Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/26/2006 7:52:31 PM EDT
It was mentioned in another thread and it got me to thinking about it. It's a pretty common airplane, forming a good part of the air power of Great Britain, Germany, and Italy.

How does it compare today as a strike aircraft? How about as a fighter? Could it hold it's own against a Mig-29 or SU-27? How about a Typhoon, F-22, or Superbug?

How does it compare to its contemporaries, say an F-14, F15, F18, or any of the Migs/Sukoys?

Discuss.....

-K
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 7:53:30 PM EDT
i think it's comparable to an F-111 with a little more turning ability. it's an outstanding low level go fast bomb truck
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 8:10:40 PM EDT
There are two aircraft, the IDS and the ADV. IDS is a strike aircraft, kindof like a small F-111, with a fairly similar role. Capable, low-level aircraft. Germans also have them in the Maritime Strike role, and there are some EW / Wild Weasel versions too. The ADV is closer to an F-14 in concept, it's an area defense interceptor, not an air superiority fighter. It basically trucks air-to-air missiles around to where it can shoot at the enemy, then turns for home without getting up close and personal.

Also in service with Saudi.

NTM
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 8:33:44 PM EDT
I remember a story about a Soviet Bear outrunning an ADV once. Huge embarassment for the RAF.

+1 on the Tornado being an outstanding low-level precision strike aircraft. Light years ahead of an F-111.

The RAF GR versions specialized in attacking hevily defended airfields at low level using the JP233 anti-runway munitions. This using the SG33(?) cratering munition to punch holes in the runways and the HB876 area denial mine to slow down/kill off the repair teams.

The RAF flew this mission profile over Iraq in Desert Storm and lost several Tornados early in the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that if a war vs. the Soviets had occured, they would have been virtually wiped out. No fault of the airplane or crews, just a very tough mission to survive.

Link Posted: 3/26/2006 8:49:35 PM EDT
Didn't the Tornado have the highest rate of losses in Desert Storm?

I remember reading this at one time, but I don't know if it was true. IIRC it was the nature of the mission and not the aircraft that contributed.
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 8:52:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chida66:
Didn't the Tornado have the highest rate of losses in Desert Storm?

I remember reading this at one time, but I don't know if it was true. IIRC it was the nature of the mission and not the aircraft that contributed.



that's because every flight was at 50ft AGL. most of them weren't shot down, they just ran out of air
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 8:53:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By Chida66:
Didn't the Tornado have the highest rate of losses in Desert Storm?

I remember reading this at one time, but I don't know if it was true. IIRC it was the nature of the mission and not the aircraft that contributed.



that's because every flight was at 50ft AGL. most of them weren't shot down, they just ran out of air



The pics and video of them (and A-7s!) flying below the canyon rims at 3-400 knots is some seriously a-hole puckering stuff! Hats off to those guys.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 12:18:08 PM EDT
So they're not much for an air to air fight then - basically as easy kill for a Mig-29 or Su-27. What Soviet aircraft were they compairable to? Su-24? Mig-23?



-K

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 1:24:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 1:52:47 PM EDT by bmick325]
Apple Meet Orange.

You are talking about two different variants with different missions.

The ADV was a long range interceptor/missile truck designed to protect the British isles & North Sea against Soviet bombers & strike aircraft.

GR's were mud movers that operated very fast and low. Doubt a Soviet fighter would have ever caught one. They gave our guys fits at red flag.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 1:27:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
So they're not much for an air to air fight then - basically as easy kill for a Mig-29 or Su-27. What Soviet aircraft were they compairable to? Su-24? Mig-23?



-K




if you want to call a jet moving at mach 1.5 at 50'AGL an easy kill, go right ahead. nothing can hang with a tornado at low level
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 2:56:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bmick325:
I remember a story about a Soviet Bear outrunning an ADV once. Huge embarassment for the RAF.



There's absolutely no way in heck a Bear ever managed to outrun a Tornado unless the Tornado had fuel issues. Depending on the altitude and the loadout a Tornado (either variant) is between 4 and 7 times faster.

I've spoken to F-15 pilots that will even admit, that given the right parameters the ADV can be a hard animal to beat, mainly due to it's high top end speed and it's massive acceleration. In a BVR engagement, head to head encounter the ADV can launch, turn 180 and accelerate out of the engagment envelope while the targets are still trying to evade the initial missile volley. Given that kind of description I'd put the Tornado rather firmly in the "interceptor" class of aircraft as opposed to a true "fighter."
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:06:19 PM EDT

I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:07:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
So they're not much for an air to air fight then - basically as easy kill for a Mig-29 or Su-27. What Soviet aircraft were they compairable to? Su-24? Mig-23?



-K




the ADV was a pure interceptor, not an air superiority fighter. remember the mission back then, and think f-14 as opposed to f-15. fast, great radar, good battlespace management. it was also a generation older than the flanker/fulcrum.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:18:37 PM EDT
Vito?
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:26:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 3:31:40 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:42:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 3:53:29 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:46:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 3:47:59 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]

Originally Posted By vito113:
ADV = shoot at BVR and run away bravely.



Minstrel: [singing] Brave Sir Robin ran away...
Sir Robin: *No!*
Minstrel: [singing] bravely ran away away...
Sir Robin: *I didn't!*
Minstrel: [singing] When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 4:13:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



Great graphics and explosion physics, not so great on the avionics modeling.

Took me a few hours to figure out that the reason I was exploding on landing was that I kept forgetting to turn off the auto-throttle before opening the dump-buckets (thrust reversers).
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:29:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 10:32:13 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:55:39 PM EDT
I was just looking at them on the flight line today. Neat fighters. Damn loud, seem to have a lot of mechanical problems.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:57:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
So they're not much for an air to air fight then - basically as easy kill for a Mig-29 or Su-27. What Soviet aircraft were they compairable to? Su-24? Mig-23?



-K




SU-24.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:03:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



The best damn sim there ever was!
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:04:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MonkTx:

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



The best damn sim there ever was!

Falcon 4.0 bar none, there has never been a modern military aircraft sim as good.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:06:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By MonkTx:

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



The best damn sim there ever was!

Falcon 4.0 bar none, there has never been a modern military aircraft sim as good.



What I never understood was, isn't the F16 supposed to have flaps?! There weren't any in Falcon 4.0.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:08:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By MonkTx:

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



The best damn sim there ever was!

Falcon 4.0 bar none, there has never been a modern military aircraft sim as good.



What I never understood was, isn't the F16 supposed to have flaps?! There weren't any in Falcon 4.0.



Wasnt? I havent had it in a few years, but I thought it did, maybe that was speed brakes.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:14:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 11:18:07 PM EDT by Mr45auto]

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

if you want to call a jet moving at mach 1.5 at 50'AGL an easy kill, go right ahead. nothing can hang with a tornado at low level



How bout one of these?

www.davidpride.com/Aviation/IAF_57.htm

You know somebody had to mention the old phantom
The israelis field the phantom 2000 but apparently only one super phantom was built due to cost of refitting an old airframe.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:16:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:16:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 11:54:06 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
if you want to call a jet moving at mach 1.5 at 50'AGL an easy kill, go right ahead. nothing can hang with a tornado at low level



Banana Bomber... Not supersonic, but reknowned for NOE capability. Reportedly one returned to base at Red Flag with a tubmleweed hooked on the pitot.





Of course, the Omanis are daft... Jaguar.



NTM
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:23:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By MonkTx:

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



The best damn sim there ever was!

Falcon 4.0 bar none, there has never been a modern military aircraft sim as good.



What I never understood was, isn't the F16 supposed to have flaps?! There weren't any in Falcon 4.0.



Wasnt? I havent had it in a few years, but I thought it did, maybe that was speed brakes.



I was a big fan of the falcon series of flight sims. I had from the origional CGA version, Falcon AT up to the 4.0 and Tornado. I really miss the flight sims that were made, but the first person shooter games killed them.

There is a Falcon 5 in the works, but renamed Fighter Ops. So far it seems to be vapor ware, but I hold out hope. They have some awsome screen shots and it promises to be everything that 4.0 wanted, but the PC's at the time could not handle.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 11:33:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chida66:

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By MonkTx:

Originally Posted By XeroSygnal:
I recall there was a really nice Tornado flight-sim for the PC back in about 1993 or so. I think it was made by the same company that made Falcon 3.0. I just remember the manual being pretty large and the game itself being pretty detailed for the time. You could fly both variants and could switch between front and back seat views.



The best damn sim there ever was!

Falcon 4.0 bar none, there has never been a modern military aircraft sim as good.



What I never understood was, isn't the F16 supposed to have flaps?! There weren't any in Falcon 4.0.



Wasnt? I havent had it in a few years, but I thought it did, maybe that was speed brakes.



I was a big fan of the falcon series of flight sims. I had from the origional CGA version, Falcon AT up to the 4.0 and Tornado. I really miss the flight sims that were made, but the first person shooter games killed them.

There is a Falcon 5 in the works, but renamed Fighter Ops. So far it seems to be vapor ware, but I hold out hope. They have some awsome screen shots and it promises to be everything that 4.0 wanted, but the PC's at the time could not handle.



If it doesnt have a dynamic campaign like Falcon 4.0 then its a waste of time. I hate playing sims with set missions, I like to feel like Im in a real war, not something staged. Makes dropping a pair of BLU-27s on a random DPRK infantry unit that much more fun.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 2:04:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 2:09:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
if you want to call a jet moving at mach 1.5 at 50'AGL an easy kill, go right ahead. nothing can hang with a tornado at low level



Banana Bomber... Not supersonic, but reknowned for NOE capability. Reportedly one returned to base at Red Flag with a tubmleweed hooked on the pitot.

www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/images/attack/buccaneer-pass.jpg

www.avcollect2.co.uk/buccaneer/aircraft/lowlevel/XV332_pprune_web.jpg

Of course, the Omanis are daft... Jaguar.

home.comcast.net/~bunchacrap/web/jag4.jpg

NTM




Call that low?


THIS is low

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/Lowbucc2.jpg

ANdy



Good Lord! If he pulled up hard he would leave "turkey feathers" all over the runway. Not to bust on the little wannabe flyboy too much, but NT demonstrated his unending ability to repeat total bullshit with his "mach 1.5 at 50 feet" comment. We all know the record set by the mighty F-4 "sageburner" has never been beat, not by an F-111, not by a B-1, not by a Tornado.





Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered.



Almost 50 years, and no one has the balls to go for the record?
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:05:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 4:06:42 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:17:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
German footage– Tornado, Typhoon and other toys…

…don't try to turn and burn with a Typhoon, it can outmanouvere an SU-27…



Nice footage, but the music gave me a headache.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 10:30:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Call that low?


THIS is low

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/Lowbucc2.jpg

ANdy



That was the first picture I tried linking to, but Fortunecities didn't like it.

NTM
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 10:43:31 AM EDT
tagged for home...
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 10:44:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 1:43:10 PM EDT
OK, so if the Tornado was more of an interceptor along the lines of an F-14, then which was better??? Which was more capable air to air, and which was the more capable bomb truck???






-K
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 1:53:27 PM EDT
Top Top