Jump to content

Talk:Panavia Tornado/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RAF Tornado

Anybody explain why all the sub pages on the Tornado variants are called for example RAF_Tornado_F3 when they should be prefixed Panavia (Panavia Tornado F3), it is not terminology used by anybody outside of wikipedia. Perhaps we should change it - any comments ? MilborneOne 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline takes up a lot of space, it should be moved to a separate page. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Support - The subvariant pages are largely redundant. If more space is needed, the subvariants should be summarized in the main article (here), and described in detail on a separate "Tornado variants" page. See Supermarine Spitfire, Lockheed Constellation, and F-4 Phantom II for an example of the proper way of doing it. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Support I agree with Emt147 refer to my comment further up, the variants are wrongly named anyway so a merge would sort that problem MilborneOne 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Done It's done. There needs to be some fact checking for consistency, and the article still needs work, but all the information from the other pages has been moved onto this one. I've left the timelines half-merged, pending discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Timelines. I think a milestones timeline can be a good addition if done concisely. --Mmx1 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thank you! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I know why the merger of all the sub-variants took place, due to the fragmentation of info. However I felt like the page got far too crowded and difficult to navigate after the merger. I've taken the advice of Emt147 and created Panavia Tornado variants. Partly because the page was getting far too long (and also over recommended size) but also because I intend to expand variant info which would have made the page far too complicated. Mark83 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Radar system naming

In section 2.2.1 ("RAF Tornado F.2"), there's mention of a "Foxhound" radar. Is this right, or a typo with "Foxhunter" the intention? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Museums

XX947 is now located at Shoreham Airport, other airframes used in the development of the variants have been refurbished for museum exhibition. Panavia Tornado PO2, XX946, was at the Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon, has been moved to Royal Air Force Museum, Cosford. At IWM Duxford is Panavia Tornado GR.1B ZA465/FF 'FK' "Foxy Killer" [not sure if this is really ex-Gulf War becasue it lacks the desert paint scheme]. 81.86.144.210 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Differences between GR and F variants

This could well be out of date, and also utterly inaccurate - it's been a long time since I had any involvement with the RAF, but as I recall, the GR.1 had 2 cannon mounted in the nose (article quotes 1 cannon on GR.4), and an in-flight refueling system that stood proud of the fuselage. The F.3 in service at the time (early '90s, post Gulf War 1) only had 1 cannon, because the in-flight refuelling system had to be set flush to the fuselage (therefore taking space otherwise used for the cannon) in order for it to be able to achieve supersonic speeds.

Has my memory totally gone, was I always mistaken in this, or is it correct but irrelevant anyway? 86.136.46.103 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The GR1 lost a cannon when being converted to GR4, I think for a FLIR sensor. The GR1A had no cannons a think, the space used instead for Sideways radar etc. The F3 always had one cannon. I'm not sure about the refuelling system, the GR4 doesn't have a flush refuelling arm and it is supersonic. Mark83 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - glad to hear my memory isn't totally gone; I'm pretty sure I was told the bit about the flush vs proud refuelling pod by pilots in... erm... 27 squadron; I was at Marham at the time, around '92 - 617 were there, 2 squadron was there with the GR1A (guns replaced by cameras rather than radar, if memory serves - they were/are recce squadron), and I think it was 27. Probably the engines got upgraded subsequently - it was a long time ago, after all. 86.136.46.103 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The recce squadrons were II (AC) and 13. The 2 cannons were replaced with an infrared linescan system, which is now no longer used. For recce purposes the RAF now uses the RAPTOR pod.

Thrust/weight

The figure is obviously wrong--Laur2ro 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of color profile

Mr. Giovanni Paulli of www.paulligiovanni.com has bee so gentle to give me written permission to use the color profile I added in the image (see its page for authorisation). In exchange his copyright and his website link MUST be left on the page. So please don't remove them .--Attilios 09:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Multi-Role Combat Aircraft

What does the above link to the Tornado? While the Tornado is an MRCA, there are a lot of other fighter jets that meet that role for example the F-16, F/A-18, Su-30MKI, Dassault Rafale etc. I don't know if this should be a different link ennumerating all the different aircrafts that fall into that category but I do think that it should not link to the Tornado alone. Rakeshsharma

Yes, there are multi-role combat aircraft (no caps). However, there was a program begun in 1968 which was called the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft; it eventually became the Panavia Tornado. That's why the link redirects here. Does that help? - BillCJ 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The capitalisation is what makes it different. If it was just a general article about multirole fighters/aircraft the Manual of Style advises that it would be "Multirole combat aircraft". However it was/is the official title of the project that became the Tornado, hence Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. I think the nearest general article is Multirole aircraft (it's only a stub). Mark83 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay I understand the reasoning behind it. I am going to suggest expanding on the page for Multirole Combat Aircraft (MRCA), redirecting the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft to that page and creating a disambiguation to redirect to the Tornado. While the Tornados name on its inception was the 'Multi-Role Combat Aircraft', this particular term is now used to describe a multitude of planes hence creating some confusion. In addition I believe that the people who are searching for the Multi Role Combat aircraft might be looking for a page on the category of planes. If someone is looking for information on the Tornado, the disambiguation will redirect them to the Tornado. Rakeshsharma
I would have to disagree about linking MRCA to Multirole Combat Aircraft, most people would associate MRCA with the Tornado Project.MilborneOne 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's such a good idea. One, how many people, really, will be searching for "Multi-Role Combat Aircraft" when they're looking for "Multirole combat aircraft" instead of the Tornado? Creating a Multirole combat aircraft page might be workable, but Multi-Role Combat Aircraft should always redirect to Panavia Tornado. - Aerobird 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Point understood. Multi-Role Combat Aircraft was the project name given to the Tornado. However, a person like me for instance, who is searching for Multirole combat aircraft, could also put a search that looks something like Multi-Role Combat Aircraft or MRCA, which is a more generic term as it describes a more broad range of aircraft especially in today's environment. For instance, the Eurofighter Typhoon is also a Multirole Combat Aircraft or Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. The Indian Air Force is considering a tender out for the MRCA which stands for Multirole Combat Aircraft. What I am suggesting is the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft should point to the term rather than the project that was named so. And besides, people searching for the Tornado would rather enter Tornado or Panavia Tornado rather than search for Multi-Role Combat Aircraft if ease of search is what you are really going for. Rakeshsharma 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there is a stub at Multirole aircraft, maybe we should move it to Multirole combat aircraft, as other types of aircraft can be multi-role, but are non-combat (transports, helicopters, etc.) This new page could have a "see-also" link to the Tornado, which could also have a "see-also" link to that page. Would that be a workable solution? - BillCJ 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I like your suggestion. What happens to the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft page? Does that link to the Multirole combat aircraft or to the Panavia Tornado? Rakeshsharma 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it should link to the tTornado, but there would be a notice at the top of the Tornado page with a link to the other article. - BillCJ 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
See that is my argument. The term is disambigous as the term Multi-Role Combat Aircraft stands for more than just the project name for the Tornado. The Tornado already has its primary name which is "Panavia Tornado" which is the current name. The Multi-Role Combat Aircraft was the project name given to the Tornado. But the term is more generic now as it refers to a host of other aircrafts. I agree that the hyphen and the capitalization makes a difference, but Multirole can also be searched as Multi-Role which is where the ambiguity comes in. I agree that putting a disambiguity/See Also notice on the Multirole Combat Aircraft that directs to the Tornado would work well with me. Rakeshsharma 11:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at it now, I've added a redirect notice. Feel free to play with the words etc. I linked to multirole aircraft as the alternative? Mark83 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made a couple of small changes to the words, but otherwise it looks good. User:Rakeshsharma
MRCA, the abbreviation, should refer to the concept, but the phrase spelt out in caps should be to the Tornado.GraemeLeggett 12:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with the view, but the redirect notice makes the disambiguity a little less. I agree with Graeme in that the MRCA abbreviation should refer to the concept. I also feel the hyphenated term should refer to the concept first and then the project as the Tornado is also a type of Multirole fighter. Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you are working with me on this issue. Rakeshsharma 12:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In the context of Tornado the somewhat ironic joke was that "MRCA" stood for Must Replace Canberra AGAIN - this was after the cancellation of TSR-2 which had been the originally intended Canberra replacement. Ian Dunster (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the initial name for the MRCA (Tornado) was the 'Panavia Panther' but that name was later dropped. Ian Dunster (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

what is the cost of a PT ??

--84.75.31.16 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends what a PT is ? if you possibly mean a Panavia Tornado it would have cost you about 33 million dollars for an IDS in 1997.MilborneOne 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you mean a roll of Paper Towels, it's about US$1.69 for a good brand. - BillCJ 23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RAF service history

I think the RAF Service History section needs work. It only mentions the GR4. There's some mention of the GR1 and Operation Granby elsewhere in the article that could be moved there.Zhochaka 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) It certainly does. There is no mention of the work done by GR1a's during Granby which were all carried out at low level and at night.

How many?

How many are in use in the RAF at the moment? It isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.1.134 (talk • contribs)

Add up the numbers in the table. It gives active squadrons and numbers of aircraft per squadron. Mark83 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bomber or fighter-bomber?

