Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd January 2004 at 21:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the basis of cost, the Su-24M is clearly the winner. Once you start to factor in other things like range, the results get a bit different. If range is your primary concern, I'd pick the F-111. The Su-24M does offer a numebr of advantages over the 'Vark, though. For one, the F-111 didn't typically employ any stand-off long range weapons (unless you count the specialized AGM-69 on the FB-111 or the AGM-84 on the F-111C). The Su-24M can shoot the Kh-59 and Kh-59M, and has a wealth of other missiles it can employ.
If you really want to multitask, I'd take an EF.3. You get ASRAAM, AMRAAM, ALARM, and a good SEAD fit. Give it the ability to drop a JDAM and you're in business.
By: - 22nd January 2004 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re: SU-24 vs Tornado vs F-111
Originally posted by Srbin
When it comes to cost/performance I would go with the SU-24 any time any day.What do you guys think?
I would you agree with you. This is probably the most affordable and most easily available of the three. This aircraft in theory could give strike capability that some air forces could only dream off.
Soviet Frontal Aviation operated 900 examples - so there probably are still plenty around. With modern avionics package, Su-24 is up there with the best strike air craft in its class - though ideally i would have preferred a slightly more modern turbofans rather than AL-21F3 turbojets which power th Su-24 ( before the arrival of Su-27 and Mig29 all Russian fighters/Strike aircraft used turbo jets instead of turbofans). A modern engine could increase its range and improve performance, just like F14 Tomcat was transformed when its PW TF30 engines were replaced by F110-GE-400 turbofans. the downside is that replacing the engines would make it more costly.
By: - 22nd January 2004 at 23:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tornado has some problems being Brittish, German and Italian. The maintentance is a nightmare and service rate could be much better. But it is versatile when it is in the air. Some folks even added a container filled with mines under the belly. That was clearly not a success. It is also not the best ADF. Just read the AFM magazine about that. IT s nice to counter long range bombers (BVR and loitering) but for the rest I would opt for the other two.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 00:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes I think thats the worst thing about the Tornado, its a maintenance nightmare, just as bad as the Tomcat is if not worse.
How is the maintenance on the Su-24/F-111??
Also the Su-24 is a lot cheaper than the other two and is just as capable. The F-111 is no longer in production and only Australia operates them.
The Su-24 is a good bomb truck, are they still in production?
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 01:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by GarryB
The interim upgrade of the Su-24M to keep it useful till the Su-32/34 is ready might add GPS/INS guided weapons and the Su-24 could already carry AS-11s, AS-12s, and AS-17s. No doubt the upgrade might add R-73s, though I doubt they would add R-77s, but who needs that... what a waste of a pylon and radar scanning time.
I'd have to respectfully disagree with the R-73 over the R-77 (although if you want a short-range AAM the R-73 is much more capable than the R-60). As a comparitively unmaneuverable strike aircraft, I'd think the R-77 would be a better self defense weapon as you can get the bad guy well before he thinks about whipping up on you in a WVR engagement. It's not like they'd need too big of a mod to the avionics, they could just use the Epaulet system installed in, say, the wing glove fairings.
Oh, and you made a good point about engine commonality, although I cut that bit out of the quote above. I'd recommend the same powerplant they eventually pick for production Su-34s. Then you could have, say, 2 squadrons of upgraded Su-24Ms (Su-24M2?) colocated with one squadron of Su-34s. Saves you a little money on the logistics side and means you can 1) spread out your Su-34 assets a bit more, and 2) maybe spread the Su-34 buy out over a few more years to save a little money up front.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by PLA
It is also not the best ADF. Just read the AFM magazine about that. IT s nice to counter long range bombers (BVR and loitering).
I read that, one of the more interesting articles they've had in a while I thought. The main problem as I understand it is that the F.3 is underpowered at medium and high altitude. But, since it was a Cold War project for an interceptor along the lines of the F-14, keeping Soviet nuke carriers from the Isles, it really didn't have any great requirement to be maneuverable. At lower altitudes it is supposed to handle rather well, though.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 04:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not very fun to maintain.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 04:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Srbin
Yes I think thats the worst thing about the Tornado, its a maintenance nightmare, just as bad as the Tomcat is if not worse.How is the maintenance on the Su-24/F-111??
Also the Su-24 is a lot cheaper than the other two and is just as capable. The F-111 is no longer in production and only Australia operates them.
The Su-24 is a good bomb truck, are they still in production?
The F-111 was a maintenance pig. The most expensive small combat jet per flying hour ever. Getting rid of it post Desert Storm was an easy decision.
Swing wings are a waste of time today unless you don't have any PGMs and need a nice smooth ride* that only swingers can provide very low and fast in bumpy low altitude air , running through the hills in your terrain plowing... er I mean terrain following radar, and doing something like radar bombing with ballutes. Make sure to wave at the AAA gunners as you go on by :D
* F-15E guys are glad they are doing mostly high PGM work these days as besides the advantage of being out of range of small SAMs and AAA when high, .... doing super low high speed penetration without swing wings is super bumpy and makes lots of backseaters sick no matter how many hours they have. Something for the Indian SU-30 backseater to look forward to if low level penatration is going to be part of their bag of tricks. :eek: Swingers are maintenance and sustainment pigs but they are a smooth ride on the deck.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 06:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
HArd to say.
SU-24s offer a good range and with the latest updatess it is surely an impressive weapons system.
F-111 is nearly out of service (forget the australian exampels) and has only developed until the early 90s. So it lacks 10 years of development today. But is was cistly to operate, but also performed well when called to action. (IIPGW, Strikes on Lybia, ..)
Tornado. Hmm, a cold war relict. Special designed for the one way missions of a WW3 in europe. Good at ultra low level, underpowered at medium at high alltitudes. Maintencane is getting a problem on those planes. But it can carry lots of weapons. Anitship, anit-radiation, LGBs, JDAM, Brimstone, Storm Shadow, Taurus.
My vote still goes to the SU-24.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 07:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
one lead and the others followed. :cool:
You guys talk as if swaping engines is as easy as 123...now let's see, why don't you swap your car engines :o :D :D :D :D :D
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just a thought. Obviously you could fit the RB.199 to the Typhoon. So it should be possible to fit the EJ2000 to the Tornado. :D
My vote for the SU-24 is without an engine update. It is just because it is the sexiest of those planes.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So the Russian wins. Maybe due to lack of knowledge of their problem but it is surely sexy and rough... I still do not understand why India never opted for that bird...
SOC, about that article.. You did read also the part that AMRAAM interlink was not adapted by both Tornado and Harrier... I just remembered those days when guns or cannons were no longer designed... Those days? I just heard that Typhoon is also partial without a gun... We are still running in circles :D
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 11:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the Tornado has progressed the best out of all three from it's low level role to the requirements of today's battle. I think the GR.4 is a lot more capable than the Su-24 if you look at precision guided munitions capability and accuracy. TIALD, NVG, nato compatible datalinks, laser designators, and advanced ECM suite (dunno about Su-24M though) are things I am missing on the others.
Maintenance wise they are all nightmares, but consider that we hear more about problems with the Tornado and F-111 than we would hear about the Su-24.
And about the AFM F.3 article. If the ELS of the F.3 is that good compared to other variants of the Tornado, why not fit that to the GR.4 and give that one the full SEAD potential with the ALARM, enabling the retirement of the F.3?
And we always are told about the bad Foxhunter radar, but remember the strike variants do carry the TNR. I never heard complaints about that one?
Su-24 may be the cheapest to buy today, but I guess there would be nice deals when the Tornado will be retired. Supply of spares for the Tornado would be better than the F-111.
As for looks:
The reason I like the Tornado, is because it looks like the ultimate strike aircraft, and looks extremely powerful and angry when equipped with Sea Eagle, Kormoran, ALARM, whole load of bomb, or the JP233/MW-1. Also the canopy and compactness when swept is great.
I like the Su-24, because of its cockpit, size, Russian, and love it in refuelling flight or when loaded with loads of FAB-250s.
I like the F-111 because of its age, bomb bay, and the wide fuselage with the giant intakes.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 11:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The big problem of the Tornado is a very high wing load in extremely low attitudes. As much as nine RAF and Italian Tornadoes were shot down during the Desert Strom campaign (some by the old *telephone masts* SA-2 Guideline), while almost no Jaguars were lost in combat while performing the same job.
I remember some RAF crews complaining that the Tornado features extremely low agility and maneuvrability during the high speed low passes which makes it almost impossible to perform a high g turn as an evasive manbeuver against SA-2 or SA-3.
Regarding the Fencer, IIRC, one big drawback is the lack of an automatic wing sweep system. The operator or pilot can vary the wing sweep only manually and he only has four positions to choose from..
Flex
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 12:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Although the Jaguar was indeed also employed in strikes against SAM sites, but the main operating area was Kuwait not Iraq. The GR.1s were employed as SEAD aircraft, most often around air fields and important targets.
Let's compare the Tornado vs Jaguar sorties:
Tornado F3 - 710
Tornado GR1 - 1,531
Tornado GR1A - 140
Jaguar - 617
The RAF Tornado GR.1 crashes:
17-1-91 SAM
19-1-91 SAM
24-1-91 Shrapnel fragments from the bomb(s)
14-2-91 SAM
17-1-91 AAA
22-1-91 AAA
Would the Su-24 or F-111 performed any better in the exact same role and circumstances. The F-111 did, but with support from the EF-111.
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think in strike capability we should look at more of the plane's ruggedness, payload, range and survavibility. I think the Tornado did pretty bad in Iraq war, I mean quite a few were shot down, and I think the low level bombing is kind of unsuccessfull due to AAA and SAMs at the ground, meaning a lot easier to hit it.
Is the Su-24 production line still open? I know it was just sold to Algeria!
By: - 23rd January 2004 at 20:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some Pics, Tornado first. this is the most beautiful camo scheme EVER
Posts: 1,930
By: Srbin - 22nd January 2004 at 21:33
What di tiy guys think is the best strike aircraft out of these 3? In terms of payload, weapons, cost, maintenence cost, speed, avionics, etc?
When it comes to cost/performance I would go with the SU-24 any time any day.
What do you guys think?