Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military From: DAVEH@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Hastings) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: European fighter designs Message-ID: <1991May23.062823.17238@amd.com> Date: 17 May 91 14:00:00 GMT Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Lines: 31 Approved: military@amd.com From: Dave Hastings Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: > The Tornado Air Defence variant > > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the > Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being > high subsonic low altitude performance. The fighter variant is thus > handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and > supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very > vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. You seem to be missing the point about the Tornado ADV. It was put into service as the most suitable aircraft to patrol the UK Air Defence Region, which extends up to Iceland. This mission requires long loiter time, possibly without tanker support. In wartime, the Tornado would try to knock down Soviet bombers, preferably BVR with Skyflash/AMRAAM. I believe that the ADV has pretty good transonic acceleration, and is certainly capable of Mach 2+. With its VG wings it can also put up a good performance in a turning fight. The ADV is not meant to be an air superiority fighter; it is a long-range interceptor, and it is capable of carrying out this mission. -- David Hastings | JANET: daveh@uk.ac.oxford.vax VAX Systems Programmer | INTERNET: Oxford University Computing Service| daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk