Tornado Projects

Some general remarks on topics discussed here over the years:
1.) The book "Der Eurofighter" from Bernd and Ulrich Vetter included a 3 side view of the GAFAD version of the Tornado. I can take a picture from the book, if wanted. It was essentially new new aircraft compared to the Tornado, smaller, lighter, single seat, with fixed strake wings reprofiled and smaller fin and tailplanes, a single semi-circular airintake mounted beneath the fuselage and the RB.199s mounted vertically as on the Lightning, but with the lower engine mounted further forward to allow a thrust deflector plate to be installed beneath the rear fuselage for improved STOL performance. It was one of the last development proposals for a new fighter aircraft from MBB, but wind tunnel tests weren't promising and MBB went ahead with new designs such as the ADF-80.

2.) The S and T in the production designations denote Strike and Trainer in the Tornado programme, opposed to Singleseat and Twinseat in the Eurofighter programme.

3.) The German Recce Tornados were IDS modified to use the GAF RECCE POD, including a control panel in the WSO's station and associated wiring.

4.) The 35 German ECRs were new built, the 15 Italians were concersions from IDS. The ECR was a new variant, albeit woth greater commonality to the IDS, compared to the ADV. Primary changes comprised the RB.199 MK105 with DECU instead of CUE, no guns, NAV FLIR, IRLS, ELS and ODIN, plus an MFD in place of the radar/map combiner display in the front cockpit.

5.) Germany considered integration of the AGM-65B in the 1980s. This missiles had been acquired in conjunction with a first F-4F upgrade. AFAIK some fitting trials were performed and integration work on the IDS started. I don't know why this was cancelled, possibly because the F-4F had that capability and the EFA was meant to get it as well.
 
KSL (Kombiniertes Scheinziel) was a German project for a powered IR-decoy for the Tornados.
It was supposed to fool modern flare-proof MANPADs using a rocket motor that let it continue the original trajectory of the Jet, which would turn away. The rocket exhaust was also supposed to mimic the emission spectrum of the jet exhaust. In the concept drawing a tube with multiple decoys is mounted next to the BOZ 101 flare pod.
 

Attachments

  • KSL_KombiniertesScheinzielLuftwaffe.jpg
    KSL_KombiniertesScheinzielLuftwaffe.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 687
Scorpion82 said:
1.) The book "Der Eurofighter" from Bernd and Ulrich Vetter included a 3 side view of the GAFAD version of the Tornado. I can take a picture from the book, if wanted. It was essentially new new aircraft compared to the Tornado, smaller, lighter, single seat, with fixed strake wings reprofiled and smaller fin and tailplanes, a single semi-circular airintake mounted beneath the fuselage and the RB.199s mounted vertically as on the Lightning, but with the lower engine mounted further forward to allow a thrust deflector plate to be installed beneath the rear fuselage for improved STOL performance. It was one of the last development proposals for a new fighter aircraft from MBB, but wind tunnel tests weren't promising and MBB went ahead with new designs such as the ADF-80.
Click to expand...
I'm highly interested in the 3 view of this GAFAD version!
 
VTOLicious said:
Thx for posting!
Now that's an interesting air intake design!
Click to expand...

Could imagine that a single inlet for two engines isn't the best solution for air supply stability, especially during asymetric flight conditions, at high alpha and/or beta angles or when one engine suffers from a compressor stall. Nevertheless it was a remarkably different concept and now much from the actual Tornado design was left.

The PANNAP studies from 1971-1974 were reportedly driven by BAC's vision for an affordable light weight fighter design for the export market. It was only said that the design envisioned was a single seat aircraft with strake wings, powered by a single RB.199. There was no interest from the home nations however and finding an export customer to pay for the development of such an aircraft is not a particularly rosy prospect.
 
Scorpion82 said:
Could imagine that a single inlet for two engines isn't the best solution for air supply stability,
Click to expand...
It actually looks like a dual intake with separate throats. The lower engine is fed by the inner intake and the duct is pretty straight. The upper engine is fed by the outer intake where the duct transitions from a ring to a circle. It is quite unusual.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pannap-panavia-new-aircraft-project.592/

There are a few speculative illustrations of PANNAP in the thread above
 
kaiserbill said:
I don't suppose any technical details were ever released?
Such as size and thrust?
It's certainly considerably smaller than the TF30.

The advert implies it is in "the 10 000lb class", the same as the TF30 P6.. but that engine model actually pushed out 11250lbs.

I was wondering whether P&W were aiming for a non afterburning JTF16 for the MRCA, but with a higher dry thrust than the RB199?
Click to expand...


Re: JTF16. Not a lot of data around. Intended as main propulstion for AMSA and paired cruise engine for US-German AVS V/STOL project.

Two-spool with duct-burning.

AVS config: dry 9,000lb, augmented 19,000lb
JTF16B AMSA config: dry 12,000lb, augmented 20,000lb+. Later succeeded by more powerful JTF20.

Testbed first run in 1966 under USAF contract. Design provided development basis for F100 and F401.

Both GE and P&W declined to provide internal engine specifications to Panavia, relying instead on USAF 'guarantees' that the GE-1 and JTF16 would meet the requirements.
 

Attachments

  • JTF16_AvWeek_19670529_036.jpg
    JTF16_AvWeek_19670529_036.jpg
    160.1 KB · Views: 383
Voltzz said:
KSL (Kombiniertes Scheinziel) was a German project for a powered IR-decoy for the Tornados.
It was supposed to fool modern flare-proof MANPADs using a rocket motor that let it continue the original trajectory of the Jet, which would turn away. The rocket exhaust was also supposed to mimic the emission spectrum of the jet exhaust. In the concept drawing a tube with multiple decoys is mounted next to the BOZ 101 flare pod.
Click to expand...

Genuinely surprised that something like this has never gone ahead. Add in some chaff and flare cartridges and a blip enhancer and it would make a lot of sense. There have been powered or glide decoys, rockets equipped with chaff (B-52) but as far as I'm aware they were all launched prior to an enemy engagement, not as a reactive measure.
 
This article covers some of the original plans for the Tornado's Mid-Life Update in the late 1980s. Relevant parts below:

The Tornado mid- life update (MLU), Staff Requirement (Air) 417, had its genesis in the mid-1980s and was created because the Tornado GR1's survivability in penetrating heavily defended Warsaw Pact airspace at low level needed to be improved. The Tornado's primary task was in the tactical nuclear-strike role, to deliver the WE177 free-fall bomb against pre-assigned Warsaw Pact targets.

The RAF, in the nature of upgrade projects, started by looking at what was possible, including the insertion of an airframe fuselage plug to provide extra fuel capacity, before narrowing its wish list down to the probable, and then finally to what is now referred to as MLU88.

The service had planned to order 26 new-build GR4s, as well as converting the bulk of its Tornado fleet, as its batch eight procurement, but this was cancelled in 1990.

Penetration capability

The driver behind the MLU 88 upgrade was to provide a fully automated, covert, low-level-penetration capability.

In addition to an improved avionics architecture, new displays and sensors were included - including a forward-looking infra-red (FLIR), new armament and control, and terrain-reference navigation (TRN) systems and covert radio altimeter. The additions of the FLIR and TRN were intended to allow the Tornado to be flown at low level without the necessity of using any active emitters - primarily the terrain-following radar (TFR).

The FLIR is limited, however, in having a forward field of view only, so it was supplemented with night-vision goggles (NVGs) and a compatible cockpit.

Subsequent events and ensuing budgetary constraints then conspired against the MLU 88 programme, however, after the components of the update had been chosen.

The underlying rationale for the MLU 88 was built on the premise that the RAF's primary mission would be to fight a war in the Central European theatre against Warsaw Pact forces. In addition, the 1990-1 Gulf War provided the service with a taste of the kind of future air operations with which it was likely to be tasked.
Click to expand...

and

The MLU programme also became ensnared in the then Conservative Government's apparently rolling defence reviews, with Treasury officials viewing the project as a "big, big target". This resulted in a much-reduced scope for the MLU, the most visible element to suffer being the GEC Spartan TRN, which was deleted from the programme. Originally costed at around £1 billion ($1.6 billion), the eventual budget was cut to £750 million.

Ditching the TRN deprived the GR4 of an all-weather, night-covert-penetration capability because the FLIR is weather dependent, while the NVGs require adequate ambient light. Given certain conditions, a GR4 crew will have to resort to the active-emitter TFR to prosecute a mission at low level.
Click to expand...
 
Hood said:
Would make sense for the interim anti-radar missile capability. Not seeing the TV pod, but I guess that would take the place of the outboard ECM/chaff pod.
Click to expand...

I finally found an answer to this. It seems the datalink pod was to planned to go on the centreline pylon, with Martel missiles on the shoulder pylons and inner wing pylons. I'm assuming Martel integration was dropped at some point though, as I've never seen it fitted to a Tornado.

Tornado Martel.JPG

Image from AIR 2/19035 at the National Archives
 
Flame2512 said:
I finally found an answer to this. It seems the datalink pod was to planned to go on the centreline pylon, with Martel missiles on the shoulder pylons and inner wing pylons. I'm assuming Martel integration was dropped at some point though, as I've never seen it fitted to a Tornado.


Image from AIR 2/19035 at the National Archives
Click to expand...

The last item is interesting -- the RECCE SLIPPER sounds like a conformal reconnaissance system that would fit across the belly of the aircraft, occupying both the centerline and shoulder stations. Anyone heard of this before?
 
CJGibson said:
Yup, it's in my next book.

Chris
Click to expand...

My wallet is flinching already. Looking forward to it.

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Was this reconnaissance slipper pod intended to carry the X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar tested on Canberra WT327 in the 1970s?
Click to expand...

Some cursory Googling says it was an MBB project, I think. (I can't access the document, just judging by the Google snippet)


1708381869954.png
 
Another interesting find from the National Archives. This comes from a 1993 report titled "EFA and Alternatives - Investment Appraisal" (part of DEFE 71/1477). The contexed is that Germany had threatened to withdraw from the Eurofighter programme, and as a result the UK was forced to investigate various alternative options:
The options include EFA produced on a 4-nation, 3-nation and single-nation basis with various numbers of squadrons; an off shore procurement of US F-15E, F-18E and F-22 aircraft mixed with a run on of Tornado F3 aircraft; upgrades of the Tornado F3 fleet to various levels of sophistication; co-production of the Rafale with the French and finally a mixture of a limited buy of EFA with a run on of Tornado F3.
Click to expand...

These are the proposed upgrades to the Tornado F.3:
Proposed Tornado F.3 upgrades.png

Ultimately of course Germany never withdrew from the EFA programme, so none of these upgrade options ever materialised, though some of the proposed features did eventually make their way into the Tornado F.3 fleet.
 
SSJ = Self-Screening Jammer/Jamming. That is usually synonymous with Self-Protection Jammer/Jamming.

PLM usually means Product Lifecycle Management, but I'm not sure why only certain upgrade levels would have that -- it's kind of essential. Maybe some sort of automated on-aircraft PLM tracking system (AURA?)
 
SteveO said:
PLM = ? Precision Location?
AURA = ? AUtomatic Recovery of Aircraft maybe?
Click to expand...

TomS said:
PLM usually means Product Lifecycle Management, but I'm not sure why only certain upgrade levels would have that -- it's kind of essential. Maybe some sort of automated on-aircraft PLM tracking system (AURA?)
Click to expand...

As far as I know in the context of Tornado's radar PLM stands for "Pilot Lock Mode", a mode which lets the pilot quickly lock on to a target during a dogfight (basically the pilot presses a button and radar locks onto whatever is in front of it, rather than the navigator having to select the target on the radar screen and lock it that way). Seems a little strange to list that it a feature though, as Foxhunter had it from the very begining. Maybe it means something else in this context. Or perhaps ECR-90 didn't have that mode originally and it was planned to be added (it seems unlikely that such a basic feature wouldn't be included though).

On the Tornado F.3 AURA stood for "Alternative Use of Radar Antenna". This was a modification made to the AI.24 Foxhunter during Operation Granby which made it possible for the pilot to connect one of the radar's two Traveling Wave Tubes to a noise generator, allowing for the radar to be used as a stand off jammer. Presumably they had something similar planned for ECR-90 in the proposed upgrades.
 
Flame2512 said:
As far as I know in the context of Tornado's radar PLM stands for "Pilot Lock Mode", a mode which lets the pilot quickly lock on to a target during a dogfight (basically the pilot presses a button and radar locks onto whatever is in front of it, rather than the navigator having to select the target on the radar screen and lock it that way). Seems a little strange to list that it a feature though, as Foxhunter had it from the very begining. Maybe it means something else in this context. Or perhaps ECR-90 didn't have that mode originally and it was planned to be added (it seems unlikely that such a basic feature wouldn't be included though).

On the Tornado F.3 AURA stood for "Alternative Use of Radar Antenna". This was a modification made to the AI.24 Foxhunter during Operation Granby which made it possible for the pilot to connect one of the radar's two Traveling Wave Tubes to a noise generator, allowing for the radar to be used as a stand off jammer. Presumably they had something similar planned for ECR-90 in the proposed upgrades.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes much more sense.
 
Flame2512 said:
On the Tornado F.3 AURA stood for "Alternative Use of Radar Antenna". This was a modification made to the AI.24 Foxhunter during Operation Granby which made it possible for the pilot to connect one of the radar's two Traveling Wave Tubes to a noise generator, allowing for the radar to be used as a stand off jammer. Presumably they had something similar planned for ECR-90 in the proposed upgrades.
Click to expand...
That is a really slick trick!
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
1987 proposal. Tornado ADV cleared for Sea Eagle, ALARM and bombs. Offered to export customers and RAF for Buccaneer replacement. Stopped in 1988.

Tornado J

1987 proposal to Japan's FS-X program. Based on ADV airframe with features from IDS and ECR.
Click to expand...
Is there any more information about the Sea Eagle being cleared on the Tornado ADV? One of the prototypes of that aircraft was given two additional hardpoints if I recall, in order to test certain elements of the proposed version for Japan, so they seemed to be quite serious about Tornado at one point. Is there any information about that aircraft as well?
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Is there any more information about the Sea Eagle being cleared on the Tornado ADV?
Click to expand...

The RAF considered the Tornado F.3 and Tornado GR.4 as possible replacements for the Buccaneer in the ASUW role. They also considered the Nimrod (rejected for being too vulnerable and us just not having enough of them) and Sea Harrier (rejected for only carrying two Sea Eagles, and having poor range).

I've attached a 1989 paper from the National Archives (part of AIR 8/3959) which discusses the merits of each aircraft and concluded that the Tornado GR.4 was the best option to replace the Buccaneer. So I doubt the RAF put any serious effort into integrating Sea Eagle into the F.3. I'm not sure about any efforts for export customers though.

I've also attached an table comparing the F.3 and GR.4 (again from AIR 8/3959).
 

Attachments

  • Tornado Table Page 2.png
    Tornado Table Page 2.png
    825.2 KB · Views: 152
  • Tornado Table Page 1.png
    Tornado Table Page 1.png
    841.5 KB · Views: 104
  • Buccaneer Replacement - Assessment of Dual Role Capability.pdf
    8.9 MB · Views: 77
Thanks for sharing that paper Flame2512, very interesting. It would have been even more interesting to see how the F3 and GR4 compared to the Buccaneer and Harrier.

One thing that has me confused is the paper states that both the F3 and GR4 could carry 4x Sea Eagle with long range tanks. It doesn’t state what positions the missiles and tanks would be mounted. I thought Sea Eagle could only be mounted on the inboard wing pylons and two under the fuselage while the outer wing pylons are not plumbed for fuel thanks.

Does anyone know how it could have been done? Conformal centre line tank maybe?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0181.png
    IMG_0181.png
    593.5 KB · Views: 206
Flame2512 said:
I've attached a 1989 paper from the National Archives (part of AIR 8/3959) which discusses the merits of each aircraft and concluded that the Tornado GR.4 was the best option to replace the Buccaneer. So I doubt the RAF put any serious effort into integrating Sea Eagle into the F.3. I'm not sure about any efforts for export customers though.
Click to expand...
The brief discussion in the paper of the F.3 Weapon System Upgrade is also quite interesting - comparing to your Post #139 above, it seems to correspond to Option 3* from that study, suggesting that may have been a preferred capability.

It's also interesting to note that new-build Tornados seem to have been considered as part of this programme.
SteveO said:
Does anyone know how it could have been done? Conformal centre line tank maybe?
Click to expand...
The only way it makes sense is if the outer wing pylons were to be used for weapons, IMO. I don't know the weight limits on them, but running new wiring has to be easier than wiring and plumbing.
 
Tankers. Lots of tankers. Maritime strike support was another role for the RAF's tankers and I have a look at this in They Also Serve.
Yet another example of 'Nobody kicks ass without tanker gas' and the need for dedicated tankers. This need for maritime strike support was used as an argument against Winston Churchill when he was pimping out Freddie Laker's DC-10s.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Flame2512 said:
As far as I know in the context of Tornado's radar PLM stands for "Pilot Lock Mode", a mode which lets the pilot quickly lock on to a target during a dogfight (basically the pilot presses a button and radar locks onto whatever is in front of it, rather than the navigator having to select the target on the radar screen and lock it that way). Seems a little strange to list that it a feature though, as Foxhunter had it from the very begining. Maybe it means something else in this context. Or perhaps ECR-90 didn't have that mode originally and it was planned to be added (it seems unlikely that such a basic feature wouldn't be included though).

On the Tornado F.3 AURA stood for "Alternative Use of Radar Antenna". This was a modification made to the AI.24 Foxhunter during Operation Granby which made it possible for the pilot to connect one of the radar's two Traveling Wave Tubes to a noise generator, allowing for the radar to be used as a stand off jammer. Presumably they had something similar planned for ECR-90 in the proposed upgrades.
Click to expand...
AURA was around for TELIC and the EF3 and not GRANBY. For GRANBY we were lucky enough to get a working RADAR. As for the Pilot doing anything with the RADAR - that was the job of the Nav/WSO! If Biggles tried to touch the RADAR, then Biggles would get their fingers broken ;-)
 
Gaznav said:
AURA was around for TELIC and the EF3 and not GRANBY. For GRANBY we were lucky enough to get a working RADAR. As for the Pilot doing anything with the RADAR - that was the job of the Nav/WSO! If Biggles tried to touch the RADAR, then Biggles would get their fingers broken ;-)
Click to expand...
Only their fingers? A bit lame when there are far more valuable tools around........
 
P.148 Tornado 2000
 

Attachments

  • 20241106_194046.jpg
    20241106_194046.jpg
    2.9 MB · Views: 104
  • 20241106_194021.jpg
    20241106_194021.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 99
  • 20241106_194014.jpg
    20241106_194014.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 90
  • 20241106_194004.jpg
    20241106_194004.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 91
  • 20241106_193857.jpg
    20241106_193857.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 92
  • 20241106_193846.jpg
    20241106_193846.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 93
  • 20241106_193838.jpg
    20241106_193838.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 94
  • 20241106_194248.jpg
    20241106_194248.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 95
CJGibson said:
This need for maritime strike support was used as an argument against Winston Churchill when he was pimping out Freddie Laker's DC-10s.

Chris
Click to expand...

Ummmm... who are you talking about?

The only "Winston Churchill" I'm aware of died 5 1/6 years before the first flight of any DC-10.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom