why gaijin skipped the first version of the Tornado Ids from the tree and already added the Assta1 version (update) and why making it different from all other planes in 11.0 does not have its full armament (agm.88 harm) its radar is incorrect and remain completely useless. and it also doesn’t have enough flares/chafs corresponding to the other aircraft in 11.0 and it’s still breaking the wings with basic maneuvers, summarizing the tornado Ids. especially the marineflieger has no more speed. being almost impossible to reach mac 2.0 it is the only plane 11.0 that is breaking its wings due to a ridiculous bug. wing structure that has Titanium in its construction. and in addition it is less maneuverable and much heavier than an iL-28. and its main function of attacking naval targets anti-air batteries active radars is practically impossible because its missile As.34 kormoran is ridiculous and its armament Ar-Air/Ar-Terra/As "agm.88 harm was purposely forgotten by the gaijin missile that which would be the answer to vehicles like the Pantsir S1 that dominates top tier tank battles. which makes the tornado useless. and if that wasn’t enough, the gaijin team’s indifference and ill will towards the iconic marineflieger. its economy is worse than that of the gaijin Argentina. It is necessary to shoot down the 3 planes or 6 bases to cover its repair cost. Can anyone explain this?
The AGM-88 wasn’t “forgotten”. It’s just a weapon class (anti radar missile) that is not (yet?) implemented in War Thunder.
AGM 88 was not forgotten. We do not have any anti-radiation / HARM / ALARM style weapons in game yet.
The ASSTA.1 version was selected for the tree as this is the first version Germany could receive with a targeting mod.
Tornados have their historical wing rip overloads taken directly from their manuals.
Currently the aircraft uses the cartridge charge countermeasures. As we do not have a system to allow two different types of countermeasure (packets and charges) at the same time. But we are investigating the possibility.
All I can respond with is what did you expect, while most top tier jets are Mach 2 capable you are never going to reach that speed in battle because you are going to be carrying a bunch of fuel, weapons, and you may not climb to a high enough altitude where you will not have to deal with as much air resistance that you can actually manage to reach Mach 2, the speed listed is the speed the aircraft can handle at that listed altitude but that doesn’t mean its going to reach it, also the Tornado was never maneuverable, if you think variable geometry wings equals maneuverability then you don’t what they are actually for which is to generate lift but retain the ability to go very fast, and aircraft with them can be maneuverable depending on the aircrafts design and not the fact it has such wings. Also as for weapons the AGM-88 as stated earlier was not forgotten, it’s a weapon type itself which doesn’t exist in-game that is the anti radiation missile so the Tornado isn’t special in such a way you could call it a forgotten weapon when no aircraft has such a thing. If I were you I would not use the Marineflieger Tornado for ground battles since that’s what the Assta is for since it has weapons for the mission of ground attack such as a targeting pod and laser guided bombs, the Marineflieger version is not designed for this since it is built for dealing with naval targets hence why it has the As.34 and using unguided bombs for CAS in ground battles is asking to get yourself killed since you will be in range of much more than the Pansir.
yes, the tornado has a history of breaking its wings when it exceeds +9g or -3g, but it is breaking its wings just by rolling the plane on its own axis or when it performs a Tuno. maneuvers that will hardly overcome the +3g- and even empty it keeps breaking. and also even empty it is almost impossible to hit mac. 2.0 or 2.2 as quoted in the manual without it running out of fuel. even at 11,000m… the point here is that when they added the F-14 it came complete. no engine defects and Phoenix running. and it was like that for most planes. except for the tornado. which only has the aim9L that any flare fires and its ground attack function is completely compromised. since it only has bombs. so the tornado although more modern newer and better. in the game it is inferior to any F4 Phantom 2… and it breaks even with fly by wire systems, systems that facilitate control and prevent the plane from performing self-destructive maneuvers, these factors plus its incomplete armament and its not working radar makes it marineflieger and assta1 are practically useless in the game since it is inferior to all planes in 11.0 and an easy target since it cannot maneuver to defend itself and also cannot escape because its engines were extremely nerfed. almost the same thing happened with the Ho229 that even being a flying wing and having more thrust in its engines than the F-5 without the afterburner… the ho229 rarely exceeds 650kmh and it is a sacrifice to take off with it. and still faces F84 and F80 which doesn’t make any sense. just as it doesn’t make any sense that the tornado in its naval/assta1(updated) versions are inferior to the F4 Phantom 2 once you have its manuals in hand. I’m not saying the Tornado is the best plane in the world. but nothing justifies him being in 11.0 being extorted by mig29 and yak141, not even the guided bombs because the americans have tv bombs in 8.7 and Mavericks 9.7… so in addition to the plane being completely incorrect and completely nerfed in 11.0 its 280% gain is not it is capable of overcoming its repair as well as the Kfir.c2 which even with 380% does not exceed its repair cost of 28,000sL now it has one more F-14 to dine the tornado. and they remain deliberately forgotten. such as me-262 and mig23bn.
Todos os filtros
Resultados da pesquisa
Resultado da tradução
Português
Inglês
then something is very wrong. because I don’t see the F14 suffering from engine problems as it is in its manual and countless accident reports with some frequency. or the completely unstable F104 above mac 1.2 or below 400 kmh. as also stated in its manual and historically there have been numerous accidents as well but in the game the planes work perfectly. the Spitfire with its massive history of breaking wings is completely ignored in the game as well. The question that remains is whether all planes have their chronic problems almost completely ignored. why does tornado ids have their defects raised to the extreme?
Every single aircraft in game uses it’s manual stated G limits (X 1.5~) whenever it’s possible.
The Tornado is not an exception to this and does not have anything raised to the extreme. Simply these were the limits of the aircraft.
so the missions that panavia tornado ids carried out in the middle east and all a collective lie of the united kingdom germany and italy?
these operations
there’s one that looks a lot like the one from the movie top gun. "flying above mac 1.0 at very low altitude in a pass through enemy territory with active radar-guided airborne ant fire. Among these the legendary and deadly Russian zsu 34 and systems similar to the Russian 9k38 igla - just look up combat operational history. it was designed to "perform supersonic flight loaded with bombs and missiles and attack, avoid or divert enemy anti-aircraft fire, but how would that be possible "with its wings, logarines and variable wing box made of titanium " breaking by any g force ? look, I just gave up on buying the su-39 with your statement because I would use it to get to the mig25 foxbat when it was added, but the mig25 will have the same problem of breaking the wings as the tornado because its spars and wing box too they are made of titanium but which seems to have less resistance than lead or aluminum. the “pre-series” version of Tornado really had as many chronic problems as any first version. the Ids version came with the correction of these problems in its stringers, wing box and fuselage + the “Fly by wire” system precisely to solve the G overload problems of the first version. the “Assta1” version and the update of the version IDs, more worse than you ignore the problems of the American aircraft and and mistakenly extol those of the German aircraft, It is the
fact that the tornado did not receive the electronic countermeasures systems, since the F8 cruseider and the panavia tornado Ids and marineflieger were the pioneers in this technology one of the reasons for having been chosen for the operations in the middle east in question, but who received first these systems in the game was the su25t, su39
this is ridiculous, it is not new that you are murdering the historical context in the game. and it’s totally correct that panavia tornado Ids/marineflieger/assta1 is in 11.0 or 11.3 even more, the problem is that it’s breaking, it’s without armament equivalent to 11.0 and it doesn’t have original design countermeasures. and its engines extremely nerfed. making the iconic marineflieger/Ids inferior to any 10.0 aircraft, especially if it is American, since Americans do not have any defects
I often fly the Tornado Gr1, and not only do I think that 11.3 is way too high, especially in Sim, (10.7-11 I think would be a better SB rating) I have found that the wings will just randomly fall off. The strange thing about it is that its entirely random. It will be fine for an hour, pulling the same manuevers, and then randomly it will fall off. No warning, no reason, and I dont think I was even near the 9g limit. I have observed in some replays (Pre-last update) that the wings will wiggle out slightly, even though the controls werent touched, just prior to the wings snapping in some instances. I almost wonder if the swing-wing model can sometimes bug out slightly.
As for the CM count, yeah, its a joke. Should have 56x flares and 1200x chaff. but we have 56x CMs total. Hoping for a buff in that regard soon, its desperately needed. ECM would also be great, would make a big difference, though with the Su-39 featuring ECMs, Im hoping its something that will be added in the near future.
Also needs the ground mapping radar, with that now also a feature seen on the Su-39, its high time that the Tornado Gr1 and other IDS variants get that addition
exactly. the system that adjusts the Tormado’s wings is Fly by wire. precisely to have better performance according to the speed, a system that prevents the plane from performing self-destructive maneuvers or that exceed the structural limits of the aircraft, this “fly by wire” system was implemented in the Ids and marineflieger versions along with the counter averages electronics, are characteristics of the Tornados Ids and their variants, which were forgotten by the gaijin
The SPILS system on Tornado (as far as I know) only limits AOA and does not limit in G. It is absolutely possible for Tornado to exceed its own structural limits through pilot error.
SPILS;
Note it only covers loss of control not structural limits.
Also from the Tornado F3 flight manual;
Specifically telling the pilot to take care to not exceed the normal G limits accidentally because there is no system preventing it exceeding those limits.
Also the F3 flight manual;
Fly-by-wire or electric cable control system is a type of computer control of the moving surfaces of an airplane, which allows any modification of the direction of an aircraft made by the pilot to be “filtered” and passed to the surfaces. furniture (aileron, elevator, rudder); the filter increases the speed of reaction and maneuvering of an aircraft and prevents the pilot from exceeding the limits of the airframe.
By. wiki and luftwaffe: Luftwaffe im Einsatz
Cool but the actual manuals don’t describe the CSAS or SPILS systems preventing you from exceeding the structural limitations and as I pointed out, the manual actually tells you to make sure you do not do it by accident. The Tornado is limited in control input only by AOA and not limited by G structural limits.
Yep. And for anyone wondering the pilot can also disable the SPILS system with the flick of a switch. When it’s turned off there are no limiters on the pilot’s inputs.
the fly by wire system is self explanatory. all the pilot will be able to do is decide whether to deactivate it or not, usually it is only deactivated in case of a breakdown, its basic function is to “filter the pilot’s commands”. that is, there is no need to discriminate each creation or engineering characteristic behind the system. the pilot will simply take the manual and go to the control system part and it will be there “Fly by wire” in a summarized way. i.e. “this aircraft uses a self-preservation system and ease of flight control”. If the ditch pilot’s manual contained all the systems in detail, it would be longer and much more time-consuming to read than to read the Bible. if an aircraft has the “fly by wire” system as is the case of the tornado ids/marineflieger, eurofighter, F18 F22 F35 saab Jas 39 Gripen. in your Manual you will only have a previous definition, remembering that there are two types of manuals. the pilot’s manual and the maintenance manual. The pilot’s manual has the most common information summarized and is intended to facilitate the pilot’s understanding and operation. totally different from the specific complete aircraft maintenance manual, dedicated to the ground teams responsible for preparing the device. i.e. the fact that the panavia tornado in its ids/marineflieger/assta1 versions present in the game has the Fly by wire System in real life, makes the current regrettable reality of the aircraft reaching the structural limit and breaking the wings wrong, as its flight control system(flight computer/fly by wire) no! would allow these extreme commands to be executed. precisely to prevent the destruction of the device. it is a characteristic of the tornado. and most aircraft from the 80’s
Maybe you can make Devs look into this. Cause its almost unplayable. Tornado is the ingame aircraft which gets most wing rips offs for me. Totally randomly without even pulling hard. Sometimes a light roll maneuver causes fatal wing rips. This needs to be reduced… Its silly for a game to have a jet which can’t fly.
Yee… also reduce its BR. Its too weak for 11.0 / 11.3.
Mate you can pull descriptions of FBW systems all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that the manuals for Tornado detail the CSAS and SPILS FBW systems do not limit input based on G structural limits. Not all FBW systems are exactly the same, you are wrong, accept the new information and move on.
no, this is only possible if the system is disabled, it is the same thing that states that an Airbus would perform negative g-force maneuvers to the point of breaking the wings simply because the pilot kicked the controls. that’s not how it works, the aircraft has an operating pattern within a pre-established limit, and preserved by the flight computer. a current example is the B-2 spirit. being controlled 98% of the time by your flight computer
Again you are wrong here, CSAS has a full Direct Input and a Mechanical mode. And SPILS can be completely turned off with a single switch in the cockpit.
Did you read the sections of the manual that GunJob posted? They clearly show that the fly by wire system on the Tornado will let you over-stress the airframe.
Here’s another example. The manual makes it clear throughout that it’s the pilot’s responsibility to avoid overstressing the airframe. The fly by wire system won’t stop you.
