F-14 forced on the USAF

[Cjc]

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.

 

[Michel Van]

After F-111 fiasco NAVY and USAF went separate ways to build F-14 and F-15
From political viewpoint it make no sense.
Military viewpoint is quite different: the F-14 is Carrier Fighter jet, the F-15 is air superiority fighter against Soviet fighter MiG-25

But issue is the MiG-25 is a Interceptor for mach 3 bomber and the SR-71, not a fighter, that based on wrong assessment by CIA!
Ironic the USAF original F-X proposal (F-15) was closer to NAVY VFX proposal (F-14) as assessment was handed over to them.

What if the CIA not made mistake and made right assumption on MiG-25.
Now things are complete differenten F-X and VFX are almost identical.
And with political intervention it could end like this

next saving R&D cost it could have bring more Export of F-14
Were original the F-15 would sell but also new client like West Germany in 1970s
loser in this would be McDonnell/Douglas also in lost of F-4 sales to nation who buy the F-14
but there is catch
The F-14 is expensive to maintain with it variable-sweep wing compare to F-15 to F-4.
next to that have NAVY and USAF different choice in weapons for their Fighters.

 

[helmutkohl]

how much more expensive is the F-14 A-D to operate and maintain than the F-15?
if its substantially as expensive as some say it is

I suspect that some F-15 buyers IRL, may end up opting for F-16s and F-18s in this alternate reality.
perhaps a mix F-14 and F-16 fleet (common engine in the D), or F-18 and F-14 like the Navy.

 

[SSgtC]

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

 

[helmutkohl]

some other questions..
how would the lack of the F-15 and the adoption of the F-14 in both services affect other projects?

Would the Soviet's Flanker and Fulcrums still look the same? They took quite a bit of inspiration from the F-Teens, but with one gone, would they stay with the same configuration? or perhaps continue with swing-wings again?

How would it affect ATF?

 

[Michel Van]

The F-15 was quite a bad surprise for Soviets
What let to development of Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrums

With the USAF F-14 and the Soviet tendency for "analogous tactical-technical characteristics"
They would build similar aircraft means the started MiG-23 and Su-24 program undergoes modification
to meet the analogous tactical-technical characteristics of F-14

Other Project
IF the West German Luftwaffe buy USAF F-14 this kills the Panavia Tornado !
Original as European build fighter/bomber Jet, without Germans participation i have my doubt this initiative survived !

Dassault Mirage G
The French Military (and Politic) would push the development of G4 and G8 into series production.
do fact that others have also variable-sweep wing aircraft and France can not stand behind..

Fun fact: for NAVY VFX competitions the LTV and Dassault made a join venture for Vought Model 507
With this as winner for F-14 give complete other dynamic in a alternate history
Since Dassault would also build this in France for French military and Export

 

[CV12Hornet]

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.

Surprisingly, what I've found on cost per flight hour is that the F-14A was not that much more expensive to maintain than the F-15C (comparing both at the end of their service lives). Building an actual production machine instead of the preproduction F-14A would probably put the two planes in the same ballpark as far as cost per flight hour - and you can bet your ass the original F-14B is going to go through, because now the Air Force is invested in the F401.

As far as F-15 foreign sales, well, I don't see any reason for Japan to not buy the F-14 instead of the F-15. The original decision was about climb rate, but the F-14B should climb very well and otherwise the F-14 fits Japan's doctrine quite well. The Israelis as well, due to a lack of better options. The Saudis, on the other hand, may very well opt for the Mirage 4000 in this timeline.

 

[Desertfox]

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?

 

[Fluff]

Wouldnt the hi-lo mix need looking at.

So you have overspent on the Hi, so maybe you have to look again at the re-engined F5 for the Lo, as long as it can realistically kill a Mig21.

So Europe buys the F5G as well.

RAF buys F14 for the Gap, and builds F5's in the UK.

 

[SSgtC]

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?

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.

 

[Michel Van]

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.

After F-104 scandal, the Luftwaffe look for new fighter jet in 1967, What let to Multi-Role Aircraft 75 program.
1969 began debate about was role the MRA-75, Britain demand for bomber. while Germany wanted Fighter
around 1970 came the offer by Grumman for F-14 for Luftwaffe
In Mean time MRA-75 transform to MRCA under Panavia "Tornado"
The Luftwaffe took Tornado as Multi-Role Combat Aircraft and buy additional F-4 Phantoms as fighter/interceptor/reconnaissance

Why was the F-14 not taken ?
One reason was that F-14 had not yet flow and Luftwaffe wanted to test a prototype.
The F-14 flew first in December 1970, six months after the Tornado program contract was Sign.
Another possibly reason was that F-14 could not provide contracts for German Aerospace industry like Tornado.

 

[tomo pauk]

We'd see Israel and Japan getting the full-spec F-14, and S.Arabia probably a 'minus' version, possibly without Phoenix missiles, after Ayatollah happens.
European procurement happens as-is with F-14 being even more expensive to own and operate than F-15.
USAAF might, after experiencing Phoenix, go with longer-ranged AMRAAM, probably full AAAM?

 

[BB1984]

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

The Air Force mindset shifted to an air superiority fighter because of the "Fighter Mafia". The proposals before the Fighter Mafia took over were bigger and less maneuverable than the F-14, so it's not a big stretch for the pentagon to shove the F-14 down the USAF's throat in place of the original FX program.

This is from wikipedia about the FX program: "Following a downselect, four companies were asked to provide further developments. In total, they developed some 500 design concepts. Typical designs featured variable-sweep wings, weight over 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg), included a top speed of Mach 2.7 and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.75. When the proposals were studied in July 1966, the aircraft were roughly the size and weight of the TFX F-111, and like that aircraft, were designs that could not be considered an air-superiority fighter."

I agree about the engines: either P&W gets the F401 to work or the GE F110 comes on sooner; either way is a big win.

If you want to extend the "what if", the F401 is in production and the Convair 200 gets the nod instead of Rockwell's XFV-12 and that turns into the tri-service lightweight fighter, the low mix to complement the F-14.

 

[GTX]

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.

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.

 

[GTX]

Some export possibilities resulting:

 

[GTX]

Of course the important thing might be that Top Gun wasn't set on a Carrier or even in the USN...

 

[F-14D]

5.
Now things are complete differenten F-X and VFX are almost identical.
And with political intervention it could end like this

Since AF was lobbying to kill F-14 and go with a navalized F-15, turnabout was an AF F-14, which really didn't get very far. In fact, GAO itself said it would be more expensive to develop one plane for both services than to field two optimized aircraft sharing an engine core. . I think this mockup though, was a proposal to fill the Improved Manned Interceptor role rather than the FX.

 

[F-14D]

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

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.

 

[F-14D]

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.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[lordroel]

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.

Well many people might be sad that there is no F-15, but i am going yo be happy, as the F-14 is one of my favorite birds.

 

[F-14D]

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.

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.

 

[isayyo2]

Key was that F100 originally promised 25,000 lbs.

Fascinating, so all this time the A-D models have been "suffering" with derated engines.

 

[SSgtC]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[F-14D]

You

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

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.

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.

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.

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/

AF wasn't forced by anyone to buy the A-7. Vietnam was hot and heavy and AF needed more attack and close air support aircraft and didn't have time to wait for an all-Air Force one to be fielded. they saw that the A-7 could be a basis for what they needed quickly and went after it. However they wanted more capability and definitely did not want the TF30 so they put up the bucks and developed the A-7D with improved avionics and the Spey engine. They did such a good job that the Navy looked at what USAF had done and adopted that version as the A-7E. The A-7 was a really great aircraft that never got the accolades it deserved. Besides being used to drop an enormous amount of ordinance over an enormous number of flights, its combat loss rate was extremely low.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The F-14 was not what the USAF needed or wanted when they were developing the F-15. For the Navy, the F-14 was the latest development in a missile armed aircraft for engagement of targets well beyond visual range. The adoption of the AIM 54 Phoenix was in pursuit of that mission.

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. Unlike the USAF, the USN in a war at sea didn't have to worry about visually identifying targets nearly as much as the USAF did in a land war over some country where there could be allied friendly forces, commercial aviation, third parties who weren't involved, etc. Out to sea the Navy had the luxury of knowing with a good degree of certainty who the bad guys were.

The F-14 was created out of the failure of the F-111 that was tested out for the same role.



As the F-111B, the Navy found as they developed and tested the plane it simply had too many limitations on it for adoption to carrier operations. Thus, the F-14 was created instead.

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.

So, choice of engine is just getting into the weeds here. First and foremost, the F-14 was the wrong plane for the mission the USAF envisioned. In many ways, it would be to repeat the history of the F-4, the F-14's predecessor as the Navy's missile truck. But this time around the USAF had a plane in development of their own that fit their needs unlike when they adopted the F-4.

As has been pointed out here, the F-14 would have made an excellent replacement for the USAF's F-106 as an interceptor, but that role only called for very limited numbers of aircraft so the adoption would have been expensive to do.

 

[helmutkohl]

if one belives the Iranians and ACIG, then the F-14 did very well in the Iran-Iraq war. so perhaps Israel would find similar success had it entered service

 

[apparition13]

Here's a consideration, if I'm recalling this correctly. Grumman stated that the F-14 would be most economical to produce, as in have the lowest unit price, at a production rate of 144 aircraft per year, or 12 per month. With a demand for roughly 1300-1400 aircraft for both the USAF and USN, Grumman might be able to hit that number. If that constrains the cost of the Tomcat enough it might undercut the argument for an F-18, opening the door for the F-14C and potential follow on models. The C is a lot of the way to both the F-14D and the F-15E, so I can see it taking over for both the F-111 and the A-6 towards the end of the 80s. And a somewhat cheaper Tomcat would be more attractive on the international market as well. Perhaps something like an AST-21 to replace the F-111?

In this case the F-14 would be the natural successor to the F-4 as a multi-role fighter, and the F-16A/B might be more in line with it's original vision as an air combat specialist. It should be a bit larger though, since the F401 has a bigger fan, perhaps Mitsubishi F-2 or F-16N sized. Hopefully with a good air to air radar, since I really like the look of AIM-7 Sparrows mounted on the gear-door pylons. By the C/D model it would likely also be multi-role, to replace the A-7 as well.

 

[CV12Hornet]

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.

Aviation Unit Costs

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.

 

[isayyo2]

Something that hasn't been asked is when the F-15 is cancelled?
Is it 1967 and McNamara is still SecDef?
Is it 1971 and the F-14 is already flying?

The earlier the better I'd say... They say two heads are better than one, not too sure about the Air Force and Navy pulling Grumman in multiple directions though. On the plus side, Grumman gets twice the funding for development?

Say it's 1967, McNamara merges the F-4 replacement programs (VFAX/VFX and FX) into one office. Personal from the Navy and Air Force get to mingle in one building and hopefully the inter-service squabbling is stomped out. Hopefully. Mach 2.5+ speeds are dropped in favor of the AIM-54 swatting down MiG-25s. Better or equal ground attack capabilities as the F-4E are required. Technologic aids like ATAR and VTAS are retained thanks to two services funding development, maybe a frameless windscreen as well?
First flight is Spring 1970 with an intensive multi-year development schedule involving 30-50 preproduction aircrafts, these YF-14's could be flying with TF30s, TF41, F100/F401, and perhaps even the F101. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force fly the hell out of their YF-14's with combat demonstrations performed in South Vietnam; operational testing is conducted globally from Iceland to Israel and the F-14's IOC is declared in 1973. The F-14A enters service in 1974, fully capable with ATAR, VTAS, CCIP/CCRP, HOBOS, Pave Spike, Phoenix, Shrike, Walleye, Rockeye, and Maverick. This production F-14A model would have all the benefits the OTL F-14B was supposed to have i.e. an APU, improved wiring, enhanced access panels, and some form of improved engine over the TF30. An RF-14 variant is produced to replace the RF-8, RF-4, RF-101, and RA-5's.

 

[Archibald]

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.

 

[kaiserd]

Because the TF41 was a license produced RR Sprey which technologically was an earlier design closer to the TF30 than the later F100 and F110 engines.
As such it wasn’t really a particularly brilliant air superiority fighter engine in the first place (similar issues to the Sprey in this regard) and wasn’t competitive with later designs (also fundamentally miss matched against the requirements behind the F-15 and F-16 and likely to suffer similar power short fall if not quite all the other issues the TF30 had with the F-14).

 

[BB1984]

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.

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 "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.

 

[kaiserd]

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.

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 "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.

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.
I’m a fan of the F-14, it was a better match for US Navy requirements than any navalised F-15 could ever been, etc.
But the F-15 was clearly the right choice for the US airforce and numerous export customers and has proven itself to be by far the more successful and adaptable design of the 2.
Trying to project potential considerations for US 6-generation fighters (which is probably the most generous interpretation that can be given to comments above) is seriously misconceived when looking at the F-15 versus F-14 in the context of their time.

 

[F-14D]

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.

Aviation Unit Costs

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.

Two quickies:

I don't think the Tomcat line could support 144 aircraft a year. I believe the max was either 72 or 96. Of course you could enhance the line or even set up a second line. Just depends on how much you're willing to spend, since the extra fixed costs and overhead would up the progrm costs for all Tomcats.

 

[F-14D]

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.

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.

 

[Archibald]

Well noted. Was the Spey / TF41 at the end of its rope ? Was Allison in good shape by the early 1970's - enough to upgrade it ?

 

[Deleted member 2278]

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.

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.

Was the Spey / TF41 at the end of its rope ?

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.

 

[Arjen]

Xi'an Aero-Engine Corporation produces (produced?) a licensed RB.168 Mk.202 Spey as the WS-9 Qinling. In 2015, Flight reported a development, the WS-9A.

ANALYSIS: Can China break the military aircraft engine bottleneck?

China's political and aerospace leadership is painfully aware that that its airpower ambitions are severely impeded by the lack of what it calls a "Chinese heart," or modern indigenous aircraft engines.

www.flightglobal.com

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.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Some evidence that while the TF41 could still be quite competitive with the early F100 in say the A-7F, it would fall some way behind the F401. While the Allison 912-B52* variant was hoped to generate in excess of 27000lb st but the reality was actually 23000lb st.

Jane's entries before and after demonstration testing:

Jane's all the world's aircraft, 1986-87 : Taylor, John William Ransom : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Includes indexes

archive.org

Jane's all the world's aircraft, 1987-88 : None : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

(60), 1029 pages : 33 cm

archive.org

DTIC doc that has the 23000 figure (Ctrl+F TF41):

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA242646.pdf

*Not the B32 variant touted for the F-14 but presumably quite similar and developed at least to some extent.