Design proposal for a Tornado successor

[Jety]

Good evening everyone,
I am the “new guy” here in the forum, my user name is Jety and my nick name is Leo.
I live in Germany and apologize for my not so good english.
A few years ago, I dealt very intensively with the questions of how large and heavy a 5th or 6th generation stealth aircraft should be.
As part of my own project for an MRCA Tornado follow-up aircraft, I came to the following answer while looking for answers to these questions.
The answers to these questions depend very much on the performance required of the aircraft and the intended payload of the aircraft. The number of engines and the size of an internal weapons bay also play a central role. There are also parameters for the maximum speed and altitude that the aircraft should reach. In order to achieve asomewhat reasonable compromise here, I ultimately came up with dimensions similar to those of the F-35.
You can see the result of my study in the image below. More on this project in a new thread coming soon. Then I will present this project in detail.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Good evening everyone,
I am the “new guy” here in the forum, my user name is Jety and my nick name is Leo.
I live in Germany and apologize for my not so good english.
A few years ago, I dealt very intensively with the questions of how large and heavy a 5th or 6th generation stealth aircraft should or should be.
As part of my own project for an MRCA Tornado follow-up aircraft, I came to the following answer while looking for answers to these questions.
The answers to these questions depend very much on the performance required of the aircraft and the intended payload of the aircraft. The number of engines and the size of an internal weapons bay also play a central role. There are also parameters for the maximum speed and altitude that the aircraft should reach. In order to achieve asomewhat reasonable compromise here, I ultimately came up with dimensions similar to those of the F-35.
You can see the result of my study in the image below. More on this project in a new thread coming soon. Then I will present this project in detail.

Looking forward to seeing it!

 

[Jety]

Many thanks to everyone for the many likes. Unfortunately I'm not quite ready for the new thread mentioned. But I think it could happen next week. But here's another picture.

 

[Jety]

Many thanks to the moderator for opening this thread. I wanted to start a thread myself, but unfortunately I don't have enough time for it yet. In my opinion, this thread should be called "Design proposal for a Tornado successor". Maybe the moderator who started this thread can rename it and move it to "Aircraft Design". Thanks in advance.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Requested changes made. Posting it in Aircraft Design section indicates you want to discuss this design seriously rather than it being just a cool RC model you made and want to share.

I'll start by saying the shape doesn't appear to follow any design rules indicating a stealth focus other than the internal weapons bay.

 

[Jety]

Thanks for moving and renaming the thread. Yes, that is the intention to discuss the design. What you see here is not an RC model in the traditional sense. Rather, it is the result of a design proposal for a 5th generation fighter-bomber aircraft according to my ideas. But it was a happy coincidence that I am also an aircraft modeler and I managed to create the resulting design as a subscale demonstrator using technologies and materials from model aircraft construction. This is a very small but crucial difference to a model airplane and
a real flying demonstrator aircraft give the design a physical face as early as possible.
The stealth characteristics of a fighter aircraft, particularly this aircraft, are certainly only a very small part of this design. And the design rules for the stealth part of a small fighter bomber aircraft are still being discussed. As far as I know.

 

[VTOLicious]

What you see here is not an RC model in the traditional sense. Rather, it is the result of a design proposal for a 5th generation fighter-bomber aircraft according to my ideas. But it was a happy coincidence that I am also an aircraft modeler and I managed to create the resulting design as a subscale demonstrator using technologies and materials from model aircraft construction. This is a very small but crucial difference to a model airplane and
a real flying demonstrator aircraft give the design a physical face as early as possible.
The stealth characteristics of a fighter aircraft, particularly this aircraft, are certainly only a very small part of this design. And the design rules for the stealth part of a small fighter bomber aircraft are still being discussed. As far as I know.

Nice RC model, looks great!

What engines do you have in mind for the full scale aircraft?

I just wonder why you consider your proposal for a 5th gen Tornado successor "small". Tornado has an empty weight of ~13900 kg. This is quite heavy and in the region of F-35A, which is considered a medium to heavy weight fighter, despite being single engine.

