User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 7:53:30 PM EDT
[#1]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 8:10:40 PM EDT
[#2]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 8:33:44 PM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 8:49:35 PM EDT
[#4]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 8:52:08 PM EDT
[#5]
that's because every flight was at 50ft AGL. most of them weren't shot down, they just ran out of air |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2006 8:53:33 PM EDT
[#6]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 12:18:08 PM EDT
[#7]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 1:24:01 PM EDT
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 1:27:48 PM EDT
[#9]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 2:56:14 PM EDT
[#10]
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." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 3:06:19 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 3:07:22 PM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 3:18:37 PM EDT
[#13]
Vito?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 3:26:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Gotta go to bed now… 1.20 AM here… But some of the guys here have nailed the Tornados capabilities right on the button. Outstanding strike bomber, good interceptor, not a fighter… ADV = shoot at BVR and run away bravely. JP223 is long out of service, discarded after GW1. TIALD + Paveway and Storm Shadow are the weapons of choice now... ANdy  Tornado GR4 with Storm Shadow |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 3:42:39 PM EDT
[#15]
German footage– Tornado, Typhoon and other toys…
…don't try to turn and burn with a Typhoon, it can outmanouvere an SU-27… |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 3:46:14 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 4:13:03 PM EDT
[#17]
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). 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 10:29:43 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 10:55:39 PM EDT
[#19]
I was just looking at them on the flight line today. Neat fighters. Damn loud, seem to have a lot of mechanical problems.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 10:57:48 PM EDT
[#20]
SU-24. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:03:17 PM EDT
[#21]
The best damn sim there ever was! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:04:38 PM EDT
[#22]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:06:54 PM EDT
[#23]
What I never understood was, isn't the F16 supposed to have flaps?! There weren't any in Falcon 4.0. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:08:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Wasnt? I havent had it in a few years, but I thought it did, maybe that was speed brakes. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:14:34 PM EDT
[#25]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:16:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Tornado's on strike missions usually carry a basic fit of 4 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9's or ASRAAMs along with 2 x 27mm Cannon and very comprehensive jamming/chaff equipment… they have very sharp 'teeth'. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:16:53 PM EDT
[#27]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:23:38 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2006 11:33:08 PM EDT
[#29]
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. 
|
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 2:04:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Call that low? THIS is low   ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 2:09:51 AM EDT
[#31]
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.  
Almost 50 years, and no one has the balls to go for the record?
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 4:05:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Don't blame them! The first F-4 attempt ended in a dead pilot if I'm not mistaken… Most modern fighters can go supersonic on the deck, now as to wether it is safe to do so, that is the issue! Tornadoes and F-111 can switch to terrain avoidance and the planes are pretty stable down in the weeds… an F-15 jock would need an economy sized pack of testicular fortidude… At altitude a Tornado is good for 1,450mph, on the deck clean (recon mode) easy supersonic, the book says 920mph, dressed for war it cannot go supersonic, about Mach 0.9 is all in. Actually the Buccaneer is still faster on the deck in a 'real world' strike than all the modern stuff. With an 8,000lb internal bombload it's nudging Mach 1 at 50ft. They used to use them to simulate sea skimming anti ship missiles in exercises back in the day. Standing on the quarterdeck and looking DOWN at a pair of Bucanneers doing 700+ down the side of the ship was serious sphincter clenching… ANdy |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 4:17:05 AM EDT
[#33]
Nice footage, but the music gave me a headache.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 10:30:26 AM EDT
[#34]
That was the first picture I tried linking to, but Fortunecities didn't like it. NTM |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 10:43:31 AM EDT
[#35]
tagged for home...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2006 10:44:19 AM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2006 1:43:10 PM EDT
[#37]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2006 1:53:27 PM EDT
[#38]
The F-14 was considered for the UK's Air Defence role but lost out to the Tornado ADV in the down select… capabililty and performance wise there was not much between them so the 'home grown' plane won. The Tornado GR4 is a much better bomb truck, only the F-111 was in the same ball park for tactical strike capability. ANdy |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
