Jump to content

Which Tornado do you want?


CyMPAK

Recommended Posts

I find that pretty odd as well. Please let us know if you can get some information on this! :thumbup:

 

So after poking around here and there I can at least bring a bit of light into the dark.

The maximum selectable range for A-G radar was 80 nm. Thats 148 km who want to compare that to the Viggen.

None of the pilots I have spoken to in the past weeks was in the German Navy.

They were all flying with the GAF.

 

However they also did play around at ferry flights and so on. They are not so different from us^^

One of the guys said that he could make out a large vessel at 60-40 nm.(= 110 - 70 km)

But that of course depends on size and 'stealth'-technology of the ship.

 

That would also fit the expectation of other types of the time and even with the Viggen performance in DCS.

I find it hard to believe that the Bucc is told to have a better performance.

Maybe it had a similar performance, the newer A-G radars are also only slightly better in performance and the ship technology evolves as well.

 

A large bulky oil tanker may be visible for more than 80 nm, but that would count for the Tornado as well.

 

Edit:

I had to go over the report again. The author claims:

"A good maritime radar can pick up the nice big steel and aluminium radar reflector that is a ship at long range. The Buccaneer’s Blue Parrot radar had a maximum range of 240 nautical miles, although 180 was more normally used. The Tornado…had a maximum range of forty nautical miles"

 

180 nm (the "normal" setting), that would be 330 km.

I don't know how well a radar can see beyond the horizon, but you have to be at 8500 meters (= 27.880 ft) of altitude to see this far in a direct line, no additional effects taken into account.

How does that sound? Sounds odd to me.

  • Like 3

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bananabrai

Very interesting!! Thanks a lot for sharing that. I had no real clue about the radar performance in this regard, so that kind of information is gold! :thumbup:

I also find it very hard to believe that a buccaneer radar had such a range. :huh:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, in Italy back when the 104 was being phased out in the late 2000s, there were nostalgic and clueless people claiming that neither the Viper nor the Typhoon which were replacing it could match it as an interceptor...yeah...

 

People will always justify their liking of a particular aircraft in the dumbest ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter, I just want it because of its look. Very beautiful plane. I bought the tomcat just for the same reason. No need further feature :D

FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15E| F-4| Tornado

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60

 

Youtube

MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/20/2021 at 4:10 PM, Toga10 said:

GR1 you could re create missions from gulf war one. the gr4 would be great aswell as it has a more modern and sophisticated weapons suite.

 

Yeah, early IDS variants are where it's at for me - Gulf War, Operation Allied Force, as well as plenty of potential in a Cold War European theatre (northern/central Germany circa 80s would be the best fit, with RAF and German IDS' operating out of airbases in the region (Scleswig and Büchel for the Luftwaffe, and RAF Bruggen and Laarbuch for the RAF) 

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Not for me, but I thought I'd share some Tornados that others might want. A little something for the paintshop crews:

German_Tornado_Formation_Flight_2003.jpg...

(Wiki commons, embedding permitted)

 

 

...although the best look for a Tonka will always be:

low-flying-raf-panavia-tornado-aircraft-

low-flying-raf-panavia-tornado-aircraft-

A low flying RAF Panavia Tornado aircraft, taking part in the NATO exercise Operation Mallet Blow, over the Otterburn range in Northumberland. 3rd August, 1987.

(Photo by NCJ Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images, embedding permitted)

 

Come on, we know how I feel about this thread not being somewhere on the front page... 🙂

Nah, I've only just met 'er...:pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

German Interdictor/Strike or British Gr.1, both very similar designed for Cold War low level penetration strike in high threat enviroment. This would be exciting as hell for both pilot and navigator!

 

ADF was medicore interceptor at best and modern Gr.4 would be one of two: non survivable trying to make low level strike in year 200X and not entertaining when used as very long range cruise missile truck 'pickle and RTB'.


Edited by Berserk
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2021 at 10:42 AM, Berserk said:

German Interdictor/Strike or British Gr.1, both very similar designed for Cold War low level penetration strike in high threat enviroment. This would be exciting as hell for both pilot and navigator!

