[2022] Panavia Tornado (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion

None of the aircraft shown in the teaser are in their final configurations yet. It was purely a teaser to show of the major stars.

As far as I'm aware its Mk 103s.

Whilst we can certainly pass it on for review, I cannot comment on if the developers will consider it sufficient or make any changes from it. It will also be treated as a suggestion, rather than any classification of a bug / issue.

Drop tanks are very much WIP at the moment for select aircraft. Its possible they will be expanded upon later. As we have already said, the outer wing countermeasures are also being worked on.

If you believe somethings incorrect with the FM, then its best to report it please with evidence. I cant comment as things are not final.

Not that im aware of. That system is not used in game.

I cannot fully clarify anything on the countermeasures yet as the pod is not ready. However as I explained, we are not changing the system for how we calculate the split between Flare / Chaff as far as im aware. So it will be calculated the same way as everything else has been.

I dont know unfortunately at this stage as its the weekend.

The developers have decided to give the GR.1 the Mk 101 engine and the IDS variants the Mk 103. There will be other variants of the Tornado with other engines.

As with most cases, there is no correlation between weaponry or the engines. The weaponry is provided based on what the aircraft was capable of throughout its service life.

Aircraft don't have weaponry decided by a timeline of their engine. If you follow that rule, probably about 50-60% of aircraft would loose certain weaponry. Its never been the case unless we spesifiy its a certain variant or particular timestamped example (AK "Early" or "late").

Its not something to be bugged reported. As I said, the developers have selected the Mk 101. Thats not incorrect for the GR.1.

There are other variants of the Tornado to come in the future, which will have different engines.

Im not sure what point you are trying to make here. This generalised statement is entirely meaningless. There are numerous 3D visual changes and internal changes between the GR.1 and IDS. Initial Tornado deliveries had the Mk 101 engines and later ones had the Mk 103s. The devs have chosen to give the IDS variants the 103s and the GR.1 the 101. There are other variants possible for the British tree to receive with later engines.

There's almost no real difference between the engines. Simply a development choice to have the 101 for the GR.1 and 103 for the IDS.

Its an equivalent version yes. Again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

There are still numerous external and internal differences between them that are well documented.

I haven't made any such claim that they are not based on the same variant. The British variant had its own unique name and changes between the German / Italian IDS. Its absolutely correct that they are named differently and how they are called in game (and how I spoke of them) is correct.

The Tornado GR.1 was never called the Tornado IDS (Mk 1) so we have no reason to use such a name. All British documentation, sources and any material refers to the aircraft as the Tornado GR.1. Which is correct.

If you believe its still wrong, please report it. I am only quoting what I have been told my the developers. We can pass on any reports to be reviewed.

The MK 103 report was closed with the developers comments which I have provided today.

The comments I have posted today regarding the 101 / 103 decision in response to Gunjob and Flame. That was the comments I received from the developers, which I then pass on to you guys where possible.

Please see my previous post for the dev response. That's as they have planned it for now.

Im not sure what you are referring too here. The Mk 101 is not an artificial nerf. Its an engine the aircraft had. As I mentioned before, if any part of its performance is not correct with that engine, then it can be reported.

Things change all the time on dev servers. If you can point to another aircraft where we have randomly cut 1,000s of thrust incorrectly or artificially that we have not already answered or addressed with material or a response, then I would understand the assumption. But since this is not the case, it can be reported and we can pass it on for review. Rather than jumping to random conclusions.

Blogs are written by authors going it a historical passport of the vehcile. They are not always 1:1 representative of the in game jet in every situation.

That was a mistake on my part on the Paveways when processing the responses on those, apologies, that one remains open pending further review actually.

The full list of fixed is:

Unlike most of the other matters, its not really as clear cut. As Gunjob mentioned in the report there's basically no evidence of it ever happening, which makes it a bit harder to validate. Most (if not all) weaponry sources or documentation dont detail them in use or even tested on that station. If it was tested at least, it makes it more solid. So its more of a theoretical arrangement thats a bit hard to be conclusive about. So more info would defiantly be helpful. But given thats the manual, I dont think there will be much (if anything) more to find.

As far as I'm aware, there's not even German or Italian use with that station. But it might help with the devs considerations if there was more material.

That said, as I mentioned, the different versions (IDS/GR.1) will have their respective loadouts. Not just all the same.

Not really at all. Firstly, as I explained to you previously, 4 x AIM-9L on the F-4J(UK) would make it better than both tree versions (FG.1/FGR.2). 4 x AIM-9G is both possible and better suits the balance of the aircraft at the BR its currently at. The Tornado matter is not being held for balance.

Secondly, regarding the technical aspect of if it could or did in real life. Here is an F-4J with AIM-9Gs fitted and showing directly that it was possible to do so on the British one. Not to mention the documentation that supports this on British and American Phantoms:

There isn't a need to find evidence for the S, the F-4J(UK) is still compatable with all RAF inventory which was part of the specs. As Flame already provided an example of, there is also RAF and US documents such as the F-4J(UK) weapons manual (a primary document) listing the missile. So there is more than sufficient evidence and I'm not sure how much more you need.

On the contrary, you haven't provided any proof they couldn't. Your just guessing so because of the F-4S upgrade program (which the F-4J(UK) didn't actually receive the full S upgrade anyway) changed some wiring.

None of the images show Paveways on those pylons. Most weponary diagrams of the Tornado also don't show them in use on those pylons. No documentation or literature states it either. So it's not the same situation at all.

Again, the report remains open pending for further review, but trying to use whataboutism isn't going to make the Devs change their mind. Particularly when using a comparason that doesn't compare.

Because those two are not moving to Rank VIII and we don't wish to change their BR as they are already currently performing at their existing BR. A new top fighter will be added for Britian in a future patch to replace them.

But as has already been established, it doesn't compare. Because the F-4J(UK) wepons manual quite clearly details it. Whereas the manual for the Tornado and it's subsequent documentation does not show use on those station.

The two situations don't compare. One is based on a primary document listing the weapon being available for the aircraft. The other is based on a theory of it being possible but not really as well supported.

Again, the Devs are not going to make a decision on the Tornado based on the F-4J(UK)s missiles. They are two entirely different and unrelated matters. So trying to use one as the means to make another happen isn't going to lead anywhere.

Again, this isn't and has not been disputed. Simply put there is a lack of evidence of it ever happening, being demonstrated or even tested, which is rare for an aircraft in this sort of case. So it raises some questions. The Devs would prefer to be fully clear and entirely sure before rushing any decisions that may return to come back later if we are not certain. Using the F-4J(UK) matter which doesn't apply over and over is not going to speed that up however.

It's more likely to be 5 bombs under the fuselage on the GR.4 at the expense of a guidance pod. This GR.4 appears to have 4 and a pod:

For the time being, the Anti-Ship missiles will remain exclusive to the Marineflieger. After that, we will see how it goes.

The wing speed was corrected based on the information in this report:

The model is now complete for it, but its functionality has not yet been finalized. If we get some more details, we will keep you updated

Manuals are still considered more primary when it comes to data than marketing pamphlets and infographics. Its often the case they simplify or round up in other case (not saying that's what's happened here). So in the absence of further evidence or if anything new comes up, they will use the manual figures for now.

Thanks, will update the report.

Ive already updated what Gunjob posted above and will include the Raytheon data sheet.

Just to clarify now, the pods have 14 charges each of countermeasures. These are the large calibre. You can equip two pods (one under each wing on the outboard pylon) for a total of x 28 countermeasures.

28 total of flares is present in that report but I don't see a figure of 540 chaff? Unless im missing something

If its the type of continuous release chaff like what's present on the Swedish pods on A32, then its not represented in that way when its not canisters. Its going to be hard to conclusively say.

I will update the report about the 28 packets per pod for large calibre flares.

I may be incorrect but I don't believe we have any pod in game currently that doesn't use the given number of pod / pack chaff charges. I've forwarded the 14 > 28 per pod in the meantime.

Thanks, added that in

Passed it onto the devs thanks. But it seems they were aware of the chaff element.

Regarding the pods, the number of charges will be increased to 28 per pod for the time being. The devs actually had the info on the 540 chaff, however this would be the first pod that has two differing compartments of size and two differing types inside the same pod. All other launchers we have in game have interchangeable charge compartments.

So until a system is developed that allows for two differing types (flare + chaff) and of two different compartments, the aircraft will use the 28 charge compartment. Its not possible for the pod to take 540 flares, so it cant be that way for the time being. The system will be investigated.

It's not possible to give 28 of each currently without also allowing for a mix load of that value combined. As I said there is currently no way two have two seperate values of differing types inside the same container. So the 28 value will be used until such a time when a mechanic or system can be introduced that allows a mix like this.

If you want to report something or re-raise a report. Feel free to PM me or ask in the appropriate topic. This is however a Tornado topic and nothing to do with the AJ-37. So I'm not sure what your approach is here.

Unfortunately it's a technical one. There isn't a system in game yet that allows two seperate types of countermeasures currently to be mounted, controlled and deployed. The Devs were/are trying to find a shorter term solution too, but it's not a quick fix. 1000+ flares would be equally incorrect in the same way. So for the time being the capacity per pod has been increased to 28.

Passed thanks.

Added.

Cleaned up a little.

It's 28 per pod now. So a total of 56. Average is generally around 60 for most aircraft (not counting the extremely high count on the GR.7). They are also the large kind of countermeasures.

At the moment, all hands are on deck for the major. So it's not really possible to provide any further details at this time. But it's something they have in the plans.

Then a report can be made for that pod, as currently one has not been made at all as far as I can see. No claim was made that the Tornado would be the only pod ever in this way, as others are expected to come up over time.

This pod can be discussed in more appropriate topics and reported for any missing features via the correct means. Not raised in a Tornado topic, of which it has nothing to do with.

Yes, there is news. But you will have to wait for tomorrow

I have already answered the report with what's being used for the British Tornado. This is what the Devs chose to use.

The German ASSTA has the 105 engines and according to the Devs info a higher rip speed also. Based on the info that they have for the GR.1 in the configuration it's in, it's rip speed is correct.

The German one is a slightly later variant (ASSTA) that was the earliest one possible to add with a targeting pod.

According to the Devs info, the engines are correct for the ASSTA.

I'm going by the report that was marked fixed. It matches the manual.

The Marineflieger has no targeting pod and no guided bomb munitions. It's anti-ship.

Suggestion remains open.

I haven't actually tested it myself yet. I've been a bit busy ))

I will try to take a look.

I believe that's to do with how the aiming of the AS.34 will work in game. But again, I'm not certain on that at the moment.

Any more details please?

Seem to be ok for me:

Might be a console only issue. A report would be appreciated thanks so we can get it to the devs

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

Im really not sure what this has to do with the Tornado?

A photo or recording of some kind would be appreciated please. The report appears empty.

Passed thanks

Reports are marked fixed when the internal report has been fixed and pending deployment. Consoles receive slightly separate deployments of hotfixes due to how the update system works on those platforms.

Its too early for any clear or representative picture. Its only just been a single full day and many people rush to play specific vehicles along with content creators. The devs are monitoring the aircraft, but at least a reasonable sample review is required.

Please see my above comment. The devs will monitor the aircraft and its situation, making any necessary changes from there once a sufficient data sample is present.

The GR.1 has its correct engines and performance for those engines. Its not incorrect for it to have the 101.

Its using the offical manual speeds.

Not sure what issue you are referring too here, but I cant find a submitted report for it.

Invisible fuel tank bug on console has been fixed, its just pending deployment on the respective platforms.

No reports have been submitted yet on the FM. We will review and pass them as and when they come in.

We generally always use the manual stated Vne wherever possible in game.

Possible we just haven't got around to it yet unfortunately if its pending. After the major there is a huge influx of reports, so our team work through them as quickly as possible.

ASRAAM was never used on GR.1. Its also too early for a missile like that in game.

The MiG-29 is not going down in BR, which is what was being asked for here that I said was too soon for.

As the post also states, which I also said earlier:

Firstly, its a different context and situation with the MiG-29 situation as its referring to the air-to-air aspect being an air superiority fighter, which the Tornado is not, and the F-16 ADF was also added.

Regarding the Tornado, the devs are reviewing the situation, but again, there isn't any armaments to add other than the addition of the 2 Paveways under the wings. Which is being discussed currently.

Once a conclusion is made, then its BR will be the next thing to review if any changes are made based on how it performs then, if that takes place.

You are comparing a multirole strike aircraft directly to an air defence interceptor using two player examples. Again, the developers are monitoring the situation and will make any changes required that are shown, but really this comparison is meaningless.

We are treating and handling every properly reported issue seriously. Many of which were fixed on the dev server. Airspeed at sea level and the engines are however correct. So im not sure why this keeps being repeated. Crabbing, a report was made and its being processed. No reports have been made on the slats.

Its not comparable to the F-14? Nobody claimed it was. Again, you are comparing a multi-role strike fighter to a BVR armed carrier fighter.

If its BR requires a change, it will be done. But again, these comparisons of Tornado Vs F-16/14 are meaningless. You wouldnt directly compare a Lancaster to a Bf 109, so im not sure why you would use that context here for anything other than the fact they are on the same BR. Which can change.

This aircraft was not "rushed out". There are always teething issues with new aircraft and new technologies and development of fully functional 3/4th generation jets in game is a feat on its on. The devs are working to correct any issues reported.

Toxicity of any kind isn't going to help that or improve anything.

Thank you. I was checking the community bug site. Will forward that now.

The F.2 would have no countermeasures or RWR. Its also an entirely different visual model, so its not exactly a very little issue at all and it would be a massive underestimation of the work required to label it as such. We are well aware of the desires to see an ADV variant, thats why we made it clear from the moment the GR.1 was announced that one was coming. But the GR.1 was always going to be the first variant to come to the game.

We don't only introduce new top fighters to the game. The GR.7 was currently the best aircraft in Air RB statistically up until yesterday in terms of efficiency and even now its still holding strong.

Frustration is one thing, but we do appear to be going round in circles in this topic with very little progress made. Some of those shouting the loudest haven't even flown the aircraft yet. Plus the added claims of things being wrong without any evidence or reports for me or anyone else for that matter to do anything with don't help the situation at all.

Yep. Forwarded thanks.

It doesn't replicate for me. So other members of the team are also trying to replicate.

As we have already explained, the figure comes from the official GR.1 manual.

It's arsenal may be expanded if particular types of weponary currnently not in game are ever added.

You asked what the source for the Tornado GR.1 Vne was. It has already been answered, multiple times now that the GR.1 is based off the GR.1 offical manual.

If you believe the other Tornados are incorrect and have material to support that, you are more than welcome to submit that in a report. Im not however going to go round and round repeating over and over what's already been explained. I understand you may disagree with it. But it has been answered already.

The GR.1 is based off of this:

The PGM has been forwarded. However at this time, no model exists for it and more research needs to be done. If it is accepted, it certainly wont be before the next major update. However no decision has been made on it yet. The Paveway decision will come first.

We don't have cruise missiles or anti-radiation in game currently.

The flight model issues that haven been reported on the community bug site are being investigated. Videos such as these are indeed super helpful in the reports when submitted.

One thing however please to bare in mind when making a report, is that it should be 1 issue per report. Particularly when its separate issues.

Regarding drop tanks, its known. Being a new mechanic, skins don't line up yet with them.

Best to report each one separately please. Preferably without the music

Please re-read what I said. It will not be explained again:

Passed these clips on thanks!

1000lb.

As far as im aware currently its all Tornados. However its not finalized yet. More news will come when its ready.

Not currently, the two reported FM issues are however in progress.

Yes.

That ones still in an open state at the moment.

The closest 3 will be:

Tornados lack combat flaps and incorrect limits


Tornado instructor forces crabbing in level flight with the mouse.


Tornado extreme rudder wobble / shake when using the mouse to turn.

I don't unfortunately, it depends on console platform deployment.

You can rest easy. Its all 3 variants

They were reported just a couple of days ago. Its a minor issue, and also Christmas Eve currently. So very unlikely they will be fixed that quickly at the moment

Merry Christmas

There was an internal fix, however it was not conclusive for the system as required. So it remains open now.

Happy New Year to you all

The flaps / slats report you originally made is now marked as fixed. So any additional / existing issues should be reported please.

Already known and reported thanks.

Its actually just a Tornado that someone straight up purchased for themselves and stuck a bunch of replica missiles on: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/man-who-owns-real-life-14576978

Its at Swansea airport for all to see.

The missiles are quite literally just slapped on:

I wouldnt honestly put it past someone here to be that person, just to try and report it to us using that as a source

I too also wanted and decided to buy my own Tornado. Mine was just a bit smaller:

The skins are actually done and have been in the game the whole time. It's actually a coding matter that stops them from showing. So it needs a bit of a deeper look.

No news for now.

Stay tuned. You won't have long to wait to find out more details.

Its a test server. Report anything you believe to be incorrect.

Currently the developers have simply said the radar is not final and is still in the process of being tuned. They will accept any and all reports with information.

Currently its still being decided. So I would simply recommend coving all bases as doubt will be along with @Gunjoband we will forward everything for their consideration. Right now, the aircraft is heavily WIP.

BOl is planned to be included on the aircraft. Its currently work in progress.