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
skrip00    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/20/2006 12:27:43 AM
Or F-136... Keep that program alive!
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/20/2006 12:34:35 AM
(heh heh...it's always the smallest of typos that throws the world into disarray...) The RB.199 was a very compact little powerhouse, even featuring unique thrust reversers on the Tornado, not something very many combat aircraft have (I believe the Viggen has one also, venting through those slits under the tailfin...?), and is very useful for reducing landing rolls. As per the Hawk airframe, back in the days when the Hawk 200 was ready for production (a dedicated light fighter/attack platform), there were a handful of suggestions that a slightly de-rated RB.199 would've fit the airframe nicely (although the thrust reverser would most likely not be installed, due to the Hawk's tailplane and fin lay out), and offered considerable performance from such a lightweight. For that matter, I'm surprised the USN didn't go for a de-rated, non-afterburning F404 for its T-45 Goshawks. Digging around further, I've found similar data which offers that the Tornado F.3 uses 7900kg thrust (just over 17,400pounds) RB.199 34R Mk104 engines. Eurojet EJ200 goes to around 20,000pounds (although has a tad more room for growth, but could still be out-done by the F414 of Super Hornets). Sweden's Gripen uses a license-built copy of the F404, as the RM12, pushing at 18,100pounds thrust. I would think that, minimally, the RB.199 would be able to at least reach the 18,000pounds mark (although those Euros and their metric dependancy would say 8200kg). But seeing as the Tornado would be the only platform for it because of the integrated thrust reverser (everyone else opting for F404s, rebuilt J79s, or other similar engines), there's really no sense to develop the engine further...unless Germany gets others to agree to the Typhoon delays, requiring Tornados to soldier on longer.
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/20/2006 1:03:07 AM
My mistake on the TU being an RB.199. I copied it out of the database wrong. :) From what I see the derated F404 is still 87" in length while the F405 is 76.6" and another 3.9" thinner in diameter. That would of required quite alot of tweaking by the looks of it. They would of stuck with the TA-4S if they wanted that much power. And to think the TA-4S was truly hardened for carrier use, too... One thing to point out on the F414. The EJ200 is 200 pounds less in weight and revs out to its limiter a few seconds faster than the F414. It might now sound like much, but it definitely makes for the better thrill ride. And one other drawback about the F414, it needs alot of airflow to get its 30-odd percent of boost over the F404. It probably would take another 10% bigger throat over the EJ200, which means you wouldn't probably want to outguess which one to choose for the expansion. I'm surprised the RB.199 didn't rev out quicker than either one, but that engine all around seems to have been built pretty conservative in nature even though its one real hot running engine.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    Marineflieger   1/20/2006 2:33:19 AM
Unless a Typhoon or F-35 can lug around two Kormoran anti-ship missiles, then the Tornado IDS will soldier on for many more years.
 
Quote    Reply

Iano_returns    RE: Tornado replacement   1/20/2006 5:57:36 AM
Look I myself like the Tornado very much (at least the GR) and think its served us very well. It'll be a sad day when it goes... But it can't soldier on forever! I think we can agree for the UK (and probably most other nations) there are going to be different types of fast jet we need: Fighter-interceptor (RAF) for air to air - We've already picked Eurofighter Fighter-bomber (RAF) for ground attack & maritimestrike - ??? Attack fighter (RAF) for CAS & coastal combat - we've picked F35 STOVL for this Naval fighter (RN) multirole - we've picked F35 but CV version wouldve been much better than STOVL for this role. So what we are on about really is what will be the fighter bomber. Agreed Tornado as it is doing well in that role and other options arent available at the mo. But realistically in the future we are looking at either F35 A version (the USAF version) or Eurofighter (probably modified with 2 seats and hopefully swingwing for low level). My money goes on Eurofighter GR1 I gotta say, sad though it'll be to see the fin go!
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE: Tornado replacement   1/20/2006 7:05:14 AM
Perhaps the UK should ditch the EU and work with Australia on a maritime strike aircraft. The Tornado and the F-111 are very similar in a lot of respects.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE: Tornado replacement   1/21/2006 1:03:03 AM
Or Oz could just buy up several sqns of IDS and replace the Pig with the Fin. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

skrip00    RE: Tornado replacement   1/21/2006 1:14:24 AM
I still think they should work together for a "Superfin" project. New engines, airframe, avionics, radar. Make it a multi-role swing wing. It will be cheaper than the Typhoon mess! Not to mention useful in bomb trucking. Even though the USAF is moving the the F-35... they still have a conventional bomber fleet and F-15Es for their heavy mud moving. The Euros dont. This is the best route for them! :)
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/21/2006 9:54:22 PM
Why the need to install newer, more powerful engines? The IDS can fly at M1.4 and has ample thrust to lug two Hunting JP233's as well as two Hindenburger's. Doesn't seem to want for thrust. It is already somewhat of a Ferrari of mud movers.
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/22/2006 7:33:38 AM
"From what I see the derated F404 is still 87" in length while the F405 is 76.6"" Jetpipe and exhaust nozzle are parts of F404 engine, but at least in Mk 50 Hawk the jetpipe is part of aircraft, not the Adour engine. (And in this picture link it seems to be the same with F405) So mayby the lenght is not a factor. -- "The EJ200 is 200 pounds less in weight and revs out to its limiter a few seconds faster than the F414." Mayby true, but F404 is the most fast reving engine around.
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:And installing EJ200s (will they fit without too much redesign?) -doggtag   1/22/2006 11:38:14 AM
That was true until the F414 became electronically restricted. The prototypes were not slower than an F404. I bet an unrestricted EJ200 would also outspin the F404. Modern engines have all those fancy dancy controllers to keep them from shredding.
 
Quote    Reply

azmike    RE: Tornado replacement   1/22/2006 12:16:26 PM
"Perhaps the UK should ditch the EU and work with Australia on a maritime strike aircraft. The Tornado and the F-111 are very similar in a lot of respects". Maybe both of you could pressure the DoD to procure the F-123 (extended YF-23) and also replace our F-15Es in addition to your Tonados and F-111s? Of course we have at least 15 years life left in the Es.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE: Tornado replacement   1/22/2006 12:40:14 PM
Maybe both of you could pressure the DoD to procure the F-123 (extended YF-23) and also replace our F-15Es in addition to your Tonados and F-111s? Of course we have at least 15 years life left in the Es. And the likelihood of Uncle Sam doing what the UK and Oz wants is Buckley's to the power of less. We will be getting the F-35A mud muppet and there isn't a heck of a lot we can do about it.
 
Quote    Reply

azmike    RE: Tornado replacement   1/22/2006 6:03:15 PM
"And the likelihood of Uncle Sam doing what the UK and Oz wants is Buckley's to the power of less. We will be getting the F-35A mud muppet and there isn't a heck of a lot we can do about it". I know. I just wanted someone else to yell at them. I was hoping that you could get the 123 in addition to the 35s.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Is it wrong to love the Panavia Tornado?   1/23/2006 12:45:21 AM
No, the Tornado offers some cappasities that the Typhoon and the other ECDs do not. I also like the Tornado, but I like the ADV type.
 
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