My question is: should the Tornado (excluding the ADV) be considered a fighter-bomber or a pure bomber?

After all it started as a replacement of the V bombers of the RAF, and the main mission is putting it on the ground, the AAM are only for self-defense.

Moreover: "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history."

Uh, Jimmy Stewart was a bomber pilot who made plenty of movies, some about bomber pilots. And I guess history has forgotten Eddie Rickenbacker, The Red Baron, Pappy Boyington, Chuck Yeager, the Tuskeegee Airmen, Randy CUningham, Robin Olds, just to name a few. SO go ahead, be the the foot calling the hand useless. - BillCJ 08:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Bill, you normally make me laugh, but I'm not getting that at all. :) Maybe I'm being a bit slow today! Anyways, fighter-bomber is more appropriate in muy opinion. Yeah, the AAMs are only for self defense, nevertheless, the capability is there to fight its way to a target or fight its way out. i.e. fight & bomb. Even going to the basics of the term, it is a fighter size/class aircraft. A "pure bomber" class aircraft would qualify as B-1/B-2/B-52/Vulcan etc. surely? Mark83 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Mark, I missed your comments by a month! I assume you're referring to the foot/hand comment. I had 3 points going there, and they weren't reallysequential.
  1. Bomber pilots made movies.
  2. Fighter pilots made history.
  3. All parts of the body have important roles to play, and without one, the rest of the body sufferes to some extent. It would be silly for the foot to say, "Hands make movies, feet make history!", because they all play an important role. - BillCJ 04:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history" as mentioned by the original poster is irrelevant and not an encyclopedic basis for comments. The question is - is it a fighter or a bomber. If the discussion is to continue perhaps it would be better to focus on my 5 July comment and voice and agreement/disagreement with the logic of that. Mark83 09:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the GR4/IDS is a bomber but perhaps the term is archaic for the RAF website describes it as an all-weather attack aircraft - The Tornado GR4 is a variable geometry, two-seat, day or night, all-weather attack aircraft, capable of delivering a wide variety of weapons. MilborneOne 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I rate that 'attack aircraft' is the right word. Bomber of fighter is misleading, also A-10 is not any of them, and so A-4/7. Since Tornado is quite agile it could be called fighter-bomber but no A/A dual role was ever performed by IDS squadrons, so this remains pure theory.--Stefanomencarelli 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I don't really know a darn thing about military aircraft, but I do recall a large number of the aircraft being shot down in the early days of the Gulf War, and I also regularly read descriptions of the Tornado as the "Flying Coffin" due to this propensity. Can someone who knows something about this comment, or would this not be a subject for this page? --218.214.169.163 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that a large number of aircraft were lost in Desert Storm, of the seven British Tornados that were lost, four were shot down during the first week of the campaign at very low altitude while conducting strikes against airfields. After the change to medium-altitude deliveries, only three more British Tornados were lost in the remaining 5 weeks of the air campaign. The Tornadoes achieved 1600 sorties during Desert Storm for seven losses. I would say that was a good record considering the sorties that were carried out. First time I have heard or read the term "Flying Coffin" related to the Tornado, so it can not be that regular comment. What I know of the Tornado record I could not see such a comment justified. MilborneOne 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart i don't rate Tornado unsafe at any means, but this should be better looked with the time. Four Tornados were lost in only 100 hours, performing a bit more than 100 missions, this is rougly 3% loss rate, just like Harriers in Falkands. Beware, i talk about attack missions, not CAPs.The first Tornado of AM that reached Kuwait City was shot down as well by 23 mm guns. So the basic problem was the fullower: low-level missions were really safe? The answer of DS was definitively NOT (so the all the fair words about strike missions over Warsaw Pact at low level were quickly vanished, already Falkands were rated an alarm bell, with six aircraft lost in exchange of 220 missions), and since 1991 the mid-air level missions, less fuel hungry also, were preferred. Atleast Shilka cannot reach you. It's enough to have air dominance all around, not a simple task without Uncle Sam.--Stefanomencarelli 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

IDS and ADV pages

Is there any particular reason that the IDS and ADV versions are covered together on the main page, with a separate page for variants? Most printed references cover the 2 main variants separately, so this has always seemed a bit odd to me. Before just proposing a split, however, I wanted to check wth the long-time editors to see if there was a reason that it was done this way. - BillCJ 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally there was this page as well as well as subvariant pages:
  • RAF Tornado GR4 - premerger version: [1]
  • RAF Tornado GR1 - premerger version: [2]
  • RAF Tornado F3 - premerger version: [3]
  • RAF Tornado GR1B - premerger version: [4]
Following the discussion above ("Merge" - begun on 11 March 2006) these articles were all merged into this article. I was largely responsible for the creation of Panavia Tornado variants for the reasons I described at the time - "I think I know why the merger of all the sub-variants took place, due to the fragmentation of info. However I felt like the page got far too crowded and difficult to navigate after the merger. I've taken the advice of Emt147 and created Panavia Tornado variants. Partly because the page was getting far too long (and also over recommended size) but also because I intend to expand variant info which would have made the page far too complicated." However if you can see a better way to cover the Tornado and its variants I am 100% open to suggestions and would be happy to help in such a change. Mark83 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I seem to remember seeing that reason awhile back, now that you mention it. It seems odd that separate pages on each mark (no pun intended here) existed, so I guess someone just got carried away. They definelty needed to be reorganized. As I stated above, I think dividing the pages along the ADV and IDS variants would work well. The F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle have comparable roles, and are on different pages. (Granted, they wern't developed concurrently, but even if they were, I think they'd be on separate pages.) I just think it's easier to cover each variant by itself, as they do have divergent development and operational histories.

THe IDS page would cover the strike variants of the Royal, Italian, and German Air FOrces, and German Navy, and possibly the German-Italian ECR version, depending on how much content ther is on that variant. The ADV would cover the RAF and RSAF interceptor models. THe IDS being the most common model, I'd cover the background of the MRCA program there, but then the ECR variants might make it too long. That's the basics. I can look at the articles more carefully if you want more specifics, or have questions on how to handle certian issues. I actually would recommend the IDS version stay at Panavia Tornado, and put the ADV at Panavia Tornado ADV (we might want to move the variants page there so we that retain the histories of both current pages).

I've done alot of mergers and splits, and actually enjoy the process alot, particularly redoing infoboxes, and doing the basic layout. My week point is rewriting text, and could use help there. Wha da ya think? - BillCJ 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. The F-15/15-E articles are a good template IMO. Happy to help with a rewrite. Good idea about moving the variants page to keep the history -- the ADV section is about 1/3 of the article anyway. Mark83 10:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to get to it this week if there are no ojbections. Good changes below. - BillCJ 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mark, are you able to merge histories? If so, we might ought to merge RAF Tornado F3 with the variants page (before or after the mover to Panavia Tornado ADV, whichever is best). Just a thought, since the F3 history goes back a few years, and does not overlap the variatns page at all. I'm probaly going to copy some of the format from the F# page, and there is a specs table the I'll probably use/adapt anyway. - BillCJ 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Page history merger done - the page now has the RAF Tornado F3 history dating back to to July 2003 as well as the Panavia Tornado variants history. Mark83 09:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes explained

I haven't carried out the merger/split (bit of both), since BillCJ is happy to do it. I have made some major changes though, just thought I'd take a moment to explain.

  • Timeline removed - I created the original timeline. However either because of a change of heart or the way the article is now structured it just didn't look right to me. Also many important developments were in the timeline but not even mentioned in the prose. Given the MOS preference for prose over lists I thought it was better just to merge it into the prose. Finally the information contained was very fragmented, e.g. the GR4 - it was mentioned in 1984, twice in '93, '94, '97 and '98. Now its all contained in one paragraph, so rather than having to piece the information together, the reader can see clearly how the GR4 development progressed.
  • Images: ADV - I've removed ADV images due to the nature of the split proprosed.
  • Images: general - I've culled most of the images. Images should be there to aid in description or provide context. I feel there were too many images just there... well for no real reason! e.g. Image:Panavia_Tornado_Luftwaffe.jpg & Image:Panavia_Tornado_Luftwaffe.jpg convey essentially the same thing. Just livery and direction of take off is different! As for accessibility to the images removed - they're all in the commons gallery linked at the bottom.
  • Images: specs - The specs really benefit from an orthographic projection. If all we had was Image:1Tornado Luftwaffe EINS 1 Copyright Giovanni Paulli.jpg then it would do. But the point is we have Image:Tornado IDS graphic.gif which is far more encyclopedic. Image:1Tornado Luftwaffe EINS 1 looks very commercial, esp. with the authors signature.
  • I've reformatted the unit table - looks neater? Mark83 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge/split

OK, I've done the major shifts for the merge/split of the IDS/ECR and ADV varians. The specs on the ADV page need to be updated: the specs template is from the GR4, but the list-type specs from the old F-3 page are right below it. The main figures should be accuarate, but I haven't double-checked any sources. THe text is basically cut-and-paste, and strung together. There may be some overlaps in coverage on each page, but my eyes are ready for a rest! Anyone can feel free to work on this. We can remove the {{under construction}} tags when we think each article is finished. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GR.1 vs. GR1 etc.

I had a discussion with User:MilborneOne regarding the RAF Tornado designations. There is no doubt that GR.1/GR.4/F.2/F.3 have been widely used. However MilborneOne suggested that GR.1 et al were never offical designations.

So what should we use? Given that the RAF and the manufacturer of the GR4 call it that (and not GR.4) I recommend going with that. As for the others, the RAF also refers to them without dots/full stops/periods, e.g:

Photos

Can't wait to get my hands on a scanner... I've got several shots of a Tornado taken during aerial refueling, and I happened to get several with the wings out, and one with the wings in, all from a nice overhead angle. The resolution kind of sucks, I think it was a disposable camera, but they'll make a lovely illustration of the swing wings, side-by-side (I'll probably merge them into a single image with both shots in it). :) -- John Owens 05:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I completed the photos with almost every national air force that has it in service. They are all hi-res and some show historical markings and paint schemes from the Cold War era. Koalorka (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this article has twelve images already to show different aspects of the aircraft, it is not a photo gallery and if low quality they will probably be deleted if they are added. Please consider uploading any images to [Commons] which is linked from this article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look cluttered. The number of images is ideal IMO. They are all hi-res. I forgot about Commons. Koalorka (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment was about the addition of more photos (sorry I moved this to the bottom I didnt notice the original comment was 2003!!). MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ECR Versioning

According to this site, the ECR is a variant of the IDS, which makes sense as the Italians converted their ECR from IDS's. I believe the airframs are largely identical, more so than the 80% commonality between IDS and ADV, and should properly be a subvariant. --Mmx1 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No. ECR is no version of IDS, both variants are for different missions. And only the Italian ECRs are are converted IDS versions, the German variant is built as ECR and comes with several differences to the IDS version inside the fuselage. --((User:bgawert:bgawert]] 17:15, 22 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Real performances of Tornado, lies and couvered truths

Tornado had many years ago (ie. Cold War), many overclaimings about the performances.

they were rated capable to reach 2,27 mach and 1400 km with 3600 kg, 1800 km with 1800 kg, even 2500 km with 1100 kg! But wait, ferry range is 4,000 km so these figures are simply untrue.

Mach 2, lather in 90's was discovered that Tornado IDS is not able to reach it at all.

As range, Tornado IDS of AMI, from 1000 km needed three air refuelling to reach Kuwait, and this with just 2000kg and flyng at medium heigts. They should had reached Kuwait City without AR and with 4t., Baghad with 2 ton, so let's see how inflated these teorical numbers are.

Instead, for many years the wing surface was not ufficially known, because there must been some problems to propose a fighter ADV with 1000 kg wingload. This was not the only one misinformation, ex. Su-24 was rated capablo of over mach 2 (with fixed intakes..) and so on. But Panavia claimed really *false* statements.

My old enciclopedy 'War Machines (1984)' states 2414 km/h for IDS, 1390 km with 3629 kg (8x1000lbs) and wing surface is 'not declared' at all, literally written. At the beginnings of '90s the speed was declared a bit more than 2,000 km/h, not even ADV was able to reach more than 2,16 mach. Range was displayed in DS as not sufficient to fly from Al Dafra to Kuwait City at medium range without AR even with only 2200kg on board.

PS this means, also that several of the given datas in the main page are outdated and false as well. No Tornado had reached mach 2,34, nor any of them reached 1400 km range with 4 t. atleast not in a operational sqn. AFAIK. (AM Tornados had less than 1000km with 2t...). The best speed i read published was about 1,6 mach for AM Tornados, reached 'clean', 'at altitude' and with an initial dive. --Stefanomencarelli 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss several things here, mainly that there are several different Tornado variants in different configurations which have different performance characteristics. For example, the German Tornado ECR with the Mk105 engines does reach Mach 2+ in clean config. Yes, the IDS can't reach Mach 2, but then this wasn't a requirement, part of requirements which changed several times since development started and which are written down in documents that won't be made public for at least another 20 years. Having quite some experience on Tornado (not the Italian ones, though) I can't see how Panavia would have been lying. You should also be aware that any numbers you read somewhere are very likely vague and often even arbitrary, and you rarely will know about the exact circumstances these numbers have been gathered. -- bgawert 17:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

I must missed something: how come that the Tornado list of comparable air crafts include the F-15E? Their preformance levels are totaly different in every aspect. I think that the only comparable air crafts to F-15E are the MIG-29 and 31, and maybe the Eurofighter as well.--Gilisa (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tactical painting

Can someone explain why does the German Tornados are not painted in tactical colors? Or maybe that the picture in the article only present special event? I'm asking because I saw this more than once and outside wikipedia--Gilisa (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would expect it to be a special event it is not that unusual for one aircaft of each squadron to be painted in special marking either as a display aircraft or some special anniversary. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not one aircraft. I guess that it's a special event after all..Cheers--Gilisa (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that each aircraft in the image is from a different squadron. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that? I understand it about the MiG 29 but how do you know that the rest are from different squadrons? The drawings don't look like typical sqaurdon symbol (never in my life have I seen signatured portrait as squardon symbol). --Gilisa (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Because if you open up the File by clicking on the thumbnail it has an explanation of what is in the image in German and English. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
facepalm. --Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tornado IDS 3 view

The current image appears to be a composite- the forward fuselage and wing nibs represent a F2/F3- note the relationship of the canopy to the intakes, the wing nibs are at a greater angle than an IDS and do not have Krueger flaps, the built in IFR probe doors on the LH side of the fuselage and the finer lines of the radome. Can anybody suggest a source for an accurate 3 view?Kitbag (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely isn't an IDS, though it isn't quite an ADV either - unless maybe, it is supposed to depict a prototype F.2, when it had a camera(?) mounted on the fin leading edge, as seen here. Probably shouldn't be in this article, which deals almost exclusively with the IDS/ECR. Letdorf (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Irony?

I was reading through David Haglund's The defence industrial base and the West, and encountered this sentence: "Given its possible precedential significance for the EFA program, it is perhaps unfortunant that there should be such a death of analytical research and writin about the Tornado program." Considering the size of the article for the brand new Eurofighter Typhoon, the Panavia Tornado has been left out in the dark in comparison. New planes sure do get a lot of hot air... Kyteto (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference format changes?

Is there any consensus for the recent changes in formats of references and citations?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I see, just like the transfer of the Rockwell B-1 Lancer's formatting, it was unilateral. Right now it's a mess inbetween the two different standards, frustrating t say the least. I hope the user comes back and finishes the job, because I really don't want to have to untangle it all to put it back how it was. Kyteto (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Review

After piping up at WT:AIR I have had a good read through and have some suggestions/queries that may (or may not!) be useful for article improvement. I note the citation style mixing mentioned above.

  • Lead - Pretty good, repetition of tri-nation(al), one or more instance could be replaced with 'joint' or 'jointly developed'. It could do with a summary of the retirement and current operational status of Tornados adding, just the RAF GR4 and Saudi aircraft remain in service I believe.
All the operators of the Tornado still operate it to this day, the numbers have been reduced and the RAF have retired the ADV. Kyteto (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I was confused by the scope of the lead (family).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Development - Good, could be more technical stuff. There were aerodynamic problems, particularly buffet that was never quite solved. Parts of the FBW system were flown on other aircraft during testing I believe (Hunter possibly and F-104G CCV).
I've added some detail on the FBW development aircraft and their impact. Kyteto (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Good.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Overview - This is where I would expect to find all the airframe and flight control system details, I think it's very short compared to the operational history. Some questions an inquisitive reader might ask: How is roll controlled (ailerons or spoilers or a combination of spoilers, tailerons and rudder?), how do the stores stay in line with the fuselage when the wings sweep? Does it have Krueger flaps? Does it have a command ejection system? Does it have an ejectable flight data recorder? Does it have an arrestor hook? Does it have a stall and spin protection system? Can it dump fuel in flight? Is the refuelling probe fixed or removable?
I'm chronically incapable of putting together a decent design overview. After spending a dozen hours working on trying to conceptualise how to do it - I admit defeat - I cannot do it. I'm great at taking a section and enhancing it. I'm terrible at creating something out of zero. I just cannot do it. Despite putting together over half the article's present content, it just isn't happening not matter how I try, how many drafts or different angles I've written. They all look utter rubbish, irrelevant, pointless, subjective, and easily discarded. Someone else is going to have to work on writing this one. It just isn't working here. Kyteto (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, the term Overview is too wide-cast. I can research, write, and cite about an aspect of the design, the Avionics, the Engine, the Wings ect. I can't do it on the Overview. It's like hitting my head against a brick wall - where do you begin? I'm either treading on the toes of another section - pointless redundancy - it ends of reading like it's about a completely different topic to design -irrelevant - or an incoherent mess. Can I ask for something less vague and generic? Does this even need to be done - are we losing a lot by not having it, if I don't even have a clue what to say there? If you have an idea, could you write it? I'm at a loss. Kyteto (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Try to start with a basic description of the aircraft itself as if the reader knows near nothing about it. I reworked a similar section in the F-111 article (F-111 design overview). That might give you some ideas. I can work on it when you reach a stopping point. In general control surface details better fit in wing sections, such as the VG wing section here, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Caused by straying from standard aircraft project article headers.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Armament - No description of the Mauser cannon installation, chaff and flare dispensers (AN-ALE40?) were fitted to some aircraft.
Cannon details are now inserted. Kyteto (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Good.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Variants - Is there a trainer (dual-controlled) variant?
Yes/maybe/kinda/no. The sources are being incoherent on this - unreliable mention of a GR1T, but the mentions of it are rarer than scotch mist. As the standard aircraft is a two seater, the necessity for a two seater to be built for training is kind of redundant. The RAF's official training page doesn't seem to recognise any difference fromthe aircraft flown by the training squaddies to the frontline, same designation used - if the Operators can't be bothered to distinguish, there probably isn't a seperate variant. Kyteto (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The trainers are identified by their build block numbers, BS/BT for UK IDS, AS/AT for ADV, GS/GT (German) and IS/IT (guess!). To be fair they are not identified clearly in service use. A production table similar to this one would show them clearly. Most of the TTTE aircraft were trainers (but not all), an instructor friend was stuck in the back without a stick when the wings refused to sweep forward, an interesting but safe landing apparently! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • An emergency battery is mentioned, the ADV has a ram air turbine instead.
I left that off as it seemed to be excessive detail for the Engine section, and the more obscure ADV changes can be booted over to the ADV's own article. Kyteto (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
More article scope confusion caused by the lead (family). How are the engines started and controlled? Does the Tornado have an APU? How is thrust reduced on the ground to avoid high taxi speeds and brake burn out? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Specifications - The GR4 is the variant described but there is ADV stuff in there, should either be removed or converted to cited footnotes.
I believe I have phased this out. Kyteto (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Good.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Safety record - Not really mentioned, is the Tornado a safe and reliable aircraft? Did it suffer from fatigue or corrosion problems?

