Not NACF but VFAX

[RLBH]

The U.S. Navy wanted the VFAX to be superior to the F-4J for the fighter role, and superior to the A-7E for attack roles. According to George Spagenberg, the aircraft to do this was estimated at about 50,000 pounds MTOW, with twin engines, twin seats and a variable-geometry wing.

With the F-111B down the pan for fleet air defence, they got the F-14 in that role, and the VFAX lost the "better" bit of the need, and was only intended to equal the Phantom and Corsair. Then Congress instructed them to use one of the Air Force ACF designs as a start point for the NACF, which replaced VFAX. This made the Navy's design requirements all but unattainable.

But suppose they got their own way, and the second (post-Tomcat) incarnation of VFAX was seen to completion. What options would the Navy have to fulfil the role, and what knock-on effects might we see?

As I see it, the main contenders are something like the F-14T (which the Navy would like lots, but costs almost as much as the F-14A), a navalised Tornado (not invented here), a navalised F-15, and a much-enlarged Northrop P530 with twin F100 engines. The latter sounds alarmingly like a Super Hornet, doesn't it...



Of course, these are all rather larger than the F-18 we all know, and some love. I can't see all the foreign Hornet users going for VFAX - and maybe some non-U.S. Eagle users might prefer the VFAX.

Ball's in your court.

[lenny100]

  already awating the build time is a mig 1.44 wich will have  swing wings and further changes to make it the next us navy  fighter      

[Archibald]

If I understand well...
At the beginning, the USN "heavy fighter" was to be a multirole aircraft. This mean the interceptor part (F-111B or Tomcat) + a ground attack role to replace the
A-7... this later part was postponed after the F-111B disaster, and later resurected with the F-18.
That's right, the Tomcat was very limited in the ground attack role (even in the bombcat role. The Tomcat would have become a viable fighter bomber only in the Tomcat 21 series, which were never built because of the superBug).

Why not trying the Mirage G ? Single-engine, TF-30, VG wing, multirole, and... american pilots testing it circa 1968!
If you need something heavier, you have the twin engine variant, the G8... which was build to be multirole (in fact it is very, very close to the Tornado, both beeing sons of the stillborn AFVG).

Now that's an idea : AFVG for the USN!
In 1967, the F-111B was in trouble... and the AFVG, too. After France withdrawn from the program, GB managed to keep on the project with... the USA! The M-45 were replaced by J-101s (later F-404s).
Two variants were planned (the plane was now named AUVG!)
- First had the AWG-9 and Phoenix
- Second had the F-111A radar and was to be used by both the USAF and USN (thanks to the weight limitation of the AFVG originally planned for the RN and Aeronavale)

The US and GB managed to interest Germany and Italy to the program (along with Canada, Netherlands and Belgium, which withdrawn quickly). The plane really become a world-beater...

[Archibald]

PS in this sceanrio, you have no Tomcat, no Tornado, and no Hornet!!!  

[Shasper]

IIRC Grumman did in fact design the F-14 with the idea of it being used as a mud mover. This idea came from the fact that the A-6 couldnt fly on forever.

Shas B)

[RLBH]

Archie, cracking idea on the AFVG for the USN. To my mind, most likely to be a BAC/Vought joint jobbie after the French pull out, assuming they do so. With concept definition 1967 or so, first flight is likely to be in 1973 or 1974, at a guess. Enough time between them that the USN can make sure it poses no threat to the Tomcat. And, adding the icing to the cake, the UKVG is about the right performance class for the job, too. Might be nice to have a little more thrust - F404 at the least, perhaps a proto-PW1120 or even F100.

So that we don't have the same engine core on both USN fighters, the Tomcat obviously has to get upgraded with a reheated TF41. If Rolls-Royce can be in on that, together with BAC playing a leading role in the Anglo-American Variable Geometry (AAVG) project, the British aircraft industry might get the Three-Eleven out and keep itself in existence.

The AAVG I can see being a good call for Canada, and possibly Australia. I don't see Germany and Italy jumping on the bandwagon, as they initially wanted a smaller aircraft than Tornado out of MRCA. There again, the AAVG is somewhat smaller than the Tornado anyway. I think we can safely assume the Saudis will purchase the AAVG instead of the Tornado ADV, and possibly also the F-15.

IIRC Grumman did in fact design the F-14 with the idea of it being used as a mud mover. This idea came from the fact that the A-6 couldnt fly on forever.

The weapons computer on the F-14A had all the software installed to give it A-7 class attack capability, but it was never utilised. I suspect the USN saw it as a threat to damn near everything they had on their carrier decks - probably doing a Super Hornet 30 years early. Use the F-14A/B to replace F-4, F-8, RA-5 and A-7 airframes, and the F-14C to replace A-6 airframes. I suppose someone could argue that the AWG-9 was sufficiently capable to permit them to replace the E-2, and, well, there's always a buddy pack, so who needs those EKA-3s?

Saying that, there is an argument that the F-18 should never have come into being, and the carrier air group been centred around the F-14, A-6 and A-7 instead. If that route is taken, I figure there might be an upgrade or two for the aircraft, rather than letting them fly until they disintegrate.

So many possibilities...

[tinlail]

I have never understood the navy's desire to put less capable aircraft on a carrier. There is no more expensive place to base a plane from, it should have planes worth the money.
I can see the logic in having air intercept and tactical bomber versions that were specialized for each role.

[Shasper]

While being able to have a mutli-role aircraft makes mission planning very flexible, it comes with the downside that it lack the exact precision of a specialised A/C. Granted that the F-4 and the 'Bug are good at what they do, but because their emphasis was on fleet defence first and strike second, they lack the terrain following radar that the A-6 has. So while having fewer different & specialized types does save $$$, you'll lose some capabilities that those specilized A/C have, and you might regret it too.

[tinlail]

I have never understood the navy's desire to put less capable aircraft on a carrier. There is no more expensive place to base a plane from, it should have planes worth the money.
I can see the logic in having air intercept and tactical bomber versions that were specialized for each role.

I should add on to that post, I sort of drop out some thoughts.

I could see having both air intercept and tactical bomber versions of the F-14, with a little bit of overlap much like the current F-15 airframe. I see no reason to have planes like the f-16 and f-18 that seem to have the goal of filling the stables.  

[Archibald]

I don't see Germany and Italy jumping on the bandwagon, as they initially wanted a smaller aircraft than Tornado out of MRCA

Now that's interesting! This left France dear friend - Germany- free for a cooperation! So Germany, what do you want as fighter bomber or long range strike ?
- upgraded Mirage IV ?
- Mirage F1E?
- Mirage G8?
- ACF ?
- 4000 ?
- 2000 ?
It's up to you !!!  B)  

[RLBH]

I don't see Germany and Italy jumping on the bandwagon, as they initially wanted a smaller aircraft than Tornado out of MRCA

Now that's interesting! This left France dear friend - Germany- free for a cooperation! So Germany, what do you want as fighter bomber or long range strike ?
- upgraded Mirage IV ?
- Mirage F1E?
- Mirage G8?
- ACF ?
- 4000 ?
- 2000 ?
It's up to you !!!  B)

Or:

F-16 (which may actually be F-17 in this timeline)
CL-1200
Jaguar
A-7

[Archibald]

Something very cool would be a CTOL variant of the VJ-101 to have a mach2 german fighter