Pages

Wednesday, 29 October 2025

The Battle of Britain, 1985

At the recent Wargame Developments Autumn Virtual Gathering, I gave a presentation about the 1985 Battle of Britain that was outlined in General Hackett's book THE THIRD WORLD WAR. I hope to turn the presentation into a YouTube video, but in the meantime, here is the outline of the information I covered in it.


The prediction …

According to General Hackett’s book The Third World War (published in 1978), the war would start on 4th August 1985. To defend UK airspace, the book made several assumptions that by 1985 the RAF would have the following assets:

  • Two squadrons of English Electric Lightning F.6s.
  • Considerable numbers of Panavia Tornado ADV aircraft would have replaced the McDonnell Douglas Phantoms previously used for air defence.
  • BAE Nimrod AEW would be in service.
  • Vickers VC-10 transports would have been converted for the air-to-air refuelling role.
  • Boeing KC-135 air-to-air refuelling tankers would have been purchased from the United States.
  • The number of SAMs in service would have been considerably enhanced by increased production and the diversion of overseas sales.
  • Two squadrons of EUROSAM (the Aster 30) would be in service.
  • New radar and command systems would be in place.

The air war began unofficially on 30th July when a Russian reconnaissance MiG-25 Foxbat approached UK airspace and a Tornado from Leuchars was sent to intercept it. The Russian aircraft turned away before it was intercepted and accelerated to Mach 2.5. Ground-based radar systems reported sporadic ECM interference during the incident, but AEW was able to maintain radar coverage.

Once the war started, the UK was subject to a series of Russian attacks that were intended to achieve the following objectives:

  1. The neutralization of UK air defences.
  2. The elimination of nuclear-capable land-based forces.
  3. The disruption of the command-and-control structure.
  4. The interception of transatlantic reinforcement flights to Europe.

As a result of these attacks, the ground-based radar systems were destroyed, AEW aircraft were shot down, and no European mainland radar systems were available to give early warning of Russian air attacks on the UK.

Tornados – supported by tankers – were forced to operate autonomous air patrols to intercept Russian attacks until replacement AEW and mobile ground-based radar systems became available. These air patrols were initially concentrated on the area to the northeast of Scotland but switched to the Baltic entrance into the North Sea as the Russian advanced in northern Europe.

Runways were subject to considerable damage due to cratering, but these were repaired by specialist repair units.

Most Russian low-level air attacks on airfields were shot down by Rapier SAM units defending the RAF’s airfields.

Russian medium-level air attacks were accompanied by considerable ECM.

The use of precision-guided air-launched stand-off ordnance was concentrated on specific types of targets.

  • Airfields, air defence radars, and command-and-control centres.
  • Ports and airports.
  • Factories producing aircraft and ordnance.
  • Central government buildings … including the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, and the Palace of Westminster.

By the afternoon of 12th August (the ninth day of the war) Russian air attacks on the UK effectively ended. Incoming Russian Backfires were turning for home as soon as they picked up intercepting Tornados.

The air defence of the UK had defeated the enemy … just!


The reality … 

RAF Strike Command was formed on 30th April 1968 by the merger of Bomber Command and Fighter Command, which became No. 1 Group and No. 11 Group respectively. Air Defence of the UK was in the hands of No. 11 Group (RAF Bentley Priory, Greater London).

During the early 1980s, the Group included the following RAF squadrons:

  • No. 5 Squadron: English Electric Lightning F.6: RAF Binbrook (Lincolnshire)
  • No. 11 Squadron: English Electric Lightning F.6: RAF Binbrook (Lincolnshire)
  • No. 23 Squadron: McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR.2: RAF Coningsby, (Lincolnshire) (until August 1982, when it moved to the Falkland Islands)
  • No. 29 Squadron: McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR.2: RAF Coningsby (Lincolnshire) (until October 1983 when it moved to the Falkland Islands)
  • No. 43 Squadron: McDonnell Douglas Phantom FG.1: RAF Leuchars (Fife)
  • No. 56 Squadron: McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR.2: RAF Wattisham (Suffolk)
  • No. 64 Squadron/228 OCU: McDonnell Douglas Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2: RAF Coningsby (Lincolnshire)
  • No. 74 Squadron: McDonnell Douglas Phantom F-4J(UK): RAF Wattisham (Suffolk) (from October 1984)
  • No. 111 Squadron: McDonnell Douglas Phantom FG.1: RAF Leuchars (Fife)

From 1983 to 1986, eighty-eight BAE Hawks T1s operated by various training squadrons (mainly No.4 Flying Training School, RAF Valley (Anglesey)) were equipped as short-range interceptor aircraft and modified to carry two AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in addition to a 30 mm ADEN centre-mounted under-fuselage gun pod.

In addition, SAMs were operated by several RAF squadrons in the UK:

  • No. 25 Squadron: Bristol Bloodhound: RAF Wyton (Cambridgeshire) (defending RAF Barkston Heath (Lincolnshire), RAF Wattisham (Suffolk), and RAF Wyton (Cambridgeshire))
  • No. 27 Squadron: BAC Rapier: RAF Leuchars (Fife)
  • No. 66 Squadron: BAC Rapier: HQ RAF West Raynham (Norfolk) (defending RAF Bentwaters (Suffolk) and RAF Woodbridge (Suffolk))
  • No. 85 Squadron: Bristol Bloodhound: HQ RAF West Raynham (Norfolk) (defending RAF West Raynham (Norfolk), RAF North Coates (Lincolnshire), and RAF Bawdsey (Suffolk))

In support were:

  • No.8 Squadron: 12 Avro Shackelton AEW.2: RAF Lossiemouth (Moray) … equipped with a third-hand AEW radar, the AN/APS-20 that had first been introduced into service in the USA in 1945 and previously fitted to Royal Navy’s Douglas AD-4W Skyraider AEW.1 and Fairey Gannet AEW.3 aircraft!
  • No. 55 Squadron: 12 Handley Page Victor K.2 air-to-air refuelling aircraft: RAF Marham (Norfolk)
  • No. 57 Squadron: 12 Handley Page Victor K.2 air-to-air refuelling aircraft: RAF Marham (Norfolk)
  • No. 101 Squadron: 13 Vickers VC10 C.1K two-point tanker/transports: RAF Brize Norton (Oxfordshire)
  • No. 216 Squadron: 9 Lockheed Tristar KC.1 air-to-air refuelling aircraft: RAF Brize Norton (Oxfordshire)

The following ground-based radar stations were available to feed data into the air defence system:

  • RAF Saxa Vord (Shetland Islands)
  • RAF Buchan (Aberdeenshire)
  • RAF Boulmer (Northumberland)
  • RAF Staxton Wood (Yorkshire)
  • RAF Neatishead (Norfolk)
  • RAF Benbecula (Outer Hebrides)

Summary of air defence assets:

  • 2 x English Electric Lightning F.6 short-range interceptor squadrons
  • 7 x McDonnell Douglas Phantom long-range interceptor squadrons
  • 2/3 x BAE Hawks T1 reserve interceptor squadrons
  • 2 x Bristol Bloodhound medium-range SAM squadrons
  • 2 x BAC Rapier short-range SAM squadrons


RAF 1985 equipment data

  • The English Electric Lightning F.6 had a maximum speed of 1,500 mph, a supersonic combat range of 155 miles and was armed with 2 x 30 mm ADEN cannon and 2 x de Havilland Firestreak or Red Top AAMs. (In theory, if moving at its maximum speed, the aircraft would take 6.2 minutes to reach its combat range.)
  • The McDonnell Douglas Phantom had a maximum speed of 1,386 mph, a combat range of 370 miles and was armed with 6 x AIM-7 Sparrow or Skyflash AAMs, 4 x AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, and a 20 mm SUU-23/A gun pod. (In theory, if moving at its maximum speed, the aircraft would take 16 minutes to reach its combat range.)
  • The BAE Hawk T1 had a maximum speed of 644 mph and a range of 1,500 miles and was armed with 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs and a 30mm ADEN gun pod.
  • The Bristol Bloodhound had a maximum speed of 2,070 mph and a combat range of 120 miles. (In theory, if moving at its maximum speed, the missile would take 3.5 minutes to reach its combat range.)
  • The BAC Rapier had a maximum speed of 2,300 mph and a combat range of 5 miles. (In theory, if moving at its maximum speed, the missile would take 7.8 seconds to reach its combat range.)

14 comments:

  1. BOB,
    I do not think we'll ever see a 'Third World War' - if a war does start I think it will be fought out very quickly with Nuclear Armaments. Regards. KEV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kev Robertson (Kev),

      I wish that I could be as sure that there isn’t going to be another major war. In Europe, most nations seem to be planning for conflict to break out by the end of the decade. The general assumption seems to be that it will start as a conventional war, with the use of nuclear weapons only being used if - or when - one side begins to think that it cannot win a conventional war.

      My researches did look at the UK’s present air defences … and in many ways it’s as bad as - and possibly worse than - it was in 1985.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  2. Bob -
    What did you think of Gen. Hackett's ... novel? I read it not long after it became available in this country, round about 1980. I even bought his sequel, which purported to be an historiographical analysis of the events of the first book, 'The Untold Story'.

    An interesting read, but one had to get past some bizarre premises (I still think) to suspend disbelief. For an attempt to warn of impending disaster, and the need to expand NATO's military and reach, the narrative offered a pretty glib defeat of the WARPAC forces... And the concluding nuclear exchange? Come on!

    I forget who was - an American - said years before that the US 'doctrine' in respect of a war with the Soviet Union: 'We will fight with conventional weapons until we are losing; then we will fight with chemical weapons until we are losing; then we will blow up the world'. Judging by the insanity that has descended upon Washington DC in the last 30 years, echoed by the servile members of NATO, if there has been any change, it has been for the worse. There are crazies in high places who imagine they can WIN a nuclear war! Un-bally-believable.

    As a schoolboy I read the novel 'Fail-Safe' (published 1962), which also ended with the exchange of nukes on single cities (New York for Moscow; c.f. Hackett's Birmingham [why Birmingham?!] for Minsk [Why Minsk??!]). Dr James Avery Joyce offers an interesting critique of Hackett's thesis in his book 'The War Machine: The Case Against the Arms Race' (1980). The 'Fail-Safe' novel gets its hatchet job (equally deserved) in Anatole Rapoport's introduction to the Pelican edition of Clausewitz's 'On War'. This was in the context of Rapoport demolition of the inhuman nutjob notions of one Herman Kahn (his 43 steps - I'm not making this up!).

    As the decades have gone by, one becomes increasingly persuaded that NATO is nothing more than corporate empire building, that is to say: money-making grift. NATO ceased to be (if it seriously ever was) a 'defensive alliance' in 1990. I wish my own country would steer well clear of it!

    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archduke Piccolo (Ion),

      I first read Hackett's books when they were published, and if memory serves me correctly, at the time the scenario they set out seemed all too possible. However, on re-reading them recently, the scenario seems somewhat flawed and the events described no longer feel quite as realistic as they had done.

      Part of this may down to the events of the Falklands War, where the UK's European NATO 'Allies' seemed indifferent - and in some instances, hostile - to the UK's decision to take military action against the Argentine invaders. Only the US helped ... and even then, the support was not universal.

      The 'peace dividend' after the collapse of the USSR was seized by many European countries as a reason to switch resources from defence to other more pressing social spending. In Germany - after reunification - the armed forces were drastically reduced so that the spending could be used to pay for the re-integration of the former East German state into Federal Germany. One thing that President Trump did identify correctly - in my opinion - was that many NATO countries had come to reply far too much on the protection of the US military 'umbrella' than on their own armed forces.

      I remember the quote that you mention in your comment ... and at the time I think that it summed up what was likely to have happened had the Cold War gone hot. I never read FAIL SAFE but I have seen the film - along with DOCTOR STRANGELOVE - and the events seemed very plausible in the febrile atmosphere of the Cold War.

      Today, much of 'old' NATO feels like it is trying to catch up. (I have excluded the newer members who are closer to the Russian 'threat' and who have tended not to downgrade their military spending.) They realise that they need to spend more money on defence but are so tied in to large social spending policies that they are experiencing problems doing so. I am no longer sure that NATO as such is much more than a talking shop for some nations and has lost its original purpose and need either replacing or a complete rebuild from the ground up.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
    2. Ion, 'why nuke Birmingham'? If you had been there you wouldn't need to ask...

      Delete
    3. Gary S -
      OK - fair point. But then, would it be a fair exchange for Minsk?
      But did General Hackett seriously think that some such exchange of nuclear blows would lead to both sides hollering 'uncle'? Did anyone else? I am of course distinguishing between what people say or write with what they really believe. And this is quite apart from the casual attitude towards two major cities and the people therein being reduced to radioactive cinders. Herman Kahn has a lot to answer for.

      Mind you, the European 'leadership's' equally casual attitude towards the horror that is Gaza - Israel's abattoir - I guess nothing from today's politicians - worthless when not positively monstrous - should surprise me.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
    4. Gary S,

      Whilst I agree that the last time I visited Birmingham, I was not impressed by the city (the road system seemed to be designed by someone who didn't like car drivers!), it makes a perfect target for a nuclear attack as it is the second largest city in England and it was the centre of a major industrial centre.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
    5. Archduke Piccolo (Ion),

      I understand that Minsk and Birmingham are similar cities, hence the idea that the destruction of both in a tit-for-tat exchange sort of makes sense. As for the viability of if being a way that both side might realise that if they don't stop, mutual destruction will result ... well, on that I am not sure. I do wonder how much General Hackett's thinking might have been influenced by books like FAIL SAFE. Personally, I think that once the nuclear genie is out of the box, it will be game over for everyone.

      I will make no comment about politicians of any stripe or nation other than to say my experience of working for several does not give me a great deal of confidence in their ability to make serious decisions that have long-term consequences.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  3. Bob -
    I've found the actual quote by a former US Deputy Secretary of Defence, a Mr Morton Halperin:
    "The NATO doctrine is to fight with conventional arms until we are losing, then to fight with nuclear tacticals until we are losing, and then to blow up the world." OK, I was mistaken about the chemicals, but you get the picture.
    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archduke Piccolo (Ion),

      Thanks for the full quote and attribution. I suspect that I might need to use it at some point!

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  4. My copy of Hackett seems to have been misplaced but I don't recall much detail about the air war, so thank you for the summary. I'm amazed we still had so many Phantoms in the mid 80s, I guess it is easy to forget how long ago it really was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin Rapier,

      Re-reading Hackett's books was an interesting experience, and I am far less convinced by them now than I was back in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

      The Phantom also formed the backbone of the UK's contribution to NATO, and remained so until the introduction into service of the Tornado ... many years later than expected.

      It is a sobering thought that the RAF's current fleet of interceptors has been in service since 2005 and that of the 160 bought, about a third still remain in service.

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete
  5. This list of our 1970s 1980s air defences reads like my wants list as a small boy from Airfix catalogues of the 1970s … Bristol Bloodhound … English Electric Lightning …

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark, Man of TIN,

      As a child, I had models of the Lightning (a personal favourite of mine!), the Phantom, and the Bloodhound set. I only wish that Airfix had added a model of the Rapier!

      All the best,

      Bob

      Delete

Thank you for leaving a comment. Please note that any comments that are spam or contain phishing messages or that come from Google Accounts that are 'Unknown' will be deleted.