Talk:Panavia Tornado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] RAF Tornado

Anybody explain why all the sub pages on the Tornado variants are called for example RAF_Tornado_F3 when they should be prefixed Panavia (Panavia Tornado F3), it is not terminology used by anybody outside of wikipedia. Perhaps we should change it - any comments ? MilborneOne 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

The timeline takes up a lot of space, it should be moved to a separate page. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Support - The subvariant pages are largely redundant. If more space is needed, the subvariants should be summarized in the main article (here), and described in detail on a separate "Tornado variants" page. See Supermarine Spitfire, Lockheed Constellation, and F-4 Phantom II for an example of the proper way of doing it. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Support I agree with Emt147 refer to my comment further up, the variants are wrongly named anyway so a merge would sort that problem MilborneOne 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Done It's done. There needs to be some fact checking for consistency, and the article still needs work, but all the information from the other pages has been moved onto this one. I've left the timelines half-merged, pending discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Timelines. I think a milestones timeline can be a good addition if done concisely. --Mmx1 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thank you! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I know why the merger of all the sub-variants took place, due to the fragmentation of info. However I felt like the page got far too crowded and difficult to navigate after the merger. I've taken the advice of Emt147 and created Panavia Tornado variants. Partly because the page was getting far too long (and also over recommended size) but also because I intend to expand variant info which would have made the page far too complicated. Mark83 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECR Versioning

According to this site, the ECR is a variant of the IDS, which makes sense as the Italians converted their ECR from IDS's. I believe the airframs are largely identical, more so than the 80% commonality between IDS and ADV, and should properly be a subvariant.

--Mmx1 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radar system naming

In section 2.2.1 ("RAF Tornado F.2"), there's mention of a "Foxhound" radar. Is this right, or a typo with "Foxhunter" the intention? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Museums

XX947 is now located at Shoreham Airport, other airframes used in the development of the variants have been refurbished for museum exhibition. Panavia Tornado PO2, XX946, was at the Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon, has been moved to Royal Air Force Museum, Cosford. At IWM Duxford is Panavia Tornado GR.1B ZA465/FF 'FK' "Foxy Killer" [not sure if this is really ex-Gulf War becasue it lacks the desert paint scheme]. 81.86.144.210 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between GR and F variants

This could well be out of date, and also utterly inaccurate - it's been a long time since I had any involvement with the RAF, but as I recall, the GR.1 had 2 cannon mounted in the nose (article quotes 1 cannon on GR.4), and an in-flight refueling system that stood proud of the fuselage. The F.3 in service at the time (early '90s, post Gulf War 1) only had 1 cannon, because the in-flight refuelling system had to be set flush to the fuselage (therefore taking space otherwise used for the cannon) in order for it to be able to achieve supersonic speeds.

Has my memory totally gone, was I always mistaken in this, or is it correct but irrelevant anyway? 86.136.46.103 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The GR1 lost a cannon when being converted to GR4, I think for a FLIR sensor. The GR1A had no cannons a think, the space used instead for Sideways radar etc. The F3 always had one cannon. I'm not sure about the refuelling system, the GR4 doesn't have a flush refuelling arm and it is supersonic. Mark83 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - glad to hear my memory isn't totally gone; I'm pretty sure I was told the bit about the flush vs proud refuelling pod by pilots in... erm... 27 squadron; I was at Marham at the time, around '92 - 617 were there, 2 squadron was there with the GR1A (guns replaced by cameras rather than radar, if memory serves - they were/are recce squadron), and I think it was 27. Probably the engines got upgraded subsequently - it was a long time ago, after all. 86.136.46.103 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The recce squadrons were II (AC) and 13. The 2 cannons were replaced with an infrared linescan system, which is now no longer used. For recce purposes the RAF now uses the RAPTOR pod.

[edit] Thrust/weight

The figure is obviously wrong--Laur2ro 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of color profile

Mr. Giovanni Paulli of www.paulligiovanni.com has bee so gentle to give me written permission to use the color profile I added in the image (see its page for authorisation). In exchange his copyright and his website link MUST be left on the page. So please don't remove them .--Attilios 09:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-Role Combat Aircraft

What does the above link to the Tornado? While the Tornado is an MRCA, there are a lot of other fighter jets that meet that role for example the F-16, F/A-18, Su-30MKI, Dassault Rafale etc. I don't know if this should be a different link ennumerating all the different aircrafts that fall into that category but I do think that it should not link to the Tornado alone. Rakeshsharma

Yes, there are multi-role combat aircraft (no caps). However, there was a program begun in 1968 which was called the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft; it eventually became the Panavia Tornado. That's why the link redirects here. Does that help? - BillCJ 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The capitalisation is what makes it different. If it was just a general article about multirole fighters/aircraft the Manual of Style advises that it would be "Multirole combat aircraft". However it was/is the official title of the project that became the Tornado, hence Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. I think the nearest general article is Multirole aircraft (it's only a stub). Mark83 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay I understand the reasoning behind it. I am going to suggest expanding on the page for Multirole Combat Aircraft (MRCA), redirecting the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft to that page and creating a disambiguation to redirect to the Tornado. While the Tornados name on its inception was the 'Multi-Role Combat Aircraft', this particular term is now used to describe a multitude of planes hence creating some confusion. In addition I believe that the people who are searching for the Multi Role Combat aircraft might be looking for a page on the category of planes. If someone is looking for information on the Tornado, the disambiguation will redirect them to the Tornado. Rakeshsharma
I would have to disagree about linking MRCA to Multirole Combat Aircraft, most people would associate MRCA with the Tornado Project.MilborneOne 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's such a good idea. One, how many people, really, will be searching for "Multi-Role Combat Aircraft" when they're looking for "Multirole combat aircraft" instead of the Tornado? Creating a Multirole combat aircraft page might be workable, but Multi-Role Combat Aircraft should always redirect to Panavia Tornado. - Aerobird 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Point understood. Multi-Role Combat Aircraft was the project name given to the Tornado. However, a person like me for instance, who is searching for Multirole combat aircraft, could also put a search that looks something like Multi-Role Combat Aircraft or MRCA, which is a more generic term as it describes a more broad range of aircraft especially in today's environment. For instance, the Eurofighter Typhoon is also a Multirole Combat Aircraft or Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. The Indian Air Force is considering a tender out for the MRCA which stands for Multirole Combat Aircraft. What I am suggesting is the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft should point to the term rather than the project that was named so. And besides, people searching for the Tornado would rather enter Tornado or Panavia Tornado rather than search for Multi-Role Combat Aircraft if ease of search is what you are really going for. Rakeshsharma 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Since there is a stub at Multirole aircraft, maybe we should move it to Multirole combat aircraft, as other types of aircraft can be multi-role, but are non-combat (transports, helicopters, etc.) This new page could have a "see-also" link to the Tornado, which could also have a "see-also" link to that page. Would that be a workable solution? - BillCJ 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I like your suggestion. What happens to the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft page? Does that link to the Multirole combat aircraft or to the Panavia Tornado? Rakeshsharma 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it should link to the tTornado, but there would be a notice at the top of the Tornado page with a link to the other article. - BillCJ 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
See that is my argument. The term is disambigous as the term Multi-Role Combat Aircraft stands for more than just the project name for the Tornado. The Tornado already has its primary name which is "Panavia Tornado" which is the current name. The Multi-Role Combat Aircraft was the project name given to the Tornado. But the term is more generic now as it refers to a host of other aircrafts. I agree that the hyphen and the capitalization makes a difference, but Multirole can also be searched as Multi-Role which is where the ambiguity comes in. I agree that putting a disambiguity/See Also notice on the Multirole Combat Aircraft that directs to the Tornado would work well with me. Rakeshsharma 11:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at it now, I've added a redirect notice. Feel free to play with the words etc. I linked to multirole aircraft as the alternative? Mark83 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made a couple of small changes to the words, but otherwise it looks good. User:Rakeshsharma
MRCA, the abbreviation, should refer to the concept, but the phrase spelt out in caps should be to the Tornado.GraemeLeggett 12:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with the view, but the redirect notice makes the disambiguity a little less. I agree with Graeme in that the MRCA abbreviation should refer to the concept. I also feel the hyphenated term should refer to the concept first and then the project as the Tornado is also a type of Multirole fighter. Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you are working with me on this issue. Rakeshsharma 12:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is the cost of a PT ??

--84.75.31.16 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends what a PT is ? if you possibly mean a Panavia Tornado it would have cost you about 33 million dollars for an IDS in 1997.MilborneOne 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you mean a roll of Paper Towels, it's about US$1.69 for a good brand. - BillCJ 23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAF service history

I think the RAF Service History section needs work. It only mentions the GR4. There's some mention of the GR1 and Operation Granby elsewhere in the article that could be moved there.Zhochaka 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many?

How many are in use in the RAF at the moment? It isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.1.134 (talk • contribs)

Add up the numbers in the table. It gives active squadrons and numbers of aircraft per squadron. Mark83 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bomber or fighter-bomber?

My question is: should the Tornado (excluding the ADV) be considered a fighter-bomber or a pure bomber?

After all it started as a replacement of the V bombers of the RAF, and the main mission is putting it on the ground, the AAM are only for self-defense.

Moreover: "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history."

Uh, Jimmy Stewart was a bomber pilot who made plenty of movies, some about bomber pilots. And I guess history has forgotten Eddie Rickenbacker, The Red Baron, Pappy Boyington, Chuck Yeager, the Tuskeegee Airmen, Randy CUningham, Robin Olds, just to name a few. SO go ahead, be the the foot calling the hand useless. - BillCJ 08:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Bill, you normally make me laugh, but I'm not getting that at all. :) Maybe I'm being a bit slow today! Anyways, fighter-bomber is more appropriate in muy opinion. Yeah, the AAMs are only for self defense, nevertheless, the capability is there to fight its way to a target or fight its way out. i.e. fight & bomb. Even going to the basics of the term, it is a fighter size/class aircraft. A "pure bomber" class aircraft would qualify as B-1/B-2/B-52/Vulcan etc. surely? Mark83 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Mark, I missed your comments by a month! I assume you're referring to the foot/hand comment. I had 3 points going there, and they weren't reallysequential.
  1. Bomber pilots made movies.
  2. Fighter pilots made history.
  3. All parts of the body have important roles to play, and without one, the rest of the body sufferes to some extent. It would be silly for the foot to say, "Hands make movies, feet make history!", because they all play an important role. - BillCJ 04:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history" as mentioned by the original poster is irrelevant and not an encyclopedic basis for comments. The question is - is it a fighter or a bomber. If the discussion is to continue perhaps it would be better to focus on my 5 July comment and voice and agreement/disagreement with the logic of that. Mark83 09:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the GR4/IDS is a bomber but perhaps the term is archaic for the RAF website describes it as an all-weather attack aircraft - The Tornado GR4 is a variable geometry, two-seat, day or night, all-weather attack aircraft, capable of delivering a wide variety of weapons. MilborneOne 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I rate that 'attack aircraft' is the right word. Bomber of fighter is misleading, also A-10 is not any of them, and so A-4/7. Since Tornado is quite agile it could be called fighter-bomber but no A/A dual role was ever performed by IDS squadrons, so this remains pure theory.--Stefanomencarelli 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I don't really know a darn thing about military aircraft, but I do recall a large number of the aircraft being shot down in the early days of the Gulf War, and I also regularly read descriptions of the Tornado as the "Flying Coffin" due to this propensity. Can someone who knows something about this comment, or would this not be a subject for this page? --218.214.169.163 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that a large number of aircraft were lost in Desert Storm, of the seven British Tornados that were lost, four were shot down during the first week of the campaign at very low altitude while conducting strikes against airfields. After the change to medium-altitude deliveries, only three more British Tornados were lost in the remaining 5 weeks of the air campaign. The Tornadoes achieved 1600 sorties during Desert Storm for seven losses. I would say that was a good record considering the sorties that were carried out. First time I have heard or read the term "Flying Coffin" related to the Tornado, so it can not be that regular comment. What I know of the Tornado record I could not see such a comment justified. MilborneOne 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart i don't rate Tornado unsafe at any means, but this should be better looked with the time. Four Tornados were lost in only 100 hours, performing a bit more than 100 missions, this is rougly 3% loss rate, just like Harriers in Falkands. Beware, i talk about attack missions, not CAPs.The first Tornado of AM that reached Kuwait City was shot down as well by 23 mm guns. So the basic problem was the fullower: low-level missions were really safe? The answer of DS was definitively NOT (so the all the fair words about strike missions over Warsaw Pact at low level were quickly vanished, already Falkands were rated an alarm bell, with six aircraft lost in exchange of 220 missions), and since 1991 the mid-air level missions, less fuel hungry also, were preferred. Atleast Shilka cannot reach you. It's enough to have air dominance all around, not a simple task without Uncle Sam.--Stefanomencarelli 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IDS and ADV pages

