The F-111 is never built, what bomber does the USAF take instead ?

[BlackBat242]

In 1948, as soon as the Martin B-26 Marauder was out of service, the USAF redesignated the Douglas A-26 Invader as the B-26.

This persisted until the mid-1960s, when political imperatives forced the USAF to re-redesignate it A-26 to soothe the sensibilities of Thailand, which did not allow U.S. bombers in-country at the time (although they did later).


The A-1 Skyraider was not their decision, as it was already in USN service for 19 years before the USAF accepted its first ex-USN Skyraiders in 1965 (all USAF Skyraiders were ex-USN airframes).

The USAF did assign an "F" designation to their F-4s, but it didn't stick. The USN also did the same sort of thing with numerous aircraft that were originally USAF (or USAAF) models. Some of these did stick, but many didn't

So if the USAF "F" designation for the F-4 "didn't stick", why is it known to this very day as the F-4? Inquiring minds want to know...

He was referring to the USAF's "F-110 Spectre" designation for the F4H (F-4) - which was nixed by McNamara's rationalization of the various designation systems into the Tri-service Aircraft Designation System in October 1962 - which required that the same aircraft carry the same base designation no matter which service owned the aircraft.

This also caused the F4H Phantom II to be redesignated F-4.

 

[Yellow Palace]

And how easy was it to fit TF30s instead of J79? Maybe Speys would have been an easier fit? (we can imagine a trade where the US licenses the Spey in exchange for the UK’s purchase of the F-4K and A-5K?

In the A-5 specifically, very difficult. The engine tailpipes ran through a single massive forging which carried the loads for the entire tail assembly; changing the engines would require redesigning this forging and creating a new tool, at considerable cost. North American was very reluctant to do so due to the costs which would be incurred.

 

[zen]

For a new variant which likely would be ordered in the many hundreds.

 

[1635yankee]

In 1948, as soon as the Martin B-26 Marauder was out of service, the USAF redesignated the Douglas A-26 Invader as the B-26.

This persisted until the mid-1960s, when political imperatives forced the USAF to re-redesignate it A-26 to soothe the sensibilities of Thailand, which did not allow U.S. bombers in-country at the time (although they did later).


The A-1 Skyraider was not their decision, as it was already in USN service for 19 years before the USAF accepted its first ex-USN Skyraiders in 1965 (all USAF Skyraiders were ex-USN airframes).

The USAF did assign an "F" designation to their F-4s, but it didn't stick. The USN also did the same sort of thing with numerous aircraft that were originally USAF (or USAAF) models. Some of these did stick, but many didn't

So if the USAF "F" designation for the F-4 "didn't stick", why is it known to this very day as the F-4? Inquiring minds want to know...

The USAF designation was F-110. F-4 is the unified designation.

 

[H_K]

Internal fuel carriage of the A-5B (base for the RA-5C) was 2,590 gallons (up from 2,110 gallons in the A-5A via an extra 210 gallon tank above the center fuselage in the new "humpback", increasing the wing tank from 695 to 715 gallons, and increasing the two main fuselage tanks from 695 to 945 gallons combined) - including the two removable fuel tanks in the linear bomb bay carrying 590 gallons (2x295).

Those wing tank figures are per side, so it’s really 2x 695 gal for the A and 2x 715 gal for the B/C wing tanks.

Which gives 2,800 gal (3,100 gal with no store) for the A and 3,300 gal (3,600 gal with no store) for the B/C.

Still a lot less than an F-111 with 5,050 gal (+ 560 gal in the weapons bay, for a total of 5,600 gal)…

 

[H_K]

Some fuel fraction calculations… the A-5 is not so great, the Mirage IV with Spey or TF30 seems like a dark horse that might meet requirements better!

F-111A (with 2x weapon bay tanks)
44,300lb OEW + 36,500lb fuel (5,610 gal) = 80,800lb TO
-> 0.45 fuel fraction

A-5A (with 3x internal fuel cans)
34,000lb OEW + 20,200lb fuel (3,100 gal) = 54,200lb TO
-> 0.37 fuel fraction

A-5C (with 3x internal fuel cans)
40,000lb OEW + 23,400lb fuel (3,600 gal) = 63,400lb TO
-> 0.37 fuel fraction

Mirage IVA (with 1x 1,600L semi-submerged tank)
33,000lb OEW + 26,700lb fuel (4,100 gal) = 59,700lb TO
-> 0.45 fuel fraction

 

[GTX]

Some possible useful comparisons here - something I did for this thread but still relevant:

 

[zen]

Right this is getting suspicious.
If TSR.2 has a 750nm ROA
In what conditions?
Because unless the F111 is flying the same course with the same load it's not comparable.
And that frankly applies to the rest as well.

 

[red admiral]

Best like with like I could do was TSR2 lo-lo radius about 750nm, and F-111 about 550-600nm.

 

[kaiserd]

Noted the “Does not accommodate for real world delays” note for the F-111.
Does the TSR-2 get a “Waiting for Gadot” note?

 

[GTX]

Noted the “Does not accommodate for real world delays” note for the F-111.
Does the TSR-2 get a “Waiting for Gadot” note?

See the link I included in the post for context.

 

[Michel Van]

I wonder in what political and Technological situation the USA endure,
That they use the TSR.2, instead build one by own US Aircraft manufacture ?
it would be complicated World building.

More realistic was to modified a existing Aircraft
That F-4, F-105, A-5 or B-58E, last two could be expensive program do mod on those planes.

 

[TsrJoe]

Merely musing, I'm guessing the line of thought re a speculative enquiry of potential TSR.2 pitch for US. was as per RAF. intention as 'Canberra replacement', ie the USAF. used Canberra (and via the Martin B-57 made it their own) hence approaches made re. SOR.183 (remember this was pre TFX.)

 

[Michel Van]

Replace the Martin B-57 make sense. They retired the B-57 in 1983,
had TSR.2 survive British politic, US could replace the B-57 with TSR.2 in 1960s
as supersonic bomber and Photo reconnaissance plane.

But LTV A-7 Corsair II can do this job too, but carry 6800 kg weapons to target
more as B-57 with 2380 kg,
Or the 4500 kg on TSR.2

Next to that has LTV home advantage, BAC not...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Replace the Martin B-57 make sense. They retired the B-57 in 1983,
had TSR.2 survive British politic, US could replace the B-57 with TSR.2 in 1960s
as supersonic bomber and Photo reconnaissance plane.

But LTV A-7 Corsair II can do this job too, but carry 6800 kg weapons to target
more as B-57 with 2380 kg,
Or the 4500 kg on TSR.2

Next to that has LTV home advantage, BAC not...

If the USAF was willing to drop the supersonic sprint capability, a variant of the A6 would do the job really well. Go through and lighten all the parts beefed up for carrier landing and remove the wing folding ability, increase internal fuel capacity in exchange.

 

[Archibald]

Replace the Martin B-57 make sense. They retired the B-57 in 1983,
had TSR.2 survive British politic, US could replace the B-57 with TSR.2 in 1960s
as supersonic bomber and Photo reconnaissance plane.

But LTV A-7 Corsair II can do this job too, but carry 6800 kg weapons to target
more as B-57 with 2380 kg,
Or the 4500 kg on TSR.2

Next to that has LTV home advantage, BAC not...

Supersonic SLUFF with a Phantom's Spey, licence-build by Allison. Put otherwise: an A-7F two decades before the 1980's. Had the Air Force wanted a supersonic F-105 replacement in Vietnam... afterburning A-7D.
What fascinates me with the A-7F is the fact that the bulk of the fleet, if not the totality, was to be refurbished A-7D. Almost no new airframes.
I'm not aware of many bomb trucks "retrofit" that includes a shift from subsonic to supersonic speed. The A-7 is one of the few types that could get such upgrade, because Crusader DNA. Upgraded A-6 or A-4 never were supersonic (AFAIK). The rule seems to be "subsonic bomb truck upgrade - stay subsonic, bring more bombs instead".
Bar supersonic Buccaneers (P.150, from memory) can't think of another. Even less out of existing airframes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Replace the Martin B-57 make sense. They retired the B-57 in 1983,
had TSR.2 survive British politic, US could replace the B-57 with TSR.2 in 1960s
as supersonic bomber and Photo reconnaissance plane.

But LTV A-7 Corsair II can do this job too, but carry 6800 kg weapons to target
more as B-57 with 2380 kg,
Or the 4500 kg on TSR.2

Next to that has LTV home advantage, BAC not...

Supersonic SLUFF with a Phantom's Spey, licence-build by Allison. Put otherwise: an A-7F two decades before the 1980's. Had the Air Force wanted a supersonic F-105 replacement in Vietnam... afterburning A-7D.
What fascinates me with the A-7F is the fact that the bulk of the fleet, if not the totality, was to be refurbished A-7D. Almost no new airframes.
I'm not aware of many bomb trucks "retrofit" that includes a shift from subsonic to supersonic speed. The A-7 is one of the few types that could get such upgrade, because Crusader DNA. Upgraded A-6 or A-4 never were supersonic (AFAIK). The rule seems to be "subsonic bomb truck upgrade - stay subsonic, bring more bombs instead".
Bar supersonic Buccaneers (P.150, from memory) can't think of another. Even less out of existing airframes.

Maybe?

I mean, the bog standard A-7 using the TF30 was designed at nearly the same time as the F-111. If the TF30 engine failed entirely, then license building a Spey would have been a good upgrade. Afterburner entirely optional, unless the USAF just had to have their supersonic sprint.

 

[Pioneer]

Why not use the French solution of building a steroid version of the Mirage III as a supersonic nuclear bomber. An enlarged F-106 with two engines???

An enlarged two-engine derivative of the F-106, based on the Dassault Mirage IV scaling-up principle sounds interesting. I can't help wonder what it's weapons bay dimensions would be and what could it accommodate?

Now, what would power it, given the J75 was so large, heavy and old technology. I'd wonder if it's purely USAF centric, then would they go for J79's or would they seriously look at pursuing the development of the General Electric MF295 turbofan, which seemed to be dropped in favour of the already existing USN centric Pratt & Whitney TF-30 engine? I've read somewhere that the USAF actually green lighted the development of the General Electric MF295. I'd wonder if the USAF would have entertained the afterburning Spey turbofan?

I'm thinking a new Dassault Mirage IV-type landing gear arrangement would look good - I am partial to a little sexy landing gear, after all, sexy landing gear maketh the plane....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[BlackBat242]

Replace the Martin B-57 make sense. They retired the B-57 in 1983,
had TSR.2 survive British politic, US could replace the B-57 with TSR.2 in 1960s
as supersonic bomber and Photo reconnaissance plane.

But LTV A-7 Corsair II can do this job too, but carry 6800 kg weapons to target
more as B-57 with 2380 kg,
Or the 4500 kg on TSR.2

Next to that has LTV home advantage, BAC not...

The USAF retired all of the bomber B57s by 1974, and the only ones serving past 1970 were the dedicated night interdiction B-57Gs.

The only B-57 types in service after 1974 were the EB-57Es (electronic adversary and target-towing), RB-57F (high-altitude reconnaissance), and WB-57F (high-altitude weather & nuclear activity monitoring and NASA research missions), some of the latter were used over Afghanistan for recon.


The USAF DID buy and operate A-7D Corsair IIs - they were the driving force that put the TF41 (improved Spey) into the SLUFF, giving the USN the A-7E.

The USAF used the A-7D to replace the B-57 and A-1 Skyraider (first flight 1968, in combat 1970) and it was eventually retired in 1992, having served beside by the A-10 since 1976.


The USAF would have searched for SOMETHING with at least a supersonic dash capability (to aid in egress from the strike area) to replace the F-105 (the original reason for the TFX design).

Remember the USAF specs for the program... supersonic speed was always a "must have" with all non-supersonic aircraft automatically disqualified.

The history of the F-111 begins back in the late 1950s. At that time, the Tactical Air Command (TAC) of the USAF expressed a future need for a replacement for the F-100, F-101, and F-105 fighter-bombers which were currently in service. With this goal in mind, on March 27, 1958, the Air Force issued General Operational Requirement (GOR) Number 169, calling for Weapon System 649C, which was a Mach 2+, 60,000 foot altitude, all-weather fighter capable of vertical and short takeoff and landing. The Air Force wanted this aircraft to be ready for operational deployment by 1964.

This GOR lasted only a year, being cancelled on March 29, 1959, because the Air Force recognized that a V/STOL fighter capable of such performance was simply not feasible with the current technology. On February 5, 1960, the Air Force rewrote its requirements and issued System Development Requirement (SDR) No. 17, incorporating most of the provisions of GOR-169 but eliminating the VTOL requirement. It allowed the subsequent development of specific requirements for a new weapon system--WS-324A.

The general requirements of SDR-17 were brought together into Specific Operational Requirement number 183 (SOR-183), issued on June 14, 1960. It called for an attack aircraft capable of achieving a Mach 2.5 performance at high altitude and a low-level dash capability of Mach 1.2. It was to have a short and rough airfield performance, and was to be capable of operating out of airfields as short as 3000 feet in length. The low-level radius was to be 800 miles, including 400 miles right down on the deck at Mach 1.2 speeds. In addition, it was to have an unrefuelled ferry range capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. It was to have a 1000-pound internal payload plus a lifting payload between 15,000 and 30,000 pounds.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

TAC are still going to need a supersonic interdictor with advanced avionics for all-weather strike. They're going to get F-111, or something like it, but geared to USAF requirements only.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TAC are still going to need a supersonic interdictor with advanced avionics for all-weather strike. They're going to get F-111, or something like it, but geared to USAF requirements only.

Something a good bit lighter than the F-111 as delivered, since it didn't have the carrier-landing reinforcements...

 

[1635yankee]

Something a good bit lighter than the F-111 as delivered, since it didn't have the carrier-landing reinforcements...

Or maybe larger and heavier, as it wouldn't have the carrier size and weight constraints.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or maybe larger and heavier, as it wouldn't have the carrier size and weight constraints.

Fair point, it may end up closer to the FB-111H than the F-111A.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Or maybe larger and heavier, as it wouldn't have the carrier size and weight constraints.

Almost certainly tandem seats, which was the USAF preference, rather than the side-by-side seats the Navy wanted. That will more or less automaticaly make for a longer aircraft.

 

[Pioneer]

BlackBat242, I'm inclined to support your NAA A-5D derivative, with TF30s, permanent internal fuel tank in the linear bay, and conformal bomb carry under the fuselage, adding fixed (non-folding) one-piece wings and tail fin sound both sensible and practical.
This issue of the cost of modifying the jigs to facilitate either TF30 or Spey engines could and would be incorporated into the cost of the A-5D derivative, which one would think would still be cost effective overall in the scheme of things - especially as Zen rightly implies, 'a A-5D would likely be ordered in the many hundreds.'
The proposed Convair B-58E is just going to be too expensive to both purchase and operate IMO;
A derivative of the U.S. derivative of Mirage IV would probably be a political non starter.
A "midified" derivative of the Republic F-105, with it's single-engine configuration and its poor redundancy is already limited;
A dedicated strike derivative of the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II is always going to have range limitations.
As for an American TSR.2, I just can't see it happening.....

For the era, the adoption of a USN-centric platform like the A-5 Vigilante isn't new to the USAF, as much as it will undoubtedly kick and scream because it wasn't designed or complicit to the USAF internal career paths and their part in the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex. A political firmness and responsibility by political masters could and should put a stop to the Services temper tantrums...

As for the contention of fuel in relation to the F-111 in comparison of other designs, I seem to recall that the F-111's massive fuel load had more to do with the USAF's Operational Requirement for the TFX to self-deploy from the U.S to Europe, more than it's actual combat mission profile.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

UK 75, as you'd mentioned A-6 Intruder in one of the earlier post of this thread, you'd probably be aware of this possibly proposed tandem-seat derivative of the A-6 proposed to the USAF, as denoted by the following desktop model (as found on this fine website):

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

WIthout McNamara, the USAF might get funding for their preferred Boeing F-111, with GE MF295 Turbofans. Or Republic's F-111.

However, Boeing were out of fighter game since forever and no supersonic capability demonstrated, and Republic seen as a bit weak, and General Dynamics still needed work to follow the B-58, so maybe just a USAF-focused General Dynamics F-111 design with tandem seats and longer.

 

[Scott Kenny]

WIthout McNamara, the USAF might get funding for their preferred Boeing F-111, with GE MF295 Turbofans. Or Republic's F-111.

However, Boeing were out of fighter game since forever and no supersonic capability demonstrated, and Republic seen as a bit weak, and General Dynamics still needed work to follow the B-58, so maybe just a USAF-focused General Dynamics F-111 design with tandem seats and longer.

I thought the GD F-111 was side-by-side because the USAF wanted it that way?

 

[Pioneer]

I thought the GD F-111 was side-by-side because the USAF wanted it that way?

I'm under the impression that the 'side-by-side want' was a Navy specification, rather than Air Force..

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Side-by-side was Navy not air force (also helped with reducing length)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Side-by-side was Navy not air force (also helped with reducing length)

Ah, that makes sense. Limited elevator dimensions.

 

[Pioneer]

Ah, that makes sense. Limited elevator dimensions.

I'm also under the impression that the side-by-side was a continued consequence of the theory/mindset of the aborted Douglas F6D Missileer cockpit arrangement, which the USN had insisted.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[BlackBat242]

The A-6 Intruder crews always felt that they were more efficient sitting side-by-side, due to the increased ability to communicate in more than just words, and because the B/N (Bombardier/Navigator) could keep an eye on the pilot's instruments while the pilot was looking outside of the aircraft.