Doubtful. An Air Force buy of the F-14 changes so much in both services procurement plans that the various programs that led to the F/A-18 don't gain the same amount of steam or they lead somewhere completely different from OTL. At the very least, by the time Vought got done navalizing the F-16, it had almost nothing in common with the baseline Viper beyond the general shape of the aircraft.Other potential ripples:
Is the Navy forced to go with the F-16N?
Does the Air Force decide to buy fewer F-14s and henceforth goes with the bigger YF-17 instead?
Does the YF-17/F-18L get new life without a F-15 in the picture for foreign sales?
I don't see why the Germans would buy the Tomcat - all the reasons for them to buy the Phantom over the Eagle (cost and speed of acquisition) apply to the Phantom over the Tomcat as well.
The USAF was dead set on getting an air superiority fighter. So I doubt they'll want Tomcats. But you might be able to convince them to buy some to replace their F-106s and serve in a limited role in Europe to target the handful of Soviet AWACS aircraft and tankers (with a secondary air superiority role). The biggest change we're likely to see though is the adoption of the F401. With the air force getting "stuck" with the type, they're not likely to be happy with the TF30s and probably won't accept the F100s "good enough to screw the Navy" performance. So we likely see large numbers of F-14Bs enter service instead of A models. Lower down the list, we might also see the -14C gain more traction and be placed into service
If this had occurred I am sure the USAF would have made it successful. One might even have seen some good developments such as the engine change happen earlier and the multi-role side developed. Would be interesting to see if boom refuelling was introduced and if a single seater could be developed. Would also have led to interesting offshoots such as more export F-14s.What would happen if the usaf f-15 project was canceled by congress and the usaf was forced to use the navys f-14 like what had happened with the f-4.
5.
Now things are complete differenten F-X and VFX are almost identical.
And with political intervention it could end like this
You'd have to get the F401's reliability up to make it acceptable. F100 wasn't an option for F-14 because after it got derated to meet reliability requirements, it didn't have that much more thrust than the TF30, not enough to justify the cost of putting it in the F-14.The USAF was dead set on getting an air superiority fighter. So I doubt they'll want Tomcats. But you might be able to convince them to buy some to replace their F-106s and serve in a limited role in Europe to target the handful of Soviet AWACS aircraft and tankers (with a secondary air superiority role). The biggest change we're likely to see though is the adoption of the F401. With the air force getting "stuck" with the type, they're not likely to be happy with the TF30s and probably won't accept the F100s "good enough to screw the Navy" performance. So we likely see large numbers of F-14Bs enter service instead of A models. Lower down the list, we might also see the -14C gain more traction and be placed into service
I don't think USAF was "forced" to buy the F-4 as much as they were directed to test the F-4 for interceptor and other roles. What they found was that a straight Navy F-4 was so much beyond what they had that it could handle the roles they were envisioning for a new fighter at a lot less money. The difference between the F-4 and projects like the F-111 and F-35 was that it wasn't an aircraft designed to accomplish diverse roles and operating environments for both services. it was a design optimized around one service that was found to to be able to handle the other's. USAF had to be made to look at it, but once they did, they were pleased with what they found and could use the savings over developing their own aircraft for other projects.What would happen if the usaf f-15 project was canceled by congress and the usaf was forced to use the navys f-14 like what had happened with the f-4.
You'd have to get the F401's reliability up to make it acceptable. F100 wasn't an option for F-14 because after it got derated to meet reliability requirements, it didn't have that much more thrust than the TF30, not enough to justify the cost of putting it in the F-14.
What would happen if the usaf f-15 project was canceled by congress and the usaf was forced to use the navys f-14 like what had happened with the f-4.
Key was that F100 originally promised 25,000 lbs. thrust. Derated to 23,000 lbs. to achieve required reliability. TF30s in F-14 at the time producing 20,900 IIRC. Given the cost of navalising and testing it and getting it to the reliability they needed, plus it wouldn't give the the range, loiter or performance they wanted from the F401, they just determined that what they would gain wasn't worth what it would cost to get it. Happens all the time. Same reason why although everyone agrees that the enhanced version of the super reliable F414 would be a Good Thing, trouble is finding someone willing to pay what it would cost to get it.You'd have to get the F401's reliability up to make it acceptable. F100 wasn't an option for F-14 because after it got derated to meet reliability requirements, it didn't have that much more thrust than the TF30, not enough to justify the cost of putting it in the F-14.
15% more power for the early F-100 vs. the -412 (if the Wikipedia numbers are right), with 2 x 800 lbs weight save per aircraft. Looks like an upgrade to me.
Fascinating, so all this time the A-D models have been "suffering" with derated engines.Key was that F100 originally promised 25,000 lbs.
AIUI, the F401 was, in broad terms, a navalized F100. With both engines sharing a large number of common parts, but with the F401 having, at least on paper, better performance. Then when the Air Force decided to pull the plug on further development funding for the F100 to get the reliability levels up, it would have forced the Navy to either fund the rest of the development themselves (thus "gifting" an improved F100 to the Air Force after the USAF just screwed them), accepting a massively downgraded F401 that offered little improvement over the TF30 at a significantly higher cost, or saying "fuck it" and sticking with the TF30. Budgets being what they are, the answer was obvious.You'd have to get the F401's reliability up to make it acceptable. F100 wasn't an option for F-14 because after it got derated to meet reliability requirements, it didn't have that much more thrust than the TF30, not enough to justify the cost of putting it in the F-14.The USAF was dead set on getting an air superiority fighter. So I doubt they'll want Tomcats. But you might be able to convince them to buy some to replace their F-106s and serve in a limited role in Europe to target the handful of Soviet AWACS aircraft and tankers (with a secondary air superiority role). The biggest change we're likely to see though is the adoption of the F401. With the air force getting "stuck" with the type, they're not likely to be happy with the TF30s and probably won't accept the F100s "good enough to screw the Navy" performance. So we likely see large numbers of F-14Bs enter service instead of A models. Lower down the list, we might also see the -14C gain more traction and be placed into service
Your description of what caused he Navy to pull out is spot on but although sharing the core, the F401 was not simply a navalized F100. You can get more info here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pw-f401-pw-400-and-ge-f110-400-for-f-14.23340/AIUI, the F401 was, in broad terms, a navalized F100. With both engines sharing a large number of common parts, but with the F401 having, at least on paper, better performance. Then when the Air Force decided to pull the plug on further development funding for the F100 to get the reliability levels up, it would have forced the Navy to either fund the rest of the development themselves (thus "gifting" an improved F100 to the Air Force after the USAF just screwed them), accepting a massively downgraded F401 that offered little improvement over the TF30 at a significantly higher cost, or saying "fuck it" and sticking with the TF30. Budgets being what they are, the answer was obvious.You'd have to get the F401's reliability up to make it acceptable. F100 wasn't an option for F-14 because after it got derated to meet reliability requirements, it didn't have that much more thrust than the TF30, not enough to justify the cost of putting it in the F-14.The USAF was dead set on getting an air superiority fighter. So I doubt they'll want Tomcats. But you might be able to convince them to buy some to replace their F-106s and serve in a limited role in Europe to target the handful of Soviet AWACS aircraft and tankers (with a secondary air superiority role). The biggest change we're likely to see though is the adoption of the F401. With the air force getting "stuck" with the type, they're not likely to be happy with the TF30s and probably won't accept the F100s "good enough to screw the Navy" performance. So we likely see large numbers of F-14Bs enter service instead of A models. Lower down the list, we might also see the -14C gain more traction and be placed into service
But in this scenario at least, the USAF has been forced into the F-14 program, and by proxy, the F401 program. Here, the USAF is almost certain to continue to co-fund the development of the F401 with the Navy as soon as they get a taste of the TF30 powered F-14. Hell, the Air Force didn't like the TF30 when they were forced into the A-7 program. I doubt their opinion on it will have improved since then.
All true, though the irony is that the fighter mafia got better dogfighters just before all aspect infrared missiles and the long promised leap in BVR missile performance came true, reducing the importance of classic dogfighting.The F-14 was given reasonable dogfighting capabilities, but really that was secondary to being a missile truck that could shootdown things at very long ranges. . . .
