Panavia Tornado

[SK2]

What we have got in 1974?

US
F-14: in service, but haunted by compressor stall issue
F-15: yet to enter service, being queen of hanger for quite a while, with not even an ounce for ground attack emphasized
F-16: first flight just happened

France
Mirage IV: a bit dated
Mirage 2000: in development

Sweden
AJ-37: development and profile quite similar (strike version first, then interceptor was being developed), a bit short legged

Soviets (are you kidding?)
Su-17: short-legged, inferior avionics
Su-24: yet to enter service
MiG-23BN: lack of performance, inferior avionics
MiG-27: yet to enter service

Am I missing any other candidates?

 

[DWG]

Range is definitely an issue. It would be safe to assume all major Continental Europe airbases would be destroyed within first 30 minutes, and even Mirage IV with ASMP required in-flight refuelling within Soviet airspace before reaching the range to launch ASMP to Moscow...

ASMP and ASLT are pre-strategic weapons (a coining of the French defence minister Charles Hernu specifically in relation to ASMP/ASLT and the like, but not to SRAM II/SRAM-T as operationally envisaged by the US), their job isn't to go after Russian cities during the big one, it's to say "You see that glowing crater that used to be Wittenburg Air base*? Do you really want to take the next step?" If we're into a use-it-or-lose-it scenario they've already failed.

* Or Prague, depending on national strategic calculus.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

France
Mirage IV: a bit dated
Mirage 2000: in development

As mentioned in @CJGibson 's Battle Flight, the Mirage G8A ACF/Super Mirage.

 

[Sintra]

@DWG I was perhaps assuming some amount of hindsight but just looking at the paper characteristics of the F-15 with CFTs, circa 1974, it seems to me that it should have been a compelling option… a big platform with 2 excellent engines and a high fuel fraction, unencumbered by the 1960s variable sweep wing.

Obviously the F-15A per se wasn’t configured for the MRCA role(s) and industrially it was likely a non-starter but if the debate in this thread is whether Tornado was « the best for the job », my question was how did it compare to other theoretical alternatives? (With the F-15 IMHO being the platform with the most potential at time, if configured appropriately for the Tornado role)

"2 excellent engines"

The Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 in 1974?! It was an engine alright, excellent it certainly wasnt. More like "problematic, very, very, very problematic".

 

[Trident]

Yup - the Derivative Fighter Engine leading to the F110 was not born out of a mere whim...

 

[Archibald]

As mentioned in @CJGibson 's Battle Flight, the Mirage G8A ACF/Super Mirage.

Yep. Mirage ACF was the plan from May 1972 to December 1975. Mirage 2000 started as a palliative to it (albeit a cheap and good one, so no complain: France could not afford a twin jet, be it G4, G8, ACF or 4000). Not until shrunk to F-18 size and as a replacement of everything but the kitchen sink in AdA and Aéronavale.

 

[SK2]

ASMP and ASLT are pre-strategic weapons (a coining of the French defence minister Charles Hernu specifically in relation to ASMP/ASLT and the like, but not to SRAM II/SRAM-T as operationally envisaged by the US), their job isn't to go after Russian cities during the big one, it's to say "You see that glowing crater that used to be Wittenburg Air base*? Do you really want to take the next step?" If we're into a use-it-or-lose-it scenario they've already failed.

* Or Prague, depending on national strategic calculus.

While the French are idealistic on using the nukes, I guess the Brits are more practical (cough) on their usage?

I totally forgot the SRAM/SRAMII. Integrating Tornado with with would be quite awesome

 

[eagle]

F-15: yet to enter service, being queen of hanger for quite a while, with not even an ounce for ground attack emphasized

Actually the F-15 had air to ground capability from the start. GP bombs, CBUs and GBU-10s could be employed. The pylon situation was not ideal obviously with only 3 stations being available, where the tanks usually go. But for the doomsday mission this wouldn't be a big issue. With a single special store on the centerline plus 2 wing tanks, range would be reasonable.
F-15C combat radius with 4 Sparrows, 2 Mk 84 and a centerline tank is 586 nm. Hi-Medium-Hi profile though.

 

[DWG]

While the French are idealistic on using the nukes, I guess the Brits are more practical (cough) on their usage?

This is essentially the UK adopting French (pre)-strategic thought.

I totally forgot the SRAM/SRAMII. Integrating Tornado with with would be quite awesome

SRAM II was arguably the least capable of the missiles proposed for Tactical Air to Surface Missile. Which were AGM-131B SRAM-T (AGM-131A SRAM II with the W91 warhead dialable from 10 to 100Kt, vs SRAM II's 200Kt W89, 250 miles at Mach 2+), SLAT, which effectively converts SLAT back into ASALM (300 miles at Mach 4.5), or ASLP (370-620 miles at M3) In practice all would probably have had a rebuilt WE-177 as warhead. USAF did plan to integrate SRAM-T with Tornado separately from the UK TASM requirement.

 

[DWG]

Actually the F-15 had air to ground capability from the start.

"Not a pound for air-to-ground".

Even with the capability there, everyone except the Israelis ignored it. TAC wasn't interested in the F-15A/B/C/D for air-to-ground, it had F-111, F-16 and A-7 for that. It was only when the Tactical All-Weather Requirement Study settled on F-15 as best candidate to replace F-111 in 1978 that USAF even considered it for strike. It then took until 1981 to launch the Enhanced Tactical Fighter/Dual Role Aircraft competition and until 1984 to choose F-15E over F-16XL/E/F. F-15E first flight wasn't until 1986, 1987 if you want an actual F-15E rather than a hybrid. By this point Tornado had been flying for 13 years, and in delivery for 7/8 years.

Suggestions of the F-15E as an alternative for Tornado only work with access to a time-machine.

But for the doomsday mission this wouldn't be a big issue.

Except that wasn't the mission. The Tornado requirement was for a conventional interdictor.

 

[eagle]

"Not a pound for air-to-ground".

Not a pound for air-to-ground was USAF talk. McDD would have happily sold the F-15A as a bomber to anyone asking for it. It was offered to Canada as the CF-15 f.e. as a multirole fighter incl. for the interdiction mission.

Even with the capability there, everyone except the Israelis ignored it. TAC wasn't interested in the F-15A/B/C/D for air-to-ground, it had F-111, F-16 and A-7 for that. It was only when the Tactical All-Weather Requirement Study settled on F-15 as best candidate to replace F-111 in 1978 that USAF even considered it for strike. It then took until 1981 to launch the Enhanced Tactical Fighter/Dual Role Aircraft competition and until 1984 to choose F-15E over F-16XL/E/F. F-15E first flight wasn't until 1986, 1987 if you want an actual F-15E rather than a hybrid. By this point Tornado had been flying for 13 years, and in delivery for 7/8 years.

Suggestions of the F-15E as an alternative for Tornado only work with access to a time-machine.

I was talking about the F-15A-D
The A/G capability was not completely ignored, even by TAC. At least some units practised for A/G once in a while, I think it was the 1st FW before they got MSIP Eagles iirc.
Here's a very early F-15A. Note the SUU-20 practice bomb/rocket dispenser.


TF-15 promo shot displaying load-out options


TF-15 dropping some Mk 82s


Fast packs aka CFTs were on the table very early. Massive range increase for A/G missions. Would have been part of Canada's CF-15 too.


Of course the Tornado IDS is vastly superior in the attack/strike role thanks to its avionics. So if an F-15 version before the F-15E would have to meet the same requirements, a lot of development work would have been needed. Low level capabilites can't be matched obviously.

Except that wasn't the mission. The Tornado requirement was for a conventional interdictor.

Sometimes I forget the RAF requirements were a bit different than the GAF requirements

 

[DWG]

Of course the Tornado IDS is vastly superior in the attack/strike role thanks to its avionics. So if an F-15 version before the F-15E would have to meet the same requirements, a lot of development work would have been needed. Low level capabilites can't be matched obviously.

But the entire raison d'etre for the IDS was low level penetration to get the support echelons and logistics nodes behind the Forward Line of Troops: airfields, bridges, rail junctions, supply dumps, troop concentrations. And the only way we knew to do that survivably into the PACT IADS was low-level, ideally at night. Remember HARM IOC wasn't until 1983, and ALARM not until 1990.

Sometimes I forget the RAF requirements were a bit different than the GAF requirements

Not so different, all three wanted IDS as a conventional low level penetrator, with a side-order of maritime strike, and with a limited capability for nuclear strike. They just differed in the specific weapons and priorities.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I must say I find this questioning of the Tornado and its legacy very puzzling... A very important aircraft for Europe and a very successful one to boot only falling short maybe in its mission specific design instead of multirole platform.

I don't ever recall reading that F-15 was even under consideration by the RAF or any other of the partner nations. And no McDD bombing marketing was going to convince foreign operators to use the lightweight fighter oriented design in a way not done by its prime user. Nevermind that it could do the low and fast penetration in poor weather mission better than the upcoming Tornado. Others already pointed out that it took years for the F-15 to become a credible alternative in the Strike Eagle by which time Tornado was well in service.

The F-14 was considered as opposed to ADV but the AWG-9 radar was seen as too expensive and without it the F-14 wasn't seen as worth the expense and had no local industry potential (I have not yet heard of UK engines being proposed).

I often think had the Foxhunter performed as planned from the oust the reputation of the ADV would be seen as vastly different. Only it took till GW1 and later for it to reach the proposed IOC level of capability. Had the RAF stuck with auto sweep it might edge further upwards in reputation too. Were they faster in incorporating AMRAAM it would ve viewed vastly diffetently too.
In many ways the initial bad repuation from its F2 days stuck with it until retirement even if they were vastly more capable by then.

 

[CJGibson]

I must say I find this questioning of the Tornado and its legacy very puzzling... A very important aircraft for Europe and a very successful one to boot only falling short maybe in its mission specific design instead of multirole platform.

I don't ever recall reading that F-15 was even under consideration by the RAF or any other of the partner nations. And no McDD bombing marketing was going to convince foreign operators to use the lightweight fighter oriented design in a way not done by its prime user. Nevermind that it could do the low and fast penetration in poor weather mission better than the upcoming Tornado. Others already pointed out that it took years for the F-15 to become a credible alternative in the Strike Eagle by which time Tornado was well in service.

The F-14 was considered as opposed to ADV but the AWG-9 radar was seen as too expensive and without it the F-14 wasn't seen as worth the expense and had no local industry potential (I have not yet heard of UK engines being proposed).

I often think had the Foxhunter performed as planned from the oust the reputation of the ADV would be seen as vastly different. Only it took till GW1 and later for it to reach the proposed IOC level of capability. Had the RAF stuck with auto sweep it might edge further upwards in reputation too. Were they faster in incorporating AMRAAM it would ve viewed vastly diffetently too.
In many ways the initial bad repuation from its F2 days stuck with it until retirement even if they were vastly more capable by then.

The Foxhunter probably suffered and benefitted from the Nimrod AEW3 unpleasantness. Suffered by effort being taken away and benefited by the Nimrod taking the flak focus. (can't recall when Ferranti merged with Marconi. I was told the Ferranti bits worked, but they would say that, wouldn't they?) I agree on the AMRAAM, Autosweep would have been nice, but would it be needed for launching AMRAAMs at Backfires? The TV system has always puzzled me as it was mentioned in the earliest articles on the ADV, then just disappeared.

Chris

 

[BlackBat242]

The issue of the morality of the Arms Trade has been for political debate since, I think, Maxim machine guns being sold to both sides in US Civil War. Nations evolve laws and practice, acceptable to their voters, to balance morality v. jobs.

Auditioning for a job as a journo?

Hiram Maxim began development of his machine gun in 1883 (first patents filed), demonstrated the first prototype in October 1884, and founded the company bearing his name in November 1884 to produce his machine gun.

The US Civil War was from April 12 1861 to April 9 1865 - so 20 years before his machine gun was available.

 

[BlackBat242]

I don't ever recall reading that F-15 was even under consideration by the RAF or any other of the partner nations. And no McDD bombing marketing was going to convince foreign operators to use the lightweight fighter oriented design in a way not done by its prime user.

F-15 (selected 1969, first flight 1972, service entry 1976) was the Air Superiority Fighter.

F-16 (LWF study program started 1969, RFP 1972, fly-off prototype first flight Feb 1974, LFW re-roled into generalist Air Combat Fighter April 1974, won competition January 1975, service entry 1980) was the Light Weight Fighter.

 

[Arjen]

The Union Army used a dozen or so Gatling guns, if wiki is to be trusted they were personally bought by Union commanders. A further eight mounted on gunboats. I have found some hobbyist sources that claim a few Gatling guns were used by the Confederate Army - also, personal buys by Confederate commanders?

In general, arms manufacturers will sell to anyone,
taking heed of the 11th commandment 'thou shalt not get caught'.

 

[DWG]

I must say I find this questioning of the Tornado and its legacy very puzzling...

I've been wondering whether we're running into an experience gap? People who don't recall the Cold War imperatives and realities and only look at aircraft through a post-9/11 lense. Because I certainly don't recall anyone questioning the suitability of Tornado IDS during the Cold War.

Tornado ADV is a separate case, everyone fully understood that was the UK using a slightly reworked hammer as a screwdriver because if you have a toolbox full of hammers it's cheaper to file one into screwdriver shaper than buy an actual screwdriver.

Were they faster in incorporating AMRAAM it would ve viewed vastly diffetently too.

It's a bit unfair to blame that one on the RAF I think. It seems much more clear that it was the government running things on the cheap because it could get away with it. Typhoon development got caught up in the same thing and the House of Lords Defence Select Committee recognised the other week the damage that had done to its exportability.

 

[DWG]

The Foxhunter probably suffered and benefitted from the Nimrod AEW3 unpleasantness. Suffered by effort being taken away and benefited by the Nimrod taking the flak focus. (can't recall when Ferranti merged with Marconi. I was told the Ferranti bits worked, but they would say that, wouldn't they?)

Nimrod and Foxhunter were mid-80s, the Ferranti merger was early to mid-90s.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Tornado ADV is a separate case, everyone fully understood that was the UK using a slightly reworked hammer as a screwdriver because if you have a toolbox full of hammers it's cheaper to file one into screwdriver shaper than buy an actual screwdriver.
It's a bit unfair to blame that one on the RAF I think. It seems much more clear that it was the government running things on the cheap because it could get away with it. Typhoon development got caught up in the same thing and the House of Lords Defence Select Committee recognised the other week the damage that had done to its exportability.

The FAA with FA.2 Shar incorporated AMRAAM well before the RAF had it on F.3 and even well before most F-16 MLUs were in service. Were the RAF as proactive/smart with their cash they would have enjiyed a similar advantage even if their hammer turned screwdriver was not the best for purpose. It might well be a government and treasury thing but the ADV lacked a whole bunch of items which would have made it a fighter-interceptor with a much better reputation. Most of these only came rushed in for GW1.

The autosweep is one of those lacking. One more thing for the pilot to focus on in the A2A role they fulfilled. Only disabled because Warton were unsure of the wing fatigue stress monitoring with it if I am not mistaken? Saudis had no issues with it on theirs. Maybe not a requirement on bomber interception, but entering service only in the mid-80s surely they should have seen that the ADV needed to turn and burn too?

 

[CJGibson]

Nimrod and Foxhunter were mid-80s, the Ferranti merger was early to mid-90s.

Ah, thanks.
Chris

 

[Yellow Palace]

Tornado ADV is a separate case, everyone fully understood that was the UK using a slightly reworked hammer as a screwdriver because if you have a toolbox full of hammers it's cheaper to file one into screwdriver shaper than buy an actual screwdriver.

More like filing a chisel into a flathead screwdriver, then having people complain it doesn't fit screws with a Phillips head, IMO!

This is degenerating into another 'top trumps' thread, JP.233 in podded form (SH.357) was tested for use by Buccaneer in both bomb bay and underwing pylons

Photos of JP.233 on the Buccaneer are interesting - I knew it was proposed, I didn't know it had got as far as flight testing, though presumably just mass simulators?

 

[DWG]

The FAA with FA.2 Shar incorporated AMRAAM well before the RAF had it on F.3 and even well before most F-16 MLUs were in service. Were the RAF as proactive/smart with their cash they would have enjiyed a similar advantage even if their hammer turned screwdriver was not the best for purpose. It might well be a government and treasury thing?

The entire FA.2 programme benefitted from political embarrassment over the Falklands and needing to demonstrate the RN was now better equipped. Yet if memory serves the entire initial FA.2 AMRAAM buy was 100 missiles, vs 51 Sea Harrier FA.2s at 2 to 4 missiles each. If that was all the RN could squeeze out of the Treasury for the politically-advantaged Sea Harrier, think of the problems the RAF would face getting sufficient AMRAAMs for 147 F.3s, particularly as AMRAAM in RAF service was always considered an interim buy until Meteor arrived. Which was supposed to be much earlier than it did.

 

[SK2]

I've been wondering whether we're running into an experience gap? People who don't recall the Cold War imperatives and realities and only look at aircraft through a post-9/11 lense. Because I certainly don't recall anyone questioning the suitability of Tornado IDS during the Cold War.