I suggested at WT:AIR that the operational history should be split off, same as F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history. The length of text is skewing the article balance towards the history and operators IMO leaving not much meat on the aircraft itself. WP:SPLIT is indicating that it it is time to do this. Hope that was helpful, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think splitting off the Operator list would be more straight forward thing and keep the main text sections together here. For each air service I added total numbers in service. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC).
The RAF F3s were retired in March 2011, noting that the added numbers and cite was correct in January 2011! Here's a link to a Flightglobal article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As the numbers don't have to be bang up to date, this is an annoyance but not a serious problem, as the date of the statement has been made - and the ADV article logs the RAF's standing down. We may as well wait until next month, and log the next totals for January 2012 on the article as they come online; this allows us to keep the mannner of citing uniform. Kyteto (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Why not amend it as I provided a source?! In effect the article is nine months out of date.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's true, but the next update of the World Military Aircraft Inventory is in barely two weeks anyhow; I thought that we may as well stick to the running source - plus there are other complications, if I adopted the ADV's removal but kept the January IDS numbers total, it may no longer be factually accurate E.G. "Royal Air Force has 86 GR4 and 22 GR4A aircraft in use as of June 2011", I'd be using GR4/GR4A figures from Jan but stating that it was as of six months later; yet I can't keep it postdated to Jan because of updated information since then. The solution to me, was to simply run the totals over annually from the annual release, it cuts down on work and endless adjustments, and seems to be valid for many aircraft articles. It is a temporary point of irritance, but one that won't last much longer. At least, that's my opinion of the issue. Kyteto (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Things have been addressed well enough for Kyteto to put this article up for GA nomination. :) The review just stated, see below. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

New Helmet Mounted Cueing System Deployed

UK RAF on operations in Afghanistan have just taken delivery of the BAE HMCS following a urgent operational requirement (UOR). This system evolved from the (Helmet-Mounted Sighting System (HMSS) originally used on the Harrier GR9. (IHS Janes IDR Many 2012 vol 45) Twobells (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Performance figures inconsistent, did not agree with the ref

The performance section cites "International warbirds: an illustrated guide to world military aircraft ..." By John C. Frédriksen, page 255. That page is available online and says the max speed is 921 mph, which converts to 800 knots and 1,482 km/h. The performance section previously had 800 knots, agreeing with the ref, but stated 2,418 km/h and 1,511 mph. One could quibble and state that with no armaments and no electronic warfare equipment, or with other engines, it could go super-duper multi-Mach fast, but that would not be what the stated reference says, and we can at least be expected to keep the units consistent. I will also add the Mach number, 1.21 for comparison to other warplanes. Edison (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

From the 1993 Jane's - max speed at altitude - Mach 2.2, max level speed above 800 knots (1480 km/h, 920 mph) Indicated airspeed - this corresponds to a rather higher true airspeed at altitude.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The above seems a bit garbled and confusing. Are you asserting (citing Jane's) that it can fly the same 921 at varying altitudes, though the speed of sound varies to a much lower value, such that 921 mph becomes Mach 2.2? Doesn't sound right. Or does Jane's give some higher speed at some specific altitude? Please clarify, and if you have other info, please include a proper inline cite in the article with your find. Edison (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The specs table has a proper inline reference (shortened footnote) already. I have a different source (ISBN 0-13925-504-4) that gives similar specs. Mach 2.2 is the max speed at altitude and Mach 1.2 (~800 knots) at low attitude, both in a clean configuration. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The max speed for an aircraft at sea level is roughly Mach 1.3. Only the strudiest aircraft can do that, the F-4, F-105, and Tornado being among the few that can go that fast. - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
All good to know. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK IDS GR4 is limited to Mach 1.3 at any altitude following removal of the air intake ramp system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.104.25 (talk)

Source for all of that? - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry BilCat I can't meet wiki standards of source evidence. The RAF have chosen to make the Mach limit public source. I am expanding on the reason for that limit from personal knowledge. Happy for it to be deleted. The article will have to remain incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.104.25 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not incorrect, only incomplete, as that doesn't change what was historically true. If the RAF releases the reason for the restrictions to the public, or it's published in a reliable source, then we can add that in to what's already there. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge with List of Panavia Tornado operators

Tag removed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Inserting a Picture

Sorry if this is the wrong section but I have a picture of Panavia Tornado D-9591 that I'd like to place here but I don't know how to do it so if someone could tell me how to do it or I'll give you the location of it if you'd like to do it for me.

Here is the image http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af169/FoxRiley/PanaviaTornadoIDSPrototype.jpg

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxRiley (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was on Flickr with the right license others could upload it using an automated tool, not sure about Photobucket. Best thing to do is create an account on 'Commons' if you haven't already and use the upload wizard, it has been improved and is quite easy to follow the steps now. At the end it will produce an image code (something like File:Tornado D-9591) from the name you give the image. Put that in the article in the 'prototypes' section with the code 'File:Tornado D-9591|thumb|Caption here' and you're done. Give me a shout on my talk page if you get stuck. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fly by Wire/ Command Stability Augmentation System

I think the following section in italics contained in Prototypes and Testing is incorrect

"The Tornado made use of relatively new electronic technologies to stabilise the aircraft's flight and augment its flight envelope, known as active control technology or fly-by-wire (FBW); thus several older aircraft types were extensively converted and rebuilt for testing to establish the concept's validity. In the late 1970s, British Aerospace developed a technology demonstration aircraft, a converted SEPECAT Jaguar, equipped with a full-authority digital flight control system, with progressive changes to the airframe to showcase the system's ability to compensate for aerodynamic irregularities and imbalances; MBB also flew a converted demonstrator aircraft, a Lockheed F-104G Starfighter, which similarly compensated for instability via a digital flight control system. Experience from both of these programmes would influence the Tornado...,

The implication is that the fly-by-wire Jaguar was used to develop digital flight control systems for Tornado. It is my understanding that the Command Stability and Augmentation System has always been a purely analogue electronic system and has not been upgraded. I believe that the Fly-By-Wire Jaguar programme was used to develop digital control systems for the EAP and Eurofighter. In any case, as stated in the main article Tornado first flew in 1974 and the Jaguar programme was in the late 1970s KreyszigB (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was added here, December 2011, immediately before the article was given GA status. I'd agree with what you say here - this makes no sense at all. For one glaringly obvious issue, the Jaguar FBW first flew in October 1981. "FBW" (broadly) is much older than this - I think one of the Avro 707s was the first to fly "by wire", but the digital control that is the significant factor here comes in (for the UK) with the Jaguar.
I don't even think the Jaguar was used to develop much for Eurofighter (such that I'd word it as it says here). From Jaguar to EAP was a really substantial shift in the architectural approach. Jaguar had the sixfold redundancy by averaging four calculation channels whilst EAP used a very different fourfold "detect and isolate" approach to faults.
CSAS is a whole different system and much older. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section under discussion. Later on in the article there is a good description of the CSAS system, so nothing of substance has been removed. It might be interesting for younger readers to expand the section on CSAS to describe how it is constructed from operational amplifiers and comparators rather than microprocessors and lines of code KreyszigB (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panavia_Tornado/Archive_1&oldid=1260764454"