Beating or equaling the F-4 Phantom II, but just with one jet engine?

T

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
1 May 2011
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
891
I know that the fighter, that I consider the golden standard of the 1960s, received quite a coverage here. This one should be about the plausible alternatives to it, timely designed around a single engine. A design should be capable for Mach 2+ speed clean, have crew of two, all-weather capability (includes the radar-guided missiles), and reasonable handling for the day. It does not need to be carrier capable if the country making it does not have the carriers.
Aircraft should be flying by the late 1950s or early 1960s, with full service capability no later than 1963. Engines - anything that the country makes, or can make if a licence-built engine does the job done. Missiles - same as for the engines; the modified domestic missiles will do, too; at least 4 radar-guided missiles and two IR missiles carried; gun is optional. Long range/endurance, with drop tanks as standard. Bomb-carrying ability. Designs can be either the historical ones, or the suitably-modified historical designs, or the plausible designs that never were, and you think it should've worked.

The closest real-world example was probably the MiG-23, but that one was with some flaws of it's own, as well as being too late in its full-capability version to emerge.
 
Grumman Super Tiger would also fit the bill. If the Swiss had chosen it over the Mirage for example, it likely would have saved them a lot of woe. And the Japanese would have chosen it if it weren't for some rather dodgy behind the scenes maneuvers. Likely the Canadians as well.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Grumman Super Tiger would also fit the bill.
Click to expand...
I knew this would make the list. :D

All AH questions can be solved by just buying a Spey-powered Grumman Super Tiger. You never need anything else*.

*Occasionally a Hawker P.1121 but even Sir Sid can't fully compete with Bethpage even if he sticks an RB.106 Thames into it.
 
Hi Tomo,

tomo pauk said:
I know that the fighter, that I consider the golden standard of the 1960s, received quite a coverage here. This one should be about the plausible alternatives to it, timely designed around a single engine. A design should be capable for Mach 2+ speed clean, have crew of two, all-weather capability (includes the radar-guided missiles), and reasonable handling for the day.
Click to expand...
I think the crew of two needs to be emphasized :)

What is the most powerful engine with full service capability no later than 1963? Since you're not leaving much of the F-4's capabilities unrequested, that would have to go into the single-engine fighter. And keep your fingers crossed that the nation building that engine doesn't have any aircraft carriers! ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
HoHun said:
I think the crew of two needs to be emphasized
Click to expand...
There was a proposed two seater though:
grumman-f-11f-1f-jpg.184739

(h/t the late circle-5 :()

super-tiger-98j7-jpg.4753


As well as a twin seat photo recon version:
super-tiger-98j7-photo-jpg.4755

(h/t overscan)
 
tomo pauk said:
The closest real-world example was probably the MiG-23, but that one was with some flaws of it's own, as well as being too late in its full-capability version to emerge.
Click to expand...
The JA Viggen, too, though both were single-seaters and so don't quite fit your criteria.

HoHun said:
What is the most powerful engine with full service capability no later than 1963?
Click to expand...
The P&W J75, up to 17,500 lbs dry and 26,500 lbs wet.
 
Most powerful turbojets (and early turbofans for Medway)
-J75, J58, J93 for the US.
-RB.106, Gyron, Olympus, Conway, Medway for the british. Perhaps RB.168 Spey, depends of the 1963 deadline.
-PS.13 Iroquois for the canadians

Now, about airframe ?
On the US front we need a mix of F-105 and F-106, and a two seater with that. F-105D ?
On the british side, the obvious answer is the Hawker P.1121 (or one of the closely related designs between 1103 and 1129).
For the canadians: the original CF-104, the one before the Arrow.

On the french side the Mirage III is too small and single seat. A better match would be one of the early Mirage IV designs, such as the IVC. But it will need a foreign turbojet as SNECMA can't get his head out of the Atar.
Good news: SNECMA took a J75 licence for the B-58 size Mirage IVB.
The Mirage IVC started as "a bigger Mirage III" hence just one engine, J75 class. Only later did it evolved into a Phantom, then into a Vigilante.
So, two-seat Mirage IVC with one powerful J75.
 
Hood said:
I knew this would make the list. :D

All AH questions can be solved by just buying a Spey-powered Grumman Super Tiger. You never need anything else*.

*Occasionally a Hawker P.1121 but even Sir Sid can't fully compete with Bethpage even if he sticks an RB.106 Thames into it.
Click to expand...

This is so true.

The fact of the matter is the Phantom is an outlier, not only in capability but in how early it entered service. Matching it in capability and time is theoretically possible, but in practice nobody had anything in the pipeline to do it.
 
It's not a problem of design. It's a problem of trading weight and range. For CONUS this is out of the question. But for Europe where short ranged interceptors are acceptable it would be desireable.
That said Saab's Draken already fits the bill for a Mach 2 fighter that can rival in air combat.
 
F-102 with AIM-26B was a real killer potential. Turkey really bullied its neighbors with the F-102 until they got the full F-4 treatment. The F-106 would have been a natural fit for AIM-26B. F-106C was to have the scaled down AN/ASG-18 radar and fire control system from YF-12 (to steer AIM-47) but it never materialized. She actually was a looker: https://www.f-106deltadart.com/piwigo/_data/i/upload/2014/03/28/20140328180925-07ac1834-me.jpg

Does an F-16 with AIM-7 count as too late?

https://forum-en-cdn.warthunder.com/original/3X/e/2/e2d968e8f683405c65fd45ddf34fa2edf9c9dab6.jpeghttps://forum-en-cdn.warthunder.com/original/4X/6/4/3/64310999d0ffc6f5d87c6eddaea77ac162a3e004.jpeg
 
Last edited:
F5D had the radar and the capability to use Sparrow, low wing loading, and a big wing to load stuff on.
 
Seragina said:
That said Saab's Draken already fits the bill for a Mach 2 fighter that can rival in air combat.
Click to expand...

SAAB liked the image of the Draken going Mach 2, and didn't challenge it, but in practice it topped out around 1.7 due to wetted area, thrust and intakes.

So it was more similar to the likes of the F-8 than the F-4 generation.
 
tomo pauk said:
Missiles - same as for the engines; the modified domestic missiles will do, too; at least 4 radar-guided missiles and two IR missiles
Click to expand...

After my recent dive down the early AAM rabbit hole I think this might be the bridge too far. The Firestreak/Red Top and R530 were big weapons, thicker than the sparrow and there wasn't a small IR missile until the R550 Magic in 1968. An early 60s Phantom analogue would likely only carry 4 of those European AAMs, but likely backed up with guns.
 
Last edited:
That's where delta wing shines - plenty of room and attach points.

The F-106 had a wing area of 61 m2 but AIM-4 and internal bays did not exploited the full potential of that wing area.

Let's compare it with other delta-wing fighter jets.
-The Rafale has a wing area of only 45 m2 but up to 13 hardpoints.
-The much larger Mirage 4000 had a wing area of 72 m2 and up to 14 hardpoints.
-The Mirage IVA, contemporary of the F-106, had a wing area of 78 m2, more than twice than a Mirage III 35m2.
-Of course all of them are twin jets so the baseline fuselage is larger.
-The Draken with its double delta had a wing area of 49 m2, a bit more than the Viggen : 46 m2, how about that. Gripen is only 30 m2 !

-Mirage 2000 : 41 m2, a bit more than the III.
The Mirage 2000C can carry armament on nine hardpoints - with four under wing, four under the fuselage and one centerline.
Click to expand...
With one-third additional wing area a F-106B (as OP wants a two seater) should be able to add a few hardpoints compared to a Mirage 2000 B/D/N. If J75 ain't enough anymore, get a downrated J58 or J93, I mean no Mach 3.

at least 4 radar-guided missiles and two IR missiles
Click to expand...
Should be doable in a way similar to this. Of course MICA is much smaller than AIM-7 or R530 BUT our F-106B has one-third more wing area than the 2000, 61 m2 versus 41 m2.
9c567a52162728d9.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think a good place to start would be to take the Phantom 4*AIM-7 layout and check whether it fits under a F-106 belly, as per the Mirage 2000 picture above.
Sidewinders will go under the wings, F-15 style in double or even triple pylons. Same place as the 2000 big tanks.

trm01682f106bottomview.jpg


So, two AIM-7 conformal hardpoints in place of the Falcon bays; now the question is, can another pair of Sparrow go behind the undercarriage ?
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
That's where delta wing shines - plenty of room and attach points.
Click to expand...
The delta will be even better in that regard if the undercarriage is retracted towards the nose rather than towards fuselage - a trick known to work at least by the time Douglas Skyrider materialized. Or, that U/C is 'anchored' at fuselage, thus leaving the wing real estate free.
(small Gripen E carrying a lot; the F-16XL)

Archibald said:
Should be doable in a way similar to this. Of course MICA is much smaller than AIM-7 or R530 BUT our F-106B has one-third more wing area than the 2000, 61 m2 versus 41 m2.
Click to expand...
Almost 50% more, not just 1/3rd more ;)
 
Hell yes, the F-16XL I had forgotten that one. And, guess what ? its wing area is exact same as a F-106.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL#Specifications_(F-16XL_number_2)

I think we have a winner with the F-16XL. We only need an equivalent with a J75 and before 1963. Two seater ? no problem.

So, which are the best candidates for a F-16XL two decades before ?
-Skylancer (52 m2 wing area, good !)
-F-106

A real winner would be a scaled-up Skylancer, tightly designed around a J93 or a J58 without Mach 3. There should be a ton of room below that delta wing, to hang a shit ton of AAMs.
 
Last edited:
What about the Phantom's ground attack capability? The RAAF considered the F4C in 1963 not as a fighter but as a strike aircraft, and the RAF bought it in 1965 as an attack aircraft. Changing an F106 get you close to the Phantom in air to air combat, but you'd need to add the capabilites of an F105 to match the Phantom in aggregate.
 
If we are looking for the single-engine F-4 analog, the obvious choice is the aircraft designed to the same specification as the original F4H, namely XF8U-3. It was to have the same weapon system (APQ-72 with a 32-inch dish), the same missiles (albeit 3 Sparrows III vs. 4 in the Phantom; the AIM-9 was also to be fitted, as indicated by SAC), considerably better range (for Sparrow-only configuration, 755 nm vs. 1126 nm using F-4B SAC data), comparable speed and rate of climb, and superior handling. The twin-seat configuration was already quite thoroughly evaluated, so it could be an option if needed, although Vought did not like the performance trade-off associated with it. Strap on the same wing pylons as those flying on the F-8E (2000 lbs each) by 1962, and it is probably the closest thing to F-4 performance-wise achievable by a single-engine airframe in this timeframe.


Regarding other options, I am sceptical about the F5D and F11F-1F, as they simply lack the size to offer the required performance. While I am a huge Skylancer fan, it has recently become slightly overrated. It was still a 17,000 lbs empty weight-class fighter, with 16,000 lbs of thrust and a 1135 nm range while carrying just 2× Sparrow II. The air-to-ground capabilities are not even mentioned in the late 1955 SAC. With a tested speed of Mach 1.63 and ~30,000 ft/min climb rate, it offered performance equivalent to the F-8C Crusader with better all-weather capability. I don't think the often-mentioned use of the J79 would really move the needle, as the late J57 versions actually offered nearly 2000 lbs more thrust, even when compared with the J79-GE-10B (19,600 vs. 17,800 lbs). Also, I'm not sure how close they actually were to fielding such a version, as, for example, Steve Ginter in his Skylancer book barely mentions it. The F11F-1F was certainly a much better performer, but it was still a relatively small and simple plane at 15,000 lbs empty weight, carrying 7,836 lbs of internal fuel (without guns) for a 1100 nm maximum internal fuel range. The plans were for fitting the APQ-50 radar known from Skyray, which, while sharing the same lineage as the APQ-72, was still much less capable, not to mention the smaller 24-inch dish. It had a respectable 9,000 lbs payload capability, but it was range-limited with little growth potential without significant airframe changes, as it was already an F-11F-1 squeezed to the maximum to fit all the improvements.


I think that, probably due to issues highlighted by Vietnam War engagements with MiGs, where Phantoms were severely handicapped by strict rules of engagement, the performance of the F-4 became really underappreciated. It took almost a decade before other fighters matched its level of performance and/or sophistication: AJ 37 Viggen (first flew in 1967; the JA-37 in 1974), Mirage F1 (1966), and MiG-23 (1967; 1972 for the MiG-23M, which was the first variant without major limitations). The true contemporaries of the F-4, such as the F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, and F-106, were either severely compromised (F-102, F-104), lacked air-to-air performance (F-101, F-105), or were heavily specialized (F-106), lacking the versatility of the Phantom. Other contemporaries, such as the Mirage III, J-35, or MiG-21, were all significantly smaller aircraft which, while excellent in their respective areas, were simply not able to match the range/payload capabilities of the Phantom. Under specific circumstances, all of them could compete with the F-4, but it is really hard to view them as its direct replacements.
 
We could probably make some jokes about a Spey Twosader, but IMO the real next-closest-thing to the F-4 Phantom is the F8U-3 with some mods. Needs wing pylons and needs that second seat.

F5D Skylancer needs the F-102B or F-106 area ruling treatment, even with the J57 it's a M1.2 plane as it sits today.

F-106 would also need a second seat, and would need to lose the internal weapons bay for Sparrow carriage. Trade the bay for additional fuel, and "steal" the conformal Sparrow mounts from the Phantom. Steal the Navy Sidewinder mounts on the wing pylons, too, while you're at it. I'm pretty sure you could stagger 3x Sparrows across the 106 weapons bay in conformal mounts.
 
Take a Mirage IV airframe and mate it to an Orenda Iroquois as a single engined aircraft, instead of the twin Atars, maybe shrinking it a bit, on the reverse enlage Mirage III to fit but that was Mirage IV anyway. Your call it heavy-Mirage should have dimensions similar to a Phantom...
 
Lascaris said:
Take a Mirage IV airframe and mate it to an Orenda Iroquois as a single engined aircraft, instead of the twin Atars, maybe shrinking it a bit, on the reverse enlage Mirage III to fit but that was Mirage IV anyway. Your call it heavy-Mirage should have dimensions similar to a Phantom...
Click to expand...
That's the 1957 Mirage IVC.
 
You could have stretched an F-106B, eliminated (or disabled) the internal bay and added fuel in there, then equipped Sidewinder and Sparrow in a 4+4 arrangement like the F-4. But the radar needs to be equipped for guiding specifically the AIM-7. What makes the F-4 better suited as a fighter is easy going throttle response which wasn't the strength of the J-75. The latter was a concern on the XF8U-3.

Or they could stick with the F-106C and AIM-47 plan for sniping targets at a distance using equipped designed for the role.
 
May I invite folks to review the TF75/JT4D engine, it was to be the turbofan companion to the J75/JT4C. Very similar to the J57/JT3A to TF33/JT3D relationship.

The slimmer JT4D-3 was aiming for 22,500 lbf of thrust, add on an afterburner and you're pushing 30-35k pounds of thrust. So I'm imagining the proposed F-105H with an enlarged wing area and the TF75 would make one heck of a strike fighter!
 
isayyo2 said:
May I invite folks to review the TF75/JT4D engine, it was to be the turbofan companion to the J75/JT4C. Very similar to the J57/JT3A to TF33/JT3D relationship.

The slimmer JT4D-3 was aiming for 22,500 lbf of thrust, add on an afterburner and you're pushing 30-35k pounds of thrust. So I'm imagining the proposed F-105H with an enlarged wing area and the TF75 would make one heck of a strike fighter!
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, that beast.

I'm thinking F8U-3 or F-106 tune-up. F-105 honestly doesn't need any more power, it could run away from anything in any inventory at low altitude.

But an F8U3 or F-106 could use more horsepower. Crusader would need it for the extra weight of the RIO plus ~16,000lbs of whatever ordnance you plan on hanging under the wings. And the F-106? We can debate between potential to supercruise or just flat better range. Plus, the US might be persuadable to sell the older F-106s to Canada while ADC keeps the Super Sixes.
 
Lascaris said:
I'm inclined to argue the Iroquois variant I'm proposing would be actually superior to Mirage IVC as proposed?
Click to expand...
Of course it would be, as SNECMA Super Atar remained a paper engine, making it a glider. Iroquois on the contrary was very real.
 
tomo pauk said:
I know that the fighter, that I consider the golden standard of the 1960s, received quite a coverage here. This one should be about the plausible alternatives to it, timely designed around a single engine. A design should be capable for Mach 2+ speed clean, have crew of two, all-weather capability (includes the radar-guided missiles), and reasonable handling for the day. It does not need to be carrier capable if the country making it does not have the carriers.
Aircraft should be flying by the late 1950s or early 1960s, with full service capability no later than 1963. Engines - anything that the country makes, or can make if a licence-built engine does the job done. Missiles - same as for the engines; the modified domestic missiles will do, too; at least 4 radar-guided missiles and two IR missiles carried; gun is optional. Long range/endurance, with drop tanks as standard. Bomb-carrying ability. Designs can be either the historical ones, or the suitably-modified historical designs, or the plausible designs that never were, and you think it should've worked.

The closest real-world example was probably the MiG-23, but that one was with some flaws of it's own, as well as being too late in its full-capability version to emerge.
Click to expand...
All -

I suggest the F-105 Thunderchief, w/ some possible tweeks to better optimize it for interceptor duty. Perhaps drop tank refinements to enhance support of Mach 2 flight ?

F-105B in service 1958+, F-105D in service 1961; F-105F 2 seater in service 1963+

Top speed Mach 2.1. F-105B set a speed record itself Dec 1959.

Early models Equipped for aircrew use of high altitude pressure suits/masks/helmets.

J-75-19W featured water injection. A J-75 w/ inlet water injection was once test run on a test stand in continuous afterburner for 24+ hours. Engine enhancements used to set absolute speed record with the F-106 J-75 could have been migrated over to the F-105’s J-75.

Capable of a variety of airborne maneuvers, as shown by its short stint w/ the USAF Thunderbirds. Any structural concerns raised by the Thunderbirds F-105 crash would be dealt with. Large speed brake petals help reduce airspeed after high-speed flight.

Successful F-105 Air-to-air kills were executed over SW Asia.

The airframe can certainly carry bombs.

The “ Hyper Hog “ had a gun.

* The “ Thud “ has a sizeable internal weapons bay that modern stealth fighters would envy. Use it w/ the bay-mounted fuel tank, or….. mix ‘N match along w/ centerline and/or wing drop tanks to best taylor fuel load-out for the desired mission,

Comparatively large fwd bulkhead, to accommodate a good size radar dish.

For the suggested service entry date of an F-105 interceptor, the decision(s) to commit would have been made before the Vietnam War’s demand for F-105s had become readily apparent. An increased total number of airframes bought ( above the number of F-105s that were bought in reality ) would have been looked into. Concurrent production with other F-105s ( assuming timely contact awards ) could have helped amortize materiel, tooling; and labor costs @ Republic.

Interceptor variants could have stayed in-service to an end date similar to the F-105F Wild Weasel, which would have been a close cousin to the 2 seat interceptor variant.


With regards,
357Mag
 
357Mag said:
Successful F-105 Air-to-air kills were executed over SW Asia.
Click to expand...
Only against MiG-17s, though.

So I'd be hard pressed to say that an F-105 with the same radar as an F-4D or -E would be as effective.



357Mag said:
For the suggested service entry date of an F-105 interceptor, the decision(s) to commit would have been made before the Vietnam War’s demand for F-105s had become readily apparent. An increased total number of airframes bought ( above the number of F-105s that were bought in reality ) would have been looked into. Concurrent production with other F-105s ( assuming timely contact awards ) could have helped amortize materiel, tooling; and labor costs @ Republic.

Interceptor variants could have stayed in-service to an end date similar to the F-105F Wild Weasel, which would have been a close cousin to the 2 seat interceptor variant.
Click to expand...
Clear till 1983? I think that'd be a reach.

Unless these "F-105H" completely replace Phantoms in USAF service because someone told McNamara to pound sand?



HoHun said:
What is the most powerful engine with full service capability no later than 1963?
Click to expand...
J58 a la Blackbirds is surprisingly wimpy at sea level and installed. 18,000lbs MIL, 25,500lbs AB. 25k/35k on a test stand.

So I think we'd be looking at an afterburning TF75 as the king. Just to really drive that point home, the J57 went from 12k to 17k dry thrust with the addition of the fan. Should put the dry thrust up to about 24k for the TF75, and AB thrust up to about 34k.
 
