Panavia Tornado

As I found a reference in the Tornado US Wild Weasel thread I went and dug my copy of World Air Power Journal 30 (Autumn/Fall 1997) and its Tornado article by Jon Lake.

Interesting snippets, summarised rather than verbatim:

Timeline:
May 1965 UK and France agree to build AFVG and Jaguar.
June 1965 AFVG feasibility study issues requirements
Apr 1966 definitive AFVG requirements issued
AFVG is based on the BAC P.45 with French M45 engine and TSR2 avionics
1966 UK variant of AFVG loses fighter role as Phantom bought instead
June 1967 France pulls out of AFVG
UK recasts AFVG as UKVG with RB.153 in place of the M45
But a pure UK design is unacceptable to the government, so BAC courts MBB in June 1967, whose VTOL AVS is on the point of collapse and which has a Neue Kampflugzeug (NKF) design for a light single seat fighter-bomber
Germany demands design leadership, BAC is okay with this as it expects to drive the design from the back seat
Jan 1968 NATO F-104 operators Germany, Italy, Netherland and Belgium, with Canada as observer, start Multi-Role Aircraft for 1975 (MRA 75)
UKVG dies and spawns the light ACA and twin- BS-143 engined FCA, which BAC bids for MRA 75, leading to a July 1968 MoU.
Belgium and Canada drop out as they want an interceptor.
Dec 1968 BAC, MBB and Fiat set up what will become Panavia and produce formal requirements.
Compromise design evolves from British and German proposals, basically the British fuselage and wing with the German outboard wing pivots and wing glove, looking much like UKVG. Italian intake design is adopted.
Compromise design is accepted March 1969 and Panavia created, shares split 33% BAC, 33% MBB, 16% Fiat, 16% Fokker, becoming 42.5% BAC, 42.5% MBB, 15% Fiat when the Netherlands withdraw as they want an interceptor. MBB leads on Panavia 100 single seat interceptor, BAC on Panavia 200 twin seat interdictor. Luftwaffe and Italians want the 100, UK and the Marineflieger the 200.
March 1970 Luftwaffe gets cold feet over the superiority of Panavia 200's avionics over the 100 and jumps ship, Italians quickly follow, Panavia 100 axed.
Production authorised 1973.
12 Nov 1973, first protoype taken by road from Ottobrun to Manching for assembly, but engines not ready yet.
14 Aug 1974 first flight

Role: Italy and Germany apparently wanted to concentrate on CAS/BAI, but the UK was able to produce convincing data* that they could have greater effect by going after troop concentrations in the rear as an interdictor. Similarly, the UK had data to show it would be more effective as a night/all-weather aircraft,

* I'm guessing Operational Research analysis.

Range: Britain wanted increased range over the Germans for low level, but compromised to keep Germany and Italy happy and in the programme. And because of this it didn't initially tell them it was planning the stretched ADV. RAF Tornados have about 10% extra fuel over German and Italian via the fin tank.

ECM fit: RAF use Skyguardian RWR, BOZ 107 plus Sky Shadow. Germans use BOZ 101 plus Cerberus II/III/IV, AN/APQ-111 vs Cerberus reported, but possibly a mis-identification, Marineflieger may use Ajax vice Cerberus. Italians use BOZ 102 plus Cerberus or Elletronica EL/73, but normally seen with twin BOZ when operating over Bosnia, Italian ECRs have an Elletronica RWR. For MLUs, the RAF initially wanted Zeus, but it was cut, both the German and Italian MLUs were reportedly looking at improved EW/RWR fits, but the article is too early to cover final decisions.

(Edited to add AFVG dates)
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to illustrate your point, F-15E's in RAF colours for Microsoft Flight Sim 2020

1711565586419.png

1711565477804.png
 
If the Northrop/Dornier P530 ends up being bought by Germany/Italy, does that allow Britain to go with the larger ADV based version for the IDS? Or does Tornado die due to lack of funding?
 
DWG said:
As I found a reference in the Tornado US Wild Weasel thread I went and dug my copy of World Air Power Journal 30 (Autumn/Fall 1997) and its Tornado article by Jon Lake.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread. I don't remember that ever being considered.

Looking at your Tornado timeline, something else jumped out to me:
If we go back even farther backward in time, the USAF is looking to improve/replace the handful of F-4C's they modified into the Wild Weasels (IV). They settle on modifying the more capable F-4E and give it the G designation (Wild Weasel V). They don't cobble one together and get one airborne until 1975. They eventually modify 136 from existing F-4E's. Squadron service starts in '78.
ADV development isn't approved until 75 or 76. F-14, F-15 and Tornado all flying and in eval nearing service by this point.

It's not impossible to envision a UK buy-in in the fledgling F-14 or F-15 program on the condition the US commits to an offsetting purchase of a Wild Weasel Tornado in the early 70's.

US passes on the F-4 modifications, opting for a more capable Wild Weasel. UK gets the interceptor that none of the other partners want to fund. Cost of each is offset at least somewhat by an increased (and critically, early) financial commitment into their own projects.
 
_Del_ said:
It's not impossible to envision a UK buy-in in the fledgling F-14 or F-15 program on the condition the US commits to an offsetting purchase of a Wild Weasel Tornado in the early 70's.
Click to expand...

It is when you read UK opinions of F-14 and F-15. Which are in Lake's follow-on article on ADV variants in WAPJ 31

F-14 was unaffordable (150% ADV), Phoenix grossly unaffordable (300% Skyflash), and without Phoenix F-14 wasn't considered much better than F-4, plus faced 'appalling problems with reliability and maintainability'. F-15 was clearly a good air-combat platform, but fighter vs fighter was not an RAF priority, and single-seat counted heavily against it, plus RAF was not impressed by the APG-63 or the ECCM fit. And F-16 was a single-engined, single-seat, day-only dogfighter.

The unavoidable political problem driving UK decision making was that any threat to ADV becomes a threat to the overall programme costs, including IDS, and risks Germany walking away, doubly a risk given there were hopes Germany might eventually buy ADV as well as a Phantom replacement.

F-15 was looked at again, in two, possibly three contexts, all likely overlapping in time. In relation to a US Tornado IDS buy in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter/Dual Role Fighter competition, but that would probably have been unacceptable to Congress, plus you run into the logical problem that only a combat two-seat Eagle is acceptable to RAF, but a Tornado win would axe the F-15E development programme. Again when ADV was having development problems, same objections as originally, single seater with poor radar and ECCM, no better than ADV while paying for US not British jobs. And the last time in 81-85 when the US tried to offer to lease four squadrons of F-15s, which was seen as a Trojan Horse intended to kill ADV.

F-4G Wild Weasel V was spun out of development delays on the F-4D Advanced Wild Weasel, programme start 1969, re-jigged to use the F-4E airframe 1974, first flight December 1975, initial deliveries 1981. Important in considering alternatives, Congress was insisting on Fly-Before-Buy at this time.

Enhanced Tactical Fighter was a 1981 requirement, renamed Dual Role Fighter and was won by the F-15E in 1984

Follow On Wild Weasel evolved from a 1982 requirement, with research on integration of APR-47 into F-15 and F-16 getting AF funding in 1986. Panavia started development in 1986 of a FOWW Tornado variant and teamed with Rockwell at the end of 1988, with contract award due in 1990. No contract was awarded, the AF concluding FOWW was unaffordable with current budgets in 1989, the F-4G being supplemented with F-16CGs instead and retired in 1993.

Tornado ECR development did not start until 1984, with first flight in 1988 and the ELS not fully functional until 1993 (only 5 Luftwaffe ECRs were delivered with ELS fitted, and those were development hardware, not production).

Tornado can only replace F-4G if a decision is made to abandon F-4D Wild Weasel IV in 1969, with Tornado design barely finalised and no guarantee the programme would survive, plus facing NIH syndrome (otherwise you're facing sunk costs). Wild Weasel IV/V was also intended as integration of APR-47 in an existing aircraft, making it doubly problematical. Fly-before-buy poses additional issues for a Tornado bid.

Tornado can just about compete for FOWW, but the ELS fitted to ECR wasn't ready in time. It's unclear what ELS the Rockwell/Panavia bid envisaged, definitely not the default ECR fit as it had 360 degree coverage while ECR is forward hemisphere only. In any case USAF decides FOWW is unaffordable in 1989.
 
DWG said:
Tornado can only replace F-4G if a decision is made to abandon F-4D Wild Weasel IV in 1969, with Tornado design barely finalised and no guarantee the programme would survive, plus facing NIH syndrome (otherwise you're facing sunk costs). Wild Weasel IV/V was also intended as integration of APR-47 in an existing aircraft, making it doubly problematical. Fly-before-buy poses additional issues for a Tornado bid.
Click to expand...
My thinking was that they were not incredibly impressed by the results of Wild Weasel IV (and they were not, as they abandoned it after only a few airframes to pursue a modification of the more capable F-4E). In that light, perhaps getting the UK to buy into the Eagle or Tomcat programs (both at a critical stage of development) in exchange for a US commitment to the Tornado program (also still a bit fragile) helps make both programs more bulletproof.
There is no real industrial concern from the US perspective as the G's were modified from existing E air frames. The USAF question then is bang for buck, and does Tornado offer enough improved capabilities to justify a new aircraft/program. The offset to the investment into the foreign Tornado is that the UK commits to a teen series fighter right at the point both are looking various degrees of vulnerable (also the shared F401 engine program). Is it worth it for them to budget a new and foreign aircraft if the Wild Weasel capability is greater and it helps bring down risk/cost on a teen fighter and the F401? Politically, tying the UK defense capability to one of the teens makes cancelling less palatable.

The unavoidable political problem driving UK decision making was that any threat to ADV becomes a threat to the overall programme costs, including IDS, and risks Germany walking away, doubly a risk given there were hopes Germany might eventually buy ADV as well as a Phantom replacement.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that neither Germany nor Italy were interested in the ADV; they only wanted the UK to remain committed to the airframe numbers for the program so that they could retain the workshare on their investments. UK did all the ADV work and were the only funder to my knowledge.
As long as the total USAF commitment and the UK commitment to the Tornado line either meets or exceeds the 385 that the UK had staked out in the arrangement, I do not see the downside for Germany or Italy. The USAF as a customer could even be a feather in the cap for export opportunities.
The offset for the UK cost (which is the obvious elephant in the room) is British avionics and the work share in USAF Tornado purchase to retain it's forex reserves.

Great reply, as always. You always have so much info. Appreciated!
 
_Del_ said:
My thinking was that they were not incredibly impressed by the results of Wild Weasel IV (and they were not, as they abandoned it after only a few airframes to pursue a modification of the more capable F-4E).
Click to expand...
According to this Rand paper, the problem with the F-4D was the APR-38/47 was squeezed in where they could fit with insufficient cooling, plus major issues with a power supply that would take 18 months to fix and which was corrupting overall performance. By switching to the F-4E they gained the space for a more rational installation and the time to redevelop the power supply. Switching to Tornado might still grant them time, but is there space? (Note that the Tornado is 10ft shorter than the Phantom).

My understanding is that neither Germany nor Italy were interested in the ADV; they only wanted the UK to remain committed to the airframe numbers
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much whether Germany or Italy were interested in the ADV that was important, but whether the UK thought it might be able to interest them at some point in the future. And the Italians did end up flying ADVs, eventually.
 
Random memory from decades past - the German nickname for the MRCA/Panavia Tornado was Eierlegende Wollmilchsau (well, at least it didn't contain any Umlauts.) It has been mentioned on this august forum before though...;).
 
Archibald said:
View: https://youtu.be/Ztm2j7Uzb4c?si=W3nHwYmccKIccMVe
Click to expand...
To be precise, that blonde Simpsons character was a persiflage of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is a native Austrian, *not* German. To put that into perspective, it's like calling Justin Trudeau an American, rather than a Canadian (although Canada is of course part of North America, but that's just one of the many things that's messed up with USA nomenclature and many other mores...)
 
Last edited:
Just my two-penneth (I have ~1800 hrs in the Tornado F3)…

One of my squadron commanders, ex-Lightnings, was privileged to have gone on the USAF F-15A exchange before coming back to F4 Phantoms then Tornado F3. He rated the F3 above the F4 and the Lightning to go to war in. He explained that the F15A was a great dogfighter with a slightly better RADAR than the Lightning - only really better than the Lightning because it carried more fuel. But he also said that the Eagle really only came to be a great jet when it became the F15C - that was down to the US throwing buckets of cash at it to bring it up to standard. So, back in the mid-70s the gulf between the proposed Tornado ADV, the F14A (as already explained with engine dramas) and the F15A was not so big. However, by the early 80s the F15C and the F14A+ in the late 80s were showing up the poor Tornado F2. By the 90s, and Gulf War 1, the Tornado F3 was where the jet should have been on delivery and by the late 90s equipped with JTIDS and ASRAAM and Super-Temp SkyFlash the Tornado F3 was embarrassing F15Cs, F16C, F/A-18C and F14Ds on RED FLAG. By the Millennium the F3 got AMRAAM - without midcourse guidance at first - but soon after with midcourse guidance and Successor IFF (SIFF - that could interrogate encrypted Mode 4) the F3 was finally coming of age where it should have been in the mid 90s. It always came down to money, and the great hope that Eurofighter/EF2000/Typhoon would replace it by the late 90s, early 00s and finally by around 2010.

Another thing, I flew a lot against the European F16As too. They were formidable dogfighter, but were only Fox 2 capable with AIM-9L. The F3 could hold its own against them in full on fight with its Fox 1 capability with Super Temp SkyFlash (somewhere between an AIM7M and AIM7F in capability). Even in a dogfight, if you managed to lure the F16A into a single-circle fight then the F3 could hold off the F16A by using mid-flap and full combat power below 15,000ft - if the F16A driver knew what they were doing they would take the F3 two circle and have about a 10 degree a second rate turn advantage - a 180 degree merge could see a F16A saddled up for guns within 18 seconds on a bad day! So the F3 would use its superior speed to punch into the fight with its Fox 1, taking out as many F16As in the formation it could and then blow through - by the time the F16A had turned, bled off lots of speed, the F3 was 2-3 miles away and doing 300kts+ more than the F16A - thus being well outside the weapons envelope of the F16A’s Fox 2s. Of course that all changed when the MLU came and they carried AMRAAM - just like it was for the F3, it proved a game changer to the F16A too.

I loved my days on the Tornado F3. Sure, I had days when I was schwacked within the first 5 minutes of “fights on” during RED FLAG. However, recovering back early with F14, F15, F16 and F/A-18 because you’ve been killed out was the norm - everyone had good and bad days. However, the satisfaction of going “Winchester” on RED FLAG with 7-8 kills for the debrief in the F3 against those types was always satisfying given its reputation at the time. One COPE THUNDER in Alaska saw us return an overall 7:1 kill ratio against F14, F15, F16, F-111, B-1 and F/A-18 when we got JTIDS but we’re still using AIM-9L and SkyFlash - that was very satisfying, but not so for our adversaries (who were so miffed they accused us of ‘cheating’). But by 2011, those airframes were proper tired. We had thrashed the engines really hard, and due to their poor high level performance and poor turn performance at medium level put huge amounts of fatigue on the airframes - constantly unloading to accelerate to get more energy into the jet before loading the wings again to turn, took a massive toll on the fatigue count. It was a good job that Typhoon did eventually make it nearly 10 years later than expected, because the F3 was having to limit its G capability and engine performance significantly to get it to limp on for the wait for Typhoon. It served us well over 25 years and no Allied aircraft were lost on ops when it flew sweep or escort over that period - sadly, there were a couple of close engagement opportunities but each time the enemy turned away in good time, so the airframe never got a kill to its name.

Finally, it was super quick in a straight line. Second to none - even the slick F-111 and B-1 couldn’t outrun us. Which isn’t that surprising given it was designed to chase down FENCERs, BACKFIREs and BLACKJACKs. My personal best was 870KIAS at low level and I know of others who went faster. That 870 was with weapons underneath and on the pylons too - the F104G that holds the world record at 859KIAS was clean. It’s a shame that the F3 never took a shot at the record. Normal Vne was 750, but the OEC was 850 (the same as when we picked them up from the factory at Warton), but she wanted to go way faster than that. Vne is normally tested to 10% above - so at 850 the Tornado ADV must have been tested to at least 935KIAS to gain that approval of 850. So the ADV could have been the world record holder in my humble opinion if someone had thought of going for it at the time. At height, my best was M2.15, but again, coming from the factory I know of someone who got to M2.3. So for a low-level bomber converted to an agile interceptor - the F3 deserved a better reputation than it got.

Cheers, Gaz
 
Gaznav said:
I flew a lot against the European F16As too. They were formidable dogfighter, but were only Fox 2 capable with AIM-9L. The F3 could hold its own against them in full on fight with its Fox 1 capability
Of course that all changed when the MLU came and they carried AMRAAM - just like it was for the F3, it proved a game changer to the F16A too.
Click to expand...
Great post. Love the details! Interestingly, I’ve heard the same from a French Mirage F1C driver.

Even though the F1’s Cyrano radar would have been miles behind a Tornado’s Foxhunter, the benefit of Fox 1 capability (Super 530F) gave them lots of confidence going up against F-16As, even in the early 90s by which time the F1 had been relegated behind 2 generations of Mirage 2000Cs.

I’ll note that he also mentioned the importance of ECM, which apparently few F-16As carried (despite provisions for an external ALQ pod on the centerline). I imagine that was another point in the Tornado ADVs’ favor?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom