Tornado Over Europe

But the Tornado is more than a weapon system: it is a piece of Europe.

How did this extraordinary European partnership program come about? Let us recall. When, from the middle 1960s, NATO strategy changed from “massive nuclear retaliation” to “flexible response”, an aircraft had to be found that could place conventional weapons on target with great accuracy and high survival capability in any weather – and, what is more, in the face of extremely heavy enemy reaction. To many at that time, this objective seemed almost unattainable, and at the outset, it was not obvious that the demanding and sometimes divergent design targets could be achieved. Apart from the primary strike missions (battlefield interdiction, interdiction/strike, and naval strike) which were to be fulfilled by the IDS version of the Tornado, there was to be an ADV (air defence variant), capable of fulfilling air defence/interception roles. It goes almost without saying that the aircraft can be used also for reconnaissance and training.

A genuine multi-role aircraft, therefore, which with its unusually high operational flexibility was to supersede a whole range of types in the three partner countries: in the Federal Republic and Italy, mainly the F-104G Starfighter; in Britain, the IDS version would replace the Vulcan, Buccaneer and Canberra, and the ADV would supersede the Phantom and Lightning.

The task was so difficult and complex that it could not have been undertaken by a single country. Therefore, following the feasibility study which had been underway since June 1968, a tri-national management company, Panavia Aircraft GmbH, was founded in Munich in March 1969. The partner companies In Panavia are Aeritalia, British Aerospace and Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm.

Further steps followed in rapid succession. In May 1969 the project definition phase was launched; in September NAMMA (NATO MAGA Management Agency) was created on the customer’s side, to operate on behalf of NAMMO (NATO MAGA Management Organisation); and in October, also on a tri-national basis, Turbo-Union was set up by Rolls-Royce, Motoren- und Turbinen-Union and Fiat Aviazione. With the choice of a new gun developed by Mauser, the three governments introduced a third prime contractor.

In May 1970 the development phase of the European MAGA began. In order to achieve the ambitious targets, the engineers of the partner companies agreed on three main design features:

• Variable geometry, with high-life devices across the whole span.

• A three-shaft bypass engine with an afterburner and thrust reverser.

• An all-embracing integral avionics system.

This particular airframe/engine combination was designed to achieve maximum operational flexibility and the performance required for air-to-ground and air-to-air missions.

Given the vulnerability of large airfields in a crisis situation, a modern combat aircraft must be capable of operation from short, unprepared runways. In design terms, short take-off capability demands wings with a large span, minimum sweepback and high-lift aids. However, for high subsonic speed near ground level and for supersonic performance at high altitudes, maximum sweepback is essential; while moderate sweepback is an advantage for long-range patrolling. The only possibility of fulfilling these contrasting requirements is offered by the “swing-wing” technology of variable geometry. With it the Tornado can take off from improvised runways only a few hundred metres in length and, with the use of its thrust reversers, land on the same short runways; it can also fly at high altitudes at more than Mach 2 and penetrate and attack at low altitude at high subsonic speed with low gust response and, thus optimum crew comfort and effectiveness.

The front and rear sections of the fuselage were developed by British Aerospace (BAC), the fuselage centresection and wing box by MBB, and the wings by Aeritalia. Each of these companies also bears the design responsibility for specific systems – for example, British Aerospace for the hydraulic and electrical systems, MBB for aircraft handling (fly-by-wire) and landing gear, and Aeritalia for the fuel system.

The requirements that Panavia placed on the aero-engine industry in 1969 were extremely high. Turbo-Union proposed that the required high thrust/weight ratio should be achieved with a high turbine entry temperature and a high pressure ratio. The high-pressure ratio, together with a bypass ratio of around 1, produces low fuel consumption and a low infra-red signature in cruise without afterburning, and a high thrust boost when the afterburner is lit for supersonic flight. In order to fulfil the extremely stringent requirements for the smallest possible dimensions, Turbo-Union decided in favour of a three-shaft design and a very compact afterburner/thrust reverser unit. The small external dimensions of the aircraft were co-determining factors for the engine configuration, with the thrust reverser buckets forming the outer contour of the tail of the aircraft.

The basic project layout for the RB 199-34R engine came from Rolls-Royce, but design and development work was allocated to the three partner companies right from 1969. Rolls-Royce became responsible for the low-pressure compressor, the combustion chamber, the high-pressure turbine, the turbine casing and the afterburner system; MTU undertook the intermediate- and high-pressure compressors, the intermediate-pressure turbine, the intermediate casing, the gearbox, the thrust reverser system and the bypass duct; while Fiat Aviazione undertook the lowpressure turbine, the exhaust diffuser, the jetpipe and the variable nozzle. It was in this co-operation on the engine that the advantages of collaboration manifested themselves most clearly. Rolls-Royce was able to supply its partner companies with long experience in the construction of military engines; conversely new ideas flowed into the project from MTU and Fiat Aviazione, with the result that in the RB 199-34R the best possible power plant for the Tornado came into being. The engine equals or even exceeds the level of US technology. With a length of only 126in and a diameter of 34in, it delivers a dry thrust of more than 8,000lb; the thrust of more than 15,000lb with afterburning is the highest, relative to the engine volume, that has ever been achieved with a jet engine. Per unit volume, the RB 199-34R attains almost double the thrust level achieved by the comparable F100 US engine. Some design details – like the pressure ratio of over 23 and the turbine entry temperature of more than 1,600K – demonstrate the advances that have been achieved with this engine.

The first RB 199 ran on the test bench in September 1971. Tests in an altitude test facility began in November 1972, followed in April 1973 by first flight tests in a Vulcan bomber flying testbed. Flight clearance was obtained in May 1974.

The third major component of the Tornado weapon system is the integral avionics system. In the IDS version, its object is to enable the aircraft, in bad weather conditions, to find and attack its target without assistance from ground navigation aids. The main component is the terrain-following system, which controls the aircraft automatically in low-altitude flight. The radar scans the terrain profile over a small sector in the direction of flight, and can also adapt the scanning range to the curved flight path when manoeuvring. The terrainfollowing computer processes the radar signals into flight control instructions, which the autopilot then converts to the appropriate control signals. The Tornado is therefore able to follow the terrain contours fully automatically at high subsonic speed at a predetermined low altitude of about 200ft, and thereby evade location by surface radar.

The terrain-following system is, of course, a major part of the avionics. However, input data which are processed for many other functions are fed into the main computer via a number of sensors. The heart of the avionics system is a Doppler radar/inertial platform, which makes it possible for the Tornado to approach its target with maximum navigational accuracy, independent of ground equipment, and to attack with maximum precision. The air defence variant is largely identical to the IDS version, channels having been kept to a minimum. The main differences are the substitution of a Marconi Foxhunter air intercept radar for the ground-mapping and terrain-following radar of the IDS aircraft, and the lengthening of the fuselage to accommodate four Sky Flash air-to-air missiles semi-recessed under the belly.

The high operational flexibility required of the Tornado is ensured by a wide range of weapon loads. In the air-to- ground role, the Tornado carries some weapons already in service within NATO, but a number of completely new weapons have also been developed. For the German Air Force, it is intended to use, as the main armament. the MW 1 multi-purpose “scatter” weapon, which enables ground targets to be attacked with large surface effect. The German Navy will use mainly the Kormoran anti-ship guided weapon. while the Royal Air Force will use various new surface weapons (such as, for example, the JP 233), tank defence weapons and anti-ship weapons (P3T). The ADV for the RAF will carry the Sky Flash air-to-air guided weapon and as with the IDS version the AIM-9L Sidewinder. Two 27mm Mauser guns will be carried by the IDS version and one by the ADV.

The moment of truth in an aircraft program comes at the start of flight testing. The first prototype of the MRCA took off from the MBB works airfield in Manching on August 14, 1974. The nine prototypes and six pre-production aircraft were progressively Incorporated in the extensive flight test program, which is planned to reach a total of 4,000 hours. By the beginning of 1979, some 2,300 hours had already been completed and the majority of the required performance ratings had been achieved. Successive milestones in the engine program were the first 150 hour run in January 1976, delivery of the first production Mk 101 engine in May 1978. and the formal 150 hour qualification run in November 1978.

Naturally as in every test program, there were difficulties; but the concentrated work of the partner companies, not only in the production of the airframe but also at the engine manufacturers and the many subcontractors, is enabling all problems to be solved satisfactorily.

With more than 800 aircraft planned for procurement in the three partner countries, the Tornado program is the largest joint military project ever launched in Europe. The Federal Republic of Germany will receive 324 Tornadoes (212 for the Air Force, 112 for the Navy), Britain 385 (165 of which will be the ADV) and Italy 100.

In July 1976 the production go-ahead for the Tornado program was announced, and the assembly of the initial production aircraft began in September 1978.

The Tornado program results not only in a jointly developed and efficient weapons system that meets an extremely challenging requirement but also in a degree of technical, economic and organisational standardisation which has never before been achieved in European military aircraft development and production.

It was agreed, for example, that English would be the common language for the program and that the metric system of measurement would be used. International procedures for the sharing of the work packages were developed, and uniformity In concluding contracts was introduced. Cost investigation and accounting were coordinated, a uniform design manual was prepared, and standardised purchasing and inspection procedures were introduced. Interchangeability of components was ensured by the use of master reference tools, and the certification processes for aircraft and equipment were harmonised. Last, but not least, the standardised procedure for design scheme changes and the monitoring of modification standards will be very important during the in-service phase, as will the uniform procedures for spare parts provisioning and the control of spare pools as well as tri-national procedures for other product support areas for the weapons system (including the preparation of manuals, technical and logistic support, and the repair of accessories).

From the beginning of the development phase, Panavia was the main contractor for the development and construction of the Tornado, with its partner companies as the national main contractors in the three countries, TurboUnion, as the company responsible for the development of the engine, fulfilled a co-ordinating function, concluded contracts and placed subcontracts with its partner companies. Since 1977, Panavia has been the prime contractor for the complete Curtain aircraft, including the engine and gun. In addition, this company will be responsible for tri-national control and coordination of technical and logistic servicing activities when the Tornado becomes operational. Panavia is therefore responsible to NAMMA, the customer organisation, for the overall Tornado weapons system on a tri-national basis.

An international collaborative aircraft program undoubtedly becomes more expensive and more complex than a purely national program. However, what European country on its own would have been able to develop and finance a weapons system of this capability and complexity? An answer was given in 1969 by Britain’s Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Denis Healey, when he said: “By sharing the cost of developing and producing the aircraft, the European countries concerned will meet their defence needs much more cheaply than any one of them could do on its own.

“Ten years later the military, industrial and political Importance of the Tornado program is highly valued – and not only by the participating countries whose difficult defence tasks it will have to fulfil in the 1980s and 1990s. Three nations have, for the first time, jointly created a complex weapons system. The greatest test yet of the will of Europeans for cooperation has proved outstandingly successful.

Joint Editor-in-Chief of Flug Revue, Germany’s leading aerospace magazine, Peter Pletschacher comes from a long aviation background: his grandfather was adjutant to one of the most famous fighter aces of the Royal Bavarian Army Air Corps in the First World War, and his father a Luftwaffe sergeant-major with JG 53 in the second. In addition to his editorial duties, he is press officer for the Oskar-Ursinus-Vereinigung chapter of the EAA in Coblenz, and a management committee member of the Luftfahrt-Presse-Club EV in Cologne. He won the Otto Lilienthal Award of the WGL in 1961, for a study on boundary layer control.