Jump to content

Talk:Panavia Tornado ADV/Archive 1

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

GR4A

In response to mark83's question on the Talk:RAF Typhoon F2 page:

If you can find any references I'd love to see them - not because I doubt you, just because I'd like to read more about it. So if GR4s are being shared/circulated - doesn't that make an ex-GR4A (if you see what I mean) a slightly less capable plane than a pure GR4? i.e. the GR4A has no cannon and quite a bit of wasted space in the nose (redundant systems).Mark83 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

here is what I know. According to spyflight the RAF has aquired 8 RAPTOR pods. This has apparently allowed the phasing out of TIRRS, though I am yet to find a firm source for this information other than the web link just posted. However, I can believe that if it started to cost too much, it sould soon be done away with! There seems to be a bit of contradiction about how 'in service' RAPTOR is. Back in October 2004 Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup told a Select Committee on Defence

Of course we already have the Tornado GR4 with its raptor pod which provides us with an excellent tactical reconnaissance capability. The role which is currently fulfilled by the Jaguar will be taken on by the Harrier which can carry the joint reconnaissance pod. We have other more strategic reconnaissance assets of course and in due course we plan to incorporate the reconnaissance role into Typhoon. At the moment that is not at the top of the priority list, but it will be there in due course.

and...

The Harrier will be operating the reconnaissance sensor that the Jaguar currently operates alongside the Harrier. We already have the Tornado GR4 which will continue with its raptor pod and then in due course we will feed in the reconnaissance capability of the Typhoon as well.

Which I read on the UK parliament website here. Then, on Monday 26th June 2006, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram) said:

We have a range of new systems coming on-stream, one of which is ASTOR, which is the overall capability, while the Raptor reconnaissance pod will be fitted to Tornados and is expected to be ready for operation before the end of this year.

You can read that here. Finally, on the 17th July 2006, Mr Ingram said (quote from here):

There are currently four Reconnaissance Airborne Pod Tornado pods undergoing acceptance flight trials for the Tornado GR4/4A. A further four pods are undergoing maintenance activity with the equipment manufacturer, Goodrich Company.

So in summary we have 8 RAPTOR pods, but 4 are still undergoing acceptance trials and the other 4 are broken, it will be in service by the end of the year, and it is already in service!!!

As for the capability of the GR4A, I think you are right. There would be a small capability gap because it has no cannon, as opposed to 1 cannon! I think most of the internal space dedicated to TIRRS came from the cannon and ammunition, so there is no fuel or avionics penalty for example. A good example of the movement of jets between squadrons is Tornado GR4A ZA 370. This is an ex-II (AC) Sqn jet, most recently seen carrying Brimstone and ALARM for 31 Sqn, but still with its under fuselage recce fairing and sideways-looking IR windows, see here (all these pictures are the same jet) Airliners.net. Mixing of GR4s with GR4As may not be widespread, but check out ZA552 which was 9 Sqn and is now 13 Sqn (13 were a 'recce' sqn); ZA 591 which was 617 Sqn jet in the green and grey days but is most recently a Gold Star; and ZG 791 which has been a 13, 617, 31 and 14 Sqn jet! Clear evidence that jets are circualted widely through the fleet. From what I have seen it seems like II Sqn are keeping an almost exclusive GR4A fleet, with everyone else, including 13 Sqn, having a mixture of 4/4A's.

A can of worms eh? I will investigate further so we can think about updating the article(s). I look forward to hearing what other people ahve to say. Regards, Mumby 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And to muddy the waters a bit more:
"..the previous Chief of the Air Staff said during a speech during Operation TELIC, the Tornado (is equipped) with the low level IR reconnaissance system which again gives a low level day-night capability unique in the theatre. Welcome improvements would be digitisation of the TIRRS for greater reliability and fidelity of the recorded image and an internal datalink so that any intelligence material can be swiftly transmitted to the tasking agency." Air Force Monthly, March 2005 p. 30. Mark83 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, he wants a RAPTOR pod! Amazingly the RAF website is of no help, actually perhaps that isn't so amazing. I might try contacting someone at Marham directly.Mumby 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just for further information, you can see in this thread UKAR that 2 Sqn are now flying vanilla GR4s as well, so it seems that the entire fleet is a mix and match.Mumby 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


ADV PAGE?

Isn't it about time the ADV had a Wikipedia entry all of its own, maybe also the ECR? Royzee 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It used to have. However objections were raised about so many articles so it was all condensed into Panavia Tornado. I then created Panavia Tornado variants (by moving detailed variant info to this sub article) which covers the ADV in good detail. Mark83 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK but I personally would disagree. The ADV is substantially different from the IDS that it deserves its own entry IMO. It's a shame the RAF did not give it a new name. ADV is dull. Why not something macho like Hurricane II? Keeps the wind theme and commemorates one of the RAF's best fighters. On the other hand given the role of the ADV probably Mosquito II or Beaufighter II would be more apposite. Royzee 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I looked around on wikipedia for some inspiration/precedencce from articles that deal with aircraft that have many variants. F-4 Phantom II has a subpage called F-4 Phantom II variants, no seperate page for the F-4J, F-4G RF-4 etc, even though they are variants that could probably warrant their own page. On the other hand, the page for C-130 Hercules links to seperate articles for AC-130, DC-130, EC-130 Commando Solo and others. My opinion is that we need a generic Panavia Tornado page to deal with the large amount of common ancestory. In addition to that we could have a page for the ADV and one for the IDS, but not one for the ECR as well. That makes 3 pages which doesn't seem unreasonable. However, if all this has been discussed before and the outcome was that we have Panavia Tornado and Panavia Tornado variants then perhaps it should be left that way for the time being.Mumby 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
To let you know the full history, there were pages for:
The merger was discussed (for too short a time!!) at Talk:Panavia Tornado#Merge. I was against it but didn't notice the proposal in time to voice my opinion, however I made the best of it by creating Panavia Tornado variants (as suggested by someone, I can't remember when or where!)
On the other hand I don't see the problem with the current situation. Panavia Tornado gives a general overview of the aircraft and Panavia Tornado variants gives as much sub-variant info as was present on the pages I listed above.
But, if you think splitting things a bit would be better, your best course of action would be to start a discussion. From what I'm reading above there's a rough consenus for:
As for a different name - the ADV was part of the MRCA project, i.e. Multi Role Combat Aircraft. Given that and the fact that it retains 80% commonality with the IDS its always been considered a variant, not an entirely different aircraft. Mark83 12:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Libya

If these are being deployed to Libya, it seems unlikely that they are going out of service next month. Rmhermen (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely they will be deployed anywhere, never been mentioned in any of the media I have seen. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I see now that this is only one subtype. I wonder what misfunction of redirects led me here instead of to the main Tornado page. Rmhermen (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If you ever figure it out, let us know so we can see update the redirects. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Maximum Speed

I think the speed specified in this article is erroneous due to a misunderstanding of this source http://www.aviationtrivia.info/Panavia-Tornado.php. (1480 miles/hour not km/hour) I have no sources at hand but I remember from a Jane's book as well as another encyclopedia that its maximum speed is around 2300km/hour. Please check this out. --94.65.125.41 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The speed quoted is Indicated air speed, i.e. the speed read directly by the airspeed indicator - this corresponds to different true airspeeds depending on the altitude and temperature - this is equivalent to Mach 2.2 at approx 34000 ft, where it corresponds to a true airspeed of roughly 2370 km/h (see [1]).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

citation needed

I have removed the following as it requires citations and is holding up progress in assessment of the article. If you can provide references please re-insert it with appropriate in-line citations.

After 1991 combat operations continued as the southern no-fly zones over Iraq were patrolled. The Tornados flew from Saudi Arabia under Operation Bolton and then Operation Resinate South. On average six aircraft were involved. These operations continued right up until 2003 when Iraq was invaded again. Operation Telic saw the same 6 F3s already deployed in Saudi Arabia carry out fighter cover over Iraq. The F3s (of 111(F) Sqn) were supported by 43 Sqn aircrew and a small number of 43 Sqn groundcrew. Unlike during the 91 Gulf War, the Tornado F3's deployed deep into Iraq before, during and after the shock and awe air strikes. Again no air-to-air victories were scored as the Iraqi Air Force flew no sorties at all during the 2003 campaign.[citation needed]
Tornados in Italian service suffered poor serviceability rates. While this could be surprising given Italy's fleet of the Tornado IDS, the service did not have immediate access to spare equipment and engines available to the RAF. The aircraft did, however, allow the AMI to participate in multi-national training and operations.[citation needed] AMI Tornados flew combat air patrols during Operation Allied Force, the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in early 1999.[citation needed]

Petebutt (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

another citation needed

The following was removed as it requires citations and is holding up progress in assessment of the article. If you can provide references please re-insert it with appropriate in-line citations.

Of the four F3s leased from the MoD by QinetiQ (Boscombe Down) in order to conduct a series of weapons trials, the three remaining flying examples in the UK, (displaying the markings of the type's last front-line squadrons; Nos. 25, 43 & 111), undertook a farewell tour on 9 July 2012 which included overflights of Boscombe Down, RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars, prior to landing at RAF Leeming; joining other F3 airframes, (including the fourth example leased by QinetiQ), due to be dismantled under BAE Systems' "Reduce To Produce" salvage programme of providing spare parts for the Tornado GR4 fleet.

195.27.17.3 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The text was trimmed down and cited. The omission of further non-critical details does not make this article incomplete. This should not really be holding up an assessment. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Restored a bit more, with a cite - the bit about Southern Flight and Iraq war involvement does need resolving however - removal of it has left a significant gap in the aircraft's operational record.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I have been trying to re-add quite a bit of information with cites - I'm pretty tapped out now though. It would be interesting to see if more data is available on the Italian combat service, as that part of the Operational History is particularly thin. Kyteto (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia - sold or phased out?

In the Saudi section on the Panavia Tornado page there is a statement that 'The 22 Tornado ADVs were replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon; the retired aircraft were being purchased back by the UK as of 2007." quoting Cordesman at p214 as a ref. Does anyone have access to any up-to-date information as to whether or not the RSAF has retired their ADVs or if some remain in service? My understanding was that all ADVs would be replaced by Typhoons so it seems likely that the ADV has also finished Saudi service and is no longer an operational aircraft. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Base on this [2] I am going to amend on the basis that the ADV has been fully withdrawn from service. Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not clear

In the beginning the text starts talking about 'the IDS'. To find out what that means, you have to scan back, and find the original mention of 'Tornado IDS' in the third sentence to get some notion of what the text is talking about. But unfortunately it doesn't say anywhere what a 'Tornado IDS' is, or provide a link, or even a quick few words of context. I guess the reader is just expected to already know this stuff before they read this article?


64.222.90.118 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panavia_Tornado_ADV/Archive_1&oldid=1219760954"