NATO say in a press release that seven air forces from across the Alliance joined their aircraft and ground systems for a training event in Romanian airspace to conduct coordinated combined air-to-ground drills “demonstrating interoperability and preparedness”.
“The one-day event included Romanian F-16s, French Rafales, and German Tornado jets as well as US EA-18 fighter aircraft launched from the USS Harry S. Truman carrier in the Mediterranean. In response to Russia’s war against Ukraine, NATO has significantly strengthened its presence in the eastern part of our Alliance, with more troops, maritime presence, and aircraft on patrol.
On July 28, Allied Air Command led a dynamic long-range operation above Romania controlled by the Combined Air Operations Centre at Torrejón, the Romanian Control and Reporting Centre and a French Airborne Warning and Control System plane. Local Romanian F-16s were joined by French Rafale and German Tornado jets, which deployed from their respective home bases. They linked up with US Navy EA-18 fighter aircraft from the US Harry S. Truman carrier strike group currently sailing in the Adriatic Sea. The formation simulated engagements with Belgian F-16 and Spanish F-18 fighters and the French SAMP/T surface-based air defence system.”
“This enhanced Vigilance Activity enables forces to address a large spectrum of threats, from tactical to strategic, emanating from many directions,” said Lieutenant Colonel Raphael, who is part of the planning team for the activity at Allied Air Command.
“The participating air assets are simulating how to degrade an adversary’s integrated air and defence system in order to permit follow-on operations and freedom of manoeuvre required for defensive operations in NATO and international airspace. Bringing seven Allies together for such a complex training event underlines NATO’s ability to concentrate multinational fires and effects from air, maritime and land components in the same place at the same time and to ensure it has the capability and interoperability to respond in the event that the Alliance is threatened,” added Lieutenant Colonel Raphael.
I wonder now, how relevant the Tornado would be again at low level. I think I am right to assume, at treetop height, with heavy payload, there is nothing faster and more effective in Nato. Basically is ultra low level flight again now relevant?
The payload and mission system is very relevant. Most of the modern missiles don’t need to be delivered from low level. So making the plane very vulnerable to small arms doesn’t make a lot of sense. Typhoon and F35B can do the same job flying high beyond MANPADs. The missiles now have the target recognition in the missile so it only needs to be sent off in the right direction and missiles already do work as networked swarms so they don’t target the same tank etc. So no, I don’t think the Tonka has a long future but yes, it… Read more »
Am I right in thinking that back in 1991 the Buccaneer was a great plane for low level flying and target marking. There were tales of wings worn down from contact with sand dunes. A remarkable aircraft when partnered with a remarkable pilot.
Early on, the Buc’s radar was much better too.
How so? Tornado Texas Instruments radar was developed from F-111
Buc radar was better over sea. But far inferior over land.
RAF Buccaneer pilot. Hold my beer 😄👍
If you don’t have missiles to fire for aircraft and the enemy AA(including fighters is strong there is no alternative to LL but it is suicidal.
I can see the advantage of Tornado at low level to launch missiles say at 100km from target while being below S-400 low level range and be more difficult to intercept by fighters.
“The formation simulated engagements with Belgian F-16 and Spanish F-18 fighters and the French SAMP/T surface-based air defence system.”
Since the poor showing of Russian weapon systems inside the Ukraine , I’ve wondered how will that impact on future arms sales for Moscow, the article above points out the SAMP/T surface-based air defence system.” And remembered that 10 months ago Iraq stated that it was going to purchase the S300
and the otherday I read this:
This joke from the miner’s leader at Chernobyl seems apt.
“What’s as big as a house, burns 20 litres of fuel every hour, puts out a shit-load of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into three pieces? A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces!”
I meant from the TV show ‘Chernobyl’.
US has grounded its F-35 and trainer aircraft now for ejection seat inspections. Issue is with the explosive capsule on the Martin Bakers.
Thought that was quickly sorted, with a/c back in the air?
UK grounded the Typhoons and Hawks for inspection and certified them fit. This is the US airforce grounding their F-35’s for inspection now.
I would guess they were checking serial numbers of the explosive charges for a particular known bad batch or visually inspecting for signs of deterioration in the charge.
Why on earth did we dispense with GR4’s when at least 40? were still flyable at the end of service? I don’t buy training issues as most of these retained aircraft could have been assigned to a reserve squadron, and flown by type pilots for at least a decade. This national reserve would serve as low-flying dogs capable of delivering ordinance just as it always did without placing F35/Typhoons on such gardening duties. Rather than simply dumping these airframes at Cosford or base gates, they could still serve as they are with the Germans. The UK policy of casting perfectly… Read more »
What would be the life expectancy of a Tornado crew flying low level missions against Russian forces/targets?
To maintain flyable reserves would cost a lot of money…. surely that money would be better invested in modern/current kit?
The Tonka wasn’t a great plane in terms of speed. The electronics fit was great for its day but was totally put in the shade by the T2 Typhoon never mind T4 or F35. As the T2 Typhoon was a better bomb truck anyway why the keep the Tonka? FYI keeping fast jet pilots current is a big deal and for that reason alone training infrastructure would have to be in place. I do agree that this slightly nutty idea that you only have limited numbers front line kit (planes or ships) and no reserves or reserve pilots does have… Read more »
Pretty high probability the Tornado crews would survive and the costs would not be to the detriment of other newer airframes. That argument is full of holes considering the OFS date for Tornado was considerably longer than its actual demise. If it’s good enough for the Germans then it was worth retaining. You don’t throw away a good screwdriver when you buy a powered one.
We lost a fair few Tornadoes in Iraq…. That was decades ago…. SAM technology would be leaps and bounds more advanced now…
As for the Germans deploying Tornadoes, I’d maybe say it would have something to do with the readiness/availability (or lack of) for their Eurofighters…
Of cause there is attrition but it’s better to lose a Tornado than a Typhoon or F35, if we talking about budgets. As for the fleet being knacker that needs to be proved and I doubt such claims could be proven. It’s all Horlicks putting good aircraft to the cutter’s torch. The Uk has done it for decades especially between the two World Wars, resulting in bugger all come conflict….ring any bells? If I were to dictate policy, there would always be a meaningful reserve for our armed forces, especially when you consider the time it takes to manufacture assets.
They took some losses using JP233 so quite high I suspect.
Agreed on the tornado, but if tranche 1 typhoons really are still going to be decommissioned we should definitely give them to the US to store in some desert in case shit hits the fan as there still is many typhoon pilots.
A good point about Tranch1 and placing them in the desert would make eminent sense. Some aircraft can remain airworthy for years in such conditions. Funny how the US believe in reserve assets so there must be some logic in my proposal? The cost of cocooning the Typhoons would be affordable and maintenance could be in the hands of the indigenous staff. Sadly, Whitehall would sell the cenotaph if it wasn’t so firmly planted.
Our Tornados were knackered by 2019. They had flown more hours then German, Italian and Saudi Tornados combined. Fantastic aircraft, still very capable, but we don’t do reserve fleets, it costs to much money that could be spent on the frontline. Tornado will be missed, but Typhoon and F35 provide capabilitys Tornado can’t live with. Money needs to go on new equipment, not the old. 👍
Take a look at the results of Tornado ops during the first gulf War! Manpads, ak47 and good old cfit were taking them down at least 1 a day with the embarrassing result of RAF pilots and navs being paraded daily on TV by Sadam!. Imagine if we had persisted and lost 30 airframes in 30 days ops. We ditched JP233 after about 12 days or so. Never heard of Huntings finest since. No, Tornado low level was always a suicide mission. Best give it up to missiles and drones.
Another good Article spoilt by the lazy use of yhe word massive without bothering to include the number of aircraft involved. To be massive it has to be several hundred aircraft.
Spoilt seems a tad strong? Just ignore the “massive” bit, you can do it. There…that’s better! Reading the article it looks like less than 20 aircraft. That in itself is no small number though and the massive description would include the ground organisations including AD systems, radar, and the liaison and planning between 7 air forces.
20 aircraft could probably destroy the entire Russian army in Ukraine, and originally when writing I was joking, but it’s not even far off, 20 US A10s could probably cause the Russians to retreat from Ukraine.
Ridiculous, you have no notion what is war.
Agreed. Unfortunately is now what journalism is. Overhype almost everything.
Look at that picture, without the narrative. Tornado and Hornets are very similar in weight and performance. Just an observation.