Discussion
Roberty said:
Did anyone see SKYNEWS this morning.
They did a freeze frame on a video of a Tornado GR.4
They then drew circles round it's ordance and explained what each item was.
They described the Paveway laser guided bombs as being small unguided bombs.
They then moved on to the two huge drop tanks and explained how they were precision anit-runway bombs!
Great research Sky!
I've also lost count of the amount of times they've shown pictures of F-16's and described them as being F-15's and vice-versa.
I can remember showing new lad around our unit on the day he arrived, as we walked down to the 'line' hangar he commented on the aircraft lined up on the pan in a hushed, shoolboy tone, "Cor, those are big bombs!". No Ivan, those are fuel tanks. They did a freeze frame on a video of a Tornado GR.4
They then drew circles round it's ordance and explained what each item was.
They described the Paveway laser guided bombs as being small unguided bombs.
They then moved on to the two huge drop tanks and explained how they were precision anit-runway bombs!
Great research Sky!
I've also lost count of the amount of times they've shown pictures of F-16's and described them as being F-15's and vice-versa.
Simpo Two said:
I do wonder how much faster these jets would go if they were a bit bigger and carried the ordnance inside instead of hanging over all the place like washing. The drag must be significant. Missiles could be on a rotatey-door thing.
I'm sure all the ordinance reduces the maximum speed but they probably wouldn't be using the max speed anyways. I don't know the Tornado's attack profiles but I'm guessing going supersonic during a low/medium level bomb run isn't part of it, so the bombs, etc. probably have little effect on the speed they plan to fly. However it certainly affects fuel consumption and maneuverability. I remember reading that on an F/A-18 having a full load of bombs and drop tanks increases fuel consumption by something like 30-40%! 
Simpo Two said:
I do wonder how much faster these jets would go if they were a bit bigger and carried the ordnance inside instead of hanging over all the place like washing. The drag must be significant. Missiles could be on a rotatey-door thing.
I think the F22 carries stuff internally, but that's for radar visibility reasons rather than drag.Simpo Two said:
Hmm, so the Simpo Mark 1 Munitions Door (Rotating, For the use of), increases range and decreases time to target (ie exposed to hostile fire)...
scuttles off to drawing board
The F-117 and F-35 (to name 2) can have internal stores. The B-2 also has an internal, rotary bomb rack. It's not just speed, efficiency and stealth that are reduced by external stores, think of the reinforcement (and weight) required for the wing hard points during high-g manouvering.scuttles off to drawing board
CelicaGT said:
I'm sure all the ordinance reduces the maximum speed but they probably wouldn't be using the max speed anyways. I don't know the Tornado's attack profiles but I'm guessing going supersonic during a low/medium level bomb run isn't part of it, so the bombs, etc. probably have little effect on the speed they plan to fly. However it certainly affects fuel consumption and maneuverability. I remember reading that on an F/A-18 having a full load of bombs and drop tanks increases fuel consumption by something like 30-40%!
Is that the same F-18 which can hardly stay in the air with a full load and has to take off with the engines at 101% when loaded and then has to refuel, compared to the F-14 which it replaced that could get off the deck fully loaded and fueled and then not be using the afterburner?Yes I don't like the fact that the Tomcat lost out to a far worse aircraft
Simpo Two said:
Both true. And I have an idea that having the weight more centrally would be better for CG and handling, but this is just instinct.
True, but of course you can have your cake and, if necessary eat it, with the Boeing F-15SE:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn6nx_GGERQ
LukeSi said:
Is that the same F-18 which can hardly stay in the air with a full load and has to take off with the engines at 101% when loaded and then has to refuel, compared to the F-14 which it replaced that could get off the deck fully loaded and fueled and then not be using the afterburner?
Yes I don't like the fact that the Tomcat lost out to a far worse aircraft
Apart from the fact that the Tomcat usually didn't get off the deck due to mechanical defects. It was a horrendously unreliable and labour intensive airframe. The maintainance man-hours needed to keep it in the air were stupendous.Yes I don't like the fact that the Tomcat lost out to a far worse aircraft
Elroy Blue said:
Apart from the fact that the Tomcat usually didn't get off the deck due to mechanical defects. It was a horrendously unreliable and labour intensive airframe. The maintainance man-hours needed to keep it in the air were stupendous.
