Upgrades for a successful Grumman Super Tiger

[Darthtabby]

Pretty much what it says on the tin. Had the Grumman Super Tiger been a successful design on the export and/or licensed production market like the Zipper and Mirage what sort of upgrades and refits might the type have received over the years?

Something that seems like it could be a significant issue for upgrade efforts would be finding space for new avionics in the relatively small airframe. Especially after all the effort that was made to fit fuel into it.

 

[TsrJoe]

Wasn't all this covered in the Super Tiger thread ?

 

[Archibald]

That very one, yes. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/an-alternate-f-11-tiger.33038/

Can moderators merge the two threads ?

 

[Darthtabby]

I was aware of the Alternate F-11 thread, but isn't that one about a Grumman Tiger with a substantially different wing design? I was thinking more about what sort of refits and upgrades the Super Tiger as actually proposed might have received if it had been successful and had a long service life like the Mirage or Phantom (and also whether such a small airframe would be able to support the upgrades needed for such a long service life).

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was aware of the Alternate F-11 thread, but isn't that one about a Grumman Tiger with a substantially different wing design? I was thinking more about what sort of refits and upgrades the Super Tiger as actually proposed might have received if it had been successful and had a long service life like the Mirage or Phantom (and also whether such a small airframe would be able to support the upgrades needed for such a long service life).

A slightly bigger wing with better positioned folds, so it would fit at least 2 abreast in a 52ft wide hangar. (The proposed fold would let you fit 9x Super Tigers into the same space as 4x Skyhawks)

The major issue is that Tigers were designed as single-engine day fighters, not 2-seat night/all-weather fighters with powerful radar and radar-guided AAMs. The British and French really wanted radar fighters, which would mean building most of the Super Tigers as two-seaters.

Secondary issue with the other likely buyers is that the Avon engine has significantly higher fuel consumption than the J79. Avon 0.932lbs/lbt/hr, J79 0.84lbs/lbt/hr.

 

[MrTopaz]

I want to say the super tiger had upgraded radar, but I don't remember off hand if that's true, and even if it is, we're not talking about anything like the Phantom's avionics ability.

As far as other upgrades are concerned, I'm not sure how much is plausible. We can look to the long service life of the Skyhawk, but the sorts of air forces that kept the Skyhawk flying for so long are the sorts of services that valued a light strike aircraft that can do a very little bit of dogfighting on the side. I know Grumman was big on the multirole capability of the super tiger, but I don't think it was that extensive in its ground attack capability. Certainly not so much so that the thrifty armed forces that opted for its cheaper, subsonic air wing-mate would be convinced to spring for the extra expense that comes with a supersonic aircraft. I could maybe see Australia going for it. Certainly Brazil could manage the greater expense now, but they didn't get their Skyhawks until the 90s, and I have a hard time seeing any super tigers still in service that late in the game. Maybe Argentina? That still seems like a stretch, given the relatively humble scope of their naval aviation. Definitely not New Zealand. I just can't see a path for the super tiger to get a super Skyhawk-type upgrade. And as Scott says above, France and the UK were looking for aircraft with greater capability and growth. By the time their US purchased planes were ready for replacement, they either had their own domestic successors on hand or they were out of the fixed wing carrier aviation game altogether. All of which, I'm guessing, very seriously shortens the time horizon for potential upgrades, and it pains me to say that as an F-11 fan, because that's a very pretty bird.

 

[pathology_doc]

Avionics have tended to shrink over the years. When you compare a Harrier GR.1 whose most sophisticated air-air weapon is a Sidewinder 9D with something like a Sea Harrier FRS.2 which can fully utilize AMRAAM, I think the scope for Super Tiger modernization is somewhat greater than some might suspect.

You might not get a Phantom radar in there, but perhaps a Crusader set with the option to use AIM-9C could be an early upgrade path for nations that want at least SOME sort of head-on interception capability in the pre-AIM-9L world?

 

[apparition13]

I can't get at my Super-Tiger book right now, but the ones that stood out to me are:

1. 98J5, adding a pylon to each wing for a total of 9; 6 underwing, one centerline, and two sidewinder rails on the spine between the cockpit and tail. There's an illustration of this in the Super Tiger thread, post 8.

2. 98J9, at least I think it's 9, adds Sparrow capability.

3. 98L, larger and reprofiled wing and all three tail surfaces, post 58. Potentially including wingtip rails, which if combined with the spine rails would mean it could carry 4 sidewinders without using up the underwing and centerline pylons. This wing also looks like a step towards the wing in the G-607 v/stol design, which I think looks a bit like a Super Tiger, so I can see that wing on the ST as well, although not in the high position like in the 607.

Combine the three and you get a better wing, 11 pylons (4 for sidewinders), and Sparrow.

Because it's a mid-wing design maybe fixed canards ala Kfir at some point.

Two seat might be necessary in the early 60s, but the F104S and A-7 are just around the corner and show single seat aircraft could do the job. If it lasts until the 1980 then F-20 and F-18 avionics would be in play.

The real upgrade bottleneck I see is the engine. M53 might fit, PW1120 would but that's late 70's into the 80s. The problem is the J79/Avon sized engine gets straddled by the F404 (smaller) and F100 (larger) engines and we don't really get an advanced military turbofan in the J79 size range.

Personally I'd really like to see an advanced trainer version, I think it would ultimately be better than the T38 since it didn't have the handling issues the T-38/F-5 design did.

 

[Darthtabby]

I want to say the super tiger had upgraded radar, but I don't remember off hand if that's true, and even if it is, we're not talking about anything like the Phantom's avionics ability.

As far as other upgrades are concerned, I'm not sure how much is plausible. We can look to the long service life of the Skyhawk, but the sorts of air forces that kept the Skyhawk flying for so long are the sorts of services that valued a light strike aircraft that can do a very little bit of dogfighting on the side. I know Grumman was big on the multirole capability of the super tiger, but I don't think it was that extensive in its ground attack capability. Certainly not so much so that the thrifty armed forces that opted for its cheaper, subsonic air wing-mate would be convinced to spring for the extra expense that comes with a supersonic aircraft. I could maybe see Australia going for it. Certainly Brazil could manage the greater expense now, but they didn't get their Skyhawks until the 90s, and I have a hard time seeing any super tigers still in service that late in the game. Maybe Argentina? That still seems like a stretch, given the relatively humble scope of their naval aviation. Definitely not New Zealand. I just can't see a path for the super tiger to get a super Skyhawk-type upgrade. And as Scott says above, France and the UK were looking for aircraft with greater capability and growth. By the time their US purchased planes were ready for replacement, they either had their own domestic successors on hand or they were out of the fixed wing carrier aviation game altogether. All of which, I'm guessing, very seriously shortens the time horizon for potential upgrades, and it pains me to say that as an F-11 fan, because that's a very pretty bird.

IIRC the Super Tiger's nose was supposed to accommodate an APQ-50 which had a 24 inch antenna. So basically the same size as the F-104 and early Phantoms though smaller then the 32 inch antenna on other Phantoms. Still I'm basically looking at it as a Mirage III or F-104 equivalent or perhaps a poor man's Phantom in the case of the two seat all weather interceptor variants.

I had been thinking more of land based use though the French carriers that operated the F-8 in real life seem like a possibility. Also IIRC both Australia and Canada considered operating an Essex class ship though of course neither one actually went for it.

Avionics have tended to shrink over the years. When you compare a Harrier GR.1 whose most sophisticated air-air weapon is a Sidewinder 9D with something like a Sea Harrier FRS.2 which can fully utilize AMRAAM, I think the scope for Super Tiger modernization is somewhat greater than some might suspect.

You might not get a Phantom radar in there, but perhaps a Crusader set with the option to use AIM-9C could be an early upgrade path for nations that want at least SOME sort of head-on interception capability in the pre-AIM-9L world?

Fighter aircraft seem to have a tendency to have their avionics weight grow over time despite miniaturization. In the case of the Super Tiger I'm not sure the proposed variants had as much sophisticated nav/attack gear as the F-104G. Also over time it would probably be desirable to add chaff/flare dispensers and ecm. All that could cut into valuable fuel capacity. Though when I think about it the Super Tiger's internal fuel capacity actually seems pretty decent sized for a fighter powered a single J79. With 6648lbs the J-5 version would have nearly as much internal fuel as a typical single seat F-16. And it appears that version could have actually carried more internal fuel if it didn't have cannons fitted.

Speaking of cannons, maybe replacing the quartet of unreliable Hispano derived 20mms with a pair of heavier but more reliable 20mm M39s or 30mm ADEN/DEFA type cannons? I suspect a Vulcan would take more significant reconfiguration of the aircraft's internals. Though maybe one could take a cue from pre E model Phantoms and use a podded Vulcan. Which has its issues but would allow the single seater to trade its internal cannon for additional internal fuel and the two seater to have a cannon at all.

I can't get at my Super-Tiger book right now, but the ones that stood out to me are:

1. 98J5, adding a pylon to each wing for a total of 9; 6 underwing, one centerline, and two sidewinder rails on the spine between the cockpit and tail. There's an illustration of this in the Super Tiger thread, post 8.