Is there any particular reason that the IDS and ADV versions are covered together on the main page, with a separate page for variants? Most printed references cover the 2 main variants separately, so this has always seemed a bit odd to me. Before just proposing a split, however, I wanted to check wth the long-time editors to see if there was a reason that it was done this way. - BillCJ 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally there was this page as well as well as subvariant pages:
  • RAF Tornado GR4 - premerger version: [1]
  • RAF Tornado GR1 - premerger version: [2]
  • RAF Tornado F3 - premerger version: [3]
  • RAF Tornado GR1B - premerger version: [4]
Following the discussion above ("Merge" - begun on 11 March 2006) these articles were all merged into this article. I was largely responsible for the creation of Panavia Tornado variants for the reasons I described at the time - "I think I know why the merger of all the sub-variants took place, due to the fragmentation of info. However I felt like the page got far too crowded and difficult to navigate after the merger. I've taken the advice of Emt147 and created Panavia Tornado variants. Partly because the page was getting far too long (and also over recommended size) but also because I intend to expand variant info which would have made the page far too complicated." However if you can see a better way to cover the Tornado and its variants I am 100% open to suggestions and would be happy to help in such a change. Mark83 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I seem to remember seeing that reason awhile back, now that you mention it. It seems odd that separate pages on each mark (no pun intended here) existed, so I guess someone just got carried away. They definelty needed to be reorganized. As I stated above, I think dividing the pages along the ADV and IDS variants would work well. The F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle have comparable roles, and are on different pages. (Granted, they wern't developed concurrently, but even if they were, I think they'd be on separate pages.) I just think it's easier to cover each variant by itself, as they do have divergent development and operational histories.

THe IDS page would cover the strike variants of the Royal, Italian, and German Air FOrces, and German Navy, and possibly the German-Italian ECR version, depending on how much content ther is on that variant. The ADV would cover the RAF and RSAF interceptor models. THe IDS being the most common model, I'd cover the background of the MRCA program there, but then the ECR variants might make it too long. That's the basics. I can look at the articles more carefully if you want more specifics, or have questions on how to handle certian issues. I actually would recommend the IDS version stay at Panavia Tornado, and put the ADV at Panavia Tornado ADV (we might want to move the variants page there so we that retain the histories of both current pages).

I've done alot of mergers and splits, and actually enjoy the process alot, particularly redoing infoboxes, and doing the basic layout. My week point is rewriting text, and could use help there. Wha da ya think? - BillCJ 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. The F-15/15-E articles are a good template IMO. Happy to help with a rewrite. Good idea about moving the variants page to keep the history -- the ADV section is about 1/3 of the article anyway. Mark83 10:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to get to it this week if there are no ojbections. Good changes below. - BillCJ 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mark, are you able to merge histories? If so, we might ought to merge RAF Tornado F3 with the variants page (before or after the mover to Panavia Tornado ADV, whichever is best). Just a thought, since the F3 history goes back a few years, and does not overlap the variatns page at all. I'm probaly going to copy some of the format from the F# page, and there is a specs table the I'll probably use/adapt anyway. - BillCJ 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Page history merger done - the page now has the RAF Tornado F3 history dating back to to July 2003 as well as the Panavia Tornado variants history. Mark83 09:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes explained

I haven't carried out the merger/split (bit of both), since BillCJ is happy to do it. I have made some major changes though, just thought I'd take a moment to explain.

  • Timeline removed - I created the original timeline. However either because of a change of heart or the way the article is now structured it just didn't look right to me. Also many important developments were in the timeline but not even mentioned in the prose. Given the MOS preference for prose over lists I thought it was better just to merge it into the prose. Finally the information contained was very fragmented, e.g. the GR4 - it was mentioned in 1984, twice in '93, '94, '97 and '98. Now its all contained in one paragraph, so rather than having to piece the information together, the reader can see clearly how the GR4 development progressed.
  • Images: ADV - I've removed ADV images due to the nature of the split proprosed.
  • Images: general - I've culled most of the images. Images should be there to aid in description or provide context. I feel there were too many images just there... well for no real reason! e.g. Image:Panavia_Tornado_Luftwaffe.jpg & Image:Panavia_Tornado_Luftwaffe.jpg convey essentially the same thing. Just livery and direction of take off is different! As for accessibility to the images removed - they're all in the commons gallery linked at the bottom.
  • Images: specs - The specs really benefit from an orthographic projection. If all we had was Image:1Tornado Luftwaffe EINS 1 Copyright Giovanni Paulli.jpg then it would do. But the point is we have Image:Tornado IDS graphic.gif which is far more encyclopedic. Image:1Tornado Luftwaffe EINS 1 looks very commercial, esp. with the authors signature.
  • I've reformatted the unit table - looks neater? Mark83 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/split

OK, I've done the major shifts for the merge/split of the IDS/ECR and ADV varians. The specs on the ADV page need to be updated: the specs template is from the GR4, but the list-type specs from the old F-3 page are right below it. The main figures should be accuarate, but I haven't double-checked any sources. THe text is basically cut-and-paste, and strung together. There may be some overlaps in coverage on each page, but my eyes are ready for a rest! Anyone can feel free to work on this. We can remove the {{under construction}} tags when we think each article is finished. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GR.1 vs. GR1 etc.

I had a discussion with User:MilborneOne regarding the RAF Tornado designations. There is no doubt that GR.1/GR.4/F.2/F.3 have been widely used. However MilborneOne suggested that GR.1 et al were never offical designations.

So what should we use? Given that the RAF and the manufacturer of the GR4 call it that (and not GR.4) I recommend going with that. As for the others, the RAF also refers to them without dots/full stops/periods, e.g:

  • 11 Sqn history: "disbanding in May 1988, prior to reforming at Leeming three months later with the Tornado F3"
  • 617 Sqn history: "The following year, the Squadron reformed with Tornado GR1s at Marham"
  • 13 Sqn history: "No. 13 squadron reformed with the new Tornado GR1A at Honington on 1 January 1990" Mark83 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Real performances of Tornado, lies and couvered truths

Tornado had many years ago (ie. Cold War), many overclaimings about the performances.

they were rated capable to reach 2,27 mach and 1400 km with 3600 kg, 1800 km with 1800 kg, even 2500 km with 1100 kg! But wait, ferry range is 4,000 km so these figures are simply untrue.

Mach 2, lather in 90's was discovered that Tornado IDS is not able to reach it at all.

As range, Tornado IDS of AMI, from 1000 km needed three air refuelling to reach Kuwait, and this with just 2000kg and flyng at medium heigts. They should had reached Kuwait City without AR and with 4t., Baghad with 2 ton, so let's see how inflated these teorical numbers are.

Instead, for many years the wing surface was not ufficially known, because there must been some problems to propose a fighter ADV with 1000 kg wingload. This was not the only one misinformation, ex. Su-24 was rated capablo of over mach 2 (with fixed intakes..) and so on. But Panavia claimed really *false* statements.

My old enciclopedy 'War Machines (1984)' states 2414 km/h for IDS, 1390 km with 3629 kg (8x1000lbs) and wing surface is 'not declared' at all, literally written. At the beginnings of '90s the speed was declared a bit more than 2,000 km/h, not even ADV was able to reach more than 2,16 mach. Range was displayed in DS as not sufficient to fly from Al Dafra to Kuwait City at medium range without AR even with only 2200kg on board.


PS this means, also that several of the given datas in the main page are outdated and false as well. No Tornado had reached mach 2,34, nor any of them reached 1400 km range with 4 t. atleast not in a operational sqn. AFAIK. (AM Tornados had less than 1000km with 2t...). The best speed i read published was about 1,6 mach for AM Tornados, reached 'clean', 'at altitude' and with an initial dive. --Stefanomencarelli 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Can't wait to get my hands on a scanner... I've got several shots of a Tornado taken during aerial refueling, and I happened to get several with the wings out, and one with the wings in, all from a nice overhead angle. The resolution kind of sucks, I think it was a disposable camera, but they'll make a lovely illustration of the swing wings, side-by-side (I'll probably merge them into a single image with both shots in it). :) -- John Owens 05:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I completed the photos with almost every national air force that has it in service. They are all hi-res and some show historical markings and paint schemes from the Cold War era. Koalorka (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this article has twelve images already to show different aspects of the aircraft, it is not a photo gallery and if low quality they will probably be deleted if they are added. Please consider uploading any images to [Commons] which is linked from this article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look cluttered. The number of images is ideal IMO. They are all hi-res. I forgot about Commons. Koalorka (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment was about the addition of more photos (sorry I moved this to the bottom I didnt notice the original comment was 2003!!). MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)