Doesn't help that they were 15+ year old airframes. I bet if it were still a current aircraft it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more reliable. Now if they had ever made the Tomcat 21 that would probably outclass the F22.Elroy Blue said:
LukeSi said:
Is that the same F-18 which can hardly stay in the air with a full load and has to take off with the engines at 101% when loaded and then has to refuel, compared to the F-14 which it replaced that could get off the deck fully loaded and fueled and then not be using the afterburner?
Yes I don't like the fact that the Tomcat lost out to a far worse aircraft
Apart from the fact that the Tomcat usually didn't get off the deck due to mechanical defects. It was a horrendously unreliable and labour intensive airframe. The maintainance man-hours needed to keep it in the air were stupendous.Yes I don't like the fact that the Tomcat lost out to a far worse aircraft
The most effective thing the US ever did to defeat Iranian air-power - until now, at least - was to sell the Shah F14s.
Simpo Two said:
I do wonder how much faster these jets would go if they were a bit bigger and carried the ordnance inside instead of hanging over all the place like washing. The drag must be significant. Missiles could be on a rotatey-door thing.
Which is what the F-35 is going to do, as you can't be stealthy with sheds loads of ordanance hanging from your every extremity.But, The F-35 does have external hardpoints, as once first night stealth isn't needed, you want to be able to carry as much gucci stuff that goes bang as you can
Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 27th March 22:43
Internal vs external carriage of ordinance is an interesting question.
For a given weight of ordinance external carriage is going to produce a much lighter and cheaper aircraft. The aerodynamic benefits of internal carriage might make some sense if you are trying to go for maximum range but even the B52 carried most of it's weapons externally for most of its missions.
In the case of a dual role aircraft with external carriage you simply drop your air to ground ordinance and you are back to flying your small agile fighter jet. If you store bombs internally you can drop the bombs but you will always have the bomb bay on board.
We are likely to see a return to internal carriage but not for performance reasons. Firstly it allows you to operate the aircraft in a stealthy configuration; but also with modern munitions the need to carry a high percentage of the aircraft's weight is less important.
With future weapons like the small diameter bomb you have a weapon that can destroy the vast majority of ground targets with a 125kg weight. Or the Viper strike that weighs 20kg and can destroy most personnel or vehicle targets. Carrying around 4 of the larger and 12 of the smaller is likely to be as much offensive weaponry as any aircraft needs.
For a given weight of ordinance external carriage is going to produce a much lighter and cheaper aircraft. The aerodynamic benefits of internal carriage might make some sense if you are trying to go for maximum range but even the B52 carried most of it's weapons externally for most of its missions.
In the case of a dual role aircraft with external carriage you simply drop your air to ground ordinance and you are back to flying your small agile fighter jet. If you store bombs internally you can drop the bombs but you will always have the bomb bay on board.
We are likely to see a return to internal carriage but not for performance reasons. Firstly it allows you to operate the aircraft in a stealthy configuration; but also with modern munitions the need to carry a high percentage of the aircraft's weight is less important.
With future weapons like the small diameter bomb you have a weapon that can destroy the vast majority of ground targets with a 125kg weight. Or the Viper strike that weighs 20kg and can destroy most personnel or vehicle targets. Carrying around 4 of the larger and 12 of the smaller is likely to be as much offensive weaponry as any aircraft needs.
PaulG40 said:
I have still never ever seen a F14 Tomcat up close in real life ever 
Always on one of my list of things to do.
If you go to San Diego, you can visit the USS Midway, and there is one on the deck - well worth visiting. Always on one of my list of things to do.One of my friends, now departed, served on the USS Enterprise during the Vietnam War as Phantom Aeronautical Engineer (Big E got Tomcats in '74 from memory), and the stories had during his time were amazing.
eccles said:
I can remember showing new lad around our unit on the day he arrived, as we walked down to the 'line' hangar he commented on the aircraft lined up on the pan in a hushed, shoolboy tone, "Cor, those are big bombs!". No Ivan, those are fuel tanks.
My dad bought this off eBay and had every man and his dog out, including the industrial estate H&S manager, asking about whether it was safe or not. Doh.
blambert said:
My dad bought this off eBay and had every man and his dog out, including the industrial estate H&S manager, asking about whether it was safe or not. Doh.
I would get a club hammer out and say to the H&S man 'I don't know. Let's whack it and see if it goes off' (based on an idea by Adrian Edmonson).As for B/A ratios, once more G15 lobs one over our heads - and over Google's head too
But I think it should have one, definitely. What colours do they come in?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff