Tornado IDS Weapons

[Mossie]

Phoenix would fit, the Tornado has a slightly larger fuselage width than the Tomcat.  Ground clearance shouldn't be to much of a problem & the strakes won't interfere if the missile is mounted with them at an angle to the fuselage.

AGM-142 & AGM-130 might be a push on the centre fuselage, but as Greg says, it would probably be possible with some modification to the carrying pylon.  GR.1B's carried Sea Eagle with it's own pylon mounted onto the standard pylon & had little ground clearance.  The American missiles have a slightly larger wingspan, but the pylon for Sea Eagle was quite deep so you should be able to get around it.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Panavia-Tornado-GR1B/0733915/L/&sid=178efd127c5535231bbe174d8f2a930b

[Weaver]

Thing is, those extension pylons were needed for Sea Eagle in order to allow the upper fins to clear the fuselage, so AGM-142 etc.. would need even deeper ones. To my mind, if you were arming a large fleet of Tonkas with these weapons (and that's what the original question looks like: a USAF Tornado order), the best move would be to either develop big, possibly conformal, tanks for the fuselage pylons, thus allowing the wing pylons to be used for weapons, or to develop folding-fin versions of the weapons. The latter can't be too hard - what's it going to cost them: 0.3 of a mile off the range due to the extra drag of the hinges?

Also, wern't there two prototype versions of the GBU-15 (from which the AGM-130 was developed): the Cruciform Wing Weapon (CWW) and the Planar Wing Weapon (PWW)? It might be worth digging out the latter and "AGM-130izing" it, since it had flick-out wings rather than big fixed fins.

[PR19_Kit]

Put them on TOP of the wing gloves, then there are no clearance problems.........

[Howard of Effingham]

several years back i did a hasegawa  F3 in illinois ANG markings
with 4 JSOW [as per the hase' weapons sets] under the fuselage.

fact istr was that our mossie sent me at least one to complete the load.

when seen at the subsequent SMW it was described as 'deranged' by someone on the
IPMS national commitee!  which was alledgedly quite a complement so i was
told.

typically good suggestion there from kit.

go on i dare you to do it! 

[Weaver]

Along those lines, give it twin tails and a "half-teardrop" shaped bomb that sits on the spine and ejects upwards.

[spike7451]

Of course, that would only work on an F.3 if it retained the ability to be fitted with those fuselage pylons. I'm not sure if the Skyflash recesses negated that ability or not.

No it doesn't: F.3s carried ALARMs on GR.4 fuselage pylons during the 2003 Iraq campaign.

I did say given the appropriate engineering mods and associated release trials. (with my engineer hat on).

Duly noted, but if your intended weapon scrapes on the ground or stops the undercarriage extending, then fixing that is a bit beyond an "engineering mod". I don't want to make too much of it though: we know it can carry a lot of big stuff; I just suspect it might have issues carrying anything with big wings on the fuselage stations. There are ways around that too (modify the weapon (folding fins?) or move the fuel to the belly as suggested) but they're getting fairly major.

Incorrect,they were trialled for use on Telic but never made it out of the UK.On the GR1,only the front & rear stations of the belly pylons & inner pylons could carry weapons,the central belly station being a SWERU,for carrying a WE117,however this could be quickly changed to a HEDRU.
The outer pylons are only wired for the respective pods,Skyshadow or BOZ,The box you see often on the port outer being a life ex ballast pod.These are LDERU's.
Also,the weapon sytems used by RAF & Saudi GR's is entirely different than other counties.We use the MACE (Minimum Area Crutchless Ejector) system on our pylons.
During Granby/DS,we did load USAF CBU's onto the GR1's as we were running low on BL755's but they never launched with them.Other weapons could be carried by adapting the suspension lugs on the stores & a software add.However,no weapons can be carried on the outer pylons.

Spike (ex RAF Tornado Armourer)

[Weaver]

Cheers Spike  - always good to get the inside gen!

Although the GR.4 pylon on F.3 mod didn't get deployed, it did prove it was feasible, thus making it legitimate for a what-if proposal.

So if I read that correctly, the standard centreline pylon is nuke only and the left and right belly ones are used for weapons, giving four fuselage stations, but a conventional one could be added to the centre to give six?

I seem to remember seeing a trials aircraft with double adaptors on each of the L & R fuselage pylons, giving a total load of eight smallish bombs. Is that ever used operationally (by anyone, not just the RAF)?

Since one of the things we're considering is alternative Tornado users, the design of whose aircraft might be extensively modified beforethey're built, how feasible would it be, in your opinion, to wire the outboard pylons for weapons or a wider range of stores?

[spike7451]

Cheers Spike  - always good to get the inside gen!

Although the GR.4 pylon on F.3 mod didn't get deployed, it did prove it was feasible, thus making it legitimate for a what-if proposal.

So if I read that correctly, the standard centreline pylon is nuke only and the left and right belly ones are used for weapons, giving four fuselage stations, but a conventional one could be added to the centre to give six?

I seem to remember seeing a trials aircraft with double adaptors on each of the L & R fuselage pylons, giving a total load of eight smallish bombs. Is that ever used operationally (by anyone, not just the RAF)?

Since one of the things we're considering is alternative Tornado users, the design of whose aircraft might be extensively modified beforethey're built, how feasible would it be, in your opinion, to wire the outboard pylons for weapons or a wider range of stores?

The centerline pylon was'nt used by the RAF until Granby & this one is a standard HDERU.By the centerline pylon,I meant the are three stations on the left & right belly pylons,the middle one of these being for the nuke.The problem with the GR1 was that the was a fuel tank in the fin so you had to be careful when loading weapons onto the jet.

As for the double adaptors,they're called Twin Store carriers & carried 1000Lb bombs.These were withdrawn from service in the late 1990's when the GR4 entered service.They were only used by the RAF & Saudi.
As for fitting weapons on the outer pylons,it's not feasable due to the wing flex & in fact the GR4 is now banned from flying with empty pylons due to fatigue issues.However,early on it they were (IIRC) used in ALALRM trials but that's about it.

9sqn GR1 over Germany circa 1990.


16sqn jet on a visit..

[PR19_Kit]

Banned from flying with empty pylons? That's different........

What about the Tornado Display aircraft? The XV Sqdn. GR4 seems to fly with pylons fitted but nothing on them. Or is the flight such a short duration compared to a combat mission that it doesn't count in fatigue terms. [Below the Rainflow Fatigue Index Threshold for those of a technical mind.....  ]

[spike7451]

Banned from flying with empty pylons? That's different........

What about the Tornado Display aircraft? The XV Sqdn. GR4 seems to fly with pylons fitted but nothing on them. Or is the flight such a short duration compared to a combat mission that it doesn't count in fatigue terms. [Below the Rainflow Fatigue Index Threshold for those of a technical mind.....  ]

I think it's only for operational sorties,wheather it was a temporary ban or permanent,I dont know but the source is impecable.A friend of mine,a C/T on 31 who was my Cpl at Kinloss back in 85.

[Weaver]

Ah right - with you about the pylons, plus I've just seen your post on the nukes thread. The left and right fuselage pylons have three stations, being, from front to back, conventional, nuclear, conventional. Wasthe centreline pylon identical to the left and right ones, i.e. could it carry a nuke in the middle position, or was it all -conventional?

[spike7451]

Ah right - with you about the pylons, plus I've just seen your post on the nukes thread. The left and right fuselage pylons have three stations, being, from front to back, conventional, nuclear, conventional. Wasthe centreline pylon identical to the left and right ones, i.e. could it carry a nuke in the middle position, or was it all -conventional?

Centerline was conventional only,the center Nuke one could be swapped for a HDERU so we could carry drop tanks for,say,flying to the US for Red Flag,when the'd be little or no tanker cover.

[norseman]

There was a conceptual big belly conformal tank looked at for the Tornado 2000 project which was pitched as a follow on to the GR's but don't think it got past the basic paper feasibility (belly tank not the plane) study though my memory does ring a bell at a belly mock up being made for aerodynamic testing/ground clearance testing but could be wrong as it was a long time ago.

[spike7451]

There was a conceptual big belly conformal tank looked at for the Tornado 2000 project which was pitched as a follow on to the GR's but don't think it got past the basic paper feasibility (belly tank not the plane) study though my memory does ring a bell at a belly mock up being made for aerodynamic testing/ground clearance testing but could be wrong as it was a long time ago.

You mean this:
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth4f.htm

Total fiction!!
I was still serving in the RAF at the time this was 'supposedly' dreampt up & never heard anything like this bandied about.It's totally infeasable.Looking at the diagrams,the are no places for the weapons to be carried apart from air to air missiles,& in which case,the would only be two carried instead of four being as the design is based on the F-3.
The 'conformal fuel tank' would mean that the undercarraige would have to be totally re-designed & the inner wing pylons possibly moved outwards as the faceted lower fusalage would mean the conformal tank would be very narrow,the undercarraige would have to be along the lines of the A-7 Corsair in design imho.