It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

stealth Tornado

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I have recently been given these drawings and been told, by a trustworthy person, that they represent the original BAe proposal for the Tornado mid life udgrade and that upgrade was eventually watered down to give us the Tornado GR.4 that is now in service. I have worded the preceding paragraph the way I have because I am unable to independently verify the information and although I have no reason to doubt the drawings, you never know.

The interesting this about this proposal is the effort that appears to have been made to reduce the frontal RCS of the Tornado. Obviously you are never going to turn a Tornado into a stealth aircraft but there is no reason to suppose that its frontal RCS cannot be reduced by a useful amount. Notable are the fully retractable refuelling probe which replaces the standard bolt on item of the GR.1 (and GR.4!) and what appears to be faceted external tanks etc.

There is also a fuselage stretch as with the ADV, or F.3 version but the most radical change is the 'faceted' X-35 style forward fuselage, where the upper half slopes outwards and the lower half slopes inwards, instead of the vertically slab sided standard Tornado fuselage and what appear to be virtually F/A-22 style air intakes.

This proposal could have been rejected because it represented a virtual complete rebuild of the Tornado and was thus simply too expensive or perhaps the proposed benefits were found to be exaggerated in tunnel tests. whatever I would be fascinated to know more about this if anyone out there knows.


external image

[edit on 14-10-2005 by waynos]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Thats quite cool looking.

Could it possible they didn't proceed with this as the Tornado is a low level bomb truck, wasn't really meant to be elegant and stealthy and it would be a waste of money for something that skims the desert sands at 70ft high...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Is it just me or does that design look awfully like the Chinese JH-7?





external image

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
No Cowlan, it looks more like the Tornado series, pay attention man.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Wow, Tornado and JH-7 are very alike and has many similar design features.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Uh no, they don't. Except for one tail, two wings, and two engines. The Tornado is a swing wing design, designed to go fast down in the weeds.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Having worked on the GR1, GR4 and F3 for over 16 years I feel I know a little bit about the history of the Tornado. I have seen something similar to these drawings a few years ago and think that this was the proposed shape of the GR4 until the budget cutters stepped in and the RAF asked for different bits of "kit"!

The faceted front was probably dropped due to cost and the intakes do not look big enough as the current model needs auxilary air doors to provide enough air for the engines.

The current GR4 has a laser ranging pod and a FLIR under the nose and there is no provision for these on the drawings. As for them being fitted internally, believe me, there is no spare space in the front fuselarge for the pods internals to be fitted.

Even if you get rid of both the cannon you still have to fit in the retractable refueling probe and all the additional wiring for all the extra kit and databus systems the GR4 has!

And I hope the conformal venteral fuel tank is not a permantly fitted item! No pilot would want to belly land one of these in an emergancy!

The Lightning had a venteral tank and you could not belly land one of them. The only option was to head out to sea and bang out.

During GW1 I was part of a team which modified F3's to have a reduced frontal RCS and this was done without rebuilding the front fuselarge. All it required to get a modest RCS reduction was some special tiles fitted down the intakes and various bits of RAM and iron ball paint applied/fitted to certain areas of the nose and leading edges of the A/C.

This reduced the frontal RCS aspect of the F3 to that of a BAe Hawk!

Maybe thats why the GR4 upgade was chopped back!

Sv Out.....!



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Excellent reply Shattered, that brought a smile to my face as it was almost the same as what I was thinking as I scrolled down to it


Cowlan, If the JH-7 looks like anything then it is more like a cross between the 2 seat version of the Jaguar and the fixed wing design that BAC rejected in the early '70's when the Tornado was being designed. This was drawn up not before Tornado, but as a possibly simpler and cheaper alternative to it.

BAC had in fact been trying to get a British VG fighter bomber into the works since the 1950's and it may interest you, or someone else, to know that their first serious attempt in the late 50's was given over to NASA when in was dropped in 1959 and thence onto General Dynamics who, a few years later launched the F-111. The F-111 was not derived from the Vickers design directly but they gleaned a great deal of useful technical data from it and the VG mechanism of the F-111 complete with large forward extending root gloves is unchanged from the Vickers design.

Ironic then that the F-111 was partly responsible for the cancellation of BAC's own TSR 2 and the aircraft BAC replaced this project with, the MRCA which became the Tornado, became the first UK VG aircraft to fly a full decade after the F-111 had flown!



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Thanks for that brilliant reply, silent vulcan.

I too wondered about the RCS reduction programme from GW1 when I was looking at these drawings for the first time. I think you have a good point there.

Not sure about the intakes, maybe their total area is a bit bigger that the standard raked intakes, but that can only be a guess from these drawings.

regarding internal equipment, again just speculating but I had wondered whether the reshaping of the forward fuselage would create more internal volume or just necessitate a re-organisation to fit in all the stuff that is already in the GR.1?

About the ventral tank, you are again spot on. What would make sense to me is if the tank was droppable and that its contents were to be used before the aircrafts own internal fuel on a mission so that it could be dropped, empty, in an emergency? Again, I'm just guessing.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
The idea is nice... But i don't think that this will be a new model that the British RAF will start to use... They are gona get F-22 aren't they, so waht's the point making an own stealth model...?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
No, this is not a new proposal, but one from the early 1990's that was later dropped.

The RAF is not getting F/A-22's, they are having enough trouble getting the Govt to stump up for Typhoons!


RAB

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I like the GR4, I would not be surprised to see the GR4 get three things in the future.

EuroJet 200 engines,
A full RAM setup
and CAPTOR

Rich



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Great find


That would be a great alternative to F-111's.
New build Tornados that BAe proposed for the Tornado mid life udgrade would be a cheap alternative to the F-15E's providing it has long legs.
It would be a better platform than the F-15E flying close to the deck.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Tornados or Bunny Burners as our American friends called them when flying against them on Green Flag Exercises at Nellis AFB are certainly good at what they do, down on the deck doing 600+ Kts at 100ft, but they are very manpower intensive on the ground and I have spent many a night shift seeing the sun come up and still not having enough A/C for the first wave!

The F15 drivers however parked them up, got the groundcrew to do a quick A/F, put some covers on and went to the bar whilst we were still slaving away trying to fix the mighty Tonka's!!!!!!

F15's are also a lot more able to defend itself if attacked, ok the Tornado can run away and hide at a rapid rate of knots but it is not (in GR1 or GR4 form) supersonic unless you remove all pods, Flirs, Laser rangers, etc as these provide to much drag and turbulance!

So F15E's would be a better attack platform but I remember hearing that the US Air Force were thinking of replacing the Spark Varks with a version of the ECM Tornado which the German Air Force has in service.

Going back to the intakes waynos did you know that all varients of the Tornado were designed and fitted with supersonic intakes which involved movable ramps inside the intake to speed up or slow down the incoming air!

All of these ramps were inhibited on the GR1 and, (I think) the GR4 so as to prevent over zelous pilots from exceeding the speed of sound and overstressing the external equipment attached to the A/C.

As for internal space, yes a bit of moving stuff about in the new contoured shape might of given you a bit more room but don't forget most of that extended nose is empty space in front of the radar and you have to fill that with both a normal radar and the TFR unless they were going use a phased array system which would have made a lot more sense but would have pushed the cost's up.

Any more Tornado questions?

Sv Out.....!



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Cheers again, I did know about the intake geometry but the fact that they were inhibited is new to me, thanks.

I don't know how far back you go but does that mean the Tornado is no quicker than the Bucc at low level? I remember reading that the F-111 was no quicker but thought that the Tornado was.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
update

My earlier caution as to the veracity of the drawings I posted was unfounded. I have just read an entry in the 1999 Janes All the Worlds Aircraft under the heading Tornado 2000 which describes the stretched fuselage and faceted nose to a tee. We can safely conclude therefore that it is genuine.

It seems though that some of the information I was given was mistaken and so I also have to say 'sorry' to FIN, it appears your assumption was right after all.

The reason for this is that the Tornado GR.4 is described and illustrated in detail in Janes and the Tornado 2000 is listed alongside it as a project aiming to find a possible replacement for the GR.4 version, it is also described as an ongoing study so we have a mystery to solve.

What has happened to the Tornado 2000 since 1999?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
is the tornado capable of mach 2.0?

Also durin the cold war when they got rid of the lightining...why would they pick a less manovurable fighter? i mean the tornado is probably the best low level bomber in the world..it is in my opinion.

I understand why they would have tryed to convert it into a fighter mainly due to the budget i assume... but if the tornado had been in a dogfight with loads of russian fighters which were far more manouverable what would we have done?

is it because of BVR weapons that monoverability wasn't that much of an issue?

Sorry if i appear ignnorant about all this,lol.. im fairly new to it. practically all these planes were around before i was even born, but there still amazing!

And that drawing at the top..wow! an intresting what if.



[edit on 15-10-2005 by clashrock]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
To answer questions as much as I can, yes, the Tornado is a mach 2 design, it is slightly faster in its ADV version with its longer sleeker fuselage'

Also the Tornado F.3 is not less manoeverable than the Lightning, its wngs spread out and the forces generated by that large tailplane mean the Tornado could out-turn a Lightning with ease, though of course it would never have to and it is true that the Tornado is far less manouverable than other modern fighters.

You are right with your point about BVR. When the Tornado F.3 was created in the late '70's the only concievable scenario for it to see action was to intercept incoming Soviet Fencers and Backfires etc from extreme range over the North Sea before they could reach the UK, agility simply wasn't an issue. The world has changed however and this is why the RAF is now replacing the Tornado F.3 with the super agile Typhoon, originally the Typhoon was to have operated alongside the Tornado in a two tier air defence system which, incidentally, I still think would be the best option.

You don't appear ignorant at all, never forget that people who love planes also love telling other people all about them



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
So true so true Waynos, The Brits will not get any Raptors... But apparently they will get some F-35 instead. Should replace the Harrier...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Yes that is Tornado 2000. I have the same drawing with high resolution - but what is important - also with text description. I will take a look in my archive and post it later.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join