By: seahawk
- 23rd January 2004 at 20:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by flex297 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
I disagree. Only the Tornado was doing the low level airfield attacks in the first nights of Desert Sttorm. No Jaguar was doing ths mission. Furthermore the Jaguar was more operating in Kuwait TO, while the Tornados were operatin in Iraq itself. So they were facing a higer risk. After changing to midlevel tactics (the Jaguar did so from the start) the Tornado looses went down and became comparable to other planes operating in the same area.
By: Vortex
- 23rd January 2004 at 21:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by seahawk 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
That's not necessarily true...ever heard of "converse is not true" :D :D :D :D :D Now i don't know about the specifics but it could very well be that in order to fit the EJ2000 into the Tornado some serious work have to be done. Here may be the reasons, although dimensional wise they are similar but flow rate wise they are different. The Tornado's intake may be too small for the EJ2000. The vice versa is ok since losses due to too large an intake is usually much less than losses due to too small an intake. How about fitting? Sure, the sizes must be somewhat similar if the Typhoon can fit both, but could it be that the RB199 is a bit smaller and shorter and we know that it's always easy to fit small stuff in large but the converse? Now the loads, the RB199 generates less thrust, so the question is (assuming that the mounting lug is compatible) can the rear structure handle the loads of the EJ2000. Then, the last thing is stability. The Typhoon is computer stabilized, but the Tornado iirc isn't, so that means if the engine CG is different, the Typhoon can accomadate that, but the other way around? You see, it really isn't as easy as 123....
By: ELP
- 24th January 2004 at 01:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For usefulness in todays strike warfare, The most deadly today would be the UK Tornado. No Tornados are JDAM qualified, but the UK ones are enhanced Paveway qualified. This is a dual use LGB. For fixed targets that are obscured it uses GPS/INS just like JDAM. The kit isnt quite as cheap as JDAM but cheap enough. The F111 or SU24 doesn't have an operational equivalent of this. The UK is also going to build the Paveway IV in country, ( enhanced Paveway by any other name ) As this weapon means that it can have absolute contempt for small SAMs and AAA, that leaves large SAMs. So the UK Tornado paired with the the German one for SEAD/DEAD, makes a nice combo. Certainly with Storm Shadow the UK Tornados have enough modern hitting power to be in the targets per sortie club, in any weather. Add to that the really good combat crew training these crews get and it is a great package. The UK Tornado did three good things in OIF: Use of the enhanced Paveway, Stormshadow, and excellent work with UK G-FACs embedded with UK ground troops calling in precise killing power from the Tornado. That is important because the GFAC can call it in even if there is cloud cover. Something most air forces still can not do.
Aussie F111s have one major sustainment issue after the other and you never know on any one day when the whole fleet can be grounded.
SU-24? Good for naval strike but I wouldn't want it in this day and age for anything else. Not when jets that can weaponeer modern weapons like Paveway IV are available.
As it is there is another swinger that is far more useful than the SU24 or F111. That is the F-14 bombcat carring JDAMs or LGBs.
By: ELP
- 24th January 2004 at 01:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Vortex 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
It is easy. At least with an F-15 or F-16 for example. F-111? yuck. SU-24... I don't know. Tornado... I don't know.
By: seahawk
- 24th January 2004 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Vortex sure I know, that there might be some problems to overcome when fitting an EJ2000 to the Tornado. But reengining the SU will also not be without problems.
AFAIK there were some design studies done on fitting the F.3s wit the EJ2000, but these were dropped because of cuts in the force structure.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 24th January 2004 at 14:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by milavia 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.
11-11-90 Jaguar GR1 XX754 Pilot Flt.Ltn. Keith Collister - KIA
crashed into mountain over Qatar
Shot down:
none
Damaged aircraft:
Four french Jags damaged by SA-14 SAM 17-01-91
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th January 2004 at 02:29Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"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."
From my info the Su-24 has two radar antennas in its nose... one for terrain avoidance and the other for target detection of ground targets with a limited air target capability. I pretty much think that fitting AA-12s would involve rather too much work. Epaulet is for fighters with existing air to air capability that lack datalink capability for BVR missiles. The SU-24 pretty much lacks the ability to track long range aerial targets too... it is more likely scanning for ground targets than searching the skies.
The phased array system for the Su-32 can operate in terrain aviodance, surface search and mapping, and detect aerial targets simultaneously, but I am pretty sure the Su-24 could do that (it needs two seperate radars just so it can avoid terrain and detect ground targets.)
