A-7F in the 60's - a supersonic Corsair II

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,690
Reaction score
13,269
As said in the title. The A-7F was a terrific bomb truck but 1985 was way too late.
Now back to 1963 and VAL.
Whatif the A-7 had stuck with the Crusader reheat and supersonic speed ? not the J57 of course but an afterburning TF-41, very much the F-4K engine into the A-7 airframe.
Some developments
- same USN USAF procurement as per OTL
A-7 A/B/D/E
- In Vietnam its supersonic speed help replacing the F-105s at far lower cost than Phantom and F-111s
- since OTL A7F was born out of the Whartog being too slow, then ITTL 1972 the A-10 is stillborn and 700 more A-7s are build for CAS.
- Vought now has a multirole supersonic successor to the Crusader and this may impact the short ranged Hornet down the line...
- naval variant can provide air defence from Essex carriers like Oriskany replacing the old Crusaders
- in 1970 Vought scrap the V-1000 and pitch a multirole A-7 against the F-5E for IFA. While the Tiger II win, performance wise the A-7 attracts a lot of interest.
 
Folks, I've just checked the 1962 tri-service designations and bar F-4 F-5 and F-8 most of the others are old types, even bogus. Never realized that the F-7 was the convair Sea Dart, although it stopped flying in 1957, 5 years before.
Might be fun to rebrand the A-7 Corsair II F-7 or F/A-7, Hornet style of course (the irony !)
 
As said in the title. The A-7F was a terrific bomb truck but 1985 was way too late.
Now back to 1963 and VAL.
Whatif the A-7 had stuck with the Crusader reheat and supersonic speed ? not the J57 of course but an afterburning TF-41, very much the F-4K engine into the A-7 airframe.
Some developments
- same USN USAF procurement as per OTL
A-7 A/B/D/E
- In Vietnam its supersonic speed help replacing the F-105s at far lower cost than Phantom and F-111s
- since OTL A7F was born out of the Whartog being too slow, then ITTL 1972 the A-10 is stillborn and 700 more A-7s are build for CAS.
- Vought now has a multirole supersonic successor to the Crusader and this may impact the short ranged Hornet down the line...
- naval variant can provide air defence from Essex carriers like Oriskany replacing the old Crusaders
- in 1970 Vought scrap the V-1000 and pitch a multirole A-7 against the F-5E for IFA. While the Tiger II win, performance wise the A-7 attracts a lot of interest.

A bit like this:
 
in 1970 Vought scrap the V-1000 and pitch a multirole A-7 against the F-5E for IFA. While the Tiger II win, performance wise the A-7 attracts a lot of interest.
The A-7F would be a modification of an in production design, unlike the V-1000/F-8 which I'd say is a major plus. An after-burning version of the TF41 would put out something around 23 to 26,000 lb.f of thrust? With the LERX and new flaps, low speed handling and landing performance should have been enhanced. Visibility for air to air combat would be equal to the F-8 and subpar against anything with a bubble canopy, though a VTAS helmet could even the odds?

Cost is still your biggest issue, though its capabilities are well beyond the F-5E. If you could get a demonstrator flying before 1972 or earlier, LTV should be able to win a few orders and lobby Congress to purchase more as well. Maybe get the Shah to fund it?
 
In which case why not consider the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader as the basis of the design, as it's already based on the supersonic design, as opposed to turning the subsonic A-7 design into a supersonic aircraft.....

Regards
Pioneer
 
In which case why not consider the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader as the basis of the design, as it's already based on the supersonic design, as opposed to turning the subsonic A-7 design into a supersonic aircraft.....

Regards
Pioneer

Never heard about this one, which year ? if 1964 and beyond, A-7 is already in the place... but I surely love the Crusader.
 
In which case why not consider the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader as the basis of the design, as it's already based on the supersonic design, as opposed to turning the subsonic A-7 design into a supersonic aircraft.....

Regards
Pioneer

Never heard about this one, which year ? if 1964 and beyond, A-7 is already in the place... but I surely love the Crusader.
Archibald, nor had I heard of the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader until I purchased the incredibly informative book Vought F-8 Crusader: Development of the Navy's first supersonic jet fighter by William D. Spidle, Specialty Press, Forest Lake, MN (2017), as emphasised by this wind tunnel model from the book:

P.S. as to the designs time frame, the V-456 was started in 1962.

Hope this gives food forthought.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220109_092345.jpg
    IMG_20220109_092345.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 193
Perhaps the A-7D could be ordered as the supersonic variant? For whatever reason the Air Force demands supersonic performance to replace the F-105 and F-100 thinking they’d get more F-4s or F-111s, but congress forces the A-7 as a jobs program and/or lobbying?
 
In which case why not consider the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader as the basis of the design, as it's already based on the supersonic design, as opposed to turning the subsonic A-7 design into a supersonic aircraft.....

Regards
Pioneer

Never heard about this one, which year ? if 1964 and beyond, A-7 is already in the place... but I surely love the Crusader.
Archibald, nor had I heard of the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader until I purchased the incredibly informative book Vought F-8 Crusader: Development of the Navy's first supersonic jet fighter by William D. Spidle, Specialty Press, Forest Lake, MN (2017), as emphasised by this wind tunnel model from the book:

P.S. as to the designs time frame, the V-456 was started in 1962.

Hope this gives food forthought.

Regards
Pioneer
the attack crusader would also carry a LOT of sidewinders...that would not suck
 
One of the reasons USAF adopted (and significantly improved) the A-7 was that they were in the middle of Vietnam and didn't have the time to develop their own plane (which would take longer, cost more and wouldn't be much better anyway) .

Without going into a lot of detail here, the attack Crusader would have been even less of interest to the USAF than the A-7F was. There's been discussion of the A-7F elsewhere on this site as part of the CAS/BAI initiative (also as a way to get rid of the A-10). BTW, afterburnng TF41 was looked at for A-7F, but F100 and F110 had avantage of already ordered for US use. USAF's position can be summarized in one sentence: "We will consider any aircraft for the job impartially as long as it's the F-16".

I'm including two pix of one of the two demonstrators showing how the A-7F looked during tests at Edwards, and how she looked in 2013.
 

Attachments

  • a7fedwramp.jpg
    a7fedwramp.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 124
  • a7fedwrot.jpg
    a7fedwrot.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 145
Last edited:
In which case why not consider the Vought V-456 Attack Crusader as the basis of the design, as it's already based on the supersonic design, as opposed to turning the subsonic A-7 design into a supersonic aircraft.....

Regards
Pioneer
You could modify existing A-7Ds and Es into A-7Fs, whereas Attack Crusader would take longer and cost a lot more.
 
Perhaps the A-7D could be ordered as the supersonic variant? For whatever reason the Air Force demands supersonic performance to replace the F-105 and F-100 thinking they’d get more F-4s or F-111s, but congress forces the A-7 as a jobs program and/or lobbying?
USAF had run a series of studies for an aircraft to fulfill the CAS\BAI role (and also as a way to get rid of the A-10), but rejected the results when the F-16 didn't come out on top. Congress stepped in when they saw how cheap the A-7F would be and ordered USAF to test a demonstrator. But, they forgot to direct USAF to do anything with the results. So USAF tested, and then said, "We did what you said. Now can we have more F-16s please"?

Yes, I know that years ago I said I'd write a detailed story about the A-7F design
 
Last edited:
By the way, A-7F concept was a modification of the A-7X concept proposed to the Navy in the previous decade which was rejected because it threatened the development of the Hornet, a program wildly popular with Congress.
 

Attachments

  • A-7XUSN.jpg
    A-7XUSN.jpg
    128.5 KB · Views: 157
  • a7fdrwng1rot.jpg
    a7fdrwng1rot.jpg
    572.1 KB · Views: 171
Last edited:
Glas to have you onboard that thread @F-14D

There were so many missed opportunities with an afterburning A-7D/E, right from 1965. TF41, F401, F110, whatever the engine. And I'm not surprised it threatened the Hornet - and F-16 later, the irony.

A good case could be made that an afterburning / supersonic A-7 was killed twice
- in the 1970's for the USN by the Hornet
- in the 1980's for USAF by the F-16

And that's the reason why I want it to happen in the 1960's - with the side effect of passing its afterburning TF41 either to the F-111B or... the Tomcat.

That's the real missed opportunity.

It is a pity USAF didn't put an afterburner on their A-7D circa 1966 to make them supersonics as a successor to... the F-105 Thunderchief. Unfortunately the Phantom essentially had taken that role, even with older J79s and at an even higher cost.

It boils to
- A-7F in 1966 to pass the TF41 to the Tomcat
- A-7F in 1972 to screw the Hornet
- A-7F in 1983 to screw the F-16

Whatever the engine, the A-7 being the son of Crusader, just screamed for an afterburner and supersonic speeds. The A-7F demonstrated that point beyond any doubt.

In passing, @F-14D - something that fascinates me with the A-7F is the rebuilding of older A-7s into A-7F.

It is not everyday that old subsonic airframes can be rebuild into supersonic / afterburning ones.
I can't think of any modern airfract that went through such changes.
It is quite easy to make a deep supersonic aircraft into a nearly subsonic one (B-1A / B-1B, cough)

But the other way around, and even more from existing airframes, is rather unique to the A-7F.
I often wonder if the Crusader DNA explained that feat.
 
Last edited:
What would be the benefit of the supersonic performance? Better able to try to run from fighters?

Or are the real benefits in Sustained Turn Rate and SEP?
 
What would be the benefit of the supersonic performance? Better able to try to run from fighters?

Or are the real benefits in Sustained Turn Rate and SEP?
Everyone, don't get hung up on the supersonic speed issue. For this mission designing for supersonic capability adds virtually no value, and raises cost substantially. In fact It wasn't even a requirement for the CAS\BAI competition which is what broth forth the A-7F. Some, but not all, of the bidders had supersonic capability because they were adaptations of existing fighters that were already supersonic. Of course loaded down with the armaments necessary for CAS/BAI , they weren't supersonic anyway.

In the case of the A-7F, top speed wasn't the reason for the afterburner. Afterburner was added first, to enable takeoffs from shorter fields when necessary. Second, for more agility in the target area. Since the F100 in dry thrust put out about the same as the TF41, and the F110 put out more, you could fly the whole mission without touching the 'burner if you had an A-7D length runway and didn't need to do a lot of high maneuvering in the target area. . In fact, if you didn't touch the afterburner, the A-7F could fly a lot farther than the D. You could use the 'burner if needed, and still fly the distance the A-7D did.

Regarding pitching supersonic potential, that was just an added bonus point. The driver was to achieve those two key points I mentioned. When you put in the the thrust necessary to meet those goals, supersonic speed just sort of resulted.

A similar situation happened with the V-280. Bell didn't choose their required power to get 280 knots. The power was set at what was necessary to meet the Army's hot and high hover requirement. Once they had that, their calculations showed that with that power in level flight the bird would do 280 knots so that's what they announced as its speed. As it turned out, it went faster,
 
Last edited:
Came across a tidbit. They apparently only flew the YA-7F supersonically once, to M1.6, to calibrate instrumentation. Like I said, supersonic capability wasn't that important to the design role.
Not shocking by any means. How often did aircraft go supersonic over Vietnam? Especially when loaded with ordnance...

I’d be interested in a comprise 70s A-7F with a dry, but uprated TF41 or an F401 if we got lucky. Call it an “austere” NACF entry with a larger radome, but without the fuselage extensions. Maybe slap on some LERX’s and a APG-67 sized radar and call it a day. An A-7 with the 17,000 lbf TF41 would have near equal thrust to an F-8 in afterburner, though in a much stubbier fuselage. Ideally keep the mods simple enough so upgrades could be preformed during depot maintenance, like how F-14B's were planned to be upgraded into D models.

We could take it further by adding a CWI module to the new radar and wire in the capability for AIM-7's on the wing; if they can lug around four HARM's I think they could carry Sparrow's just fine. I don't picture A-7s swatting down MiGs like in Desert Storm, but having an inner layer CAP around the battle group would be beneficial. Depending on clearance, maybe the F-8's double rail AIM-9 launcher to could be added? At the very least for two Zuni pods for Fast-FAC.
 
Came across a tidbit. They apparently only flew the YA-7F supersonically once, to M1.6, to calibrate instrumentation. Like I said, supersonic capability wasn't that important to the design role.
Not shocking by any means. How often did aircraft go supersonic over Vietnam? Especially when loaded with ordnance...

I’d be interested in a comprise 70s A-7F with a dry, but uprated TF41 or an F401 if we got lucky. Call it an “austere” NACF entry with a larger radome, but without the fuselage extensions. Maybe slap on some LERX’s and a APG-67 sized radar and call it a day. An A-7 with the 17,000 lbf TF41 would have near equal thrust to an F-8 in afterburner, though in a much stubbier fuselage. Ideally keep the mods simple enough so upgrades could be preformed during depot maintenance, like how F-14B's were planned to be upgraded into D models.

We could take it further by adding a CWI module to the new radar and wire in the capability for AIM-7's on the wing; if they can lug around four HARM's I think they could carry Sparrow's just fine. I don't picture A-7s swatting down MiGs like in Desert Storm, but having an inner layer CAP around the battle group would be beneficial. Depending on clearance, maybe the F-8's double rail AIM-9 launcher to could be added? At the very least for two Zuni pods for Fast-FAC.
The thing is, the A-7F was intended to be an outstanding CAS/BAI asset, at a very low cost. There was no need, or even desire to add more A2A capability, which would do nothing but raise costs and not enhance the mission capability. USAF/USN already had fighters that would do that job better. Every one you used for CAP is one less you could use for strike, and strike is the reason for the plane's existence.

Regaling an upgraded dry TF41, why go to the expense of doing that when you already have two engines which would do the job better, and wouldn't require design and development work? Remember we'd have to be talking talking the 1980s. In the 1970s no one had any interest in this kind of vehicle, and for the time, the A7 was doing just great.. . If Navy wasn't willing to spend the beaucoup bucks it would take to bring the F401 to something usable for the aircraft that it was designed for, they certainly wouldn't cough up the money and time to put in the A-7. In the 1970s the F100 was coming and that would be a better choice; it was already there (sorta, had reliability and performance problems).

As far as LERX goes, they were already part of the A-7F design, although Vought called them "strakes".

My point is that prior to the CAS/BAI initiative of the 1980s, no one had any interest or need for such a vehicle.

FWIW
 
Not disagreeing, just responding.
Every one you used for CAP is one less you could use for strike, and strike is the reason for the plane's existence
I was thinking in a similar vain to the A-6F slinging AIM-120's, purely a defensive option when the TU-22M Regiments conduct their alpha strikes against the battle group. Have the F-14s in the outer air battle as planned, with everything else supporting the inner ring/plugging gaps.
Regaling an upgraded dry TF41, why go to the expense of doing that when you already have two engines which would do the job better, and wouldn't require design and development work?
Plainly because I'm biased towards the design and I'm trying to fit it into the narrative :p A bit more seriously, the TF41 is the safer option in the 70s with Pratt busy fixing the F100 and the F-15 having engine priority. If this is some bizzaro world where the F401 and the NACF is cancelled then the TF41 is the only option? The twin F404 A7 never struck me as realistic, at least if using existing airframes was the goal.
If it’s the 80s, then I completely agree with you.
 
Not disagreeing, just responding.
Every one you used for CAP is one less you could use for strike, and strike is the reason for the plane's existence
I was thinking in a similar vain to the A-6F slinging AIM-120's, purely a defensive option when the TU-22M Regiments conduct their alpha strikes against the battle group. Have the F-14s in the outer air battle as planned, with everything else supporting the inner ring/plugging gaps.
Regaling an upgraded dry TF41, why go to the expense of doing that when you already have two engines which would do the job better, and wouldn't require design and development work?
Plainly because I'm biased towards the design and I'm trying to fit it into the narrative :p A bit more seriously, the TF41 is the safer option in the 70s with Pratt busy fixing the F100 and the F-15 having engine priority. If this is some bizzaro world where the F401 and the NACF is cancelled then the TF41 is the only option? The twin F404 A7 never struck me as realistic, at least if using existing airframes was the goal.
If it’s the 80s, then I completely agree with you.
My thought is that the uprated TF41 would require too much work and time for only 2,000 lbs increase, especially with Vietnam being hot and heavy at the time , With the '60s being when the A-7D/E was invented, if they had wanted to do an uprated TF41, they would have done that from the get-go.
 
Last edited:
Allison did fly their 17,500 lbf "-B32" engine in September 72 in a YA-7H, about three years after the A-7E's first flight. I only have a snippet of the article, and I'm not 100% sure if the A-7's inlet would be to be increased in order to fully use the extra 2,500 lbf of thrust.

17,500 lb TF41.png
 
There is an amusing alt history to be written.

1-The Navy A-7A lacks thrust, so the Air Force adds afterburner to the A-7D derivate (1963-64)

2-The real answer however is called TF41 (no afterburner)

3-POD: the afterburning TF30 makes it to the first few A-7Ds

4-During flight testing pilots discover that having an afterburner might be interesting when replacing F-100s and F-105s

5-This pleases the USAF "supersonic lobby" and they now push for an afterburning TF41 A-7D

6-Perhaps with the F-4K own Spey's afterburner: no need to reinvent the wheel

7-Then it starts snowballing - that AB-TF41 might be a much needed "plan B" for F-111

8-And Tomcat soon thereafters...
 
Doesn't this just beg the question about reheated Spey from the F4K?

In fact could Attack Crusader result from Anglo-American Crusader?
 
This is a "hodgepodge" of Google books Hearings and a few other tidbits, collected here and there. One can see that an afterburning / supersonic A-7D wasn't a far fetched prospect...

A-7D AIRCRAFT

Senator RUSSELL. On January 6, 1967, it was announced that the Air Force version of the A-7 aircraft would be equipped with an advanced version of a Rolls Royce Spey engine to be developed by the Allison Division of General Motors, and Rolls Royce, Ltd. Just why was it decided to use this new engine rather than the Pratt & Whitney engine used in the Navy version?

General CROW. During the course of studies to determine what was to be the final configuration of the Air Force version of the A-7 aircraft, it became evident that the Pratt & Whitney TF-30 engine used in the Navy version of the A-7 did not necessarily constitute an optimum choice for the Air Force A-7D. Takeoff thrust was inadequate and would require development of an afterburner installation, thereby introducing an added technical risk to the required production availability date. Coupled with this was the fact that proposed production availability of the TF-30 engine was already less than satisfactory. Moreover, Pratt & Whitney production capacity was becoming saturated, and additional facilities were said to be required in order to meet the added Air Force needs over and above Pratt & Whitney's existing military and commercial commitments. Overlying this was the fact that no more than two major engine producers constituted the major production base source for meeting urgent and expanding military requirements. From the standpoint of fostering a competitive environment, the situation was not encouraging.

Faced with this situation, the Air Force conducted a major reevaluation of the A-7 engine program. Proposals from Pratt & Whit
ney (TF-30-P-8 with afterburner) and Allison (Rolls Royce 912-B3 Spey) were subjected to comparative evaluation. Conclusions were that Spey performance was superior to that of the TF-30 (14,250 pounds of dry thrust for the Spey versus 10,950 pounds for the TF-30), while the technical risk was no greater. Spey production buildup could be achieved earlier, and at a greater monthly production rate, than could be achieved by Pratt & Whitney. Also, on a firm fixed price basis, the cost of a development and production program for 500 engines was estimated to be considerably cheaper for the Spey as compared to the TF-30. Allison, moreover, proposed a more competitive ceiling price and cost-sharing ratio than Pratt & Whitney.

The ultimate selection of the Spey engine (since designated the Ållison TF-41) to replace the TF-30 in the Air Force A-7D was a sound and logical decision. The Spey, now scheduled to fly in the A-7D in mid-1968, not only offers cost, delivery, and performance advantagesbut also provides us with a needed additional engine source.

Senator RUSSELL. Just what are the advantages of the Spey engine?

General CROW. The advantages of the Spey over the TF-30 are principally cost and availability.

Senator RUSSELL. How does the cost of the Spey engine compare with the cost of the Pratt & Whitney TF-30?

General CROW. The current Navy estimate for the unit cost of the TF-30-P-8 engine is $387,000. To this would have to be added the cost of afterburner (required to provide adequate takeoff performance for ground-based operation of the A-7D), which is estimated at $50,000 to $70,000-for an adjusted unit cost of $437,000 to $457,000 for the TF-30. This compares to a fixed-price contract unit cost of $342,904 for the Allison TF-41 (Spey).

Senator RUSSELL. What effect will the decision to change engines have on the availability of this aircraft to the combat forces?

General CROW. It will improve the availability of the A-7D to the combat forces. Initial deliveries will be earlier, the production acceleration to peak rate will be faster, and the peak rate will be higher.

Senator RUSSELL. What aircraft now being used in Southeast Asia will be replaced with the A-7D?

General CROW. The A-7D was programed to complement existing forces in the close air support and interdiction roles. It is scheduled to eventually phase into units now equipped with the F-100 and F-105 aircraft.

Senator RUSSELL. I noted a recent article indicating the Navy was having some problems with its version of the aircraft in which specific reference was made to steam ingestion into the engine and consequent reduction of power while being catapulted; loss of power or flameout in rainstorms; a noisy cockpit; and increasing costs. Are these problems limited to the Navy version?

General CROW. The technical problems concerning the engine are peculiar to the Pratt and Whitney TF-30 used in the Navy version. The cockpit noise problem is also applicable to the Air Force version. Engineering efforts to reduce or eliminate this difficulty are well underway. All increased costs on the Navy version are not necessarily applicable to the Air Force version. Certain increases are peculiar to the Navy configuration. At the same time, however, cost increases within the common airframe portion of the configuration are inevitably reflected in the cost of the Air Force airplane.

There being two sides to every coin, there are those in the Air Force who are not happy with the A-7D. This attitude stems primarily from the plane's being subsonic— in the Mach 0.9 class. Some in USAF would have preferred a supersonic aircraft. Indeed, the A-7D is the first turbojet fighter-type aircraft to enter Air Force service in more than fifteen years which has not been supersonic.

Although the Navy plans to operate the subsonic A-7 over North Vietnam on strike interdiction missions, Air Force philosophy calls for using supersonic fighter-bombers such as the F-105 Thunderchief and F-4 Phantom over the North. In the Air Force inventory the A-7 will replace the venerable F-100 Supersabre, the oldest of the Air Force supersonic fighter-bombers.

The A-7A/A-7B Corsairs in Navy use are launched on combat missions from aircraft carriers that can accelerate fully loaded aircraft to flying speeds with a 250-foot steam catapult. The TF30 engines in the 11,000- to 12,000-pound-thrust range are considered insufficient for runway takeoffs of combatloaded aircraft in the Southeast Asian environment. An obvious solution was to add an afterburner, but this would add weight to the aircraft at its after extremity, an unfavorable aerodynamic feature, and would give off "hot" exhaust, making the aircraft more vulnerable to infrared detection and heat-seeking missiles.

Accordingly, the Air Force decided to power its A-7D variant with the TF41-A-1 Spey turbofan engine, being developed and manufactured jointly by Rolls-Royce Ltd., of England, and the Allison Division of General Motors. The A-7D engines are being assembled in the US with some components being produced in Britain. The TF41 was rated at approximately 14,500 pounds maximum thrust. Tests to date indicate that the engine will develop about 500 pounds more thrust than had been estimated earlier, a very welcome bonus. (The first two A-7Ds off the production line this month will have Navy TF30-P-8 engines; subsequent A-7Ds will have the TF41 Spey.)

The major change in aircraft design was the adoption of a fixed wing for the A-7 in place of the variable-incidence wing of the F-8 Crusader fighter. The latter's wing rests flush with the top of the fuselage to provide a low angle of attack for high-speed and cruise flight. For landings and takeoffs the F-8 wing pivots upward to increase its angle of attack, in effect lowering the fuselage to provide the pilot with a good view of the flight deck or runway. The plane's ailerons, a section of the flaps, and the wing leading edges all droop simultaneously with the increase in wing incidence to further increase the effective camber to facilitate landing. Other airframe changes in the redesign of the F-8 to the A-7 configuration included reduction in size (partially made possible by not having an afterburner in the Corsair), a slightly reduced wing sweepback, and the addition of outboard ailerons.

These airframe changes have drawn criticism from opponents of the A-7, who claim that the A-7 provides for current avionics, weapons delivery, and powerplant technology to be installed in an airframe reflecting the state of the art in the early 1950s when the F-8 was designed. These critics contend that for a relatively small expenditure, especially in view of the number of aircraft contemplated, an airframe capable of Mach 1+ speeds could be designed-employing pivoting or variable-sweep wings-with all other A-7 capabilities. The question of cost is subjective, and debate on cost and relative survivability of supersonic versus subsonic light attack aircraft appears to have no end.
 
Once you push transonic with the fatter engine then drag escalates proportionately. TF41 was the proper choice. A-7 was superior to F-8 in projected costs due to design choices such as leaving off afterburners and avoiding certification of a supersonic airframe. Honestly, F-8 should have been more like A-7, moving to a more simplified design using technology available since inception.
 
Having the A-7 use the Spey from the start was never an option.
The VAL specifications mandated use of the TF30 (the only entrant to not feature it was Grumman's single-seat Intruder, which was the first to be eliminated... the enlarged A-4 and the attack Fury both used the TF30).

The first production Speys were airliner engines delivered in 1964... while the first military Speys in the Buccaneer S.2 were in 1964.

As for the TF41, while it could have been moved up a couple of years, the USAF/USN would not have been looking for a TF30 replacement before 1965-66.
 
As said in the title. The A-7F was a terrific bomb truck but 1985 was way too late.
Now back to 1963 and VAL.
Whatif the A-7 had stuck with the Crusader reheat and supersonic speed ? not the J57 of course but an afterburning TF-41, very much the F-4K engine into the A-7 airframe.
Some developments
- same USN USAF procurement as per OTL
A-7 A/B/D/E
- In Vietnam its supersonic speed help replacing the F-105s at far lower cost than Phantom and F-111s
- since OTL A7F was born out of the Whartog being too slow, then ITTL 1972 the A-10 is stillborn and 700 more A-7s are build for CAS.
- Vought now has a multirole supersonic successor to the Crusader and this may impact the short ranged Hornet down the line...
- naval variant can provide air defence from Essex carriers like Oriskany replacing the old Crusaders
- in 1970 Vought scrap the V-1000 and pitch a multirole A-7 against the F-5E for IFA. While the Tiger II win, performance wise the A-7 attracts a lot of interest.
I don't think that's likely.

The A-10 came about as a result of the USAF getting all bent out of shape about the AH-56 being about to do fixed wing jobs like dive-bombing with 1000lb bombs, and needing to replace the A-1 Skyraider for CSAR escort. And while an A-7 is an awesome bomb truck, it's not very capable of escorting CSAR helicopters.
 
Back
Top Bottom