Jump to content

Which Tornado do you want?


CyMPAK

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

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!

 

  

True, but I think they still would model it functional, as the hardware technically is still present and wokring. 

 

I would just not want anything newer than ASSTA 1, as the GMR picture is pretty shit to look at on the new NHDD. 

I would love to know how the GMR picture looks on the GR.4s TARDIS and if its at least of the same qaulity as the CRPMD.

The TARDIS probably good for MIDS stuff.

 

Other than that a ASSTA 1 is still able to do the same job as a earlier ASST IDS (ASST were the standards before ASSTA).

Up to that point capabilities got only added. Effectively MW-1 was out of use by then, but the function was still part of the SMS in ASSTA 1.

 

I still think a TIALD/Desert Storm GR.1 would be the best blast, as you could still fly it the same way as a 80s GR.1, with the "drawback" of having the slightly newer ERWR II radar warning receiver.

  • Like 2

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banabrai,  you are correct about the 80 mile range selector, my mistake, I think the repeater in the front cockpit only went up to 40 miles. 

 

When the Gr1b was originally introduced into service the navigator had to manually program in the Sea Eagle waypoints, the radar was not able to lock onto moving targets.  This was rectified with a latter update.  This is odd given that presumably the German Navy Tornado`s must have been able to do this with Kormorant?

 

But like you I think its strange that is couldn`t lock sea targets further than 40 miles, when attacking a ground target could they be locked past 40 miles?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't know how the radar lock in the Tornado worked back then, in terms of lock specific radar targets, especially sea targets.

The oldest Tornado Pilot I know is my dad (as a source for the oldest software and HW standard), and he flew ground attack (JaBo) between 1986-2000 and not with the German Navy (GN).

The GAF back in the day used the radar similar to how the Viggen works in DCS. So there was no GMT mode as far as I am aware, but I will recheck.

 

Instead you have pre planned coordinate, which is technically 'locked' by the INS and if I remember correctly, is then adjusted with the radar in a way that the flight plan/ nav points align with the radar picture. So very much Viggen style.

 

The guy I know who was shooting Kormoran did that in the late 90s and early 2000s, when they just phased them out by shooting them all 'for fun'.

I will try and ask him again if there was some kind of lock on to a ship like in a GMT fashion, or lets say 'Sea Moving Target'.

 

But I agree, a lock prohibit until a range of 40nm is selected is not very smart. Maybe they expected the hardware to not be good/stable enough to keep a lock between 80-41nm.

It's like in the F-5E where you can't lock air targets at the max range setting (40nm?).

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gr1 didn’t have GMT ability at all. I don’t know about GR4 - never flew that one.

 

GMR/TFR Radar set was installed in Tornado GR1.

 

GMR was ARI 23274, TFR was ARI 23273. 
 

@Bananabrai Kormoran would be fired at a point, inertially guided during mid phase flight, then goes into an active search during terminal when it will lock on the closest target to the point selected via the mapping radar (GMR), the resolution of which can pick out ships easily at range. It just cant lock a moving surface contact in the way a GMT radar set can.


Edited by G.J.S
  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Okay, so nobody wants an ADV but this is a tantalising glimpse into what an F3 in a DCS environment could look like:

 

 

TL;Didn't Bother Watching (shame on you):

F-14 BVR parity-advantage, ACM disadvantage

F-15 BVR parity-disadvantage, ACM run away

F-16 BVR is there anybody there? ACM don't turn up. 

 

Overall? Sounds great!

 

Disadvantage doesn't mean suicide, and successes were had all round with the watchwords "guile and cunning". This is where it could become interesting, and fun. A well-scripted campaign, or well organised online group, could allow a pilot interested in brain as much a brawn to have a properly absorbing and entertaining time. Which is, after all, what we're here for - the power-fantasy kill-fetishists are over on the ED forum wizzelling about their F-18 computer assist not assisting them enough. I imagine.

 

Nobody will make an ADV Tornado because nobody wants an ADV Tornado, because it's seen as being a bit sh*t. I've just realised that's a pity because, as entertainment, it could be ace.

 

Right, usual IDS (late GR.1 for my biases) fanboi service resuming.

 

Cheers and gone!

 

Ps. 800-830kts low level (c.500 ASL) to comfortably chase down F-111s in Salty Hammer exercises. Intercepter? I barely saw 'er! 

Pps. Inital radar contact vs B-52 at 120NM. Lols.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tonker said:

Nobody will make an ADV Tornado because nobody wants an ADV Tornado, because it's seen as being a bit sh*t. I've just realised that's a pity because, as entertainment, it could be ace.

I mean, that summary you wrote does not exactly paint a pretty picture (and it completely neglects the Phoenix at that, which is a whole other can of worms...), especially for something that entered service ~10-15 years after the Teen series. I think it's fair to say it was a highly specific, expensive aircraft in an era where compromises in aircraft design were not as mandatory as they had been in the past. I love the Tornado and would happily get an F3 if it's ever released in DCS because I'm not in the "muh capabilities" crowd, but realistically, IRL I don't see much it could do that a Phantom with upgraded avionics couldn't (and for less money). Other than hitting 800 KIAS on the deck though, lol. That's some Viggen stuff.


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

8 hours ago, TLTeo said:

...it completely neglects the Phoenix at that, which is a whole other can of worms...

Interestingly, the Phoenix is explicitly mentioned in the interview...as a total non-issue. There wasn't much detail, but the question is raised and answered.

 

I make no defence of the aircraft as a warfighting machine, just note that there is more scope for an engaging (eg) DCS module than I had previously realised 🙂

 

But, yeah, IDS/GR.1 please!


Edited by Tonker

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tonker said:

But, yeah, IDS/GR.1 please!

 

This!

 

The F2/F3 is somewhat of a "fake Tornado" in my eyes. The true Tornado experience comes with the IDS/GR. variant.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 2

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

7 hours ago, Tonker said:

Interestingly, the Phoenix is explicitly mentioned in the interview...as a total non-issue.

Exactly, and that makes no sense because at worst the Phoenix is a much much better Fox 1 than either the -F/-M Sparrow or Skyflash. Particularly in that fight he mentioned when the Tornado is very g-limited because of his external tanks. Imo it's likely that they simply didn't brief it because that particular sortie either didn't require it, or the Phoenix was still seen as an anti bomber weapon mainly because 80s. There are other interviews on that channel in which F3 pilots state the opposite too.

 

But yeah, back on topic, any IDS variant would be a better starting point imo. The F3 is something I only see coming, perhaps, in the distant future when there are fewer sexy/high priority aircraft left to do. And the F2 is just....no. When the freaking F86 Sabre has a better radar, you know something went wrong 😛


Edited by TLTeo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 11:18 PM, Tonker said:

Okay, so nobody wants an ADV but this is a tantalising glimpse into what an F3 in a DCS environment could look like:

 

TL;Didn't Bother Watching (shame on you):

F-14 BVR parity-advantage, ACM disadvantage

F-15 BVR parity-disadvantage, ACM run away

F-16 BVR is there anybody there? ACM don't turn up. 

 

Overall? Sounds great!

 

Disadvantage doesn't mean suicide, and successes were had all round with the watchwords "guile and cunning". This is where it could become interesting, and fun. A well-scripted campaign, or well organised online group, could allow a pilot interested in brain as much a brawn to have a properly absorbing and entertaining time. Which is, after all, what we're here for - the power-fantasy kill-fetishists are over on the ED forum wizzelling about their F-18 computer assist not assisting them enough. I imagine.

 

Nobody will make an ADV Tornado because nobody wants an ADV Tornado, because it's seen as being a bit sh*t. I've just realised that's a pity because, as entertainment, it could be ace.

 

Right, usual IDS (late GR.1 for my biases) fanboi service resuming.

 

Cheers and gone!

 

Ps. 800-830kts low level (c.500 ASL) to comfortably chase down F-111s in Salty Hammer exercises. Intercepter? I barely saw 'er! 

Pps. Inital radar contact vs B-52 at 120NM. Lols.

 

True. What really is giving me a great feeling/experience, is when I achieve a thing which is really challenging. 

And I have to say, I always liked the looks of the ADV.

 

Even if it is underpowered or whatever, I would still really enjoy to fly it. It's still a Tornado. It's just that an IDS (late GR.1 for me as well) would be really a lot more amazing.

 

What I think they were only able to test in a very limited fashion IRL, is how the performance was without external fuel tanks.

I guess they mostly did that against other F3s, as they could do that just around the corner of the home plate.

But I assume they were not able to test they jet clean in DACT.

That's what we can do in DCS. Maybe you can really stand a chance against something if you drop your tanks and get your tactics right.

I mean: we're comlaining that it would not compare well against all other fighters in DCS, still some managed to shoot down fighters with the A-10 in DCS...


Edited by Bananabrai
  • Like 1

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK-Air-Force/Panavia-Tornado-GR1/2135131

 

Half Viggen, half F-14. What could be more Heatblur, or fit better the single bit of info we have about a new module: that it makes use of HB-developed tech.

 

That is all 🙂

 


Edited by Tonker
Shame that's not embedding, it's a corker of a photo
  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GR.1   IDS... either a pure 1980's year, or maybe a 1991 for the RAF in the sandbox.

 

Why? Because!

 

Precision bombing with iron, no smart seekers. Munitions pods underneath to ruin enemy runways. Sidewinders to keep agressive Mig's from getting an easy shot. Some 27mm to take out some BMP-2's. 

 

I'd wish for repaints for the RAF in both Desert Storm sand and the 80's green camo, Luftwaffe green and grey, Saudi Arabian colors, Italian Tornados too! 

 

Nice to have options: designator pod, ECR and HARM-88 for the Germans to do exciting SEAD missions...  that would help with using the module with more modern aircraft like the more modern Viper and Hornet modules of the 2000's, while still being 1980's era? Add in anti-ship missiles and we can then fly missions for the German Navy (Marineflieger)!!

 

 

Now... I'm not against either the GR.4 or the ADV... but whenever I think of the Tornado, I think of a treetop precision bomber for the Cold War, and that's what I'd like to fly!


Edited by Rick50
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was working as a contractor at RAF St Mawgan winter of 90-91 and remember a lone Tornado coming in to land.  Parked up right next to where I was working...

 

Desert pink scheme, but absolutely plastered in dirt, dust and tail area black with smoke residue from the thrust reversers 

 

So yes, 91 ish era GR.1 would be very nice...!


Edited by rkk01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 8 months later...
  • 7 months later...
19 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Well this thread should be dead now, officially...

There's still more than enough room for another Tornado module, like a modern Tornado or an ADV.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 2

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 9/17/2022 at 2:36 PM, QuiGon said:

There's still more than enough room for another Tornado module, like a modern Tornado or an ADV.

 

But not from Heatblur unfortunately, I guess.
Unless they team up with the Tornado guys like they did with the Eurofighter dudes.

Here’s hoping…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Matze81 said:

But not from Heatblur unfortunately, I guess.

Why not? :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

20 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Why not? :huh:

Making different variants of the same airframe by different companies would be really bad idea for 2 reasons:

1) Lack of uniformity. Many identical systems, shared between different variants, would be made in a different way only because two different 3rd parties would use their own, different approach to model such IRL identical systems. They would even look a bit different externally and internally is places that should look 100% identical.

2) Wasted parallel work time. Some 50% of the whole work of both 3rd parties would be wasted, wasting whole lot of time for nothing - external 3d model, big parts of the cockpit, gauges, logic of different shared systems, hydraulic, sensors, devices, avionics etc. - already done by other developers being work on again for no reason. Big amounts of wasted parallel work, wasted manhours.

Different variants are great, but not being developed by different 3rd parties.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, bies said:

Making different variants of the same airframe by different companies would be really bad idea for 2 reasons:

1) Lack of uniformity. Many identical systems, shared between different variants, would be made in a different way only because two different 3rd parties would use their own, different approach to model such IRL identical systems. They would even look a bit different externally and internally is places that should look 100% identical.

2) Wasted parallel work time. Some 50% of the whole work of both 3rd parties would be wasted, wasting whole lot of time for nothing - external 3d model, big parts of the cockpit, gauges, logic of different shared systems, hydraulic, sensors, devices, avionics etc. - already done by other developers being work on again for no reason. Big amounts of wasted parallel work, wasted manhours.

Different variants are great, but not being developed by different 3rd parties.

I totally agree with you, but I think this will happen sooner or later. For example, if one dev made a variant of an aircraft, but doesn't want to do a different variant, then I would rather have a different dev (who is willing) to do it, instead of never getting this variant at all.

And I'm thinking about variants here, that are rather distinct, like for example:
Harrier II <> Harrier I <> Sea Harrier
Eagle <> Strike Eagle
Strike Viggen <> Fighter Viggen
Cold War Tornado <> Modern Tornado
Legacy Hornet <> Super Hornet


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 2

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

29 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

And I'm thinking about variants here, that are rather distinct, like for example:
Harrier II <> Harrier I <> Sea Harrier
Eagle <> Strike Eagle
Strike Viggen <> Fighter Viggen
Cold War Tornado <> Modern Tornado
Legacy Hornet <> Super Hornet

Who knows, when it comes to this examples light grey fighter F-15 seems realistic and beneficial. But Maybe Razbam will surprise us later on?

Current Harrier is made by Razbam and the only 3rd party considering making different variant like Falkland War Sea Harrier is also Razbam.

Fighter Viggen - Heatblur, having Swedish coders and gathering big amount of information for Viggen module, contacting with Swedish military, if they woundn't be able to make fighter variant nobody else wouldn't be able as well.

Super Hornet, considering Boeing refused even the oldest one with basically identical avionics as our 2005 Hornet, it would be completely pointless to make just a new external 3d model and FM and repeat the whole 5-6 long years of extensive work of bunch of experienced ED developers... Just to repeat all the rest for some 3rd party copying the whole ED work.

Tornado, i guess it would be British Tornado, like GR4, but British are refusing to model anything even remotely recent from their inventory, let alone fairly recent Tornado GR4, some developers said in the interview they refused GR1 and refused 1980s Sea Harrier old Blue Vixen radar basic parameters. Just British policy i guess, it's not an accident we have 0 British modules more recent than WW2. And GR4 was a virgin variant anyway, with long range standoff missiles, subsonic with dismounted ramps in air intakes replaced by steel rods, with 2 sensors below the nose disturbing airflow for the engines at higher speeds, with disabled terrain following radars. Just bunch of classified electronics and airliner-like flight profile.

In most cases it is just far more reasonable to make completely different airframe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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