The F5D and the F-16XL are surprisingly close in size... Give the F5D a J79 and some touch ups and you basically have a proto-XL.

Another option is the F-107 which was more of a fighter than the F-105.
 
Scott -

Howdy !

When I was thinking about notional F-105 based interceptor, I was thinkin’ more along the lines of U.S. homeland defense again things like TU-95s ( in that era ).


To me, the SW Asia experience showed USAF fighter bombers performing more in a
“ fight your way in…fight your way out “ set of circumstances on balance, than say…
the missions non-bomb toting F-8s covered. USAF fighter aircraft performed as
“ fighter-bombers . Those aircraft were rolled in with aircraft having “ attack” designators; and were then sometimes referred to as the “ fighter/attack “ community.

The ultimate realization is: deployed USAF “ fighters “ covering interceptor missions assume the role’ of fighter/bombers, once the skies have been cleared of enemy air-to-air threats. IF those planes start out hostilities actually performing as interceptors, they almost certainly won’t continue to perform strictly in that role’ ; for very long.

In more-recent decades, the base of dedicated USAF interceptor units has been greatly reduced, with some former ( Air National Guard, example ) interceptor units being converted into “ air-to-ground “ fighter units… concurrent with “ Base Realignment and Closure “ initiatives.

The new reality is…. the continental U.S. “ interceptor “ mission is now largely covered by units that are primarily equipped for and focused on air-to-ground “ missions.
This reality was never more apparent to me, than when our F-16 squadron was tasked to provide defensive “ Air CAP “ over Chicago and Detroit; in the first couple of weeks
post -911. As an aircraft Hydraulic systems mechanic, we covered 12hr shifts and slept in the shop…just like other squadron members did…. in support of our immediate homeland defense tasking. And for the first time since inception of the ANG in the late -40s….we flew out of Ft. Wayne, IN carrying “ live “ missiles. Other units similarly covered other population centers.

At any rate, the likelyhood of U.S.A.F. homeland-based pure interceptors having to mix it up with just Russian or Chinese fighter aircraft isn’t incredibly high ( IMHO ).
Bomber encounters however, are a different situation and circumstance.

To bring it all back to my initial point….. USAF interceptors tasked w/ homeland defense would very likely start bomber engagements BVR… IF they were able, to preserve the option for re-engagements; should their initial defensive attack prove unsuccessful.
The defenders would likely receive vectoring to target aircraft and other cueing from external sensors and sources, making such intercepts more do-able for a “ non-dedicated “ platform.


With regards,
357Mag
 
Isn't it ironic the tactical bomber had paved the way for Vulcan cannon on future big jets like F-14 and F-15. Previous to this the Colt guns were favored on about everything under the sun except for thr Starfighter, which was by that time a niche supersonic day fighter. Or guns were just shunned as obsolete. Vulcan solved the Colt's problematic brass showers. If the F-105 was converted to an 1,800 mile combat range interceptor I most certainly hope they kept the Vulcan. Make it a requirement for two seats (pilot with WSO), semi-active radar homing missiles, and to carry Vulcan. For the F-106 to compete it needs to squeeze in the Vulcan, which even in the forward bay is adequate. (Being able to swap Vulcan for a Genie becomes a feature.) Let them compete for the contract with anyone else wanting to win the tender for a sizeable order to make it worthwhile. Perhaps Vought throws the XF8U-3 into the competition. North American bets on YF-107A again, but with a Vulcan. Grumman might throw its Design 110 / enlarged Tiger in. Something with the J75 (F-105, F-106, etc) or two J79s on the high end, F-104 on the low end. For non-economic reasons you probably end up with the J79s. J75 was too slow of spool up to be a superior all around fighter.
 
Last edited:
The 2-seater F-106B seems like the obvious starting point. Another J75 option would be a 2-seater F8U-3 Crusader III.

But I would have loved to see North American design a 50% scaled down A-5 Vigilante with a single J75 engine. Basically a F-107/A-5 hybrid (both NA designs), with the F-107 fuselage and the A-5 wing planform and inlets. Carrier capable out of the box with 4 conformal Sparrows (2 in tandem between the main landing gear doors, and on in each fuselage corner as on the Crusader III).

I should try to sketch that out to illustrate!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom