More operators for the Tornado

Delta Force

Banned
Which is perfect for its designed mission - very low level penetration of Soviet defences in all weathers, armed with tactical nuclear bombs.

It has a very high wing loading even by the standards of other strike aircraft.

The interceptor was a UK-only version (OK, the Italians leased some for a while - basically as a really cheap stopgap while they tried to replace their Starfighters with Typhoons and even then they eventually got F-16s in the interim).
The UK requirements are quite odd - specifically to deliver a powerful radar and long-ranged missile a long distance from base in the G-I-UK gap, with a rapid reaction time. Agility and a number of other attributes normally required in a fighter don't come into it, and the F.3 was eventually pretty good at the task (the RAF would have preferred Tomcats, but couldn't afford them - and they're the only other aircraft considered to have the performance needed for the role). The F-111 could have fulfilled that role, probably (it was nominally filling the same slot as the F-14 for the USN), and indeed there are paper projects for a TSR.2 derivative to fill that role too. The Soviets had a similar aircraft, arguably with greater payload/range performance (Tu-128, NATO Fiddler), but it was never a major type.

Could the Tornado dogfight? Looking only at wing loading, it seems an F-4 Phantom should be able to quite literally fly circles around a Tornado, which probably isn't going to boost morale given that the Phantom was considered a poor dogfighter. Even the MiG-25 has lower wing loading.
 
It has a very high wing loading even by the standards of other strike aircraft.
Which is a good thing - all else being equal high wing loading give good gust response and a smooth ride at low level. The only benefit of a low wing loading for strike aircraft is in allowing short takeoff and landing from damaged runways - Tornado got around this with variable geometry and lots of power.

Could the Tornado dogfight? Looking only at wing loading, it seems an F-4 Phantom should be able to quite literally fly circles around a Tornado, which probably isn't going to boost morale given that the Phantom was considered a poor dogfighter. Even the MiG-25 has lower wing loading.
At least as well as a Tu-160, which is about the only requirement as regards manoeuvrability. Towards the end of their time in service they then got helmet-mounted sights for their ASRAAMs and at that point agility is of little use.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Which is a good thing - all else being equal high wing loading give good gust response and a smooth ride at low level. The only benefit of a low wing loading for strike aircraft is in allowing short takeoff and landing from damaged runways - Tornado got around this with variable geometry and lots of power.

I'm talking about the Tornado ADV. Why make something like that into an interceptor/fighter?

At least as well as a Tu-160, which is about the only requirement as regards manoeuvrability. Towards the end of their time in service they then got helmet-mounted sights for their ASRAAMs and at that point agility is of little use.

The F-14 has a better radar and missile system, and the MiG-25 has better radars, better missiles, and Mach 3 performance. The Tornado is a flying brick in comparison, and to my knowledge doesn't have any characteristics that make it more suitable for the interceptor role.
 
The great thing about the Tornado F3 was the politics, which as we so often say is of prime importance when it comes to combat aircraft. For whole of government reasons such as using domestic industry for design, production and ongoing support building the Tornado was a better option to introducing something like the F14, F15 or Mirage 4000.

These decisions were made in the 70s when the task was interception over the North Sea and GIUK gap. It was only after the Cold War ended and the task changed that the relatively poor dogfighting ability became something of an issue, but given how few dogfights there have been in the last 25 years I think that is a bit overblown.
 
I'm talking about the Tornado ADV. Why make something like that into an interceptor/fighter?
Cost and the different performance requirements of an interceptor and a fighter. Having only one aircraft type as opposed to two saves a vast amount of cash in ongoing support costs. High wing loading is also of some benefit in an interceptor, since it allows a lower wetted area to the wing and so drag is reduced (i.e. straight line performance is improved at the expense of manoeuvrability - and straight line performance is what you need on an interceptor). A bomber also has a lot of payload for a good radar and missile system, which fighters tend not to because of a manic desire to save weight to improve agility.
 
I'm talking about the Tornado ADV. Why make something like that into an interceptor/fighter?



The F-14 has a better radar and missile system, and the MiG-25 has better radars, better missiles, and Mach 3 performance. The Tornado is a flying brick in comparison, and to my knowledge doesn't have any characteristics that make it more suitable for the interceptor role.

As I understand things..

The UK had a pressing need to be able to intercept hostile bombers and other strike air craft at some distance from the UK.

The RAF was large enough at the time to support having dedicated (more or less anyways..) interceptor aircraft for that mission.

The design of the Tornado IDS could be modified to suit the requirements (and of course the UK was a partner in the Tornado program.)

The resulting aircraft, the tornado ADV evolved into a fairly capable interceptor. Given the investment the UK had made in the Tornado program I would have been surprised had any other air craft been chosen for this role.

I also seem to recall the UK had also begun to think in terms of eventually deploying an air craft along the lines of the Euro Fighter at some point in the future. (Google / Wiki can likely give more details re this..)
 
Australia I could see a need for super long range interceptor.

Perhaps, but the F18 with it's ability to carry and fire the Sparrow AAM (along with Sidewinder) combined with the APG65 radar was evidently considered "good enough" for this mission by both the Australians and the Canadians (and other operators of the F18 who worried about long range interceptions.) Plus the F18 could do ground attack, strike, air superiority etc. well enough to be credible.
 
The Tornado ADV was pretty able as a dogfighter compared to the F4 particularly with the RB199 Mk105 engines, though not able to compete with the likes of the F15/F16/MiG29 etc.

While it was not noted for high altitude acceleration, there is a story of a F3 shadowing a TU 95 over the North Atlantic which was deliberately allowing its speed to drop towards stalling. The Sov observer was doing the usual and taking photo's of the interceptor and then he waved and the TU95 throttled up and took of like a rocket, it took the F3 nearly 40 miles to catch up with it. However, at low level the F3 was pretty much the quickest thing around at the time with speeds well over 900+ knots, it was quicker than the MiG 23.
 
The Tornado ADV was pretty able as a dogfighter compared to the F4 particularly with the RB199 Mk105 engines, though not able to compete with the likes of the F15/F16/MiG29 etc.

While it was not noted for high altitude acceleration, there is a story of a F3 shadowing a TU 95 over the North Atlantic which was deliberately allowing its speed to drop towards stalling. The Sov observer was doing the usual and taking photo's of the interceptor and then he waved and the TU95 throttled up and took of like a rocket, it took the F3 nearly 40 miles to catch up with it. However, at low level the F3 was pretty much the quickest thing around at the time with speeds well over 900+ knots, it was quicker than the MiG 23.

That was an old trick. It involves adjusting the pitch of the propellors so that the Tu95 can gradually open the throttle without increasing speed. Once the interceptor has matched speed the pilot changes the pitch and the already fully open throttled engines give an immediate acceleration. Mean while the interceptor has to react to the acceleration then their engines have to spool up to speed. Eventually the interceptor will catch up but a Tu95 can get briefly ahead of pretty well anything for some seconds.
 
What if the Panavia Tornado got more export orders? Canada, Japan, Australia; Taiwan, South Korea and Oman were interested in it. Could it become the European F-16?

NOPE
The F-16 was designed as small single-engine air superiority day fighter, who evolved into multirole fighter aircraft.

while The Panavia Tornado is a heavy twin-engine, variable-sweep wing multirole combat aircraft.
it's more comparable to General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark or Grumman F-14 Tomcat

the irony, original wanted the Germany a single seat fighter comparable to F-15 as Tornado
but British wanted a two seat bomber, so in end it became a multirole combat aircraft.
 
NOPE
The F-16 was designed as small single-engine air superiority day fighter, who evolved into multirole fighter aircraft.

while The Panavia Tornado is a heavy twin-engine, variable-sweep wing multirole combat aircraft.
it's more comparable to General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark or Grumman F-14 Tomcat

the irony, original wanted the Germany a single seat fighter comparable to F-15 as Tornado
but British wanted a two seat bomber, so in end it became a multirole combat aircraft.

It would be interesting to see a history of the West German air force / defense ministry that outlines this decision making process. IMHO going from an F15 style fighter to the Tornado IDS is a significant shift in focus and capability.
 
One other potential customer: the USAF. Tornado was evaluated for the DRF (Dual Role Fighter) competition along with the F-15E and F-16XL. The F-15E won. Then Rockwell International teamed up with Panavia to offer a Tornado Wild Weasel as an F-4G replacement, meant to compete with Weasel variants of the F-15 and F-16. However, the end of the Cold War, and the AF's decision to go with a single-seat F-16 (Block 50/52) with the HARM Targeting Pod ended the proposal. The Rockwell proposal envisioned the aircraft being built at their Palmdale, CA facility, which had also built the B-1.
 
To understand how the Tornado F3 ever came to be, you need to understand procurement politics of the 1970s/1980s.

The original Tornado (late 1960s studies) was supposed to come in to versions a single seat fighter bomber to primarily satisfy Luftwaffe requirements for a F18 Air Superiority / Attack Aircraft to replace phantom and a two seat strike platform to replace RAF Buccaneers and F104 Starfighters with the Luftwaffe and Aeronautica Militaire.

The single seat variant was dropped and Bae/MBk/Alenia started studying what was called ECF, the European Collaborative Fighter in the mid 70s, this became EAP/Eurofighter/Typhoon.

The original ISD for Typhoon was supposed to be mid-late 80s,(this wasn't that unrealistic since Jaguar went from study to first flight in 7 years) this presented no problem, the RAF Phantom fleet would get a modest update and soldier on until the early 1990s to allow Typhoon to take up the reigns.

It's important to point out the original Typhoon wasn't the multirole platform you see today, it was aircraft that was to have F16 WVR performance mated to the avionics and weapon systems of a F15 type platform, with a air to ground capability similar to the then current F16A i.e. dumb bombs and Maverick type weapons.

As the Typhoon slipped as multinational programs often do, it became apparent to the RAF there would be a capability gap between the Phantom and Typhoon, so there was a scramble to find a "interim platform to fit the RAFs needs for Air Defence in the 1980s to mid-90s period, the F14 and F15 were evaluated as being too expensive, the F14 had no equal and was the RAFs gold plated option, the F15 also scored highly but there were concerns about the high single man workload, and IIRC the EW suite fitted to the Eagle.

So third inline was what the politicos saddled the RAF with the Tornado F3, and in fairness to the F3 , it was very very good at what it was designed for, intercepting cruise missile carrying, large bombers before they could launch their cruise weapons at the UK. It was designed to operate for extended (3hrs plus) periods far out to sea, on CAP in all weathers. In contrast to the F15 operating over the central front, the F3 wasn't designed to dogfight.

By the early 1980s with types like the SU-27 on horizon, Typhoon being delayed further and the NATO agreement to develop a MRAAM (USA)and SRAAM (Europe) common family of weapons. Tornado ADV would be ISD by 1986-87 and the Phantoms getting another update to use AMRAAM/ASRAAM starting in the first half of the 1990s. I believe the general plan for the defence of the UKADGE was loosely this:

The incoming soviet raid, of TU-22s with SU-27 escorts, would first be met by Tornados at 240nm+ from the British coast, the F3s would run for home, then Typhoons would engage any escorts or remaining bombers. The next line of defence was the touted Bloodhound Replacement SAM (Later Cancelled in 1992) ((Widely tipped to be Patriot)), any leakers would then be engaged by RAF Hawk Trainers and remaining Typhoons and Tornados with short range AAMs.

Then in 1989 someone went and changed the rules of the game. In the 1990s the Tornado was involved in GW1 (this really required Air Superiority Fighters rather than interceptors) , Yugoslavia and the Iraq No Fly Zones.

Now the Tornado at height was reasonably fast, it just took an age to accelerate, hence the TU-95 trick, I know P3 Orion's used to play the same game during practice intercepts It was much better lower down (FAF mirage pilot told me that the advice on his unit was never run away from a Tornado low down) and the avionics seemed to suffer from the effects of moisture on sorties over 25k, that said , with the snap up capability of Skyflash and laterally AMRAAM wouldn't this mitigate this. With the radar as well the initial F2s did have cemment ballast fitted (IRCC Sea Harrier FA/2s went through a similar phase), however these were used primarily on the OCU initially with the operational squadrons getting the fully capable F3. The avionics techs I chatted with were of the opinion that the MOD tried to push the radar tech too far too quickly, in the late 1990s when the radar hit its stride, it was very very good.

BTW I am not a F3 Fan boy, just someone who worked on it, so I know it intimately.

Canada I am surprised at not going with Tornado either for the NORAD mission, or possibly for the Nuclear Strike/Attack role in Europe. BTW did Canadian F18s ever take on the Nuclear Strike Role from the Starfighter?

Left of field option here, IF the cold war had continued, what about Portugal?
Now I know this sounds crazy, but Portugal has a NATO commitment to provide a long range AD capability out into the Atlantic, if the funding can be made to work, say a deal to pay for the upkeep from NATO funds, and the UK donates surplus F3s after the Typhoon ISD, with Portugal only having to provide the crews, it might be a option.

Sorry for the long long post:)
 
Canada I am surprised at not going with Tornado either for the NORAD mission, or possibly for the Nuclear Strike/Attack role in Europe. BTW did Canadian F18s ever take on the Nuclear Strike Role from the Starfighter?

The Canadian F18's never had a nuclear strike role. The nuclear strike role for the Canadian Starfighters had been dropped long before the Canadian F18's entered service.

IMHO if the Canadians had kept the nuclear strike role for their European based air craft and had been interested in maintaining separate fleets of air craft for home air defense and the strike role in Europe then the Tornado might have been a stronger contender for at least part of the Canadian order. It's also worth noting that the Canadians also wanted to replace their F5's that were earmarked for service in Norway during WW3. (Yes I am aware the CF5 stayed in service after the CF18's came on line.)

In many ways I would agree that a Tornado F3 would be a good interceptor for a nation such as Canada. I suspect in practice though the F18 was considered to be good enough and the advantages of operating a single fleet of air craft outweighed the advantages offered by a dedicated interceptor air craft.
 
Left of field option here, IF the cold war had continued, what about Portugal?
Now I know this sounds crazy, but Portugal has a NATO commitment to provide a long range AD capability out into the Atlantic, if the funding can be made to work, say a deal to pay for the upkeep from NATO funds, and the UK donates surplus F3s after the Typhoon ISD, with Portugal only having to provide the crews, it might be a option.

Britain's oldest ally operating second-hand Tornadoes...

In the 1950s the FAB had 2 squadrons of F-84G Thunderjets which were supplied under MDAP which were at the disposal of NATO and participated in several exercises in Germany. AFAIK one squadron was replaced by the F-86K which with the other F-84G squadron was still in existence during the middle 1970s.

However, what if the USA directly through MDAP or indirectly through NATO provided the money for them to be replaced with the Starfighter in the 1960s. The logical progression would then be for them to be replaced by F-16s in the 1980s paid for by the USA. However, if we could find a way to make the UK and Portugal richer they may do a deal for 50-odd jointly-funded Tornado IDS versions on the understanding that they would operate with RAF Germany in the event of World War III.
 
Left of field option here, IF the cold war had continued, what about Portugal?
Now I know this sounds crazy, but Portugal has a NATO commitment to provide a long range AD capability out into the Atlantic, if the funding can be made to work, say a deal to pay for the upkeep from NATO funds, and the UK donates surplus F3s after the Typhoon ISD, with Portugal only having to provide the crews, it might be a option.

Sorry for the long long post:)

Our air force is too small for that. We need multi-purpose fighters, so the F3 would be useless for us, regardless of cost. The F-16 or similar (F-18, Mirage F1) is ideal for such a small AF.
 
There was serious interest from the USAF to buy the Tornado as a low-level interdiction plane in the middle 1970's, especially given the numerous teething problems experienced by the F-111 fleet.

If the USAF had chosen the Tornado over the F-15E, the USAF would end up fielding around 200 planes, and would be capable of carrying the B43, B61 and B83 nuclear bombs.
 
Very Interesting Thread

This is a very interesting thread. Let me put this post here so I can find it again at need
 
Top