Crusader and Tomcat...

[Davey B]

Just to throw in my (inevitable) 2-pennorth...

Gorbachev's reforms work, the Cold War carries on, albeit in a somewhat less 'GRRR' form.  After numerous cost overruns, the USAF drop their intention to buy the A-12 and decide to upgrade all their F-111s to a common standard.  The F-15E enters service to replace the F-4E.

The US Navy, to put it mildly, is up poo-poo-creek.  The cost increases mean they can't afford the A-12 on their own and various old fossils on Capitol Hill are making noises (it's the beans you know).  Grumman steps in with the solution: its Tomcat line is drawing to a close and they propose a new-build A-14.  Based on the F-14D and using the same F110 engines, the A-14 features a dedicated attack radar (much cheaper than the AWG-9 or APG-71) and an A-6E-style TRAM turret replacing the TV camera/IR sensor.

I can just see one now: four Paveways on Phoenix pallets under the fuselage, Sidewinder and Harpoon under the wing gloves...  :ar:  :ar:  :ar:  

[Archibald]

Interesting thought : the navy had a wide choice for its long range attack platform 15 years ago.
- upgraded Tomcat
- enlarged Hornet (the winner. we all know the result)
- A-6F
- A-12
Hard to choose between the four...my favorites are the upgraded Tomcat and the A-6F (A-12 too expensive and stealth difficult to combine with carrier ops, Super Hornet ended in the crap we have today). Main problem with Tomcat, even in an improved version was its high maintenance costs. Maybe the A-6F would have been the right choice?
I think the improved A-4 (from singapore) A-6F and A-7F need their own thread...

[Shasper]

I think the *new* F-14 would've been a swing-role A/C like the F-18, and if it was going to be an all-new production run, theres a good chance the maintainance issues could've been reduced.

But we'll never know now.

Shas B)

[Archibald]

What sure is the USN had to chose between a dedicated attack platform and a multirole fighter... I heard somewhere that the A-12 stealth structure would have been a kind of nightmare on a carrier... just remember the F-117 and B-2 problems (the latter couldn't fly in heavy rains !!! )
There was also a study to navalise the F-22 if I remember well, and also a naval
F-117 (swing-wing) proposla from Lockheed!!!    

[Shasper]

Think you got your stealths mixed up Arch, the F-117N would've looked somthing like this:


And the Lockheed NATF proposal:





Shas B)

[Archibald]

Just love the F-117N!! It look way better than the conventionnal F-117 (so UGLY   ) where do you find the pic of the model? made it yourself?  

[Scooterman]

Just love the F-117N!! It look way better than the conventionnal F-117 (so UGLY   ) where do you find the pic of the model? made it yourself?

Yeah what he said!

(been thrashing the idea about in 1/48)

[Shasper]

Google is my friend

Shas B)

[elmayerle]

Interesting thought : the navy had a wide choice for its long range attack platform 15 years ago.
- upgraded Tomcat
- enlarged Hornet (the winner. we all know the result)
- A-6F
- A-12
Hard to choose between the four...my favorites are the upgraded Tomcat and the A-6F (A-12 too expensive and stealth difficult to combine with carrier ops, Super Hornet ended in the crap we have today). Main problem with Tomcat, even in an improved version was its high maintenance costs. Maybe the A-6F would have been the right choice?
I think the improved A-4 (from singapore) A-6F and A-7F need their own thread...

A-6F had it's own problems.  The new composite wing that Boeing-Wichita developed was decidedly stiffer than the original wing and radically changed the stress loadings on the fusealge.  The overall testing phase would've lasted rather longer than planned to deal with this and I suspect there would be some other problmes stemming from this change in aeroelastic behavior.

From what I've heard, the A-12 suffered from the way the work had to be broken down and less than excellent coordination between the two developing companies.  There was a reason that the team of Horthrop & Grumman "No Bid" on the BAFo (Best And Final Offer) phase or responding to teh Navy RFP.

[Archibald]

There was a kind of conflict between the A-6F and A-12, just because the A-6F program was launched earlier (early 80's) and the A-12 was kept secret. In the end, none entered service! This sound a kind of waste...

[elmayerle]

The A-6F was supposed to be a "near-term" upgrade for the A-6 that would also start the introduction of the avionics intended for additional use in the A-12.  The A-12 was the long-term replacement for the A-6.  No real conflict here, only an apparent one.

[Archibald]

...and these programs led to nothing because the end of coldwar and huge budget cuts.  

[Shasper]

Gotta love the goverment.  

Shas B)

[Archibald]

When you mentionned the Tomcat, you can avoid talking about the F-111.
Here's a short story about how they drastically improved the Pig.

In march 1968, three F-111s crashed in Vietnam after structural failures. Others crashes followed and in december 1969 a 15th Aardvark crashed after wing box failure.
This was enough for the USAF which cancelled its orders for the F-111. But at the time, their was an urgent need for a F-105 replacement (which extended to the fighter bomber versions of the Phantom). So the USAF agree to keep on with the
F-111, but warned it wanted a vastly improved aircraft.
So GD took the F-111A as basis and launched a program named AMIP (Aardvark Major Improvement Program).
The ventral airbrake was cut in two elements which were mounted on the side of the tail. Main undercarriage was relocated on the side of the fuselage, and it was now much longer. The weapon bay could now be extended up to the rear of the plane, doubling the internal load capacity, freeing the wings for more external tanks.

After that, GD try to cure the F-111 bigger plague : its engines and air intakes. The unreliable and prone-to-stall TF-30 were replaced by Allison TF-41 giving 25000 Ib of thrust.
The air intakes problems -they were too low and sucked everything on the runway- was solved by an orginal system. At take off, small doors closed the air intakes, the engines were fed by grids on the LERX located just behind the cockpit. The Soviets later adopted the system for the MiG-29

Last modifications included the supression of the ejection crew module, replaced by ejectable seats. 800 kg were saved...
Wing boxes were now made of Titanium, preventing any in-flight failure.

All this mods were introduced on a prototype which flew in November 1971. Performances were so enhanced that the air force imediately bought 850 aircrafts. They were upgraded in 1986 (an attack version of the F-15 was rejected because of its shorter range and external weapon load) with F-110 engines.

The odd F-111 name was shelved, the plane becoming the F-13A Vulture in 1974.  

[Bryan H.]

It would have been interesting if these types had been progressively upgraded and production lines remained open.  Probably, the only way this might have happened was if more nations (Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, Argentina...) retained "real" CTOL aircraft carriers (Essex-class size to Midway-class size).  It'd also require a major change in the basic procurement philosophies of the naval bureaucracies.  However, the economies of very-long production runs with the R&D and production costs spread among several governments over many years might make sense.  

By 2006, there could be F110-engined Super Tomcat 21's, A-7's & F-8's and F404/F414-engined A-4's, A-6's (and if you just really gotta have Bugs, add F/A-18's just no SuperBugs!!!   ).  A consistant, reliable stable of naval aircraft might make it more feasable for greater numbers of allied nations to have carrier aviation.  This would help NATO field carrier forces in greater numbers.  The smaller types would work well on smaller carriers while the larger types could be based off of the larger carriers.  They'd have progressively improved avionics/electronics/sensors, modern cockpits, modern armaments, improved maintenance, improved reliabilty & safety and all the other things that are expected of modern military aircraft.  However, there'd be lower R&D and production costs because the programs would be more evolutionary than revolutionary; no big leaps forward (with BIG $$$ associated costs) just steady improvement.

Bryan