yes they did they poured billions of pounds down the drain on upgrades and refits that removed and then had to pay more to have replaced key capabilities like ability to drop paveway. Money that should have gone on Eurofighter.Tony Williams wrote:I'm not proposing doing it now. If you read my original post you'll see it says: "could anything have been done to improve Tornado, starting in around 2000?"marktigger wrote:why try and do more with 30 odd year old aircraft Typhoon with the same money spent on it will do the job so lest stop wasting money on tornado and invest in a modern aircraft like typhoon.
Panavia Tornado (RAF)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Do you actually have any clue about what you are talking about? Because you're way off.marktigger wrote:yes they did they poured billions of pounds down the drain on upgrades and refits that removed and then had to pay more to have replaced key capabilities like ability to drop paveway. Money that should have gone on Eurofighter.Tony Williams wrote:I'm not proposing doing it now. If you read my original post you'll see it says: "could anything have been done to improve Tornado, starting in around 2000?"marktigger wrote:why try and do more with 30 odd year old aircraft Typhoon with the same money spent on it will do the job so lest stop wasting money on tornado and invest in a modern aircraft like typhoon.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
really so GR4 was capable of dropping and designating Paveway when it came into service ? the capability was removed and not replaced because it wasn't in the spec for the GR4 upgrade. that came from BaE and the RAF had made assumptions about PGMs that were wrong.
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Wrong. There were unforseen difficulties integrating TIALD, which were quickly remedied. Nothing whatsoever do to with deletions and assumptions that you are wrong about.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Yes the unforseen issue was it wasn't in the contract and that was quickly remedied at Bae's usual great expense.downsizer wrote:Wrong. There were unforseen difficulties integrating TIALD, which were quickly remedied. Nothing whatsoever do to with deletions and assumptions that you are wrong about.
Thats what i was told by people from both sides it was a procurement cockup
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
You were incorrectly informed. As much of what you post in Air related matters seems to be sadly.
-
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 10:03
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Downsizer what is wrong with you? You are continually putting people down in a very negative way. This is a discussion board, not an insult board. You have an attitude problem.
Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!
NinetyFifth
Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!
NinetyFifth
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Dry your eyes princess. If someone posts utter shit, I'll tell them. I don't post on, say, the CR2 thread because I know little about tanks and armoured warfare. Other people may do well to keep to their areas of expertise rather than presenting their prejudices as fact.Ninetyfifth wrote:Downsizer what is wrong with you? You are continually putting people down in a very negative way. This is a discussion board, not an insult board. You have an attitude problem.
Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!
NinetyFifth
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
secondedNinetyfifth wrote:Downsizer what is wrong with you? You are continually putting people down in a very negative way. This is a discussion board, not an insult board. You have an attitude problem.
Perhaps you should try and educate and discuss rather than offer continual condescending put downs. If you don't agree with what is being discussed then take some time and explain why not. Otherwise STFU!
NinetyFifth
@LandSharkUK
- cockneyjock1974
- Member
- Posts: 537
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
All right guys, everyone chill for now.
I would like to remind all that there is a requirement to remain civil with one another. We'd ask anyone to treat others with respect, and equally, to not rise to anything either.
I would like to remind all that there is a requirement to remain civil with one another. We'd ask anyone to treat others with respect, and equally, to not rise to anything either.
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
I hear that in your voice, they both sound like never served fanboys.downsizer wrote:I'm devastated
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
Daily Fail and Torygraph both report that ASRAAM is uploaded on operational Tonkas. They have been ''çleared to fire on Ruskies'' by all accounts?! Couldn't be arsed to buy either as I was out on a run but they are available online.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
The MOD's response:
https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/10/11/2091/There is no truth in this story.
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
I am trying to find the interim step (it can be evidenced from the Parliamentary Defence Q&A records) that 96 were due to receive engine upgrades, but all of a sudden the real number to be retained became the 59 as per above.SKB wrote: British Aerospace (later BAE Systems) upgraded 142 Tornado GR1s to GR4 standard, beginning in 1996 and finished in 2003. 59 RAF aircraft are receiving the CUSP avionics package which integrates the Paveway IV bomb and installs a new secure communications module from Cassidian in Phase A, followed by the Tactical Information Exchange (TIE) datalink from General Dynamics in Phase B.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
So how many operational 'Tonkas' have we got left then? looks like things are going to hot up a bit from Akrotiri soon.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
80. Only about 30 are ready to be used though.Digger22 wrote:So how many operational 'Tonkas' have we got left then? looks like things are going to hot up a bit from Akrotiri soon.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
How do you get to 80 (from59)?
- swap the kit around?
The HUD number (essential for such ops) is much smaller, but can actually be passed around
- swap the kit around?
The HUD number (essential for such ops) is much smaller, but can actually be passed around
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
A recent FOI paints the picture as of August / September:
32 Tornado in the "Marham pool", shared by the three frontline squadrons (including 6 T and 6 A)
11 Tornado in XV Sqn (OCU) (including 6 T)
3 Tornado in 41 Sqn for test, dev, evaluation
32 in the sustainment fleet
3 with Qinetiq, presumably for work related to the TCAS and other
32 Tornado in the "Marham pool", shared by the three frontline squadrons (including 6 T and 6 A)
11 Tornado in XV Sqn (OCU) (including 6 T)
3 Tornado in 41 Sqn for test, dev, evaluation
32 in the sustainment fleet
3 with Qinetiq, presumably for work related to the TCAS and other
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
46 then?
Bang in the middle (59+30)/2 = abt that
Bang in the middle (59+30)/2 = abt that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)
The PM has just claimed in Parliament that the Tornado's RAPTOR pod accounts for 60% of all surveillance intel against ISIL. Quite impressive if true.