Tornado TFR question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado TFR question
Just seen a documentary that said the GR4 lost its terrain following radar capability.
Panavia Tornado: http://youtu.be/YJvffQrk81g
So I'm just wondering how effective the tfr in GR1 was?? Would it be routinely used in training sorties, was it truly hands off, did it work with autopilot and waypoints, could it be relied upon? Could it be used say through the lake district or was it limited in hilly areas, did it work over the sea. Cheers.
Panavia Tornado: http://youtu.be/YJvffQrk81g
So I'm just wondering how effective the tfr in GR1 was?? Would it be routinely used in training sorties, was it truly hands off, did it work with autopilot and waypoints, could it be relied upon? Could it be used say through the lake district or was it limited in hilly areas, did it work over the sea. Cheers.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 16th Oct 2014 at 22:30.
It was surprisingly good for the date of the technology. We used it on training sorties because we were required to but it really came into its own at night. Really hands-off but with hands near; in 1982 kids like me took to it readily but I always made my F104 pilot fly with his hands in sight so he didn't do something silly.
Used autopilot and waypoints, I will never forget the first TF sortie at Cottesmore (always done day into night) I pressed a cursor on the centre of a round lake in Wales on a map in the planning room,then, 2 hours later, as dusk fell, watching that lake appear in front of us and the world seeming to rotate around the aircraft as it turned to the next waypoint.
Sorties were planned along the line of valleys and the narrow field of view didn't see the sides. I do remember watching the anti-collision light flashing off the granite beside me once in Scotland.
Entering cloud as a 4-ship in card at low level in Goose Bay and popping out the far side still in formation is another fixed memory.
I seem to recall that over the sea, with no returns painting on the pilot's scope, it would enter a gentle climb so we just used radar height hold.
Did once have a rather severe pull-up from low level when the radar saw a glider that had briefly crested a ridge some distance ahead.
Used autopilot and waypoints, I will never forget the first TF sortie at Cottesmore (always done day into night) I pressed a cursor on the centre of a round lake in Wales on a map in the planning room,then, 2 hours later, as dusk fell, watching that lake appear in front of us and the world seeming to rotate around the aircraft as it turned to the next waypoint.
Sorties were planned along the line of valleys and the narrow field of view didn't see the sides. I do remember watching the anti-collision light flashing off the granite beside me once in Scotland.
Entering cloud as a 4-ship in card at low level in Goose Bay and popping out the far side still in formation is another fixed memory.
I seem to recall that over the sea, with no returns painting on the pilot's scope, it would enter a gentle climb so we just used radar height hold.
Did once have a rather severe pull-up from low level when the radar saw a glider that had briefly crested a ridge some distance ahead.
TFR in the GR1 worked more or less as advertised. At the GR1 Trinational OCU in the 80s we flew night TFR in most weather, except heavy rain showers, which the system would attempt to climb over. All TFR had to be with A/P engaged. Manual TFR was not permitted in peacetime. The system worked fine over the sea, even if the sea was calm (i.e. no radar returns), in which event the system reverted to Radar Altimeter Override. This was a back-up mode using the Rad Alt output.
During Tornado Instructor training sorties I used to demonstrate Rad Alt Override by finding a bit of calm water and carrying out a TF letdown with A/P engaged. The jet would level off OK at the Set Clearance Height you had entered, although the pull-out would be a bit late.
Day TFR in IMC was not permitted, merely because it violated the Low Flying weather minima. However, with experience many of us were happy to TFR into low cloud and trust the system to work safely. This could be a slightly ball-grabbing exercise, especially in turns in mountainous terrain. Every now and then the cloud would clear slightly to give a heart-stopping view of rocks and trees flashing past uncomfortably close, before you plunged once again into the white stuff.
Not an exercise for the faint-hearted.
The Tornado A/P was sophisticated and reliable. In Auto TFR the system would follow the waypoints in Track Hold and if Heading hold was selected it would fly on any course set by the pilot on the HSI heading knob. This feature was useful for letting down into narrow valleys through cloud at night.
AFIK no Tornado crew was ever flown into the ground by the TF system. Some crews crashed who had not engaged the system properly and/or were not carrying out the correct monitoring procedures.
During Automatic TFR the pilot ‘guarded’ the stick lightly and gave a running commentary on the indications on the E-scope, which gave a dynamic, graphic representation of how the system was reacting to obstacles. This was done merely to give the pilot something to do to earn his flying pay, while it may have reassured some Navs that the pilot had not gone to sleep!
Actually it also reassured the Nav that the system was engaged properly and he was not going to be flown into the ground by some dumb pilot.
In wartime the jet could Auto TF hands off at 0.9M and 200ft agl in Hard Ride
During Tornado Instructor training sorties I used to demonstrate Rad Alt Override by finding a bit of calm water and carrying out a TF letdown with A/P engaged. The jet would level off OK at the Set Clearance Height you had entered, although the pull-out would be a bit late.
Day TFR in IMC was not permitted, merely because it violated the Low Flying weather minima. However, with experience many of us were happy to TFR into low cloud and trust the system to work safely. This could be a slightly ball-grabbing exercise, especially in turns in mountainous terrain. Every now and then the cloud would clear slightly to give a heart-stopping view of rocks and trees flashing past uncomfortably close, before you plunged once again into the white stuff.
Not an exercise for the faint-hearted.
The Tornado A/P was sophisticated and reliable. In Auto TFR the system would follow the waypoints in Track Hold and if Heading hold was selected it would fly on any course set by the pilot on the HSI heading knob. This feature was useful for letting down into narrow valleys through cloud at night.
AFIK no Tornado crew was ever flown into the ground by the TF system. Some crews crashed who had not engaged the system properly and/or were not carrying out the correct monitoring procedures.
During Automatic TFR the pilot ‘guarded’ the stick lightly and gave a running commentary on the indications on the E-scope, which gave a dynamic, graphic representation of how the system was reacting to obstacles. This was done merely to give the pilot something to do to earn his flying pay, while it may have reassured some Navs that the pilot had not gone to sleep!
Actually it also reassured the Nav that the system was engaged properly and he was not going to be flown into the ground by some dumb pilot.
In wartime the jet could Auto TF hands off at 0.9M and 200ft agl in Hard Ride
Last edited by exMudmover; 16th Oct 2014 at 17:42. Reason: word missed out
[QUOTE]did it auto disengage on a pull up?/QUOTE]
It certainly did when we dropped our JP233 on the first night of GW1. Lesson learnt - don't have radalt height hold engaged when dropping bl@@dy great canisters!
It certainly did when we dropped our JP233 on the first night of GW1. Lesson learnt - don't have radalt height hold engaged when dropping bl@@dy great canisters!
As of 2010 (the last time I flew a GR4), it could Auto TFR. Something may have happened between then and now though, I don't know.
Agree with everything exMudmover says above.
Always enjoyed passenger flights showing off the Auto-TFR descent into low-level, hands off....well actually waving my hands above my head where he could see them whilst we were descending quite rapidly towards the ground.
On the GR1, there was a peacetime 350ft/day, 500ft/night minimum, though we all "knew" it worked below that as all we had to do was rotate the switch to get a lower altitude. Fortunately, when the GR4 came into service, all the restrictions had been removed and it could be legally flown to its lowest level. It also had HOTAS so the Auto-TFR could be engaged/disengaged with 3 finger presses on the control column.
In GW1, the GR1 flew Auto-TFR to its lowest level, and lower when flown manually.
Agree with everything exMudmover says above.
Always enjoyed passenger flights showing off the Auto-TFR descent into low-level, hands off....well actually waving my hands above my head where he could see them whilst we were descending quite rapidly towards the ground.
On the GR1, there was a peacetime 350ft/day, 500ft/night minimum, though we all "knew" it worked below that as all we had to do was rotate the switch to get a lower altitude. Fortunately, when the GR4 came into service, all the restrictions had been removed and it could be legally flown to its lowest level. It also had HOTAS so the Auto-TFR could be engaged/disengaged with 3 finger presses on the control column.
In GW1, the GR1 flew Auto-TFR to its lowest level, and lower when flown manually.
Last edited by just another jocky; 16th Oct 2014 at 19:01. Reason: addition
Originally Posted by Pious Pilot
Sounds like a good system, did it auto disengage on a pull up or stick input?
Originally Posted by Pious Pilot
So I'm just wondering how effective the tfr in GR1 was?? Would it be routinely used in training sorties, was it truly hands off, did it work with autopilot and waypoints, could it be relied upon? Could it be used say through the lake district or was it limited in hilly areas, did it work over the sea. Cheers.
HTH
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lossiemouth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GR4 has not lost the TFR system. It is still widely used and gives the Tornado it's unique all weather day and night strike capability. Where did this rumour come from?
I had total faith in the TFR, even set to its lowest setting at silly speeds. I can testify that the line gets pretty flat once you go supersonic....
I must admit that TF-Loft-TF was less than enjoyable at times but it is a pretty neat capability.
I must admit that TF-Loft-TF was less than enjoyable at times but it is a pretty neat capability.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the stories, all very interesting. Must take massive balls to trust it, I'm bad enough with the Mrs driving the car, let alone a computer flying me in clag at 500kts and 100ft next to walls of granite.
No rumour, as per the first line, just stated in a docu on utube. (24:45 ish)
Panavia Tornado: http://youtu.be/YJvffQrk81g
No rumour, as per the first line, just stated in a docu on utube. (24:45 ish)
Panavia Tornado: http://youtu.be/YJvffQrk81g
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any decent Tornado themed gw1 books available?? I'd be very interested in any JP233 and other low level stories. The ultra low level desert training flights pre-kickoff must have been fun.
Pious Pilot - since that video also states, among other things, that the F3 has an Aden cannon (it's actually made by Mauser), there was no suitable alternative to the F3 (F-15, F-14 were both proposed and suitable), and that the RAF website tells you the GR4 still has TFR*
RAF - Tornado GR4
One might conclude the average youtube video is a load of cr@p.
Please do a little checking before posting.
Then there's Jungleboy posting from Lossiemouth telling you otherwise. Hint: Lossiemouth is a GR4 base.
*Mind you, that page has a picture of two F3s - God save us, is everything on the Interweb total sh!te these days? (rhetorical)
RAF - Tornado GR4
One might conclude the average youtube video is a load of cr@p.
Please do a little checking before posting.
Then there's Jungleboy posting from Lossiemouth telling you otherwise. Hint: Lossiemouth is a GR4 base.
*Mind you, that page has a picture of two F3s - God save us, is everything on the Interweb total sh!te these days? (rhetorical)
Some of you have made reference to TFR being used in manual mode.
Does that mean the radar advises path and altitude to be flown, and the pilot manually flies it - as opposed to the AP being slaved to the radar?
It sounds like it must have been a hell of a ride in automatic mode.
200 feet at 500+ knots - wow.
Does that mean the radar advises path and altitude to be flown, and the pilot manually flies it - as opposed to the AP being slaved to the radar?
It sounds like it must have been a hell of a ride in automatic mode.
200 feet at 500+ knots - wow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not checking everything in the video before I ask questions about it you lunatic. It's their mistake, take it up with them if you're that bothered by it.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 17th Oct 2014 at 01:35.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this relatively early phase technology subsequently outstripped by AAA SAM developments or did it ever have genuine relevance - Granby showed flaws in the fast and low approach. Would it have worked better in a hilly European Central Plain where the odds of evasion were far better? If so, it shows how tightly defined and restrictive the designers thinking was.
Was pilot workload lessened at all, I can't imagine by much. What have we done with all those mission planning cassettes - come on, own up.. who recorded the Top 30 on Sunday afternoon on one?
Was pilot workload lessened at all, I can't imagine by much. What have we done with all those mission planning cassettes - come on, own up.. who recorded the Top 30 on Sunday afternoon on one?
Al R
Most of the Tornado's shot down during Granby were not at low level when they were hit. Only one was shot down while carrying JP233 and that was after it had attacked the target. The rest (bar one) were in the process of lofting 1000lb bombs when they where hit (or in one case fragged by one of it's own VT fused bombs which exploded as soon as it armed). The last one was killed at medium level by an optically guided SA-2.
Most of the Tornado's shot down during Granby were not at low level when they were hit. Only one was shot down while carrying JP233 and that was after it had attacked the target. The rest (bar one) were in the process of lofting 1000lb bombs when they where hit (or in one case fragged by one of it's own VT fused bombs which exploded as soon as it armed). The last one was killed at medium level by an optically guided SA-2.
It has always had relevance. Kosovo demonstrated that not all profiles flown could be achieved from medium level.
Regrettably the Taliban do not provide a radar service to achieve VFR below and GR4s have used the TFR to get below the weather to achieve the mission. The weather is usually very favourable in AFG; when it isn't favourable it is amazing to see how many shiny capabilities evaporate because of cloud.
Regrettably the Taliban do not provide a radar service to achieve VFR below and GR4s have used the TFR to get below the weather to achieve the mission. The weather is usually very favourable in AFG; when it isn't favourable it is amazing to see how many shiny capabilities evaporate because of cloud.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAIN,
Many thanks for the clarification. My faded memory is that we changed the attack profiles because they were 'reckless' somehow and out of date. I imagine they would have been but were the bombs lofted from low level and if so, how far away from the SAM/AAA ring? Forgive the noddy questions.
Many thanks for the clarification. My faded memory is that we changed the attack profiles because they were 'reckless' somehow and out of date. I imagine they would have been but were the bombs lofted from low level and if so, how far away from the SAM/AAA ring? Forgive the noddy questions.
Not really the case; the prime reason for the move to medium level was that the threat changed as a result of successful missions. The US also flew many low-level profiles before the switch and has already been mentioned the move to medium level was not without risk. Clearly the GR1 force would have liked a better medium level capability at the outset but the funded role was predicated on something else. The force had recognised the need to have a medium level capability, hence TIALD was not that far away and had to be somewhat rushed into service.
Incidentally it was not a complete switch to medium level - the combined efforts of II(AC) and 13 Sqn remained at low-level.
Incidentally it was not a complete switch to medium level - the combined efforts of II(AC) and 13 Sqn remained at low-level.