Fastest Military Jet At Low Level?

Max Q · Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:58 am

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

ebj1248650 · Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:11 pm

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.

nomadd22 · Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:32 pm

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

gsosbee · Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:00 pm

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.

TheSonntag · Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:04 pm

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

ferrypilot · Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:17 am

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

SCAT15F · Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:07 am

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.

kc135topboom · Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:22 am

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

bennett123 · Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:24 am

Are you able to put any numbers on those?.

ptrjong · Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:46 pm

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.

The F9F Cougar? No it doesn't.

Peter Smile

474218 · Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:05 pm

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.

columba · Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:19 pm

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.

nomadd22 · Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:19 pm

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.

SCAT15F · Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:55 pm

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.

A342 · Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:32 pm

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

kc135topboom · Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:50 am

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.

bennett123 · Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:11 pm

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

CHRISBA777ER · Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:35 pm

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.

SCAT15F · Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:20 pm

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

AirRyan · Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:40 pm

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

Stoney · Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:18 pm

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...

baroque · Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:16 am

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.

Max Q · Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:48 am

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

hunterson · Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:31 am

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.

ptrjong · Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:03 am

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

VIflyer · Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:13 am

Gotta love the 'vark

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=113_1190006764&p=1

Vi

SCAT15F · Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:53 am

...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 speed record for three kilometers at less than 100meters altitude, 907.769 mph at Holloman AFB Lt. Huntington Hardisty USN, pilot and Lt. Earl H. DeEsch USN, RIO.

kc135topboom · Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:32 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 21):
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.

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 paint you until it was to late. The schock wave could actually blow the radar antenna off its pedistal, and shut down that site for a few hours.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 26):
Official F4H-1 Phantom (Sageburner) speed record at low level:

IIRC, after the DOD implemented the new MDS system in 1962, the F4H-1 became the F-4B (the USAF version F-4C was very close to the F-4B, sharing the same engines). The later versions like the F-4D/E/F/J/K/N versions were all even faster than the F/RF-4B/Cs on the deck.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
I still think the F-111 may be the fastest 'on the deck'

Of all the F-111 versions, the SAC FB-111A (later to be redesignated as TAC F-111G, and now with the RAAF) was the fastest, and had the longest legs on the deck (abvout 45 minutes at full burner on the deck, if it started with full fuel and no external fuel tanks). However, it could not carry fuel tanks on stations 4 & 5 and fully sweep the wings (but could carry some weapons types like SRAMs or B-61s at these stations with fully swept wings). To do that, the external fuel tanks needed to mount on stations 3 & 6 and then it could sweep the wings fully.

sovietjet · Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:56 pm

I think the Tu-160 should be able to break M=1 at sea level but I have to double check.

keesje · Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:50 pm

a lot of engine and small wings help..

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPV8WTgyEs

baroque · Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:03 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
a lot of engine and small wings help..

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. Which I why I think the TSR-2 might have been the fastest had its development continued. It was built like a brick **** house and designed for low level as I understand. It could probably have stood more shaking than the swing wing efforts.

keesje · Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:57 pm

Backfire low pass: http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhWU19etQM

Max Q · Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:16 pm

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 acheive considerably greater sweepback and less drag in the 'thick' air at low altitude.

747400sp · Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:56 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 17):
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.

You got to be kitting me! Silly

hunterson · Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:20 am

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 it does not eally mean that any of us has the undisputed truth up our sleeves. So let us chill out and think again about the subject matter. It could be interesting for a change !!!

MD-90 · Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:29 am

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 26):
Official F4H-1 Phantom (Sageburner) speed record at low level:

1961 August 28 : world speed record for three kilometers at less than 100meters altitude, 907.769 mph at Holloman AFB Lt. Huntington Hardisty USN, pilot and Lt. Earl H. DeEsch USN, RIO.

That record still stands, btw. Flown at 125 feet.

skysurfer · Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:04 am

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...not the most streamlined of planes but still...

Cheers

Stu

SANChaser · Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:05 pm

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/encyclopedia/SEPECAT_Jaguar/

ex52tech · Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:43 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
I still think the F-111 may be the fastest 'on the deck'

I would agree with that.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 16):
I was surprised that ALL of the 10 fastest were from the US.

No surprise here. duck

keesje · Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:22 pm

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 38):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 16):
I was surprised that ALL of the 10 fastest were from the US.

No surprise here.

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..
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Sir%20Franzis%20Drake/1642/

bsergonomics · Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:30 am

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 the best (easiest, most comfortable, most reliable etc.) fast jet to fly fast at low level (just for argument's sake, we'll define 'low level' as being 100 feet AGL or below)?

Answers on a postcard, please...

ex52tech · Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:30 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
Indeed. No surprice (doesn't have to do anything with actual performance)

I was just trying to be the "Ugly American" white

I give credit where it is due, I just could not resist Bennett 123's posting.

Blackbird · Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:04 pm

I could be wrong here, but didn't an F-14 do Mach 2 once at low altitude?

Blackbird

HaveBlue · Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:26 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 42):
I could be wrong here, but didn't an F-14 do Mach 2 once at low altitude?

Blackbird

I don't think anything has done Mach 2 at low altitude. May be wrong but I would be surprised if that is true.

deskflier · Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 24):
1. F-111 - Mach 1.2
1. F-14 - Mach 1.2
1. Tornado - Mach 1.2

The SAAB JA37 Viggen is another member of the "M1.2 on the deck club".

nomadd22 · Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:05 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 42):
I could be wrong here, but didn't an F-14 do Mach 2 once at low altitude?

Not unless it was headed straight down.

Blackbird · Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:22 am

HaveBlue,

Quote:
I don't think anything has done Mach 2 at low altitude. May be wrong but I would be surprised if that is true.

Never mind. I guess I was mistaken.

EBJ1248650,

Quote:
I understand the RF-101C at low level was faster than the F-105, which was mighty fast itself.

Do you mean both planes clean? Or do you mean the F-105 with external loads?

Blackbird

Devilfish · Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:31 am

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-t-11766.html

redflyer · Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:59 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
An older well known fly low video, not the fastest but maybe the lowest..
http://www.patricksaviation.com/vide...1642/

Great video! That pilot has balls of stainless steel.

dl021 · Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:02 pm

Spatial orientation and awareness out the wazoo for this guy.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net