>loses in exercises to f4-f phantoms. >hard to maintain

>loses in exercises to f4-f phantoms.
>hard to maintain
>4000kg heavier than the F/A-18 hornet, a carrier based fighter
>poor performance at mid and high altitudes
>Saudis realised it sucks, change all ADV orders to IDS, order F15-E instead
>48 tornados sent during desert storm
>Of the 55 Allied aircraft lost in Desert Storm, 8 were Tornados.
>Only 48 RAF Tornados were sent. the US deployed 1,656 armed aircraft

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    yeah but she looked pretty though so that outweighs the bad parts.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      True. OP sounds like some kind of autist.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      so much fucking this
      good looking jets >>>> good performance jets

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Little known fact, the tornado generated more lift when rolled 90 degrees due to the tail having 1.5 times the surface area of the wings.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I refuse to believe this, at least with the wings fully extended

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Tornado was shit, Eurofighter is shit
    Yuros are incapable of making proper airplanes, except for Sweden, UK and France
    >Honorable mention for the SEPECAT Jaguar, one of the very few succesful european collaboration

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Eurofighter is UK and France. But what would you know.

      https://i.imgur.com/zQnRKxF.jpg

      >loses in exercises to f4-f phantoms.
      >hard to maintain
      >4000kg heavier than the F/A-18 hornet, a carrier based fighter
      >poor performance at mid and high altitudes
      >Saudis realised it sucks, change all ADV orders to IDS, order F15-E instead
      >48 tornados sent during desert storm
      >Of the 55 Allied aircraft lost in Desert Storm, 8 were Tornados.
      >Only 48 RAF Tornados were sent. the US deployed 1,656 armed aircraft

      >fighter bomber losing against fighter
      Is to be expected.
      >fighter planes doing SEAD missions do have higher rates of loses than other planes
      Is to be expected.
      >Tornado ADV sucks
      Yes same reason the F-35 sucks as attack air craft. It’s a fighter and the Tornado is a fighter bomber.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        they weren't doing SEAD missions, they bombed airfields and oil refineries

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >they bombed airfields
          That's like the most dangerous kind of missions you can fly lol. Guess why 7 A-10 were shot down in Desert Storm?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Eurofighter is UK and France
        Take your meds

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Eurofighter is UK and France. But what would you know.
          Opinion discarded and you are a moron.

          I‘m right about it. France doesn’t operate Eurofighters, but Airbus was part of the consortium building it. And Airbus is dominated by France.
          British Aerospace EAP was also involved.
          So I don’t get your point.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Airbus was part of the consortium building it. And Airbus is dominated by France.
            You don't know how Airbus works, do you?
            As far as the Typhoon goes, it was initially a German company and a Spanish one, that were both merged into EADS halfway through the program. The French part of Airbus had nothing to do with it. Which makes sense, because they weren't involved in the program.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            only the German and Spanish parts of Airbus are involved in the Eurofighter consortium.
            companies in the Eurofighter consortium:
            >UK - BAE
            >Germany - Airbus Defence & Space (formerly DASA)
            >Italy - Leonardo (formerly Aeritalia)
            >Spain - Airbus Defence & Space (formerly CASA)
            the French parts of Airbus (formerly Aerospitale-Matra) have nothing to do with the Eurofighter.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Airbus was part of the consortium building it. And Airbus is dominated by France.
            >British Aerospace EAP was also involved.

            https://i.imgur.com/XEYKOsG.png

            only the German and Spanish parts of Airbus are involved in the Eurofighter consortium.
            companies in the Eurofighter consortium:
            >UK - BAE
            >Germany - Airbus Defence & Space (formerly DASA)
            >Italy - Leonardo (formerly Aeritalia)
            >Spain - Airbus Defence & Space (formerly CASA)
            the French parts of Airbus (formerly Aerospitale-Matra) have nothing to do with the Eurofighter.

            >only the German and Spanish parts of Airbus are involved in the Eurofighter consortium.
            You are both incredibly retarded.
            Read this and stop embarrassing yourselves for fuck sake.
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_GmbH

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              DASA merged with EADS (former name of Airbus) in 2000. CASA merged with EADS in 2009. French involvement in Eurofighter was brief and largely due to US pressure, Americans wanted French to crash entire program and everyone to buy F-15. French essentially demanded that fighter would use French engine and airframe would be about 40%, despite French orders making up only around 20% aircraft orders. Also, land based interceptor part of the multirole fighter according to the French should have been secondary priority to carrier variant. French had pretty new land based multirole fighter with Mirage 2000 and kinda shitty inventory of carrier based fighters with F-8 and Super Etendard. Everyone else were looking for interceptor and air superiority fighter, ground attack capability was secondary priority and no one except French had any interest in carrier based fighter. French idea about multinational cooperation is funny. Essentially for them cooperation means that French get all the benefits and rest only pick the bill.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Americans wanted French to crash entire program
                lol
                > French idea about multinational cooperation is funny. Essentially for them cooperation means that French get all the benefits and rest only pick the bill.
                this is true

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              From the article you cited
              >46%: Airbus Defence and Space (then known as EADS) (France, Germany and Spain)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Airbus Defence & Space is French, German and Spanish, but only the German and Spanish subgroups are involved in the Eurofighter.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Eurofighter is UK and France. But what would you know.
        Opinion discarded and you are a moron.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >except UK
      You are aware both the Eurofighter and the Tornado are partially British?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Tornado was shit, Eurofighter is shit
      >Yuros are incapable of making proper airplanes, except for Sweden, UK and France
      If this is a bait, it's very subtle.
      If this is not a bait, tipity top lel.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Poster is Indian

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >"They hated him because he told the truth."

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Everything the Westoids make is garbage.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      *5 woodscrews have been deposited into your account*

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        He'll probably sell them to buy more krokodil

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Weren’t half of them shot down by dumb Americans firing Patriot missiles at friendlies?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    literally couldn’t care less
    it’s sexsexsexsexsexsex and that’s all there’s to it

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      do you have more of these?

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >4000kg heavier than the F/A-18 hornet, a carrier based fighter
    Are you saying the twin-engine dual-seat fighter-bomber is supposed to be lighter than a carrier based jet?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      generally, carrier based planes are heavier, and the F/A-18 is also a twin engine aircraft

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        > the F/A-18 is also a twin engine aircraft
        As was the F-14 before it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Carrier-based jets have much stronger airframes to withstand the intense stress of catapult launches and arrestor-cable landings, I would expect to achieve this they're made from heavier material than typical jets.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The Bundeswehr also participated in the air strikes from day one. For it, the Kosovo war represented the first combat deployment since its founding in 1955. The German Air Force participated with 14 reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft of the type Tornado ECR (10 units) and Tornado Recce (4 units) of the Operational Squadron 1 from the Italian air bases Piacenza and Aviano. The ECR Tornados flew 428 SEAD sorties. Among other missions, more than 200 AGM-88 HARM missiles were deployed against enemy radar positions. The Air Force suffered no losses of its own in the process.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >loses in exercises to f4-f phantoms.
    It also regularly stomped F4's which is why the RAF replaced F4 with Tornado F3

    >hard to maintain
    Not at all, it was a dream compared to aircraft that came before and was by far the most reliable of the swing wing designs.

    >4000kg heavier than the F/A-18 hornet, a carrier based fighter
    So what? why compare these two? F-18 has dogshit range on internal fuel and is much slower on the deck.

    >poor performance at mid and high altitudes
    At high altitude only and that's because it was designed to work at low level, where nothing will catch it. AT high altitude it has the benefit of having fantastic loiter time

    >Saudis realised it sucks, change all ADV orders to IDS, order F15-E instead
    not an accurate portrayal

    >48 tornados sent during desert storm
    >Of the 55 Allied aircraft lost in Desert Storm, 8 were Tornados.
    >Only 48 RAF Tornados were sent. the US deployed 1,656 armed aircraft
    Tornado did a huge amount of work in the gulf war and took on the most dangerous jobs early on in the war, airfields could only be attacked at low level while the air defences were intact and Tornado was purpose built for these sort of attacks. Losses to sortie rate was very low given the risk.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >It also regularly stomped F4's
      unupgraded ones from 30 years ago, not impressive
      >At high altitude only and that's because it was designed to work at low level, where nothing will catch it.
      Sounds great for an INTERCEPTOR, not.
      >Not at all, it was a dream compared to aircraft that came before
      citation needed
      >was by far the most reliable of the swing wing designs.
      given how unreliable the tomcat and mig23 were that's not particularly. impressive

      https://i.imgur.com/zQnRKxF.jpg

      >loses in exercises to f4-f phantoms.
      >hard to maintain
      >4000kg heavier than the F/A-18 hornet, a carrier based fighter
      >poor performance at mid and high altitudes
      >Saudis realised it sucks, change all ADV orders to IDS, order F15-E instead
      >48 tornados sent during desert storm
      >Of the 55 Allied aircraft lost in Desert Storm, 8 were Tornados.
      >Only 48 RAF Tornados were sent. the US deployed 1,656 armed aircraft

      the early interceptor variants didn't even have a radar. and it sucked at attacking naval targets

      Retard here, i thought it was good for attacking ground targets. Was it?

      it was pretty good

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It was literally designed to intercept from low level. flying out fast over the north sea with radars looking up at the bombers with no jamming aircraft in the background, or escorting other Tornado's at low level behind enemy lines.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Tornado is a fighter-bomber, not an interceptor.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Tornado F3 is an interceptor. A very good one at that.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Retard here, i thought it was good for attacking ground targets. Was it?

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Repeatedly shoots down US AWACS in excercises against F-15.
    Interceptors be intercepting.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You claimed yesterday that the Tornado didn't have radar. When it was pointed out that it did and a link was provided, you went very quiet.
    Have you been seething for an entire day in order to make this dumpsterfire of an OP?
    You spent all day and this is the best you could come up with?
    Again I'll ask, were your parents related?

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    the front landing gear is so small it’s weird how it’s pointing to ground.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      She's literally asking for it.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Of the 55 Allied aircraft lost in Desert Storm, 8 were Tornados.
    >Only 48 RAF Tornados were sent. the US deployed 1,656 armed aircraft
    Yeah because they did low altitude SEAD which is ludicrously dangerous

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      German Tornados did SEAD against Serbs too in 1999 and took no casualties. Was Iraqi air defense that much better?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Vastly, Iraq had a huge air defence network built in exactly the soviet model, and it was operating over terrain that left almost nowhere to hide and had modern fast jets from dispersed bases to back it up.

        The west largely dismantled it in a week with minimal causalities.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >ground attack plane from the 70s specifically made to truck nukes and crater runways while flying treetop level outperformed by multirole aircraft at higher altitude
    Color me shocked

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    it is a great plane, and performed very well in all its roles.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I don't care what the dirty Yankees say. I like the tornado. I will always like it.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >A worse European F-111 that people pretend is a do-everything plane.
    It's okay.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    euros cant make planes, tanks or guns

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >f4-f
    >F15-E
    But you wrote F/A-18 correctly....

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >>Of the 55 Allied aircraft lost in Desert Storm, 8 were Tornados.

    They did low level runs over airfields shooting submuntions from a bomb pack they carried under their belly.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, that was some outdated technology that never should have been deployed in the first place. They had cruise missiles that could do the same mission.
      Whoever designed and approved it put zero thought into real world use.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >They had cruise missiles that could do the same mission.

        Name one

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    God i hate dumbshit threads like this one. Tornado losses in the Gulf were due to heir tactical use. Going low level against against targets defended by a lot of AAA is going to mean some losses, no matter what the aircraft.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *