Usaf Tornado

[Mossie]

IIRC, before the F-15E & F-16 XL prototpes were built, the Tornado was also selected for evaluation as a serious competitor.  Not suprisingly, as a non-American aircraft it lost out pretty quickly, but it was seen as the benchmark the USAF was aiming for.  Does anybody know if the proposal differed much from the common or garden Tonka?

Theres probably not much info out there, so what engines, systems & weapons might have been plonked on the Tonka for the Americans to take it seriously?

[B777LR]

engines, F-404? (well, the engines for superbugs)

[Spey_Phantom]

yes, i think ive seen something like that, i thing the Tornado's USAF designation was the F-24 (or was it F-26) , although im not quite sure    

[anthonyp]

If it was assigned a number in the USAF's naming system, I'd more likely be somewhere between F-112 to F-116.

[Maverick]

Tony,

Would the 'century series' be appropriate?  This would have been post 62 and the only high centuries that remained IIRC were the US 'MiGs' etc that were used by test and eval sqns.

Regards,

Mav

[Shasper]

At that time either F-19 or F-24 would work ( Northrup already having the F-20, the Kfir's in USN/MC service getting F-21, not sure about the whole ATF thing as we are talking about the timeframe when that was still a wetdream), and I think if the Fin got the contract for the Follow-on Wild Weasle in the early '90s then it would have been the F-24 (the F-22 and F-23 already in flight test, and the JSF was still another DARPA wetdream).

I'm willing to guess that the LANTERN pod/pods would have found a home on the Fin, not sure about the load-out as it doesnt have the same # of stations as the competition. I would like to think it would be based on the F3 airframe, which would offer a bit more fuel, but with US nav/attack systems based on those used by the A-6E & the F-111. Again Im speculating here.

Trip-7, the F414 didnt exist at that time, so it would have been either the F404 or something else in that size cat.


Shas B)

[anthonyp]

Well, it'd have been more appropriate than assigning a random number in the 20's, considering at the time this Tornado was proposed (pre-F-15E/F-16XL), the ATF project hadn't even been assigned F- numbers, and century series numbers had been assigned to attack aircraft (F-111, F-117).  Heck, the F-21 Kfir hadn't even come into play yet!

Perhaps the Tornado was to be the missing F-19?  I dunno what it might have been, but I do know that skipping ahead to mid-20's is not something that was likely to happen.

Maybe it could have been assigned a number above the F-117, considering the F-117 began development in the 70's, and the Tornado proposal may have come after it.  F-118 Tornado, anyone?

The rumor was that the mid teens were used for captured Eastern Bloc planes, but the only one that's ever even come close to being official was "YF-113" for the Mig-23.  That still leaves F-112, and F-114 to F-116 available and currently unclaimed.

Now, the Wild Weasel Tornado, which was proposed later than this late-70's, early 80's one, that could have gotten a mid-20's number.  But this bomb truck one that Mossie was asking about, not likely.

[Martin H]

well it was mentioned in Air Pictorial in 1979

(from my notes)
February 1979.
USAF to order Tornado to equip 18 USAFE squadrons.

no other mention, ie F- number ect but it was looked at for European ops. makes sence, common spares back up with the UK, Germany and Italy..and at that time Canada as well, as they were also looking at the Tonka.

[Mossie]

I've been thinking on two lines, firstly an 'off-the-shelf' Tornado with minimal changes.  Like Martin mentioned, it'd be particulary suited to USAFE ops due to commonality with the partner nations birds (& it'd make it relatively cheap).  Mods would mostly be the software & avionics changes needed to incorporate US weapons.  On the surface at least, it'd look like the Tonka we know & love.  I think this was what was on offer as a competitor to the Beagle & F-16XL.

Second (I think this is probably the only way it could have won the competition), would be to seriously modify the Tornado to incorporate mostly US equipment & offer it on liscense to a major US manufacturer.  New engines, radar, avionics, cockpit & such, probably on an ADV airframe giving extra room for fuel & the slightly larger F404's.  You could incorporate a dorsal conformal tank similar to the Beagles intake CFT's.  Don't know if you could get any more hard-points on though, although the dorsal tank may allow you more range without external tanks on the inner pylons.  More expensive & would need some development time, but there would be commonality with other US aircraft & the 'made-in-the-USA' stamp would appeal to the politicians.

Shas, my idea for the Lantirn pods would be to locate them on the outer pylons which normally house ECM & chaff/flare pods.  Chaff/flare units could be scabbed onto the fuselage.  Not sure where an ECM would go though, maybe the centre pylon although many bomb loadouts prevent this from being used, saying that the Beagle dosen't always carry one either.  It could still carry four AAM's on the inner wing pylons like the ADV.

Number?  I'd go with F-19 as I wouldn't like to number it it with an existing designation, even if it was available at the time.  I hadn't thought about the hundreds, I like F-112 though, just sounds right to me for some reason!

[nev]

Don't forget that the F3 carries its chaff/flares in the shoulder pylons for its 'winders - not sure when that was implemented though, but I know it wasn't right from the beginning.

[Shasper]

BOL dispensers are fairly recent, IIRC the whole F-14 fleet didnt have them before getting canned.

Mossie, you could always add the ECM at the base of the rudder, the F-16C/D was designed to house the ASPJ system internally under the rudder (hence the nice bulge there), before the AF pulled out.

Shas B)

[Mossie]

Cheers Nev, completley forgot about that!  If I'm honest, I've only got a vague recollection, wouldn't have remembered if you hadn't mentioned it!

Shas, unfortunately in that position on the Tonka the ECM would get fried by the thrust reverse!  You could maybe put it in a fairing at the top of the fin near the radar warning recievers though?  The other option would be to remove the thrust reverse buckets, but they are very useful for tricks & creating noise at air shows!

[Shasper]

If American engines are fitted, then the reversers would be canned anyway.

See my revised statement above. Then again, a fin extension (semi-spine) would also do the trick.
Shas B)

[jcf]

No reasons of performance, efficiency or engineering for replacing the RB.199s... and the re-engining would add needless cost to the program.

Jon

[Matt Wiser]

Rockwell International (builders of the B-1 and the Space Shuttle) were in serious discussion with Panavia to be the U.S. licensee for the Tornado. The Wild Weasel variant was to have been built at the same factory where the B-1s were built, in Palmdale, CA. You can bet that any U.S. strike version would've been built here in the States, and as many components marked "Made in the USA" used. Still, getting Congress to go along with the USAF flying a non-U.S. design would be a problem, much harder than approving the B-57 Canberra deal in the early '50s.