They loved the Tornado GR so much that they planned to have a major upgrade with stealth intake, fixed wings, revised radar and computer etc......at around late 80s or early 90s

 

[DWG]

They loved the Tornado GR so much that they planned to have a major upgrade with stealth intake, fixed wings, revised radar and computer etc......at around late 80s or early 90s

Tornado 2000 was the high end of the MLU proposals, chined forward fuselage, stealthy intakes, but no change to the wing. The only fixed wing Tornado proposals are from much earlier in the programme, pre-first flight.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/tornado-projects.3/

 

[Colonial-Marine]

"2 excellent engines"

The Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 in 1974?! It was an engine alright, excellent it certainly wasnt. More like "problematic, very, very, very problematic".

From what I've read the F100 was pretty ambitious for its day. I know it had numerous well documented problems and for a few years P&W was having trouble meeting the production targets. If the F-15 was considered a hanger-queen in those days the fact that some completed F-15s were just sitting around waiting for engines certainly did not help.

Another factor about the F-15 I don't think has been mentioned yet is that it isn't exactly a smooth ride at the sort of very low altitudes the Tornado IDS was expected to be flying. When the USAF selected the F-15E they were by that time they were more focused on doing strike or interdiction missions from medium altitudes. Even if you went to McDonnell Douglas with all the money you'd need and asked for a low-level strike version of the F-15 they'd probably tell you it would be better to have them design a new aircraft for that job.

I'd say the only semi-possible alternative in 1974 would be to reverse prior decisions, and order F-111s which is not viable for obvious reasons. Production was still ongoing by that time period and the major problems had been overcome but whoever in the British government would be the one to make that decision would be torn apart by the press and opposition. The previous order of the F-111K, the cost growth, and the cancellation of that order makes it politically unacceptable. As A Tentative Fleet Plan said, they could theoretically go the French and try to do work out a variant of the Mirage G8 but that would involve going to the French which I'm sure would be seen as embarrassing. After-all, the French had earlier left the AFVG program which supposed to provide the UK the aircraft they were looking for.

I've seen a few suggest that a significant upgrade of the Blackburn Buccaneer S.2 could have performed the role, and the crew of those aircraft seem to hold it in high regard. But many definitely had the desire for an aircraft with higher speeds than could be managed by that.

There is also the question of what the West Germans (or Italians) would do without the Tornado? The F-111 is almost certainly outside of their budget and has way more range than they need. The Mirage G8 variant option could probably do the job. However, wrestling any significant share of the aircraft's manufacturing away from Dassault would probably be a hard challenge.

It seems to me like the Tornado IDS was the best and probably only viable choice at the time. Overall, it seems to have been a good design for its role and served those three countries well.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I've seen a few suggest that a significant upgrade of the Blackburn Buccaneer S.2 could have performed the role, and the crew of those aircraft seem to hold it in high regard. But many definitely had the desire for an aircraft with higher speeds than could be managed by that.

I vaguely remember reading that a study was done before the RAF committed to Tornado procurement, comparing it to a Buccaneer upgrade. The conclusion was that an improved Buccaneer could do everything the Tornado could in the strike role, except for supersonic bursts - but it wouldn't be able to do the reconnaissance role at all.

 

[SK2]

Tornado 2000 was the high end of the MLU proposals, chined forward fuselage, stealthy intakes, but no change to the wing. The only fixed wing Tornado proposals are from much earlier in the programme, pre-first flight.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/tornado-projects.3/

Seems I have mixed up the Tornado 2000 with the Long Range Penetrator

 

[kaiserbill]

I'd say the only semi-possible alternative in 1974 would be to reverse prior decisions, and order F-111s which is not viable for obvious reasons. Production was still ongoing by that time period ....

The Blackburn Buccaneer was actually in production in 1974 to fulfill the RAF order after the cancellation of the TSR2 and F111.
And it continued in production until 1978, IIRC.

Like many have said before, the Bucc really could have done with an avionics upgrade, but this was neglected.

Interestingly, the SAAF thought so highly of the Bucc that there was a proposed project to install the modern Elta 2032 pulse doppler multi-mode radar as fitted to the Cheetah C.
The end of the Cold War, and subsequent downsizing, put an end to that.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Interestingly, the SAAF thought so highly of the Bucc that there was a proposed project to install the modern Elta 2032 pulse doppler multi-mode radar as fitted to the Cheetah C.
The end of the Cold War, and subsequent downsizing, put an end to that.

