>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
yeah but she looked pretty though so that outweighs the bad parts.
True. OP sounds like some kind of autist.
so much fricking this
good looking jets >>>> good performance jets
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.
I refuse to believe this, at least with the wings fully extended
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
Eurofighter is UK and France. But what would you know.
>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.
they weren't doing SEAD missions, they bombed airfields and oil refineries
>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?
>Eurofighter is UK and France
Take your meds
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.
>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.
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.
>Airbus was part of the consortium building it. And Airbus is dominated by France.
>British Aerospace EAP was also involved.
>only the German and Spanish parts of Airbus are involved in the Eurofighter consortium.
You are both incredibly moronic.
Read this and stop embarrassing yourselves for frick sake.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_GmbH
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.
>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
From the article you cited
>46%: Airbus Defence and Space (then known as EADS) (France, Germany and Spain)
Airbus Defence & Space is French, German and Spanish, but only the German and Spanish subgroups are involved in the Eurofighter.
>Eurofighter is UK and France. But what would you know.
Opinion discarded and you are a Black person.
>except UK
You are aware both the Eurofighter and the Tornado are partially British?
>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.
Poster is Indian
>"They hated him because he told the truth."
Everything the Westoids make is garbage.
*5 woodscrews have been deposited into your account*
He'll probably sell them to buy more krokodil
Weren’t half of them shot down by dumb Americans firing Patriot missiles at friendlies?
literally couldn’t care less
it’s sexsexsexsexsexsex and that’s all there’s to it
do you have more of these?
>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?
generally, carrier based planes are heavier, and the F/A-18 is also a twin engine aircraft
> the F/A-18 is also a twin engine aircraft
As was the F-14 before it.
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.
>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.
>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.
>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
the early interceptor variants didn't even have a radar. and it sucked at attacking naval targets
it was pretty good
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.
The Tornado is a fighter-bomber, not an interceptor.
Tornado F3 is an interceptor. A very good one at that.
moron here, i thought it was good for attacking ground targets. Was it?
>Repeatedly shoots down US AWACS in excercises against F-15.
Interceptors be intercepting.
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?
the front landing gear is so small it’s weird how it’s pointing to ground.
She's literally asking for it.
>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
German Tornados did SEAD against Serbs too in 1999 and took no casualties. Was Iraqi air defense that much better?
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.
>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
it is a great plane, and performed very well in all its roles.
I don't care what the dirty Yankees say. I like the tornado. I will always like it.
>A worse European F-111 that people pretend is a do-everything plane.
It's okay.
euros cant make planes, tanks or guns
>f4-f
>F15-E
But you wrote F/A-18 correctly....
>>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.
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.
>They had cruise missiles that could do the same mission.
Name one
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.