attach points, and the tail assembly. Even head-on, it has a large RCS.
Unless the structure is all composite, on a radar, it would stick out like a sore thumb. You just cant argue basic physics on this. Now unless you provide evidence that other airborne radars in use couldnt detect it, then I would agree with you. However, just because one radar type couldnt detect it, doesnt mean its stealthy. It means there was a probable software fault.
Im curious though, where did they put the external tanks before the Tornado pilots complained? Dont look like theres much room under the wing because of the landing gear.
The Lighting is still pretty big. Look at the size of its tail and the fuelage. Even if its size is similar to the F16, it still has a big fat RCS. That fuselage is tall, and there are plenty of right angles at the wing attach points, and the tail assembly. Even head-on, it has a large RCS.
Unless the structure is all composite, on a radar, it would stick out like a sore thumb. You just cant argue basic physics on this. Now unless you provide evidence that other airborne radars in use couldnt detect it, then I would agree with you. However, just because one radar type couldnt detect it, doesnt mean its stealthy. It means there was a probable software fault.
Im curious though, where did they put the external tanks before the Tornado pilots complained? Dont look like theres much room under the wing because of the landing gear.
Thank you, Glider. Someone with some sense. As I said originally, the original Tornado could not detect a Lightning without over-wing tanks. Lightning's used to bounce everything and anything. Many U-2s flying high had the surprise of a Lightning being higher ...
Glider
Captain
Syscom. For size see my last post. Re the overwing tanks they had been around for a while but were little used. The Lightning is a very clean aircraft and the additional drag of the overwing tanks wiped out most of the advantage of the extra fuel. I don't have the figures but I am sure if you dig far enough the fact will support my memory.
As for putting them over the wing is something that is a difficulty from a mainanence point of view but has a number of beneifts. The Jaguar has its self defence Sidewinders mounted over the wing to keep the underwing hard points clear for GA work.
As for putting them over the wing is something that is a difficulty from a mainanence point of view but has a number of beneifts. The Jaguar has its self defence Sidewinders mounted over the wing to keep the underwing hard points clear for GA work.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
Who's talking airborne systems? Ground systems had a hard time painting the YB-49....
syscom3 said:
Again wrong! The RCS models used at radar test ranges to test the F-117 and some "other" stealth aircraft weren't built of RAM material and they were almost undetectable. How do I know this? I was there!!! I worked on the first 2 F-117 and ships 3 to 7 on the B-2.
The SR-71 had a real low RCS - the only place it had RAM material was on the leading edges of it's wings (There's 2 on outdoor display in Palmdale, if you're ever up there, go see for your self).
The RAM materials is one part of the equation - radar can be defeated by shape as well. That was the point of Pyotr Ufimtsev's paper on Radar avoiding technology which was the basis of the whole "Have Blue" program. Undersecretary of defense Bill Perry stated in 1980 "Stealth Technology does not involve a single technical approach, but rather a complex synthesis of many. Even if I were willing to describe it to you I could not do it in a sentence or paragraph."
I suggest finding Aviation Heritage Magazine July 1992 edition - there is a lenghty article on the history of Stealth Technology. Much of the data for the article was gathered by talking to people like Ben Rich (I used to work with his daughter, Karen) and being there first hand. I wrote this article....
The Lightning always had it's tanks on the wing, as opposed to under it. It never intercepted with them, it was merely to ferry the aircraft. The maintainers (one being my dad) found it a pain to take them off as they were heavy and very clumsy. In the end the RAF decided to completely do away with them and just use air-to-air refueling on ferry runs.
No one ever said that other aircraft couldn't detect the Lightning. Did anyone say the Phantom was unable to pick up the Lightning?
No one ever said that other aircraft couldn't detect the Lightning. Did anyone say the Phantom was unable to pick up the Lightning?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The ground based radars in the 50's could pump out 10's of megawatts of power so there was no way the YB49 was going to remain invisible except in level flight from long ranges. (Not to change the subject, but there is an old Nike missle radar site in the hills above Los Angeles that is now part of a park, and plans have been drafted to restore it to its 1950's configuration, complete with non-working hardware)
The SR71 was "sort of" stealthy. I dont need to remind anyone on how it looks. The shape was smooth with most of the structure angled one way or another. Its fast speed coupled with a reduced observability meant it was illuminated when it was too late to do anything about it.
The F117 and B2 are truely stealthy because of airframe design and use of composites. As you know, the worst thing to do to not be stealthy is to have a all metal tail sticking up at right angles to the airframe, and a none blended design for the wing root.
The Lightning isnt low observable in any sense, as it was not a design consideration in its era. Remember, that big tall tail is like a flag waving in the breeze saying here I am.
Like I said, none of this mattered in its performance or mission.
The SR71 was "sort of" stealthy. I dont need to remind anyone on how it looks. The shape was smooth with most of the structure angled one way or another. Its fast speed coupled with a reduced observability meant it was illuminated when it was too late to do anything about it.
The F117 and B2 are truely stealthy because of airframe design and use of composites. As you know, the worst thing to do to not be stealthy is to have a all metal tail sticking up at right angles to the airframe, and a none blended design for the wing root.
The Lightning isnt low observable in any sense, as it was not a design consideration in its era. Remember, that big tall tail is like a flag waving in the breeze saying here I am.
Like I said, none of this mattered in its performance or mission.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
It isn't the size, it's how is RCS is being painted by the radar. The B-49 has a 179 foot wing span, but has a low RCS when painted head on - It wasn't undetectable, just harder to "pick up." In a combat environment, throw in the use of ECM and now you have a "Stealth" aircraft.
Even the most "stealthy" aircraft could paint a radar signature, it a matter of finding a radar strong enough to pick it up and a radar operator who knows what he's looking at.....
D's statement is totally believable - between the sweptback shape of the wing and tail being painted at the right angle by the Tornado's radar could of produced what is termed as a "black hole," a point where the aircraft disappears from radar. Not intentionally designed that way, but physics working in it's favor.....
No, syscom, you said; "I find it very hard to believe the Tornado's radar were not picking up the radar returns."
Which you really should believe because it did happen. I know, my father was there. Good try at the backing away from the original argument there, syscom.
So, we're all agreed - the original Tornado could not detect the Lightning. The mention of the wing shape - which, by the way, is almost the same as the F-117s (which is a fact) - was merely a passing statement, nothing serious.
Lightning was not picked up by the F.2 Tornado - fact.
Which you really should believe because it did happen. I know, my father was there. Good try at the backing away from the original argument there, syscom.
So, we're all agreed - the original Tornado could not detect the Lightning. The mention of the wing shape - which, by the way, is almost the same as the F-117s (which is a fact) - was merely a passing statement, nothing serious.
Lightning was not picked up by the F.2 Tornado - fact.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Ok, I agree. I was interpreting your statement as any fighter radar would not pick it up.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Who Picked the SU-37? It's a neat aircraft but has a long way to go to be considered the "Greatest Jet Fighter of All Time." My wife and I are having a girl in Feb. She's going to be "Miss Universe" in 2028 - 
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Flyboy, make your plans to begin her indoctrination on what planes were great.
My baby girl is being told that The B17 was superior to the Lancaster, the P51 was better than a -190, and the F4 was the best postwar jet......)
My baby girl is being told that The B17 was superior to the Lancaster, the P51 was better than a -190, and the F4 was the best postwar jet......
)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Oh yea! 
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Whoo Hoo!! Congratulations............. U guys figure out a name yet???
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
lesofprimus said:
Thanks Les - I thought you knew! We're naming her "Autumn."
