The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is it wrong to love the Panavia Tornado?
skrip00    1/18/2006 10:15:37 PM
Something about that aircraft that I love. Its design is sleek, and it can truck a good bomb load. Flies low and fast and penetrates deep into enemy airspace.

Kinda reminds me of a time when aircraft had to fly lower than the trees to avoid tracers and missiles to deliver bombloads on target in support of friendlies.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
ArtyEngineer    RE:Replacement date? -Yimmy   1/19/2006 8:47:53 PM
One thing I forgot, USMC Harriers were the first combat aircraft to be based in country in A'stan at Bagram airbase precisely because of there STOVL capabilities and the absolute Sh!t state the airfield was in.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Replacement date?   1/19/2006 9:14:20 PM
->"No matter what upgrades are stuffed into a Tornado Airframe, it aint gonna beat the versatility of an F 35." Why is that? Wht makes an F35 so versitile that is not achievable by a Tornado?" ->"STOVL and the associated ability for dispersed/rough-field Ops I think would be the biggest one. Secondly, Within Visual Range air to air - I think everyone agrees that the Tornada Airframe is not a "Mix it up , up close and personal" type of airframe." -------------- To jump in here, not everyone is buying large numbers of the F-35 in STOVL model. And in an era where HMCS/HOBS combos will be the norm (anyone else seen that Striker helmet Typhoon pilots will wear? Any reason it can't be used in other aircraft?), what does it matter then how much less-maneuverable a given aircraft is WVR? On comparing features (pluses and minuses) of the Tornado vs F-35 (they've gotta get a name for that thing!): Tornado has two engines, more favorable for the safety-conscious. Even though the F-35's engine is still supposed to be miles ahead in reliability, it's still just one engine, even if as powerful as both the Tornado's engines (notice that, even though the single-engined F-20 was a far better overall aircraft {in performance, capability, and reliability} than its twin-engine F-5 predecessor, no one bought the F-20 and dozens of F-5s are still flying). As for payload: the Tornado is not bound by stealth constraints, and after the opening phase of a heated exchange when most adversary anti-air is taken down, stealth is no longer a necessity. And no other aircraft except the B-1 can carry a larger payload hanging from its belly alone (not counting underwing). link As for why can't a future Tornado airframe operate in all the roles of the previous models: I don't see why not. When they stretched the airframe of the ADV, it was primarily to incorporate 4 BVR AAMs underneath. And modern avionics certainly should be able give the same current capability in less volume, allowing to incorporate a better multi-mode radar (and additional surface attack systems) at least on par with the F-35 (I think the Tornado has a larger radome, so it should get even more capability). And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) should give the airfame a suitable boost in thrust. Plus, the longer airframe should allow a slightly greater carriage than what the IDS/GR models carried. There is also the potential for a more formidable Wild Weasel SEAD aircraft (improvement over the ECR) built off this airframe (Neuron UCAVs are still years away...providing there are no delays). And seeing as there won't be many (any?) 2-seat F-35s available, having the backseater in a Tornado (or any two-seat aircraft, for that matter) frees the pilot from being too over-tasked during roles such as SEAD, targetting, and many other concerns in long-range strike missions. We (Everyone, not just the US) won't always need stealth for a given mission (mostly, not after we've beaten an enemy's air defense capabilities into extinction). And except for the STOVL model, stealth (and claimed reliability) really is the only extra advantage the F-35 gains. Anyone have any reliably accurate figures on payload/range comparison for these two aircraft (specifically, how much fuel does each require to carry a given payload the same distance, as well as maximum payloads and ranges)?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Replacement date?   1/19/2006 9:46:33 PM
"I agree that current events cant be taken as indicative of future conflicts, remember pre vietnam when missiles made guns obsolete!!!!!!" That is an awful example - Vietnam proved the opposite, and in all future wars aircraft cannon have been common.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Replacement date? - Doggtag   1/19/2006 9:50:27 PM
Good points well made, dont get me wrong I LOVE the Tornado, I just think the F35 gives a few more options in the same airframe. Hence I consider it more versatile. As a second day of the war aircraft, thats when the Tornado in fully laden Bomb Truck mode off to take care of business may be more suitable About Striker Helmet, it is a secondary option for the F22 and F35 I believe. Has some neet features, but in order to utilise wouuld require modifications to the aircraft to be used in. I believe it gives the ability to look through your own aircraft ie. through the wing and through the pit floor, be means of cameras on parts of the airframe, well thats at least what was planned, the way most Eurofighter things are its probably a Trance 3 upgrade.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Replacement date? - Yimmy   1/19/2006 9:55:14 PM
I know it proved the opposite, I was trying to be ironic ;) I meant prior to the experience gained in vietnam it was believed that cannons were obsolete due to the advances in missile technology and the way it was thought air to air combat would be fought. That belief was false. The current "Lessons" from Iraq and A;stan could equally well be false.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Replacement date? - Yimmy   1/19/2006 10:49:13 PM
Hmm, yes, well I am sure those who advocated not taking a cannon were idiots. While I don't think it idiotic to rule out a second Falklands Conflict - even if one were to occur, we don't need STOL ability at Stanley anymore. I do agree that the F35 has advantages over the Tornado where it comes to STOL and dogfighting, but then, the F35 is akin to the F16, while the Tornado is akin to the F111. They are different aircraft for different missions. The RAF could operate perfectly with ~80 Typhoon Tranch 2 air superiority fighters, ~80 F35 multi-role fighter bombers and ~80 Tornado GR.5 long range srike aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Replacement date? - Yimmy   1/19/2006 10:49:57 PM
On second thoughts, my numbers were too low. I was thinking of the 232 figure for Eurofighters, and forgot about the F35 being in addition.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Replacement date? - Yimmy   1/19/2006 10:59:21 PM
Agree, think Typhoon, Tornado and F35 (It really needs a name) would be a good force mix for the RAF. No idea about numbers of each though. Im surew the loggies would prefer a two airframe fleet but tough, the Tornado has a lot of life left in it.
 
Quote    Reply

Weasel    Tornado_ a story   1/19/2006 11:07:43 PM
When I was a kid, I fell in love with that plane. I wrote away to the guys in Munich asking for info... Didn't think much else of it until 8 months later I got a parcel. In it was a blank white covered glossy book with every piece of information ever released to or generated by the media and the public on the Tornado, including schematics, unclassified manuals, etc, etc... I felt like a kid in the "Make a Wish" program. It was fantastic and the stuff I learnt from that tomb, I still use today, especially with regard to principles in engine design and network architecture. It is an amazing plane, but the people behind it were something extra special.
 
Quote    Reply

Somerset    RE:F35 Name   1/19/2006 11:18:40 PM
What about the TEMPEST, (keeping with the theme of violent storms, Tornado and Typhoon.) It also begins with a 'T'. Just a thought.
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/19/2006 11:19:10 PM
And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) Some redesign is necessary as the EJ200's are somewhat wider in diameter (35.5" versus 29.6") and longer (130" versus 157") than the RB.99 dimensions. (Note: The ADV's RB.99 is 142" in length.) This will cause a slight rearward shift in the plane's center of gravity, which alone requires quite alot of modelling to pull off. The RB.99 is 2,260 pounds in weight versus the 2,286 pounds, so it won't change much for the overall weight. Quite frankly, both of these Eurocentric engines blow away the American counterparts in size and weights. Funny statistic when you think about the RB.99, even the Goshawk F405 engine is an inch wider! :)
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:F35 Name   1/19/2006 11:22:03 PM
I'm quite partial to F-35A Mud Muppet myself.
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:F35 Name - IMO it should be Python (nt)   1/19/2006 11:22:45 PM
No text of value here. Nothing to read, hence the NT = No Text.
 
Quote    Reply

Weasel    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/19/2006 11:26:29 PM
"... Some redesign is necessary as the EJ200's are somewhat wider in diameter (35.5" versus 29.6") and longer (130" versus 157") than the RB.99 dimensions. (Note: The ADV's RB.99 is 142" in length.) This will cause a slight rearward shift in the plane's center of gravity, which alone requires quite alot of modelling to pull off. The RB.99 is 2,260 pounds in weight versus the 2,286 pounds, so it won't change much for the overall weight. Quite frankly, both of these Eurocentric engines blow away the American counterparts in size and weights. .." So stretch it the other way and even it out..... Besides, you are going to have to re-do the whole air intake assembly and configuration to suit a new supercruise class GT anyway, right? cheers W
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/19/2006 11:29:58 PM
By then you may as well just redesign the tail for a single F119 or F135.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy