RAF without Jaguar

[Archibald]

J85s albeit small are old-tech turbojets, thus: fuel-guzzling. That's why I suggested modern turbofans. You said RB.199, and I said: J101.

That one would delightful for a few reasons a) it was the YF-17 engine and b) it was the F404 direct ancestor, so F-18 and F-20. In a sense, a J101 F-5 would bring together all the varied Northrop fighters from P.530 to F-18L. Don't forget Northrop got screwed thrice in a row: YF-17, F-18L and F-20. They ended truly squeezed between F-16 and F-18.

A case could be made that Northrop had two post- F-5 paths
-go single engine: but F-20 came too late
-go twin turbofan: YF-17 and F-18L went nowhere, to MDD delight.

...so how about going F-20 right off 1968 rather than 1983 ? just swap the F404 for its ancestor: the GE1 / J101. Put that on a F-5E.

 

[tomo pauk]

J85s albeit small are old-tech turbojets, thus: fuel-guzzling. That's why I suggested modern turbofans. You said RB.199, and I said: J101.

British should've been using the Vipers, no?
Fuel guzzling depends on many factors, like the actual thrust installed (and/or used), size/drag/weight of the aircraft etc. A bigger & heavier aircraft, designed around the bigger and heavier engines (= Jaguar as total vs. F-5) will be much more expensive in the start.

The F-5 with Vipers can fly basically the next week; there is no price to put on time saved.

...so how about going F-20 right off 1968 rather than 1983 ?

I really have no objections.
Even the Avon will work (yes, it is a turbojet); retrofit the RB.199 or F-404 by the late 1970s.
A turbofan spin-off of the Orpheus (sorta in-between the Orpheus and straight-through Pegasus) is also at my liking.

 

[Archibald]

Didn't thought about the Viper. Good point.

 

[H_K]

The F-5 with Vipers can fly basically the next week; there is no price to put on time saved.

Not convinced the F-5 was as good as people make it out to be in the light attack role, in terms of both payload/range and runway requirements.

That tiny fuselage and wing were optimized to get the most out of a small fighter plane flying out of big runways, but personally I would go one size up to the A-4 or Etendard IV.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Not convinced the F-5 was as good as people make it out to be in the light attack role, in terms of both payload/range and runway requirements.

Has anyone ever claimed it was particularly good in that role? As far as I know, its main advantages were that it was cheap, inexpensive, and low-cost.

 

[Archibald]

ECAT really wanted a dirt cheap multirole supersonic trainer. Hard to beat the N--156 in that regard. Jaguar got severe creep along the way - performance requirements weight...

 

[Hood]

I feel France just wanted a slightly hotted up Taon (when I say hotted up, I mean lightly toasted) with a 2-seat option. Oddly Dassault was looking at using J85s for its submissions, never did really figure that out - certainly Dassault was looking at supersonic for sales.
RAF wanted supersonic, reheat, advanced avionics, brain mulching G, VG wings, possibly VTOL (thermostat waaaay up to super-heated plasma). They knew it would cost, but hey someone will buy those old Hunter T.7s and Gnat T.1s and that might offset some of the cost. There was an air of unreality around the whole AST.362 planning. Kudos to France, they actually stuck it out despite the RAF overcomplicating everything and yet choosing a sensible French design (partly as UK couldn't afford to do a trainer on its own).

 

[kaiserd]

ECAT really wanted a dirt cheap multirole supersonic trainer. Hard to beat the N--156 in that regard. Jaguar got severe creep along the way - performance requirements weight...

That creep ended up making the Jaguar a much better strike aircraft than the F-5.
And for a similarly sized aircraft the A-4 was the better strike aircraft versus the F-5 (better payload to range characteristics by not messing about with afterburner engines or nominal supersonic performance).

 

[tomo pauk]

And for a similarly sized aircraft the A-4 was the better strike aircraft versus the F-5 (better payload to range characteristics by not messing about with afterburner engines or nominal supersonic performance).

What would be the respective payload to range characteristics, A-4 vs. F-5?

 

[Apophenia]

I should fess up ... that 'Super Tiger' concept came from me, not GTX.

The notion sprang from Jimmy Carter's Oct 1978 veto on F-5/404 (aka F-5G) sales to launch-customer, Taiwan (later reinforced by Reagan). That seemed to leave BAe Warton free to adapt this immature design to the Tornado's RB.199. That engine was a little more compact than the F404 but still would have dictated a new rear fuselage. (Anyone looking really closely will notice that I forgot to include the 'outriggers' for the horizontal tails!)

Anyway, when the F404-powered F-5G rose again from its crypt, Northrop would have made sure that any BAe rival never saw the light of day. (Just ask Canadair what happens when you have a slight disagreement with Northrop's legal department!)

BTW: @Archibald (reply #121) the YJ101 was a technically a turbojet (as the designation shows). The F404 got a turbofan designation but was still sometimes referred to as a "leaky turbojet". IIRC, USAF funding for the YJ101 began in 1970 ... so a 1968 F-20 is a bit of a stretch.

 

[H_K]

What would be the respective payload to range characteristics, A-4 vs. F-5?

Might be fun to run the numbers, as both aircraft’s performance manuals are available online.

The A-4 is lighter, has more lift, carries 20% more internal fuel, has much more fuel efficient engines and doesn’t need to use reheat to take-off and climb… as a bomb truck it should be night and day. As a fighter it might be a closer call, with the F-5 having higher performance obviously.

 

[tomo pauk]

The A-4 ... has much more fuel efficient engines

Curiously enough, Wikipedia notes that J52 (turbojet) has a lower SFC than the RR Adour (turbofan) - anyone wants to take a stab on this?

 

[Archibald]

Both were used as agressors. Skyhawks played MiG-17s and F-5Es, MiG-21s.