Tornado is dead, but the F15 keeps on trucking
Discussion
https://youtu.be/KaK_uSeCJgg
As the Panavia Tornado (first flight 1974) is retired, the US Air Force announces it is ordering a load of brand spanking new F15 Eagles (first flight 1972).
The new F15X can carry 24 missiles and is a modern, improved version of the Eagle. Why is one aircraft seemingly capable of endless upgrades, but the other is fit only for the scrapheap? Is the F15 a modern day Spitfire compared to the Tornado’s Hurricane?
As the Panavia Tornado (first flight 1974) is retired, the US Air Force announces it is ordering a load of brand spanking new F15 Eagles (first flight 1972).
The new F15X can carry 24 missiles and is a modern, improved version of the Eagle. Why is one aircraft seemingly capable of endless upgrades, but the other is fit only for the scrapheap? Is the F15 a modern day Spitfire compared to the Tornado’s Hurricane?
Edited by Ayahuasca on Wednesday 20th February 01:50
Edited by Ayahuasca on Wednesday 20th February 01:51
Well, for starters variable geometry wings are no longer necessary. They’re a heavy complex solution to a problem we no longer have.
Then, I suspect economies of scale comes in. The F-15s that are built now are a very different airframe when compared to the original, and the cost of this can be off-set each time by the sheer numbers built.
There’ll be a shed load of reasons, but I’m off to work on a helicopter that has origins in the 70s...
And, of course, the Germans, Italians and Saudis haven’t retired theirs.
Then, I suspect economies of scale comes in. The F-15s that are built now are a very different airframe when compared to the original, and the cost of this can be off-set each time by the sheer numbers built.
There’ll be a shed load of reasons, but I’m off to work on a helicopter that has origins in the 70s...
And, of course, the Germans, Italians and Saudis haven’t retired theirs.
k flown out of them and they’ve no more to give. And nothing.
It's just that design that dates back to the same era has been developed and evolved over the decades and is still a relevant aircraft in the modern world. I am sure the Tornado could have been evolved if needed but perhaps it was already outdated in concept even when it was entering service. Instead of developing newer versions of the Tornado, what was done was move to a completely new design - the Typhoon.
I'm not really talking about individual airframes. I was thinking about the essential concept and how it could be evolved.
It's just that design that dates back to the same era has been developed and evolved over the decades and is still a relevant aircraft in the modern world. I am sure the Tornado could have been evolved if needed but perhaps it was already outdated in concept even when it was entering service. Instead of developing newer versions of the Tornado, what was done was move to a completely new design - the Typhoon.
I'm not really talking about individual airframes. I was thinking about the essential concept and how it could be evolved.
Not Ideal said:
As I understand it the F15 has also been in continuous production through to today (for Israel, Qatar, UAE) whereas the Tornado hasn't been.
As has the F-16.The point I was making was that the Tornado was already an outdated concept aerodynamically when it first flew in 1974. It was ten years behind the F-111 and flew four years after the first F-14. Because of that, there was not much desire for it to be developed to any great extent after it entered service in the early 1980s. Of course, the airframes and onboard systems were upgraded extensively over its service life but the fundamental airframe remained unchanged and that was based on early/mid 1960s thinking.
300bhp/ton said:
Could you expand on this?
The problem was designing an aircraft in the 50's/60's with high speed (delta wing shape) which had much better low speed handling for landing than a delta wing design. A swing wing design solved most of those issues as it could be a Delta wing for high speed and a straighter wing for landing but itb added a lot of weight, complexity and a lot of other compromises.The problem was removed by the 70's with better electronics called Flight Control Computers (FCC - basically controls the handling of a plane) and better airframe designs built around those better FCC's, like both F-15 and F-16 etc have.
When Tornado was built it was just bridging that 60's/70's generation gap so it had older "swing wing" tech mixed with newer FCC electronics (CSAS & SPILS) but it was the last of that generation, nothing swing wing got designed after that as the FCC's made it redundant.
IanH755 said:
The problem was designing an aircraft in the 50's/60's with high speed (delta wing shape) which had much better low speed handling for landing than a delta wing design. A swing wing design solved most of those issues as it could be a Delta wing for high speed and a straighter wing for landing but itb added a lot of weight, complexity and a lot of other compromises.
The problem was removed by the 70's with better electronics called Flight Control Computers (FCC - basically controls the handling of a plane) and better airframe designs built around those better FCC's, like both F-15 and F-16 etc have.
When Tornado was built it was just bridging that 60's/70's generation gap so it had older "swing wing" tech mixed with newer FCC electronics (CSAS & SPILS) but it was the last of that generation, nothing swing wing got designed after that as the FCC's made it redundant.
There was also a lot of work done regarding the slow speed handling of delta aircraft as part of the Concorde programme - which rendered swing wing a bit old hat - but too late for Tornado.The problem was removed by the 70's with better electronics called Flight Control Computers (FCC - basically controls the handling of a plane) and better airframe designs built around those better FCC's, like both F-15 and F-16 etc have.
When Tornado was built it was just bridging that 60's/70's generation gap so it had older "swing wing" tech mixed with newer FCC electronics (CSAS & SPILS) but it was the last of that generation, nothing swing wing got designed after that as the FCC's made it redundant.
It didn't stop Boeing shooting off down a blind alley with their swing wing Boeing 2707 supersonic airliner either.
Tony1963 said:
Another point that needs making is that the Tornado GR1 or GR4 was built for a job that no longer exists. Ultra low level delivery of bombs is far too risky, as was shown the first Iraq bunfight. The F-15’s original job still exists.
And the F-15 was evolved into a very capable multi-role platform too. It was originally designed as an interceptor.And the same goes for the F-16.
It's a bit ironic that two fighter designs became decent ground attack aircraft whereas the Tornado was originally billed as a Multi Role Combat Aircraft but had to be extensively redesigned to become a not that great interceptor.
Tony1963 said:
It wasn’t really an interceptor. It was a stand-off missile platform that, given a chance, would’ve done very well indeed. A nice combat air patrol circuit of four F3s, passive, supported by a distant AWACS, was a formidable defence.
A rather limited application and it meant that the RAF did not have a true fighter aircraft for the best part of 20 years.If the original MRCA was so Multi Role - why did they have to practically redesign the whole aeroplane to allow it to carry out an additional role?
Tony1963 said:
Then, I suspect economies of scale comes in. The F-15s that are built now are a very different airframe when compared to the original, and the cost of this can be off-set each time by the sheer numbers built.
The US won't be running any of the F-15A's and only 43 of the F-15C's. The F-15E is a different aircraft designed as a multi-role strike fighter rather than an air superiority fighter, this is equivalent of the Tornado and was introduced in 1985, not 1972. The problem the US has is that it hasn't developed any realistic replacements for the F-15C. The F22 doesn't have the range to fill the same role as escort and air supremacy where as the Tornado's role has been filled by the Typhoon.
Eric Mc said:
A rather limited application and it meant that the RAF did not have a true fighter aircraft for the best part of 20 years.
If the original MRCA was so Multi Role - why did they have to practically redesign the whole aeroplane to allow it to carry out an additional role?
Goal posts move around. And during the Cold War they moved frequently. Just look at the reaction to the Powers/U2 incident. Suddenly high level, large bombers were outdated. You can’t be expected to make a statement of intent now, and stick with it til 2030. You’d look a bit silly. If the original MRCA was so Multi Role - why did they have to practically redesign the whole aeroplane to allow it to carry out an additional role?
And most of the F3 was the same as the GR. I’ve worked on both.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff