Author Topic: Panavia Tornado possibilities (Read 106585 times)

elmayerle · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2013, 06:12:08 AM »

I'm thinking that TSR.2 wings would be a touch on the large side, but not totally unsuitable.

Daryl J. · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2013, 06:58:02 AM »

More proportionate and scratch built than a transfer of a 1/72 or 1/48 kit's parts.

elmayerle · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2013, 07:30:01 AM »

Quote from: Daryl J. on November 10, 2013, 06:58:02 AM

More proportionate and scratch built than a transfer of a 1/72 or 1/48 kit's parts.

Perhaps in 1/100, much like the F-15 wings I suggested?

Daryl J. · « **Reply #53 on:** November 10, 2013, 07:47:52 AM »

With the downturn. :)

jcf · « **Reply #54 on:** November 10, 2013, 09:51:15 AM »

Jaguar wings.

elmayerle · « **Reply #55 on:** November 10, 2013, 11:34:14 AM »

I'm thinking that same-scale jaguar wings would be a bit small, being for a lighter airframe with less powerful engines. I'm probably trim down some 1/48 Jaguar, or Mitsubishi T-2/F-1, wings until they looked "right" and use them if I wanted that planform.

Daryl J. · « **Reply #56 on:** November 10, 2013, 01:43:34 PM »

My kits are 1:48 so scratch built wings...or modified F-15 wings from the Monogram kit.

elmayerle · « **Reply #57 on:** November 10, 2013, 01:50:45 PM »

For a 1/48 Tornado, 1/72 F-15 wings? By the same token, 1/72 TSR.2 wings?

Going the other way, I'm still considering using 1/48 Tornado wings and adjacent structure to do a V-G TSR.2 in 1/72 (probably carve up teh old Contrail vac-form for that).

ysi_maniac · « **Reply #58 on:** November 24, 2013, 03:37:06 PM »

Fixed wings: old F-15's

XL

mrvr6 · « **Reply #59 on:** November 24, 2013, 06:01:48 PM »

the jag wings look spot on!!

Volkodav · « **Reply #60 on:** November 24, 2013, 09:10:07 PM »

Always thought a CTOL carrier capable Tornado would be the go had the UK kept their conventional carriers. Initially a GR1 based Bucc replacement then a F3/Tornado 2000 Phantom replacement.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #61 on:** January 05, 2014, 04:50:06 AM »

Found online:

upnorth · « **Reply #62 on:** January 06, 2014, 09:59:24 PM »

Niiice!

taiidantomcat · « **Reply #63 on:** February 08, 2014, 02:41:02 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #64 on:** February 08, 2014, 03:20:01 AM »

Some impressive load outs:

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #65 on:** February 08, 2014, 03:20:30 AM »

This would make an interesting scene to model as a diorama:

Volkodav · « **Reply #66 on:** February 08, 2014, 04:28:30 PM »

How about instead of upgrading the GR1 to GR4 the RAF converted the newer more powerful F3 fleet into FA4 strike fighters based loosely on the Tornado 2000 concepts from the early 90s?

A slight fuselage stretch, re-engine, new radar and integrated IRST. It would retain full capability as an interceptor with improved radar and missiles as well as a gaining a superior strike capability to the GR4.

The entire GR1/4 fleet would be retired and the Jaguars and Harriers enhanced in their place. :)

elmayerle · « **Reply #67 on:** February 09, 2014, 08:37:17 AM »

Quote from: Volkodav on February 08, 2014, 04:28:30 PM

How about instead of upgrading the GR1 to GR4 the RAF converted the newer more powerful F3 fleet into FA4 strike fighters based loosely on the Tornado 2000 concepts from the early 90s?

A slight fuselage stretch, re-engine, new radar and integrated IRST. It would retain full capability as an interceptor with improved radar and missiles as well as a gaining a superior strike capability to the GR4.

The entire GR1/4 fleet would be retired and the Jaguars and Harriers enhanced in their place. :)

Re-engine with EJ200's for commonality with Typhoons? Another odd thought, upgrade the LERX with something similar to what was proposed for the Tomcat 21.

Volkodav · « **Reply #68 on:** February 09, 2014, 08:54:44 AM »

Sounds good.

Nobody wanted the F3 as an interceptor when there were F-16 fighter bombers available but the GR1/4 would have been a different proposition if sold as a ECR, ASVW, or stand off strike platform, the UK could possibly have sold quite a few of their surplus aircraft had they retained the F3 instead.

The Jaguars and Harriers could have been upgraded to fill CAS and tactical interdiction leaving the FA4 in a predominantly stand off role. The Harrier in particular had a promising upgrade path as evidenced by the US AV-8B+, a similar radar conversion to the GR5/7 would have permitted the retention of the carriers as well. The RAF could have co-developed a Jaguar upgrade with India, possibly using avionics from the Harrier upgrade and core engine upgrades shared with the Hawk to further save costs.

A WIFF yes but I could actually see something like the above delivering greater capability at less overall cost out until the full service introduction of the Typhoon and F-35.

elmayerle · « **Reply #69 on:** February 09, 2014, 09:52:35 AM »

Hmm, Tornado FA.4's with Harrier FGR.11's and Jaguar FGR.5's sounds like a potent order of battle. Perhaps add the F.2/F.3/FA.4 fuselage extension to GR.1's as part of an EGR.5 conversion package for British and export use?

Note: Harrier FGR.11 with either the AN/APG-65 radar of the AV-8B+ or with the Blue Vixen, perhaps even an improved version thereof, from the Sea Harrier FA.2. Or if you really want commonality, the Typhoon's radar and IRST.

Weaver · « **Reply #70 on:** February 09, 2014, 10:06:53 AM »

The Jaguars were exetensively upgraded during the 1990s anyway. After the Gulf War, the RAF got a taste for using and abusing the UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) system to get things done quickly and cheaply without the usual MoD procurement pantomime. This saw Jaguar '96, '97 and (partially) Jaguar '98 upgrades done, which gave the aircraft upgraded engines, a re-vamped digital cockpit, TIALD, Paveway, new recce pod, HMS, NVGs, and GPS/TERPROM. These were known as GR.3As

Volkodav · « **Reply #71 on:** February 09, 2014, 12:13:17 PM »

Yes I remember reading up on those, interestingly the article I read stated that as it was seen as an aging platform everything done was with the intent of reducing operational costs and improving reliability as the platform approached retirement. The side effect was a not insignificant improvement in performance in addition to the improved reliability and reduced costs, the upgrades worked so well that you have to wonder why similar concepts aren't used on all in service assets.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #72 on:** February 09, 2014, 01:07:02 PM »

Quote from: Volkodav on February 09, 2014, 12:13:17 PM

the upgrades worked so well that you have to wonder why similar concepts aren't used on all in service assets.

Because bypassing the proper acquisition routes causes all sort of long term sustainability issues.

Volkodav · « **Reply #73 on:** February 09, 2014, 01:28:25 PM »

I understand that but what they achieved was accelerated configuration change replacing obsolete, no-longer sustainable items with new, superior in production MOTS and COTS alternatives. Long term sustainment was actually improved.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #74 on:** February 09, 2014, 01:35:13 PM »

Once upon a time there was talk of a single seat Panavia 'Tornado'


Scandinavian GB Now Open!!!

News:

Author Topic: Panavia Tornado possibilities (Read 106585 times)