By: Y-20 Bacon
- 29th September 2015 at 18:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always thought Tornado ADV was worthy of protecting vast tracks of glacial wasteland. Canada and Iceland would have been good places for it. Maybe even Australia. But then again F-14 or F-15 would have been even better. :)
you're not too far off.
I just read a book:
British Aircraft Corporation: A History
By Stephen Skinner
in which it states that the RAF actually preferred the F-15 to do the job! here I thought it was the F-14 but I was wrong.
By: Dazza
- 29th September 2015 at 22:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The radar was the major issue, the engines also were upgraded in the change to the F.3, more powerful -104s were fitted. The airframe was a known quantity in that the RAF already had the same basic airframe in the GR.1, I'm not aware of any major issues with either the GR.1 or F.2/3 airframe...
By: swerve
- 29th September 2015 at 22:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The radar was the major issue, ...
-Dazza
Blue Circle. :D
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 29th September 2015 at 23:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Dazza
- 30th September 2015 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: FBW
- 30th September 2015 at 02:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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".
By: MSphere
- 30th September 2015 at 07:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 30th September 2015 at 08:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 30th September 2015 at 08:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: MadRat
- 30th September 2015 at 13:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tornado could pursue targets at low altitude speeds no other fighter could reach with a combat load. At least it got that right.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 30th September 2015 at 16:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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..
By: PhantomII
- 30th September 2015 at 18:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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! ;)
By: PhantomII
- 30th September 2015 at 20:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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)
By: Duggy
- 1st October 2015 at 01:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks - A few more. OOPS
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 1st October 2015 at 05:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 29th September 2015 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you're not too far off.
I just read a book:
British Aircraft Corporation: A History
By Stephen Skinner
in which it states that the RAF actually preferred the F-15 to do the job! here I thought it was the F-14 but I was wrong.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 29th September 2015 at 19:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it was always the F-15 on offer for exports... the, F-14, Iran set aside, was pretty much USN exclusive aircraft
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 29th September 2015 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Were the issues that plagued the Tornado F.2 strictly related to the radar or were there other issues on the airframe itself?
Posts: 1,407
By: Dazza - 29th September 2015 at 22:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The radar was the major issue, the engines also were upgraded in the change to the F.3, more powerful -104s were fitted. The airframe was a known quantity in that the RAF already had the same basic airframe in the GR.1, I'm not aware of any major issues with either the GR.1 or F.2/3 airframe...
-Dazza
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 29th September 2015 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blue Circle. :D
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 29th September 2015 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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]
Posts: 1,407
By: Dazza - 30th September 2015 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 30th September 2015 at 02:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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=safari&rls=en&q=m45.doc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=amraam+UK+m45.doc
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 30th September 2015 at 07:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 30th September 2015 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 30th September 2015 at 08:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 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
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 30th September 2015 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still... HAPPY 40th birthday TONKA!
Posts: 584
By: Robbiesmurf - 30th September 2015 at 11:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MSphere, why is one of the two of your images reversed?
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 30th September 2015 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tornado could pursue targets at low altitude speeds no other fighter could reach with a combat load. At least it got that right.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 30th September 2015 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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..Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 30th September 2015 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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! ;)
Posts: 1,141
By: Duggy - 30th September 2015 at 19:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Enjoy
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 30th September 2015 at 20:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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)
Posts: 1,141
By: Duggy - 1st October 2015 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks - A few more.
OOPS
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 1st October 2015 at 05:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.