Not to mention upgrades to the self defense and navigational suites, bombing computers etc guided by the new radar. It would have been an impressive beast!

That said - the SAAF operated the Bucc in weather far different than Europe. I recall stories of Golden Eagle exercises with the German Tonkas where the SAAF would cancel flying due to rainy weather and low cloud to which the Germans responded its a normal day in Europe - they are going flying.

Some Buccs were used to develop the Tornado radar and going by the mod the radome and I assume associated kit was quite a bit bigger than what the Bucc had space for. It might have a good endurance and be well suited to low level, but does it have the avionic space for the size of radar needed? Upgraded Bucc instead of Tornado would make good alternative history regarding the RAF frontline fighter fleet...

 

[kaiserbill]

Some Buccs were used to develop the Tornado radar and going by the mod the radome and I assume associated kit was quite a bit bigger than what the Bucc had space for. It might have a good endurance and be well suited to low level, but does it have the avionic space for the size of radar needed? Upgraded Bucc instead of Tornado would make good alternative history regarding the RAF frontline fighter fleet...

The Tornado IDS had two radar antennae in its nose, to perform attack, terrain following, and one ground mapping.
Hence the wide, blunt radome.

Buccaneer XX897 was a testbed used to test the ADV Tornado Foxhunter radar.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The Tornado IDS radar Buccaneer testbed. It would likely need a forward fuselage rework should it be chosen to upgrade Bucc over new Tornado production which quickly turns into a new expensive design process anyway.

 

[Hood]

I've been wondering whether we're running into an experience gap? People who don't recall the Cold War imperatives and realities and only look at aircraft through a post-9/11 lense. Because I certainly don't recall anyone questioning the suitability of Tornado IDS during the Cold War.

Maybe its the legacy of having a membership of drawing board project fans, but its odd that most real aircraft or real proposals get shot down in favour of fevered what-if dreams.

Yes ADV could have been better, but by the time it was retired it was pretty good, should have been better sooner but then it never smacked down enemy planes in its day so we'll never know how it would have fared beyond Super Top Trumps level of analysis.
The Sea Harrier FA.2 was gob-smackingly ahead of the game, but then it probably in the sweet spot in terms of development timing to take advantage of all the latest kit when the slightly older stuff was too new to spend upgrade money. Plus arguably the RN had a more demanding air defence task, no second-chances, no squadrons of mates for back-up, no Sidewinder-toting Hawks as goalies if things get really dire.

 

[uk 75]

As I wrote earlier, TSR2 did haunt me when I saw the MRCA (Tornado) prototype waddle into the sky at Farnborough. BUT by the 80s it was clear that Tornado had changed the NATO frontline for the better. German Tornados could dominate the Baltic with Kormoran ASMs while their Luftwaffe and RAFG mates pulverised airbases and other stuff in E Europe.
ADV Tornado was a bit of an embarassment at first. Blue Circle cement was a major supplier to NATO infrastructure so their reps enjoyed the joke about their product substituting for Foxhunter.
AEW Nimrod and Tornado ADV stand as a warning to the paper project fans here who crave all UK solutions to everything.
But as is clear from CJG's excellent book the ADV was what the RAF needed on long patrols over murky waters to shoot down Bears etc.
F15 and F14 look great in UK colours (any google search throws up loads of models) but they were not the answer at the time.

 

[Trident]

One thing that vexes me about the Tornado is that the stretched, one-gun ADV airframe did not serve as the baseline for the IDS as well.

A pair of BK27 seems overkill when a gun was often optional or absent altogether in comparable aircraft like the Buccaneer, Intruder, Su-24 and F-111 (and TSR.2 for that matter). Even when installed, the M61 in the F-111 had inferior A/G fire power (far lighter projectile).

With the fin tank, greater fuselage fuel capacity and the big "Hindenburgers", the ADV airframe had as near as makes no difference the same fuel fraction as a Buccaneer with bay door tank and RAF-size slipper tanks! And that's without considering the more efficient engines (double the BPR and better core thermal efficiency) and higher wing aspect ratio in low sweep settings for cruise and loiter. There is every reason to expect it would've at the very least matched, possibly *outranged* the Buccaneer in such a configuration.

