Design proposal for a Tornado successor

[Pioneer]

View attachment 725516


View attachment 725517View attachment 725518View attachment 725519View attachment 725520

Thank you kqcke for you

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Jety]

Thank you kqcke for you and Pioneer for your pictures. I had already looked at various configurations in 2019 and then came up with the theory shown in the next picture. What do you think? Is this thesis justified?
And I didn't want an more stealthy Eurofighter.

​

 

[VTOLicious]

I think the Airbus artist's impression of FCAS is the perfect match
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...t-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/post-670009

 

[kqcke for you]

Guys we can't forget DLR Future Fighter Demonstrator (DLR-FFD) Diabolo

 

[kqcke for you]

Thank you kqcke for you and Pioneer for your pictures. I had already looked at various configurations in 2019 and then came up with the theory shown in the next picture. What do you think? Is this thesis justified?
And I didn't want an more stealthy Eurofighter.

View attachment 725533

​

Well cranked arrow are part of the double family which are bit cooler than the normal delta but i think the Lambda Wing would be an good improvement but it comes not without a cost.

 

[Jety]

@ kqcke for you
On the aircraft, the Lambda Wing would look like this with the same wingspan. However, the Lambda Wing would reduce the wing area.

 

[kqcke for you]

Edit: now a V Tail and we have GCAP xD
But given the Lambda Wing allows for more edge alignment

 

[Jety]

Edit: now a V Tail and we have GCAP xD
But given the Lambda Wing allows for more edge alignment

 

[kqcke for you]

Yeah quite similiar but you didn't had to do that.

Anyway what was your plan for the air intake?
Right now it looks like fixed inlets without an S-shaped duct.

Edit: Based on the speed goal a DSI should do the trick with the S-shaped duct.

 

[Jety]

Anyway what was your plan for the air intake?
Right now it looks like fixed inlets without an S-shaped duct.

Edit: Based on the speed goal a DSI should do the trick with the S-shaped duct.

Yes, you are right at the moment it looks like fixed inlets without an S-shaped duct. I'm afraid due to the internal weapons bay the course of the inlet ducts remains relatively straight.



And as I said, I checked the design of the IWB again and found that the dimensions mentioned were not correct, far too big to be able to install the inlets, for example. Please excuse this mistake. The height of the IWB is reduced to approximately 70 cm. The length and width of the IWB have also become slightly smaller. However, the height of the aircraft mentioned is correct and, as stated, is around 4 m high and also has a low fuselage profile. Since the demonstrator was built on a scale of 1:10, I was able to measure the model.

 

[kqcke for you]

Yes, you are right at the moment it looks like fixed inlets without an S-shaped duct. I'm afraid due to the internal weapons bay the course of the inlet ducts remains relatively straight.

View attachment 725658

I guess there 2 solution for it. 1. F-35/J20 DSI inlets or yf-23 Style (also possible with DSI). Engines could get w Stealth Treatment but in that area one should ask F119Doctor.

And as I said, I checked the design of the IWB again and found that the dimensions mentioned were not correct, far too big to be able to install the inlets, for example. Please excuse this mistake. The height of the IWB is reduced to approximately 70 cm.

Could be tight for Taurus.

The length and width of the IWB have also become slightly smaller. However, the height of the aircraft mentioned is correct and, as stated, is around 4 m high and also has a low fuselage profile. Since the demonstrator was built on a scale of 1:10, I was able to measure the model.

View attachment 725659

Ok good to know and it just looks odd but didn't had to be wrong.

Edit: Taurus wont fit anymore

2 Edit: one could also mount the engine closer to achieve the S-duct effect.
For the Lambda Wing we could use LERX or chine to get the lost wing aera back.

 

[Jety]

I guess there 2 solution for it. 1. F-35/J20 DSI inlets or yf-23 Style (also possible with DSI). Engines could get w Stealth Treatment but in that area one should ask F119Doctor.

Could be tight for Taurus.

Ok good to know and it just looks odd but didn't had to be wrong.

Edit: Taurus wont fit anymoreView attachment 725661

2 Edit: one could also mount the engine closer to achieve the S-duct effect.
For the Lambda Wing we could use LERX or chine to get the lost wing aera back.

Thanks for the idea with the DSI air intakes. I think this could be a good solution for the Tornado II too. Unfortunately, in my opinion, an S-shaped air intake also has disadvantages when it comes to supplying the engines with the most unhindered air flow possible.
I also think it's not a real problem if the Taurus doesn't fit into the internal weapon bay. Since the system can fly independently over long distances, there is no need to secretly transport it internally. In my opinion, LERX are already available (see green circle in the pictures). But what are chine? The term doesn't mean anything to me right now. Unfortunately, lost wing aera cannot be gotten back.

