What if the Fighter Mafia never got started? Hypothetical "Low" companion to F-15 if there was no Vietnam War

[Scott Kenny]

Think this is the right subforum for this thread, please move if not.

However, the F-16 was very much a product of Boyd's Energy-Maneuver Theory which was developed in Vietnam. So I suspect that it'd be a very different aircraft making up the Low part of the mix.

I'm not even sure where to start with this.

F-15s are too expensive to replace (USAF) F-4s 1:1, so there's a need for a less expensive aircraft.

I'm thinking it might look like an F100 powered F-18L (or maybe YF-17). Same engine as F-15 for economy-of-scale that way, but avionics closer to what went into the F-18s. Less extreme maneuverability, but trades that for Sparrow capability and a better bomb-hauling ability.

Yes, it's possible to go with a pair of F404s or YJ101s, we're talking like 1500 total airframes built here so 3000 engines if twin. But I think maintenance would be cheaper on the single-engined concept.

 

[Kat Tsun]

It would probably just be F-20.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would probably just be F-20.

That's not unreasonable, either.

 

[Apophenia]

... I'm thinking it might look like an F100 powered F-18L (or maybe YF-17). Same engine as F-15 for economy-of-scale ...

What you are describing sounds very much like Northrop's P-610 concept - a variation on the P-600 but with a single F100.

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...yf-17-design-evolution.448/page-2#post-202749

Having a single engine type for the fighter fleet would certainly have made sense to the USAF. The next question, I suppose is would GE's Derivative Fighter Engine programme have still gone ahead and resulted in the F101X?

On the P-610 concept, it is easy to image the design evolving to have side intakes more akin to those of the YF-17. (I like the look of that ventral intake but its got FOD written all over it!) Northrop was really pushing twin M39 guns (from the F-5s) for the P-610 but I could see the USAF insisting upon an M61 (again, for commonality advantages).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It would probably just be F-20.

Before the LWF program, the US Air Force was interested in acquiring an improved F-5 for close support with secondary air-to-air mission, before it got saddled with the A-7.

The 1965 ADF is a pre-Vietnam pre-LWF lightweight fighter aimed at F-4 replacement.

The P610 was designed because initially LWF was single engined, but Northrop didn't really believe in it. As soon as they found out they could submit a twin YJ101 design, they switched emphasis to the Cobra-based P600.

 

[Archibald]

As said above - something Northrop, something with YJ101. Which - somewhat ironically - drive us to P.530 or YF-17 or F-18L or something F-5 derived : F-20 wannabee.

 

[yeetmahboi]

CL-1200 w/ TF41 (TF30 would just give more crash shenanigans), Sparrow and guns, plus a bomb computer.

If no Vietnam, does the F-15 still exists?

 

[Archibald]

CL-1200 w/ TF41 (TF30 would just give more crash shenanigans), Sparrow and guns, plus a bomb computer.

If no Vietnam, does the F-15 still exists?

F-104 derivatives indeed might be good ideas, at two major conditions
-bigger wings
-no more T-tail, and there, there are two options:
----1-Etendard tail (horizontal surfaces above the wing, on the fin)
----2-Mirage F1 tail (control surfaces near the exhaust, lower than the wing).
And yeah the TF30 was a piece of junk.

Well if you want a glimpse at alternate LWF, check the IFA competition won by the F-5E in November 1970
-F-5E (duh !)
-Vought V-1000
-CL-1200

 

[whatismoo]

I have a feeling Convair 200 would be in there somewhere too, all things considered. And probably something from Republic?

 

[Scott Kenny]

If no Vietnam, does the F-15 still exists?

I'm assuming that the F-15 would still exist, because the F-X specifications were to counter what the US thought the MiG-25 was capable of. Fast, maneuverable, big radar. Those were not part of any of the flying lessons from Vietnam.

The only change I could really see in the F-15 might be the lack of a gun. After all, no Vietnam, no sudden realization that the missiles suck versus fighters.

The next question, I suppose is would GE's Derivative Fighter Engine programme have still gone ahead and resulted in the F101X?

I believe so, if only because of how much trouble that the F100 was having early on.

 

[publiusr]

F-15 became what Foxbat appeared to be.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, it's possible to go with a pair of F404s or YJ101s, we're talking like 1500 total airframes built here so 3000 engines if twin. But I think maintenance would be cheaper on the single-engined concept.

Single-engine FTW.
Northrop now owns the golden goose that historically GD and LM gotten with F-16.

 

[Archibald]

I have a feeling Convair 200 would be in there somewhere too, all things considered. And probably something from Republic?

Hell yes if GD YF-16 doesn't exists then Convair 200/201/218 is their LWF baby.

 

[Cjc]

Well for one the f-15 would probably look a lot like the f-14 sense it was more "lessons learned" for the vetnam war then the mig-25 crisis that caused the f-15 to end up the way it did (and have a very real risk of being canceled in favor of the f-14 by congress)

As for the f-16, I would actually go the opposite way, without Boyd and vetnam I would expect something bigger and slower then the f-16 sense the docron is going to keep focusing on missiles and bombing, maybe something more like the f-16xl.

 

[Arjen]

docron

?

 

[yeetmahboi]

?

Probably, doctrine.

 

[Arjen]

I never would have guessed.

Dogon people - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Michel Van]

I guess without Fighter Mafia.
USAF could end up with F-111C, a Missile carrier with long-range radar.
simply fire and forget it, while enemy not understanding why there aircraft explode suddenly.
(See Iranian F-14 vs Iraq MIrage jets during Iran-Iraq war)

 

[Ainen]

I guess without Fighter Mafia.
USAF could end up with F-111C, a Missile carrier with long-range radar.
simply fire and forget it, while enemy not understanding why there aircraft explode suddenly.
(See Iranian F-14 vs Iraq MIrage jets during Iran-Iraq war)

VLRAAM ideas were mainly in NORAD interceptor community anyway.

 

[H_K]

As for the f-16, I would actually go the opposite way, without Boyd and vetnam I would expect something bigger and slower then the f-16 sense the doctrine is going to keep focusing on missiles and bombing, maybe something more like the f-16xl.

I could see an advanced F-106 derivative - single F100 engine, BVR capability (pair of AIM-7s or the larger AIM-97 underwing), canards.

More focused on supersonic / interceptor performance than the F-16... a US Viggen.

 

[Seragina]

Without Vietnam the F4 won't become a sale's success in Europe or elsewhere because of the fatalities with the F104s. There would be no A10 to replace the Skyraider. The Thunderchief would not get bad marks. The Tornado would become Europe's main multirole fighter. The Mirages and the Jaguar the smaller companions. The F15 probably won't be as good. Stealth aircraft development/introduction probably will be delayed and assuming the warsaw pac being around longer there might be more air frames adopted.
I think the smaller companion would be two-engine and a mix of F20 and F105/F111.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Without Vietnam the F4 won't become a sale's success in Europe or elsewhere because of the fatalities with the F104s.

Disagree there. The F-4 was an incredibly good plane for the time, especially if your country was receiving military assistance dollars to spend on American gear.

There would be no A10 to replace the Skyraider.

Maybe? A good half the reason for the A-10 was the USAF trying to kill the AH-56 (since the Army was busy loudly telling people things like "if you put the prop in Beta you can dive-bomb with it!"), so I suspect that there still would be some kind of ground attack bird.

Likely something closer in electronics fit to the A-6, A-7, or F-111, so actually much better for Europe.

The Thunderchief would not get bad marks.

I still think it would have bad attrition in peacetime due to the low altitude flying without a TFR. Possibly as bad as the F-104Gs did.

Stealth aircraft development/introduction probably will be delayed and assuming the warsaw pac being around longer there might be more air frames adopted.

I don't know there. The USAF only wanted a squadron of them to do Dale Brown special operations shenanigans, it was Congress that insisted on buying a whole Wing.

I think the smaller companion would be two-engine and a mix of F20 and F105/F111.

How so?

Before the LWF program, the US Air Force was interested in acquiring an improved F-5 for close support with secondary air-to-air mission, before it got saddled with the A-7.

The 1965 ADF is a pre-Vietnam pre-LWF lightweight fighter aimed at F-4 replacement.

That doesn't look much like an F-5...

But I wouldn't say that the A-7 was a bad plane for the USAF's actual stated need. The only issue the A-7 really has is that it is a Navy plane. Yes it is subsonic but it is quite maneuverable when not packing bombs. Can't loiter worth a damn, though, so it's only good for running to a specified target.

I could see an advanced F-106 derivative - single F100 engine, BVR capability (pair of AIM-7s or the larger AIM-97 underwing), canards.

More focused on supersonic / interceptor performance than the F-16... a US Viggen.

Maybe, though that would require a bomber threat.

The F-106 replacement was deferred till the mid-70s when the F-15s started freeing up the F-4s to ADC/ANG squadrons.

 

[Cjc]

CL-1200 w/ TF41 (TF30 would just give more crash shenanigans), Sparrow and guns, plus a bomb computer.

If no Vietnam, does the F-15 still exists?

I doubt it, I would expect something with swing wings and a big emphasis on missiles.

 

[Seragina]

Disagree there. The F-4 was an incredibly good plane for the time, especially if your country was receiving military assistance dollars to spend on American gear.

But those dollars were WWII payment from Europe so it's justs coming home. lol

Maybe? A good half the reason for the A-10 was the USAF trying to kill the AH-56 (since the Army was busy loudly telling people things like "if you put the prop in Beta you can dive-bomb with it!"), so I suspect that there still would be some kind of ground attack bird.

Likely something closer in electronics fit to the A-6, A-7, or F-111, so actually much better for Europe.

Both started after the conflict started. I doubt attack helicopters would start with tandem seat yet but more like the Huey. Probably moving more in the direction of the Mi-8. A delay of perhabs a decade+.
There would also be no Spooky gunships. M16, 40mm grenades might be delayed or not be widely introduced. Europe didn't change to 5.56mm until the late 90's. We would have skipped all the trouble with today's change back to a heavier round.

I don't know there. The USAF only wanted a squadron of them to do Dale Brown special operations shenanigans, it was Congress that insisted on buying a whole Wing.

I mean there would be more money around on both sides etc. the cold war would last llonger. Most everything more in limbo and delayed.

How so?

The preference for two engines due to analogue controls and unreliability. Digital evolution likely delayed, too. As well as EW warfare sophistication. TV guided bombs would be more prevalent while laser guided probably delayed. The preference seems to move to fast guided rockets instead. AIM9, AIM7 sophistication would be delayed by decades. (Like how AIM9X was still failing not too long ago due eastern flares.). AIM9 woulldn't have fallen into eastern hands and their IR AAM would have developed differently and delayed.
Hence, less A2A more A2G bomber.
Hence, I think the smaller companion would have 2 "smaller" engines and more a bit more like a bomber.

 

[whatismoo]

Disagree there. The F-4 was an incredibly good plane for the time, especially if your country was receiving military assistance dollars to spend on American gear.



Maybe? A good half the reason for the A-10 was the USAF trying to kill the AH-56 (since the Army was busy loudly telling people things like "if you put the prop in Beta you can dive-bomb with it!"), so I suspect that there still would be some kind of ground attack bird.

Likely something closer in electronics fit to the A-6, A-7, or F-111, so actually much better for Europe.



I still think it would have bad attrition in peacetime due to the low altitude flying without a TFR. Possibly as bad as the F-104Gs did.



I don't know there. The USAF only wanted a squadron of them to do Dale Brown special operations shenanigans, it was Congress that insisted on buying a whole Wing.



How so?



That doesn't look much like an F-5...

But I wouldn't say that the A-7 was a bad plane for the USAF's actual stated need. The only issue the A-7 really has is that it is a Navy plane. Yes it is subsonic but it is quite maneuverable when not packing bombs. Can't loiter worth a damn, though, so it's only good for running to a specified target.



Maybe, though that would require a bomber threat.

The F-106 replacement was deferred till the mid-70s when the F-15s started freeing up the F-4s to ADC/ANG squadrons.

RE: ADC, assuming they don't get knifed in the back by TAC in '78, you'd probably see them deploying Follow On Interceptor (FOI) in the early-mid-80s. AIUI from sone congressional records diving I did for a former employer this settled into an F-15A/C with FAST packs, but F-106 upgrades were looked at for a while. I could see F-106C getting made, if not the F-106D with extra wing pylons?

The other question to ask is Convair 200, which is much closer to an Ameri-Viggen.

 

[zen]

Licensed production of Convair 200 variants could have swayed a lot of Europe.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RE: ADC, assuming they don't get knifed in the back by TAC in '78, you'd probably see them deploying Follow On Interceptor (FOI) in the early-mid-80s. AIUI from sone congressional records diving I did for a former employer this settled into an F-15A/C with FAST packs, but F-106 upgrades were looked at for a while. I could see F-106C getting made, if not the F-106D with extra wing pylons?

F-106C with F100 engine and the F-15C/D Radar? Redesigned weapons bays or conformal Sparrow/AMRAAM?

The other question to ask is Convair 200, which is much closer to an Ameri-Viggen.

That really is a good point.

Convair 200 would be a good "low" option.

 

[whatismoo]

F-106C with F100 engine and the F-15C/D Radar? Redesigned weapons bays or conformal Sparrow/AMRAAM?

Theres the ramp intake F-106 with canards and F401-PW-440 from that thread, and the four wing pylon one. Bay redesigns were contemplated several times.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If we assume the Navy still develops the F-18 as a replacement for the A-7 and as a cheaper alternative to the F-14 then it's very likely the F-18 is forced on the Air Force because they can't afford enough F-15's and have nothing of their own as a cheaper alternative. I can see them suddenly being interested in a cheaper alternative that quickly turns into a project disaster then reluctantly accepting the F-18 because there's no alternative for them.

 

[Desertfox]

The easy answer is the plane that started LWF, ie the X-27/CL-1200 Lancer. Its already been offered as the low version of the F-15. Probably throw in some USAF F-5s as well as the "F-27" will be "not a pound for air-to-ground". No F-18 as the Navy is not forced to go with a LWF design, but F/A-17 comes around as an improved F-5 replacement and (ironically) as a way to avoid buying Navy A-7. Europe ends up with a mix of F-27s and F-1s, except for Germany which goes with a Dornier built F-17.

Sadly no F-16XL but maybe we get a F/A-17XL? Which means F-15E does not happen.

Does the Navy go Convair 2000 or Vought V-1000? Does a German F/A-17 end up killing Tornado? Does Britain buy it, killing big Jaguar?

 

[Seragina]

Germany which goes with a Dornier built F-17.

That reminds me this might lead to the Northrop-Dornier ND-102 become successful.
Before that there was the EWR VJ 101C. Even if the VJ-101 is fated to fail regardless the EWR could have become a successful conglomerate and Airbus would never have come to be. If EWR prevails Germany wouldn't be in trouble now with all the FCAS trouble to begin with.

Does a German F/A-17 end up killing Tornado? Does Britain buy it, killing big Jaguar?

No. The Tornado is too specialized/tough for low level flight that could only be rivaled by the B1.

​

 

[Arjen]

the EWR could have become a successful conglomerate and Airbus would never have come to be.

EWR - Entwicklungsring Süd - merged into MBB in 1969, which was taken over by DASA in 1989 (created earlier that year by merging Dornier, MTU, parts of AEG), which itself was merged with CASA and Aerospatiale-Matra into EADS in 2000, now Airbus.
ERNO - Entwicklungsring Nord - was taken over by DASA in 1989. Which, again, winds up in EADS, now Airbus.

 

[Desertfox]

No. The Tornado is too specialized/tough for low level flight that could only be rivaled by the B1.

But the question is, if Germany has bought F/A-17 or ND-102, do they have the money for Tornado?

 

[Cjc]

But the question is, if Germany has bought F/A-17 or ND-102, do they have the money for Tornado?

If Germany buys a fourth Gen fighter then its very unlikely tornado gets made.

 

[Archibald]

Well since VG was so fashionable before Vietnam and the F-111 miseries, how about something like the Mirage G as a sidekick to a different F-15 ? a) It provides a strict equivalent to the MiG-23 except much better and b) it features a TF306 turbofan similar to the F-111 engine. Nota bene: I said Mirage G, not G8.

 

[GeorgeA]

You’re not far off. The original F-X requirement envisioned a M2.7, twin-engined, 60,000 lb VG aircraft. Even if this eventuated, it would have been so expensive that you’d have needed a lower-cost option to make up the numbers in TAC, with or without Le Caccia Nostra. Whether a single-engine VG fighter would have been “low” enough is a good question.

 

[Archibald]

You’re not far off. The original F-X requirement envisioned a M2.7, twin-engined, 60,000 lb VG aircraft. Even if this eventuated, it would have been so expensive that you’d have needed a lower-cost option to make up the numbers in TAC, with or without Le Caccia Nostra.

Brilliant !

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well since VG was so fashionable before Vietnam and the F-111 miseries, how about something like the Mirage G as a sidekick to a different F-15 ? a) It provides a strict equivalent to the MiG-23 except much better and b) it features a TF306 turbofan similar to the F-111 engine. Nota bene: I said Mirage G, not G8.

But did the TF306 fix the compressor stall problems that plagued the F-111 and F-14?

 

[Archibald]

But did the TF306 fix the compressor stall problems that plagued the F-111 and F-14?

Yes. Very well. Early on the TF104 / TF106 was tested on a Mirage III (III-T for turbofan) and the compressor stalls were horrible, pilots said the noise was like a 1897 Canon de 75. But the problem was solved and neither the Mirage F2 nor the Mirage G ever got that problem.

 

[Volkodav]

I used to dislike the A-7, but the more I look into it the more I realise that it was perfectly good enough and could have been even better.

It is far more versatile than both smaller/lighter attack types, as well as larger strike types, while much cheaper to own and operate than large multirole fighter/strike types. Similar can be said of Jaguar and AMX.

Factor in podded targeting systems, modern multimode radars, guided munitions, as well as short and medium range agile air to air missiles, and aircraft like the A-7 look like much better value for money / bang for your buck, for many real-world missions than many other options.

The caveat is you will still need a supporting air superiority type and possibly a long-range strategic strike option, but then again, having such a mix would be more capable than relying on one multirole type.