Jump to content

Talk:Panavia Tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.144.50.147 (talk) at 16:48, 14 February 2020 (→‎Confused additions: Minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articlePanavia Tornado has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Specifications

The armament in the specifications include a lot of stuff that is incorrect or inappropriate for the GR4. An obvious example is that the GR4 has one cannon, not two, while the GR4 never carries Iris (Germany and Italy), Kormoran, HARM, Taurus KEPD 350, HOPE/HOSBO (which appears to have been ordered by no-one as of yet), JDAMs or MW-1 dispensers. This could probably be extended to remove Maverick - which I think was restricted to the RAFs Harriers only, possibly JP233 (which was withdrawn owing to the Ottawa Treaty) and may have gone by the time the RAF got its GR4s and the Sea Eagle - which probably wasn't carried though from the GR1B to the GR4.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fed these changes into the article; I hadn't considered this before. Thank you for raising it. Kyteto (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In mine opinion Specifications (Tornado GR4) should be changed to one Mauser BK-27 cannon or to Specifications (Tornado IDS) with two Mauser BK27 27 mm cannons. GR4 does not have two cannons HWClifton 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mavericks on Tornado claim is an old story and I'm not actually sure of the original provenance of it. This article cites Cordesman's 2003 report on the Lessons of the Iraq War but a careful reading of page 217 states "Britain also introduced the use of the Enhanced Paveway II GPS-guided bomb and Maverick AGM-65 by its Harrier G7 (sic) attack aircraft, and it made use of the Enhanced Paveway II and III GPS-guided bomb on its Tornadoes.", which clarifies the MoD report quoted by Cordesman stating "Following operations in Kosovo, MOD acted quickly to enhance the RAF’s precision attack capability in air-to-ground munitions by procuring anti-armor Maverick missiles and Enhanced Paveway bombs that can hit targets using GPS guidance. The number of Tornado GR4s and Harrier GR7s capable of carrying such weapons was also increased. This built on MOD’s existing laser-guided bombing capability provided by Paveway bombs." Quite apart from the source being an embedded quote in Cordesman's report, I don't think that that's definite proof of Maverick being deployed on Tornado, but rather that it's talking about the new Paveways and mentions Maverick in reference to the Harrier GR.7 (which can carry it).

Does anyone have a solid source on use of Mavericks or can we remove the section? 81.170.59.84 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado name

The name "Tornado" was chosen because in the two main operators' languages - English and German - the name sounds or looks the same in both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

The English version of the page focuses exclusively on the RAF variants of the IDS, I had a quick look at the German version of the page and saw it had listed German and Italian variants as well, also a few more variants of the British version. It seems a bit anglocentric to only list the British variants of this multi-national plane. I don't speak German or know enough about Tornado variants to fix this myself but I hope someone else more knowledgeable can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.140 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

me neither. maybe we need someone that explain better of that.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Panavia Tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no nuclear weapons on Tornadoes at all

This is because Germany, Italy, and Saudi Arabia are not nuclear powers, and the British Royal Air Force does not have any nuclear weapons anymore. The only British nuclear weapons are in its Trident submarines on their Trident missiles.47.215.180.7 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAF GR1 Tornados certainly had the capability to carry nuclear weapons ("special weapons") KreyszigB (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC) .. ah I see the issue. The specification section is specific to GR4 (i.e Tornado Mid-Life-Update), I do not know if special weapon capability was removed from this variant. KreyszigB (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GR4 was supposed to be nuclear capable with the WE177 (no idea about the B61), but as usual, this ran late. It then ran into the post-Gulf squeezes and the 1992 plan for replacement of WE177 by TASM[1]. By 1993, [2] TASM was cancelled and the WE177 withdrawal had turned into the removal of the whole tactical nuclear role of the RAF (Nimrods and nuclear ASW another matter), so GR4 lost its nuclear ability. Although GR4s deployed before WE177 was withdrawn (and this was a Tory decision, Labour only brought it forward by a year), AIUI the only nuclear Tornadoes were the GR1s. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
German IDS and ECR Tornadoes were equipped to carry the American B61 atomic bomb which the U.S. stationed at certain German air bases like Memmingen or Klosterlechfeld. After the U.S. withdrew its nuclear arsenal the capability was no longer needed/maintained. 192.93.164.132 (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panavia Tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused additions

A recent addition, has added a garbled and vaguely sourced account about how allegedly "the Germans" attempted and failed to copy Concorde's intake designs, then tried to sue BAC, and because of the failure to successfully copy Concorde's inlets, the design was not incorporated into CONCORDE - and because of this "it" - presumably Tornado, but the sentence implies Concorde, could not supercruise. It does not consider the differences between an airliner and a low level combat aircraft, and whether Tornado had any requirement to Supercruise. It appears to be merely repeating design office gossip, and even if revised to make sense, would be undue.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The level of detail looks a bit WP:UNDUE and the referencing needs to be improved, at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The British Ministry of Supply ordered Chief Engineer Ted Talbot..." When was this? The Ministry of Supply was abolished in late 1959 and its responsibilities passed to the Ministry of Aviation? I thought the aircraft was developed in the 1960s. The first first "Concorde" report was issued April 1955. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it does not include dates. It does say that it was years between the information being given and the lawsuit occuring. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone in the UK Government would be ordering the transfer of design information from Concorde to German designers, it would be either the Minstry of Technology or the Ministry of Defence - the Ministry of Supply and even the Ministry of Aviation were disbanded before work began on the MRCA/Tornado. The lack of dates in the account makes it difficult to see whether the incident is worth reporting as it isn't clear how far the proposed changes went - did they get as far as full scale testing on the Avro Vulcan testbed for the Tornado's engine installation? If the source does say Ministry of Supply, it does place question marks about the sources reliability. This really needs confirming from other sources covering the development of the Tornado in detail.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also my thoughts on this addition and the reliability of the source. I do not have a copy to hand. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the head engineer of the Concorde program, which is clearly stated in the reference. I have repeatedly stated that its already referenced and neither of you looked at the reference. It is available freely and someone else even posted a link to it. If you have not even put in the effort to look at where the claim came from, how can you question it? You dont even know what you are questioning.
I have repeatedly asked that members actually read before leaping to assumptions, and yet not one of you has done so before posting here. If you put the effort into actually reading what you are commenting on instead of coming here to complain without even checking what the reference is that you are complaining about, you would know the answers to your questions already. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not freely available at all - there are no preview links either on Google or Amazon, at least in the UK - so we cannot check what the reference says without buying it.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, details are needed of the edition of Spooked: Espionage In Corporate America that has been used as a source for the article - there are at least four editions according to Google, so per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, sufficient information to locate the specific edition used and the location within the edition is needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book is directly linked and I can see the preview and the passage for myself. Its becoming more and more clear that you are intentionally trying to create drama, as the source has been clearly listed by another member already. You clearly have no even looked at what he wrote. I have also added a second source from the Tornado engine team to verify that the aircraft was having issues. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the book is not accessible from the link given (a books.google.co.uk link) to me in the UK. I don't know what link you are looking at, but the link (which you did not add) does not have any content visible. If you have an accessible on-line version of the book, please provide a link, otherwise, give proper bibliographic details of the edition of the book you actually used, so that others can verify it, rather than leaving it for others to guess what edition was used, (and possibly get it wrong). I notice that you have added another large chunk of text on the same issue, cited to a different book - again, there isn't sufficient bibliographic details to allow the reference to be properly identified - the book needs a date and publisher (and ideally an ISBN as well) as well as the title and author name - the actual information needs actual page numbers (for a paper book) or other location details for ebooks. Note that if the book is this, then it appears to be self published by Xlibris, a self-publishing house/vanity press. What this article also needs is for you to stop assuming bad faith.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the Google Books entry. I can also see none of the content. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what it says at all. You clearly did not read the addition before you reverted it, and then repeatedly incorrectly tagged the same story with 3 different tags, and refused to acknowledge the reference. You have repeatedly been asked to stop this disruptive behavior, so I can only assume you are being intentionally disruptive.
It clearly states the Germans had permission to copy the design and failed, and that suing the Concorde team was a mistake by someone who did not know what was going on. It also says nothing about the Concorde not having the intake, it clearly says the Tornado does not use a Concorde style intake because of the failure. You would know this if you had actually put time into reading it instead of spamming reversions and incorrect tags. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DbivansMCMLXXXVI you need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It's normal to include a source at the end of every paragraph that it supports, not just once. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should read it yourself. You clearly are ignoring my complaints and jumping to conclusions. He clearly violated those very standards repeatedly. Pointing out his improper behavior is not in itself improper behavior and is not an insult. That is ridiculous. He was repeatedly asked to stop and warned. And no, its not normal to repeatedly tag a single story from a single source several times between sentences. There is not a single other example of that in any article I have seen in years.
In the future please follow the same guidelines you have asked me to read, because you are clearly operating in bad faith by jumping to conclusions and ignoring my complaints. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs not sentences. Please read what a wrote. You seem to be adopting an unnecessarily combative attitude here. I'm sure we are all grateful for an addition from a reliable book source. But the initial addition you made was very difficult to understand and, to my mind, did indeed look confused. It's only still there because of a re-write to make it understandable. If you are unable to contribute in a collaborative way, and accept the well-intended advice of other editors, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats what happens when members make accusations and then you make further accusations against a member without even bothering to have read what is going on. Its obnoxious and it antagonizes members. I am continuing to have to ask members to read what they are commenting on, because they are continuing to post nonsensical posts above. For instance, they are questioning a source when they have not even bothered to click the source and see that its the head of the Concorde program himself. These members are clearly not even making the slightest effort to understand what they are commenting on. They are simply complaining to complain. That is bad faith. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have good faith opinions. Please drop the personal attacks or take to the appropriate notice board. The source we are discussing is Chapter 17 of this book. As it currently stands, your addition sticks out somewhat in the "Prototypes and testing" section. It looks somewhat WP:UNDUE. Without a copy of the book, or the text online, it's also not possible to know if there are any copyright issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel Ish is saying you have not linked the above link and that it does not exist. You can see for yourself that the book agrees with my post and that Nigel is not even reading anything, he is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. He will not even acknowledge the link you have posted Also, I have added additional information from a Tornado engineer that agrees that the Tornado had a Concorde style intake and that the Tornado engines behaved dangerously while supercruising at high altitude. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I just explained above, I can see the description of the book online but none of its content. Are you being purposely cantankerous here? I'm really not sure it's a good idea for you to add anything new until we have resolved this current debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This addition also adds to the appearance of WP:UNDUE already present and it is not adequately sourced. I think it should be removed until its addition is agreed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It took about 5 seconds to find a readable version online. https://books.google.com/books?id=NuUTDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&dq=concorde+intake+ramps&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyx-TN8JjgAhXHpYMKHdWiA-EQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=17&f=false
I have also added additional information from the Tornado control engineer who also programmed the simulation software for its development. https://books.google.com/books?id=ToJYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT56&dq=Concorde+intake+tornado&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_h5in7p3gAhVJ7oMKHZjLCjQQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Concorde%20intake%20tornado&f=false DbivansMCMLXXXVI
You are also clearly violating the good faith guidelines by assuming the worst possible.(talk) 22:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those links allow me to see any of the books' content - just the Google information screens for the books and I'm in the UK and these are both Google.co.uk links - there appears to be something strange going on here if you can get at the text from the same pages.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, also in UK. I can see and search no content. I'm not "violating the good faith guidelines by assuming the worst possible". I just can't read either of those sources. But the question of WP:UNDUE does not rest on the quality of the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Jim Quinn book probably doesn't count as a WP:Reliable Source as it appears to be self published, although there do appear to be a couple of reviews [3], [4], neither of which are terribly complementary or knowledgeable about the books technical content.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article was listed as a Good Article on 25 December 2011. After more than 7 years, perhaps it's now time for a reassessment. Especially in the light of these recent additions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The story IIRC is this. In the initial development stages of the MRCA when the work was being allocated to the various countries and companies, BAC at Warton naturally expected to get the work for the supersonic inlets as they had previous experience of supersonic inlets on the English Electric Lightning, TSR.2, and Concorde. Somewhat surprisingly to BAC, the inlet work was instead given to MBB, who had never designed a working supersonic inlet in their lives. Upon being awarded the inlet work, MBB then realised they were out of their depth, and asked BAC if they, BAC, could supply MBB with design and working data on Concorde's inlets, which BAC then did. At some point, someone within MBB discovered that BAC had never patented the Concorde inlet design, and so promptly patented the design for MBB. This naturally annoyed BAC when they found out about it, which was when they received notice of a writ for a law suite for patent infringement from MBB's lawyers, together with a demand for payment of damages. AFAIK BAC then pointed out to MBB that it was they, BAC, who had provided MBB with the design drawings, data, etc., in the first place, and IIRC, the lawsuit was then quietly dropped.

Misleading infobox

Just a heads up, the infobox gives some misleading info to people who aren't familiar with the Tornado's service history. When you google "Panavia Tornado", the page shows a quick blurb about the plane, and the "Retired Royal Air Force 2018". When I read this I assumed that it meant that the RAF was the last operator, and that was the official date of service retirement of the Tornado. Whe you click on the article, the first thing you see is the "Retired RAF 2018", and then below it says "Status: In Service". Maybe I'm just a little thickheaded, but at firt I assumed I had noticed a mistake that needed to be fixed. Anyway, if I could mistake the meaning of these words, so could someone else. I mean why IS the RAF listed specially in the infobox? Is it normal to list ex-operators in the infobox? It doesn't say anything about the German Navy, and they are ex-operators. I think the bit about the RAF ought to be removed, or it should be stated somehow that this sentence only means that the RAF HAS retired it, out of all the users. If it fooled me, it will fool others, particularly those who just Google and don't bother actually reading, or even clicking on the page: "Let's see, 'Panavia Tornado'...hmm, 'retired 2018'...well, that's too bad. Let's see what's on Reddit today." Part of me would rather just let such remain ignorant, but I don't suppose that's the wise policy. BTW, it says that the wings sweep "to reduce wing area and drag" in one place. While this is true, its only part of the story: wings sweep back, specifically, to avoid transonic shock waves from the nose of the plane. VG wings are generally designed to reduce wing area as an additional effect. Also, whatss all this about the intake ramps being disabled to reduce top speed? Does it talk about this in the text? This is important info. Why disabled? Next, we don't need two "Maximum Speed" entries. One giving both mph/kmph AND Mach number is what we need. More importantly, if most planes have disabled intake ramps, then the top speed of most Tornados is NOT Mach 2.2. That is the designed speed, but apparently most cannot attain it. The "real" speed should be given, at least both speeds.

64.222.105.216 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panavia_Tornado&oldid=940785907"