 

[kqcke for you]

Thanks for the idea with the DSI air intakes. I think this could be a good solution for the Tornado II too.

Yeah but if implemented an asymetric air intake.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, an S-shaped air intake also has disadvantages when it comes to supplying the engines with the most unhindered air flow possible.

Yeah everything has a advantage and disadvantage.

I also think it's not a real problem if the Taurus doesn't fit into the internal weapon bay. Since the system can fly independently over long distances, there is no need to secretly transport it internally.

Yeah but given that your original design could do it i tought it was something you wanted to achieve because only Taurus really needs a height of 100cm (probaly more around ~90-95cm) in a bay. Few weapon even need more than 70cm of space in the height with the launch system (to my knowledge (a big Impact gives the release system itself)).

In my opinion, LERX are already available (see green circle in the picture).

Yes but this would (could) be an extension / larger one as we don't really want 90° places on the plane. In that Sense its not far from a double delta / cranked arrow (based on the lambda). I was also a little unsure If there where some LERX as it was kinda hard to see with mostly a bird view.

But what are chine? The term doesn't mean anything to me right now.

It is similiar to a LERX.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chine_(aeronautics)

Unfortunately, lost wing aera cannot be gotten back.
View attachment 726098

 

[Jety]

Yeah but given that your original design could do it i tought it was something you wanted to achieve because only Taurus really needs a height of 100cm (probaly more around ~90-95cm) in a bay. Few weapon even need more than 70cm of space in the height with the launch system (to my knowledge (a big Impact gives the release system itself)).

No, if you please look at post 17 you can see that the Taurus has never fit into the bay. The Taurus was also not on my list for internally carried weaponry. Length of internal weapons bay (5.00m) to length of Taurus (5.10m). I agree with you about the heights of the launchers, the dimensions also correspond roughly to my estimates.

Yes but this would (could) be an extension / larger one as we don't really want 90° places on the plane. In that Sense its not far from a double delta / cranked arrow (based on the lambda). I was also a little unsure If there where some LERX as it was kinda hard to see with mostly a bird view.

Ok, I was just comparing the original Tornado II Wing with the Lambda wing, and there is a loss of area. Please see next picture. But I wouldn't make any changes to the LERX now, they already seem big enough to me and a change would have a lot of consequences.

It is similiar to a LERX.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chine_(aeronautics)

Ah, thanks for the link, I didn't know it was called that.

 

[kqcke for you]

No, if you please look at post 17 you can see that the Taurus has never fit into the bay.

Yeah my head mixed JASSM and Taurus size up but KEPD-350K2 would fit with 4.5m in the original IWB.

Ok, I was just comparing the original Tornado II Wing with the Lambda wing, and there is a loss of area. Please see next picture. But I wouldn't make any changes to the LERX now, they already seem big enough to me and a change would have a lot of consequences.

Yeah the that where only some options i tought May be a solution to get that back tought a more harder solution then to just use larger wings but yeah both are not without consequences.

Ah, thanks for the link, I didn't know it was called that.

No problem

 

[Jety]

Well then I want to reveal how small the internal weapons bay has now become. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it won't get any bigger, or the plane will be made larger overall.

 

[kqcke for you]

Still large enough for atleast 3 MK.84 or 9 Amraam or 3 JSM. Short you got around 50% more space for ammunition over F-35B for the IWB and thats still without smart use of it.

 

[VTOLicious]

Sorry guys, a combat aircraft's internal volume is not just for weapons bays!
You have to carefully trade the available volume between IWBs, fuel tanks, landing gear compartments, engine ducts and all kind of other equipment. And you can't blow up the airframe at will without gaining structural weight and increasing drag. An aircraft is a three-dimensional body and not just a planform view.

I would highly recommend you to take a closer look at KF-21. Due to the use of the same engines it is the best reference you can get. There is no way for a stealth fighter in this category to have such a huge weapons bay without severly compromising other performance aspects (e.g. range).
Btw, engineers didn't come up with serpentine ducts just for the fun of it.

 

[kqcke for you]

I would highly recommend you to take a closer look at KF-21. Due to the use of the same engines it is the best reference you can get.

6t of internal fuel but if we would use F-414 with EPE/EDE a lower SPFC (~1-4%) is achieved and more trust is produced if needed. That should do a little bit but even then under the best condition that i know Off we only achieve an SPFC of 19.89 g/kN/s (probaly a bit higher than that is more likely) which is still mutch farther away from the 18 g/kN/s of Tornado which only has 4.8-5.3t of fuel (IDS/GR.4).

There is no way for a stealth fighter in this category to have such a huge weapons bay without severly compromising other performance aspects (e.g. range).

Well one could look at reducing drag trought a supercritical wing design but even 1000km will be hard to achieve at maximum fuel load.
(My guess)

Btw, engineers didn't come up with serpentine ducts just for the fun of it.

Yes but if it doesn't fit then it doesn't fit. To achieve a S-duct effect some one could use an style similiar to the YF-23 for the air intaktes which Point slightly away from the fuselage. Then closer mounted engines and it should be mostly if not fully hidden.

 

[Jety]

Sorry guys, a combat aircraft's internal volume is not just for weapons bays!

Sorry, that's not what I said and if you look closely at my last picture you'll see that your statement is exaggerated. In this picture, even though it is only two-dimensional, I can see a relatively small internal weapons bay. If you compare them with the entire aircraft.

You have to carefully trade the available volume between IWBs, fuel tanks, landing gear compartments, engine ducts and all kind of other equipment. And you can't blow up the airframe at will without gaining structural weight and increasing drag. An aircraft is a three-dimensional body and not just a planform view.

If you want to say that the design of a modern combat aircraft is a highly complex task, due to the large number of design variables available. The selection of key parameters such as the wing planform, the number of engines and their thrust, the degree of stability and control required and the means of attaining it, requires a careful and systematic approach to ensure that a satisfactorily integrated design is achieved. In addition to meeting performance requirements, the design will also be required to meet some other 'measure of success', such as minimum aircraft mass. Then I agree with you one hundred percent and I tried to take all these aspects into account even if it wasn't visible in the pictures shown so far. As you can see in the pictures of the small Tornado II demonstrator, I am also familiar with bodies that are three-dimensional. For the rest, I consider the dimensions of the aircraft I propose to be set as shown in the first picture of this thread.

I would highly recommend you to take a closer look at KF-21.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the KF-21 is not a reference for me. Not because I didn't notice it in time and not because it doesn't have an internal weapons bay.

Due to the use of the same engines it is the best reference you can get.

As I already mentioned, my main choice is the EJ-200 and only alternatively the F-414 engine. For many and varied reasons.

There is no way for a stealth fighter in this category to have such a huge weapons bay without severly compromising other performance aspects (e.g. range).

For this reason you could say that the title of this thread is "Design proposal" and not "preliminary design" for this stealth fighter bomber. You shouldn't say something like that if you haven't tried to develop it. But it was a good contribution to the discussion.

 

[VTOLicious]

Sorry, that's not what I said and if you look closely at my last picture you'll see that your statement is exaggerated. In this picture, even though it is only two-dimensional, I can see a relatively small internal weapons bay. If you compare them with the entire aircraft.


If you want to say that the design of a modern combat aircraft is a highly complex task, due to the large number of design variables available. The selection of key parameters such as the wing planform, the number of engines and their thrust, the degree of stability and control required and the means of attaining it, requires a careful and systematic approach to ensure that a satisfactorily integrated design is achieved. In addition to meeting performance requirements, the design will also be required to meet some other 'measure of success', such as minimum aircraft mass. Then I agree with you one hundred percent and I tried to take all these aspects into account even if it wasn't visible in the pictures shown so far. As you can see in the pictures of the small Tornado II demonstrator, I am also familiar with bodies that are three-dimensional. For the rest, I consider the dimensions of the aircraft I propose to be set as shown in the first picture of this thread.


As I mentioned earlier inthe thread, the KF-21 is not a reference for me. As I mentionedearlier in the thread, the KF-21 is not a reference for me. Notbecause I didn't notice it in time and not because it doesn't have aninternal weapons bay.


As I already mentioned, my main choice is the EJ-200 and only alternatively the F-414 engine. For many and varied reasons.


For this reason you could say that the title of this thread is "Design proposal" and not "preliminary design" for this stealth fighter bomber. You shouldn't say something like that if you haven't tried to develop it.

All the best!

 

[kqcke for you]

.You shouldn't say something like that if you haven't tried to develop it. But it was a good contribution to the discussion.

He has a similiar thread here but for a more lighter fighter.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/design-challenge-lightweight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/

 

[kqcke for you]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the KF-21 is not a reference for me. Not because I didn't notice it in time and not because it doesn't have an internal weapons bay.
As I already mentioned, my main choice is the EJ-200 and only alternatively the F-414 engine. For many and varied reasons.

The thing is F-414 GE 400K and EJ-200 both are very similiar. Which still helps ous as we can deduce that with the same drag and weight 6t of fuel gives ous a similiar range given the same Payload (wasn't stated for that number but i guess Air to Air Loadout). But EJ-200 has good potential and we atleast its stated that EF with TVC can have a lower SPFC just trought them using the trust more optimal for the flight. And while 3% reduction isn't mutch its 3% you can burn and achieve more.

 

[kqcke for you]

Different question but how do you want to tackle ECR and nuclear Strike? After all both is done by Tornado. Getting all the jammer inside the aircraft could get hard. Maybe Special external pods for broad band jamming?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Is there any room for distributed jamming and ECM gear?

 

[kqcke for you]

Is there any room for distributed jamming and ECM gear?

Getting the systems is just half the fun. We also need the power to operate and cool them which is probaly the harder task. While G-J band is no problem to fit inside anything way outside that will get tricky as this can be done with the prime radar for the most off it.

 

[Jety]

He has a similiar thread here but for a more lighter fighter.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/design-challenge-lightweight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/

Oh I didn't know that and it's actually a very informative thread with lots of good ideas for a little stealth fighter. Thanks for the note and the link @ kqcke for you.

Great job VTOLicious did there. I am also very amazed at his ability to create CAT and other drawings, great. I'm not that good at using CAT programs yet. But that's no reason to adopt a, let's say, somewhat snooty tone. At least that's how I felt it.

 

[Jety]

Different question but how do you want to tackle ECR and nuclear Strike? After all both is done by Tornado. Getting all the jammer inside the aircraft could get hard. Maybe Special external pods for broad band jamming?

As far as ECR is concerned, unfortunately I am not a specialist for this system. I don't know how big the influences within the airframe and others systems are here, but I could imagine that problems could arise. Maybe it's actually not possible to accommodate inside jammer. That should be the goal. If that doesn't work, external pods would have to be used.

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

maybe you could accomodate on the side of the fuselage in a neat position that allows for ECM on a large scale, like the proposed F-22 external ECM pods but in this case that are integral to the aircraft, with maybe predisposition for better and more advanced pods later
on the topic of extra fuel there are maybe ideas for conformal fuel tanks (which would be a stretch) or "stealthy external fuel tanks" like in F-22, i hope this may be useful

 

[kqcke for you]

maybe you could accomodate on the side of the fuselage in a neat position that allows for ECM on a large scale, like the proposed F-22 external ECM pods but in this case that are integral to the aircraft, with maybe predisposition for better and more advanced pods later

The thing is its not impossible for it to be carried internal but it takes a lot of space as it needs cooling, power and computer which also need cooling and power which could be really hard as i have no idea how much EJ-200 can even put out but i believe its not mutch. Given the already big IWB and the 2 seats and the really small height fuel capacity is already very limited for it.

on the topic of extra fuel there are maybe ideas for conformal fuel tanks (which would be a stretch)

Yeah that was of the toughts i had at first too but its hard. Maybe something like F-15E would work

or "stealthy external fuel tanks" like in F-22, i hope this may be useful

For fuel one also could make one for the IWB which reduce ammunition load to F-35 level if this bay size can be hold.

 

[ItalianAFDFail]

agreed it's complicated but i belive it can be made to work with clever engineering and clever design work, the correct engineering of fuel tanks to avoid having balancing issues as a whole while flying and try not to to cram too much on the baseline model, for some specialized works i belive it's better to make a specialized variant for AEW and ECR (make a single plane for the two roles in order to acheive good effectiveness maybe) if anything you could strap 6 HARMs to the plane and you have an effective Wild Weasel platform to meme on them Pantsirs or Tors

 

[Nik]

An elegant aircraft...
IMHO, ticks box that should look right.
Of course, still have to get everything on board or slung, have range plus payload plus growth potential for when weight rises and/or bigger / better engines available. Latter perhaps driven by need to power ECM, possible laser weapon etc..

I've a soft spot for canards' agility, but I suppose tandem seating plus s-ducting plus super-cruise would unduly complicate c/g issues...

 

[Jety]

Hi dear forum members, especially to ItalianAFDFail, kqcke for you and Nick, thank you very much for the last comments, very interesting. Unfortunately I have to take a break for a few months because I have to move from Cologne to Berlin. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Here is a short video of the Tornado II demanstrator as it could sound with two EJ-200s.

 

[Archibald]

Twornado (english)
Tornadeux (french)
Tornados (spanish)
Tornadue (Italy)

 

[Jety]

Twornado (english)
Tornadeux (french)
Tornados (spanish)
Tornadue (Italy)

???

 

[Archibald]

Sorry, it is just me "translating" Tornado II" in varied languages. I really love the aircraft design you created.

 

[Jety]

Sorry, it is just me "translating" Tornado II" in varied languages. I really love the aircraft design you created.

Yes I understand and thank you