# Talk:Panavia Tornado

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:RAF Tornado_GR4_MOD_45155233.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 2, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-05-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 

It mentions that it was manufactured until 1998, but the German manufacturer that is listed is MBB, which went defunct and was merged into DASA in 1989. The article does not mention DASA. Was it (not) manufactured by them? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Company mergers cause headaches for editors and are generally ignored unless the new company name is a significant contributor to production. MBB became DASA which became EADS which is now Airbus. British Aerospace became BAE Systems and Aeritalia became Alenia Aeronautica and is now Leonardo S.p.A.. It's just not practical to list all the company names and even more difficult to research which company manufactured which part of the aircraft in a certain year. It could be said that all manufacturing was done under supervision of Panavia but that would miss the detail of where each major assembly was built. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but the EADS was established after manufacturing stopped so that should not be mentioned anyway. Same applies to British Aerospace and Aeritalia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
There are editors/readers who complain that the current company name does not appear in an article, no win situation basically. You could contact Panavia directly for answers though they couldn't be used on this page. Some of the more modern publications on the Tornado might give more detail that could be used. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Also "manufacturer" can include upgrades, maintenance and support roles. But I would not suggest mapping out all the heritage manufacturers here. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Fnlayson Also that is not what I am arguing for. My point is that the company names which were involved in manufacturing should be named, and if they got renamed during that period, that includes multiple names for the same company. It doesn't need to go back to early 20th century or well into the 21th century. I have added it as a footnote for DASA, should not be disruptive to the flow of the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine.  We were commenting on full treatment of all the heritage companies involved. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It's misleading to claim MBB 'went defunct', which most people will read as implying bankruptcy, and slightly misleading to say  that it was 'merged into DASA'. Rather it was bought-out by Daimler-Benz AG to become the core of their aerospace arm as Deutsche Aerospace SA (also incorporating the smaller MTU and Dornier), which then became DASA. 86.14.138.8 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The text claims Ted Talbot was assigned to the programme by the Ministry of Supply, which is quite surprising considering the Ministry of Supply was abolished in 1959, a decade before the MRCA programme began and 16+ years before the flight test programme could have been able to identify the problem he was supposedly assigned to deal with. Someone with access to the relevant text may want to revisit it and confirm what it actually says.
86.14.138.8 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and similar objections raised - see Talk:Panavia_Tornado/Archive_2#Confused_additions.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Ick, that descended into editoral squabbling and completely obfuscated the point that the article makes a claim that cannot be true, no matter what the reference claims, because the MoS ceased to exist 16 years before it supposedly sent Talbot. Mind you, it's also unclear how the MoS could 'assign' a BAC/British Aerospace employee, request he be assigned, yes, assign, no.
86.14.138.8 (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Went through pretty much all written German sources regarding this claim and I have never seen ever someone talked about. It wouldn't even make much sense regarding operational requirements because of the external subsonic fuel tanks which the short legged Tornado desperately needs. 2A04:4540:7310:E900:1051:C1B9:F590:6037 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I've found a copy of the source in question - our article does not seem to reflect the source in certain cases: 1) It doesn't say Ministry of Supply, but just says the Ministry. 2) Talbot says that the Concorde team were ordered to give the British Aerospace team at Warton who were designing the Tornado details of the Concorde air intakes and intake control system. Several years later, someone from MBB is claimed to have raised a patent objection against the Concorde design, with the claim collapsing when it was realised that the design predated the release of information to the Tornado team. There appears to be nothing about problems with the Tornado inlets.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The joke is that the inlets of the Tornado is absolutely well designed and robust, especially for the plane’s task of low level flights with high transonic to low supersonic speeds, and not related or inspired by the Concorde inlets. It worked so well that the British side didn’t change a thing for the ADV variant. 219.59.87.98 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph in question, as it is not backed up by the source provided - what the source does talk about (i.e. the patent dispute) is undue gossip.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The limiting factor were always the engines, not the inlets, see the infamous using the afterburner for air refueling. Those were designed for low altitude and up to Mach 1,3. A very strange claim who should know it better but it follows the recurring theme that the partner nations are idiots in British military/technology reporting. 219.59.87.98 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
by someone
219.59.87.98 (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

CC: @Fnlayson and BuccaneerBlackburn: I'm considering reverting the addition of the Italian Air Force to the Retired section of the Infobox. The only source I can find on the matter [from July 4th of this year] notes that, while the Tornado has been retired from the 154th Squadron, it is still serving in the 155th – who have thus taken on the nuclear strike capability (which would suggest they don't plan on imminently retiring them entirely). Do either of you have any sources to the contrary?
Additionally, Fnlayson, the ref you added doesn't seem to have anything to do with their retiral in the Italian Air Force. I can't access the source, but judging from the date and that it's regarding the F3, I assume it's meant to be about their retiral from the RAF instead? McCovican » log • shhh 20:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I removed the repeated ref. Wrong years indeed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)