Sure, on an per-airframe basis, manufacturing cost would have increased somewhat, but the savings from lower duplication of development effort and greater tooling commonality had to have been non-trivial, too. As far as operating cost, I reckon it should have been a wash, the airframe was slightly larger yet mechanically actually simpler (one gun, no Kruger flaps), systems are otherwise the same as the real IDS.

Last but not least, with the more elegant, longer radome and fully internal refueling probe, it would've been a lot prettier, too This wasn't entirely cosmetic, BTW, pilot reports indicate the IDS was unpleasant during air/air refueling due to the disturbed airflow over the blunt nose cone causing the drogue to dance about quite a lot.

The other thing I would have liked to see, later on in the career of the aircraft, is an internal ECM suite, to free up the outer wing pylons. I seem to recall Italy in fact went in that direction, I might have to research that more closely. With the trend progressively heading toward smaller, precision weapons, a pair of additional 500 pound capacity pylons would become quite useful. Based on the following photo, this could've enabled up to six 500 pound LGBs plus designator pod and a pair of big tanks:

https://backend.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/fpsc_1200x630/public/uploads/2019/02/last_sortie.jpg

Bearing in mind the points outlined above about the efficient engine cycle, wing configuration in cruise and fuel capacity, that amounts to a payload/range giving the larger F-15E a run for its money!

The Tornado was a better aircraft than it is typically given credit for, and a lot of further potential went untapped.

 

[BlackBat242]

The Union Army used a dozen or so Gatling guns, if wiki is to be trusted they were personally bought by Union commanders. A further eight mounted on gunboats. I have found some hobbyist sources that claim a few Gatling guns were used by the Confederate Army - also, personal buys by Confederate commanders?

In general, arms manufacturers will sell to anyone,
taking heed of the 11th commandment 'thou shalt not get caught'.

But Hirum Maxim is not Richard J. Gatling, nor is the Maxim Gun the Gatling Gun... the original statement cited the Maxim Gun as being sold in the ACW.

 

[Arjen]

the original statement cited the Maxim Gun as being sold in the ACW.

Indeed, that statement is wrong.

The issue of the morality of the Arms Trade has been for political debate since, I think, Maxim machine guns being sold to both sides in US Civil War. Nations evolve laws and practice, acceptable to their voters, to balance morality v. jobs.

Fixed it.

The issue, morality of the Arms Trade, still stands:
in general, arms manufacturers will want to sell to anyone.
Unless, of course, nations enforce the laws that tell arms manufacturers to be more choosy about their clients.

 

[DWG]

One thing that vexes me about the Tornado is that the stretched, one-gun ADV airframe did not serve as the baseline for the IDS as well.

It's that timeline thing again, in this case the ADV flying and entering service 5 years after the IDS, so the superiority of the ADV changes maybe wasn't immediately apparent. WRT two BK-27s rather than 1, I suspect that was just drawing on the Jaguar and Harrier, which are both two gun aircraft, but the difference is they're CAS/BAI, whereas the Tornado is a deep interdictor, with BAI and all-weather CAS as secondary priorities, so the utility of the gun is much reduced.

The other thing I would have liked to see, later on in the career of the aircraft, is an internal ECM suite

Well, Zeus was in the frame for MLU, but not adopted.

 

[SK2]

Probably based on American experience in cannon usage during the Vietnam War? But for their interceptor role the need of it should be minimum, unless you are intercepting KAL...

From my vague memory, apart from IR Camera for GR1A, something else (ESM? ECM?) can be installed in BK-27's space.

 

[Trident]

It's that timeline thing again, in this case the ADV flying and entering service 5 years after the IDS, so the superiority of the ADV changes maybe wasn't immediately apparent. WRT two BK-27s rather than 1, I suspect that was just drawing on the Jaguar and Harrier, which are both two gun aircraft, but the difference is they're CAS/BAI, whereas the Tornado is a deep interdictor, with BAI and all-weather CAS as secondary priorities, so the utility of the gun is much reduced.

Well, Zeus was in the frame for MLU, but not adopted.

You may well be right, depending on when the configurations of the two variants diverged.

Zeus was the British Harrier II suite, right? I wonder where they would have put the rear-facing emitter, the airframe is just so tightly packaged in that area. On the fin below the RWR? Might conflict with the fuel vent though... if you can get rid of the Kruger flaps, the forward emitters are a no-brainer, with the ADV and ECR having passive receivers in that location.