Three generations of Northrop naval fighters?

Lascaris

Lascaris

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
14 November 2008
Messages
271
Reaction score
312
Back in the 1950s Northrop F-5 start life as a naval fighter intended for the Independence class CVLs. USN would drop the requirement instead choosing to retire the ships and thus F-5 would enter service only as a land based fighter.

So say the USN decides otherwise, possibly it selects N-156N as a training aircraft just as the air force did, or that Northrop pushes ahead nevertheless, this is the period where several countries were getting light carriers, so they see a possible market and continue development. Either way by 1961 you have alongside F-5A and F-5N. It has no radar, but is supersonic at 1.3 mach and a very decent dogfighter to say the least. Enough orders follow from Canada and the Netherlands to Spain, Australia, possibly even India.

Come the early 1970s when Northrop produces the improved F-5E this time with radar, it also throws along a naval version, F-5E is heavier than the original but still well within the limits a CVL could handle. And a Melbourne or a Bonaventure with 20 F-5E looks, on paper at least, relevant enough to retain.

By the 1980s Northrop has this nice F-5 variant, still under 30,000 pounds MTOW powered by an F-404 engine... and is it really making sense to want a VTOL aircraft for CVS? This new F-20 is based on a proven design which for the past two decades been operating of light carriers. Why not go with it it instead? Steam catapults you say? We'll couple it with an internal combustion catapult instead. Which is how you get the shah wanting Invincibles flying F-20s and the likes of Principes des Asturias, Garibaldi, Cavour and an Australian Invincible actually doing so.

Thoughts?
 
The N-156T/F/N certainly has tons of whatif potential... funny to think it was kind of successful ECAT / Jaguar.

The N-156N having aborted in 1956 wasn't quite like a naval N-156T or N-156F - both evolved a lot before their first flights.

The light carriers options are
- Colossus / Majestic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier
- Independance class
en.wikipedia.org

Independence-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Of the latter, nine were build: one was nuked in 1946, two went to France early, so six were available. Spain got one later as a Harrier carrier, called Dedalo (french joke was calling it PEDALO, which exactly means "paddle boat")

There were also the two Saipans: USS Saipan and USS Wright.

So - 16 british carriers, 6 Independance and 2 Saipan - total 24 CVL ; although the Colostics were already booked by the RN and foreign navies: few or none available.

----------

Earlier F-20 with no Hornet is also a rather interesting scenario. My bet for the single engine would be
- afterburning J52 if done in the early 1960's
- J101 later
- it was the direct ancestor of the F404

---------

Uncle Sam truly had an enormous glut of supersonic fighters between its hands after 1956. I once counted 12 potential candidates
- F-101 with J79 (McDonnell 1)
- F-104 (Lockheed)
- F-105 (Republic)
- F-106 (Convair)
- F-107 (North American)
- N-156F (Northrop)
- Super Tiger (Grumman)
- Skylancer (Douglas)
- Crusader (Vought 1)
- Crusader III (Vought 2)
- Phantom (McDonnell 2)
- Add to that Boeing with some BOMARC derivative
- and Bell with their baroque F-109 VSTOL...
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
The N-156T/F/N certainly has tons of whatif potential... funny to think it was kind of successful ECAT / Jaguar.

The N-156N having aborted in 1956 wasn't quite like a naval N-156T or N-156F - both evolved a lot before their first flights.

The light carriers options are
- Colossus / Majestic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Design_Light_Fleet_Carrier
- Independance class
en.wikipedia.org

Independence-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Of the latter, nine were build: one was nuked in 1946, two went to France early, so six were available. Spain got one later as a Harrier carrier, called Dedalo (french joke was calling it PEDALO, which exactly means "paddle boat")

There were also the two Saipans: USS Saipan and USS Wright.

So - 16 british carriers, 6 Independance and 2 Saipan - total 24 CVL ; although the Colostics were already booked by the RN and foreign navies: few or none available.
Click to expand...
The Colossus class ships already sold around the world are an asset here IMO not a liability. Multiple potential export customers who may well end up buying the land based variants as well or in the case of Canada, Holland and Spain buy more of them. As a matter of fact I wonder whether a naval F-5 is a viable alternative for the French carriers instead of Crusader and possibly lead to the pair of French Independence class CVLs remaining in service longer.

Archibald said:
----------

Earlier F-20 with no Hornet is also a rather interesting scenario. My bet for the single engine would be
- afterburning J52 if done in the early 1960's
- J101 later
- it was the direct ancestor of the F404
Click to expand...
IMO you don't need an early F-20, F-5E is more than sufficient in the 1970s if not the 1980s, hell F-5A remained in NATO service to the end of the cold war (in Greece a decade more and in Turkey even longer and by all accounts was still a nasty opponent in a dogfight. (I'm told the main decoration of HAF 343 Sq Officer's mess back then, was photos of F-16s in the sights of their F-5s).

