Crusader and Tomcat...

[Cartman]

Made a typo.  That is F-35C, not the B.  The F-35B is the STOVL model that the Marines and Royal Navy is interested in.

[Archibald]

I'm glad you enjoyed this thread, Eric! I was surprised to see that the G-303 (project who led directly to the tomcat) dated back from late 1965! This mean that they lost 2 and half years...(just love the word "moronic" I suppose it comes from the spanish moron, Ie dong or poo-poo.). A F-14 available some years earlier would surely have cut the last Phantoms orders, you're right!
But be careful, despite its defaults, the F-111 was much better in ground attack than the Tomcat (more range, internal weapon bay...). To my mind, we can also save the F-111 with the TF-306E (or the TF-41). Of course, it is still produced in limited numbers for the USAF. And the A-7 is still usefull, too, as pure attack plane to replace the Skyhawk...  

[Cartman]

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2006/cvw8/cvw8.htm

Check out the website above.

Had the Navy's F-14 been put into USAF service, thus the FX program never coming to being, the Tomcats extensive maintenance issues would still need to be addressed.

A land based Tomcat would still have ultimately replaced the F-111.  The F-15E Strike Eagle has replaced the F-111.  So its conceivable that an Air Force F-14 "bombcat" variant could have filled the same niche.

It is also conceivable that the Air Force might have sought a simplified Tomcat, and many foreign governments (bear in mind this is a world that there is no F-15) would want the same.

The AWG-9/AIM-54 combination would be deleted to reduce cost.

Or Grumman just rip up the plans and just simplify the Tomcat design that reduces the number of parts that in turn reduce the cost of manufacturing.

Another thought is lets suppose, the U.S. Navy is allowed to pursue its VFAX program and this time does not have to rely on either the YF-16 or YF-17.

The Tomcat is still expensive and can not be afforded in numbers to replace all the aging F-4 and A-7 aircraft in USN/USMC service.

Lets suppose with the USAF pressed into buying the "saltwater" Tomcat, preliminary studies of the FX program were just shelved by McDonnell Douglas, BUT than in response to the Navy's VFAX requirement, McAir modifies its original FX to suit the VFAX requirement.

The Navy selects the McDonnell Douglas VFAX design as the winner.  It looks like the F-15 we know today, but has folding wings, and is navalized, hence the F-15 Sea Eagle!  The Sea Eagle has none of the growth limitations and fuel fraction issues that the Hornet we know today has.  This whatif Sea Eagle is what the Super Hornet ought to be, but has superior upper performance.

Unless Canada hasn't bought Tomcats already, its conceivable that Canada might have bought the F-15 Sea Eagle.  Australia might have bought the F-15 if it gone with the F-111 earlier.

The USAF if still fed up with the Tomcat's high maintenance ordered a land based variant of the Navy Sea Eagle.

[Archibald]

Just for the fun... following the path of the F-14B, we can imagine the following history.
In 1971, the USN and Grumman understood that the TF-30 powered tomcat was a lost cause. Engine stalls and flammeouts led to the crash of three prototypes. Better engine was needed, but the USN hesitated between the French TF-306E (improved TF-30) and the Allison TF-41.
Two F-14A prototypes were modified with the two engines.
The TF-306E was named F-14B, and the TF-41 was the F-14C.
The TF-41 was chosen, and production of the F-14C started in 1974 for Iran. After 180 planes built, the F-14D flew in 1978 with the F-401 engine. It replaced the F-14C on the production line...  

[elmayerle]

I rather suspect the F401 would've had a rather drawn-out gestation toward becoming a good, robust, engine.  It shared a common high-pressure core with the F100 and would've been susceptible to the same problems that bedeviled the F100 during the 1970s - and that led to the development of the F101DFE/F110.  It should be noted that the F110 drew on experience and knowledge gained on the F404.  Absent the F/A-18 as we know it, I can still see something being developed with the F404 for propulsion since the plant responsible for it is located in what was a very politically powerful area in the 1970s ("Tip" O'Neill's district and Teddy Kennedy's state).

[Archibald]

I didn't know that the F-100 had many problems in the 70's. Was there an influence over B-1, F-15 and F-16 programs? what kind of problems exactly?
Well, if the F-100 had some problems, I understand better why the F-401 ended in failure... Thought it was because of Navy requirement.

What an irony... the F-404 (derivative of the scorned YJ-101 and engine of the so much criticized F-18 Hornet) "saved" the F-15 and F-16 engine!
This mean that the less troublesome engine of the 70's was the F-404 ?  

[elmayerle]

The F100 met all the requirements the USAF set for it, but what the pilots actually did with the aircraft operationally was rather beyond what the writers of the RFP had foreseen.  It took P&W a while to fully debug the engine to meet the actual operational environment it would see.  The F401 had different fan, l-p compresor, and l-p turbine from the F100.  The proximate cause of the F401's cancellation was when P&W brought two in from the test stands, in one week, with the remains in bushel baskets; in one case, they encountered a vibratory resonance they hadn't expected and were able to easily design out while the other case was a manufacturing error that led to extreme stress concentrations (.001 inch radius from disk to rim rather than the specified .01 inch radius specified on the drawing for the second-stage turbine disk).

The B-1's F101 and the F404, as well as the YJ101, all stem from the same technology demonstrator series (GE1) and share a lot.  It was easy, therefore to mix scaled-up bits of the F404 with bits of the F101 to produce the F101DFE/F110.  To teh best of my knowledge, the GE engines in this series have been generally more reliable and robust than the P&W engines, though P&W eventually did "get it together".

[Shasper]

Which is why I prefer GE over P&W.

Shas B)

[Archibald]

thanks for the explanations...
I'm asking if the F-401 would have been necessary had the tomcat been powered by the TF-41 ? In other words, could the tomcat end its career with the Allison
F-41? (enough growth potential in the allison engine...)
Well, in real life, a big part of the Tomcat fleet stayed with the TF-30 to the end (salvo the few F-14A+ and D) so why not?
Maybe the best way of having a valuable engine on the Tomcat would have been something like TF-41 from 1970 to the late 80's, then the F-110 (F-14D).

Maybe the F-111 career would have been better with the TF-41, too? longer life (no F-15E in the end)

[Shasper]

Actualy Arch, most of the F-14 fleet at retirement were the B (formerly A+). Only 4 sqns were operating A modems when they started converting over to SBugs (VF-14,41,154 and 211 IIRC), the rest were B equipped save the 3 D sqns (VF-2,31, and 213)

Shas B)

[elmayerle]

Well, I can see the initial production Tomcats being converted to TF41s but somewhere along the way there would have to be an engine upgrade as the TF41 is a generation of technology behind the F100, F101, F404, and F110.  Most likely, the F101DFE/F110 would still have come about.  IMHO, if someone had taken a rational approach to the F-14s engines after rep. Aspin led the 1974 effort to kill the F401 ("The TF30 is good enough!!" - though four years later, because of accidents due to engine problems, he was saying "The Navy bought a "Turkey", not a "Tomcat" !" and neither acknowledged or accepted any blame for the situation), there'd have been an effort started then to develop a new engine drived from the B-1's engine instead of waiting some four years.

If I sound somewhat bitter about the cancellation of the F401 and what stemmed from it, part of it is just disgust at the F-14 losses that could've been prevented  - and the mealy-mouthed pol responsible - while the other part is personal, the cancellation of the F401 caused my layoff from P&W in Florida and I was unemployed for some eight months in 1975.

[Gary F]

Going back to the Crusader, does anyone have pics of the proposed F-8 with J-79 or F-100 engines, notably what the intakes might have looked like?

[Archibald]

That mean that the bulk of the fleet (TF-30 powered, A models) had been progressively retired in the 90's I suppose (remember reading an article from 1995 saying that the tomcat fleet had started diminishing).
Had the cold war not ended in 1991, probably much more F-110 powered tomcats would have been produced (or converted).
concerning Tomcat losses, the Iranians (Shah pilots, I mean, before the information blackout) were quite angry, too. The TF-30 cost them some crews and planes. Remember reading in le Fana (april 2004) how an engine stall ocurred in dogfight against MiGs... The pilot had to shut the engine and start a recovery manoeuver. Fortunately Iraqis pilots were too bad to enjoy the situation...

J-79 Crusader sounds so logical, end of the 50's... I heard that J-57 crusaders were produced until the early 60's. A pity Vought couldn't shift to the J-79 at a moment... with this engine, the Crusader would have reach mach 2 and improved its combat efficiency... which was the better of all the american fighters in vietnam, even with the J-57!!!
A J-79 Crusader would have THE solution against MiGs in Vietnam (better than a
F-104 or a Phantom!!)

[elmayerle]

Going back to the Crusader, does anyone have pics of the proposed F-8 with J-79 or F-100 engines, notably what the intakes might have looked like?

The Vought V-1000 is the J79-powered Crusader and the only visual difference would be that it didn't have the variable incidence wing and it would have the J79 nozzle instead of the J57 nozzle in the tail section.

[Archibald]

I'm asking if the V-1000 and the British version (by short) could have been produced in paralel (mid 60's ?)
V-1000 would have a cheap interceptor with proven technologies, and the Short Crusader GR.1, a multirole fighter... Add the A-7 to the list, and you have Vought in a better position for the long-term.