Design proposal for a Tornado successor

[RJMAZ]

The only reason the Tornado was supersonic is because it didn't have stealth. Using stealth a subsonic aircraft like the F-117 with the latest avionics could perfectly perform the Tornado mission.

Two seats are no longer required for the Tornado mission. There won't be any low altitude maneuvering while the back seater is working the targeting pod. The Tornado mission would now involve glide weapons being dropped from 30+ nm miles away outside of the SAM bubble.

The renderings posted are more like a 5th gen Eurofighter replacement with an enlarged bomb bay.

The Tornado replaced the Blackburn Buccaneer. The Tornado replacement would be like a stealthy Buccaneer.

The layout of the Buccaneer is pretty much perfect with the 4,000lb central bomb bay. Simply add a V tail. The engine exhausts could be blocked by the V tail like on the A-10 to reduce the IR signature from below. Two EJ200 without afterburner gives more power than the Spey engines on the Buccaneer.

It is interesting in 1990 we had the A-4, A-6, A-7, A-10, F-117, Buccaneer, AMX and Super Étendard all in service around the world as subsonic ground attack aircraft. Making a 21st century stealth aircraft for this ground attack mission wasn't cool enough. Budget cuts meant we prioritised development on fighters. We now give the mission to supersonic fighters that are double the cost to buy and operate.

Everyone on here is producing the same supersonic designs using the same formula. All they do is change the size of the aircraft. Yet the market actually wants a manned subsonic stealth aircraft with decent range and low cost.

 

[kqcke for you]

The only reason the Tornado was supersonic is because it didn't have stealth.

Yeah because speed and low flying were the best way to survive.

Using stealth a subsonic aircraft like the F-117 with the latest avionics could perfectly perform the Tornado mission.

Well not all but Most of them could tought i can still see a need for supersonic speed.

Two seats are no longer required for the Tornado mission.

I would disagree to some extend. While yes the general strike mission doesn't need it but for something like ECR or EW its quite good to have one.

There won't be any low altitude maneuvering while the back seater is working the targeting pod. The Tornado mission would now involve glide weapons being dropped from 30+ nm miles away outside of the SAM bubble.

While standoff attacks will happen more we still see direct bombing attacks.

The renderings posted are more like a 5th gen Eurofighter replacement with an enlarged bomb bay.

The Tornado replaced the Blackburn Buccaneer. The Tornado replacement would be like a stealthy Buccaneer.

The layout of the Buccaneer is pretty much perfect with the 4,000lb central bomb bay.

Its not really perfect when looking for a Low RCS what is a big thing for this jet.

Simply add a V tail. The engine exhausts could be blocked by the V tail like on the A-10 to reduce the IR signature from below.

Not really / it wouldn't make mutch sense.

Two EJ200 without afterburner gives more power than the Spey engines on the Buccaneer.

Yes and the goal would be to make use of upgrades similiar to F414's EPE / EDE which where proposed for EJ-200.

Everyone on here is producing the same supersonic designs using the same formula. All they do is change the size of the aircraft.

I mean kinda given that physic is the same for everyone.? Its also allways a question of what one sees as requierment and multirole is close to being a mandate. Like you said budgets are tight.

Yet the market actually wants a manned subsonic stealth aircraft with decent range and low cost.

While the is a market for it (B-21 [i mean compared to B-2 its quite a low cost Design]) i

 

[RJMAZ]

As soon as you add the supersonic requirement you increase the size and double the cost of the aircraft while delivering the same payload/range.

The best way to explain it would be to put the B-21 design into a photocopier and shrink it down. The twin seat cockpit shrinks to a single bubble canopy. The big rotary weapon bay gets downsized to that of the F-117. The engines gets changed to something smaller. You now have a Tornado replacement or light stealth bomber.

The Tempest/FCAS supersonic fighter provide ultra high end replacement for Eurofighter and Rafale. The cheaper subsonic stealth aircraft does the role of Tornado and compliments the more expensive supersonic fighters.

I do not think the Europe has the funds to develop both a high end stealthy supersonic Eurofighter/Rafale replacement and also a dedicated Tornado replacement. The Tornado role will probably end up being covered by cheap drones controlled by the super expensive supersonic stealthy manned fighter.

The US will just keep pumping out F-35 to cover the basic CAS role instead of developing a dedicated manned aircraft. Korea is busy with the KF-21. Japan has joined the UK Tempest team.

I think Brazil would be the only country who would develop a stealthy subsonic attack aircraft. If we look at the Tucano and AMX they have strong demand for the CAS role. The lower performance requirement should make it easier for them to develop their first stealth aircraft. It would sell extremely well in the international market. Sitting below the F-35 but above the loyal wingman drones.

 

[kqcke for you]

As soon as you add the supersonic requirement you increase the size and double the cost of the aircraft while delivering the same payload/range.

I think it doesn't have to be that mutch of a problem given thats its for limited short duration supercruise.

The best way to explain it would be to put the B-21 design into a photocopier and shrink it down. The twin seat cockpit shrinks to a single bubble canopy. The big rotary weapon bay gets downsized to that of the F-117. The engines gets changed to something smaller. You now have a Tornado replacement or light stealth bomber.

One problem could be wingspan as (if i remember it right) he wanted to make around the same as Tornado's tought some kind of optemised lambda wing (for subsonic flight) with a folding system could work. Not only could one design it with the required wing area and the top folds. Kinda like the cranked kite wing of the X-47B

The Tempest/FCAS supersonic fighter provide ultra high end replacement for Eurofighter and Rafale. The cheaper subsonic stealth aircraft does the role of Tornado and compliments the more expensive supersonic fighters.

I do not think the Europe has the funds to develop both a high end stealthy supersonic Eurofighter/Rafale replacement and also a dedicated Tornado replacement.

Well Eurofighter already replaces Tornado in every level except for nuclear strike. So they had the funds for it tought it wasn't a really new plane who will do it.

 

[RJMAZ]

I think it doesn't have to be that mutch of a problem given thats its for limited short duration supercruise.

Actually it is. It's not like you can take an Airbus and fit afterburners to the existing engines and you now have a supersonic aircraft that can fly just as far as it did before at subsonic speed.

Take the same aircraft fuselages with the same engine and create two different aircraft but with different wings. One aircraft has 20 metre span with 0 degree wing sweep. The second aircraft has 10 metre span with 45 degree wing sweep. Now even if both aircraft weigh exactly when both aircraft are cruising at mach 0.7 the aircraft with the straight wing will have its engine at a lower throttle setting. It will be burning upwards of 30% less fuel even with the same engine. This is because of the lift to drag ratio. The aircraft with the straight wing also needs less engine thrust to takeoff at the same runway distance upwards of 30% less.

Now fit a higher bypass engine to the aircraft with the straight wing and you then gain upwards of 30% less fuel burn.

That long straight wing can also fit 30% more internal fuel.

We now have three 30% gains that multiply together. 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 gives 2.2 times the range. The same aircraft fuselage you now have more than double the range by simply removing the supersonic requirement and optimised wing and bypass ratio.

If we design for a specific range then the subsonic optimised design should be roughly two thirds of the weight of the supersonic capable design. The engines and features to make an aircraft supersonic are also expensive so the subsonic design would be roughly half the cost.

Going from a Eurofighter to Gripen E doesn't halve the cost. Just making the aircraft smaller but retaining all of the supersonic capability won't save very much and it results in reduced range. It then makes no sense to form a high-low combat mix with these two aircraft.

A high-low combat mix with an expensive supersonic manned fighter and a cheaper subsonic manned fighter makes more sense. The subsonic fighter while being cheaper and smaller can still offer the same range of the larger supersonic aircraft. A stealthy manned subsonic aircraft is the only market gap remaining.

The best extreme real world example of this wing difference would be to compare the F-104 and original U-2. Both share a similar fuselage made by the Lockheed powered by similar vintage turbojet that put 10,000lb of dry thrust. Yet the U-2 has 6 times the range on internal fuel. When both aircraft are cruising through the air at mach 0.7 the U-2 requires less than half of the thrust from the engine.

Well Eurofighter already replaces Tornado in every level except for nuclear strike. So they had the funds for it tought it wasn't a really new plane who will do it.

I was pointing out that Eurofighter was started after Tornado was nearly finished. Rafale was started after the Mirage was finished. They concentrated on developing one aircraft at a time.

With Tempest and FCAS they are now busy for the next 10-20 years building their first supersonic stealth fighter. They will both consume massive resources. A dedicated manned strike aircraft would need to be developed in parallel.

It is unusual that in 1990 we had a dozen subsonic ground attack aircraft models in service. Stealth has made it safe to be subsonic again yet we aren't seeing any manned developments besides the B-21. Everyone is saying the B-21 will be awesome and might even perform air to air.

 

[kqcke for you]

Actually it is. It's not like you can take an Airbus and fit afterburners to the existing engines and you now have a supersonic aircraft that can fly just as far as it did before at subsonic speed.

I meant in General as long as its taken into consideration. What i mean is that it isn't supposed to do long duration Supersonic flight but short supersonic sprints tought i understand where you logic comes from and it makes sense.

Take the same aircraft fuselages with the same engine and create two different aircraft but with different wings. One aircraft has 20 metre span with 0 degree wing sweep. The second aircraft has 10 metre span with 45 degree wing sweep. Now even if both aircraft weigh exactly when both aircraft are cruising at mach 0.7 the aircraft with the straight wing will have its engine at a lower throttle setting. It will be burning upwards of 30% less fuel even with the same engine. This is because of the lift to drag ratio. The aircraft with the straight wing also needs less engine thrust to takeoff at the same runway distance upwards of 30% less.

I know that a subsonic optemised design is better for subsonic flight.

Now fit a higher bypass engine to the aircraft with the straight wing and you then gain upwards of 30% less fuel burn.

That long straight wing can also fit 30% more internal fuel.

We now have three 30% gains that multiply together. 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 gives 2.2 times the range. The same aircraft fuselage you now have more than double the range by simply removing the supersonic requirement and optimised wing and bypass ratio.

If we design for a specific range then the subsonic optimised design should be roughly two thirds of the weight of the supersonic capable design. The engines and features to make an aircraft supersonic are also expensive so the subsonic design would be roughly half the cost.

Going from a Eurofighter to Gripen E doesn't halve the cost. Just making the aircraft smaller but retaining all of the supersonic capability won't save very much and it results in reduced range. It then makes no sense to form a high-low combat mix with these two aircraft.

It could make sense when the requierments that it has are fullfilled. But yeah in general it wouldn't make mutch sense.

A high-low combat mix with an expensive supersonic manned fighter and a cheaper subsonic manned fighter makes more sense. The subsonic fighter while being cheaper and smaller can still offer the same range of the larger supersonic aircraft. A stealthy manned subsonic aircraft is the only market gap remaining.

Well until the stealthy subsonic fighter is not more expensive.

The best extreme real world example of this wing difference would be to compare the F-104 and original U-2. Both share a similar fuselage made by the Lockheed powered by similar vintage turbojet that put 10,000lb of dry thrust. Yet the U-2 has 6 times the range on internal fuel. When both aircraft are cruising through the air at mach 0.7 the U-2 requires less than half of the thrust from the engine.


I was pointing out that Eurofighter was started after Tornado was nearly finished. Rafale was started after the Mirage was finished. They concentrated on developing one aircraft at a time.

With Tempest and FCAS they are now busy for the next 10-20 years building their first supersonic stealth fighter. They will both consume massive resources. A dedicated manned strike aircraft would need to be developed in parallel.

Yeah but as the rest it will be a multirole design which in the end replaces eurofighter which replaced tornado. Your right that it didn't happen at the same time but how could if when Tornado is just older. Like you said Tornado was done before eurofighter was even born.

It is unusual that in 1990 we had a dozen subsonic ground attack aircraft models in service. Stealth has made it safe to be subsonic again yet we aren't seeing any manned developments besides the B-21. Everyone is saying the B-21 will be awesome and might even perform air to air.

Well because budgets are small and we want to check every box we can.