Tornado Replacement
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tonnage...
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...
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...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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):
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Tornado Replacement
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was the F-14 or F-15 ever considered by the MOD for the Tornado ADV role?
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
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it took a fair few years for the F3 to become potent, but for how many years was it 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
