Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fastest Military Jet At Low Level?  
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 25998 times:

Lots of contenders here, I would guess the F-111, opinions, ideas ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26000 times:

I understand the RF-101C at low level was faster than the F-105, which was mighty fast itself. Not sure what's faster than the F-111, though I read somewhere (and found it hard to believe) the Blackburn Buccaneer was faster than the '111, perhaps because it carries its weapons in the weapons bay while the F-111 carries its weapons externally.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25996 times:

The good ol F-9. It still has the record at 985mph.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 25935 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
perhaps because it carries its weapons in the weapons bay while the F-111 carries its weapons externally

Be careful with that statement. Originally the vark had a bay. The laser pod was added late in life.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3630 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 25914 times:

While probably not the fastest, the Tornado with its terrain following radar is able to fly low and fast very succesful.

User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 25655 times:

Should have been the British TSR-2 but it was cancelled by the Labour government after 4 test aircraft had been built and just one of them flown.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Freer - Touchdown-aviation



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Woodcock
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Woodcock



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Freer - Touchdown-aviation



User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 25635 times:



Quoting Ferrypilot (Reply 5):
Should have been the British TSR-2 but it was cancelled by the Labour government after 4 test aircraft had been built and just one of them flown.

Definitely. I would expect it could do mach 1.4 or better.

I read the F-111F could do mach 1.25 all day

Of course Darryl Greenamyers Red Baron F-104 did 988 mph (mach 1.30) officially for the current record, and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially (faulty timing equipment) -both at 300 ft AGL back in the '70's. It had a water/ethyl alcohol injection system similar to that used for the "sageburner" F-4H that did just under mach 1.2 (all J-79's had turbine inlet temp limit of mach 2.2 at altitude w/o water injection, and around mach 1.1 at sea level), Greenamyer's F-104 was cleared for mach 2.6 at altitude with the injection system.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 25652 times:

On the deck, the top 10 winners were:

RF-4E
F-105D
RF-4C
FB-111A
RF-101C
B-58A
F-111F
RA-5C
EF-111A
F-104C


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 25581 times:

Are you able to put any numbers on those?.

User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3957 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 25511 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

That's a US top 10 I suppose, although I don't doubt these are strong contenders.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
The good ol F-9. It still has the record at 985mph.

 Confused The F9F Cougar? No it doesn't.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 25459 times:



Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
...ideas ?

It would be really helpful if Max Q (or someone) would define "Low Level".

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
The good ol F-9. It still has the record at 985mph.



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 9):
The F9F Cougar? No it doesn't.

The maximum speed of the Grumman F-9 Cougar (nee F9F-8) was 714 mph.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 25457 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
On the deck, the top 10 winners were:

The Panavia Tornado must be under the top ten. It was developed for low level high speed ground attacks and is fairly good at it.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 25439 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
The good ol F-9. It still has the record at 985mph.



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 9):
The F9F Cougar? No it doesn't.

The maximum speed of the Grumman F-9 Cougar (nee F9F-8) was 714 mph.

That was suppose to be F-4. I blame my confused brain on the freaking Phantom pilots who liked glide in on our position and kick in the afterburners right over our heads at 4 AM. I no longer have to imagine what the end of the world sounds like.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 25383 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
On the deck, the top 10 winners were:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
B-58A



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
RA-5C

From what I have read, neither of these aircraft could break mach one at sea level. Top speed for the B-58 was around mach .92 and the Vigilante was mach .95. The Vigilante had wings that were too large for supersonic speed on the deck, and the B-58 could not structurally handle the buffeting. The same reasons why the SR-71 and XB-70 were only capable of mach .95 on the deck.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 25258 times:

The Tornado IDS can do Mach 1.3 at treetop level. Of course, that's without external stores (save maybe a pair of Sidewinders).


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25031 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):


That's a US top 10 I suppose, although I don't doubt these are strong contenders.

Yes, I should have said these were US only contenders. France, Russia, UK, and others also had very fast movers on the deck, too.

Quoting Columba (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
On the deck, the top 10 winners were:

The Panavia Tornado must be under the top ten. It was developed for low level high speed ground attacks and is fairly good at it.



Quoting A342 (Reply 14):
The Tornado IDS can do Mach 1.3 at treetop level. Of course, that's without external stores (save maybe a pair of Sidewinders).

Without a doubt the Tornado is among the fastest on the deck.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13):
From what I have read, neither of these aircraft could break mach one at sea level. Top speed for the B-58 was around mach .92 and the Vigilante was mach .95. The Vigilante had wings that were too large for supersonic speed on the deck, and the B-58 could not structurally handle the buffeting.

Actually, the B-58 could exceed M 1.2 on the deck, but you are right, to do it continously it needed more structure. The RA-5C was the primer USN low level recon jet in the mid and late 1960s. It was very fast on the deck, and replaced the USN RF-8 in the low level reconn photo missions. The RF-8 was also fast, just not fast enough to make my list, it most famous mission was helping to confirm the Russian nuclear MLCMs in Cuba, after a USAF U-2 found them in September 1962.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 24965 times:

I was surprised that ALL of the 10 fastest were from the US.

User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 24915 times:

You people know nothing. Here is the real top ten.

1 - SuperHornet.
2 - SuperHornet.
3 - SuperHornet.
4 - SuperHornet.
6 - SuperHornet.
7 - SuperHornet.
8 - SuperHornet.
9 - SuperHornet.
10 - SuperHornet.

Signed,

Alien.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 24861 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17):
You people know nothing. Here is the real top ten.

1 - SuperHornet.



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17):
Signed,

Alien.

Of course!  rotfl 


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 24857 times:

F-14's were good for about mach 1.2 at sea level...

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/grumman/f-14/040925-N-0295M-047.jpg


User currently offlineStoney From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 24798 times:

I thought I heard the Lancer could do Mach 1.2 at sea level, quite impressive for such a huge aircraft. If this is true it would certainly be quite astonishing...


BAZL - Bundesamt gegen Zivilluftfahrt - royally screwing around with swiss aviation
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 24677 times:



Quoting Stoney (Reply 20):
I thought I heard the Lancer could do Mach 1.2 at sea level, quite impressive for such a huge aircraft. If this is true it would certainly be quite astonishing...

Hmmm. ?The B1A was PLANNED to do that, but demanded too much expensive materials such as Ti. So low speed was scaled back to about M0.85. At the same time operating altitude was lowered making up for the increased vulnerability of lower speed. The B1B is a much slower design (aloft) but ironically is marginally faster on the deck (M0.92).

Separately from all this there was a period ?in the 50s when folk were seriously thinking of using the shock wave from supersonic low flying airplanes as a weapon. But to get a certain kill you really needed to be going too fast too low to be practical, and I presume in a trench warfare situation, you might have to be careful in the approach and pull out to avoid your own troops. So happily, it turned out to be a(nother) weapon that was not very practical. That said, supersonic flight (but not on the deck) has been used as a weapon of irritation/intimidation in the ME. So the thought appears to live on.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 24666 times:

I still think the F-111 may be the fastest 'on the deck'


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineHunterson From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 24655 times:

I agree the F-111 has to be one of the top contenders, but let us not forget the Tornado IDS,
which is essentially designed for the same missions and along the same aerodynamic lines, and also the TSR-2 which was never given the chance to go operational, thanks to the usual "brilliant" defence policy decision-making by British politicians.

But I do wonder here about what Soviet / Russian types could or can do in this respect.

I am told, for example, that Israeli pilots who managed to fly and evaluate a MiG-23MLD
( Flogger-K ) which had defected from the Syrian AF some years ago, were most impressed with its performance, and thought that its parameters were generally 20-25 percent higher in all aspects, compared to the then prevailing NATO estimates, both at low level and at altitude.

If that is the case, then surely there should be a few Russian contendres there, including both the Su-17/20/22 and the Su-24 VG strike aircraft, both optimized for mainly low-level missions.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3957 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24617 times:

My top 3 as far as service aircraft are concerned:

1. F-111 - Mach 1.2
1. F-14 - Mach 1.2
1. Tornado - Mach 1.2

The Su-24 seems to be slower at Mach 1.16, and surprisingly seems to be beaten by the old Su-17 Fitter at Mach 1.17. The MiG-23 is still slower apparently.

Quoting A342 (Reply 14):
The Tornado IDS can do Mach 1.3 at treetop level.



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 2):
The good ol F-4. It still has the record at 985mph.

