Panavia Tornado ADV v F-15C

[Daryl]

Here should be a tough one. Which of the Panavia Tornado ADV v F-15 was
better and why.

--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-6, Daryl wrote:
> Here should be a tough one. Which of the Panavia Tornado ADV v F-15 was
> better and why.

Well, actually it's about the easiest choice around.

F-15 was (and still is) an optimized Air-to-Air fighter (that oh by the way also turned out to be a pretty good bomber, in it's E version).

The ADV Tornado is a converted low altitude strike fighter designed to intercept soviet bombers before they got to their targets. It was NOT designed to mix up with other fighters.

F-15: Better radar, better weapons, faster, higher, more maneuverable, and with CFTs equal or better range.

ADV Tornado: Uhh, good fuel economy? A WSO to keep you awake? A wing sweep lever to play with when you are bored?

Not even in the same class. Better comparison would probably be the F-101B and ADV!

Brits would have been better off with F-15s, but they would probably have screwed them up with some goofy engine and made them slower and more expensive...

Kirk
Kirk

[David E. Powell]

F-106 vs. Tornado ADV is interesting. Tornado had more modern missiles, but they didn't have a nuclear rocket to fling like the 106.

Agreed about F-15 being a better choice all around. A British F-15 would have been sweet. I always wondered why the UK and Germany didn't go to the F-15 to replace their F-4s. (Yes, they might have done the co-built or new engine thing.)

[Paul F Austin]

On 1/22/2015 12:03 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> F-106 vs. Tornado ADV is interesting. Tornado had more modern missiles, but they didn't have a nuclear rocket to fling like the 106.
>
> Agreed about F-15 being a better choice all around. A British F-15 would have been sweet. I always wondered why the UK and Germany didn't go to the F-15 to replace their F-4s. (Yes, they might have done the co-built or new engine thing.)
>

The last "new-engine thing" was motivated by the reheat Spey that "just
happened to be lying around". At the time, there were mutters about
stuffing Speys in just about everything and of course they did in A-7s.
If the UK planned to buy F-15s, what European engine in the F100's class
of airflow and thrust existed at the time? Rolls didn't have one.

Paul

[Daryl]

That would be the only reason to put a spey in the place of a TF30. The
TF30 outperforms the spey by at least 5000 lbs in AB and over 2000 lbs
without AB.

If they replaced the TF41 then the spey has more than 2000 lbs of thrust
less.

About the only reason they would replace either engine (depending on the
time and model) would because they could.

[Peter Stickney]

kirk....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-6, Daryl wrote:
>> Here should be a tough one. Which of the Panavia Tornado ADV v F-15 was
>> better and why.
>
> Well, actually it's about the easiest choice around.
>
> F-15 was (and still is) an optimized Air-to-Air fighter (that oh by the
> way also turned out to be a pretty good bomber, in it's E version).
>
> The ADV Tornado is a converted low altitude strike fighter designed to
> intercept soviet bombers before they got to their targets. It was NOT
> designed to mix up with other fighters.
>
> F-15: Better radar, better weapons, faster, higher, more maneuverable, and
> with CFTs equal or better range.
>
> ADV Tornado: Uhh, good fuel economy? A WSO to keep you awake? A wing sweep
> lever to play with when you are bored?

Don't forget getting outrun by Tu-95s unless you go to reheat, and requiring
a tankter to meet you on the way home.
(Good fuel economy + small tanks != good range)

>
> Not even in the same class. Better comparison would probably be the
> F-101B and ADV!

I'd consider going with the F-101B,albeit with the original missile bay
door. (3 Falcons per side, rather than 2 IR Falcons and 2 Genies)

>
> Brits would have been better off with F-15s, but they would probably have
> screwed them up with some goofy engine and made them slower and more
> expensive...

The Phastest Phantoms in RAF service were the repainted F-4Js that they got
in the mid-'80s.


--
Pete Stickney
Always remember to close all parentheses.
We're not paying to air-condition the entire paragraph.

[Paul F Austin]

Actually, I thought at the time that the RAF would have been much better
served by buying F-14As rather than Tornado ADVs.

Paul

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:11:09 AM UTC-6, Paul F Austin wrote:

> Actually, I thought at the time that the RAF would have been much better
> served by buying F-14As rather than Tornado ADVs.

No question the F-14A would have been better than the ADV, but unless you are planning on flying off a boat, why? If you absolutely want 2 crew, get F-15Bs, otherwise the F-15A beats the F-14A in almost every category. And was cheaper to boot.

Of course, if a 30 minute airshow with min fuel is your primary selection criteria, then the F-14A is an obvious choice!

Kirk

[dump...@hotmail.com]

A British F-14 would've looked rather spiffy:

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb468/davelyall/IMG_2103.jpg


:)



Note that there's a "F-14 vs Tornado ADV in RAF" thread at:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?124383-F-14-vs-Tornado-ADV-in-RAF

[Paul F Austin]

For the Tornado ADV's mission, air defense, a Tom is worlds better than
the ADV and better than an F15A: longer time on station, better, much
longer range RADAR, more and better weapons. Other than that, nothing
much to choose.

The Brits weren't buying a fighter, they wanted a long range patrol
interceptor to defend against WARPAC bomber attacks.

Paul

[Daryl]

It wasn't until after 1980 that the F-15 surpassed the F-14 in radar and
weapons. This is when the Phased Array was introduced in the F-15A/B
and the Guns could be disconnected from the Radar. We generated 33% of
our F-15As in 1979 and that was the best generation in all the USAF at
the time. After the conversion, we could generate about 75%. The mods
kept coming and the generation numbers kept climbing.

Meanwhile, the F-14A was largely left stock and very few F-14Ds were
purchased.

[Paul F Austin]

On 1/23/2015 2:14 PM, Daryl wrote:
> On 1/23/2015 10:34 AM, kirk....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:11:09 AM UTC-6, Paul F Austin wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I thought at the time that the RAF would have been much better
>>> served by buying F-14As rather than Tornado ADVs.
>>
>> No question the F-14A would have been better than the ADV, but unless
>> you are planning on flying off a boat, why? If you absolutely want 2
>> crew, get F-15Bs, otherwise the F-15A beats the F-14A in almost every
>> category. And was cheaper to boot.
>>
>> Of course, if a 30 minute airshow with min fuel is your primary
>> selection criteria, then the F-14A is an obvious choice!
>>
>> Kirk
>>
>
> It wasn't until after 1980 that the F-15 surpassed the F-14 in radar and
> weapons. This is when the Phased Array was introduced in the F-15A/B
> and the Guns could be disconnected from the Radar. We generated 33% of
> our F-15As in 1979 and that was the best generation in all the USAF at
> the time. After the conversion, we could generate about 75%. The mods
> kept coming and the generation numbers kept climbing.
>
> Meanwhile, the F-14A was largely left stock and very few F-14Ds were
> purchased.
>
>

AIM-120 didn't enter service until 1991.

Arguably the APG-63(V)1 installed in the 1990s (in F-15Cs) was
equivalent in function and probably better waveforms and processing but
not aperture or power to the AWG-9.

The first AESA-equipped APG-63(V)2s (18 of them) entered service in late
2000 on F-15Cs. The fully modernized APG-63(V)3 didn't arrive until
mid-2014.

I'd still say that when Britain made the decision to build the Tornado
ADV (1977), the F-14A was a better choice than anything else on offer.
Certainly it had the only long range AAM outside of the WARPAC.

Paul

[Daryl]

At the time period we are talking about, the F-14 should have been the
only solution. Politics, don't you love it.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

Good point. I'll concede that for the stated mission the F-14A would have been superior to the F-15. But as an all around choice? The F-15 would have provided more mission flexibility at less cost, perhaps - a nice follow on to the Lightning.

Cheers

Kirk

[Paul F Austin]

Without question, although RAF doctrine, quite happy with a point
interceptor that could zoom up, engage and then (barely) make it back to
the airfield, all under GCI meant that they should have bought F104S'es.

Stupid doctrine shapes stupid decisions. The USAF, when contemplating
the stand-down of the F106 fleet, actually considered using F-16As
augmented with a CW illuminator. _That_ makes loads of sense. Apparently
it didn't survive the laugh test, so the USAF tasked F-15 squadrons for
CONUS air defense.

Paul

[dump...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-8, Paul F Austin wrote:

> Stupid doctrine shapes stupid decisions. The USAF, when contemplating
> the stand-down of the F106 fleet, actually considered using F-16As
> augmented with a CW illuminator. _That_ makes loads of sense. Apparently
> it didn't survive the laugh test, so the USAF tasked F-15 squadrons for
> CONUS air defense.
>
> Paul

Note that the Iraqi F-16IQ's will have an Illuminator, so that they can handle
the AIM-7M missile:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130509005228/en/ITT-Exelis-awarded-contract-provide-RF-technology#.VMNXqC7LB-w


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/iraqs-f-16s-have-a-cool-paint-job-but-antiquated-weapon-1573085398


Since no one trusts them with AMRAAMs.

[Paul F Austin]

Given how influential Iran has become in Iraq (thank _you_, Hindmost!),
that sounds like a very good idea.
Paul

[kirk....@gmail.com]

ANG did operate the F-16 ADV carrying AIM-7s for a while in the air defense mission, until replaced by F-16C/AIM-120s and F-15s.

Kirk

[dump...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 11:14:21 AM UTC-8, Daryl wrote:
>
> It wasn't until after 1980 that the F-15 surpassed the F-14 in radar and
> weapons. This is when the Phased Array was introduced in the F-15A/B
> and the Guns could be disconnected from the Radar. We generated 33% of
> our F-15As in 1979 and that was the best generation in all the USAF at
> the time. After the conversion, we could generate about 75%. The mods
> kept coming and the generation numbers kept climbing.
>
> Meanwhile, the F-14A was largely left stock and very few F-14Ds were
> purchased.
>
>
> --
> Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
> the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
> the Internet.

The F-15 may have had early radar issues, but so did the Tornado ADV:


"The ADV Tornado was designed to carry the AI.24 Foxhunter radar in a
redesigned nose. The AI24 Foxhunter radar was designed to be capable of
detecting medium-sized targets at 100 miles, a seriously ambitious goal. But
fundamental design flaws were discovered as it was being introduced to service,
which meant that the first aircraft were delivered with concrete ballast in the
nose (nicknamed the Blue Circle radar) until they could be fitted with
modified, working AI24 radar packs - some 4 years late and 60% over budget."


"The ballast was nicknamed Blue Circle, which was a play on the Rainbow Codes
nomenclature, and a British brand of cement called Blue Circle."


See:

http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-10.htm

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado_ADV#Origins

[Peter Stickney]

kirk....@gmail.com wrote:

> ANG did operate the F-16 ADV carrying AIM-7s for a while in the air
> defense mission, until replaced by F-16C/AIM-120s and F-15s.

F-15s were on issue as ADTAC-gained interceptors from the beginning of the
upgrades, replacing F-106s - 101st FIS (MA ANG), 186th FIS (MT ANG),
and F-4s - 122nd FIS(LA ANG), 123rd FIS (OR ANG), 195th FIS, (HI ANG)
Not everybody flew F-16s,

[David E. Powell]

In fairness, Iraq really just needs them to drop bombs right now.

I wouldn't mind the US revamping some F-16s this way, with the latest gear. We could hang AMRAAMs and AIM-9X on them, too.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

USAF F-16Cs have carried AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs for a long time! Remember the F-16 kills over Bosnia?

Kirk

[David E. Powell]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 10:49:27 AM UTC-5, kirk....@gmail.com wrote:
> USAF F-16Cs have carried AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs for a long time! Remember the F-16 kills over Bosnia?
>
> Kirk

Of course. I was just referring to how long some of the USAF and ANG F-16s have gone since their last upgrades, as it were, that it might be nice to overhaul them too. Even though they carry AIM-9X and AMRAAM. :+)

David

[dump...@hotmail.com]

The CAPES upgrade is dead, but there is still a SLEP in the works for some of
the USAF's F-16s:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/20/budget-doesnt-delay-f-16-life-extension-upgrades/

[Paul F Austin]

On 1/26/2015 1:13 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 10:49:27 AM UTC-5, kirk....@gmail.com wrote:

>> USAF F-16Cs have carried AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs for a long time! Remember the F-16 kills over Bosnia?
>>
>> Kirk
>

> True this. I was just referring to many USAF and ANG F-16s having gone longer since their last upgrades than the Iraqi ones have, even though they carry AIM-9X and AMRAAM. The USAF could do worse than opening another F-16 overhaul line, it may get quite busy.
>
If you wanted to upgrade the F-16C/D fleet, the Block 60 would be a good
configuration, especially the conformal tanks and the APG-80

Paul

[kirk....@gmail.com]

True. A full-up block 60 is pretty nice - but what a difference from the original block 15s!

Personally I think we need a new run of F-15Es with all the cosmic F-15SA Goodies.


Kirk

[Paul F Austin]

How much larger aperture of a non-mechanically scanned AESA antenna will
fit in an F-16 nose compared to a mechanically scanned plate antenna?

I recall during the late seventies that some of the fighter mafia
accused the Air Force of deliberately crippling the F-16 compared the
F-15 by making the nose smaller (24 inches vs 36 IIRC).

Paul

[Daryl]

One of the reasons that the F-16 works so well in combat is that it's a
small fighter. Making the nose larger than 24 inches would mean the
whole fuselage would have to grow. An F-16 coming in on the deck should
be a very frightening thing in an Air to Air confrontation. In the late
70s, Bitburg and Hahn played war games against the Navy. F-15/16 V
F-14. It went down like this. The F-15 played a long ranged Radar Game
(the F-14 was forbidden to use it's Pheonix). The F-16 dropped to the
deck and charge hard. With the F-14s radar, the F-15 was at a
disadvantage. But it bought time. If done properly, the F-16 could
close before detection because of size. And the 16 is more stealthy (by
accident) than the 15. When the 14 picked up the 16, he had some hard
choices. He generally would fire on the 15 and setup to intercept the
15. The 14 would have it's wings back. Just before the 16 closed, the
14 swung it's wings forward. For one turn, the 14 had the energy to
turn inside the 16. If the 15 survived the missiles he would close
fast. If the 16 survived the first attack from the 14, it was game on.
The 15 did not always survive the missile attack and the 16 did not
always survive the first 14 turn.

The 16s size is it's advantage over birds like the Mig-29 and even the F-18.

[Peter Stickney]

Actually, the Fighter Mafia types (Sprey and Riccioni, mostly, very vocal,
and all emotion and no logic) were furious that they enlarged the nose to
carry a real radar when going from the YF-16 to the F-16A.
Their ideal was visual only, a gun, and 2 rear-aspect Sidewinders.
The idea that you may actually want to go somewhere with the airplane and do
something once you got there was anathema to them.
Hence the bumper stickers from the F-15 and F-4 crowd when the Electric Jet
first came out:

"Careful badguys...I'm carrying BOTH bombs today.
I'm talkin' wall-to-wall MK-82's Pal."

"If I carried more weapons, and if I had enough gas, and if I could actually
hit the target, and if I had some more REALLY expensive electrons so I could
find you, and if my motor didn't quit, and if My wings didn't crack, Boy,
I'd really teach you a lesson!"

"I Came, I Saw, I Bingo'ed"

"We cover the target like a thong bikini."

"Last in the talent show, but first in the swimsuit competition."

[Andrew Chaplin]

Peter Stickney <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:sadjpb-...@Heimdall.local.net:

> "Careful badguys...I'm carrying BOTH bombs today.
> I'm talkin' wall-to-wall MK-82's Pal."
>
> "If I carried more weapons, and if I had enough gas, and if I could
> actually hit the target, and if I had some more REALLY expensive
> electrons so I could find you, and if my motor didn't quit, and if My
> wings didn't crack, Boy, I'd really teach you a lesson!"
>
> "I Came, I Saw, I Bingo'ed"
>
> "We cover the target like a thong bikini."
>
> "Last in the talent show, but first in the swimsuit competition."

OW! I hurt myself laughing.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[SebMit...@hotmail.com]

See Mark Bovankovich's posts on the Tornado , from the mid 1990s

[Airyx]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-6, Daryl wrote:
> Here should be a tough one. Which of the Panavia Tornado ADV v F-15 was
> better and why.

>
> --
> Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
> the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
> the Internet.

These two planes aren't really comparable. They were designed for totally different purposes.

The primary job of the ADV was to protect ASW assets in and around the GIUK gap, as well as the home islands from air attack by large fast bombers carrying long range cruise missiles. An the ATO it would appear as VALCAP.

So, its requirements were...

1. Fly to a CAP location far from base, usually over ocean.
2. Loiter there for a long time
3. Scan large volumes of air space for large bombers
4. Dash to firing position
5. Engage bombers with long range missiles

With its variable geometry wings, and Foxhunter radar, the ADV did this particular job better than an F-15A/APG-63 could do it. Also, the Foxhunter was continuously upgraded so that even when F-15s started carrying APG-70s, the ADV was still better suited for VALCAP.

Of course, the ADV couldn't do the F-15s main job of OCA-SW (Offensive Counter Air Sweep) very well at all...and...if you were to put the two of them up against each other in a fight, it would be no-contest.