UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby marktigger » 04 Oct 2015, 10:25

Tony Williams wrote:
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.


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?"


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.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby downsizer » 04 Oct 2015, 11:37

marktigger wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
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.


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?"


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.


Do you actually have any clue about what you are talking about? Because you're way off.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby marktigger » 04 Oct 2015, 12:06

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.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby downsizer » 04 Oct 2015, 12:21

Wrong. There were unforseen difficulties integrating TIALD, which were quickly remedied. Nothing whatsoever do to with deletions and assumptions that you are wrong about.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby marktigger » 04 Oct 2015, 13:37

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.


Yes the unforseen issue was it wasn't in the contract and that was quickly remedied at Bae's usual great expense.

Thats what i was told by people from both sides it was a procurement cockup

downsizer
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby downsizer » 04 Oct 2015, 13:51

You were incorrectly informed. As much of what you post in Air related matters seems to be sadly.

Ninetyfifth
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 07 May 2015, 10:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby Ninetyfifth » 05 Oct 2015, 18:13

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

downsizer
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby downsizer » 05 Oct 2015, 18:44

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


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.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5712
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby shark bait » 05 Oct 2015, 19:27

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


seconded
@LandSharkUK

downsizer
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby downsizer » 05 Oct 2015, 19:28

I'm devastated :lol:

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby cockneyjock1974 » 05 Oct 2015, 20:54

Deleted post

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2339
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby RetroSicotte » 05 Oct 2015, 23:23

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.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby Tinman » 07 Oct 2015, 14:18

downsizer wrote:I'm devastated :lol:


I hear that in your voice, they both sound like never served fanboys.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby jimthelad » 11 Oct 2015, 14:55

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.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby Jdam » 11 Oct 2015, 15:35

Is this the Tornados currently serving over Iraq bombing isis?

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1466
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 11 Oct 2015, 15:57

The MOD's response:
There is no truth in this story.
https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2015/10/11/2091/

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby arfah » 27 Oct 2015, 07:29

-<>-<>-<>-
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5224
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby SKB » 16 Nov 2015, 02:30

Front page introduction updated and expanded. ;)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Nov 2015, 08:27

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.


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.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby Digger22 » 18 Nov 2015, 17:04

So how many operational 'Tonkas' have we got left then? looks like things are going to hot up a bit from Akrotiri soon.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5712
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby shark bait » 18 Nov 2015, 18:13

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.


80. Only about 30 are ready to be used though.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Nov 2015, 21:13

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

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby Gabriele » 18 Nov 2015, 22:06

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
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Nov 2015, 23:26

46 then?

Bang in the middle (59+30)/2 = abt that

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1466
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Panavia Tornado (RAF)

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 26 Nov 2015, 10:49

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.


Return to “Royal Air Force”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests