F-111 isn't made "joint"

Cjc

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 15, 2021
Messages
66
Reaction score
36
What I'm curious is what may the f-111 and the navy version would have looked like without the need for "jointness"

So the usaf gets a bomber that based on the specs (the ones before joint was introduced) looks remarkably like a larger version of the tsr 2,1500nm instead of 1000nm 8,000 lbs to 6,000lbs ect, so maybe not even swing wing?

The navy wich did eventually git what it wanted with the f-14, would it have come about earlier or was the tech not really there yet. (Then again for all its issues the f-111B dose look really similar to the f-14)

And when would we expect these now different planes to be finished? "F-111" in 65, "f-14" in 68 maby?
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
778
Reaction score
687
Well, the necessary engines for high-performance in that class (-60,000 lb) don't really come about any earlier. Nor do the avionics.
USAF probably gets their strike aircraft slightly earlier, but it will still be stuck with two immature TF30's.

Not sure the Navy will have any fewer problems with weight-gain in development, engine and avionics, etc. Might not be a problem if the requirement is still for a supersonic Missileer, but it won't magically get more powerful and mature engines that handle rough treatment in a dogfight.
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
761
Reaction score
318
What I'm curious is what may the f-111 and the navy version would have looked like without the need for "jointness"
Another question: ae such two aircraft have been designed and produced by the same company?
If so, the development and production process could be much complex, IMHO - they should solve different problems for two different customers. And if he two different companies have been involved: one built land-based, one built carrier-based aircraft there were small overall loading on their production facilities, and the price for aircraft could be higher.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,701
Reaction score
8,229
Well, the necessary engines for high-performance in that class (-60,000 lb) don't really come about any earlier. Nor do the avionics.
USAF probably gets their strike aircraft slightly earlier, but it will still be stuck with two immature TF30's.

Not sure the Navy will have any fewer problems with weight-gain in development, engine and avionics, etc. Might not be a problem if the requirement is still for a supersonic Missileer, but it won't magically get more powerful and mature engines that handle rough treatment in a dogfight.
The A-7 is a half-weight variant of all this, TF30 included, and TF41 later... maybe we could use it as a "template" ? The timelines also match (give or take).
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
207
Reaction score
405
SOR 183, the original Air Force requirement, called for the following:

In June 1960, the US Air Force (USAF) issued "Specific Operational Requirement (SOR) 183", defining a new tactical fighter for the nuclear strike role. SOR 183 specified an aircraft that could operate from unprepared forward airfields and would have an unrefueled range of 6,100 kilometers (3,800 miles / 3,100 NMI). It would be able to fly at Mach 1.2 continuously for 740 kilometers (460 miles / 400 NMI).
The forward airfield operations required the swing-wing in conjunction with the required performance; at the time it was the only way to combine the two features. Given the F-111 did, in fact, end up meeting these performance specs, the result is probably going to look a lot like the F-111. Probably like a tandem-seat version of the Boeing F-111 design, in fact.

And looking at the early SOR 183 sketch designs, yeah, they're all swing-wings and generally resemble the F-111, though obviously in detail they all look different.

The Navy program is where things start to get interesting. The AWG-9/Phoenix combo is a given, that is the entire point of the program, but I do think it likely that the maneuverability requirements are lower compared to the Tomcat. The Tomcat gained its maneuverability requirements due to early combat over Vietnam; in this scenario, the new fighter would be just hitting production when the Vietnam War starts and it would likely be too late to drastically change the design to emphasize maneuverability. We're probably looking at Phantom-tier maneuverability, or perhaps a little better. I doubt something on par with the OTL Tomcat.

The primary change for Vietnam would likely to be to upgrade it to take over the Phantom's air-defense suppression duties once it's available, Navy Phantoms primarily conducting air superiority and defense suppression compared to the Air Force and Marines' mud-moving duties.

One more change: in addition to the TF30, Allison's license-built Speys would be on the table as well. The TF30 being a Navy project first, it'll go on the Navy fighter, while we may see the TF41 on the Air Force striker.
 

BB1984

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
138
The USAF was very into swing wings at the time, even pushing them into the early F-X concepts a few years later, so I agree with CV12: the "USAF only" F-111 would look a lot like the historical F-111, maybe like a longer, slimmer F-111C (due to tandem seating, no need for the big AWG-9 radome, and no length limits due to USN elevators).

Also agree ref with CV12 ref the "USN only" version. It's worth remembering that this is right after the USN flirted with the Missileer concept, so they were not envisioning dog fighting at the time. The Navy wanted a smaller, lighter plane than the USAF, so it might have wound up with something like the Panavia Tornado, but optimized for high altitude speed/loiter rather than low altitude penetration, possibly with side by side seating.
 
Top