That pirate flag is sweet. Anywho, What kind of cannon is on that ship?

Looks like a stripped down goalkeeper without any of the sensors.

I’m not quite convinced that this will work.

The red bull example is conducted in broad daylight in fair weather.
In actual deployment scenerio such gliding into enermy controlled airspace in daylight is suicidal.
A night op involving gliding 200km calls for visual navigation not availiable during the night. You have to have blind trust in the GPS and hope the wind takes you where you want to go. Parachutes and gliders are unpowered and at the mercy of nature. IMHO this is very limiting on operational effectiveness. With 200Km to travel CEP wouldn’t be as tight as in normal jumps. A swing of a few Km off course would be disastrous. Instead of landing in the strike zone, the SOF team could be trapped behind enermy formations…

GPS navigation systems are pretty mature and reliable unless faced with a foe who can jam the signal or even shoot down/damage the sats themselves.

As for the effects of wind, well convertional parachutes and gliders will be effected far more serverly by wind, and the level of control some people can have on them are nothing short of amazing. This design is pretty compact and areodynamic, so if glidebombs can find their targets, there is no reason why this can’t either.

There will, of course, be weather related limitations as to when this can be used and from how far away, but these will unlikely be a major hinderence to ops under most conditions.

There have been reports of the PLA deploying cruise missiles years ago, what they are currently working on (if not fielding) are the thousand mile range Dong Hai-10 (DH10) second or third gen systems.

As for converting retired fighters into UAV/UCAV, well, these would be pretty useless deployed by themselves, but if used with a little imagination, then they could be a very effective asset.

For example, you convert a hundred J7Is and send them into combat with 50 manned J7G/Es with J8/J10/J11/MKK/FC1 support. The third and fourth gen fighters will start engaging hostiles at BVR ranges while the drones and manned J7s make a dash to get with PL8/9 range and your opponent will be faced with a seriouse problem. They will have to decide whether or not to have a pot at the J7s or save their BVR missiles for the more ‘threatening’ targets.

If they choose to target the J7s, then they will be a) wasting a lot of their missiles on drones, and b) be in a disadvantagous position to go into BVR combat against the PLAAF BVR platforms.

If they choose to hold their fire, then that gives the J7s a chance to close. The drones will probably be unarmed or programmed as flying bombs to hit ground targets, but the manned J7s will cause any opponent without HMS cued missiles serious probalems at WVR combat.

You can do the same thing in a ground attack scenario. Have J5s and J6s with RWRs cued to act like ARH missiles/Harpy drones or with GPS to act like cruise missiles or loaded with EW jammers to fly with JH7s and MKKs. Ground based SAMs will be forced to expend munitions on drones or get hit by them (assuming that they can tell the difference between the different AC with other dedicated EW assets also supporting the op), so releaving the pressure on the manned platforms.

This is basically saturation attack, but with cheaper munitions and greatly reduced risk to expensive manned platforms.

The Foxhunter Radar has a range in the league of the AWG-9 and Zaslon, niether the J-8II, MiG-25 or F-4 can compete with the detection range of the Panavia Tornado.

Also the Tornado ADV has a range in the league of the F-14 and MiG-31, niether the F-4, MiG-25 or J-8II are as fuel efficient as the Panavia Tornado.

And can the Tornado engage targets at ranges anywhere near as far as the F14 or Mig31? And so what if the Tornado’s radar can see further, if we follow your approach and factor in AWACS support, then that advanatge is negated, and in BVR combat, the Tornado is actually at a slight disadvanatge on account of its lower ceiling and poor high-alt handling (since missiles are roughly similar in range and performance).

The Tornado might be better then the F4 and J8II in AA mode, but the difference between the Tornado and F4/J8II is definately smaller then that between the Tornado and F14, F15, Su30 in AA.

With ASRAAM is in the class of the Su-30, in few words the important is even having inferior performance to the Su-30 in climb rate or being less agile, as an Interceptor armed with medium range AIM-120 and ASRAAM is much more advanced and capable than the F-4, MiG-25, J-8II or MiG-23 and definitively as good as the Su-30.

Well, you seem to be the only person I have ever come across who has suggested that the Tornado is ‘definately as good as the Su30’ in AA combat. I have already made my case perfectly clear, if you refuse to accept that, then that is your choice.

your main problem with the Tornado is you think lacking agility or rate of climb makes it less capable but it is not, as a whole integrated weapons system and i mean, avionics, radar, missiles, and performance the Panavia Tornado is a great aircraft in the interception role and as an attack aircraft still quit capable for at least a decade more.

Turn rate, ops ceiling, TWR/climb rate, range, top speed etc are the only measures of how a plateform is judged. And being less agile, having a lower ops ceiling, having less TWR/climb rate, having a shorter range pretty much shows that the Tornado is an inferior aircraft in almost every way possible. In terms of being a weapons system as a whole, the Su30 can carry more weapons further. In AG, it has the same kind and range of PGMs as the Tornado and carries AShMs that the Tornado has no match for. In AA, the Su30 has similar if not better detection range depending on verson, can carry more missiles, has HMS cued SRAAMs that are only slightly inferior to the ASRAAM, and is far more agile. The only thing that makes the Tornado even comparible to the Su30 in air combat is ASRAAM, and that is an advanage that will definately disappear over time – its a transient advanatge, it won’t last long.

the Tornado has succeded where others have failed thanks to it`s flexibility and adaptability as an airframe and aircraft concept.

So what? So many have ‘succeeded’ in this regard that its hardly anything speical. F15, Su27, Mirage, F16, Mig29, F4, even the J8II is rumored to be getting multi-role ability in its latest versons. Big deal.

the F-15 has done the same and the Su-27 is similar but other aircraft have not such as the F-14 an Eagle`s contemporary or the Su-24

The USN never seriously tired to make the F14 multi-role, because they wanted the biggest, baddest bird they can get to keep their carriers safe. They had the F18s for the strike role. It was only in the final years, after the threat of the cold war was lifted, that they made a token attempt to give the Tomcat some AG ability because they could no longer justfiy keeping it a pure AA platform in the modern, reduced threat environment. But even that was a half-baked attempt because they knew the Tomcat was to be retired soon, so there was no point in giving it a comprehensive upgrade.

The Su24 was never planned to be anything other then a ground pounder, because the Soviets had the likes of the Mig29, Mig31 and Su27 for AA work.

Pretty much every plane that seriously tried to be multi-role succeeded in being so. The fact that the Tornado has managed it by no means marks it out as special.

When i said the Panavia Tornado is stealthy or has supercruise?

So what was the point in bring up how the Su30 doesn’t have this and doesn’t have that when neither does the Tornado? :rolleyes:

The only thing i said is simple the Panavia Tornado has been upgraded with better weapons than many of it`s contemporaries lack, and has been upgraded much much earlier than many aircraft operationally with ASRAAM, also as a conventional fighter, modern weaponry has given it that slight upgrade to allow it to even to remain effective in the the first decade of the XXI century.

So how does this make the Tornado ‘great’ then? As I have said before time and again, the slight advanatge the Tornado now enjoys in weapons is only transient, and will dissappear very quickly after the new gen of AAMs start becoming the normal.

As an airframe it has two different radars one allowing it to flight like the F-111 or Su-24 hugging the ground with Terrain Following capability, and another radar that put`s it in the league of the F-14 and MiG-31.

Whats so special about that? The likes of the F15E and Su30 have multiple radar modes that allow them to conduct AA and AG or ASu tasks during the same mission. And I hate to burst your bubble, but the Tornado is NOT in the same league as the F14 and Mig31. In AA mode, its in the league of later blk F4s and the J8, and maybe the Mig25 when it was operational during the cold war.

Modern weaponry makes it a good fighter and strike aircraft

And great aircraft are head and shoulders ahead of their competitors even with the same or even slightly inferior weapons.

PLAWOLF

Let`s see the fact and the parameters why the Panavia Tornado is a good aircraft.

Let`s see, the Panavia Tornado is a good because has been flexible enough to adapt different weapons to two different variants, many aircraft have failed to get upgraded, example

Wait a minute, weren’t you preaching about how the Tornado was a great multi-role ac before? Now its great because it was ‘felxible’? Make up your mind please. :rolleyes:

F-14D:This aircraft was wasted due to lack of upgrades in air to air weaponry, the Tornado competed with this aircraft as an interceptor, but at the end the Tornado got better WVR and Medium range weapons, something the F-14 never got.

Thats because the Tomcat was planned to be retired this year, so slapping new upgrades on it at the end of its serivce life would have been stupid and wasteful.

The MiG-23 has not the avionics, radar or warload to compete with the Panavia Tornado.

An interceptor must have basicly good speed and good weapons, the Foxhunter radar is a good radar and the AMRAAM and SRAAM are good weapons, if we compare this to the MiG-23 or MiG-27 well the Tornado is far superior.

Again, why do you keep compairing the Tornado to second-class planes in its field? The current planes that set the standard are the F15E+, Su30s and Su34s. The Mig23/27 are more in the league of the Jagure. Its like comparing the F15 to the F16.

If you compare it to the Su-30, still the Tornado has some good points
as a strike aircraft it has higher warload and longer range and as a fighter the SRAAM gives it unrivalled capabilities.

Do you actually know the combat ranges and warload for both? Why don’t you look them up first. :rolleyes:

So, the ASRAAM is unmatched? What about the Aim9x, Pythonv, IRST etc? :rolleyes:

you can say so and so but in 2006 few aircraft have missiles in the Class of the SRAAM operational and no Su-27 or super Flanker has a better missile than the ASRAAM, only the Israeli air Force and USAF F-15 and F-16s, the Australian F-18 and Chilean F-5 carry operationally better missiles or SRAAM operationally.

So what? In a few years everyone will have ASRAAM class AAMs operational. The advantage is transient.

In performance the Su-30 has no Supercruise so even having a better climb rate the Su-30 has not an overwhelming superiority in acceleration but just a quicker burst speed.

the Su-30 is not stealthy so in that sense it is a big aircraft easy to detect.
The Su-30 might have better agility but the Panavia Tornado has better missiles so in terms locking the enemy faster the Panavia Tornado is not at disadvantage and it`s missile gives it a better firing option.

Like the Tornado has supercruise and stealth features. :rolleyes:

All the rest of your arguement is unsubstantiated by facts and is nothing more then your own unsupported beliefs and hopes.

The Su-30 can shoot down the Panavia Tornado but it`s not going to be a total overwhelming superiority of performance and agility what is going to decide the outcome of the battle or what gives to the Su-30 better odds, but of detectability and weaponry and in that the Panavia Tornado is not defenseless

Pointless, just a statement of hopes.

The Tornado also works in conjuction with AWACS so even using it`s IRST system the Su-30 is detectable because it is not stealthy like the F-22 and like the F-15 is a big aircraft easy to detect

Like the Su30 isn’t compatable with AWACS support or doesn’t have an IRST. :rolleyes:

How old are you? Seriously.

Do you compare that only?! At least when reading you further!

Please decide!

]

What are you talking about?

In action is easy the Panavia Tornado recieved ASRAAMs much earlier than the USAF F-15, the AIM-9X and remains a credible fighter in 2006.

PLAWOLF

you are just avoiding a reality, a good missile make as a good fighter, but a good fighter does not do that for a missile.

Arm a F-15 with AIM-9L and arm a MiG-21 with R-73 and HMS you will see the MiG-21 will prevail remember cope India.

Arm a F-16 with Python IV and an F-18 with AIM-9L and you have a mock combat score of 200:4 as when the Israeli beat the US navy.

Now if both fighters have no missiles it is true the Su-30 will beat the Panavia Tornado, in fact it is better for the Tornado to run away, the possibility of that to happen exists.

Performance parameters such as supercruise help for such reason the Eurofighter has it, stealth helps for such reason the F-22 and F-35 have it, thrust vectoring helps for that reason the Su-30MKI have it.

ASRAAM…bla bla bla…Thats about the only thing your entire arguement is based upon and its rather lame mate. You seem to be posting on the wrong forum on the wrong thread. :rolleyes:

I repeat again for those that somehow can’t seem to get things the first time round: ASRAAM is a missile, and quite seperate from the Tornado, if the Tornado have to rely entirely on the qualities of ASRAAM to allow it to be able to compete against its peers, then the Tornado is far from a great ac. Also, the ASRAAM is a very recent addition to the Tornado, and the advanatge it offers will only be transient. It might come as a shock to you, but all weapon systems get upgraded, new missiles and subsystems will be added, and sooner or later, ASRAAM class missiles will be the norm instead of the exception (and that is likely to happen sooner then later). Once that happens, the Tornado will have no redeeming feature. That is why the airframe itself is so important.

All your examples are meaningless because it involves HMS cued high off-broadside AAMs v conventional AAMs, in such case, the advanatges offered by HMS are considerable. But in any likely Tornado v Flanker WVR engagement, both will be using HMS cued missiles, and the handful more degrees off-broadside (assuming the Tornado does have HMS to cue them) offered by ASRAAM is only a marginal advanatge.

But if a F-22 faces a Tornado in WVR combat at eye ball range the ASRAAM will shot down the F-22 if the Raptor goes to war only with AIM-9Ls

And so could a Mig21, Mig23/27, Mig29, Su24, Su27, Mirage1/3/5/2000, F5, F16, F15, F18, J8 etc if they had the advanatge you gave the Tornado. Does that make them all great now? :rolleyes: