Tornado Replacement

[ORAC]

Reuters, Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:09pm GMT: Germany plans to develop new fighter jet to replace Tornado (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-defence-jet-idUKKBN0U30PS20151220)

BERLIN

Germany plans to develop a new fighter jet to replace Tornado jets in the long term and it aims to hold initial talks with European partners in 2016 about what features they want in the aircraft, according to a document seen by Reuters on Sunday.

A draft document from the Defence Ministry on 'military aviation strategy' said it was still unclear whether the new jet would be manned or unmanned. It said it was also possible that the jet would be designed for both options and then be flown with or without a pilot depending on the type of deployment.

As it would be a European project, it is likely that one or more European companies would be chosen to develop the jet. The Tornado jet, which Germany has been using since 1981 - although it now also has the newer Eurofighter jet - was also made in an international consortium called Panavia.

At the same time, Germany's armed forces are looking into whether it would be possible to extend usage of the Tornado jets into the mid-2030s, the paper said. The Tornado jets had been due to be phased out in the mid-2020s.

A spokesman for the Defence Ministry said the document had not yet been agreed with the other ministries so he could not comment on it.

[Parson]

The US are cracking on with an optionally manned long range bomber and I expect the UK might look into hanging onto the coat tails of that.

[oldmansquipper]

Surprised they are not taking the UK view, i.e. "Get rid of Tornado anyway and just hang a few bombs on a couple of Typhoons remaining"


:sad:

[hoodie]

The US are cracking on with an optionally manned long range bomber and I expect the UK might look into hanging onto the coat tails of that.

At currently quoted prices of $half a billion a pop, I reckon there's some doubt about that.

[ORAC]

At currently quoted prices of $half a billion a pop, I reckon there's some doubt about that. Sheesh, it's only the price of 2 x F-35Bs (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398#.jooef45v8)....

[msbbarratt]

Under the current circumstances, is there anything particularly wrong with simply building more Tornadoes? We must have got them right by now... Can EJ200s be squeezed in?

[Kitbag]

Can EJ200s be squeezed in?

I was going to say no chance, however, it seems weights are pretty close, the EJ is 2 and a bit feet longer, but a bit slimmer. Don't see how they could incorporate TR, but those dimensions do allow some fettling room for adaptors or airframe changes. The intake matching may be the biggest problem, along with all that extra power that would probably exceed the thrust mounting design limits.

[msbbarratt]

I was going to say no chance, however, it seems weights are pretty close, the EJ is 2 and a bit feet longer, but a bit slimmer. Don't see how they could incorporate TR, but those dimensions do allow some fettling room for adaptors or airframe changes. The intake matching may be the biggest problem, along with all that extra power that would probably exceed the thrust mounting design limits. So it would stick out the end a bit, the tin work round the intakes may have to change, and they'd have to put a bigger end stop on the throttle lever. Doesn't sound like a complete no-no...

Perhaps if they left the intake design alone that might take care of the too-much-thrust problem?!

In the good ol' days they'd just sling a different engine in just to see what happened. Pretty difficult with the current layouts. I guess one advantage of pylon engine pods (B58 Hustler) is that you could improvise pretty easily. Perhaps we should be designing aircraft to look like that. Also I guess with the Sukhoi designs the engines are nearly podded below the air frame.

[mr fish]

I suggest they hand over the programme to the French and get them to build the whole thing.
the rafale turned out fine.


FISH.

[Mechta]

Whatever is proposed is going to have to be a sufficient leap in capability to make not buying off the shelf the best option. Its also going to have be cheap enough that ut can be built in sufficient quantity that its worth having.

Mr Fish, Maybe the Germans have realised just how expensive and painful joint ventures are, and will go it alone to get what they really want.

'Optionally manned' could mean the cockpit will be just another underwing stores option in future.

[Just This Once...]

The original EJ200 design specifically included a retrofit option for the Tornado.

The Germans last looked at fitting the EJ200 to some of their Tornados over 20 years ago. Where did all those years go?

[Frostchamber]

Wasn't the EJ200 originally intended to fit into an RB199 space, ie as a potential replacement powerplant for RB199-equipped aircraft? My memory grows dim... (I ask only because I've half a memory that it was, not because I'm suggesting a Tornado retrofit...) EDIT - posted before seeing JTO's comment.

[EAP86]

While the EJ200 was designed to fit in the RB199 hole, the ancillaries such as the gearbox aren't compatible (rotates different speed and direction) so it isn't too feasible to swap. ECS tappings are different too. I think studies were done for an ADV retrofit but the benefits were rather limited due to the high wing loading; there would only be a performance benefit where thrust was dominant.

EAP

[Thelma Viaduct]

As an attack aircraft, what would improve on Tornado's seemingly great attributes as a weapon delivery/recce platform?? Where is it lacking? range, payload, speed, loiter time, reliability, sensors, interoperability. Is it difficult to operate?

It's obviously not the stealthiest, although I'm sure the intake ram addition would be a interesting story to read one day.

You don't see enough Tornadoes round these parts anymore, just loads of Typhoon flying out of Warton, which is better than nothing i suppose.

[typerated]

more wing area


more thrust


more reliability :)

[Buster15]

Why does it need more wing area ?. I can agree on more thrust and more reliability. However, when the GR4 programme was configured, additional thrust was not a requirement, which now does seem very short sighted taking the current operational stores requirements. Not that long ago, an engine upgrade programme was proposed to either give additional thrust or life cycle enhancements. The engine reliability is now surprisingly good, especially with the GAF who have the improved Fan. EJ200 was looked at for the F3, but all the funding went to Typhoon. if the GAF are now only starting to look at a replacement, it looks like they will keep operating Tornado well beyond the 2025 timeframe and beyond. How very sensible of them.

[typerated]

More wing area?

To fly higher, turn better and carry more further.

Tornado was designed to be operated at low level high speed - it did that well but that environment is just an option not the automatic go to tactic these days.

[Davef68]

The US are cracking on with an optionally manned long range bomber and I expect the UK might look into hanging onto the coat tails of that.

We are in with the French for a Taranis/nEUROn derivative

Award of £120M Anglo-French Defence Co-Operation Contract (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158649/france%2C-uk-launch-%E2%82%AC250m%2C-two_year-feasibility-study-of-combat-uav.html)

In the meantime, further F-35s are likely to be the short term Tornado replacement

[ColdCollation]

Oh, if we're going down this path just build some new Buccaneers... :ok:

[msbbarratt]

Oh, if we're going down this path just build some new Buccaneers... :ok:

Great plane, antiquated avionics, etc.

It's interesting that there's not really anyone shouting that the systems on Tornado need chucking out and replacing. If the systems are generally OK and don't need a whole lot of updating, why not re-use them, keep them in a Tornado-shaped arrangement, and clad them with a new build Tornado-ish air-frame?

I guess we could make the air-frame bigger, maybe sit the crew side by side in an escape capsule, give it bigger engines and lots of fuel for huge range. Just so long as we don't put the digits 111 into its name...

[Heathrow Harry]

"...I expect the UK might look into hanging onto the coat tails of that."

We've never bought any bomber from the US after the B-29 - no B47, B52, B58, F111 (close shave), B1 or B2. Odlly they bought the Canberra from us.......

I guess they are too expensive, there are technology isssues (certainly on the B2) and the roles are different

[Courtney Mil]

My guess would be that any future government, especially the current one, is likely to inform us that they've just delivered a very generous SDSR and that they are buying F-35, which is supposed to keep dropping bombs for decades to come. They may also ask why, if the MoD wants a new bomber, are they paying for the new wonder jet and why is so much money being spent on expanding Typhoon capability?

I don't think they would see the logic for a new bomber. In any case, its traditional to wait until the old bombers are defunct and on the point of being scrapped (if not after they have been scrapped) before looking for something new.

[BEagle]

F-15 Silent Eagle built as a risk-shared development partnered by Boeing and an EU consortium?

F-15G Schlamm-Henne - 'G' for 'Germany! (For those who remember 1974!)

I guess 'Schlammigen Adler' might not go down too well...:eek:

[Parson]

Heathrow Harry - no, we didn't but that doesn't mean we won't in the future. As we know, times are a-changing and development costs are astronomical. Anyway, I only said we might look into it...

[Just This Once...]

The German musings, back in the day:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1992/1992%20-%201610.PDF

[Bucc Man]

I'm with CC, bring on the Buccaneer with new systems (but I might be biased) :ok:

[chopper2004]

It reminds me of 3 decades ago, in parallel with the then EAP program, the then MBB proposed the JF90 ,

cheers
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/MBB1_zpsqtgcrmhz.jpg

[Jackonicko]

Rafale would be a good complement to Typhoon.

[Bigbux]

The only modification the Luftwaffe made to their Tonka fleets was to re-fuel them. I think this is the German response to UAV development as they probably want to grow their own expertise in the field, rather like they did with Taurus and Iris-T.

A whole aircraft programme is ambitious though, but while the UK piles money into housebuilding, failing to provide apprenticeships for future UK brickies, the Luftwaffe will be churning aerospace engineers through university and TechnischeSchule to support this programme. And all funded by their 1.5% of GDP NATO contribution.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Harry - no, we didn't but that doesn't mean we won't in the future. As we know, times are a-changing and development costs are astronomical. Anyway, I only said we might look into it..."

I'm sure the SO's in the RAF would love to buy a state-of-art US penetration bomber but you hit the nail on the head - development costs are through the roof and even the USAF can't afford the aircraft they spec.

The B2 cost $2 Bn per aircraft and costs $135k an hour to run

The UK Defence Budget is around £ 38 Bn a year ...........

[Onceapilot]

Well, I rekon we have had a "US" Bomber with the AV-8B.;) F-35 is a similar multi-role airframe. Don't think we will ever get another strategic "bomber", this side of a World-order meltdown.:oh:

OAP

[Mil-26Man]

The B2 cost $2 Bn per aircraft

It cost $2 billion to build each aircraft, or that's the total programme cost divided by the number of aircraft built? Genuine question.

[cokecan]

quick question regarding a German/European developed new aircraft.

given the fun and games that have occured with German pissing about in both the Typhoon and A400M programmes, would anyone have any interest whatsoever in getting involved?

[Bigbux]

quick question regarding a German/European developed new aircraft.

given the fun and games that have occured with German pissing about in both the Typhoon and A400M programmes, would anyone have any interest whatsoever in getting involved?

I think you make a very important point. In terms of programme and cost risk, multi-nation JVs can be severely impacted by political change - as we have seen. I wonder if the Germans are courting partnerships from the Eastern side of Europe, rather than the usual suspects.

[Mechta]

I wonder if the Germans are courting partnerships from the Eastern side of Europe, rather than the usual suspects.

Perhaps, but the East Europeans might take exception to it being called 'Stuka II'... :}

[Heathrow Harry]

"It cost $2 billion to build each aircraft, or that's the total programme cost
divided by the number of aircraft built? Genuine question."

Programe cost but that's what the taxpayer has to shell out so thats the critical number for National Budgets etc

Some other (VERY LARGE) numbers:-

In 1996 the Clinton administration,authorized the conversion of a 21st bomber, a prototype (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype) test model, to Block 30 fully operational status at a cost of nearly $500 million.

In 1995, Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyaway_cost) of $566 million each.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#cite_note-Ency_Mod_Mil-33)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#cite_note-Ency_Mod_Mil-33)
In 1996, the General Accounting Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office) (GAO) disclosed that the USAF's B-2 bombers "will be, by far, the most costly bombers to operate on a per aircraft basis", costing over three times as much as the B-1B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer) (US$9.6 million annually) and over four times as much as the B-52H (US$6.8 million annually).

In September 1997, each hour of B-2 flight necessitated 119 hours of maintenance in turn. Comparable maintenance needs for the B-52 and the B-1B are 53 and 60 hours respectively for each hour of flight. Maintenance costs are about $3.4 million a month for each aircraft.

The total "military construction" cost related to the program was projected to be US$553.6 million in 1997 dollars. The cost to procure each B-2 was US$737 million in 1997 dollars, based only on a fleet cost of US$15.48 billion.

The procurement cost per aircraft as detailed in GAO reports, which include spare parts and software support, was $929 million per aircraft in 1997 dollars.

The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts.

The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft. The B-2 cost up to $135,000 per flight hour to operate in 2010, which is about twice that of the B-52 and B-1.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#cite_note-axe20120326-37)

[peter we]

http://www.pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/08/03.xls

For anyone interested in Air Force's Total Ownership Cost, costs per flight per hour, up to 2013.

Shockingly expensive MV-22...

[A and C]

A very interesting set of numbers........ But over the last year the RAF's most expensive types per flying hour are both gliders !

[Onceapilot]

Honest question A and C, where can I get those sort of numbers from please?

OAP

[peter we]

The Air Force maintains a data base on the cost to operate and support its aircraft. It's called the "AFCAP" database which is a part of the Air Force's Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC) program. It is available on public request from the Air Force Comptroller's office. Data from the 2013 version of the AFCAP database, the latest available, is at the POGO website here.

We have worked with this annually available data for the last few years, using it for analysis, reports and articles. While it has not been yet verified by an independent audit by an outsider like GAO, it is the most comprehensive data available on the operating and support costs for Air Force aircraft. It includes all known Air Force costs to keep its aircraft operating, as well as contractor supplied logistics and services. One variation of the cost estimates, known as "Ownership" cost, even includes the cost to modify aircraft with upgrades.

Chuck Hagel's A-10 Legacy (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2014/chuck-hagels-a-10-legacy.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/)
Jan 2014.

I've not found a newer version or the original source of the XLS. Presumably, you could request it from here?

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/questions/index.asp

Figures are averages. Some Wings of the f-16 cost twice as much as others, with the KC-135 its 3x

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/TR1200/TR1275/RAND_TR1275.pdf

[Heathrow Harry]

think we could ask the MoD for the UK equivalent numbers to be published????

[ShotOne]

Being as Germany doesn't seem have much interest even in maintaining it's present fleet of Tornadoes, its hard to see a shiny new replacement coming in any time soon. The fact that it's not even been decided whether they want an aeroplane or RPAS suggests we needn't hold our breath.

[exhorder]

This proposal, clearly, is meant to test the waters in order to decide what to do after Tornado. After all the mess we've been causing with most multi-national aviation programs, I currently can't see anybody risking to develop another expensive aircraft with the Germans.

Even more importantly, the Tornado replacement in ITA and GBR has already been decided. So it may well be the result of this proposal - "well, we haven't found anybody willing to cooperate, so we have to look for what's available right now".

"Coincidentally", I know that the German MoD is actually looking into different options on how to deal with Tornado. Another extension of its service life (possibly up to 2040) is one of them. However, purchasing a new, market-ready aircraft is being seriously considered.*

Given the growing awareness of the German public for defense matters, and considering the crucial role of Tornado with regards to Nuclear Sharing, an American aircraft may well be the answer. F-35G anyone? :E

_________________
* This is actually not as improbable as it may seem. Quite recently, the MoD ordered the CH-53G out-of-service date to be brought forward, and since the European HTH program is officially dead, the replacement will be, has to be a "foreign" helicopter.

[Heathrow Harry]

"After all the mess we've been causing with most multi-national aviation programs, I currently can't see anybody risking to develop another expensive aircraft with the Germans."

but then who do we deal with? It seems no major aircarft programme can be executed outside the USA and maybe Russia

The UK has had some terrible experiences with just about every European country on all sorts of weapons (frigates anyone?)

Until the European defence industry is genuinly pan-european with only one or two contractors countries will always bend and twist to maximise advantages for their own boys at home

The French often go their own way but it's very expensive and very risky if what you build doesn't sell overseas so you have to accept a less than state-of the art solution in order to maximise export potential

The UK always goes for the best, most expensive kit and thus we have problems exporting

[bakseetblatherer]

The UK always goes for the best, most expensive kit and thus we have problems exporting

I disagree with the best bit, but yes the most expensive is often true!

[msbbarratt]

I disagree with the best bit, but yes the most expensive is often true!We aim for the best but struggle to build it. I've seen it all over - multi-role-do-anything specifications that are way over the top for the scenarios we actually have to deal with day-to-day. We then struggle to build things to those specs, thus draining all the money from the budgets.

The real cost is the manpower, their salaries and future pensions. By having multi-role equipment we also have multi-role people. That's kind of the unwritten requirement of all the big kit we build.

Same People, More Kit
Maybe the whole thing would be cheaper overall if we had single role equipment with multi-role people? E.g. pilots who can fly a pure fighter and also a pure ground attack aircraft. They'd have to learn both trades in a multi-role aircraft anyway.

It would mean a lot of kit being parked up for long periods of time, but that might be far cheaper than smaller quantities of multi-role kit that costs a ton of cash to make it work at all.

[oldmansquipper]

Shame we no longer have Jags or even the bionic budgies to drop bombs and shoot things. However...are those surplus A-10s still sitting in the desert?;)

They seem like an ideal way of dealing with `so called`

[just another jocky]

They seem like an ideal way of dealing with `so called`

Really? It's slow so has a very poor reaction time if the TiC is far away, has to carry many different types of weapon to deliver the same effect as GR4 does with 2 weapon types and therefore can only carry a very limited number of them. GR4 can carry 3 x Paveway 4 programmable high-collateral bombs, 3 low-collateral DMS Brimstone missiles and the gun is very accurate and low-collateral, is much faster and has 2 crew so far easier to manage radios/9-lines/RoE etc.

On the plus side, it has a justifiably proud service history and they carry sat phones.

The gun is good, as long as there are no friendlies nearby.

[Thelma Viaduct]

It's difficult to see and justify where GR4 could be improved upon. How many billion would a new build strike aircraft cost? Would it be worth it to bomb high vis white Toyota pickups and a couple of hipster bearded bed sheet attired AK packing Durka Durkas holding hands on Honda 50s???

[msbbarratt]

It's difficult to see and justify where GR4 could be improved upon. How many billion would a new build strike aircraft cost? Would it be worth it to bomb high vis white Toyota pickups and a couple of hipster bearded bed sheet attired AK packing Durka Durkas holding hands on Honda 50s??? Ah, a cost/benefit analysis!

I agree, on the face of it at the moment there seems to be no need for anything other than a GR4.

If we were to build a new aircraft, couldn't we do a Super-Tornado (think: Super-Hornet vs the Hornet)? Keeping the air frame shape the same but bigger sounds low risk, it would make room for the EJ200, it could be beefed up where necessary to take the additional thrust, all the existing systems would fit (maybe there'd be room for future additional systems). You'd end up with more wing area, probably not too much extra weight, a load more thrust, more fuel, the same weapons capability + room to grow, and there may even be room for an extra pylon here and there. As far as new builds are concerned it ought to be the cheapest "new" design available to us.

What's not to like?! Or am I talking out of my :mad:?

[AtomKraft]

Better idea would be to put the Skyraider back into production.

Get the tool for the job.

[msbbarratt]

Better idea would be to put the Skyraider back into production.Why, do we need to drop toilets on an enemy?

USS Midway - VA-25 Toilet Bomb (http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/)

I wonder if they did any drop tests before clearing the pan for use?

[ORAC]

msb, you think any of that would be cheap?

Far cheaper just to buy off the shelf F-18G Growlers and hang Brimstone off them. Then You'd also have a stand-off EW platform to improve the F-35Bs chances on Day-1 against a modern AD system.......

[Thelma Viaduct]

Does the Tornado ECR have any standoff jamming ability? If so, can the kit be fitted to GR4?

What made the EF-3 so effective in its SEAD role? I remember reading about it being an excellent platform. Not sure why it was given the capability when GR4 carried ALARM anyway??

[msbbarratt]

msb, you think any of that would be cheap?

Far cheaper just to buy off the shelf F-18G Growlers and hang Brimstone off them. Then You'd also have a stand-off EW platform to improve the F-35Bs chances on Day-1 against a modern AD system.......

I started out with...

If we were to build a new aircraft,

If we were determined to build our own new design, doing it the way I outlined could be the cheapest. Particularly as an awful lot of the man power (training, etc) and systems costs (we'd be reusing the designs we've already got) would be tiny.

Obviously if we were not interested in owning the design then buying off the peg is going to be cheaper still. But then we'd have no control over it.

[glad rag]

I started out with...



If we were determined to build our own new design, doing it the way I outlined could be the cheapest. Particularly as an awful lot of the man power (training, etc) and systems costs (we'd be reusing the designs we've already got) would be tiny.

Obviously if we were not interested in owning the design then buying off the peg is going to be cheaper still. But then we'd have no control over it.

Spot on :D:D.



Look at the F-35 program for further clarification.......how obsolete [in the broadest sense] will it be when it finally gets on the carrier and how will we be able to materially offset this..we won't.

[t43562]

Could one reuse the typhoon design in some way? Presumably it is expensive for some good reasons but I wonder what they are and whether you could drop them for an aircraft not intended for air superiority?

The lines are running so presumably there might be some economy in designing an aircraft that was similar.

[skylon]

I suggest they hand over the programme to the French and get them to build the whole thing.
the rafale turned out fine.



Good comment..Yes, if thats true which I believe is, it clearly confirmes once again the fact that the Eurofighter is not good in air-to -ground roles.it was developed as a pure interceptor..If you have the Rafale, you don't need anything else, very agile dogfighter with impressive ground attack capability and capable of operating from carriers as well.

[msbbarratt]

Could one reuse the typhoon design in some way? Presumably it is expensive for some good reasons but I wonder what they are and whether you could drop them for an aircraft not intended for air superiority?

The lines are running so presumably there might be some economy in designing an aircraft that was similar.

It's well known that they're giving Typhoon a level of ground attack capability. The real questions are whether that's ever going to be enough, will it be available in time, will it be all we need once Tornado GR4s finally retire, will it be better / worse than GR4s?

If they can do all that, then Typhoon could be a really good replacement for Tornado. However, if we're to take Wikipedia at face value, Tornado can carry 1.5 tons more payload than Typhoon. In the ground attack role, I reckon tonnage counts.

[Courtney Mil]

What made the EF-3 so effective in its SEAD role? I remember reading about it being an excellent platform. Not sure why it was given the capability when GR4 carried ALARM anyway??

The fine azimuth resolution due to the different positioning of the forward RHWR antennae.

[Thelma Viaduct]

The fine azimuth resolution due to the different positioning of the forward RHWR antennae.

Can you expand on that? Could GR4 have been given the forward RHWR antennae or not possible? Ta

[cokecan]

i don't think thats the case anymore - Tornado, F-15E etc.. were designed/built when to be effective warloads had to be at 8x 1000lb unguided bombs or CBU's or more - whats the warload of a GR4 now? 3x 500lb GBU and 3x Brimstone, and thats six targets, not one....

much as i'm a fan of GR4, and the idea of a rebuild with more powerful engines, more fuel etc.. appeals, i rather imagine that in cost terms it would actually be cheaper in the long run to buy more Typhoon/F-35, and that Tornado's basic shape is always going to be a massive radar reflector compared to the Typhoon or F-35, meaning that New Tornado is infact unuseable from its entry into service...

[ORAC]

The point here is what is the GAF and possible partners after?

When the Typhoon was designed the GAF was after a fighter to replace their F4s and the RAF was after a light bomber to replace the Jaguar with it's, then, limited capability. Hence the initial limited GA capability.

Now, the GAF is after a Tornado replacement and wants an effective bomber/EW platform.

Two of it's Tornado partners, Italy and UK, have already made their choice - F-35, and don't need another platform in the same time frame.Most other nations need an F-16 platform and have/will go for either F-35 or Gripen. That effectively leaves France which will need to replace their Mirage 2000N/D in the same timeframe. So I'd turn my eyes to Dassault.

If the RAF need to fill the gap for a couple of years till Typhoon has a full capability, then the GR4 will just have to have another extension/LEP.

As to building a "new", Tornado, it's the same argument as a "new" F-18. The world has moved on, suppliers and technology are no longer available - and new choices are preferable.

If low-level isn't the preferred option, why carry around the weight and complexity of a swing-wing? It was the option for about 10 years, but with improved CFD other lighter designs work - so change the wing?

Then you change the engine, so that moves the CoG, and redesign the intakes to be a bit more stealthy. And with modern flight control computers you can make it more unstable and reduce the size/weight of the tail surfaces.

And when you've worked your way down a long list, you end up with 20-25% commonality, and a compromised design which... you realise is more expensive and less capable than starting with a clean sheet of paper. So you start over again.

[glad rag]

Can you expand on that? Could GR4 have been given the forward RHWR antennae or not possible? Ta

Anythings possible with the £££ behind it.

[Fatnfast]

As far as I recall, the two forward RHWR antennas (nib antennas) on the F3; were mounted where the Kreuger flaps are on the GR4. Coarse direction finding of the received signal was done by measuring phase difference between the starboard & port antennas. Fine direction finding was then done by measuring phase difference between antennas on one side.

[Just This Once...]

I don't think I have ever flown a GR with the Kruegers enabled and the F3 was built without them. However, it is possible to fit nib antennas above even fully-functioning Kruegers (shown here extended at 116 deg, with the black RF transparency above):

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/taste_jones/Picture1-20.png

If you want really big forward antennas then you can fit an assembly that completely replaces the original flap/nib structure, as per the Tornado ECR.

[Lowe Flieger]

At first glance I found this news item a bit puzzling. Having thought about it a bit more and read other opinions, I am still unsure what Germany's objectives are, nor why it is Germany that is leading the way in a new platform development. The most convincing conclusion I can deduce from from minimal knowledge is that it might support an industrial and high-technology business strategy for the benefit of German industry, but I admit this is pure conjecture.

The questions I have asked myself are:

Why is it a Tornado replacement?

Are there not enough fully, or partly, developed platforms available in relatively short order: Typhoon/SuperHornet/Gripen/Rafale/F35? At least some of which options would be politically acceptable, cheaper, less risky and available much earlier than a new design-and-build project that probably has a minimum 20 year gestation period if recent developments are any guideline. If it is a replacement for Typhoon et al, then OK, it may be the right time to start thinking about that for 2035 - 2040.

Why is it Germany that is pushing for a new platform?

For historical reasons, Germany is not the most belligerent of combatants so why is a new aircraft a priority? Sure, they need to modernise and rebuild their air force but one of the above aircraft should be able to do what they need for the next 25 years, at lower risk and cost.

Do they covet an advanced, stealthy, networking, all-seeing, all-sensing, all-dancing, unmanned platform developed from Taranis/Neuron?

It makes sense in that you are bringing a new capability to the party, but again, why would it be Germany pushing for it? The technical and political complexity and astronomical cost for a relatively small and uncertain market means it would be a huge risk. Of course Germany will get industrial and design leadership as it will purchase the most aircraft – 300, check 250, check 175......well, a few anyway – so it has potential economic benefits for them.

And the probable outcome?

I can't see a collective appetite for a new version of the Tornado. The risk and cost of producing something that significantly out-performs the current aircraft could get so high that it would call into question the wisdom of that scale of investment in an old platform. I therefore expect some kind of service life extension/modest upgrade programme to keep the current airframes available for a few more years. Such an aircraft would probably do most everything that Germany would need to use it for in the near to medium term, and an existing '4th or 5th generation' platform to fill the gap thereafter.

The UK is already committed to the combination of an interceptor which can bomb – Typhoon, combined with the bomber that can intercept – F35, even if ideally you would want to be able to deploy both for maximum effect and optimum role selection - distance from a land base may determine which asset(s) can be deployed. What comes after Typhoon/F35 is a bit hazy. I don't think we have made up our minds yet. Some sort of optionally manned aircraft hedges our bets for a bit while we decide if the future as predicted in 1957 will be a reality come 2030 onwards. Will that future be European or American led? (putting more easterly developments to one side as they will probably not be options for European customers, at least not within the range of my crystal ball.)

LF

[Buster15]

As I am sure you know, there is a lot more to do with turning than just wing area. The F3 had effectively the same wing as GR1/4. It stuggled as a result of low specific turn rate and a lot of this was due to its low specific excess power. In the lead up to the Gulf War, a number of RAF F3's were fitted with engines with a bigger mass flow and higher pressur ratio LP Compressor (Fan) borrowed from the german air force ECR aircraft. These engines delivered about an extra 3Kn thrust each and because STR and SEP are non-dimensional, even a small thrust inctrese had a big effect on aircraft performance. However, after this conflict, the RAF decided not to embody this Fan, partly due to concerns over fatigue index (FI) consumption. As far as increased altitude, a bigger wing would develop more drag making the engines having to work much harder than they do already.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Will aircraft RCS become less important as the diminishing returns (pardon the pun) of it in advanced SAM threat environments become too expensive to purchase and maintain?

Life extend the Tornado GR4, give it AESA, improved engines, Stealthy standoff weaponry (son of Storm Shadow), SPEAR, UCAV control, 2 x Meteor on external shoulder hardpoints (ala ALARM) for a big sting.

[WhiteOvies]

My take on it is that the Germans are just asking the question to test the waters and political will. EADS is involved in Neuron, but will that develop into anything useful in time to replace Tornado? Will German airspace policy come around to the idea of drones at all, given the issues they had with Global Hawk procurement?

The Germans have a history of flying their aircraft types longer than other European countries (eg F-101 and F-4) so why not keep Tornado going longer?

If I was the Germans I would look to the UK to pay for Stormshadow and Brimstone integration on Typhoon before buying the Tranche 3 jets with all the lessons learned from RAF intro to service.

[Just This Once...]

One thinks the Germans have somewhat undermined their apparent indifference to the ground attack development of Typhoon. Strutting around saying that they 'will not pay' as they 'do not need' is now at odds with their 'new' desires.

The partner nations will be less than keen on any suggestion that the Germans intend for the other nations to foot the bill alone. We have been around this buoy once before and a settlement was reached; I suspect this will happen again and perhaps the Typhoon development will be the better for it.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Was the F-14 or F-15 ever considered by the MOD for the Tornado ADV role?

[LowObservable]

I'm sure Germany's northern neighbor would be open to a discussion about doing with JAS 39E systems and technologies what M Dassault did, when he grew the Mirage III into the IV.

[Finningley Boy]

Was the F-14 or F-15 ever considered by the MOD for the Tornado ADV role?

Thelma,

They most certainly did, and the F-16 as well. To recollect correctly, there was a proposed by of Tornados by the US, or they would receive so many tooff set the cost of buying F-15s, the F-16 was discounted due to its stubby legs. I think the F-14 was just too pricey, but the F-15 was nearly acquired not in place of the ADV necessarily but as part of a mix Fighter Force. One idea,if I recall right, was to replace just the Lightnings with F-15s and they would have been based at Binbrook, but for the full SP see if you can get a copy of my book 'Fading Eagle' I covered that story quite well but my memory doesn't always serve quite as well as it used to.

Best

FB

[Davef68]

Alternatives to the ADV were considered on more than one occasion if I recall correctly. F-14 and F-15 before the ADV was ordered, as FB says, F14 fitted the bill for a long range interceptor for the Northern UKADR but was too expensive. F15 was acknowledged as an excellent fighter but lacking a Nav/RIO/WSO was not thought suitable for the all weather interceptor role (this was the A model).

I think an offer of F15s was made at a later date that involved the US buy of Tornados for the Wild Weasel role as an offset (The figure of 80 Eagles sticks in my mind). I think this was when delays started to appear in Typhoon.

Michael Portillo considered an F-16 lease as a stop gap for Tuyphoon when Defence Secretary

[Thelma Viaduct]

Thanks for the info. Just looking at some specs, it seems the F-14 is of similar length to the ADV but was blessed with a wing area twice as large. Also surprisingly, the range of the ADV seems to be substantially greater than the F-14. Was manoeuvrability a requirement for the Northern QRA task or endurance more important? Would the roe have allowed Phoenix to be used?

It would be interesting to know the difference in price/cost between the two a/c.

I believe it took a fair few years for the F3 to become potent, but for how many years was it substandard?

[Vendee]

I believe it took a fair few years for the F3 to become potent, but for how many years was it substandard?I think it was always substandard ;)

It didn't have the flexability to operate out of its original cold war role, unlike the combat proven GR1/4 which is still performing sterling work today.

[Evalu8ter]

Thelma,
There is a tendency to view the F-14A through some very rose tinted spectacles. It was the best all-round interceptor in NATO in the late 1970s.....when it worked. The -A was dogged with engine problems with the "stopgap" TF30, causing the loss of a significant number of aircraft (nearly 30% of all mishaps) and a complex weapon system and troublesome hydraulics. Grumman was at the verge of bankruptcy in the mid 70s and was bailed out by the Iranians as the Shah preferred the F14 to the F15 for his specific needs (including intercepting MiG-25s). Much like the F3, the F14 only realised its true potential late in life as the F-14B and F-14D - which was very much the fighter it always should have been. I think it's been written on here before that RAF officers were banned from being seen publicly inspecting F14s/F15s at airshows as to not undermine the "home bid". Wrt F16 lease, the rumour I heard was that Portillo offered a wing of F16s to replace the Jaguar force but the RAF brass turned him down as they feared it would put Typhoon numbers (and their future jobs.....) at risk.

Vendee - a bit harsh. A lot of work was done on the SEAD mod to the F3; it was just decided not to field it.

[Vendee]

Evalu8ter.... you may think it harsh but history will judge on what actually happened, rather than what may have been. Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the F3 ever fired a shot in anger.

[glad rag]

I think it was always substandard ;)

It didn't have the flexability to operate out of its original cold war role, unlike the combat proven GR1/4 which is still performing sterling work today.


Well you are entitled to your "opinion" but as the airframe was designed to loiter far offshore then dash and launch at either incoming sov bombers or cruise missiles it did it's job perfectly.

After the incremental improvements both to avionics and weapons it was a formidable interceptor; the SEAD role alone shows the versatility of the avionics and airframe...I don't think it was ever designated as a "fighter"; in those times we had the MFF for that...

Still, it won't be long before the real money spinners take over the show :ugh:

[Vendee]

Well you are entitled to your "opinion" but as the airframe was designed to loiter far offshore then dash and launch at either incoming sov bombers or cruise missiles it did it's job perfectly.Well just a couple of points... it never had to launch at an incoming bomber so we don't actually know if it "would" have been perfect at it's job but as I said originally, it didn't have the flexibility to perform outside that cold war "loiter" role. The GR1 had a low level cold war role but was able to perform different roles at different altitudes and to do it very well.

[glad rag]

Well just a couple of points... it never had to launch at an incoming bomber so we don't actually know if it "would" have been perfect at it's job but as I said originally, it didn't have the flexibility to perform outside that cold war "loiter" role. The GR1 had a low level cold war role but was able to perform different roles at different altitudes and to do it very well.

As I stated. There's opinion: Then there’s knowledge.

[Vendee]

As I stated. There's opinion: Then there’s knowledge......and then there's the facts.

[glad rag]

Yes, we should all be grateful for the fact that the F3 was never called to carry out it's primary duty in defence of mainland UK.
It did carry out that role [and others] in various operational theatres around the globe.

The fact that it deterred aggression is an additional plus.

[Courtney Mil]

It didn't have the flexability to operate out of its original cold war role, unlike the combat proven GR1/4 which is still performing sterling work today.

Actually, no. It was just the job for the Gulf War 1, UK QRA, Telic, Southern Watch, Bosnia, etc. Perfect for escort, CAP and long range patrols. It had the legs, persistence and (by then) really good systems. In some respects, it was post-Cold War that it really came into its own.

[Evalu8ter]

Vendee,
No-one's disputing that it never fired a shot in anger (though some got close....). My comment was based on your assertion of a lack of flexibility - the airframe and systems seemed well suited to the SEAD/ECR role as envisaged. With the Airships bemoaning "critical mass" and the rather nasty prospect of entering areas with the like of S-400 located in them, a couple of sqns of flexible support aircraft would probably be quite welcome.....maybe we could talk to the Germans about some ECR mods to some GR4s and extend OSD?

[Vendee]

My own recollection from GW1 was that the F3 was kept well to the rear. I'm not sure there was much of an airbourne threat in the other ops you mentioned

[jonw66]

Leon may put you right on that but I'll take a back seat

[Courtney Mil]

Vendee,

I think you're deliberately confusing events with capability. But if that suits your obvious stance (without any real reason) then good for you.

[LowObservable]

Wrt F16 lease, the rumour I heard was that Portillo offered a wing of F16s to replace the Jaguar force but the RAF brass turned him down as they feared it would put Typhoon numbers (and their future jobs.....) at risk.

Can you post a trigger warning before you mention that exercise? I was involved in some of the discussions, and the thought of staring down the barrels of Messrs Carter-Ruck gives me the heebie-jeebies to this day.

Had it all gone differently, there would be no Typhoon...

[glad rag]

My own recollection from GW1 was that the F3 was kept well to the rear. I'm not sure there was much of an airbourne threat in the other ops you mentioned

Perhaps you need to chat with Sharky :yuk: to get the real deal.....

http://yesterdazelolz.com/wp-content/uploads/Smilies/smiley_salute.gif

winchester

[Evalu8ter]

LO - apologies old chap! As I said, it was just a rumour.......:E

[Vendee]

I think you're deliberately confusing events with capability. But if that suits your obvious stance (without any real reason) then good for you.Courtney Mil, another way of putting that would be to say I'm confusing what actually happened with what might have happened and if so, I'm guilty as charged. I don't have an agenda as you seem to imply but I do think that the GR1/GR4 has been a much more effective and flexible aircraft than the F2/F3 was.

[Courtney Mil]

You're comparing a bomber's service record with an interceptor's. And, no, it has nothing to do with "what might have happened". None of that is meaningful evidence for your "substandard" or "it didn't have the flexibility to perform outside the Cold War" comments.

You state your case with the certainty of an experienced F3 operator, but your obvious bias (I eluded to no agenda) suggests otherwise.

[BEagle]

In its twilight years, with Link 16, AMRAAM, ASRAAM and the Stage 3 version of AI-24, the Tornado F3 was a formidable interceptor.

But spotters :8 and 'Top Gun' followers will continue to believe that manoeuvrability and Tom Cruise antics matter more...:rolleyes:

[Thelma Viaduct]

In its twilight years, with Link 16, AMRAAM, ASRAAM and the Stage 3 version of AI-24, the Tornado F3 was a formidable interceptor.

But spotters :8 and 'Top Gun' followers will continue to believe that manoeuvrability and Tom Cruise antics matter more...:rolleyes:

So the F-14 would have been a better option for the 80's, 90's early 00's???

[jonw66]

Beagle sums it up very well as ever.

[just another jocky]

I don't think I have ever flown a GR with the Kruegers enabled and the F3 was built without them. However, it is possible to fit nib antennas above even fully-functioning Kruegers (shown here extended at 116 deg, with the black RF transparency above):

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/taste_jones/Picture1-20.png

If you want really big forward antennas then you can fit an assembly that completely replaces the original flap/nib structure, as per the Tornado ECR.

Where did you get that pic m8?

The Kreuger Flaps were disabled back in the late 80's and that looks like a more modern pic (grey colour scheme, LAU, dark grey pilot helmet). I flew with them during training and iirc, on my first tour; a lot of weight to reduce the approach speed by a few knots (can't remember the actual number, but 7 rings a bell).

Vendee, drop the anti-F3 thing m8. The F3 did what the GR4 has done...towards the end of its time, proved itself to be an outstanding package. :)

edit: a German Tornado? The navs helmet gives it away I think. I guess they still use the Kreugers.

[Just This Once...]

I don't think the Germans use the Kruegers on the IDS anymore (unless things have changed) and they are not fitted to the ECR variant either. I think Italy is the only nation with operable Kruegers now, but I am a bit out of the loop.

I think 7 kts was claimed but our FRCs only gave a 4 kts reduction (my brain cells are probably in a worse state than yours though).

http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2009/12/7/72050as.jpg

[Kitbag]

I think JTO is right, plus it looks like the aircraft in the pic has the Italian ice cream cone under the fuselage

[just another jocky]

That is an Italian Tornado, indeed both photos are now that you've pointed it out. :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Vendee

As others have already said on here, the F3 at the end showed that you could 'polish a turd'. The early F2 was very poor and the F3 at introduction to service was also poor (but better than F2).

The F14A and F15A was equally poor. The Tomcat-A RADAR was pretty much a 'blue water' only piece of kit and coupled to its engine issues then it wasn't a good choice. The Eagle-A was equally poor to start with - to quote a mate coming back off exchange on an early Eagle Sqn he said the RADAR wasn't much better than the Lightning! :sad:

However, the US had way more money to spend on their underperforming aircraft. The Tomcat-D with "Bombcat" mods was excellent and the F-15C Eagle is undoubtedly the best jet combat aircraft ever produced with the Beagle (that's the bomb carrying Eagle - not everyone's favourite Pruner!) proves that it is easier to make a good bomber from a fighter than the other way around! I understand that BAe sold the ADV to the Govt by picking areas of the performance envelope that the F14 and F15 couldn't match - low level loiter (due to the high-bypass engines), low level acceleration and top speed (due to high wing-loading and variable geometry). Competition was duly won and the rest was history!

No, the F3 never fired a shot in anger. She was at the very front in the early days of GW1 in 1990 - flying CAPs to deter Saddam rolling into Saudi (as we subsequently found out, this was his intended aim). She and her crews aquitted herself well considering she had no self-defence aids and a pretty poor RADAR. Then came Stage 1+ with loads of bells and whistles - a real improvement and were it not for an oversight of the importance of a Mode 4 interrogator then she was more than capable of sitting up front with the rest of the fighters of the day. However, her NVG fit gave her a unique capability for use in GW1 - sadly the Iraqis didn't fly too much at night! So these were the big reasons why Stage 1+ F3 'sucked the hind teat' in GW1 - lack of a Mode 4 interrogator and a great night capability.

The F3 replaced the F4 for QRA in the UK and Falkland Islands and performed intercepts required of it come rain or shine.

Moving onto Bosnia, many of us found Serbian helos flying in the 'No Fly Zone' but there was no appetite for us to engage from the UN or NATO chains of command. The first air engagements by NATO in Feb 1994 were by F16s that were flying the same timings that the F3s of 29(F) Sqn had been flying for the previous 7 days or so - a day later 6 Jastreb and 2 Orao attacked Bosnia and the AWACS vectored the F16s to intercept. Had the F3s been flying that day they would have been more than a match for the Jastreb (which is not much better than a Jet Provost) and the Orao (like a Jaguar aircraft). During Op DENY FLIGHT the F3 flew operationally with the Towed RADAR Decoy (TRD) - the first operational fast jet to do so successfully and the US liked it so much that they brought in their own version a few years later. Yet again, the F3 was supreme at night and also in bad weather (as it was designed to be).

Around the time of Op DESERT FOX the F3 was sent to protect the High Value Air Assets (HVAA) of AWACS, Nimrod and RIVET JOINT from continued attempts by Saddam's air forces to bring one down. It also flew sweep/escort for various bomber/SEAD/Recce packages and flew as far North as the RoE would allow (just South of Baghdad). The TRD gave it greater protection from surface to air threats than any other self defence system employed on any fast jet, the correlation of fighter RADAR primary tracks and JTIDS tracks from other assets was 2nd to none at that time and the on board Radar Warning and Homing Reciever (RHWR) was still the best fitted in any fast jet (better than GR1/GR4). During this time there were several near engagements of Iraqi MiGe (including my own) that were within a couple of miles of launching missiles only for the Iraqi to turn tail and head back over the delineating line of the No Fly Zone - exciting times...but we did our job without having to launch a £500k missile.

Roll on to GW2. Whilst the Iraq No Fly Zone work was ongoing the F3 Op Evaluation Unit (OEU) trialled successfully the use of the TIALD targetting pod on the F3 - it could now do swing role if needed (answering Vendee's criticism of being a 'one trick pony'). However, like others before, it was not taken forward as it might 'endanger' the GR4 modification program. Furthermore, the F3 was modified into the 'EF-3' variant; capable of firing the Air Launched Anti Radiation Missile (ALARM) reactively to pop-up RADAR threats using the RHWR and JTIDS to triangulate in near real-time and it also had a stand-off RADAR jamming capability for self protection or for protecting strike packages - in all a British 'Wild Weasel'. It is rumoured that the British Air Commander, himself a Tornado GR man, did not want the EF3 as it would likely see more GR squadrons be disbanded after the war if the EF3 was a success - he was probably right, it would have and he was an astute man.

As BEagle says, towards the end of its life the F3 was as good as we were going to allow it to get - it couldn't be allowed to be better than Typhoon or the axe might fall in a Defence Review on the new wonder jet. Granted the F3 was a high-wing loaded and high bypass engined bomber aircraft converted into an interceptor, but it was still a good combat aircraft when it left service and I would still happily go to a shooting war today in the old girl. She did have her foibles, but so does every jet!

In short, no combat losses of a F3, no losses of an aircraft whilst F3 was 'on watch' and it met an extraordinary number of its taskings from CAOCs around the globe. That's not to be sneered at and I hope the above shows that it was so much more than a 'Cold War Interceptor'! :ok:

Aplogies for the history lesson!

LJ

PS. In a few more years I might be able to tell you about the other things the jet could do, but that would see me going to jail right now if I told you! Doubtless other jets are the same, but I was quite amazed at some of the things our boffins had come up with.

[jonw66]

Thanks Leon I trust you had a good holiday :)

[just another jocky]

Well said Leon. :D

Air Defender/Mud Mover banter apart, the F3 turned into an outstanding platform and from Ex like Red Flag (JTIDS-backed whooping of Red Air) to Saif Sareea 2, the crews were always flexible in their approach, never trying to oversell their capability but happy to accommodate our requirements which often tied their hands.

Never worked with them on ops though.

But like most other FJ ac we've had, she was at her best the day she left service - Harrier/Jaguar/Buccaneer.... :ok:

[Thelma Viaduct]

So for how many years was the F3 considered effective?

[Lima Juliet]

I would say from about 1991 (after Stage 1+) until the end - about 20 of its 25 years. Not too bad really...

[typerated]

I'm sure they are fair comments gents.
In some ways I read the impressive parts of the F3 history as despite the 'less than ideal' airframe though.


If we had gone for F-15's they would presumably have been head and shoulders better than an F3 carrying the same kit?


Ideally D models with the back seat configured for a nav and conformal tanks?

[ORAC]

I thought its demise was driven by airframe fatigue? I remember the shock when they first wired one up and checked, having assumed it would have less than the GR1, and the endless stream of FI mods throughout its life. I also understood the test item eventually, "disassembled" itself in the rig setting a final limit which couldn't be extended any further??

p.s. Leon, Mudhen not Beagle I believe?

[ORAC]

Ideally D models with the back seat configured for a nav and conformal tanks? Would have been better just to buy the F-15E and have back seater and swing role. It was impressive to have LK birds get airborne, fly off to Humgary to do bomb range work, fly back and then do an hour of intercepts with Neatishead before recovery.

[Courtney Mil]

If we had gone for F-15's they would presumably have been head and shoulders better than an F3 carrying the same kit?


For the job we used it for, not really. As an interceptor, probably better energy at launch for Skyflash and AMRAAM and better energy manoeuvrability; space for a bigger antenna in the nose, of course, but who would have wanted to rip out the APG for AI24? Of course, once you get to the merge everything changes.

As for reconfiguring the rear cockpit of the D model, I wonder if that would have been worth it - we would, effectively, have been asking for a new model removing the flight controls and moving a lot of kit to the back seat. The E wasn't up and running until 1988 so a bit out of the timeframe.

[just another jocky]

We can moan, and don't we manage that on here :rolleyes:, all we want about certain aspects of F3, or any other UK ac for that matter, but buying overseas off the shelf sends £billions abroad and decimates our hi-tech aviation industry.

There is no answer to this, so endless bitching about "we should have bought American" or "why did we buy European" is just that, bitching. No-one builds the perfect ac, we all have our strong points & weak ones. Live with it. We still have some outstanding capabilities you know, and they're a lot better today than back in the day where some folk seem to live.

@ORAC - I only ever heard of the 15E being called the Beagle, never heard Mudhen, however appropriate that might be.

[ORAC]

Jockey. F-15E dark grey camo = Mudhen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudhen).

Lakenheath Mudhens (F15E Strike eagle 492/494th FS Lakenheath) (http://www.aviationmegastore.com/lakenheath-mudhens-f15e-strike-eagle--492494th-fs-lakenheath-ad48-045-afterburner-decals-ad48045-aircraft-scale-modelling-decals/product/?action=prodinfo&art=86511)


335GdTqtyLs

[just another jocky]

@ORAC - don't doubt it m8, just never heard that term before.

Great song! :D:}:ok:

[Willard Whyte]

The E wasn't up and running until 1988 so a bit out of the timeframe.

So, 2 years after the 'F2' entered service - was that with the Blue Circle radar?

[Heathrow Harry]

But if you rammed someone with that "special" nose......... spoilt their whole day

[Courtney Mil]

So, 2 years after the 'F2' entered service - was that with the Blue Circle radar?

No. That was two years after the F3 entered service with AI24. But everyone loves to post Blue Circle because it makes it look like they understand the horrible story of the ADV's intro to service.

[Valiantone]

F.2 entered service in November 1984. And as a near native to Coningsby the first sight of an F.3 was at the 1986 Airshow in June

V1

[KenV]

Of course, once you get to the merge everything changes.
May I ask an impertinent question? Which would likely be better at and after the merge, Tornado ADV (either F.2 or F.3) or F-35?

[Courtney Mil]

The F-15, Ken. That's as much as we know.

[typerated]

Ken,

A generation before the Tornado ADV The US was producing the F-4, F-5, F-8, F-101, F-104, F-105, F-106. Other successful fighters of the time to consider - Mirage 3 and Mig 21. How do they compare with the Tornado ADV after the merge? I imagine the F-8 and F-106 might have low wing loadings but not enough puff? Mig 21 would be an interesting. But on the whole Tornado would pretty agile compared to fighters of the time.

Now lets compare the 80's benchmark F-15 with today machines after the merge? How would the Eagle go against F-22, Su-30MKi, Typhoon ?

Perhaps you will agree there is a correlation between time and increased agility?

Now what were you leading to with respect to the F-35?

[KenV]

Now what were you leading to with respect to the F-35? Just trying to get my finger on the pulse of the critical need for agility, which seems to be hyper important to some folks here. F-35 has traded agility for other priorities and Tornado ADV never had it. F-35 will be operating along with F-15/16s (ignoring F-22) and Typhoon which have agility. But Tornado ADV never had an agile fighter to work alongside it. It'll be interesting to see how this all works out in the end operationally rather than just theoretically.

[t43562]

Just trying to get my finger on the pulse of the critical need for agility, which seems to be hyper important to some folks here. F-35 has traded agility for other priorities and Tornado ADV never had it. F-35 will be operating along with F-15/16s (ignoring F-22) and Typhoon which have agility. But Tornado ADV never had an agile fighter to work alongside it. It'll be interesting to see how this all works out in the end operationally rather than just theoretically.

Surely the fact that the Typhoon immediately followed is indicative enough of what was thought to be needed?

[cokecan]

genuine question?

what proportion of Typhoons pretty spectacular manouverability was engineered into the aircraft after it became clear that F2/F3 just couldn't cut the fighter mustard?

how much of that manouverability is a result of it being at the top of the 'it must do this..' list when pencil first touched paper, and how much was a welcome, but not neccesarily demanded by-product of other design philosophies...?

[Courtney Mil]

Easy question, cokecan. It was always going to be agile from the earliest UK and German requirements way back in the 70s. The lessons about high wing loaders were still fresh in the mind from Vietnam and requirements for new fighter designs were developed accordingly.

The fundamentals in the Typhoon's design pretty much demonstrate that - delta wing, canards, high thrust to weight, excellent pilot viz, etc. It just took an awfully long time to get there because of the difficulties of getting four nations (well, five actually) to agree to anything.

Oh, and it didn't become clear that Tornado couldn't cut the fighter mustard, it was never supposed to or expected to. It was always an interceptor.

[LowObservable]

As for the need for agility - your adversary has a vote. If the opposition intends to fight into and through the merge, you will need (a) pre-merge dominance so he never gets there, (b) a magic all-aspect weapon that defeats him or his weapon (think DEW) or (c) competitive agility so that he doesn't control the engagement.

JSF people have claimed all three - stealth, EO-DAS/HOBS and comparable maneuverability. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.

[ORAC]

Please note that the Typhoon was never designed as a Tornado F3 replacement, that was supposed to be a different programme. The Typhoon was designed under AST414 as a Jaguar and F4 replacement, with the operating location as an F4 AD replacement being in Germany in the CR and in the southern North Sea, as such iit was designed for combat with the Mig-29, hence the need for agility.

It was intended the F3 would be replaced with another long range twin seat interceptor for NQRA/Atlantic fleet defence tasks.

It was only after the end of the cold war and the demise of the UK F-4 force that the plan changed to replace the Lightning/F3 force in order to keep the programme going and maintain production share.

[Tourist]

JSF people have claimed all three - stealth, EO-DAS/HOBS and comparable maneuverability. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.

Too soon for that statement.

You have never flown it and only operate with second hand info.

You might be very well be correct, I don't know either, but it is fallacious to present that statement as fact rather than as an opinion from an amateur aircraft spotter.

[MSOCS]

JSF people have claimed all three - stealth, EO-DAS/HOBS and comparable maneuverability. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.

Such ill-informed contempt is as staggering as it is revealing.

Please, do tell me more! [fetches popcorn]

[Courtney Mil]

Maybe the g-limits and the medium and high level accel raise concerns about comparative manoeuvrability.

[glad rag]

Such ill-informed contempt is as staggering as it is revealing.

Please, do tell me more! [fetches popcorn]

Indeed, MSOCS, we await your informed statements with baited breath...

[Lima Juliet]

This is from the RAF FTRS vacncies website

A vacancy has arisen for a Group Captain (Engineer (AS)) to serve as the Tornado Transition Manager (TTM) at Cromwell House, London on Full Time Reserve Service (LC) Terms and Conditions of Service (TCoS).

As Gp Capt TTM you will be responsible for leading a transition team to develop and implement a programme within MODSAP to support the continued operation of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) Tornado Force until 2030. Proposals will take into account requirements by BAES, the RSAF and NETMA and the extant requirements for services and SQEP support with drawdown of the RAF Tornado Force.


So the Saudis will be flying the Tonka until 2030 - 56 years after it first flew in 1974. Not bad for 'Mother Riley's Cardboard Aircraft' (MRCA) :ok:

LJ

[LowObservable]

To expand:

Stealth: JSF is susceptible to detection and tracking by IRST and VHF radar, which in turn permits cued search in higher radar bands. Unless its own LPI/radar technology is magically good, it may also be susceptible to detection by modern ESM.

HOBS/EO-DAS: Even if EO-DAS gives reliable, unambiguous tracking of highly agile targets, JSF doesn't carry a HOBS weapon in its LO configuration.

Agility: Case closed last year and confirmed by an ACC officer in November.

[MSOCS]

LO, to expand,

Your statement was that all three were absolute; i.e. Unfortunately none are in the least valid.

Sorry, beg to differ:

1 - Stealth. Nothing is impervious to detection of some sorts. We all know this. I can see an F-35 with my eyeball. It is band-dependant (a subject covered over and over again). It is often a system of systems. To unknowingly imply that you don't believe stealth to be "in the least valid" is disingenous and I refer you to Tourist's point that you have never flown F-35 and your knowledge is second hand; your assertion on stealth confirms these.

2 - Hobs etc. Nobody in their right mind would post classified weapon system capabilities on a public forum. I'll leave it at that but suffice to say your view is a very overly simplistic one and therefore you cannot state absolutely that it is, "in the least valid". There are some pretty mind-boggling capabilities out there right now.

3 - Maneuvrability. The only one of the three issues I agree with you on, and this has been thrashed out in the public media over and over again. Indeed, it is the dead horse that tends to get re-flogged when there's nothing else to moan about. Monsieur Sprey loves this one, but in a modern war the likelihood of needing high agility in a sustained turning fight is far, far less than it was in 1960-1990.

To qualify my earlier response I believe your assumptions in making the statement that none are, "in the least valid" is wrong. One of your three is partially correct, but not all three.

[LowObservable]

OK:

I accept your statement that I'm correct on item 3. Of course I and other skeptics have been saying this for years, based on physical comparisons to other aircraft, with the enthusiasts and marketeers loudly claiming we were wrong.

Likewise, the band-dependent bit, now written off as old hat ("covered over and over again") was raised years ago, and roundly dismissed, by those of us who could see what was being developed in Russia and China, as was the potential of IRST. Also, I didn't say that stealth was not valid; I said that F-35 stealth is not valid in this case, which is to provide A2A dominance (first look/shot/kill) over a contemporary adversary. (F-22-versus-Su-27 is a different kettle of fish.)

As for HOBS - if there is a Secret Squirrel AAM that comes off the internal launcher and schwacks anything within 360-deg., cool. But to say I'm skeptical of anyone playing the "it's secret" card is an understatement, because there is no historical precedent, that I know of, for a nonblack aircraft in peacetime to have had a major capability that was kept secret through service entry.

[a1bill]

F-35 pilot meet-and-greet session
answers question on agility and f-16 at the 20 minute mark.

AgD0AJ19e-4

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill, your "you haven't flown it" argument could be applied to every single contributor here - including you. So does your statement invalidate all your claims? Or does your ability to post links to YouTube override your requirement to have flown the aircraft?

What is your Service background, by the way?

[KenV]

JSF doesn't carry a HOBS weapon in its LO configuration. Hmmm. Two questions:

1. Does AIM-120 have HOBS capability?
2. Can F-35 carry AIM-120 internally?

Or did you mean "doesn't carry an IR guided HOBS weapon in its LO configuration"?

[Courtney Mil]

Yes it does, technically, but you need to have a means of telling it where the Q is and, if necessary, data linking that to the mx. You could give it all the gen pre-launch, but you've got a big uncertainty box, which would be dangerous close in with friendlies close by.

Of course, there are similar risks with launching a HOB IR round if it has to go lock after launch. You lose the ability to confirm the mx has the right target before pulling the trigger.

Pitbull with your wingmen around?

[LowObservable]

AIM-120 has some HOBS capability, but not as you'd understand it on (for instance) AIM-9X, IRIS-T or Python 5. Kinematics and the sensor are fundamentally different.

[theonewhoknows]

a1bill,

Thank you for posting the excellent video. 'Hemo' is obviously a company man, but gave a very interesting presentation, nonetheless!

With anything JSF, the 'real' capabilities are classified. That said, it doesn't take much to question some of its relevance, particularly in the counter-air role against certain potential adversaries.

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting that the opening topic in Hemo's presentation is about the importance of being able to get slow with your adversary.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone can attribute much importance to the rather well-worn F-16 vs F-35 saga. Most of us here (well, the aircrew and engineers at least) will have seen how the outcomes of trials (and certain exercises) can be misconstrued if one does not know all the details of the parameters and objectives. That is not to say a 5g "fighter" is likely to out-manoeuvre a 9g one - even if it can fly very slowly at very high aoa.

[a1bill]

@theonewhoknows, you're welcome, The RAF pilots that have flown it say similar things about the F-35.
Download Lagu Royal Air Force F 35 Test Pilot Interview (4.48MB) Mp3 Terbaru (http://www.androidmusic.net/music/royal-air-force-f-35-test-pilot-interview.html)

[Gaz ED]

Does +- 90 degrees off BSGT count as HOBS?

[KenV]

That is not to say a 5g "fighter" is likely to out-manoeuvre a 9g one - even if it can fly very slowly at very high aoa.

I thought the F-35 5G "limit" was sustained G performance which got reduced to 4.3G. And the F-16 9G limit is a structural limit in symmetrical flight. Those are very different parameters. Or am I confused?

[KenV]

Yes it does, technically, but you need to have a means of telling it where the Q is and, if necessary, data linking that to the mx. You could give it all the gen pre-launch, but you've got a big uncertainty box, which would be dangerous close in with friendlies close by. OK, I'm confused. It seems from the above statement that the HOBS reference applies only to a close-in fight and does not apply to a medium range fight? Since LO was included in the original statement, I assumed (wrongly?) that this was a fight where LO would be a factor. And in a post merge fight, LO would seem to have significantly reduced value. It seems to me that the F-35's major advantages are in the pre-merge realm and would be where the pilot would try to keep the fight.

On the other hand, I understand that F-35 has very low frontal IR signature, lower even than F-22. Is it low enough to prevent an adversary from taking a frontal shot with an IR missile? I don't know. But if so, then that would seem to be a significant advantage. Without an IR HOBS missile the F-35 would be at a disadvantage offensively post merge, but if it can't be shot upon from the front with an IR missile, it could use that to disengage at the merge and then maneuver to take a longer range shot with an RF missile, where it enjoys its biggest advantage.

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry, Ken, I was not clear about that. HOBS could be used at any range, but at a cost. At longer range (let's say BVR for argument's sake) you gain a lot by doing as much of the mx's work as possible pre-launch.

If the mx has a lot of work to do to achieve a collision with its target, it will lose a lot of kinetic energy by turning, thereby reducing its ability to do manoeuvre to counter target manoeuvre or for end-game navigation. So at longer range, you'd be better off doing as much manoeuvre as possible with the aircraft to achieve the best firing solution so that all the mx has to do it fly where you've pointed it. In very simple terms.

As for LO (radar or IR), the effectiveness decreases exponentially with decreasing range. Up close you can see it with eyeballs, radar and IR. The visual fight environment.

I've been slightly vague there for obvious reasons, but I hope you get my meaning.

[Onceapilot]

Sorry, bloody obvious HOBS is going to cost missile energy. Also, up-close I can see small things, der...

OAP

[Courtney Mil]

I was clarifying the difference between close and long range. But thank you.

[Onceapilot]

Sorry if I was blunt, but it wasn't really to you!

OAP

[Buster15]

Leon - What an excellent article from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about. I have 'heard' from a number of sources that F3 had capabilities developed to overcome some basic weaknesses that meant that it was more than a match for its peers and as seems to be the norm, was at its most capable when withdrawn from service.
I particularly liked the 'polish a turd' analogy and it will be interesting to see whether the much criticised but jaw droppingly expensive F35 will eventually be polished. I suspect it might, as for the west, it is the only show in town. The real question is how much of a turd is it. While F3 had its faults, it was fast (no other aircraft was cleared to achieve Ma 1.2 at sea level ~ 800Kts), could accelerate, could achieve 7.5g turns and, carried reasonable stores and had good range. On the other hand, F35 is not fast, has pitiful g limitations, has very limited (inboard) stores capacity, cannot accelerate and has limited range. What else do you expect for over £100m. Oh yes, it is 5th Generation...........

[theonewhoknows]

Please define 5th Gen.

[KenV]

F35 is not fast, has pitiful g limitations, has very limited (inboard) stores capacity, cannot accelerate and has limited range.I don't know what these opinions are based on, but the data seems to contradict them.

[glad rag]

I don't know what these opinions are based on, but the data seems to contradict them.

Betty Bollox.

Please define 5th Gen. Depends what side you are on.

Of the Atlantic, that is.

[Courtney Mil]

Ken, following the changing data takes more dedication to the subject than I have time for, but I would say (in order listed):

Mach 1.6 clean, but probably unrealistic due to accel drop-off above Mach 1.
4.5g sustained (at approx 11degrees per second), 7g structural limit.
2 internal AAMs, no 2000lb class weapons, no internal gun.
F-35 accel hard to find; somewhere in the region of 79 seconds?
Combat Radius 463nm.

Anyone got any better numbers?

[KenV]

These numbers look like they belong to the B.
The A has bigger internal weapons bay and is cleaner and lighter than B, so better acceleration and speed. Also better agility and (for whatever reason) a higher structural G limit.

As for a 5th gen definition, how about this one:


The exact characteristics of fifth-generation jet fighters are controversial and vague, with Lockheed Martin defining them as having all-aspect stealth even when armed, low probability of intercept radar (LPIR), high-performance airframes, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the battlespace for situational awareness.

Using this definition, it would appear only the F-22 and F-35 qualify in the west.

And my understanding is that the new generation Russian/Indian and Chinese fighters don't have all-aspect stealth. I have no idea about their avionics fit or their networking capability.

[Courtney Mil]

We're not sure how all-aspect F-35's stealth is yet, Ken. But we know it's optimised in the head aspect. I don't suppose LM or DoD are likely to start telling us all about that anytime soon.

Yes, those are the B-model numbers, the only ones I have that much interest in - for the sake of my former colleagues.

[theonewhoknows]

KenV

It's interesting that Lock' define 5th Gen, inter alia, as '...high performance airframe..', as opposed to the aviation literature view of 5th Gen as '...super-cruise and highly agile...'.

Does '...high performance airframe...' encompass the F-35?

[Snafu351]

Somebody will have it somewhere but I'm fairly sure that LM's original definition of 5th Gen characteristics excluded the F35 thus they came up with another definition...
Make of that what you will.

[ORAC]

Germany Wants European Collaboration For Tornado Replacement (http://aviationweek.com/defense/germany-wants-european-collaboration-tornado-replacement)

The German government is calling for European collaboration on a program to develop a next-generation combat aircraft to replace the Panavia Tornado.

Germany wants the NextGenWS (weapon system)—which could be manned, unmanned or even optionally manned—to enter operational service during the 2020s, taking on many of the roles of the aging Tornado and complementing the country’s fleet of Eurofighters.

But Germany is unable to develop such a capability on its own. The German defense ministry’s newly published Military Aviation Strategy says that a “single-handed national development for weapon systems of this complexity no longer seems possible,” so it wants “concrete European collaboration,” firmed up during 2016 to pave the way for the new system. “An early dialog in Europe about possible common objectives, development lines and options for action will be initiated by the [German defense ministry] shortly,” the report states.

The plan emerges as Germany begins to embark on a major rearmament program, not only in light of increased Russian aggression but also to remedy shortages in funding that have impaired the German armed forces’ ability to operate. Poor serviceability has meant low availability for some aircraft and helicopter fleets in recent years. Just in the past year, the German defense ministry has selected a new ground-based air-defense system and begun studies into replacing its heavy-lift helicopter fleets. Germany also appears likely to join a European multinational aerial refueling force being established by the Netherlands using Airbus A330s.

However, the German government may not find many takers for such a new combat aircraft development. Of the nations that could potentially afford to join such a development program, many—such as Italy, which also flies the Tornado—are already going down the F-35 route or are participating in joint unmanned combat air vehicle programs, such as the Anglo-French Future Combat Air System (FCAS) feasibility study. It is certainly possible that Germany could join one of these development programs. Germany and France already have close ties, and Britain is keen to expand its defense ties with Germany further.

But the German strategy is to try to take a lead role in such a program, as it has with the EuroMALE UAV project with France, Italy and Spain. “It is important to learn from the experiences of the past and move from being part of the contracting authority to a real lead-nation principal,” the strategy document dictates. Furthermore, historically Germany has not always been the easiest of partner nations to work with. Berlin had previously attempted on numerous occasions to wriggle its way out of the Eurofighter program, and politics in Germany have inadvertently held back efforts to expand the aircraft’s capabilities.

NextGenWS has evolved out of Germany’s own FCAS studies, which sees the Eurofighter as the backbone of Germany’s combat aircraft fleet until the 2040s. Under FCAS, the Tornado will remain in service until the mid-2020s, although this could be pushed back into the 2030s if the NextGenWS is not yet operational or available. Officials would like to achieve an interim operating capability with the NextGenWS before the Tornado is retired from service.

As in the U.K., Germany’s Tornados are the country’s primary strike platform, carrying precision-guided cruise missiles in the form of the KEPD 350 Taurus. A special version, called Tornado ECR, performs the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) mission. The Tornado is also the platform capable of dropping U.S. B61 nuclear bombs based in Germany under a dual-key arrangement. German politicians have called for the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany, but that has not yet happened.

The German aircraft have been progressively upgraded; Airbus Defense and Space developed the Avionics System Software Tornado Ada [Ada is the programming language] (Assta) spiral upgrade, which has improved mission systems and computer processing power. All 85 aircraft are due to be fitted with the Assta 3.1 update by the end of 2018. Several Luftwaffe Tornados are currently performing reconnaissance missions over Syria after France asked Germany for assistance following the terrorist attacks in Paris.

As with the U.K., Germany also intends to adapt the Eurofighter to take on some of the Tornado’s capabilities. It plans to add the GBU-48 laser-guided bomb in the relatively near future, as well as to integrate both the larger GBU-24 Paveway III and the Taurus cruise missile on the aircraft. But capabilities such as anti-surface ship attack (ASuW) and SEAD are not expected before 2025. Later models of the Eurofighter, including the Tranche 2/3A model, could remain in service until 2040. A mid-life update for those aircraft will also be considered in the coming years, the aviation strategy document says.

[LlamaFarmer]

Germany Wants European Collaboration For Tornado Replacement (http://aviationweek.com/defense/germany-wants-european-collaboration-tornado-replacement)

Germany wants the NextGenWS (weapon system)—which could be manned, unmanned or even optionally manned—to enter operational service during the 2020s, taking on many of the roles of the aging Tornado and complementing the country’s fleet of Eurofighters.

Bit late for that isn't it...