Not credible I think. I also don't believe the TSR-2 would have been faster.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
25 Post contains links VIflyer : Gotta love the 'vark http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=113_1190006764&p=1 Vi
26 SCAT15F : ...Just to clarify how fast the F-4 actually is at low-level; Official F4H-1 Phantom (Sageburner) speed record at low level: 1961 August 28 : world sp
27 KC135TopBoom : There were plans to use this to blow over radar antennas. If you were low enough, you could sneak up on the radar site at M 1.0+, and they would not
28 Sovietjet : I think the Tu-160 should be able to break M=1 at sea level but I have to double check.
29 Post contains links Keesje : a lot of engine and small wings help.. http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPV8WTgyEs
30 Baroque : " target=_blank>http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPV8WTgyEs Yes those buggers have given me a fright a few times when they used to "do" the Scot glens.
31 Post contains links Keesje : Backfire low pass: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhWU19etQM
32 Max Q : An interesting common thread is that all the fastest low level fighters are swing wing machines which is, of course logical with their ability to ache
33 747400sp : You got to be kitting me!
34 Hunterson : Loyalty is a good thing. The Super Hornet is definitely a great fighter, but certainly not that great. We can all choose the type of our choice, but i
35 MD-90 : That record still stands, btw. Flown at 125 feet.
36 SkySurfer : Just out of curiosity, and because it's getting late for me right now......what are peoples thoughts on the EE Lightning? Small wings, two big engines
37 Post contains links SANChaser : How about the SEPECAT Jaguar. I think its good for Mach 1.1. The Indian AF still uses it for low level strike duties. http://knowledgerush.com/kr/ency
38 Ex52tech : I would agree with that. No surprise here.
39 Post contains links Keesje : Indeed. No surprice (doesn't have to do anything with actual performance) An older well known fly low video, not the fastest but maybe the lowest.. h
40 Bsergonomics : OK, a question for the Taxi Drivers out there: At low level, the difference in speed sensation between Mach 1.1 or 1.5 isn't that great. So: What's th
41 Ex52tech : I was just trying to be the "Ugly American" I give credit where it is due, I just could not resist Bennett 123's posting.
42 Blackbird : I could be wrong here, but didn't an F-14 do Mach 2 once at low altitude? Blackbird
43 HaveBlue : I don't think anything has done Mach 2 at low altitude. May be wrong but I would be surprised if that is true.
44 Deskflier : The SAAB JA37 Viggen is another member of the "M1.2 on the deck club".
45 Nomadd22 : Not unless it was headed straight down.
46 Blackbird : HaveBlue, Never mind. I guess I was mistaken. EBJ1248650, Do you mean both planes clean? Or do you mean the F-105 with external loads? Blackbird
47 Post contains links DEVILFISH : May not be the fastest due to lone engine, but check this out..... http://doppelagent.de/extreme-tiefflieger http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-
48 RedFlyer : " target=_blank>http://www.patricksaviation.com/vide...1642/ Great video! That pilot has balls of stainless steel.
49 DL021 : Spatial orientation and awareness out the wazoo for this guy.
50 Post contains links Sonic67 : The fattest recorded speed on land was achieved by the Navy rocket sled Mach-9.This is probably not relevant but still cool to watch. http://www.youtu
51 Post contains images DEVILFISH : These deserve some photos.....
52 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.patricksaviation.com/vide...1642/ And brains of oatmeal. Keesje, isn't there a video out there some where of a French AF C
53 Post contains links Waterpolodan : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowzP5280mQ There's the KC135... that must have been a rush in the cockpit!
54 EBJ1248650 : Both planes clean. The F-105, like any other airplane, suffers from a lot of drag when external stores are loaded. Clean, both the RF-101C and F-105D
55 Nomadd22 : Air & Space admits their error in claiming the F-4H held the record and now say Greenamyer broke it on 24 Oct 1977 at 1590.45kph (988.27mph) with his
56 Spacepope : I don't consider that a "real" altitude. That's 700 feet below my house.
57 Acheron : I remember reading that the MiG-31 could do Mach 1.25 at sea level.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fastest Military Jet At Low Level?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fastest British Military Jet posted Thu Nov 2 2006 17:36:49 by N215AZ
Military Jet Down At RDU? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 21:36:06 by Zionstrat
RNoAF - Low Level Flying And Cool Afterburn Video posted Thu Oct 16 2008 14:43:29 by Mortyman
Military Jet Fuel posted Fri Oct 3 2008 05:39:40 by MileHighFlyer
Jet At YHM posted Tue May 6 2008 19:59:55 by Fly_yhm
An Iranian Military Jet Crashes Near Tehran posted Tue Apr 15 2008 00:01:09 by Beaucaire
Large Military Turboprop At LHR, 11.35am, 27Jan08 posted Sun Jan 27 2008 03:35:01 by LHR777
RNoAF Low Level Flying - F16 posted Sun Oct 7 2007 11:38:13 by Mortyman
Turkish Military Jet Crash In Western Turkey posted Fri Sep 21 2007 17:50:38 by Stickers
Cargo/Military L-1011 At SAN On 6-30-07? posted Sun Jul 1 2007 02:46:17 by Smitty747
Military Charter At Knzy Today posted Fri Mar 20 2009 21:44:49 by Mike89406
RNoAF - Low Level Flying And Cool Afterburn Video posted Thu Oct 16 2008 14:43:29 by Mortyman
Military Jet Fuel posted Fri Oct 3 2008 05:39:40 by MileHighFlyer
Jet At YHM posted Tue May 6 2008 19:59:55 by Fly_yhm
An Iranian Military Jet Crashes Near Tehran posted Tue Apr 15 2008 00:01:09 by Beaucaire
When The Weapon Is Just Jet Noise At Low Level posted Wed May 23 2007 00:14:38 by GDB
Fastest British Military Jet posted Thu Nov 2 2006 17:36:49 by N215AZ
Military Jet Down At RDU? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 21:36:06 by Zionstrat
Mind-Numbing Buccaneer Low-Level Fly-By posted Wed Sep 15 2010 09:23:08 by faro
Military Aircraft At MKE posted Sun May 17 2009 22:13:55 by Mke717spotter
Military Charter At Knzy Today posted Fri Mar 20 2009 21:44:49 by Mike89406
RNoAF - Low Level Flying And Cool Afterburn Video posted Thu Oct 16 2008 14:43:29 by Mortyman
Military Jet Fuel posted Fri Oct 3 2008 05:39:40 by MileHighFlyer
Jet At YHM posted Tue May 6 2008 19:59:55 by Fly_yhm
An Iranian Military Jet Crashes Near Tehran posted Tue Apr 15 2008 00:01:09 by Beaucaire

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format