With regards to design rules for stealth aircraft: One very essential design rule is edge alignment. For more information on this topic you can search this forum or the mighty Internet.

 

[uk 75]

Nice model

You may find this thread on the YF23 interesting as like the winning F22 it would have influenced a Tornado successor.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-mcdonnell-douglas-atf-yf-23-and-emd-f-23.1092/

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting designs, I have often wondered what a Tornado successor aircraft would have looked like had one ever been designed and built.

 

[Jety]

Thankyou very much for your nice comments to VTOLicious, uk75 and FighterJock.

to your questions:

@VTOLicious
What engines do you have in mind for the full scale aircraft?

I had planned engines with a maximum diameter of 90 cm for the fullscale aircraft. Specifically, these are EJ- 200
or alternatively F 414 GE 400.

I just wonder why you consider your proposal for a 5th gen Tornado successor "small". Tornado has an empty weight of ~13900kg. This is quite heavy and in the region of F-35A, which isconsidered a medium to heavy weight fighter, despite being singleengine.

When I wrote this I had the F-111 in mind as a fighter bomber. As mentioned in the first picture above, I estimated (hopeful) theTornado II's empty weight to be 11,200 kg

With regards to design rules for stealth aircraft: One very essential design rule is edge alignment.

I am already familiar with these design rules and I think you are right that these rules are not complied with all alignment groups. But the differences are not very large.

@ uk 75
You may find this thread on the YF23 interesting as like the winning F22 it would have influenced a Tornado successor.

I don't think a YF-23 would have significantly influenced the development of a Tornado successor. Fighter plane versus fighter-bomber. But thank you very much for the information, also a very interesting thread here in the forum.

@FighterJock

Interesting designs, I have often wondered what a Tornado successor aircraft would have looked like had one ever been designed and built.

I'm glad you found an answer here and are interested in this design.

 

[Jety]

Here's a little more reading material for the evening.

Leo

https://www.flugzeugforum.de/attachments/preparation-and-execution-of-the-first-flight-of-a-small-fixed-wing-uav-1-pdf.1643347

 

[VTOLicious]

to your questions:

@VTOLicious
What engines do you have in mind for the full scale aircraft?

I had planned engines with a maximum diameter of 90 cm for the fullscale aircraft. Specifically, these are EJ- 200 or alternatively F 414 GE 400.

Then you may have a look here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...n-indigenous-fighter-program.1686/post-627974
...and use it as a reference.

 

[Jety]

Thank you, but unfortunately the KF-21 came too late for me as a reference; I had already started my project at the beginning of 2008.
But I really like the KF-21. The KF-21's maiden flight was also much later than that of the Tornado II Demonstrator. But if I had known that this very informative forum existed, I wouldn't have looked here for the first time last Thursday.

 

[kqcke for you]

Yeah F414 EPE or EJ200 (with the possible Upgrades i guess) are the best you can get. But still a Modern RB 199 would be mutch better alone from for the fuel consumption.
~22 g/kNs for the others and RB 199 with ~18,38 g/kNs dry. Yes mutch less trust but its from the 70s. A new one could be lighter with enough trust and probaly is even more efficient.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I assume your design carries 2x 2000lb bombs internally?

 

[kqcke for you]

I assume your design carries 2x 2000lb bombs internally?

If it is then there could be enough space for atleast 2 JSM or maybe even 3 Sea Breaker. A good enough stand of capability.

 

[Jety]

Thanks for the further comments, to kqcke for you and Scott Kenny.

The idea of further developing the RB 199 engines is certainly an interesting thought. I don't know if there is anyone who could implement it. It's a shame, actually it would also fit my developmental philosophy.

I don't want to say much about the intended armament for the Tornado II, just that. The Tornado II was supposed to carry all the weapons that the good old Tornado could carry. Both externally and in the spacious internal weapons bay (200x 500x 100 cm) if required for secret missions. It cannot be ruled out that modern weapons could also be added.

By the way, the enormous size of the internal weapons bay resulted in an aircraft fuselage width of 3.60 m. This was necessary in order to have enough space internally for the air inlet pipes to the engines.




Today I would like to give you a little introduction to the project.


Introduction

As early as 2015/2016 and before, there were occasional reports in the German press about the need to replace the German Tornado fighter-bomber. In other European countries that also had Tornados in their inventory, there was already loud talk about the Tonado's farewell.

In 2017/18, rumors intensified about which aircraft types in Germany could replace the Tornado because it was assumed that it was actually too late for a new development to create an operational aircraft within about 10 years. The usual time frame for the development of new combat aircrafts is around 15-20 years. A new development for a Tornado successor in Germany was therefore too late or rather impossible and the Air Force and the government looked for purchase solutions. At that time, the F-15, the F-18 and a further development of the Eurofighter were considered. In addition, France and Germany decided at this time to jointly develop a Next Generation Weapon System (NGWS) within the framework of FCAS at extremely high costs.

Around this time, I came up with the idea of looking for ways to significantly reduce the development times and costs for new combat aircrafts in relation to an NGWS, so that they could possibly only be implemented at a national level. I know that sounds a little crazy. At that time I called my project “Generic Next Generation WeaponSystem Aircraft” which was to be developed as part of a “Subscale Aircraft Demonstrator and Flight Test Program”.

I later excluded the NGWS from my thoughts because this aircraft still seemed too futuristic tome and I began to think about what a newly developed Tornado successor might look like if existing 4th and 5th generation aircraft designs were based on it. It shouldn't matter whether a full-scale Tornado successor is ever built or not.

Of course you can't develop a fighter-bomber as a single person because this is usually an interdisciplinary process with many people involved, but at least you can create a design proposal. As already mentioned in the title of this thread. A CAD program for the PC is sufficient if you initially limit yourself to the airframe of the future aircraft.

It was an essential point in my considerations to reduce development times and costs to rethink or even abandon old design philosophies common in the West. I also think that always starting the development of a new fighter aircraft on a blank sheet of paper and reinventing every screw is nolonger appropriate.

The resulting concept was that the development of a Tornado successor should be limited to the development of a new airframe with an initial stealth capability and the redevelopment of the landing gear and the fule sysytem. All other systems for operating the aircraft should be taken over from the Eurofighter and since it is a Tornado successor, all components, especially the most recently developed weapons system components and the radar, should come from the good old Tornado.

The next picture shows the requirements for my Tornado successor that were derived from the ideas described.



That should be the introduction for today and I hope you had some fun reading it, until the next episode.


Greetings
Leo

 

[kqcke for you]

Thats a huge bay. You could get around ~20 Spear 3/SDB (1/2) / Spice 250 (er). If it where 5.5-5.6m (5.4m and a little bit space at the front / end) it is ~30 bombs. Both massiv amounts compared to ther jets and you would have the potential for more potent / larger Versions of them.

 

[kqcke for you]

What would you guess to be the total height of the jet. After all at 1m for the iwb i would guess atleast some ~5m. Big chonky boy

 

[Jety]

What would you guess to be the total height of the jet. After all at 1m for the iwb i would guess atleast some ~5m. Big chonky boy

Thanks for the question, unfortunately I don't know what you mean? Can you ask anything more detailed, please.
I had planned engines with a maximum diameter of 90 cm for the fullscale aircraft. Specifically, these are EJ- 200
or alternatively F 414 GE 400.

 

[kqcke for you]

Thanks for the question, unfortunately I don't know what you mean? Can you ask anything more detailed, please.
I had planned engines with a maximum diameter of 90 cm for the fullscale aircraft. Specifically, these are EJ- 200
or alternatively F 414 GE 400.

Forget it im stupid. Your first pic already had the height in it. 4,2m

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Excellent work on that model although I'm not the one to ask about getting LO shaping right. Using RB 199s instead of EJ 200s would probably not be the right decision. Since the original Tornado I don't think the idea of a "single-role" replacement would be viable. The replacement would expected to be capable of performing traditional fighter roles meaning EJ 200 or F414 class engines are much more suitable. With RB 199s an aircraft of this size and weight would be rather lackluster (by fighter standards) in many performance areas.
The radar would have to include capability for medium range missiles like AMRAAM but since it is a modern AESA that wouldn't be a huge obstacle. But I'd expect there would be a desire to carry two such missiles interally in addition to the air-to-ground payload. Similar to the typical internal payload for the F-35.
You might also be underestimating the empty weight of the resulting aircraft. Just going off what I've seen over the years about the sort of weight growth encountered with the F-22 and F-35 in the journey from estimates to combat capable aircraft. Most of that is simply the cost of carrying a signficant amount of weaponry, fuel, and sensors internally. Would IR/EO sensors be carried internally in a sensor under the nose like the F-35? That would make sense if there is a desire to carry two Paveway IIIs internally like that. You'd probably also want the ECM gear for self-defense to be internal instead of in external pods like on the Tornado IDS. I'd guess a more likely empty weight is in the range of 13,000 to 14,000 kg. Which is quite in-line with the empty weight of the Tornado but for different reasons.

Out of curosity do you envision this aircraft as carrying an internal gun, probably the BK-27 revolver cannon, like the Tornado? Would it have thrust reversers like the Tornado did to reduce the distance needed for the landing run?

I'd say something like this represents an interesting direction different from the one the UK, Germany, Italy went with in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Both are multirole but a design like this is more focused on the strike side of things (verus air-to-air), while with the Typhoon it is the opposite. In a way there are some similarties to the F-35 in this approach.

 

[kqcke for you]

Excellent work on that model although I'm not the one to ask about getting LO shaping right. Using RB 199s instead of EJ 200s would probably not be the right decision. Since the original Tornado I don't think the idea of a "single-role" replacement would be viable. The replacement would expected to be capable of performing traditional fighter roles meaning EJ 200 or F414 class engines are much more suitable. With RB 199s an aircraft of this size and weight would be rather lackluster (by fighter standards) in many performance areas.

I meant in the way how RB199 had a lower fuel consumption a modern "Version" of it could do the same and have similiar capabilitys to the rest. I mean it wouldn't be far from an ej200 (which came from the rb199 but was optimised for a different flying setting). Question is cost and if it not be cheaper to use EJ200 (EJ230 or however the more powerful / modernised version will/would be called). In Case only in use engine are allowed modern F414 with EPE and EDE is mutch better.

You might also be underestimating the empty weight of the resulting aircraft. Just going off what I've seen over the years about the sort of weight growth encountered with the F-22 and F-35 in the journey from estimates to combat capable aircraft.

I want to remark that the height also seems low but im not an expert in this field.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

RB.199 has a relatively high bypass ratio, meaning it is more fuel efficient for long range strike missions than EJ200 even though EJ200 is more modern.

For this aircraft, you could RB.199-ise the EJ200 by increasing bypass ratio, but that would mean a fairly significant increase in diameter.

 

[kqcke for you]

For this aircraft, you could RB.199-ise the EJ200 by increasing bypass ratio, but that would mean a fairly significant increase in diameter.

Or reducing the core. But thats likely even harder

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Reducing the core is designing a new engine. You could take a high bypass engine core and combine with a new smaller fan.

You could maybe start from the BR700 core, with EJ200 fan and EJ200 derived afterburner.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RB.199 has a relatively high bypass ratio, meaning it is more fuel efficient for long range strike missions than EJ200 even though EJ200 is more modern.

For this aircraft, you could RB.199-ise the EJ200 by increasing bypass ratio, but that would mean a fairly significant increase in diameter.

Probably only a couple inches worth of diameter increase... It doesn't take much to get a bypass ratio up when you're starting from a 0.4:1...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

RB.199 is 1:1 bypass ratio so the area increase is in the proportion of 1.4 to 2.0.

So its about, what, 20% increase in diameter for EJ-200?

 

[kqcke for you]

So a EJ200 would need a 90ish cm diameter fan. The whole engine may slightly be over a 100cm max diameter.

 

[kqcke for you]

Jetsy what is even the flight
speed planed fod this jet? Max M. 2.0? Supercruise? Subsonic Cruise?

 

[Jety]

Jetsy what is even the flight
speed planed fod this jet? Max M. 2.0? Supercruise? Subsonic Cruise?

As you can see in the first picture M 1.65 unless the induced drag makes this impossible, subsonic cruise definitely and supersonic cruise too if possible. There are no calculations for this yet.
Another note on your comment: I want to remark that the height also seems low but I'm not an expert in this field.
I'm checking my design again, somehow your comment made me suspicious.

Many thanks to "Colonial-Marine" for the very detailed contribution, answers will follow soon.

By the way, many thanks to everyone involved for the interesting engine discussion. Unfortunately, the effort, among other things, to further develop of the RB 199 seems to me to be too high to consider it as an engine for the Tornado II.

 

[kqcke for you]

As you can see in the first picture M 1.65 unless the induced drag makes this impossible, subsonic cruise definitely and supersonic cruise too if possible.

Yeah i think i gotta See a doctor haha

There are no calculations for this yet.
Another note on your comment: I want to remark that the height also seems low but I'm not an expert in this field.
I'm checking my design again, somehow your comment made me suspicious.

Just saying as even an f-35 is larger with 4.4m, SU-57 4.6m, J20 4.69m or raptor even 5.08m.
It just looks so small but then again this doesn't have to mean shit.

Edit: Tornado is a giant with 5.95m

 

[uk 75]

Enjoying this discussion of a clean sheet of paper imagined Tornado successor.
Allows a layman like me to see the challenges involved.
Stealth features interest me. The Tornado II looks quite big compared with F35 (its real world main competitor) with a lot of cockpit.

 

[Jety]

The Tornado II looks quite big compared with F35 (its real world main competitor) with a lot of cockpit.

That's right, the Tornado II seems a little bigger, I think it's mainly due to the second pilot and the second engine that the F-35 is missing. In terms of numbers, both are very similar.

 

[Pioneer]

I can't help think of a cranked arrow design for this Tornado II.
The cranked arrow wing design offering:
- good performances in both the supersonic and sub/transonic speeds - in essence similar to the variable geometry wing arrangement without the weight and complexities.
- Good take off and landing performance
- Also, the cranked arrow wing design offers high root thickness, so the wing can be made stiffer and stronger.
- A substantial amount of fuel within the cranked arrow, compensating for the volume lost within the fuselage to the large internal weapons bay [and in doing so, avoiding the blotted whale like arrangement of the F-35.].
- And of course, there’s the clear advantage of conformal weapons storage, minimising drag and to some degree a lower RCS, compared to traditional pylon-mounted arrangement.

Anyhow, just my two cents....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Jety]

Excellent work on that model although I'm not the one to ask about getting LO shaping right. Using RB 199s instead of EJ 200s would probably not be the right decision. Since the original Tornado I don't think the idea of a "single-role" replacement would be viable. The replacement would expected to be capable of performing traditional fighter roles meaning EJ 200 or F414 class engines are much more suitable. With RB 199s an aircraft of this size and weight would be rather lackluster (by fighter standards) in many performance areas.
The radar would have to include capability for medium range missiles like AMRAAM but since it is a modern AESA that wouldn't be a huge obstacle. But I'd expect there would be a desire to carry two such missiles interally in addition to the air-to-ground payload. Similar to the typical internal payload for the F-35.
You might also be underestimating the empty weight of the resulting aircraft. Just going off what I've seen over the years about the sort of weight growth encountered with the F-22 and F-35 in the journey from estimates to combat capable aircraft. Most of that is simply the cost of carrying a signficant amount of weaponry, fuel, and sensors internally. Would IR/EO sensors be carried internally in a sensor under the nose like the F-35? That would make sense if there is a desire to carry two Paveway IIIs internally like that. You'd probably also want the ECM gear for self-defense to be internal instead of in external pods like on the Tornado IDS. I'd guess a more likely empty weight is in the range of 13,000 to 14,000 kg. Which is quite in-line with the empty weight of the Tornado but for different reasons.

Out of curosity do you envision this aircraft as carrying an internal gun, probably the BK-27 revolver cannon, like the Tornado? Would it have thrust reversers like the Tornado did to reduce the distance needed for the landing run?

I'd say something like this represents an interesting direction different from the one the UK, Germany, Italy went with in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Both are multirole but a design like this is more focused on the strike side of things (verus air-to-air), while with the Typhoon it is the opposite. In a way there are some similarties to the F-35 in this approach.

Here are my answers to Colonial-Marine

Excellent work on that model although I'm not the one to ask about getting LO shaping right.

As already mentioned, thank you for the extensive contribution and thank you for the praise.

Using RB 199s instead of EJ 200s would probably not be the right decision. Since the original Tornado I don't think the idea of a "single-role" replacement would be viable. The replacement would expected to be capable of performing traditional fighter roles meaning EJ 200 or F414 class engines are much more suitable. With RB 199s an aircraft of this size and weight would be rather lackluster (by fighter standards) in many performance areas.

I also think using the EJ-200 or F-414 might be a better choice/ decision. The specific fuel consumption is certainly an important parameter, but I think a better thrust/weight ratio for the new aircraft is more important here. And when developing a new aircraft you can take the slightly higher fuel consumption into account. There are also no costs for further development of the RB-199.

The radar would have to include capability for medium range missiles like AMRAAM but since it is a modern AESA that wouldn't be a hugeobstacle. But I'd expect there would be a desire to carry two suchmissiles interally in addition to the air-to-ground payload. Similarto the typical internal payload for the F-35.

I like this idea, I hadn't even thought of such a combination of weapons at this stage of developing the design proposal.

You might also be underestimating the empty weight of the resultingaircraft. Just going off what I've seen over the years about the sort of weight growth encountered with the F-22 and F-35 in the journeyfrom estimates to combat capable aircraft. Most of that is simply the cost of carrying a signficant amount of weaponry, fuel, and sensorsinternally. I'd guess a more likely empty weight is in the range of 13,000 to 14,000 kg. Which is quite in-line with the empty weight ofthe Tornado but for different reasons.

I can agree with this assessment 100%; I am not aware of any fighter aircraft design that ended up being lighter than the estimated weight at the beginning of development. You have to expect a weight gain of one to two tons, at least it wouldn't be very unusual. But I once heard that aircraft designers are very optimistic people. Even the small Tornado II demonstrator was affected by this phenomenon and a second prototype had to be built.

Would IR/EO sensors be carried internally in a sensor under the nose likethe F-35? That would make sense if there is a desire to carry twoPaveway IIIs internally like that. You'd probably also want the ECM gear for self-defense to be internal instead of in external pods like on the Tornado IDS.

Yes, if you are going to the effort of developing a Tornado successor, then there should be no external IR/EO sensors or ECM devices on the new aircraft. I think the proposed airframe offers enough space to accommodate such devices inside. Even if the corresponding devices still have to be developed, they should also be miniaturized.

Out of curosity do you envision this aircraft as carrying an internal gun, probably the BK-27 revolver cannon, like the Tornado?

Yes, but only one and not two like the old Tornado and then in the root of the right wing. Similar to the Eurofighter. Unfortunately, one has to take into account that the hit rate could be worse due to the BK-27's relatively large distance from the aircraft's longitudinal (X) axis.

Would it have thrust reversers like the Tornado did to reduce the distance needed for the landing run?

No, neither the EJ200 nor the F-414 offer this thrust reverser option. Procedures and technical means for aerodynamic braking must be developed here.

I'd say something like this represents an interesting direction different from the one the UK, Germany, Italy went with in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Both are multirole but a design like this is more focused on the strike side of things (verus air-to-air), while with the Typhoon it is the opposite. In a way there are some similarties to the F-35 in this approach.

Yes, I feel the same way and I am on the opinion that you can expect more from a specialist than from an all-rounder.

 

[kqcke for you]

I can't help think of a cranked arrow design for this Tornado II.
The cranked arrow wing design offering:
- good performances in both the supersonic and sub/transonic speeds - in essence similar to the variable geometry wing arrangement without the weight and complexities.
- Good take off and landing performance
- Also, the cranked arrow wing design offers high root thickness, so the wing can be made stiffer and stronger.
- A substantial amount of fuel within the cranked arrow, compensating for the volume lost within the fuselage to the large internal weapons bay [and in doing so, avoiding the blotted whale like arrangement of the F-35.].
- And of course, there’s the clear advantage of conformal weapons storage, minimising drag and to some degree a lower RCS, compared to traditional pylon-mounted arrangement.

Anyhow, just my two cents....


Regards
Pioneer

Yeah both cranked arrow and lambda wing would be very good options but the thing is the more complex the Wing the more problematic it can become which goes against the "Plan" of a short development time.
Similiar a V tail like YF-23 has could be interresting but it takes time to Develop it after all you reduce your Control surfaces to 2 .

 

[kqcke for you]

Using RB 199s instead of EJ 200s would probably not be the right decision. Since the original Tornado I don't think the idea of a "single-role" replacement would be viable. The replacement would expected to be capable of performing traditional fighter roles meaning EJ 200 or F414 class engines are much more suitable. With RB 199s an aircraft of this size and weight would be rather lackluster (by fighter standards) in many performance areas.

I also think using the EJ-200 or F-414 might be a better choice/ decision. The specific fuel consumption is certainly an important parameter, but I think a better thrust/weight ratio for the new aircraft is more important here. And when developing a new aircraft you can take the slightly higher fuel consumption into account. There are also no costs for further development of the RB-199.

Yeah it allways is the question of prioritys. An f414 with EDE and EPE already is a hell of an engine (even better than EJ200). And both engine have upgrade potenial which could have been developed like CMC parts for F-414 which GE already tested 2015 or EJ-200 upgrade potenial which i think wasn't used until now.

The radar would have to include capability for medium range missiles like AMRAAM but since it is a modern AESA that wouldn't be a hugeobstacle. But I'd expect there would be a desire to carry two suchmissiles interally in addition to the air-to-ground payload. Similarto the typical internal payload for the F-35.

I like this idea, I hadn't even thought of such a combination of weapons at this stage of developing the design proposal.

For air to air a lot of space is there. I would guess 10-11 missiles are possible which is a lot.

Would IR/EO sensors be carried internally in a sensor under the nose likethe F-35? That would make sense if there is a desire to carry twoPaveway IIIs internally like that. You'd probably also want the ECM gear for self-defense to be internal instead of in external pods like on the Tornado IDS.

Yes, if you are going to the effort of developing a Tornado successor, then there should be no external IR/EO sensors or ECM devices on the new aircraft. I think the proposed airframe offers enough space to accommodate such devices inside. Even if the corresponding devices still have to be developed, they should also be miniaturized.

I think thats a no brainer and there is the possibility that one could buy EOTS but that does limited export options (but then they do it already with the MTU engines themself).

Edit: given the time the project starts a lot of things could come from system a or b. For example the systems for pilots could be the same that were planed to be used for WF EK just like the electronic warfare systems. Radar could be any of the ECRS MK.1 or 2. But those things werent there in the past like 2010.

 

[Jety]

I can't help think of a cranked arrow design for this Tornado II.
The cranked arrow wing design offering:
- good performances in both the supersonic and sub/transonic speeds - in essence similar to the variable geometry wing arrangement without the weight and complexities.
- Good take off and landing performance
- Also, the cranked arrow wing design offers high root thickness, so the wing can be made stiffer and stronger.
- A substantial amount of fuel within the cranked arrow, compensating for the volume lost within the fuselage to the large internal weapons bay [and in doing so, avoiding the blotted whale like arrangement of the F-35.].
- And of course, there’s the clear advantage of conformal weapons storage, minimising drag and to some degree a lower RCS, compared to traditional pylon-mounted arrangement.

Anyhow, just my two cents....


Regards
Pioneer

Thank you for this post and the idea in it. If you could perhaps post a sketch/ drawing for the "cranked arrow wing design" here, I would be very happy. That could enrich the discussion a bit.

 

[kqcke for you]