A better solution... till the Su-32 arrives would be an escort of Flankers at medium altitude with AAMs keeping aircraft busy and a few Mig-25s with ARMs keeping the ground airdefence busy, while the Fencer goes in low and fast.
I think the use of R-77s on the Su-32 is largely for the medium altitude PGM standoff attacks.
"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."
The Su-24 has all those things or can have them. There is even an EW model Su-24 that is still in use.
"but consider that we hear more about problems with the Tornado and F-111 than we would hear about the Su-24."
Why do you say that? The Su-24 is exported and the maintaince whining about other Russian aircraft is hardly a secret.
"You see, it really isn't as easy as 123...."
We understand it is not that simple Vort, but it isn't impossible either. This sort of think has been done before... Su-17s with different engines for export for example.
"For fixed targets that are obscured it uses GPS/INS just like JDAM."
Ummm, Yes Elp, but for fixed targets obscured the Su-24M uses its radar and dumb bombs...
"As this weapon means that it can have absolute contempt for small SAMs and AAA, that leaves large SAMs."
First of all any aircraft with standoff weapons could say the same thing... and when you start going down that route an F-16 or Mig-29SMT at medium height could do the job much cheaper.
"That is important because the GFAC can call it in even if there is cloud cover. Something most air forces still can not do. "
And considering their lack of decent artillery that is needed... but what is your point? No one else can fight when it rains except the US and UK?
"As it is there is another swinger that is far more useful than the SU24 or F111. That is the F-14 bombcat carring JDAMs or LGBs."
Hahaha. Except it is a Navy plane that no navy wants.
"SU-24? Good for naval strike but I wouldn't want it in this day and age for anything else. Not when jets that can weaponeer modern weapons like Paveway IV are available."
Yes, because that dumb old Su-24 can't carry anything guided at all... and lets face it the only guided munition that counts is GPS guided. Gee that little evaluation shtick never gets boring.
New
By: Anonymous
- 25th January 2004 at 02:36Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
Regarding the original post:
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?
In payload the F-111, then Tornado, then Su-24 by weight.
I would reverse that order for weapons if you mean performance and range of weapons available.
Cost, will undoubtedly go to the SU-24, though it is not a cheap aircraft by any standard.
Speeds would be comparable though I am hugely suspicious of claims that the F-111 can fly at mach 2.5 at altitude.
Avionics, well the Su-24M2 is getting an avionics upgrade to include Glonass/gps Nav system and a rather large improvement in accuracy of bombing with dumb bombs and unguided weapons in level, dive and toss profiles. Avionics of the F-111 are pretty much frozen. don't know what is happening to the Tornado's systems.
I am assuming you are referring only to the Su-24, F-111 and Tornado in the ground attack role and not the jammer models, recon models etc.
By: SOC
- 25th January 2004 at 03:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Speed isn't comparable anymore. The Su-24M had the variable intake ramps removed to save weight and maintenance costs, and are therefore limited to Mach 1.3 or Mach 1.4. Low altitude performance hasn't changed however, so there's really no loss in useful capability as the FENCER isn't going to realistically be tooling around at Mach 2 in combat anyway.
From my info the Su-24 has two radar antennas in its nose... one for terrain avoidance and the other for target detection of ground targets with a limited air target capability.
Yup, there are two radars. The reason for that is probably the age of the system I'd think. How expensive would it be to install a new FCS?
By: ELP
- 25th January 2004 at 03:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You need to re-educate yourself on todays operational PGMs Garry. Radar bombing with ballutes or iron still leaves you vulnerable to small SAMs and AAA unless you want the weapons to scatter you have to do that method low. Big expensive Rockets and Cruise Missiles cant be used for everything because of the cost.
No one. No one, can compete with a user of Enhanced Paveway, Paveway IV, or JDAM on price of the munition, performance of the munition ( Killing a fixed target with one sortie, or killing multiple targets on one pass with one jet ) and doing this in obscurred weather, and at much less aircrew risk. If you aren't using a weapon with that ability, you are basically 2nd rate on strike warfare. That also goes for the G-FACs that work with these weps for CAS. The new Israeli Spice and upcoming French Sagem AASM also fit into this category of cheap all weather PGMs
New
Posts: 72
By: zheng1980
- 25th January 2004 at 23:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would go for the Tornado anyday, maily because it left me with a huge impression when it did a inverted low level fly past at Avalon airshow:D
seriously, Tornado can defend it self in air to air combat better than the other two a/c and have better array of PGMs with the new GR.4. Its also the most combat proven than the other two in a modern air war environment. Although in terms of range, nothing beats the Pig.
New
By: Anonymous
- 26th January 2004 at 04:21Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"Low altitude performance hasn't changed however, so there's really no loss in useful capability as the FENCER isn't going to realistically be tooling around at Mach 2 in combat anyway."
This was my reasoning too, that is why I consider them even in this respect as high altitude flight will be at cruising speed in and out with the target area phase at low altitude at high speed. Unless they are used from no where near their max range none will have the fuel to get to high altitude and fly at mach 2+ on the way home...
"Yup, there are two radars. The reason for that is probably the age of the system I'd think."
No, it is because you want to scan the terrain to avoid it going in toward and away from your target area... which is also when you want to be detecting your target. So you need two radars (which will be operating in different modes and frequencies) or a modern Phased array radar... which wasn't available for any of these aircraft when they were made (I would be surprised if the Tornado and F-111 didn't have two radar antenna too).
"You need to re-educate yourself on todays operational PGMs Garry. Radar bombing with ballutes or iron still leaves you vulnerable to small SAMs and AAA unless you want the weapons to scatter you have to do that method low."
At mach 1.2 at less than 60m at night in a snowstorm... I'd rate my chances as reasonable... in good weather then a standoff attack with Laser Guided munitions or TV or IIR guided weapons would do as well.
"If you aren't using a weapon with that ability, you are basically 2nd rate on strike warfare."
Rubbish. Having such weapons means nothing if you don't have the assets required to make them work. If the target is fixed then a Mig-25RB would have little to fear from most air defences... the large weapons able to reach it being the easiest of SAMs to take out, the SAMs you can never completely take out (ie MANPADS) are never a threat.
Artillery can also attack fixed positions 24/7 and in any weather... as shown by the Russians in Chechnia with Tochka and Iskander missiles engaging fixed targets.
By: SOC
- 26th January 2004 at 04:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by GarryB So you need two radars (which will be operating in different modes and frequencies) or a modern Phased array radar... which wasn't available for any of these aircraft when they were made.
Hence the assertion that there are two radars because of the age of the system :D
Originally posted by GarryB Artillery can also attack fixed positions 24/7 and in any weather... as shown by the Russians in Chechnia with Tochka and Iskander missiles engaging fixed targets.
Blasphemer! You forgot the most amusing of the Russian artillery in Chechnya!
By: ELP
- 26th January 2004 at 11:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh yeah. As Seahawk remided me. LITENING pods on some German Tornados. A great great pod that is only exceeded by the SNIPER / PANTERA.
New
By: Anonymous
- 26th January 2004 at 22:21Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
Very nice picture of the TOS-1 SOC, but considering its maximum range is 3.5km it is really a minefield breaching system (or bunker clearer/Gheto blaster system).
By: Vympel
- 27th January 2004 at 02:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by GarryB Very nice picture of the TOS-1 SOC, but considering its maximum range is 3.5km it is really a minefield breaching system (or bunker clearer/Gheto blaster system).
:-)
It's primary purpose is assault; mine field breaching, not so much.
By: Sintra
- 1st February 2015 at 19:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are there any recent upgrade on Su-24M2 and Tornado GR4?
Dont know on the Sukhoi, but the RAF Tornado fleet has been continuosly upgraded, the CUS-P upgrade was finished last year, and there are severall upgrades contracted to be delivered next year.
By: Multirole
- 2nd February 2015 at 06:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Makes me wonder how effective the Su-24 would've been as an interceptor, if the MiG-25 had not existed. It's the only one of this group that wasn't developed with an envisioned interceptor role.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 23rd January 2004 at 20:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I disagree. Only the Tornado was doing the low level airfield attacks in the first nights of Desert Sttorm. No Jaguar was doing ths mission. Furthermore the Jaguar was more operating in Kuwait TO, while the Tornados were operatin in Iraq itself. So they were facing a higer risk. After changing to midlevel tactics (the Jaguar did so from the start) the Tornado looses went down and became comparable to other planes operating in the same area.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 23rd January 2004 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's not necessarily true...ever heard of "converse is not true" :D :D :D :D :D Now i don't know about the specifics but it could very well be that in order to fit the EJ2000 into the Tornado some serious work have to be done. Here may be the reasons, although dimensional wise they are similar but flow rate wise they are different. The Tornado's intake may be too small for the EJ2000. The vice versa is ok since losses due to too large an intake is usually much less than losses due to too small an intake. How about fitting? Sure, the sizes must be somewhat similar if the Typhoon can fit both, but could it be that the RB199 is a bit smaller and shorter and we know that it's always easy to fit small stuff in large but the converse? Now the loads, the RB199 generates less thrust, so the question is (assuming that the mounting lug is compatible) can the rear structure handle the loads of the EJ2000. Then, the last thing is stability. The Typhoon is computer stabilized, but the Tornado iirc isn't, so that means if the engine CG is different, the Typhoon can accomadate that, but the other way around? You see, it really isn't as easy as 123....
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 24th January 2004 at 01:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For usefulness in todays strike warfare, The most deadly today would be the UK Tornado. No Tornados are JDAM qualified, but the UK ones are enhanced Paveway qualified. This is a dual use LGB. For fixed targets that are obscured it uses GPS/INS just like JDAM. The kit isnt quite as cheap as JDAM but cheap enough. The F111 or SU24 doesn't have an operational equivalent of this. The UK is also going to build the Paveway IV in country, ( enhanced Paveway by any other name ) As this weapon means that it can have absolute contempt for small SAMs and AAA, that leaves large SAMs. So the UK Tornado paired with the the German one for SEAD/DEAD, makes a nice combo. Certainly with Storm Shadow the UK Tornados have enough modern hitting power to be in the targets per sortie club, in any weather. Add to that the really good combat crew training these crews get and it is a great package. The UK Tornado did three good things in OIF: Use of the enhanced Paveway, Stormshadow, and excellent work with UK G-FACs embedded with UK ground troops calling in precise killing power from the Tornado. That is important because the GFAC can call it in even if there is cloud cover. Something most air forces still can not do.
Aussie F111s have one major sustainment issue after the other and you never know on any one day when the whole fleet can be grounded.
SU-24? Good for naval strike but I wouldn't want it in this day and age for anything else. Not when jets that can weaponeer modern weapons like Paveway IV are available.
As it is there is another swinger that is far more useful than the SU24 or F111. That is the F-14 bombcat carring JDAMs or LGBs.
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 24th January 2004 at 01:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is easy. At least with an F-15 or F-16 for example. F-111? yuck. SU-24... I don't know. Tornado... I don't know.
Posts: 4,202
By: seahawk - 24th January 2004 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Vortex sure I know, that there might be some problems to overcome when fitting an EJ2000 to the Tornado. But reengining the SU will also not be without problems.
AFAIK there were some design studies done on fitting the F.3s wit the EJ2000, but these were dropped because of cuts in the force structure.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 24th January 2004 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The list is a bit incomplete. Here is the complete one.
Tornado IDS/GR1
Crashes:
18-10-90 Tornado GR1 ZA466/FH
Pilot - Sqn.Ldr. Ivor Valker - ejected
WSO - Sqn.Ldr. Bobby Anderson - ejected
13-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZD718/BH
Pilot - Flt. Ltn. Kieran Duffy - KIA
WSO - Flt. Ltn. Norman Dent - KIA
Shot down planes:
17-01-91 Tornado IDS Italian AF
Pilot Cpt. Maurizio Cocciolone
Navigator Cpt. Mario Birchirloni
17-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZD791/BG
Pilot Flt. Ltn. John Peters - POW
Navigator Flt.Ltn. Adrian Nicholls - POW
hit by IR guided SAM over Ar Rumaylah
18-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZA392/EK
Pilot Wing Cmdr. Nigel Elsdon - KIA
Navigator FltLt. Max Collier - KIA
hit by AAA 8nm NWW from Tallil
18-01-91 Tornado IDS MM7074 Italian AF
Flt. Cpt. Mario Bichirloni - POW
hit 15nm NW from Kuwait City
19-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZA396/GE
Pilot Flt. Ltn. David Waddington - KIA
WSO - Flt. Ltn. Robert Stewart - KIA
hit by IR guided SAM 51nm SE from Tallil AB
20-01-91 Tirnado GR1 Royal Saudi AF
crew ejected
hit by AAA over West Tallil Airfield
20-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZD893/AG
Pilot Sqdn. Ldr. Peter Battson - ejected
Navigator Wng. Cdr. Mike Heath - ejected
crashed near Tabuk
21-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZA467/FF
Pilot - Sqn. Ldr. Gary Lennox - KIA
qn. Ldr. Adrian Paul "Kev" Weeks - KIA
23-01-91 Tornado GR1 ZA403/CO
Pilot - F/O Simon Burges - POW
WSO - Sqn. Ldr. Robert Akerson - POW
premature bombs detonation over H-3 AB
14-02-91 Tornado GR1 ZD717/C
Pilot - Flt. Ltn. Rupert Clark - POW
WSO - Flt. Ltn. Stephen Hicks - KIA
hit by SA-6 battery 50nm NW from Baghdad
Damaged aircraft:
ZA466/FH [landing], ZD744 [bird strike], ZA403 [SAM], ZD 843/DH [SAM],
Jaguar A/GR1
Crashes:
11-11-90 Jaguar GR1 XX754 Pilot Flt.Ltn. Keith Collister - KIA
crashed into mountain over Qatar
Shot down:
none
Damaged aircraft:
Four french Jags damaged by SA-14 SAM 17-01-91
By: Anonymous - 25th January 2004 at 02:29 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"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."
From my info the Su-24 has two radar antennas in its nose... one for terrain avoidance and the other for target detection of ground targets with a limited air target capability. I pretty much think that fitting AA-12s would involve rather too much work. Epaulet is for fighters with existing air to air capability that lack datalink capability for BVR missiles. The SU-24 pretty much lacks the ability to track long range aerial targets too... it is more likely scanning for ground targets than searching the skies.
The phased array system for the Su-32 can operate in terrain aviodance, surface search and mapping, and detect aerial targets simultaneously, but I am pretty sure the Su-24 could do that (it needs two seperate radars just so it can avoid terrain and detect ground targets.)
A better solution... till the Su-32 arrives would be an escort of Flankers at medium altitude with AAMs keeping aircraft busy and a few Mig-25s with ARMs keeping the ground airdefence busy, while the Fencer goes in low and fast.
I think the use of R-77s on the Su-32 is largely for the medium altitude PGM standoff attacks.
"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."
The Su-24 has all those things or can have them. There is even an EW model Su-24 that is still in use.
"but consider that we hear more about problems with the Tornado and F-111 than we would hear about the Su-24."
Why do you say that? The Su-24 is exported and the maintaince whining about other Russian aircraft is hardly a secret.
"You see, it really isn't as easy as 123...."
We understand it is not that simple Vort, but it isn't impossible either. This sort of think has been done before... Su-17s with different engines for export for example.
"For fixed targets that are obscured it uses GPS/INS just like JDAM."
Ummm, Yes Elp, but for fixed targets obscured the Su-24M uses its radar and dumb bombs...
"As this weapon means that it can have absolute contempt for small SAMs and AAA, that leaves large SAMs."
First of all any aircraft with standoff weapons could say the same thing... and when you start going down that route an F-16 or Mig-29SMT at medium height could do the job much cheaper.
"That is important because the GFAC can call it in even if there is cloud cover. Something most air forces still can not do. "
And considering their lack of decent artillery that is needed... but what is your point? No one else can fight when it rains except the US and UK?
"As it is there is another swinger that is far more useful than the SU24 or F111. That is the F-14 bombcat carring JDAMs or LGBs."
Hahaha. Except it is a Navy plane that no navy wants.
"SU-24? Good for naval strike but I wouldn't want it in this day and age for anything else. Not when jets that can weaponeer modern weapons like Paveway IV are available."
Yes, because that dumb old Su-24 can't carry anything guided at all... and lets face it the only guided munition that counts is GPS guided. Gee that little evaluation shtick never gets boring.
By: Anonymous - 25th January 2004 at 02:36 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
Regarding the original post:
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?
In payload the F-111, then Tornado, then Su-24 by weight.
I would reverse that order for weapons if you mean performance and range of weapons available.
Cost, will undoubtedly go to the SU-24, though it is not a cheap aircraft by any standard.
Speeds would be comparable though I am hugely suspicious of claims that the F-111 can fly at mach 2.5 at altitude.
Avionics, well the Su-24M2 is getting an avionics upgrade to include Glonass/gps Nav system and a rather large improvement in accuracy of bombing with dumb bombs and unguided weapons in level, dive and toss profiles. Avionics of the F-111 are pretty much frozen. don't know what is happening to the Tornado's systems.
I am assuming you are referring only to the Su-24, F-111 and Tornado in the ground attack role and not the jammer models, recon models etc.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 25th January 2004 at 03:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Speed isn't comparable anymore. The Su-24M had the variable intake ramps removed to save weight and maintenance costs, and are therefore limited to Mach 1.3 or Mach 1.4. Low altitude performance hasn't changed however, so there's really no loss in useful capability as the FENCER isn't going to realistically be tooling around at Mach 2 in combat anyway.
Yup, there are two radars. The reason for that is probably the age of the system I'd think. How expensive would it be to install a new FCS?
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 25th January 2004 at 03:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You need to re-educate yourself on todays operational PGMs Garry. Radar bombing with ballutes or iron still leaves you vulnerable to small SAMs and AAA unless you want the weapons to scatter you have to do that method low. Big expensive Rockets and Cruise Missiles cant be used for everything because of the cost.
No one. No one, can compete with a user of Enhanced Paveway, Paveway IV, or JDAM on price of the munition, performance of the munition ( Killing a fixed target with one sortie, or killing multiple targets on one pass with one jet ) and doing this in obscurred weather, and at much less aircrew risk. If you aren't using a weapon with that ability, you are basically 2nd rate on strike warfare. That also goes for the G-FACs that work with these weps for CAS. The new Israeli Spice and upcoming French Sagem AASM also fit into this category of cheap all weather PGMs
Posts: 72
By: zheng1980 - 25th January 2004 at 23:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would go for the Tornado anyday, maily because it left me with a huge impression when it did a inverted low level fly past at Avalon airshow:D
seriously, Tornado can defend it self in air to air combat better than the other two a/c and have better array of PGMs with the new GR.4. Its also the most combat proven than the other two in a modern air war environment. Although in terms of range, nothing beats the Pig.
By: Anonymous - 26th January 2004 at 04:21 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"Low altitude performance hasn't changed however, so there's really no loss in useful capability as the FENCER isn't going to realistically be tooling around at Mach 2 in combat anyway."
This was my reasoning too, that is why I consider them even in this respect as high altitude flight will be at cruising speed in and out with the target area phase at low altitude at high speed. Unless they are used from no where near their max range none will have the fuel to get to high altitude and fly at mach 2+ on the way home...
"Yup, there are two radars. The reason for that is probably the age of the system I'd think."
No, it is because you want to scan the terrain to avoid it going in toward and away from your target area... which is also when you want to be detecting your target. So you need two radars (which will be operating in different modes and frequencies) or a modern Phased array radar... which wasn't available for any of these aircraft when they were made (I would be surprised if the Tornado and F-111 didn't have two radar antenna too).
"You need to re-educate yourself on todays operational PGMs Garry. Radar bombing with ballutes or iron still leaves you vulnerable to small SAMs and AAA unless you want the weapons to scatter you have to do that method low."
At mach 1.2 at less than 60m at night in a snowstorm... I'd rate my chances as reasonable... in good weather then a standoff attack with Laser Guided munitions or TV or IIR guided weapons would do as well.
"If you aren't using a weapon with that ability, you are basically 2nd rate on strike warfare."
Rubbish. Having such weapons means nothing if you don't have the assets required to make them work. If the target is fixed then a Mig-25RB would have little to fear from most air defences... the large weapons able to reach it being the easiest of SAMs to take out, the SAMs you can never completely take out (ie MANPADS) are never a threat.
Artillery can also attack fixed positions 24/7 and in any weather... as shown by the Russians in Chechnia with Tochka and Iskander missiles engaging fixed targets.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 26th January 2004 at 04:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hence the assertion that there are two radars because of the age of the system :D
Blasphemer! You forgot the most amusing of the Russian artillery in Chechnya!
Posts: 2,210
By: ELP - 26th January 2004 at 11:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh yeah. As Seahawk remided me. LITENING pods on some German Tornados. A great great pod that is only exceeded by the SNIPER / PANTERA.
By: Anonymous - 26th January 2004 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
Very nice picture of the TOS-1 SOC, but considering its maximum range is 3.5km it is really a minefield breaching system (or bunker clearer/Gheto blaster system).
:-)
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 26th January 2004 at 23:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, as in the ghettos of Groznyy :D
Posts: 2,257
By: Vympel - 27th January 2004 at 02:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's primary purpose is assault; mine field breaching, not so much.
Posts: 178
By: ocay84 - 1st February 2015 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are there any recent upgrade on Su-24M2 and Tornado GR4?
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 1st February 2015 at 19:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dont know on the Sukhoi, but the RAF Tornado fleet has been continuosly upgraded, the CUS-P upgrade was finished last year, and there are severall upgrades contracted to be delivered next year.
Posts: 805
By: Multirole - 2nd February 2015 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Makes me wonder how effective the Su-24 would've been as an interceptor, if the MiG-25 had not existed. It's the only one of this group that wasn't developed with an envisioned interceptor role.