But if naval F-5s are around already an F-20 development with YJ101 and then F404 looks to me an obvious low risk alternative to XFV-12 and Convair 200 for the Sea Control Ship. It is Mach 2, can fire Sparrows and if its earlier versions are flying off Independence class carriers it is the exact right size for SCS. All the more so for the larger VSS variants. Which is extremely good news if you are Spain or Australia, or Italy or even Britain... yes that means rather fewer Harriers.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
There are discussion about "afterburning J52s" on this forum.
Singapore's Skyhawks did such a swap 25 years ago seemingly without too much problem. So F404 and J52 must be of comparable sites.
In fact the Viggen RM-8 engine was a scaled up - civilian - afterburning J52 !

Click to expand...

Note that Singapore's A-4s were all A-4B & A-4C models... they had the J65*, not the J52 (A-4Es and later only).

J65-W-20 (A-4Cs, retrofitted to A-4Bs to replace 7,700 lb.s.t. -16s):
thrust 8,400 lb.s.t.; weight 2,795 lb; length 130"; diameter 37.7"; SFC .90; airflow 120 lb/sec

J52-P-408 (in USMC A-4Ms from 1968 on):
thrust 11,200 lb.s.t.; weight 2,318 lb; length 118.9"; diameter 32.1"; SFC .79; airflow 143 lb/sec

F404-GE-100D (non-afterburning engine in F-117 and A-4SU):
thrust 11,000 lb.s.t.; weight 1,830 lb; length 94"; diameter 35"; SFC .80; airflow 142 lb/sec

J52 responded faster to throttle changes than J65 and was more reliable (with fewer parts and longer "hours between failure" numbers).
F404 also responded faster to throttle changes than J52 and was more reliable (with fewer parts and longer "hours between failure" numbers).


* License-built Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire
 
- So the Skyhawks bombing the heck of the British task force were J65 powered ? Also much less power, no surprise 25 de Mayo had trouble handling them without enough deck wind.
- Never realized before the A-4 kept J65 for so long, up to the E model. For me Skyhawk = J52 from the craddle to the grave.
- F404 was diameter-wise right between J65 and J52, no surprise it fit nicely. And it was far shorter and lighter (no surprise).
 
I think we discussed the possibility of a J52 F-5 elsewhere, but seems to me it would be a pretty interesting option. Dry thrust varied from 8,500 lbf in J52-P-6 to 11,200 lbf ( and 12,000 for J52-P-409). So the single J52 was more/comparable thrust with a pair of J85 running on afterburner. While having much lower specific consumption...
 
I think the F-5G with J52 was truly a missed opportunity.

Today, I think Honeywell's F125 in the 10k-11k wet thrust models, would have been a good modernization, but ditch pilot and use as drone. Maybe not as cheap as two J85s but leaps forward technology-wise with digitalization.
 
MadRat said:
A wet J52-powered F-5 would have been something I'd never considered. How do the J52s compare to the much later F404?
Click to expand...
it essentially boils down to a J-79 level of performance in a similar sized package but from a different manufacturer
 
Lascaris said:
I think we discussed the possibility of a J52 F-5 elsewhere, but seems to me it would be a pretty interesting option. Dry thrust varied from 8,500 lbf in J52-P-6 to 11,200 lbf ( and 12,000 for J52-P-409). So the single J52 was more/comparable thrust with a pair of J85 running on afterburner. While having much lower specific consumption...
Click to expand...
I remember something like that convo in regards a low end version of the super tiger for non nato nations and a single engine F-5

yeah it would have been a totally sweet little package given that the J-85 on AB was a thirsty little hippo

EDIT: Another fun one, though utterly irresponsible and probably not cost effective would be https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/F9F-8.pdf with a J-52/408 or 409. Probably would not break the speed of sound in level flight but neither does the A-4, but oh boy howdy would it accelerate!
 
Last edited:
bobtdwarf said:
MadRat said:
A wet J52-powered F-5 would have been something I'd never considered. How do the J52s compare to the much later F404?
Click to expand...
it essentially boils down to a J-79 level of performance in a similar sized package but from a different manufacturer
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Nearly every place where someone calls for "afterburning J52s" before the late 1970s the cheapest, easiest, and most realistic answer is "install a J79".

The weakest (and earliest) J79 was the J79-GE-3 of the F-104A and F11F-1F Super Tiger (1955):
thrust 9,600 (14,800 a/b) lb.s.t.; weight 3,255 lb; length 110"/207"; diameter 30.4" (38.3" a/b module)"; SFC .85/1.97; airflow 150 lb/sec

The most powerful before 1980 was the J79-GE-10 of the F-4E/J/S and the J79-GE-17 of the F-104S (1966):
thrust 11,430 (17,860 a/b) lb.s.t.; weight 3,855 lb; length 110"/208.5"; diameter 31.6" (39.1" a/b module)"; SFC .85/1.97; airflow 170 lb/sec
 
Archibald said:
- Never realized before the A-4 kept J65 for so long, up to the E model. For me Skyhawk = J52 from the craddle to the grave.
Click to expand...
Fist flight of a production A-4A was on 14 August 1954, powered by the 7,700 lb.s.t. J65-W-4 (first delivery to USN October 1956). 165 were built through 1957.

The first A-4B was delivered to the USN in September 1957, powered by the 7,700 lb.s.t. J65-W-16. 542 were built.

Both of these were pure daylight attack aircraft with minimal avionics.

The first A-4C first flew on 21 August 1958, and was delivered to the USMC in February 1960. Initially powered by the 7,700 lb.s.t. J65-W-16, most were delivered with the 8,400 lb.s.t. J65-W-20. The A-4C had a limited night/all-weather capability, being equipped with an AN/APG-53A Terrain-Clearance radar in a 9-inch longer nose. In addition, it was provided with an angle of attack indicator system, a Low Altitude Bombing System (LABS), an autopilot, an all-attitude indicating gyro, and an improved Escapac 1A-1 low-level ejector seat. 638 were built. for a total of 1,345 J65-powered Skyhawks.

All of these had 3 hardpoints, one under the fuselage and one under each wing. The A-4A had a max external payload of 5,970 lb, while the -B/C had a max of 7,075 lb (8,055 lb with roll restrictions).

During the production run of the A-4C, the production line was moved from the El Segundo plant to the Long Beach plant, with final assembly being done at a government-owned plant in Palmdale, California. This move was carried out during 1963.


The first A-4E flew on 12 July 1961 (the first two were A-4Cs converted to become A-4Es), with deliveries to the USN from December 1962.
These had the 8,500 lb.s.t. J52-P-6. The J52 engine required a redesign of the center fuselage and inlet ducting, with a splitter plate at the edge of the inner intake next to the wall of the fuselage. The A-4E had an extra underwing weapons hardpoint under each outer wing (half-length). This brought the maximum weapons load to 8,075 pounds (9,055 lb with roll restrictions), and allowed for a much wider variety of weapons and fuel options. The nose was lengthened by 14 inches to accommodate an AN/ASN-19A navigation computer. New equipment installed included TACAN, Doppler navigation, Mk 9 toss bombing system, radio altimeter, and the AJB-3A low-altitude bombing system. 500 were built.

The A-4F (initially ordered as combat-loss replacements) first flew on 31 August 1966 (the last A-4E was modified to be the first A-4F), and was powered by the 9,300 lb.s.t. J52-P-8 - which was soon retrofitted to many A-4Es. 147 A-4Fs were built. The maximum weapons load was 8,245 lb (9,195 lb with roll restrictions).

A total of 241 TA-4Fs (originally ordered as the TA-4E) were built.

226 TA-4Js (simplified & lightened TA-4Fs) were built from 1968 on to replace earlier carrier-training aircraft (such as the TF-9J and T-2).


The much-improved and modified A-4M (built exclusively for the USMC instead of A-7s which were replacing the A-4s in the USN) first flew on 10 April 1971, with deliveries to the USMC from February 1971. The 160th A-4M was delivered on 27 February 1979. Max payload was as the A-4F.

A total of 774 J52-powered A-4s were delivered to the USN/USMC.

Even adding the 24 A-4s(modified -Es) built for Australia & New Zealand, the 207 built for Israel (modified -F/Ms), and the 36 built for Kuwait (modified -Ms), that still makes only 1,041 J52-powered A-4s built vs 1,345 J65-powered Skyhawks
 
Last edited:
Export Skyhawks:

Argentina’s A-4Ps & Qs were surplus A-4B & C models, and their later A-4ARs are APG-66 fitted A-4Ms.

Australia's A-4Gs were in two batches, first new A-4Fs & new TA-4Fs modified with lift spoilers and AIM-9 Sidewinder capability, then later, ex-USN A-4Fs and ex-USN TA-4Fs reconfigured as A-4Gs.

Singapore’s A-4Ss were in 2 batches, first refurbished A-4Bs, and later, refurbished A-4Bs & Cs. They were upgraded, first with F404 engines as the A-4S-1, and then with new avionics as the A-4SU.

Malaysia’s A-4PTMs were reworked A-4C & L models (-Ls were 100 USN -Cs upgraded in 1969-70).

Israel’s A-4Hs were new-builds based on the A-4E. Their A-4Ns were also new-builds, based on the A-4M. A-4H/N: 2 [DEFA] 30mm cannon w/150 rpg. Israel also received ex-USN A-4Es as loss replacements.

New Zealand’s A-4Ks were new-builds based on the A-4E. They later received Australia’s A-4Gs as well, and modernized all their surviving A-4s with the APG-66 radar.

Kuwait’s A-4KUs & TA-4KUs were new-builds based on the A-4M. They were sold to Brazil in 1997.

Indonesia purchased A-4Es & Hs from Israel, and later, refurbished A-4Es & Js from the US.

Brazil’s AF-1 & AF-1A are Kuwait’s A-4KUs & TA-4KUs, and have been modernized.
 
MadRat said:
commons.m.wikimedia.org

File:J52 engine maintenance USS America (CV-66) 1993.JPEG - Wikimedia Commons

commons.m.wikimedia.org commons.m.wikimedia.org

J52 is only about 2/3rds the J79, so 'just use a J79' is an oversimplification. The F-5 wasn't exactly meant to compete with F-104.
Click to expand...
Thing is you DON'T need a afterburner for a J52 F-5. It's dry thrust depending on model goes from equal to the max thrust installed in the Canadian F-5As (8,500 to 8,600) to 20% more than F-5E (12,000 to 10,000). You just made F-5... supercruising.
 
With a J52 / bigger engine you need bigger air intakes and with that increase you have more drag. Besides that, the exit speeds of J52 exhaust is too slow to effectively supercruise.
 
Last edited:
MadRat said:
With a J52 / bigger engine you need bigger air intakes and with that increase you have more drag. Besides that, the exit speeds of J52 exhaust is too slow to effectively supercruise.
Click to expand...
Did F-20 have notably more drag than F-5? Because in practical terms that's what a J52 F-5 is. An F-20 without the afterburner.
 

It wasn't just bigger air intakes, it was bigger everywhere.

The engine intakes were extended forward and enlarged slightly. They were mounted further from the fuselage in order to clear the thicker boundary layer encountered at the higher speeds. They were equipped with two-shock inlet ramps to ensure more efficient operation at Mach 2+ speeds.

The wing of the F-5G was much the same as that of the earlier F-5E. However, it was provided with tapered inboard leading edge extensions that were lengthened and modified as a result of the redesign of the engine inlet ducts.

The cockpit canopy was 44 percent larger in area and offered an improved all-round view as compared to the F-5E.

The fourth F-20 was to have been much closer to the proposed production configuration with increased internal fuel capacity, and newly-designed 330-US gallon external tanks. Changes in the nose would allow an increase in radar antenna size. The leading edge and trailing-edge flaps were redesigned to incorporate three-point drives instead of being driven at a single point. Actuation speed was increased and the number of automatic settings was increased. The aircraft was to be powered by a more powerful version of the F404, rated at 18,000 lb.s.t.. The flap and thrust changes were expected to improve turn performance by two degrees per second.
 
Last edited:
MadRat said:

It wasn't just bigger air intakes, it was bigger everywhere.

The engine intakes were extended forward and enlarged slightly. They were mounted further from the fuselage in order to clear the thicker boundary layer encountered at the higher speeds. They were equipped with two-shock inlet ramps to ensure more efficient operation at Mach 2+ speeds.

The wing of the F-5G was much the same as that of the earlier F-5E. However, it was provided with tapered inboard leading edge extensions that were lengthened and modified as a result of the redesign of the engine inlet ducts.

The cockpit canopy was 44 percent larger in area and offered an improved all-round view as compared to the F-5E.

The fourth F-20 was to have been much closer to the proposed production configuration with increased internal fuel capacity, and newly-designed 330-US gallon external tanks. Changes in the nose would allow an increase in radar antenna size. The leading edge and trailing-edge flaps were redesigned to incorporate three-point drives instead of being driven at a single point. Actuation speed was increased and the number of automatic settings was increased. The aircraft was to be powered by a more powerful version of the F404, rated at 18,000 lb.s.t.. The flap and thrust changes were expected to improve turn performance by two degrees per second.
Click to expand...
that is some good information for me. Yeah there would be some additional work involved but some interesting options for going with a single engine F-5 if you are willing to do it, think of an Avon possibility as well.
 
Saab J35 and Hunter F.6 were substantially larger with an Avon. It wasn't a slim engine by any means. Fighters like Hunter F.6 and Avon-Saber had long exhaust pipes which gave a slim appearance, but those engines were further forward than more modern jets. They had such low TWR that they had a major impact on a planes CoG.

Saab J35 always reminded me of a futuristic stealth fighter but in reality was overweight and dominated by wave drag. It really needed improvements in area ruling and perhaps could have had an internal bombay with a slimmer engine like J52. At the least missiles should have set in streamline channels and popped out on extending rails, to reduce drag. F-5 may not have hit the top speeds of J35 but it did hit great sprint speeds on considerably less thrust while carrying similar armament.
 
Last edited:
MadRat said:
Saab J35 and Hunter F.6 were substantially larger with an Avon. It wasn't a slim engine by any means. Fighters like Hunter F.6 and Avon-Saber had long exhaust pipes which gave a slim appearance, but those engines were further forward than more modern jets. They had such low TWR that they had a major impact on a planes CoG.

Saab J35 always reminded me of a futuristic stealth fighter but in reality was overweight and dominated by wave drag. It really needed improvements in area ruling and perhaps could have had an internal bombay with a slimmer engine like J52. At the least missiles should have set in streamline channels and popped out on extending rails, to reduce drag. F-5 may not have hit the top speeds of J35 but it did hit great sprint speeds on considerably less thrust while carrying similar armament.
Click to expand...
Now that is an idea: Re-engined J35....
 
MadRat said:
commons.m.wikimedia.org

File:J52 engine maintenance USS America (CV-66) 1993.JPEG - Wikimedia Commons

commons.m.wikimedia.org commons.m.wikimedia.org

J52 is only about 2/3rds the J79, so 'just use a J79' is an oversimplification. The F-5 wasn't exactly meant to compete with F-104.
Click to expand...
J52, except in its first man-rated version (the -6... its first use was the 7.500 lb.s.t. -3 for the AGM-28 Hound Dog cruise missile), matched J79 for dry thrust.

Weakest J79 (-3) had 9,600 lb.s.t. dry - J52-8 had 9,200 lb.s.t..
Strongest production J79 (-10 & -17) had 11,400 lb.s.t. dry - J52-408 had 11,200 lb.s.t..
J79 proposed (and tested) for the F-16/79 (-119) had 12,050 lb.s.t. dry - J52-409 proposed (and tested) for A-6G and reworked EA-6Bs had 12,000 lb.s.t..

The ONLY reason J79 had more thrust was its afterburner.

That's why the answer to "AFTERBURNING J52 is "use J79"!
 
So assuming you did get the naval F-5s around, what does this mean for future CVL designs? Would sky-jump suffice to launch one? The escort carriers for which it was intended did have catapults but not steam ones after all.

Alternatively IC catapults make an obvious alternative for something the size of SCS or VSS, a Principe des Asturias with a dozen F-20s operating off it frex would be interesting to contemplate. But what about the LPHs? If built with an IC catapult, would it take enough space to compromise their main mission and how much it would be increasing cost?
 
BlackBat242 said:
Note that Singapore's A-4s were all A-4B & A-4C models... they had the J65*, not the J52 (A-4Es and later only).

J65-W-20 (A-4Cs, retrofitted to A-4Bs to replace 7,700 lb.s.t. -16s):
thrust 8,400 lb.s.t.; weight 2,795 lb; length 130"; diameter 37.7"; SFC .90; airflow 120 lb/sec

J52-P-408 (in USMC A-4Ms from 1968 on):
thrust 11,200 lb.s.t.; weight 2,318 lb; length 118.9"; diameter 32.1"; SFC .79; airflow 143 lb/sec

F404-GE-100D (non-afterburning engine in F-117 and A-4SU):
thrust 11,000 lb.s.t.; weight 1,830 lb; length 94"; diameter 35"; SFC .80; airflow 142 lb/sec

J52 responded faster to throttle changes than J65 and was more reliable (with fewer parts and longer "hours between failure" numbers).
F404 also responded faster to throttle changes than J52 and was more reliable (with fewer parts and longer "hours between failure" numbers).


* License-built Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire
Click to expand...
I found these information about the non-afterburning derivatives of the General Electric F404 turbofans in Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook (2007) by Élodie Roux:

F404-GE-100D (Elodie Roux, 2007, p.181).PNG

F404-GE-F1D2 (Elodie Roux, 2007, p.183).PNG

SOURCE: Roux, Élodie. (2007). Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook (pp. 181, 183). Blagnac, France: Éditions Élodie Roux. Retrieved from https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows....an and Turbojet Engines Database Handbook.pdf
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom