Tornado F3 vs F14, F15, F16 air to air

[NutLoose]

Fascinating insight into the various aircrafts combat merits.

You Tube

more interviews

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7U...Zq4uqI3vJ3S5ow

[Buster15]

Tornado. Was It The Right Aircraft For The RAF.

My apology if this has been covered before. But having read this article, which is highly critical of the Tornado and all its variants, I am of the opinion that the author has looked at it from the wrong perspective.
He has not considered the project from its beginnings, where the U2 was shot down from high level. Resulting in the V Bombers carrying the nuclear weapons at very high risk of being taken out.
And the resulting policy of requiring an aircraft that was able to strike from low level.
Anyway, I would be interested in any views either way.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...OIfsO2&ampcf=1

[NutLoose]

The F3 was the fighter air defence variant as opposed to the GR4 that was the bomber version.

[Martin the Martian]

The author of that article has not taken into account the military, political or economic situations that led to the UK taking part in the MRCA or the requirements that led to it. In addition he seems dazzled by the capabilities of American aircraft.

And to say that the Tornado did nothing for the UK's aerospace industry as we are now buying the F-35 is ridiculous. May as well say the same about the Sopwith Camel, the Spitfire and the Canberra.

[Buster15]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

The F3 was the fighter air defence variant as opposed to the GR4 that was the bomber version.

Not sure if this was in response to my post, but yes I knew that.
From what I know, range was one of the biggest challenges, especially for such a compact design. And that is what drove the engine bypass ratio. The initial bypass ratio was to be higher, but a late requirement for additional thrust at the Ma 0.9 sea level condition reduced it to the final figure. This of course increased the fuel burn.
And so many things drove the final configuration for low level capability.
It is easy to look back and criticise things like variable geometry. But of course the Americans and Russians also went down that design.
Following on from the TSR2 requirements, MRCA had a huge number of conflicting challenges. And the final design was arrived at in order to satisfy as many as was practical at the time.

And it is unfair to compare the losses in GW1 to those which may have happened in the event of a conflict in Europe between NATO and Warsaw Pact.
The geography of Europe is entirely different to those of Iraq.

[Buster15]

Originally Posted by Martin the Martian

The author of that article has not taken into account the military, political or economic situations that led to the UK taking part in the MRCA or the requirements that led to it. In addition he seems dazzled by the capabilities of American aircraft.

And to say that the Tornado did nothing for the UK's aerospace industry as we are now buying the F-35 is ridiculous. May as well say the same about the Sopwith Camel, the Spitfire and the Canberra.

Yes. Very much so.
Another small but important issue was that of Export Sales.
Yes, it was only Saudi Arabia, but they did buy 120 jets (72 and a follow on 48). Not an insignificant number and all direct from the UK.
The Al Yamamah contact was one of the biggest ever export sales at that time.
When was the last time that the UK was involved in a production run of not far short of 1000 military jets.
Something that the Eurofighter Typhoon is not likely to match.