Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tornado

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Beautiful pics (all of them). Thx for sharing. Amazing colors. What are you/he using?

    Leave a comment:


  • frankvw
    replied
    Let's all get along, it's better that way

    Leave a comment:


  • PLA-MKII
    replied
    I miss Phantom IIs posts. There is a certain beauty and design wisdom with planes of that era that later generations simply lack.

    PS: what's Miss Upton doing there?
    PPS: I replaced nobody, I've been here for more than a decade. Long before most posters.
    Last edited by frankvw; 1st October 2015, 12:01. Reason: Edited by moderator

    Leave a comment:


  • PhantomII
    replied
    Y-20,

    You're a very strange person...lol.

    Duggy,

    Nice photo! (I mean set of photos...)

    I happen to think the Tornado is quite a nice looking bird....perhaps you agree?

    Leave a comment:


  • Robbiesmurf
    replied
    Originally posted by Duggy View Post
    Thanks -
    OOPS
    Your wife?

    Leave a comment:


  • Y-20 Bacon
    replied
    Originally posted by PhantomII View Post

    Wrong. I occasionally learn new things (hopefully that's why everyone comes here), but I avoid "Airplane A" vs. "Airplane B" threads for the reasons I listed above. Your opinions on me are just that......yours.
    again being elitist. you must have asspergers, autism or something.
    the original post was talking about the ADV's troubled history in terms of operationability and maintainance which forced the Saudis and Italians to opt for F-15s and other things
    but you keep raging about airplane a vs airplane b threads from a bygone era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Duggy
    replied
    Thanks - A few more.




    OOPS



    Leave a comment:


  • PhantomII
    replied
    Those photos are simply stunning! Thanks for sharing!

    The last one is interesting......looks like the Litening pod is mounted on the centerline hardpoint. (Any info on whether that's the current fit for Luftwaffe Tornados?

    I guess it's the OCD in me, but I've never understood why targeting pods often seem to be located in places that would physically limit carriage of other stores. Take for example the RAF's GR.4's....if the targeting pod is mounted on the centerline doesn't that leave room for more Paveway IV's or Brimstone racks? Why mount it on one of the forward positions on the larger two fuselage pylons?

    Maybe they prefer to have the pod on the side of the jet that orbits are carried out on (direction wise)? (totally guessing here as I honestly have no idea)

    Leave a comment:


  • Duggy
    replied
    Enjoy
















    Leave a comment:


  • PhantomII
    replied
    and yet you keep coming back. either it means you really love this forum or you're a masochist. either is fine

    Wrong. I occasionally learn new things (hopefully that's why everyone comes here), but I avoid "Airplane A" vs. "Airplane B" threads for the reasons I listed above. Your opinions on me are just that......yours. They mean little to me aside from attempts to derail a thread.

    Anyways...

    Anyone else read the special? I'm especially curious on the opinions of those who know a fair amount about the aircraft. It felt to me like an excellent introduction as well as retrospective on the Tornado, both the program overall and the aircraft itself. The various customer nations seemed fairly evenly covered as well, which I thought added nice variety to the magazine.

    Oh and thanks to those who took part in the discussion on the Foxhunter...that pretty much cleared up my suspicions on the F.2 delays. The notion of the IDS having the ADV's stretched fuselage is certainly an interesting one. I'm not sure how often it occurred during their respective service lives, but DACT between F.3s & GR.1/GR.4's would be an interesting subject. Not so much to demonstrate the "superior aircraft", but just to see how much of a difference there was in how each flew and the tactics they used against one another. I'd assume the F.3 would've made a decent Soviet interceptor simulator (Foxbat, Foxhound, etc.) in some ways. I suppose I'll just have to seek out a former Tornado crew and ask them!

    Leave a comment:


  • MSphere
    replied
    Originally posted by Robbiesmurf View Post
    MSphere, why is one of the two of your images reversed?
    No idea, to be honest.. I have thought there were two of them so I have uploaded both only to find out that the latter one is just a reversed version of the former. So i have deleted it.. but it remained uploaded here..

    Leave a comment:


  • MadRat
    replied
    Tornado could pursue targets at low altitude speeds no other fighter could reach with a combat load. At least it got that right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robbiesmurf
    replied
    MSphere, why is one of the two of your images reversed?

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Still... HAPPY 40th birthday TONKA!

    Leave a comment:


  • Y-20 Bacon
    replied
    Originally posted by PhantomII View Post
    Y-20, I'm not being elitist. I'm simply stating a fact. I've been on this forum for a very long time now, and I constantly see debates (if you wish to call them that.....normally they devolve into arguments and shouting matches) comparing one aircraft to another and much of the information presented is either inaccurate or flat out made-up to suit someone's personal tastes.
    and yet you keep coming back. either it means you really love this forum or you're a masochist. either is fine

    at the end of the day the f-14/15 and ADV question is relevant because 1. The RAF seriously considered them to meet the needs of intercepting Soviet bombers. 2. Saudis also ended up doing the same thing. In case you didn't know, they were an ADV operator. 3. I guess we can toss out the italians.. they thought the ADV would be easy to operate..didn't.. ended up throwing them away and going for the F-16s they rejected earlier

    When I was much younger, I'm fairly certain I was guilty of that because I was ignorant to the more accurate information that is available (or not available as is often the case). As I result, I try not to make uninformed statements of things I'm unsure about.
    when you were young, you had a hard on for slat intake jets like F-4, J-8, MiG-23 and would go off about how they're still relevant today.
    you should meet PLA-MKII.. he's a nice young lad who has taken up your mantle, but instead opting for jh-7 and j-7s
    Last edited by frankvw; 1st October 2015, 11:58. Reason: Edited for you. Frank.

    Leave a comment:


  • Y-20 Bacon
    replied
    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
    The main issue of the airframe was that it was too small for the ambitious range goal set for the AI24 radar (180+ km detection for bomber-sized targets). The nose diameter has dictated an array visibly smaller than the one of an APG-63. The radar was furthermore plagued by then-immature digital processing technology and has biten its designers in their a$$ once again later when it has doggedly resisted integration of AMRAAM as a replacement of Skyflash. The AMRAAM and the Foxhunter have hated each other so much that the CSP of the latter completely refused to provide mid-course updates which rendered the AIM-120 not a bit more effective than any SARH missile.

    One stiff-necked ba$tard, indeed

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]240834[/ATTACH]
    thanks for that info. didn't realize how small it was (smaller than even the old F-18!).
    far smaller than other interceptors of its time like F-14, Russian fox series or flagon series

    I guess it is no surprise the Saudis and Italians were not so impressed with the radar range and maintainance issues associated with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MSphere
    replied
    Originally posted by Dazza View Post
    This issue was eventually remedied though, and full AIM-120 integration was eventually achieved and could've been achieved much earlier had the MOD stumped up the money in the first place. ASRAAM also had integration problems but these too were also overcome.
    It came in through several versions and updates, yes. The whole AI24 lineage went from early B/W/Z versions to the "final" Stage I (also with Saudi ADVs) but at that time the fun has just begun.. Stage I+ AA lead to another "final" Stage II, then to AB with NCTR, then to 2G and 2H optimizations and that is still pre-AMRAAM times.

    The AIM-120 came with the CSP version which finally lead to the AOP version with mid-course updates... and the final one was the FSP which integrated AIM-120C-5 and ASRAAM. Not an easy birth but the final result was a decent set, which has tried to approach the AWG-9 performance with the weight of roughly APG-63.
    Last edited by MSphere; 30th September 2015, 06:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Originally posted by Dazza View Post
    This issue was eventually remedied though, and full AIM-120 integration was eventually achieved and could've been achieved much earlier had the MOD stumped up the money in the first place. ASRAAM also had integration problems but these too were also overcome.

    -Dazza
    Very true, the issue wasn't the fox hunter, which evolved from early teething troubles to be a top-notch radar. The issue was a penny wise, pound foolish decision to not equip F.3's with enough amraam launchers and not to integrate the datalink and IFF into the CSP which negated the best virtues of the AMRAAM. In retrospect, it seems foolish, but the RAF was thinking the Typhoon was just around the corner. In light of the delayed upgrades to the USAF F-15 fleet, or AM's delay of a F-104S replacement. These decisions were common in the 90's with the "peace dividend".

    here is a doc explaining the issue from the UK defense forum 2000
    https://www.google.com/search?client...aam+UK+m45.doc
    Last edited by FBW; 30th September 2015, 01:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazza
    replied
    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
    The AMRAAM and the Foxhunter have hated each other so much that the CSP of the latter completely refused to provide mid-course updates which rendered the AIM-120 not a bit more effective than any SARH missile.
    This issue was eventually remedied though, and full AIM-120 integration was eventually achieved and could've been achieved much earlier had the MOD stumped up the money in the first place. ASRAAM also had integration problems but these too were also overcome.

    -Dazza

    Leave a comment:


  • MSphere
    replied
    Originally posted by PhantomII View Post
    Were the issues that plagued the Tornado F.2 strictly related to the radar or were there other issues on the airframe itself?
    The main issue of the airframe was that it was too small for the ambitious range goal set for the AI24 radar (180+ km detection for bomber-sized targets). The nose diameter has dictated an array visibly smaller than the one of an APG-63. The radar was furthermore plagued by then-immature digital processing technology and has biten its designers in their a$$ once again later when it has doggedly resisted integration of AMRAAM as a replacement of Skyflash. The AMRAAM and the Foxhunter have hated each other so much that the CSP of the latter completely refused to provide mid-course updates which rendered the AIM-120 not a bit more effective than any SARH missile.

    One stiff-necked ba$tard, indeed

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Foxhunter0003.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	92.6 KB
ID:	3664396
    Attached Files
    Last edited by MSphere; 29th September 2015, 22:28.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X