Tornado GR4 & Typhoon | Will Cambridge (Part 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2020
- In part 1, Will Cambridge chats about his time flying the Tornado GR4 and Typhoon.
Will talks about flying the GR4 and Typhoon in combat, taking the Typhoon to Red Flag, DACT, and more!
Thanks to the team at RAF Scampton for allowing us to film on-site and please visit the RAF Red Arrows site to learn more: www.raf.mod.uk/display-teams/...
I want to thank our sponsor Icarus Originals for supporting this episode. Head to their website now and own a part of aviation history with a pair of their stunning cufflinks: www.icarusoriginals.com/
Original Thumbnail photo by Neil Bates
Help keep the channel going:
/ aircrewinterview
or donate
www.aircrewinterview.tv/donate/ 
Авто/Мото
I'm so glad this pilot works for the RAF. Such a gentleman and highly trained/experienced and very knowledgeable. Excellent Video
If the Tornado makes a "CLUNK" when adjusting wing sweep, one can only imagine the sounds made by the B-1B, TU-22M, and TU-160! Great interview as per usual!
Cheers!
I have taken part in many an exorcise. For this airmen to state his anxiety while observing a field of multi nationals is exactly what the Eagle drivers, the Falcon drivers and the Hornet drivers were feeling. DFU!
Fascinating stuff. A great ambassador for the RAF, and a dead ringer for Richard Todd!
Obviously you're joking. I do wonder if the channel continues to monetise this video considering that we know the man was committing his assaults at the time he was filming this.
I've not watched it yet but I already know it'll be good. All your content has been great so far, mate! Keep up the good work and stay safe!
Cheers mate.
Great interview. Looking forward to part 2
Cheers Joyce.
Alright I need to go to sleep but these videos are so addicting
Wow that’s a big compliment! Great to hear you enjoy them.
Fantastic interview man as always!
Cheers!
Nice interview.
Thanks Wayne.
Love the red arrows couldn't wait to see interview with @willcambridge_rafred2!
Hopefully you will enjoy part 2 that is out this Sunday.
@LarryRoberto don't think I'll fall for that one
good interview can you please do a interview about the sea harrier
Check out the podcasts from sea patrol cimsec. They have sharkey ward on there and someone else I can’t remember now who flew sea harriers in the Falklands conflict. Excellent podcasts both of them. Sea harrier and swordfish are the only aircraft to come in on budget for the British government apparently.
@@TheChrissy1977 thanks
I thought Will Cambridge flew SAR helicopters and was losing his hair...?
I never understood why the Tornado didn't have the engine upgrade that was theoretically possible. IE the RB199 and the EJ200 are extremely similar in everything but length. The EJ200 has a longer afterburner stage (larger distance from the actual burner to the nozzle. Reduce the amount of reheat power available and you would still get 10% more power with less fuel used.
Empty weight of the Tornado is 30,622 lbs, due to the older materials used, 2-man crew, and the variable geometry system components that add tons of weight that isn't there on fixed wing designs. It's the last of the variable sweep wing fighters for a reason. Since the UK's, Germany's, and Italy's defense budgets are very limited compared to the US, there is only so much money to go around for research and development, manufacturing, operations, and OT&E with upgrades. The air forces are left with decisions on whether to fund things like the Typhoon, Meteor, Paveway II, training, and deployments, vs putting new motors in an airframe that is already towards the end of its service life.
@@LRRPFco52 The point is that the EJ-200 would need virtually zero R&D to fit. The engine control protocols are the same as the RB199 IE MIL-STD-1553B or MIL-STD-1773B if fly by light with the same codes. The airframe can easily last 35 years without heavy use (IE high G at low altitude) and the last of them for the RAF were produced in 1996. So to get better performance you would have to change almost nothing.
@@gordonlawrence1448 But you would have to sacrifice EJ200s from Typhoon production to put in an older jet, even if it was a drop-in upgrade that didn't require any DT&E money for re-testing the flight dynamics (which it would).
Since EJ200s don't grow on trees and cost a lot of money, the concept of retrofitting Tornados with them falls apart. Unit costs for each EJ200 is in the 3.5-4 million pounds region. They already can't afford to upgrade Typhoons with the CAPTOR-E AESA, so spending any money on GR4s would be a hard sell in Parliament.
There also may be some significant threat capability factors with regard to the normal operating altitudes of the GR4 in the era of expanded envelope IADS. They lost several of them to SA-16 and other SAMs in Desert Storm, for example.
The US also retired the A-6E after that conflict since it was so vulnerable to double digit SAMs.
@@LRRPFco52 Still a damn site cheaper in the long run that a whole new plane.
What does BVM stand for?
It was BFM. Basic Fighter Maneuvers (Dogfighting)
Lately, you have been starting many of your questions with "So.." Why is that?
The typhoon is an awesome fighter, but as an eagle driver, be careful with us BVR or high altitude. I can see you before you see me....lol fox 3!!!
Typhoon will see the Eagle way before the Eagle can see Typhoon. Huge difference in RCS
The Tornado should probably have never been born if looking strictly at capabilities compared with the F-4. Had they just invested in a major upgrade program for the F-4, including manufacturing base, they could have made the F-4 a viable 4th Gen multirole platform using composites, newer engines, DFLCS, 4th Gen cockpits, and more advanced avionics. The F-4's performance as an interceptor, strike, and reconnaissance fighter was already proven, and it didn't struggle at high altitude since its wings' lifting area was so good. It also had one of the best combat stores carrying capability since it didn't compromise the design with any suspension equipment necessary for the recessed AIM-7s, and still had an additional 5 hard points for EFTs, bombs, and missiles.
Looking back, the Tornado seems to have been a strategic industrial aerospace capability and jobs program for the NATO partners who funded it, not wanting to lose their industrial base and be heavily reliant on US design, engineering, and manufacturing. The other NATO partners who replaced their F-104Gs with F-16As opted to rely more on the US designs, but with licensed manufacturing in some of their nations (Belgium and Netherlands). This was primarily because those nations are so small and don't have the same industrial base as the UK, Germany, and Italy.
That aside, the Tornado strike variant went on to perform OCA in Desert Storm striking Iraqi airfields, along with F-111Fs and A-6Es. There are some good operational maps that show the more detailed allied air war missions and what types of aircraft went where.
Of the force deployed to GW1 and the losses sustained and the change to mid altitude attacks-it does challenge the validity of the concept of Tornado and whether Britain should have pursued a different path.
@@shanemartin2491 It's interesting to watch the evolution of tactics and airframes in response to the fielding of the different generations of Soviet SAMs and AAA batteries.
With the F-4, they started using ECM pods mounted in the AIM-7 recessed stations, losing 2 weapons points for countermeasures.
1 pod would blast RF confusing altitude/vertical tracking, the other confusing horizontal aspect so that SA-2s would not be able to guide.
F-105Ds and later F-4C/D/Es would ingress at high speed, mid altitude where MiG-19s and MiG-21s would be vectored for intercept.
The F-111A was introduced into SEA in 1968 with COMBAT LANCER to test its all-weather, night attack, low level mission profile prematurely. Systems weren't ready for combat, so they suffered control system total aircraft losses, packed up, brought them back to the US, then deployed later for Linebacker II with much greater success.
Soviets recognized the vulnerability of their IADS nets to low-level precision strikes and developed newer SAMs with reduced WEZ ceilings.
The US secretly initiated the HAVE BLUE program while Germany, UK, and Italy basically made a lighter weight F-111 type fighter with different variants for intercept ADV, interdiction/strike IDS, and ECR to replace a fleet of aging 1950s fighters and attack aircraft.
The later F-4E/F and UK variants were relatively new at the time, with tons of growth potential.
The Tornado has analog electronic flight control systems, which set it apart from the F-4 in that regard, but the F-4 was already used as the testbed for the fly-by-wire CCV program and would have benefitted greatly from this with a modernization program.
The Israeli Super Phantom made a lot of sense, but those Phantom uogrades threatened new designs like the F/A-18, Tornado, and even the F-15.
The F-15 would also have been another platform for the UK and West Germany to become multinational partners on, especially with the Strike Eagle in the IDS role.
It all comes down to Not Invented Here syndrome on multiple levels, resulting in a mediocre aircraft that could have been done much cheaper with a Phantom upgrade.
Good arguments
RAF. No. Iimpact on world history its a instinct organization