Panavia Tornado FGR.4

[RAFF-35]

I'm in the process of building a Panavia Tornado what-If which was inspired by Zero-sen's profile. The premise is that the US was interested in aquiring the Tornado to replace the F-14 and F-18 so became involved with Panavia to shape the development of the midlife upgrade programme. The US Navy wanted twin fins to improve stability for carrier opperations and reduce the height of the Tornado's famously large vertical stabilizer. The other nations involved also requested reducing the number of variants from 3 to 2 by having a more adaptable fighter bomber and the ECR/SEAD aircraft. The fighter bomber would feature the avionics from the real world GR.4 and would enter service in 2002. Other changes asides from the twin tail include more rugged undercarridge and arrestor hook, a structure made from more composite materials, enlarged wing gloves to house extra electronics or fuel? And improves the handling too. The radar would be a Marconi Blue Stag (derived from Blue Vixen but with added terrain following ability). The new airframe will have a pair of EJ2000 engines which allow supercruise at mach 1.3 and a top speed of mach 2.4. These improvements meant that new customer orders from Canada, Australia, The Netherlands and Spain were placed.

My question is, should I do my model as an RAF FGR.4 during the 2nd Gulf War or as a United States Navy aircraft? Also, what weapons loadout should be fitted?

Please forgive the dodgy vertical stabilizers in my sketches (not my best work).

Ideas regarding specific weapons load outs, squadrons or scenarios are most welcome!

[kerick]

What about a fuselage extension behind the cockpit? It would allow for more fuel and/or more black boxes.

[zenrat]

I'd like to see it in the three shades of Blue WW2 USN scheme with a torpedo or two slung underneath.

[PR19_Kit]

What about a fuselage extension behind the cockpit? It would allow for more fuel and/or more black boxes.

That works, I did it with my 'F6' build, see below, and there's a lot of PSR involved, but it looks OK.

You cannot view this attachment.  You cannot view this attachment. 

[kerick]

That looks great. I can't tell where the stretch is at all.

[PR19_Kit]

That was the general idea, 

[MikoLee]

Maybe a United States Navy 'Tonkat' in one of their many colourful squardron markings on gull grey over white aircraft complete with AIM54 Phoenix missiles


Miko (thinking out loud)

[McColm]

The 18 Group Coastal Command Tornado GR.1B which took over the duties from the Buccaneer in the anti-shipping role should of had the F.3 fuselage & engines with the GR.1A nose and avionics. Which meant that it could carry more payload and better endurance over the GR.1B, however the one thing it had problems with was flying at 150 feet over water unlike the Buccaneer which was built for low level flight.
18 Group did carry out trials with the BAe Hawk in the maritime role, this lacked the range but did return a better ride at low levels. Even the two seater Hunter trainer was considered for the anti-shipping role ( used as the Buccaneer trainer or OCU until it was retired from service).

[kitbasher]

The Tonka: underrated in many respects and the GR (IDS) design was never quite what the RAF wanted, but IIRC that was to a significant extent determined by German political sensitivities/considerations.

During my controlling days I often worked Tornado supersonic air tests out of Warton and can state quite categorically that they (albeit in clean configuration) climbed like hot snot.  Also worked Lightnings in those days but with no SSR Mode C fitted to them it wasn't possible to witness the numbers roll up.  Incidentally, the other impressive climber were the BA B757 shuttles out of LHR heading to Scotland - they could really shift and the B757 remains the only airliner I've flown in that ever gave one an impression of speed.

Back to the Tornado, and a former boss of mine who had considerable F3 pilot experience once sold me that the F3 had good low-level performance and was rock solid (and fast!) below 500 feet over the sea.

[PR19_Kit]

Incidentally, the other impressive climber was the B757 shuttles out of LHR heading to Scotland - they could really shift and the B757 remains the only airliner I've flown in that ever gave one an impression of speed.

SAS's DC9-20s were impressive in that respect. They had -10 fuselages and -30 wings with the most powerful engines ever fitted to a DC9. Chatting to a Captain of one of them at Malmo once, he said it flew like a 'passenger carrying Draken', and he'd flown both types. 

But I agree about 757s, specially the RR engines ones that BA flew, MOST impressive.

[Pellson]

SAS's DC9-20s were impressive in that respect. They had -10 fuselages and -30 wings with the most powerful engines ever fitted to a DC9. Chatting to a Captain of one of them at Malmo once, he said it flew like a 'passenger carrying Draken', and he'd flown both types. 

They produced noise equalling the Draken as well.. 

[PR19_Kit]

            

Just so, even INSIDE if you were in the rear few seat rows. 

[Pellson]

They had -10 fuselages and -30 wings with the most powerful engines ever fitted to a DC9.

Btw - they also had thrust reversers and were ordered that way to facilitate mobilisation STOL capability, being intended for rapid troop transport and casevac in wartime. Also from the longer road bases.

[PR19_Kit]

Made so much sense. 

[McColm]

The RAF had the same problem with the Lockheed C-130 C1 and the noise of the engines, yes you could hear them on the inside