Performance Of Tornado Adv

[Corinthian]

I've always thought that the Tornado - even the ADV - was more of a mud mover than a fighter. Any stories etc as to how the ADV performed in ACM? Or was it more of a missile-carrying interceptor, just flying to the Soviet bomber force and launching its missiles then calling it quits hoping its missiles hit anything?

[John(txic)]

The manufacturer delivered what the Specification asked for: it was not a dog-fighter.

[Yama]

Tornado had fairly miserable thrust-to-weight ratio and high wing loading. Without use of reheat it could only barely keep up with Bears. Wings full forward, it probably could turn fairly tight - once, then it would lose energy bigtime.

 

As a weapons system, once it got a working radar, AMRAAM missile and full missile optimization, it was pretty good - alas it took until 2000's to get all that.

Saudis had a chance to fly them side-by-side with F-15's and apparently weren't that impressed.

[DB]

Everything Yama said seems to be true, based on what I've also heard.

 

One thing the ADV did have was a very high low-level top speed. Officially limited (by the Release to Service) to 800knots indicated (and the system could not indicate beyond 800, apparently) they were allegedly good for 850 when in the weeds. Of course, none of the stories that tell of these speeds are official, because any pilot doing it was being really rather naughty.

 

Note, the F.3 was longer than the GR variant, and had slightly different engines. GR Tornadoes were not as fast.

[Corinthian]

So...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The RAF did not have a fighter until the Typhoon came along? They had to make do with the Tornado ADV and Harrier-whatever?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Corinthian

[DougRichards]

So...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The RAF did not have a fighter until the Typhoon came along? They had to make do with the Tornado ADV and Harrier-whatever?

 

And the BAE Hawk T1A of course.....

[swerve]

So...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The RAF did not have a fighter until the Typhoon came along? They had to make do with the Tornado ADV and Harrier-whatever?

What do you call a fighter? There was the Lightning until 1988, & the F-4 until 1990.

 

But as Stuart says, the RAF wasn't expecting to engage anything except bombers. Air-air combat over Germany, Norway etc was mostly someone else's job. The RAF was supplying ground attack aircraft in Germany. We had a lot of airspace (really, a lot - look at those northern islands, & the possible directions of approach over the sea) to defend against the Warsaw Pact, & it was out of range of WP fighters - but could be (& routinely was) reached by Soviet bombers flying via the northern route, & there were quite a lot of them. We wanted something to shoot 'em down, & that meant something with range, a long-range radar, & BVR missiles. They wouldn't have fighter escorts, so dogfighting wasn't going to happen.

 

Sky Flash was a good semi-active missile, but obviously, an active missile such as AMRAAM was better.

[ramontxo]

As said before not a dog-fighter. Eight AA Missiles, seven plus tons of fuel inside, plus drop tanks, for fuel efficient (arguably too efficient for high speed/altitude use) turbofans and modern, comprehensive (if a bit tardy in development) avionics... They were optimized for long range air defense in the North Atlantic, and IMHO quite good for that...

Edited May 12, 2015 by ramontxo

[Guest Charles]

As said before not a dog-fighter. Eight AA Missiles, seven plus tons of fuel inside, plus drop tanks, for fuel efficient (arguably too efficient for high speed/altitude use) turbofans and modern, comprehensive (if a bit tardy in development) avionics... They were optimized for long range air defense in the North Atlantic, and IMHO quite good for that...

Agreed. With JTIDS (Link-16) and AWACS, the ADV came into its own (post 1997 when JTIDS was finally fitted to the ADV). One of those classic fitted for but not with. Even with Skyflash, the ADV post 97 was dangerous, once AMRAAM got cleared, positively lethal.

As already mentioned, the ADV was never designed as an air superiority fighter, but as along range interceptor; which IMHO it excelled at (once all the bells & whistles had been fitted).

 

Charles

[Ifor]

From what I can remember it was called the blue circle fighter(due to the weight put in the nose before the radar was fitted).

[Guest Charles]

From what I can remember it was called the blue circle fighter(due to the weight put in the nose before the radar was fitted).

That would of been the F2 variant, fitted for but not with radar .

They changed the designation to the F3 once the the foxhunter radar had its issues mostly ironed out. Also uprated the GT's from MK103 to MK104.

 

Charles

[RETAC21]

Without use of reheat it could only barely keep up with Bears

 

A single case in which a fully fueled ADV with drop tanks couldn't keep with a lightly loaded Bear at altitude.

[Yama]

 

So...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The RAF did not have a fighter until the Typhoon came along? They had to make do with the Tornado ADV and Harrier-whatever?

What do you call a fighter? There was the Lightning until 1988, & the F-4 until 1990.

 

...and by 1990, Eurofighter would be ready for service so what's the problem!

 

The cold hard truth is that RAF was hindered by politics. Harrier II was pretty much forced on RAF. For ADV there was a genuine requirement, however the adoption of Tornado for that role was mostly for getting more production airframes for the program, thus hopefully lowering flyaway cost. Common sense would have dictated an US type for the role. Even Mirage 4000 would probably have been better option...

[Guest Charles]

 

 

So...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The RAF did not have a fighter until the Typhoon came along? They had to make do with the Tornado ADV and Harrier-whatever?

What do you call a fighter? There was the Lightning until 1988, & the F-4 until 1990.

 

...and by 1990, Eurofighter would be ready for service so what's the problem!

 

The cold hard truth is that RAF was hindered by politics. Harrier II was pretty much forced on RAF. For ADV there was a genuine requirement, however the adoption of Tornado for that role was mostly for getting more production airframes for the program, thus hopefully lowering flyaway cost. Common sense would have dictated an US type for the role. Even Mirage 4000 would probably have been better option...

 

Politics is the Bitch that just keeps on giving; to the vast majority of DoD/MOD's around the world.

Eurofighter was 15 years (some would say 16) late FFS. Why?, as you mentioned politics.

 

Had we gone for a US type back in the late 80's early 90's for an ADV, we would be royally screwed now. I cannot see the Mirage 4000 bringing much more to the table for the overall cost. Damn fine plane; bit of a monomist. Beautiful (as all Mirages are) to look at.

 

Charles

Edited May 13, 2015 by Charles

[Corinthian]

I didn't realize that the Lightning and F-4 soldiered on that long. I thought they were replaced when Tornado came online. Ya know. "MoD retires those planes because Tornado project was nearing completion."

[seahawk]

Was is not meant that the F-4 was to soldier on with the RAFG until Eurofighter would replace them? Eurofighter would have replaced the remaining F-4s and then the Jaguars, with the Tornados being kept in service.

[swerve]

From what I can remember it was called the blue circle fighter(due to the weight put in the nose before the radar was fitted).

For those too non-British or young to understand this.

 

The UK has used <colour> + <random word> names for radars, missiles etc, since the 1950s, e.g. the Blue Fox radar of the original Sea Harrier, in service at the time. The weight was made out of cement. Blue Circle Industries was an industrial company at the time, later taken over by Lafarge. You can guess what it made.

[Dawes]

I dunno. An F-15C in RAF colors would look rather striking.

[Mr King]

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/

[bd1]

 

 

So...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The RAF did not have a fighter until the Typhoon came along? They had to make do with the Tornado ADV and Harrier-whatever?

What do you call a fighter? There was the Lightning until 1988, & the F-4 until 1990.

 

...and by 1990, Eurofighter would be ready for service so what's the problem!

 

The cold hard truth is that RAF was hindered by politics. Harrier II was pretty much forced on RAF. For ADV there was a genuine requirement, however the adoption of Tornado for that role was mostly for getting more production airframes for the program, thus hopefully lowering flyaway cost. Common sense would have dictated an US type for the role. Even Mirage 4000 would probably have been better option...

 

coffeetable book by mike spick says that UK looked at F-14 and F-15 but the first had unreliable engines and old avionics and so costly that not enough planes could be purchased, f-15 lacked range and had one-man crew/avionics , which was inadequate for so demanding conditions

[DB]

This is still my favourite "what if" http://airlinebuzz.com/forums/entry.php?25-The-Hawker-P-1216

 

 

Edit; The last variant. The site has some coloured examples, which are very nice.

 

Edit again: http://airlinebuzz.com/forums/entry.php?51-Hawker-P-1216-Profile-Art-Part-4

Edited May 13, 2015 by DB

[Yama]

A Tornado in USAF colours would have looked even better.

Mmhhhmmm...looks OK I guess...

 

[Dawes]

Panavia tried to peddle the Tornado to the USAF as (IIRC) for the Wild Weasel mission in the late 1970's/early 1980's. I believe Rockwell at one time was the US partner.

 

It would certainly have been faster than the F-4G, had two crew, and was designed for the low-altitude environment. One of those "what ifs".

[JW Collins]

coffeetable book by mike spick says that UK looked at F-14 and F-15 but the first had unreliable engines and old avionics and so costly that not enough planes could be purchased, f-15 lacked range and had one-man crew/avionics , which was inadequate for so demanding conditions

 

What year was this? Range wouldn't have been a problem if they could order a variant with CFTs. Having just one pilot really didn't seem to do much harm to the F-15's air-to-air capabilites.

Edited May 14, 2015 by JW Collins

[DB]

 

coffeetable book by mike spick says that UK looked at F-14 and F-15 but the first had unreliable engines and old avionics and so costly that not enough planes could be purchased, f-15 lacked range and had one-man crew/avionics , which was inadequate for so demanding conditions

 

What year was this? Range wouldn't have been a problem if they could order a variant with CFTs. Having just one pilot really didn't seem to do much harm to the F-15's air-to-air capabilites.

 

The Tornado hit its 40th birthday not so very long ago, which puts first flight in 1975, so the design brief is essentially contemporary with that of the F-15, which flew first in 1972. The E model didn't fly until 1986.

 

I doubt that the single/two seat issue would have been the deal breaker on its own, but the usual politically motivated issues, like industrial and technological capability maintenance will have played their own parts.