Panavia Tornado

**Grundy** · 03 Apr 06,, 21:10

i was wondering how the Tornado compares in terms of quality, reliabilty etc to other modern fighter aircraft, as the tornado is my favourite jet but sadly i dont know to much about it

**Bluesman** · 03 Apr 06,, 21:34

Originally Posted by Grundy

i was wondering how the Tornado compares in terms of quality, reliabilty etc to other modern fighter aircraft, as the tornado is my favourite jet but sadly i dont know to much about it

I got to attend a briefing by the RAF Tornado jocks when I was at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. They breifed their aircraft to a room full of intel types (like me)...and some Eagle and Viper drivers.

They literally had almost nothing good to say about their aircraft, and this was in 2000!

They knew they couldn't fight like the F-15s, and they couldn't bomb like the F-16s. They spoke about what altitude the 'Nade was happiest at, but sadly, at medium-low altitudes...it was out-classed by everything but the oldest Soviet-era hardware. They talked about survivability...and they got purty somber.

They spoke about ease of maintainence, and had to admit it had a sortie rate on the low end of the NATO scale. Range, max gross payload, time-to-climb, manouverability...they were talking to a room full of guys that could shoot 'em down by the bushel, and they knew it.

They had TWO items of praise: two-man crew (which they saw as an advantage; the one-holer jocks in the crowd weren't so sure that it WAS an advantage), and they liked their ordnance suite. The runway cratering munitions, cluster bombs and their gun and its computer. (Keep in mind, these are ALL 'knife fight in a phone booth'-type weapons, not stand-off, although the Tornado DOES have a modest 'from afar' capability.) The radar missiles are so-so (even back then; they're not even competitive now), but they like their 'dogfight' missile.

So, it's day has most definitely passed, and its service life is being kept on its feet by an unwillingness to spend for its replacement.

**Grundy** · 03 Apr 06,, 21:43

This is one of the things which constantly annoys me about the MoD , in all aspects of the Armed Forces, they fail to recognise the issues concerned with certain equipment and do nothing about it, these men are putting their lives on the line, the best the MoD could do is supply them with suitable equipment

**JG73** · 03 Apr 06,, 23:28

Originally Posted by Grundy

This is one of the things which constantly annoys me about the MoD , in all aspects of the Armed Forces, they fail to recognise the issues concerned with certain equipment and do nothing about it, these men are putting their lives on the line, the best the MoD could do is supply them with suitable equipment

Sure, the Tornados are not state-of-the-art. But they still can do the job they were made for till ca. 2020. Don't forget the RAF Tornados were steady upgraded, while the Saudis still use GR Mk-1/ GR-1A Tornados.
Like Bluesman said the Tornado doesn't stand a chance in an airfight against other jets (Although GAF Tornados wiped the floor with Swiss F-18Cs in WVR-engagement during Tigermeet 04-don't know how they made it).
And it's payload also is not formidable because most pylons are reserved for ECM and RECCE and Laserpods.
And its original interpretation as lowlevel penetrator doesn't suit modern tactics anymore.

Today the Tornado is more and more used for Reconnaisance SEAD like Tornado RECCE and Tornado ECR. Moreover it got eqipped with LGBUs and stand off missiles (Stormshadow-RAF/Taurus-GAF) which make it a serious threat.
At least it's totally sufficing for war on terror. In Kosovo war for example it did it job.

**gunnut** · 05 Apr 06,, 08:25

Originally Posted by Grundy

This is one of the things which constantly annoys me about the MoD , in all aspects of the Armed Forces, they fail to recognise the issues concerned with certain equipment and do nothing about it, these men are putting their lives on the line, the best the MoD could do is supply them with suitable equipment

It has more to do with the socialist environment in the UK rather than MoD not care about its men.

The Labour party (I think that's the one) is big on social spendings and not too keen on defense, just like all other socialists in the world.

The 3 Invincibles didn't get their funding until they were classified as "through deck cruisers" because an aircraft carrier sounds too war-like.

The new CVFs probably wouldn't have received their funding if they had angled decks and catapults like the American carriers. Too war like. Not good. We must spend our money on social programs.

**gunnut** · 05 Apr 06,, 08:26

How about the interceptor version of the Tornado? Are they just as bad? Can they fight? Or are they just missile carriers and nothing more?

Also, Bluesman, who are "Viper drivers?"

**JG73** · 05 Apr 06,, 10:46

Originally Posted by gunnut

How about the interceptor version of the Tornado? Are they just as bad? Can they fight? Or are they just missile carriers and nothing more?

The F.MK 3s are the nonsensicalliest of all Tornado versions in my opinion. While the Tornado as strike version still to some extent is a competitive platform the F3s never were. Sure better than the F-4s they replaced but never close to any US build interceptor from the 1970s on.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Also, Bluesman, who are "Viper drivers?"

Viper=F-16

**gunnut** · 05 Apr 06,, 18:56

Why are the F-16s called Vipers?

**JG73** · 05 Apr 06,, 19:00

Originally Posted by gunnut

Why are the F-16s called Vipers?

Good question.

Maybe you'll find an answer on F-16.net.

**avon1944** · 05 Apr 06,, 20:51

Originally Posted by Grundy

how the Tornado compares in terms of quality, reliabilty etc to other modern fighter aircraft

I had a late friend Art, who was in one of the first classes of F-14 pilots who did not transition from the F-4 Phantom 2. He said of the Tornado ADV that it could dogfight with the F-4 but was not competitive against other aircraft of the fourth generation in WVR combat.
When the USA found out what the PanAvia corp was looking for, the US Navy offerred the F-14 but, the Europeans wanted an European designed and produced aircraft. They wound up spending a lot more money, much like the UK's attemps at designing a workable AWACS.
He did say, that the pilots and tacticians had worked out a very good set of tactics, that permitted the ADV to be competitive against 'any' aircraft. These were basically stand-off maneuvers of BVR combat.
It was combat capable.

Adrian

**kNikS** · 05 Apr 06,, 21:23

Originally Posted by JG73

...In Kosovo war for example it did it job.

What job?

**JG73** · 05 Apr 06,, 21:37

Originally Posted by kNikS

What job?

SEAD

**TopHatter** · 05 Apr 06,, 21:49

Originally Posted by gunnut

Why are the F-16s called Vipers?

I could be way off here, but:

Back in the day, when the F-16 was just a wee lad without an official nickname, it was put forward that "Viper" would work just dandy for the new bird.

However at the time, the TV series Battlestar Galactica featured single-seat aerospace fighters called by the same name. Either out of fear - or threat, not sure about that though - of a copyright lawsuit, the USAF chose "Fighting Falcon" instead.

As I understand it, "Viper" (Or even "Lawn Dart", depending on the altitude of the nose relative to the tail) is more popular amongst the fighting lads than "Fighting Falcon".

Of course, most aircraft seem to have half a dozen "other" nicknames besides the official one. Some have - for all intents and purposes - replaced the official nick (like "Warthog"...who really calls it "Thunderbolt II"?) and some aircraft didn't get an official nick until after they were retired (like the "Aardvark" IIRC)

**JG73** · 05 Apr 06,, 21:57

Viper: the unofficial nickname

The F-16 is often referred to as the "Viper", a nickname is especially popular with people involved with the F-16. Before "Fighting Falcon" was selected as official name, pilots at Hill AFB, the first F-16 base, came up with a number of proposals, inlcuding "Viper". Lt. Col. Pat "Gums" McAdoo, USAF Ret., one of the first F-16 pilots at Hill AFB, recalls the origin of the name "F-16 Viper":

At end of runway, the F-16 did resemble a cobra or something as it approached you. However, I think Northrop had already taken that name for the YF-17.

We all voted, and Viper came in really high. Seems there was a series on TV that had 'colonial Vipers' flying off of Battlestar Galactica (a term later used for the Eagle).

In any case, the Generals didn't want a plane 'named after some snake'!

Falcon was a good name, and it fit in with the motif that the Eagle had created. Sort of a little brother, but still a 'Bird of Prey'. In fact, GD had a great promo out in late 70's called "Bird of Prey", and it used the Falcon as the real world model.

Even when F-16 Fighting Falcon became the official name, Viper stuck around and became the unofficial nickname for the F-16. The name "Viper" is even officially used for the Joe Bill Dreyden "Semper Viper" award, which is awarded for excellent airmanship by F-16 pilots.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article27.html

**gunnut** · 05 Apr 06,, 21:57

Cool. We are just talking about Battlestar Galactica over at the Naval Forum.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...t=11069&page=2

Please drop by and hijac...I mean continue the discussion.