What If? game - the F11F-2 and F8U-3 replace the F-104 and F-4 in history.

[pathology_doc]

So I've decided to crowd source it here as a what if game.

I think your what-if just doesn't work. I'm sure we've all seen the quote that the Crusader III was a brilliant aircraft, it just happened to be up against one of aviation's all-time greats at a time when the Government wasn't willing to pay for both.

The F-4 was always going to win if it existed, because it was one of the most versatile airplanes of its era (not least because it could carry EIGHT missiles into combat, a vital asset at a time when the aircraft didn't have a gun and the missiles were badly behaved to say the least). What you need to posit is that either McDonnell-Douglas never built it or somehow failed to make it the success that it was. THEN your scenario works, but not otherwise.

Hang four R-530 semi-recessed on the flanks (Phantom-style)

Is the R-530 even compatible with that? Or is the pylon mounting we see in history merely a function of the aircraft that carried it?

 

[apparition13]

So I've decided to crowd source it here as a what if game.

I think your what-if just doesn't work. I'm sure we've all seen the quote that the Crusader III was a brilliant aircraft, it just happened to be up against one of aviation's all-time greats at a time when the Government wasn't willing to pay for both.

The F-4 was always going to win if it existed, because it was one of the most versatile airplanes of its era (not least because it could carry EIGHT missiles into combat, a vital asset at a time when the aircraft didn't have a gun and the missiles were badly behaved to say the least). What you need to posit is that either McDonnell-Douglas never built it or somehow failed to make it the success that it was. THEN your scenario works, but not otherwise.

This "That's the set up. I'm not interested in how it's implausible, or why it wouldn't happen, I want to explore what would happen next if all of the above is true" was in the original post.

 

[Archibald]

That's the usual issue with alt-aerospace-history. Some people like day-dreaming and some people prefer harsh realism.
Pretty tricky to balance both tendencies... (sigh)

 

[pathology_doc]

So I've decided to crowd source it here as a what if game.

I think your what-if just doesn't work. I'm sure we've all seen the quote that the Crusader III was a brilliant aircraft, it just happened to be up against one of aviation's all-time greats at a time when the Government wasn't willing to pay for both.

The F-4 was always going to win if it existed, because it was one of the most versatile airplanes of its era (not least because it could carry EIGHT missiles into combat, a vital asset at a time when the aircraft didn't have a gun and the missiles were badly behaved to say the least). What you need to posit is that either McDonnell-Douglas never built it or somehow failed to make it the success that it was. THEN your scenario works, but not otherwise.

This "That's the set up. I'm not interested in how it's implausible, or why it wouldn't happen, I want to explore what would happen next if all of the above is true" was in the original post.

Alright, then: the Americans were fortunate to select the one-plane-does-all platform given the war they ended up fighting. How does the absence of the Phantom change the air war in Vietnam? Not for the better, I would imagine.

 

[Archibald]

The Phantom lacked agility, for a start. Anything that turn better will help against the goddam MiGs. Crusader III and Super Tiger will do better there (hopefully)
But I agree, range and bomb-load wise, nothing matched the Phantom. Even more with the F-111 troubled childhood. More F-105Ds ?

 

[SSgtC]

So I've decided to crowd source it here as a what if game.

I think your what-if just doesn't work. I'm sure we've all seen the quote that the Crusader III was a brilliant aircraft, it just happened to be up against one of aviation's all-time greats at a time when the Government wasn't willing to pay for both.

The F-4 was always going to win if it existed, because it was one of the most versatile airplanes of its era (not least because it could carry EIGHT missiles into combat, a vital asset at a time when the aircraft didn't have a gun and the missiles were badly behaved to say the least). What you need to posit is that either McDonnell-Douglas never built it or somehow failed to make it the success that it was. THEN your scenario works, but not otherwise.

This "That's the set up. I'm not interested in how it's implausible, or why it wouldn't happen, I want to explore what would happen next if all of the above is true" was in the original post.

Alright, then: the Americans were fortunate to select the one-plane-does-all platform given the war they ended up fighting. How does the absence of the Phantom change the air war in Vietnam? Not for the better, I would imagine.

Actually, the Crusader III probably does better in the air war than the Phantom did. It wasn't until near the end of the war that the Navy finally worked out proper tactics for the F-4 to effectively engage NVAF MiGs. A lot of times, when Sparrows were fired at maneuvering targets like the MiG-17 and -21, the target could break lock and escape simply because the Phantom couldn't turn with them and keep them painted. The Crusader could. So while it may have been more difficult to acquire the initial lock on due to higher pilot workload, once the target was locked up the Crusader could actually maintain that lock and guide the missile all the way to the target.

The Phantom lacked agility, for a start. Anything that turn better will help against the goddam MiGs. Crusader III and Super Tiger will do better there (hopefully)
But I agree, range and bomb-load wise, nothing matched the Phantom. Even more with the F-111 troubled childhood. More F-105Ds ?

See my above comment re the Crusader III's agility. The rest? Jeez, I don't know. Probably the F-105 stays in production longer to fill that hole for the Air Force. For the Navy, maybe the Vigilante actually sees some use as a bomber instead of just a recon plane? The Navy may also land one of the A-4/A-7 squadrons from their carriers and replace it with an additional A-6 squadron.

 

[pathology_doc]

For the Navy, maybe the Vigilante actually sees some use as a bomber instead of just a recon plane?

While we're talking humongous missile fighters (F-4), was the concept of an ADV Vigilante ever kicked around? Or does the plane, like the non-B F-111's, simply not have the right performance characteristics, even as a pure interceptor?

 

[_Del_]

For the Navy, maybe the Vigilante actually sees some use as a bomber instead of just a recon plane?

While we're talking humongous missile fighters (F-4), was the concept of an ADV Vigilante ever kicked around? Or does the plane, like the non-B F-111's, simply not have the right performance characteristics, even as a pure interceptor?

It was kicked around a lot: proposed rocket booster engines for improved climb/performance. There's even the NR-349-- a three-engined Super Vig with Phoenix missiles!


Edit: quick search found this thread

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/north-american-retaliator-nr-349-interceptor-proposals.1127/

 

[Archibald]

It wouldn't be too hard to put a rocket into a Vigilante bomb-tube (or linear bomb bay or whatever it was called). NASA Scout upper stages had the right diameter and length to fits in...

 

[isayyo2]

That's the usual issue with alt-aerospace-history. Some people like day-dreaming and some people prefer harsh realism.
Pretty tricky to balance both tendencies... (sigh)

You and me both buddy

 

[1635yankee]

Yes, but it have rather limited payload, not much of radar capabilities (not to mention lack of radar operator), and the major worry for USN were Soviet jet bombers, which does not require great dogfighting abilities for interception. Essentially, the F8U-3 would be the perfect solution if USSR have carriers of its own, and was able to provide bombers with fighter escorts.

You could probably manage to get 6-8k pounds of bombs hung on the airframe if needed (and wing hardpoints are added). Which pales in comparison to the Phantom's 18,000 pound bomb load. But in reality that's what you have dedicated attack aircraft for. Hanging bombs on it is really just a bonus.

As for time to climb, yeah, the F-4B has the Crusader III beat by about 80 seconds to 30,000 feet with both aircraft armed only with Sparrows and no external tanks. But seeing as the Phantom almost never operated without a 600 gallon external tank, it drops the Phantom's advantage to only about 20 seconds to reach 30,000. And that number would be likely to change had the Crusader III actually entered service.

And again, the Crusader would have the same radar as the Phantom, so they have identical radar capabilities. I'll grant you that the pilot would have been busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest, but that has never seemed to be a problem for anyone else who flew single seat interceptors. The USAF managed it for decades. There's no reason the Navy couldn't have. Vought repeatedly demonstrated that one pilot could handle both tasks and the Navy fighter community agreed with them! They didn't want a RIO, they wanted a single seat fighter. I'll grant you that having a dedicated radar operator is a huge help, but it's not required.

From what I read, quite a lot of the development effort on the F-15 was devoted to keeping equal electronic performance to the F-4 while getting rid of the guy in back.

 

[Archibald]

I'll grant you that the pilot would have been busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest

ROTFLMAO - I kind of like that colorfoul expression.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Some words about USN all-weather fighters plans before the Phantom...

The (messy) plan was kind of
-Sidewinder: Crusader II (limited all-weather capability, no Sparrow)
-Sparrow I : Cutlass & Demon (F3H-2N) - beam riding was crap, 1954-1958
-Sparrow II: F5D Skylancer (canned as unworkable, march 1957)
-Sparrow III interim / initial capability (Demon F3H-2, IOC 1958)
-Sparrow III, definite (Crusader III versus Phantom, beyond 1960)

Note that the Super Tiger is nowhere to be seen for a simple reason: the two authorized in 1954 were basically F-11F Tiger stock airframes + J79 : just to try and test that engine at Mach 2 for the Phantom (and Vigilante, perhaps).

Also, why did the Cutlass flying coffin, and not the Skyray, got Sparrow I is beyond me. It was kind of mixing a big waste (Cutlass) with more waste (Sparrow I).

It might be possible to use either the Skylancer or Super Tiger or Crusader III as an "early / interim Sparrow III solution" provided the Phantom is late, one way or another. Maybe the Demon never recovers from its J40 disaster and something else is needed for that "initial Sparrow III capability" circa 1957...
Still, the single-seater versus SARH issue is annoying.
The Demon however WAS a single-seater, so I can't see why it was an issue for the Crusader III !!!

Would make an interesting alt-history in its own right, imagine the fly-off between these three flying wonders...

Why did the Cutlass (which was not a flying coffin or a big waste) get Sparrow I (not more waste: a solution to an urgent requirement and deployable earlier than the unproven Sparrow III) and not the Skyray? It was because the bigger F7U-3 had more payload capability and could therefore carry four Sparrows, whereas the F4D was affectively limited to two.

 

[Larcrivereagle]

See my above comment re the Crusader III's agility. The rest? Jeez, I don't know. Probably the F-105 stays in production longer to fill that hole for the Air Force. For the Navy, maybe the Vigilante actually sees some use as a bomber instead of just a recon plane? The Navy may also land one of the A-4/A-7 squadrons from their carriers and replace it with an additional A-6 squadron.

Ironically, the F4H program might morph back into the AH-1 to be the Navy's attacker role. That'd be funny.
I'm sure it'd make the heavy attacker community happy, but it might kill the bomb truck A5s even sooner.
I'm also honestly not sure what becomes of the Recce planes. Does the AH-1 keep the role of the RF-4B? Does the Crusader 3 take it? What about the USAF?

 

[Larcrivereagle]

There something I don't understand about the Eagle. How do you make it work without the huge APQ-81 and its monster 5 feet antenna ? what kind of range then ?

Among the Missileer contenders were: an A2F Intruder variant; a J79 Skywarrior; AND a Vigilante variant - necessarily with smaller antenna. On a Crusader III it would be even smaller.
...
Curtiss Wright had the licence for both Olympus (= J67) and Iroquois so they should play an important role here.
GE had the J93 and Pratt the J58 so the field of mega powerful advanced jet engines is quite packed already, if CW wants to push a J130 Iroquois...

The growth option for the radar in the Crusader III and the proposed Eagle Intruder used the same system: APQ-75

Fighters over the Fleet: Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War p.315
Including its six missiles and the big Westinghouse radar, Bendix estimated that the total weight of an Eagle system would be 10,765lbs. That was slightly less than BuAer had estimated when it had asked for proposals, but it was still huge compared to the weight of the four-Sparrow system on board an F-4. Bendix and Grumman sketched a 50,000lb twin-turboprop long-endurance (eight-hour)carrier aircraft which would carry its six Eagles internally in a kind of bomb bay. As an alternative, Bendix and Grumman offered an Eagle version of Grumman’s A2F (A-6) Intruder, then under development, with an APQ-75 radar and five missiles (four underwing and one under the belly). Another alternative was a version of Grumman’s G118 fighter, offered and rejected two years earlier. It could carry two missiles underwing and two semi-submerged under its fuselage. TheAPQ-72 associated with the G-118 would be replaced by an APQ-75 in a slightly larger nose. These alternatives were described to prove that the Bendix-Grumman system was entirely feasible. It is not clear to what extent Grumman hoped that BuAer would buy any of them.

The radar program was connected to the 1960s "computer-based fleet defense system" AEW (E-2 Hawkeye program) and fleet defense programs (Typhoon SAM program), which included computer-aided datalink guidance.

Fighters over the Fleet: Naval Air defence from Biplanes to the Cold War p.314
The Eagle system comprised a homing guidance system, the missile itself, a tactical computer which could receive data from any of several radars (or from a data link), a three-scope display (based on that Litton was then developing for the W2F, which became the E-2Hawkeye) and a separate missile tracking system.19 The missile tracker was necessary because the system would command missiles to engage multiple targets; it had to know where its missiles were. The system computer was a modified version of the Litton computer already adopted for the E-2 Hawkeye. In its solicitation BuAer left to the contractor the missile environment (i.e. the kind and degree of jamming the system had to overcome), range, guidance and propulsion. It was assumed that the fighter would be a node in the Link 11(USC-2 radio) net, connected to both other Eagle fighters and to computer AEW aircraft (the emerging Grumman W2F/E-2Hawkeye).

Fighters over the Fleet: Naval Air defence from Biplanes to the Cold War p.431
19. The radars listed were the Westinghouse C-band pulse-Doppler radar(which became APQ-81), the North American APQ-75 and the Westinghouse APQ-72/74, of which only the APQ-72 entered service (onboard the F-4 Phantom). As proposed by the Bendix/Grumman team, the tactical computer could accept either APQ-75 or -81 track-while-scan radar data (the arrangement with the -75 required an extra module). When the Bendix brochure was written in 1958, the Westinghouse radar was credited with the ability to track twelve targets simultaneously, but by1959 that had grown to sixteen, presumably due to increasing computer capability.

It appears Eagle was also part of the UK's replacement of the Sea Vixen.

Fighters over the Fleet: Naval Air defence from Biplanes to the Cold War p.334
Blackburn, however, understood just what was wanted. In the Buccaneer it had a high-performance aircraft with sufficient carrying capacity and endurance. Replacing the engine and adding fuel could give it the desired four hours at 100nm; the aircraft would weigh 48,000lbs (approach weight was an acceptable 32,000lbs). In March 1959 the firm was halfway through work on a developed Buccaneer which might carry the US Eagle missile. At this time the US Navy had not yet chosen an aircraft to carry the Eagle missile and one alternative was the Intruder, which might be analogised to the Buccaneer.
The Eagle was credited with a 150nm propulsive range and a 75nmsystems range. However, a radar small enough to fit the Buccaneer, such as a developed version of the AI 18 in the Sea Vixen, could not lock onto a target beyond perhaps 50nm; no modified Buccaneer could accommodate the 60in dish of the US APQ-81.42 The fighter would generally have to close to 30nm to fire. With the Eagle missile with30nm closing range, one aircraft per 120° sector could just stop a Mach 2 target at 100nm. It was assumed that the fighters would be supported by a developed AEW aircraft 200nm from task force centre, with a 150nm radar and automatic data processing.
The Working Party focused on the interaction between radar and target. The target would detect the lock-on (the onset of steady tracking) and immediately begin to evade. The target might be able to deny accurate range information by jamming, which might reduce fighter radar range well below the 30nm closing range of the Eagle, rendering its long range useless. As to the number of weapons, the Working Party was aware of US studies with six and twelve missiles by CAL and ADR. DAW formed a team to visit the United States to learn more about the Eagle-Missileer system.