What the USAF wanted was an all-around air superiority fighter that could dogfight in a mostly visual environment. That is where the F-15 came in. It had a BVR missile capacity, but that was secondary to being a dogfighter with cannon and short ranged AAM's.
With respect if you look at the F-15s and F-14s respective combat records, development histories and production numbers/ status that argument appears impossible to sustain.All true, though the irony is that the fighter mafia got better dogfighters just before all aspect infrared missiles and the long promised leap in BVR missile performance came true, reducing the importance of classic dogfighting.The F-14 was given reasonable dogfighting capabilities, but really that was secondary to being a missile truck that could shootdown things at very long ranges. . . .
What the USAF wanted was an all-around air superiority fighter that could dogfight in a mostly visual environment. That is where the F-15 came in. It had a BVR missile capacity, but that was secondary to being a dogfighter with cannon and short ranged AAM's.
The F-14 "dogfight capable but missile heavy" approach might well have been better, given 20/20 hindsight, over the lifetime of the F-15's service.
Please note that I'm not saying anyone could or should have seen that coming at the time the F-14 vs. F-15 decision was made nor that good dogfighting capability became meaningless, just that the ideal balance of capabilities for a fighter shifted.
Unfortunately, I don't have production data before FY 1978, but FY 1978 also comes damn close to that 144 number, with 44 F-14As and 97 F-15s built. So 144 per year is probably achievable early in the production run, as numbers for both planes drop off rather noticeably after FY 1978. But if follow-on orders are made instead of Hornet production then they'll get back up to 144 by the mid-80s.
As far as advanced Tomcat variants, the Super Tomcat 21 seems more practical than the AST-21, being an actual Tomcat variant instead of a completely new aircraft in a Tomcat skinsuit.
Like Kaiserd said, the TF41 was a licensed produced Spey. UK Phantoms, F-4K and F-4M, replaced the J79 with an afterburning Spey. That had 20,500 lbs of thrust, about the same as the TF30 in the F-14. So there was not much benefit to be gained after spending all the money that would be needed to get it into the F-14. A better engine than the TF30, but not enough to jutify doing it. . Also, the Spey was "draggy". The UK found that although the extra thrust helped at takeoff and low speed acceleration, because of the drag rise as you went faster the Spey Phantoms lost out to the J9 powered Phantoms. Hindsight is usually 20-20; It's the general opinion in times since that putting the Spey into the Phantom wasn't that good an idea.I often wonder WHY didn't Allison tried to fill the TF30 / F401 void with their TF41. They had a golden opportunity to screw Pratt and G.E and take an important role as a USN engine supplier. Taking G.E OTL backup role with the F101 / F110.
Sure the Spey was draggy when compared with the J79 but not with other contemporary turbofans which would surely feature similar bloat in comparison with a turbojet. An argument can be made for the Spey being sub-optimal for the F-4M but the general opinion may want to review Ark Royal's dimensions with regard to the F-4K.....in which instance, the Spey was a very good idea! Lower SFC and good low-level acceleration may not win a game of top trumps but they were nice features to have as well.Also, the Spey was "draggy".... It's the general opinion in times since that putting the Spey into the Phantom wasn't that good an idea.
Difficult to judge. I think there was some experimentation with an afterburning TF41 that would, on the surface, appear to compete with the F100 early on but the TF41 wouldn't have the growth potential of the later engine. Certainly, once you start on the path of the likes of the -229, the Spey gets left in the dust.Was the Spey / TF41 at the end of its rope ?
Perhaps China’s most successful turbofan co-production programme is for the 9.2t-thrust Rolls-Royce Spey Mk202. Having obtained an initial batch of 50 in 1975, China balked at the cost of co-production and spent the next 20 years trying to copy it. But by 1998 Beijing was willing to pay for 80-90 more used Speys and for the knowledge to start co-production at Xian Aero-Engine, where it is called the WS-9 Qinling. China required the WS-9 to power the Xian JH-7 and JH-7A strike fighter programme, which an Asian government expects to total 320 aircraft by 2020, conceivably requiring 960 engines. There are reports of an upgraded 9.9t-thrust WS-9A.