Studies before the Tornado: NKF, AFVG, UKVG

[alertken]

1127: NKF-75 was written in Bonn early-1968 after demise of V/STOL AVS, to replace F-104G as single-seat nuclear strike penetrator, jointly for Luftwaffe and Marineflieger. Base Air Defence would be by F-4F. 4 other F-104 operators and Miragemaniac France were brought on board. France, trying to impose anyMirage, was displaced by UK in July,1968, who in turn persuaded FRG/Italy to add the backseater, so Canada, Belgium, Neth. left (to take CF-18/F-16). The engine was competed, as Pratt (to be F100) and RR/MTU RB199, optimised for the specified job. High level over E.Germany was not part of that - FRG had quite sufficient widow-makers already. RAF Air Defence post-Lightning was to be F-4M. The 1971 decision to replace that with an Air Defence Variant was driven by the UK political need to match FRG production offtake, to secure MRCA project work-sharing/management equality (Much RAF Strike was to be on Jaguar S).

Few, even no, aircraft have been designed, upfront, Day 1, to dog-fight; even the word "fighter" is a misnomer: they are bomber-destroyers, of limited endurance but max. climb rate+single-pass devastating fireweight. All US P-types were for Army Co-operation as no agile machine would approach US Expeditionary Forces; Hurri/Spit were to break up bomber formations; S.E.5/Camel were scouts. Low endurance machines would not encounter low endurance opponents because artillery/bombers would dispose of their bases. Ho, hum: as v.Moltke said: no plan survives contact with the enemy.

(Why did we not dispose of the Fokker scourge by retargetting on their bases some of the millions of shells uselessly expended on trenches?)

 

[pathology_doc]

(Why did we not dispose of the Fokker scourge by retargetting on their bases some of the millions of shells uselessly expended on trenches?)

Limited range of said artillery, I expect.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks harrier and alertken.

 

[fightingirish]

From Flug-Revue, August 1970, page 28, ILA'70 Hannover




Edit:
Luftwaffen-Forum, 02-1992, page 14

 

[Gridlock]

I'm not sure what the rules are on extracts fromsource material, but I have an excellent book PANAVIA TORNADO - Spearhead of NATO by Dr Alfred Price which has fantastic 3-plans and pictures from early AFVG through UKVG, MCRA and onto deployment. There's a 3-plan of the MBB Neues Kampfflugzeug, more Warton photos, a 2 seat fixed wing proposal, MRA-75 wing tunnel models etc.


There's also cockpit layouts and a full run-through of pre flight checks, arming, refueling etc - in case anyone ever buys one

 

[pathology_doc]

Re Tornado dogfighting, the RB.199 was targeted at two design points IIRC: low level high speed cruise/penetration (mil thrust) and Mach 2 at altitude in a straight line for interception (original MRCA/IDS was intended for this, before ADV) in 'burner. Generally, 'off design', Tornado lacked thrust, and dogfights need lots of it, even with auto-sweep.

Which begs the next question - with what air-to-air weapons was MRCA originally intended to be set up? Surely in the late 1960s/early 70s they wouldn't have been relying on Sidewinder and guns? Or were they? Surely there was a Sparrow illumination mode?

It sounds like a rerun of the whole F-111 intercept capability thing. IIRC one model was set up for Sparrow compatibility, or originally intended to be, but then it all fell through. And the -111, for all its complete inability to dogfight, would surely have made a decent straight-line interceptor, yes? Especially since once you run out of missiles, you still have a cannon with twenty seconds' worth of continuous fire...

 

[firepilot]

Re Tornado dogfighting, the RB.199 was targeted at two design points IIRC: low level high speed cruise/penetration (mil thrust) and Mach 2 at altitude in a straight line for interception (original MRCA/IDS was intended for this, before ADV) in 'burner. Generally, 'off design', Tornado lacked thrust, and dogfights need lots of it, even with auto-sweep.

Which begs the next question - with what air-to-air weapons was MRCA originally intended to be set up? Surely in the late 1960s/early 70s they wouldn't have been relying on Sidewinder and guns? Or were they? Surely there was a Sparrow illumination mode?

It sounds like a rerun of the whole F-111 intercept capability thing. IIRC one model was set up for Sparrow compatibility, or originally intended to be, but then it all fell through. And the -111, for all its complete inability to dogfight, would surely have made a decent straight-line interceptor, yes? Especially since once you run out of missiles, you still have a cannon with twenty seconds' worth of continuous fire...

I have thought too that the F-111 would have made a decent pure interceptor, due to its speed and range. It was the D model Vark that could shoot Sparrows

 

[JFC Fuller]

I was hoping that someone here might be able to help me with something I am having trouble getting to the bottom of. The original German MRCA requirement was for 600 aircraft across the Luftwaffe and Marineflieger, they had at the time just ordered 88 RF-4Es (1968). Then in 1971 they ordered 175 F-4F's which cut the MRCA requirement to 420 aircraft. In 1973 they then cut their requirement further to 322 aircraft (including 112 for the Marineflieger), so my question is where did those 98 aircraft go? Were squadrons cut or were they replaced with something else? I have seen at least one German White Paper from 1970 suggesting that the MRCA was originally a planned replacement for the G-91 as well as the Starfighter so perhaps the emergence of the Alphajet as an attack aircraft has something to do with this?

 

[CJGibson]

I'm offshore, so don't have it to hand, but I think I mentioned the German/Italian MRCA needs in Battle Flight, either in the chapter on the ADV or towards the end of the previous chapter, which has the P.45 etc in it. Might help, despite being ADV-oriented.

Chris

 

[hushkit]

Hi,
Here's an interesting piece about the AFVG: The Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG) fighter and what it says about European military ai… http://wp.me/p2nGo9-27j

Do you think it would have been more like a MiG-23 or a Tornado in capability?

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the drawing to AFVG aircraft,note the glass of the cockpit is so long,may
be it was two seat not single ?.


L + K magazine

 

[Jemiba]

AFAIK, the AFVG was planned from the start as a two seater ?

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear Jemiba.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is an artist drawings to MRCA-75 and NKF aircraft,from L + K.

 

[ivran]

From the first page, pictures AFVGc, does somebody have any information or data,similar to Mirage G,but not the same aircraft
Thanks in advance

 

[Pioneer]

they had at the time just ordered 88 RF-4Es.

Wow the Luftwaffe took reconnaissance seriously! I wish my Air Force would :'(
4 x RF-111C's ....... really ......... and now there is none

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Charlesferdinand]

In this month's Fana de l'Aviation (No 536 July 14) starts a series on the Mirage G. The first installment deals with the AFVG. It would seem that neither the politicians, the services or the industry could make up its mind what it was supposed to do. Originally it was to be a two engined two seat aircraft for ground attack, interception, reconnaissance and nucleair strike, and that could be used from both British and French carriers. The production run was to be 150 aircraft for each partner, service entry from 1974.

 

[Kiltonge]

Which begs the next question - with what air-to-air weapons was MRCA originally intended to be set up? Surely in the late 1960s/early 70s they wouldn't have been relying on Sidewinder and guns? Or were they? Surely there was a Sparrow illumination mode?

The merging of the threads has brought this old, old question to light

Here's what I know of proposed misisle armament for MRCA:

( A couple of updates in bold after trawling Flight and Bill Gunston's missile compendia ):

Germany

AAM: Viper but AIM-9L when Viper abandoned in 1974. No Sparrow that I recall and never procured for F-4F either
ASM: Maverick + Jumbo
AShM: Kormoran ( to be succeeded by the supersonic FK80) + Jumbo;

Italy

AAM: Sidewinder + Aspide
ASM: Maverick
AShM: [Not sure. OTOMAT would seem applicable ]

UK

AAM: Sky Flash on ADV, Sidewinder on both variants
ASM: Martel, Maverick and Laser Bullpup conversions
AShM: Exocet, I think.

Martel was never integrated, in the end.

 

[Kiltonge]

Just found this surprise: Boeing were promoting SRAM for MRCA!

Boeing is working hard to have the Short-Range Attack Missile (Sram) accepted as a standard weapon for the MRCA.

Successful studies have been carried out to see whether the Vulcan could accommodate the missile in its bomb-bay and carry trials may be attempted on the weapon-test Buccaneers being built in support of the MRCA programme.

Sram is also being considered as an anti-shipping weapon for the RAF's Buccaneers.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1974/1974%20-%201867.html

 

[Jemiba]

Offered as a weapon for MRCA, or Vulcan seems to be logical, but it's the
first time, I hear of it as an ASM !

 

[Lascaris]

Speaking of the AFVG, my understanding is that the two M45H would be giving a trust of 7000 lbf dry and 12600 lbf with afterburner each. For an aircraft supposed to weight in the 42-50,000 lb range wouldn't this be making it very underpowered, particularly the air defence/carrier borne versions? And why such weak engines? After all the earlier BAC 583 had more thrust for the same weight and so did even the Atar 9K Dassault put in Mirage G8...

 

[pathology_doc]

Kiltonge: Thanks. So the Italians at least had planned to fit for Sparrow (which for all the enhancements it might have is basically what Aspide is).


As for Martel, by the time "MRCA" formally became Tornado and entered service, I suspect TV Martel at least would have been on the way out in favour of better things. IIRC Gunston's Encyclopaedia of Combat Aircraft shows a cutaway with both Martel types and a downlink pod, but I can't recall if it showed Sparrow too. And those were early days, so anything was up for change.


At the end of the day, AIM-9 is not the most incapable of missiles, at least from the POV of arming what's basically a surface attack aircraft. Like the Mosquito FB.VI, it's no dogfighter, but God help whichever foolish idiot gets in front of it. Not the best missile with which to perform interceptor duties, but AWACS, transport, naval patrol and rotary winged aircraft have something to fear (and didn't American bombers with "package" guns etc. attack German transport A/C trying to reinforce Rommel, with reasonable results?)

 

[hesham]

From the site which is mentioned by my dear Harrier,


here is addition drawings.


http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-27A-Seminar-Birth-of-Tornado.pdf

 

[pedrospe]

Very good hesham,thanks a lot.




regards


pedro

 

[famvburg]

Thanks. That AFVG and UKVG remind me of early Su-19/24 artwork.

 

[fightingirish]

From Flug-Revue, August 1970, page 28, ILA'70 Hannover

Edit:
Luftwaffen-Forum, 02-1992, page 14

B)
Better Source:
Fotodokumente: Vom Entwurf zum Produkt – Flugzeuge im Vergleich
Klassiker der Luftfahrt Ausgabe 07/2015

 

[blackkite]

Neues Kampfflugzeug (NKF) (New Combat Aircraft) Program

What is the detail shape of NKF?
http://www.robertcmason.com/textdocs/GermanVSTOLFighters.pdf
NKF : Definition for a CAS(Close Air Support) combat aircraft
(1)VG
(2)Single engine(2-spool)
(3)Single seat
(4)Good maneuverability
(5)Transonic fixed inlets

(Edit : Neues Kampfflugzeug = New Combat Aircraft)

NKF is like this? But the second picture shows two seater aircraft.
VG wing is for low altitude high speed flight and short take off and landing?

Some one please get this magazine, and inform us the detail of NKF.
http://www.ebay.com.my/itm/HOBBY-6-20-3-1968-NKF-Kampfflugzeuge-Porsche-911T-U-Boot-Katastrophen-/351647770781

And this one.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-45702255.html
http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/45702255

 

[TomS]

Re: NKF

NKF evolved into Tornado, ultimately. We have a thread with a bunch of data on NKF, along with AFVG, UKVG, and other predecessors to Tornado. Many of your answers may be there.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3836.0/

 

[blackkite]

Re: Neues Kampfflugzeug (NKF) (New Combat Aircraft) Program

Oh thanks a lot.
I can find this amazing NKF three side view drawing posted by Paul in upper topic which you showed me!!
So bottom picture is NFK.
Sorry for duplicating post.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

I can't ID this fighter Project drawing,so I suppose it was from this program,am I right ?.

http://backgroundimgfer.pw/Find-this-Pin-and-more-on-Concept-Aircraft-by-autree1-t.html

 

[uk 75]

Hesham a belated answer to your drawing question.
It looks like the final A400 versionof the USFRG strike fighter with its lift engines removed to be the basis of nkf.

 

[uk 75]

Has anyone anyi nfo on the APD variable geometry designs which were UK fighters rather than strike aircraft. I think there is a drawing in one of Chris Gibson's books on raf air defence but I cannot find my copy

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear UK 75,

and I check from every report and book,even a PDF from AIAA,but nothing at all ?.

 

[richard B]

Hi,

I can't ID this fighter Project drawing,so I suppose it was from this program,am I right ?.

http://backgroundimgfer.pw/Find-this-Pin-and-more-on-Concept-Aircraft-by-autree1-t.html

It was the MBB offer for the "future combat aircraft" (end 1968)

 

[hesham]

I think you get it my dear Richard,

but what is the source ?.

 

[richard B]

An old Air International .

 

[uk 75]

Mystery solved. The lineage can be compared with the final US FRG drawing

 

[flateric]

...

 

[hesham]

Also from, https://www.jstor.org

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1969.