2. 98J9, at least I think it's 9, adds Sparrow capability.

3. 98L, larger and reprofiled wing and all three tail surfaces, post 58. Potentially including wingtip rails, which if combined with the spine rails would mean it could carry 4 sidewinders without using up the underwing and centerline pylons. This wing also looks like a step towards the wing in the G-607 v/stol design, which I think looks a bit like a Super Tiger, so I can see that wing on the ST as well, although not in the high position like in the 607.

Combine the three and you get a better wing, 11 pylons (4 for sidewinders), and Sparrow.

Because it's a mid-wing design maybe fixed canards ala Kfir at some point.

Two seat might be necessary in the early 60s, but the F104S and A-7 are just around the corner and show single seat aircraft could do the job. If it lasts until the 1980 then F-20 and F-18 avionics would be in play.

The real upgrade bottleneck I see is the engine. M53 might fit, PW1120 would but that's late 70's into the 80s. The problem is the J79/Avon sized engine gets straddled by the F404 (smaller) and F100 (larger) engines and we don't really get an advanced military turbofan in the J79 size range.

Personally I'd really like to see an advanced trainer version, I think it would ultimately be better than the T38 since it didn't have the handling issues the T-38/F-5 design did.

I question whether the dorsal AIM-9s would actually be a good feature in actual use. Perhaps it would be better to give up the dorsal missiles and use the spine for avionics of some kind?

In general I had been thinking more of relatively modest upgrades focused on avionics and such like most of the Phantom upgrades that actually saw service, though a more powerful J79 variant such as the one used by the F-104S might be an option (might require intake mods to increase airflow). Though am I remembering correctly that Grumman proposed to add to the wing area by extending the downward folding outer wing section (obviously not too much because of the need for ground clearance) or am I completely wrong on that? If I'm not remembering wrong a feature like that could potentially be useful as a way to increase wing area to counteract weight gain though it might also increase drag a bit.

Weight is actually one of the big concerns I'd have with the Super Tiger. J-5 actually seems to have reasonable pylon capacity and internal fuel capacity but I'm not sure if would actually have much ability to take advantage of that capacity of stores and fuel. Might depend how much the empty and maximum take off weights grew compared to the original Tiger.

A slightly bigger wing with better positioned folds, so it would fit at least 2 abreast in a 52ft wide hangar. (The proposed fold would let you fit 9x Super Tigers into the same space as 4x Skyhawks)

The major issue is that Tigers were designed as single-engine day fighters, not 2-seat night/all-weather fighters with powerful radar and radar-guided AAMs. The British and French really wanted radar fighters, which would mean building most of the Super Tigers as two-seaters.

Secondary issue with the other likely buyers is that the Avon engine has significantly higher fuel consumption than the J79. Avon 0.932lbs/lbt/hr, J79 0.84lbs/lbt/hr.

Probably a bit beyond the scope of what I'd been thinking here, especially since the focus isn't necessarily all that focused on carrier use (though as mentioned above I do wonder about the French and the Super Tiger).

Engine wise the focus was intended to be more on upgrades then alternatives (assuming one didn't just stick with the J79) though alternate engines are an interesting possibility. I wondered if it might be possible to modify an Atar to fit (or the aircraft to fit an Atar) though prior to the 9K50 that would likely result in reduced thrust.

 

[Apophenia]

... Also IIRC both Australia and Canada considered operating an Essex class ship though of course neither one actually went for it...

AFAIK, both Australia and Canada rejected the offer of inexpensive second-hand Essex class carriers for the same reasons - high operating costs (including crewing and one-of-class spares for older hulls, etc.). In the case of Australia, an unmodified Essex was on offer. Canada is muddier.

The first offer seems to predate the purchase of HMS Powerful for completion as HMCS Bonaventure. A (presumably unmodified) Essex was offered for USD 4.4M. [1] Sounds great but to that mods would be the needed to bring the unmodified hull up to USN SCB-125 standards. And all such work would have to be contracted out to US yards. So, tens of millions into foreign yards? [2]

According to Wiki (paraphrasing Marc Milner), [3] the USN later offered two loaned Essex class carriers. I'm not sure how accurate that is but it would have only worsened crewing issues - complement of 2 x Essex being roughly 4 x that of the 'Bonnie'. Needless to say the offer was declined and, with it, would have gone even the remotest possibility of Canada buying any form of F-11.
____________________________________

[1] I don't have a date for this offer but USD and CAD were roughly at par for most of the 1950s.

[2] No clue how much SCB-125 upgrades would actually cost. But the angled deck (and steam catapult, etc.) for HMCS Bonaventure cost over CAD 10M at the time.

[3] Canada's Navy: The First Century (2nd Ed.); Marc Milner; University of Toronto Press; Toronto; 2010.

 

[Darthtabby]

@Apophenia Even if one can't come up with a decent alternate history reason for Australia and/or Canada to take up the offered Essex(es) the two countries operated the Mirage III and CF-104 which I think could be considered to be broadly comparable to the Super Tiger.

Edit: I have somewhat mixed feelings on the amount of focus being put on individual operators. On one hand there could be interesting variations between aircraft of different operators. On the other hand too much focus on whether specific countries might or might not operate Super Tigers in an AU scenario seems like it might be missing the forest for the trees as the purpose of this thread was to discuss possible upgrades.

 

[Apophenia]

@Apophenia Even if one can't come up with a decent alternate history reason for Australia and/or Canada to take up the offered Essex(es) the two countries operated the Mirage III and CF-104 which I think could be considered to be broadly comparable to the Super Tiger.

Edit: I have somewhat mixed feelings on the amount of focus being put on individual operators. On one hand there could be interesting variations between aircraft of different operators. On the other hand too much focus on whether specific countries might or might not operate Super Tigers in an AU scenario seems like it might be missing the forest for the trees as the purpose of this thread was to discuss possible upgrades.

Sure. The RW decision to produce CF-104s for strike/recce and MAP exports was dictated by US preferences and the Defence Production Sharing Agreement (DPSA).

For an ATL, simply substitute your Super Tiger for the Starfighter in US policy. Then, Canadair cranks out Grumman 'CF-111s' (or whatever) for the RCAF and MAP-funded exports.

 

[apparition13]

I question whether the dorsal AIM-9s would actually be a good feature in actual use. Perhaps it would be better to give up the dorsal missiles and use the spine for avionics of some kind?

The spine missiles seemed to have no appreciable effect on drag, so it was a good location from an aerodynamic standpoint. The only real concerns were loading the things on the pylons and blinding the pilot when the rocket motor goes off in his face.

Though am I remembering correctly that Grumman proposed to add to the wing area by extending the downward folding outer wing section (obviously not too much because of the need for ground clearance) or am I completely wrong on that?

The book has the wing profile in it. It was bigger overall, a little wider (it was shown both with and without wingtip pylons), a bit more of a lerx, and the trailing edge was less swept for the inner half or so of the wing. On the whole it was a much more "modern" looking wing. Post 58 in the Super Tiger thread shows it.

Weight is actually one of the big concerns I'd have with the Super Tiger. J-5 actually seems to have reasonable pylon capacity and internal fuel capacity but I'm not sure if would actually have much ability to take advantage of that capacity of stores and fuel.

The pylon weights are the pylon limits, the actual load is less than the total of all those limits. Think of it as a half size Phantom (half the crew and half the engines, with about half the weight) with similar range but better maneuverability and a weapons load somewhere between half and 2/3rds of the Phantom's. Or think of it as a supersonic A-4 with much better thrust to weight. Either works.

Engine wise the focus was intended to be more on upgrades then alternatives (assuming one didn't just stick with the J79) though alternate engines are an interesting possibility. I wondered if it might be possible to modify an Atar to fit (or the aircraft to fit an Atar) though prior to the 9K50 that would likely result in reduced thrust.

Atar doesn't really make much sense, the J79 was a better and more powerful engine, but Atar, J79, and Avon are all about the same size. My favorite engine upgrade is one that can't happen, namely the RB106, which was to be Avon sized, which got cancelled. It would boost the Super Tiger to above 1:1 thrust/weight at combat weight with certain loadings. As would the PW1120 and M53-P2, though those are much later. A GE1 variant, like the one some of the F-4 unbuilt proposals suggested using, might do so as well, with much better SFC, and therefore range, as well.

Sure. The RW decision to produce CF-104s for strike/recce and MAP exports was dictated by US preferences and the Defence Production Sharing Agreement (DPSA).

For an ATL, simply substitute your Super Tiger for the Starfighter in US policy. Then, Canadair cranks out Grumman 'CF-111s' (or whatever) for the RCAF and MAP-funded exports.

Lockheed offers a bribe to someone who reports them (to the press if the authorities turn a blind eye) rather than accepting, and suddenly everyone is scrambling to avoid any association with the F-104 and Lockheed. Grumman wins in Japan and Germany, and likely elsewhere too at that point. That's an easy AU to pull off.

 

[Archibald]

The real risk for the F11F Tiger is to get squeezed between the Skyhawk and the Crusader. It is interesting to compare the three, and ponder about their use on Colossus / Majestic carriers.

1-Tiger advantage over Skyhawk
For a start, it's a fighter; not an attack plane with sidewinders. It is faster, too, up to Mach 1.1 at altitude when the A-4 never was supersonic AFAIK. We also know that the F11F had tremendous growth potential.

2-Tiger advantage over Crusader
It might be slower, it is also much lighter and it has saner flight characteristics. The Crusader was a 35000 pound hot rod and would not fit on carriers smaller than Clemenceau. France bought 42 F-8 in 1964 and ended with only 18 of them three decades later, a truly atrocious loss rate. Digging further, I would say that the F11F really looks like a Super Etendard - and Argentina did flew S.E out of 25 de Mayo between 1983 and 1987. Much like the Super Tiger, the S.E could go Mach 1.1, thanks to its Etendard IV legacy - the said Etendard being contemporary of the F11F.

So I think there might be a niche for the F11F on small carriers, albeit Skyhawk has the advantage of numbers - 2960 built vs 199.

 

[Archibald]

An Etendard IV / Skyhawk / F11F / Super Etendard / Crusader comparison via Wikipedia.

F11F

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 45 ft 10.5 in (13.98 m)
• Wingspan: 31 ft 7.5 in (9.64 m)
• Width: 27 ft 4 in (8.33 m) wing-tips folded
• Height: 13 ft 2.75 in (4.03 m)
• Wing area: 250 sq ft (23 m2)
• Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6,264 kg)
• Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9,541 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 23,459 lb (10,641 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-18 afterburning turbojet engine, 7,450 lbf (33.1 kN) thrust at 8,300 rpm, military power dry, 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner

Performance

• Maximum speed: 631 kn (726 mph, 1,169 km/h) / M1.1 at 35,000 ft (11,000 m) 654 kn (753 mph; 1,211 km/h) at sea level
• Cruise speed: 501 kn (577 mph, 928 km/h)
• Range: 1,110 nmi (1,280 mi, 2,060 km)

Etendard IV

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 14.35 m (47 ft 1 in)
• Wingspan: 9.6 m (31 ft 6 in)
• Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)
• Wing area: 28.4 m2 (306 sq ft)
• Empty weight: 5,897 kg (13,001 lb)
• Gross weight: 8,170 kg (18,012 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 10,200 kg (22,487 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × SNECMA ATAR 08B turbojet engine, 43.16 kN (9,700 lbf) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 1,099 km/h (683 mph, 593 kn)
• Range: 3,300 km (2,100 mi, 1,800 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,900 ft)

Super Etendard

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 14.31 m (46 ft 11 in)
• Wingspan: 9.6 m (31 ft 6 in)
• Height: 3.86 m (12 ft 8 in)
• Wing area: 28.4 m2 (306 sq ft)
• Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,455 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Snecma Atar 8K-50 turbojet, 49 kN (11,000 lbf) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 1,205 km/h (749 mph, 651 kn) [64]
• Range: 1,820 km (1,130 mi, 980 nmi) [65]
• Combat range: 850 km (530 mi, 460 nmi) with one AM39 Exocet missile on one wing pylon and one drop tank on opposite pylon, hi-lo-hi profile

A-4E Skyhawk

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
• Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
• Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
• Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m2)
• Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50[161]
• Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
• Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
• Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
• Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)

F-8E Crusader

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 55 ft 11.6 in (17.06 m) [116]
• Wingspan: 35 ft 8 in (10.87 m) [116]
• Height: 15 ft 9.1 in (4.80 m) [116]
• Wing area: 375 sq ft (34.8 m2)
• Empty weight: 18,800 lb (8,528 kg) [116]
• Gross weight: 29,000 lb (13,154 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 34,000 lb (15,422 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 1,348 US gal (1,122.4 imp gal; 5,102.7 L) or 8,762 lb (3,974 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-20A afterburning turbojet engine, 11,400 lbf (51 kN) thrust [117] dry, 18,000 lbf (80 kN) with afterburner

Performance

• Maximum speed: 1,066 kn (1,227 mph, 1,974 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.8
• Cruise speed: 268 kn (308 mph, 496 km/h)
• Stall speed: 135 kn (155 mph, 250 km/h)
• Combat range: 394 nmi (453 mi, 730 km)
• Ferry range: 1,507 nmi (1,734 mi, 2,791 km) with external fuel

 

[H_K]

Atar doesn't really make much sense, the J79 was a better and more powerful engine, but Atar, J79, and Avon are all about the same size. My favorite engine upgrade is one that can't happen, namely the RB106, which was to be Avon sized, which got cancelled. It would boost the Super Tiger to above 1:1 thrust/weight at combat weight with certain loadings. As would the PW1120 and M53-P2, though those are much later. A GE1 variant, like the one some of the F-4 unbuilt proposals suggested using, might do so as well, with much better SFC, and therefore range, as well.

My favorite engine option for the F11F Tiger is the afterburning J52. Yes it did exist!

It would have done wonders to the F11F's combat radius, climb rate and top speed.
I'll paste below a few things I wrote in a different forum from my research on this topic.

The Pratt & Whitney technical history confirms that an afterburning J52 was tested (JT8B-20 8,000lbf dry, 12,500lbf wet).
https://www.slideshare.net/ssuser5cb52c/connorsjthe-engines-of-pratt-whitney-a-technical-historypdfhttps://www.slideshare.net/ssuser5cb52c/connorsjthe-engines-of-pratt-whitney-a-technical-historypdf

Now applying the same 56% augmentation ratio to the updated J52-P-8, I get ~9,000lbf dry and ~14,000lbf wet (which should be a reasonable ratio, identical to the contemporary J79). This would seem like a great engine option, especially as the afterburning J52 weighed only 2,600lb (600lbs less than a J79 and 900lbs less than a J65).

And how would an afterburning J52 impact performance?

CAP loiter
Using the F11F's performance manual, the CAP loiter time was ~1h15min @ 150nm with 2 AIM-9s, on internal fuel with 5min combat allowance (1100lbs). Now factor in a ~11% fuel consumption improvement with a J52 engine, and the gunbay fuel tank (replacing 2x 20mm guns & ammo with 600lbs extra fuel - total ~7,550lbs internal fuel) for another ~9% improvement, and my hypothetical upgraded F11F would have a CAP loiter time of 1h45min @ 150nm. Pretty solid IMHO.F

Combat performance
In the 1970s, the A-4M with J52-P-408 had +20% in thrust (11,200 vs 9,300lbs) and +30% climb rate vs. the A-4F. But the A-4M was still limited by transonic drag. By comparison, for the F11F with a 14,000lb J52 upgrade I would expect ~2x the climb rate of the A-4M (>30,000 fpm), and a top speed of ~Mach 1.8.

Lastly I would want a supersonic missile with some standoff range and a big warhead , like the AS-30 (240kg warhead) or the RB-05 (160kg warhead) to allow for low level attacks against ships and hardened targets... not hard to integrate and a lot better than Bullpup or attacking with dumb bombs. That would also make up for the bomb load than an A-4 Skyhawk.

 

[H_K]

So I think there might be a niche for the F11F on small carriers

F11F would require blown flaps to operate off Colossus/Majestic light fleet carriers, much like the Etendard IVB. But yes that would seem like a good solution to enable those carriers to operate a supersonic light strike fighter.

More info from a post I had written on this topic:

We know from the Etendard IVB with blown flaps that the light fleet carriers’ 103ft long BS4 catapult could launch a 23,000lb plane at 100kts end speed. Add 22-25 knots wind over deck and you need the F11F Tiger to be able to fly off at ~125 knots, which means a power-on stall speed of no more than 119 kts (with 5% margin above stall). This should be doable given actual power off stall speed was 130 knots but would be at least 15 knots lower in full AB thrust + BLC.

Likewise, we know that the light fleets’ Mk13 arrestor gear could trap a 17,000lbs plane at an engagement speed of 110 knots, which means with 25 knots WoD, the F11F Tiger’s approach speed would have to be no more than 130 knots (leaving ~5kts margin for pilot error). Actual approach speed at 17,000lbs was 133 knots, but reduce that by ~10 knots with BLC and you should be OK (just about).

If you believe the reports of BLC trials on F9F, FJ-3, F-86, F-100 etc, retrofitting a jury-rigged blown flap doesn't seem like an insurmountable challenge. The weight penalty would be 100-200lbs only... well worth the ~10kt reduction in TO and landing speeds.

So basically blown flaps should allow the F11F to launch at ~23,000lbs and land at ~17,000lbs on a Colossus/Majestic, just like the Etendard IVB but with 20-50% more payload (given lower empty weight and better fuel consumption). Given an operating empty weight of ~14,000lbs for the unmodified F11F (clean, with pilot + 2x 20mm guns), that's just enough to allow for a decent fuel fraction and light weapons load (1,000 - 2,500lbs), as along as the upgrades don't add too much weight.

(And installing the afterburning J52 would actually save 800-900lb weight, as it weight only 2,600-2,700lb vs. 3,500lb for the J65 or J79... which is another reason re-engining would help given how critical weight management would be).

 

[orlovsky]

That afterburning J52 with 14000 lbs thrust on 2600 lbs would give a thrust/weight of 5.
4.
For early 1960s:
J79-8 17/3.6=4.7
Atar 9K 6700kn/1490kg = 4.5

How would the afterburning J52 be that superior? And if it was, why no takers?

 

[H_K]

That afterburning J52 with 14000 lbs thrust on 2600 lbs would give a thrust/weight of 5.4.
For early 1960s:
J79-8 17/3.6=4.7
Atar 9K 6700kn/1490kg = 4.5

It seems that the J52 had a better thrust/weight than the non-afterburning J79 (CJ805-3).

J52-P-8: 9,300lb thrust / 2,118lb weight = 4.4 T/W
J79 (CJ805-3): 11,200lb thrust / 2,815lb weight. = 4.0 T/W

Now add the afterburner section... the J79's AB section weighed ~700-850lbs and provided ~52% thrust augmentation. The J52's A/B section appears to weigh ~550-600lbs, which sounds about right given relative scale to the J79. So total J52-P-8 weight with afterburner would be ~2,750lb giving a T/W of 5.1.

The J52 wasn't designed as a Mach 2.0+ engine (I believe the max design speed was Mach 1.8), so perhaps that explains the lower weight relative to the J79? Also the J79 had a more complex (but efficient) convergent-divergent nozzle... I'd expect the J52 had a simpler nozzle design that would be less optimized for high supersonic speeds .

 

[orlovsky]

The J79 AB would be 800 lbs for +6000 lbs, the J52 AB 550-600 lbs for +5000 lbs? Atar AB also 900-1000 lbs...
Maybe it is the lower design speed... but difficult to say, the afterburning J52 was never tested in a plane?

 

[H_K]

The J79 AB would be 800 lbs for +6000 lbs, the J52 AB 550-600 lbs for +5000 lbs? Atar AB also 900-1000 lbs...
Maybe it is the lower design speed... but difficult to say, the afterburning J52 was never tested in a plane?

The Avon RA.24R's AB weighed 650lbs (3028lb dry weight engine only, 3,679lb with reheat), with a ~5,000lb thrust boost from 11,250lb to 16,100lb.

No converging-diverging nozzle, but according to Rolls Royce that didn't provide any benefit at speeds under Mach 1.3.

 

[orlovsky]

So lighter and simpler AB were not adopted with the mach 2+ craze of the time?
But for the super Tiger, who would trade 1000 lbs weight for just 1.8 mach max?

 

[Darthtabby]

While the discussion about possible upgrades to the basic Tiger is interesting, I had actually intended this thread to be about how the Super Tiger might evolve over time if it had entered service.

The spine missiles seemed to have no appreciable effect on drag, so it was a good location from an aerodynamic standpoint. The only real concerns were loading the things on the pylons and blinding the pilot when the rocket motor goes off in his face.

I also feel like the mechanism to raise and low the missile might have been a pain, and that they might have reduced rear visibility. Granted I'm not sure how much else you could have fit in the spine in place of the mechanism but I had been thinking of avionics of some sort or additional fuel tankage.

The book has the wing profile in it. It was bigger overall, a little wider (it was shown both with and without wingtip pylons), a bit more of a lerx, and the trailing edge was less swept for the inner half or so of the wing. On the whole it was a much more "modern" looking wing. Post 58 in the Super Tiger thread shows it.

Post #49 from the same thread claims the larger folding tips from G98L could have been retrofitted to the standard wing which if accurate might be a way to enlarge wing area to cope with weight growth over time though it might not be aerodynamically optimal. The full G98L wing seems like a more involved process that would have required at least a complete wing replacement if it could be retrofitted to existing airframes at all.

The pylon weights are the pylon limits, the actual load is less than the total of all those limits. Think of it as a half size Phantom (half the crew and half the engines, with about half the weight) with similar range but better maneuverability and a weapons load somewhere between half and 2/3rds of the Phantom's. Or think of it as a supersonic A-4 with much better thrust to weight. Either works.

I've tended to think of the single seat fighter bomber Super Tiger as a F-104G with better maneuverability and handling and a bit less speed and the two seat all weather versions as a sort of lightweight or poor man's Phantom. Those assume however that the difference btween the empty and maximum take off weights are similar to those of a F-104G. I haven't been able to find much of what I would consider reliable data for the empty and maximum take off weights for the Super Tiger though this post from the War Thunder forums lists a significantly higher empty weight (though I wonder if they confused landing weight and empty weight) and a lower maximum take off weight.

Atar doesn't really make much sense, the J79 was a better and more powerful engine, but Atar, J79, and Avon are all about the same size. My favorite engine upgrade is one that can't happen, namely the RB106, which was to be Avon sized, which got cancelled. It would boost the Super Tiger to above 1:1 thrust/weight at combat weight with certain loadings. As would the PW1120 and M53-P2, though those are much later. A GE1 variant, like the one some of the F-4 unbuilt proposals suggested using, might do so as well, with much better SFC, and therefore range, as well.

Atar was a thought in the context of possible Aeronavale Super Tigers which I was thinking might have been built with Atars to begin with. Though yeah unless its something like the 9K50 version (which I'm not sure was available in the timeframe for a potential order) it would be significantly less powerful then the J79.

Lastly I would want a supersonic missile with some standoff range and a big warhead , like the AS-30 (240kg warhead) or the RB-05 (160kg warhead) to allow for low level attacks against ships and hardened targets... not hard to integrate and a lot better than Bullpup or attacking with dumb bombs. That would also make up for the bomb load than an A-4 Skyhawk.

I know the original Bullpups had quite light warheads but the AGM-12C variant actually had a heavier one then either the AS-30 or the RB-05.

 

[apparition13]

My favorite engine option for the F11F Tiger is the afterburning J52. Yes it did exist!

It would have done wonders to the F11F's combat radius, climb rate and top speed.
I'll paste below a few things I wrote in a different forum from my research on this topic.

RB106 is around 15k dry (according to other post on this site), and 21,750k wet. The F11F-1f is listed as 21035lbs gross weight, which would put the thrust to weight over 1:1, and create a "Boyd" fighter around 1960, which is when it would make the most sense, prior to BVR missiles becoming effective like they did when the teen series started being deployed. The RB106 was also meant to be a drop in replacement for the Avon, which was 1000lbs lighter than the J79, so if that ratio holds thrust to weight would improve even more. But - it got cancelled, so it's just "might have been".

Lastly I would want a supersonic missile with some standoff range and a big warhead , like the AS-30 (240kg warhead) or the RB-05 (160kg warhead) to allow for low level attacks against ships and hardened targets... not hard to integrate and a lot better than Bullpup or attacking with dumb bombs. That would also make up for the bomb load than an A-4 Skyhawk.

Those were both really difficult to use since they required active guidance by the pilot. However, absolutely the RB04 in the anti-shipping role since it was fire and forget. PGM for hardened targets rather than ships might have to wait for the Walleye of the late 60s, by which point LGBs were in the works.

 

[orlovsky]

Atar was a thought in the context of possible Aeronavale Super Tigers which I was thinking might have been built with Atars to begin with. Though yeah unless its something like the 9K50 version (which I'm not sure was available in the timeframe for a potential order) it would be significantly less powerful then the J79.

Depends upon timeframe and specifications of the super tiger. For a french connection it would probably get an Atar 9k (prod from 1963). Vs the j79-8 the nrs are~
dry 10500/10900
Ab 15000/17000
How much the weaker AB would cost in performance, no idea. The very similar just somewhat lighter breguet sirocco was expected with mach 2.2 on an Atar 9B, I think.

 

[Lascaris]

The real risk for the F11F Tiger is to get squeezed between the Skyhawk and the Crusader. It is interesting to compare the three, and ponder about their use on Colossus / Majestic carriers.

1-Tiger advantage over Skyhawk
For a start, it's a fighter; not an attack plane with sidewinders. It is faster, too, up to Mach 1.1 at altitude when the A-4 never was supersonic AFAIK. We also know that the F11F had tremendous growth potential.

2-Tiger advantage over Crusader
It might be slower, it is also much lighter and it has saner flight characteristics. The Crusader was a 35000 pound hot rod and would not fit on carriers smaller than Clemenceau. France bought 42 F-8 in 1964 and ended with only 18 of them three decades later, a truly atrocious loss rate. Digging further, I would say that the F11F really looks like a Super Etendard - and Argentina did flew S.E out of 25 de Mayo between 1983 and 1987. Much like the Super Tiger, the S.E could go Mach 1.1, thanks to its Etendard IV legacy - the said Etendard being contemporary of the F11F.

So I think there might be a niche for the F11F on small carriers, albeit Skyhawk has the advantage of numbers - 2960 built vs 199.

Just a moment here. If you can have Tigers, likely modified with blown flaps like the proposed Indian Etendard IVMs flying off Majestics why you can't also have Super Tigers? Dimension wise it is almost exactly the same, maximum take-off weight is the same with Super Etendard and thanks to J79 it has more than ample power?

 

[Scott Kenny]

That afterburning J52 is really tempting. Plus, the J52 could be driven hard to allow supercruise.

That the RB106 wasn't developed makes me want to cry, however.