Usaf Tornado

[Jennings]

There is zero possibility of it having been assigned an MDS (ie: an "F" number) if it didn't actually fly in USAF service.  At least not in those days.  Nowadays the entire MDS system is hosed beyond recognition, so anything is possible ("KC-767" makes me want to hurl my lunch).  Back then however, there just ain't no way.

I've heard rumors of co-production deals for Tornados in the US, but I think that was a lot of wishful thinking more than any real possibility of something like that happening.  MDD had been planning what became the F-15E for many years before they got serious money to develop it.

J

[Hatchet]

A Tornado wouldn't really need a nav pod like the BEagle does, since it already have a TFR. A FLIR could be reasonably easily grafted on, like the nose-job on the "Night-Attack" Harrier II or the fairing on the GR.4. Actually, it could probably go in the LST fairing (if IDS airframes were used), since USAF jets, save for the Hog, seldom use LSTs. There'd still be room for a fairing if an ADV airframe was used. Also, with an ADV airframe, a Vulcan could replace the Mauser if the ammo was put in some of the space that is otherwise used for extra fuel (compared to the IDS).

Now, where to put the boom-receptacle?

[Shasper]

I think adding the M61 would not be wise, as it takes up more room than the Mauser. Some sort of GP would be needed (The Vark had one, it just wasnt used that often).


Shas B)

[Mossie]

Thanks for all the input guys.  Right, I'll try & put this all together in a way that doesn't fry my little brain! :dum:  I'll change this list as things evolve.

Manufacturer: Rockwell
Designation: F-112A Tornado
Airframe: Modified ADV
Radar: ??
Cannon:  Single M61 Vulcan?
Engine: GE F404 or P&W F115(?) liscence built Turbo Union RB.199
Navigation: AAQ-14 carried on starboard outer wing pylon
ECM:  Various pods available carried on port outer wing pylon
Chaff/flare: Integral to inner wing pylons
Conformal tanks:  In dorsal position, either side of spine
Refuelling Receptacle:  In spine, aft of cockpit or port CFT

Shas, if you only added one Vulcan instead of the two Mauser on the IDS, do you think that would free up enough room?  I think it'd need a small fairing F-16 style to give it enough clearance.  I think your right about a US engine canning the thrust reverse, although I've now cleared space on the outboard pylon for ECM.

Hatchet, I think that ditching the nav pod is a good idea.  The targeting pod could probably go on the starboad outer pylon now that Nev's given me a way out with the flare dispenser.  The refuelling receptacle could be placed in the spine immediatley behind the cockpit or intergrated into one of the CFT's.

J/Matt, I don't think theres much chance a Tornado would have been chosen over an American platform (just look at real world history), especially in the eighties but at least here we can make it plausible.

Matt, Rockwell is a good choice, I didn't know that it was actually be considered as liscencee for Tornado.  I'd thought about Rockwell, but I was favouring Northrop until you mentioned it.

Jon, I think your right about the RB.199, although I could imagine that it could have been tweaked to give a little more power to sex up the proposal & that it would have also been offered as a liscence build, maybe to P&W.  I imagine GE would have pushed the F404 as a possible powerplant, maybe redesgning it & down-rating it specifically for Tornado.  Plus, if I build a model of this, American engines may provide a good visual effect if nothing else!

Anyone got ideas about radar?  Graft an IDS nose onto an ADV body?  Any nose from an American aircraft that may be suitable?  What radar may be carried?

[Shasper]

1. if you can both Mausers for the M61, you might can get the ammo drum in there but not sure about the rest (someone else needs to clarify)

2. Not sure about mounting the targeting pod on the outboards as the opposit wing's bombs might not "see" the reflection (Or am I just being ignant again?), maybe some sort of conformal housing on the fuselage (like the proposed Tomcat-21?):



3. Not sure if the BOL style CM dispensers were in servive during the time frame discussed.

4. I think you could get the TFR & attack radar into the nose without having to reshape the radome, but you might want a 2nd opinion.


think thats about it, I'm loving all these ideas you guys are comin up with!

Shas B)

[Maverick]

Tornado IDS already had TFR & Attack radar, couldn't see ADV needing too much to get 'em both in.

As for outboard targetting pods, no sweat, the LGB sees the 'sparkle' on the target not on the pod.

Mav

[Radish]

Colours?

Bloody Dark Grey I suppose.
Lizard??
SE Asia wraparound would look best though  

[Mossie]

Shas, think I might have to re-think the CM again then, maybe just leave it out, although Harrier II's had them when they were introduced mid eighties IIRC, so it might not be too much of a stretch.  There's no problem deleting one of the Mausers, only the original GR.1 had two.  The GR.1A, F.2 & 3 & GR.4 all have a single cannon.  Current recce versions have none at all.

Mav, Shas, sounds like the IDS nose is a goer.  I couldn't really think of another nose that would be suitable, except may the ADV one with a little bit of beefing up.

Rad, dark grey???  No way, baby!  I thought I was stuck with it as the Beagle has only ever worn Gunship Grey as far I'm aware.  Then I remembered the prototype wore an early Lizard style scheme, it'd look a lot like the German & Italian Tonkas, but not too much that you couldn't get away with it.  Then there were several versions of the Lizard scheme trialed on the A-10, two Peanut desert schemes, SnowHog winter scheme & the Flipper three shade greys scheme.

I was thinking of the standard lizard scheme as I was planning Lakenheath markings as a kind of paradox, US version of an RAF machine at a British base.  I could make this work for German or Italian based aircraft too.  The similarity to German & Italian machines might get people to glance at it thinking it's wearing a badly researched paint job, then trot back when it dawns on them it's carrying US weapons & markings!  But if I'm feeling crazy theres always the A-10 JAWS schemes.....

[jcf]

Jon, I think your right about the RB.199, although I could imagine that it could have been tweaked to give a little more power to sex up the proposal & that it would have also been offered as a liscence build, maybe to P&W.  I imagine GE would have pushed the F404 as a possible powerplant, maybe redesgning it & down-rating it specifically for Tornado.  Plus, if I build a model of this, American engines may provide a good visual effect if nothing else!

In the time frame under discussion the RB.199 and GE 404 have very similar power ratings, the 404-400 was not as powerful as the later -402, so 'down-rating' the GE engine would be rather odd. Later marks of the RB.199 were increased in output and again were similar in power to the later model 404.
A 'co-production' agreement would be more likely than license production, the sort of manufacturing schemes that have become so common today were being experimented with in the '70s and early  '80s.
The RB.199 is a very good design and some believe its lack of sales success in competition with the GE engine has far more to do with politics than with technology or capability.

Jon

[Mossie]

Cheers Jon, always thought the F404 had the edge in power but that the RB.199 was idealy suited to Tornado.  That was the reason I thought it had never done too well in sales, that it was in too much of a 'niche'.  Thanks for clearing that up.

[elmayerle]

1. if you can both Mausers for the M61, you might can get the ammo drum in there but not sure about the rest (someone else needs to clarify)

2. Not sure about mounting the targeting pod on the outboards as the opposit wing's bombs might not "see" the reflection (Or am I just being ignant again?), maybe some sort of conformal housing on the fuselage (like the proposed Tomcat-21?):



3. Not sure if the BOL style CM dispensers were in servive during the time frame discussed.

4. I think you could get the TFR & attack radar into the nose without having to reshape the radome, but you might want a 2nd opinion.


think thats about it, I'm loving all these ideas you guys are comin up with!

Shas B)

That Tomcat-21 reminds me of one thought I had for an upgraded F.3 (F.5?) that would pick up similar planform changes as part of the upgrade.

[elmayerle]

Jon, I think your right about the RB.199, although I could imagine that it could have been tweaked to give a little more power to sex up the proposal & that it would have also been offered as a liscence build, maybe to P&W.  I imagine GE would have pushed the F404 as a possible powerplant, maybe redesgning it & down-rating it specifically for Tornado.  Plus, if I build a model of this, American engines may provide a good visual effect if nothing else!

In the time frame under discussion the RB.199 and GE 404 have very similar power ratings, the 404-400 was not as powerful as the later -402, so 'down-rating' the GE engine would be rather odd. Later marks of the RB.199 were increased in output and again were similar in power to the later model 404.
A 'co-production' agreement would be more likely than license production, the sort of manufacturing schemes that have become so common today were being experimented with in the '70s and early  '80s.
The RB.199 is a very good design and some believe its lack of sales success in competition with the GE engine has far more to do with politics than with technology or capability.

Considering the hash P&W made out of license-production ("second source") of the F404 and the long-standing links between Allison and RR (indeed, RR eventually bought them), I can see Allison getting a license to produce the RB.199.

I can see a USAF Tornado with the extended fuselage of the F.3 but with the IDS radome and radar fit.  That's been my thought as to how I'd do it.  I wonder how many ALQ-99 pods such an aircraft could properly support?

[GeorgeC]

The RB199 is an 'optimised' engine, designed to produce power efficiently low-level, high-subsonic, non-afterburner regime (funnily enough !).  It has some problems being a fighter engine, hence the development into the EJ200 for Typhoon.  If you wanted to turn the aircraft into more of an all-rounder, then different engines might help, assuming you didn't destroy the whole design balance like the Spey-engined F4s.

If you have ever seen a GR Tornado display - fast low stright line....wide turn...fast low straight line...repeat as necessary - you might feel A-12, 10 years before the Avenger II need the designation, a more suitable number!


   

[MAD]

I think the USAF also looked at the Tornado as a replacement for the F-4G Wild Weasel in the 1980's for service in Europe.
I will have to look for this article – I think it was in the magazine 'Military Technology'?



M.A.D

[Mossie]

I never knew about a proposed Wild Weasel variant until it was mentioned here.  I don't think I'll go down that route but it's intersting.  Evan, as far as weapons staions go, it could theoretically carry five, but I'd think three or four are more likely, as I guess you'd need some side clearance for XMTR transmitters?  With external tanks carried, you'd be down to two, unless you could put a permanent hosing on the underside like the EF-111?  Power supply should be okay, as I believe the ALQ-99 is self supporting due to the RAT?

Hmmm, Tornado with football fairing & ALQ-99, intriguing....