 

ADF was medicore interceptor at best and modern Gr.4 would be one of two: non survivable trying to make low level strike in year 200X and not entertaining when used as very long range cruise missile truck 'pickle and RTB'.

 

Absolutely agreed.

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDS or both. Viggen is on my short list so anything other than American or Russian hardware fits my bill.

  • Like 1

VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants -- this is how I fly. We do not fly at treetop height, we fly between trees(TM)

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc9BDi-STaqgWsjNiHbW0fA

My simple missions: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/284071-vr-flight-guy-in-pj-pants-simple-missions/

NSRI - National Strategy Research Institution, a fictional organisation based on wordplay of Strategic Naval Research Institution (SNRI), a fictional institution appears in Mobile Suit Gundam UC timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2021 at 11:42 AM, Berserk said:

Gr.4 would be one of two: non survivable trying to make low level strike in year 200X and not entertaining when used as very long range cruise missile truck 'pickle and RTB'.

 

Uhm, you know that the G.4 (as well as the German ASSTA3) can drop LGBs and such just like any other current fighter jet? So it doesn't have to be a low level strike or cruise missile truck.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tornado GR1 didn't drop "LGBs and such" back in the days when they were crucial NATO assets and when the enemy would actually try to shoot them down😀 and had capability to do so.

 

British Tornado GR1 served under SACEUR and under Quick Reaction Alert, also nuclear. They were tasked to attack Warsaw Pact airfields, SAM sites, bridges, communication centers etc. in all out war with unguided bombs dropped it toss bombing flying at extremely low altitude, JP223 anti-runway submunition and - if ordered - also nuclear bombs, all of that preferably at night or bad weather. Just like F-111.

And this would be absolutely fantastic to do in DCS.

 

Tornado received self-lase ability only after everything was over. WARPAC desintegrated.

Tornado received it's second life as precision bomber for low intensity conflicts. Not too prestigious task considering ever tactical fighter could do the same. 

 

In symmetrical war lasing LGBs would be problematic and sporadically useful at best and suicidal at worse. GR1 didn't need that.

 

If i would be to chose I would take RAF or Luftwaffe IDS from the cold war when it was very important part of NATO force.

As other guys said ADF was poor fighter and GR4 was not important anymore, it was too late for the show - every common tactical fighter, like i.e. Hornet or F-16 could do the same at this point lasing LGBs, dropping JDAMs or releasing cruise missiles due to computer technology advance.

 

tornado.jpg


Edited by bies
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bies said:

British Tornado GR1 served under SACEUR and under Quick Reaction Alert, also nuclear. They were tasked to attack Warsaw Pact airfields, SAM sites, bridges, communication centers etc. in all out war with unguided bombs dropped it toss bombing flying at extremely low altitude, JP223 anti-runway submunition and - if ordered - also nuclear bombs, all of that preferably at night or bad weather. Just like F-111.

And this would be absolutely fantastic to do in DCS.

 

Tornado received self-lase ability only after everything was over. WARPAC desintegrated.

Tornado received it's second life as precision bomber for low intensity conflicts. Not too prestigious task considering ever tactical fighter could do the same. 

 

In symmetrical war lasing LGBs would be problematic and sporadically useful at best and suicidal at worse. GR1 didn't need that.

 

If i would be to chose I would take RAF or Luftwaffe IDS from the cold war when it was very important part of NATO force.

As other guys said ADF was poor fighter and GR4 was not important anymore, it was too late for the show - every common tactical fighter, like i.e. Hornet or F-16 could do the same at this point lasing LGBs, dropping JDAMs or releasing cruise missiles due to computer technology advance.

 

tornado.jpg

 

 

This! Ultimately I think the 80s is really an era where these aircraft become more unique and more in keeping with the role they were designed for.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 5

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TORNADO ECR or RECCE can carry all NATO weapons including NUCLEAR ones while at low altitude it can display more than 20 targets.

 

i not want ADV is limited ad is a iterceptor i want tatical TORNADO.

 

dis is difference DESINE TORNADO ECR,ADV,OR IDS.

 

e8d09c6322cda68691fb93569cd3948d.jpg

 

 


Edited by Xilon_x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2021 at 9:02 PM, bies said:

Tornado GR1 didn't drop "LGBs and such" back in the days when they were crucial NATO assets and when the enemy would actually try to shoot them down😀 and had capability to do so.

 

British Tornado GR1 served under SACEUR and under Quick Reaction Alert, also nuclear. They were tasked to attack Warsaw Pact airfields, SAM sites, bridges, communication centers etc. in all out war with unguided bombs dropped it toss bombing flying at extremely low altitude, JP223 anti-runway submunition and - if ordered - also nuclear bombs, all of that preferably at night or bad weather. Just like F-111.

And this would be absolutely fantastic to do in DCS.

 

Tornado received self-lase ability only after everything was over. WARPAC desintegrated.

Tornado received it's second life as precision bomber for low intensity conflicts. Not too prestigious task considering ever tactical fighter could do the same. 

 

In symmetrical war lasing LGBs would be problematic and sporadically useful at best and suicidal at worse. GR1 didn't need that.

 

If i would be to chose I would take RAF or Luftwaffe IDS from the cold war when it was very important part of NATO force.

As other guys said ADF was poor fighter and GR4 was not important anymore, it was too late for the show - every common tactical fighter, like i.e. Hornet or F-16 could do the same at this point lasing LGBs, dropping JDAMs or releasing cruise missiles due to computer technology advance.

 

tornado.jpg

 

 

Well said! :thumbup:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2019 at 8:45 AM, Bananabrai said:

Mature GR.1 is the way to go!

 

Plus, the GR.1 is closer to the other IDS's. The development drifted apart with introduction of the GR.4.

 

Agree. Tornado needs two things to be attractive and exciting in DCS: (1) low level interdiction strike capability with terrain fallowing radar, inertial navigation, at night and bad weather, manual weapon aiming with hands full for both pilot and WSO and (2) Soviet enemy in Europe to fight in all out war. And this is IDS/GR1.

 

GR4 or later post-Soviet german variants, without low level strike, without terrain fallowing radar operable/trained, without Soviets/WARPAC in Europe would be simply boring, absolutely not attractive outside first 2-3 flights. GR4 would be like: cruise at 15,000ft like an airliner 'pickle and RTB'  >100nm cruise missile. As other guys said today tactical fighters like F-16, F-18, F-15E can do that even better cruising at 30,000ft. It would be wasted potential.

 

And one more thing: in 1980s very low level interdiction at night or bad weather against capable enemy was still the most reliable way to attack important fixed enemy targets in 100-200 depth and still posible and survivable, very risky buisness of course.

If someone would try something like that in all out war against capable enemy in year ~2005 it would be a pathetic display and simply a suicide, Tornado or any similar plane would be detected very early by interceptors and AEW and shoot down half way to the target with ease. That's why Tornado crews don't even train such things for decades.

 

Cold War IDS/GR1 or F-111 both have potential to be among the most entertaining modules possible in DCS but late 'pickle and RTB' cruise missile truck, no.


Edited by Berserk
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Berserk said:

GR4 or later post-Soviet german variants, without low level strike, without terrain fallowing radar operable/trained

 

Are you saying the TFR got removed from later Tornado variants?

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It never got removed (GAF).

 

An airplane configuration change always must be approved and certified.

You cannot simply remove equipment. You either have to certifiy the whole airplane new (with new or missing equipment),

or if you just disable it or put in a weight dummy, you have to certify, that all other equipment in the sphere of influence is still working properly.

Otherwise you would make a weight & balance change without touching the FCS, and that would be illegal in terms of certification and approval to operate the type (btw the FCS in the Tornado is very old and it was decided quite early that no more changes would be made).

 

With the GAF the TFR is, at least to my knowledge, disabled with introduction of the ASSTA 3.0 or 3B standard.

The training for automatic TF flying was removed even earlier if my info is correct.


Edited by Bananabrai

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

It never got removed (GAF).

 

An airplane configuration change always must be approved and certified.

You cannot simply remove equipment. You either have to certifiy the whole airplane new (with new or missing equipment),

or if you just disable it or put in a weight dummy, you have to certify, that all other equipment in the sphere of influence is still working properly.

Otherwise you would make a weight & balance change without touching the FCS, and that would be illegal in terms of certification and approval to operate the type (btw the FCS in the Tornado is very old and it was decided quite early that no more changes would be made).

 

With the GAF the TFR is, at least to my knowledge, disabled with introduction of the ASSTA 3.0 or 3B standard.

The training for automatic TF flying was removed even earlier if my info is correct.

 

Ok, so at least in the GAF this capability no longer exists on the modern Tornado, which is what I was actually asking for, not so much if it was physically removed (that was bad wording on my side). Thanks for the info! :thumbup:

 

I'm curious if the same is true for the late RAF Tornado?

 

Missing TFR capability would definitely a big argument against a modern Tornado in my book!


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I could say, technically, as the Tornado is a cooperative project and work must be shared, we should have known if they change something.

That's at least how it is suposed to be. There are even some british guys still working for Tornado projects, even though UK has retired their birds.

Of course the reason for that is that GAF and ItAF (AMA?) are still operating the Tornado and they need to take care of their workshare. (at least they need to support it)

 

That beeing said, I heard some rumors that the RAF changed some things (to unkown extend) on their radar with the GR.4 (or later on).

And there is nothing official on our side to be found. 

 

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw the post at the top of this page regard the range of the Radar against ship targets. 

 

The Buccaneer Blue Parrot radar did in fact have very long range against ship targets.  It was designed to detect a Sverdlov class Cruiser (about 16000 tons) at 200 miles plus. Its original tactics would be to fly at high level, Mark the position on the Radar and then decend to low level. At 40 mile pop up again and turn the radar back on, then at around 12 miles the target would be marked on the pilot sight and loft attack automatically performed with either conventional or nuclear weapons. On the downside its performance over land was useless.

 

Can't say about the German Tornado radars, but the Gr1b had a maximum range of 40 miles. When it took over the maritime strike roll it was a known weakness given the Sea Eagle range of over 60 mile. The Tornado Gr1b relied on target hand-off from Nimrods to a much great extent than the Buccaneer. 

 

The was a suggestion at one point to fit the 50 surplus Blue fox radars from Shars when they got Blue Vixen to the Tornado Gr1b fleet, but it never went past the initial stages.  The Blue fox was developed from the Sea Spray radar which was optimise to detect ship targets and could detect a cruiser size target at around 120 miles.


Edited by whiteladder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for your feedback.

 

Are you shure that only 40nm was selectable? Or are you talking about the effective range?

I have the confirmation from 3 Tornado WSO's that 80nm range was at least selectable.

 

I have to admit though, the Tornado GMR was not really optimised for AShW.

That's propably the reason why the Buccaner was that much better, which I do not want to deny.

The Tornado's radar was, as the name says, a ground mapping radar (Tornado GMR).

The whole airplane was more optimized for "land-warfare", which might be one of the reasons, the GR.1B was not carried into GR.4 modernisation.

 

There is another thing I want to point out. As the Tornado is newer than the Bucc, the ship technologies might have evolved as well in this time.

And it could be the case, that ship technology might have evolved faster during that time. Just a theory or an idea though why newer airplanes are sometimes worse as its predecessor.

 

Off topic, there is that story that some people with the italian airforce thought that the F-104 is more capable than the Typhoon...

I leave that for someone else to tell.

 

Another point might be, that the focus on AShW was deliberately not put into the radar.

Other very high value assets were put into service, maybe they wanted to rely on the Nimrod or others on purpose.

It's kind of stupid, but it's even done today. The Typhoon for example is still A-A optimized, even though at the end of the 90s (when deveolpment still could have been shifted) it was clear that:

1. Tornado needs a replacement at some point, with all its roles, which is not just GBU truckin'

2. it was possible to build airframes that can do A-A AND A-G very good (F-18, F-16,...)

But see, now the government has a reason to develop a new separat airframe to replace the Tornado, because Typhoon can not take all its roles (with the GAF)

 

And one more thing, at that time ELINT was also becoming more important (later there was even a specific Tornado ECR variant deveoped for that, with its ELS)

Maybe they didn't see the need to recon a ship at 100nm+ with a radar, because they could detect it more or equaly reliable with ELINT triangulation, without emitting radiation.

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...