AHC: TSR2/F111 class replacement.
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
Perhaps the British and French continue development of the SEPECAT Jaguar into something along the lines of a improved F111. I could see a decent export market in several countries. First and foremost in India. The Indians in OTL were by a margin the largest non Franco/ Anglo customer and user of the Jaguar. They seem to love the things and plan on using them for decades to come. Perhaps combine that with earlier Indian economic liberalization leading to a better Indian economy in the 70s and 80's. This ATL India would be flush with cash ( relative to OTL) and with tensions rising with Pakistan and China would be looking for a better long range strike craft.
SsgtC
Banned
AIUI, the US wanted foreign investment in developing the Raptor. But when no one was willing to pony up the money, they restricted the plane to US only. If Australia, the UK, Israel and say Canada are willing to pitch in on the development of the Raptor, that could mean far more F-22s in service and the development of the FB-22 as an Ardvaark and Strike Eagle replacement
The Jag was designed as a supersonic trainer (like the F5) with secondary attack capabilities. It evolved into a really good attack aircraft intended to do CAS and light strike duties. There is no way it could evolve into a long range strike aircraft, it would be much cheaper and easier to develop a brand new aircraft.
I was once told by an old RAF hand that the early versions of the JAG with any type of ordinance on it, took off only due to the curvature of the earth!
Riain
Banned
Just to give some perspective of how much range the F111 had, its internal fuel capacity was ~33,000lbs. The F15E with CFT is ~23,000lbs and the Tornado is ~11,000lbs.
Drop tanks aren't a panacea, nor is inflight tanking. Drop tank and associated pylon drag means only about half of the fuel in a drop tank is used to propel the plane forward, the rest is used to overcome the tank drag. IFR SOP is for a plane to hit the tanker with no more than 45% of fuel used in secure airspace, so that if tanking fails the plane can divert to home base like occured on many Black Buck missions. However if for some reason (fighters, SAMs, no airspace permission) the tanker can't loiter in this 45% sweet spot then the usefulness of IFR reduces.
Drop tanks aren't a panacea, nor is inflight tanking. Drop tank and associated pylon drag means only about half of the fuel in a drop tank is used to propel the plane forward, the rest is used to overcome the tank drag. IFR SOP is for a plane to hit the tanker with no more than 45% of fuel used in secure airspace, so that if tanking fails the plane can divert to home base like occured on many Black Buck missions. However if for some reason (fighters, SAMs, no airspace permission) the tanker can't loiter in this 45% sweet spot then the usefulness of IFR reduces.
It had problems with a lack of thrust which was addressed over time with modifications and development. It was however a very reliable air frame with excellent availability rates.
Oh totally but the early versions lack of power showing its legacy as a trainer
I remember as a boy watching one on the Tele take off from a motor way - grand stuff
Being in a Chipmunk when a Jag blows past can be a very moving experience if you haven't been paying attention to your surroundings.
AFVG was woefully underpowered given its 2 M45s (12600 lbf each on afterburner IMS) for what was projected to be actually lighter than the Tornado (40-50,000 lbs top weight for slightly over 61,000). If you are going to make it even bigger... well start by changing powerplant to something delivering useful amounts of power to boot.
For Anglo-French options what was the range of the Spey engined Mirage IV* ? Alternatively take Mirage 4000, remove the M53s put uprated RB.199s in place...
Riain
Banned
If the F15E is marginal then the M4000 is worse, keep in mind we're talking about something with an unrefueled radius of some 2000km. I have a lot of time for the Tornado, it's a very efficient aircraft at what it does, but it is a small aircraft which had to trade payload for range so with drop tanks only carries a pair of LBGs.
Below is the state of play in late 1963, the TSR2 and F111 both could do 1100-1600nm without drop tanks. These numbers have not been matched since in a tactical strike aircraft.
Below is the state of play in late 1963, the TSR2 and F111 both could do 1100-1600nm without drop tanks. These numbers have not been matched since in a tactical strike aircraft.
Last edited:
Oh totally it would have to be bigger (simply to carry enough internal fuel) and have more powerful engines!
I am suggesting that the project not end in 1967 and both nations efforts result in the OPs required aircraft - a 1000 km + capable bomber replacement for F111 etc
I don't think any 'paper' aircraft design ended up looking the same when it first flew
The US was never going to export the tech in the F22. The Japanese wanted in and was told to sod off as there were a lot of problems with tech-transfer with the F2 project, the suspicion was that the F22J would have had its stealth watered down in comparison to the F22A.
In 2000 you replace it with the F-15E because the cold war has ended. The nuclear strike capability that the F111 and TSR2 provided isn't a priority any more and the F-15E's decent enough at the conventional mission and doesn't cost a tonne of money to develop at a time when defence budgets are shrinking.
So, we assume that the French and the British are both looking for a similar aircraft to replace the Mirage IV and TSR.2. Arguably the Australians would be very interested in participation to supercede the F-111. The Cold War would have to continue beyond the early 1990s for such an aircraft to appear on the flightlines. In all cases in OTR these larger aircraft -or thir requirement- have all been replaced by smaller aircraft (Tornado IDS/Mirage 2000N/Super Hornet) and even the USAF has seen the F-111's role largely assumed by the F-15E. A lot of this is down to the end of the Cold War and what politicians liked to call the Peace Dividend.
Could the Dassault Super Mirage 4000, which first flew in 1979, have formed the basis of such an aircraft? It had Mach 2+ capability, could have carried over 17,000ib of stores and had a range of 1200 miles. Dassault was aiming it at Iran and Saudi Arabia as the French had no formal requirement, but as part of an Anglo-French project Dassault would have been involved, and may have used it as the basis of their proposal. The UK may have been willing to have gone along with it, and perhaps even developed an Air Defence Variant (ADV), assuming that there would have been no Tornado in this time line.
Could the Dassault Super Mirage 4000, which first flew in 1979, have formed the basis of such an aircraft? It had Mach 2+ capability, could have carried over 17,000ib of stores and had a range of 1200 miles. Dassault was aiming it at Iran and Saudi Arabia as the French had no formal requirement, but as part of an Anglo-French project Dassault would have been involved, and may have used it as the basis of their proposal. The UK may have been willing to have gone along with it, and perhaps even developed an Air Defence Variant (ADV), assuming that there would have been no Tornado in this time line.
F-15E with tanks. By the 2000s, guided weapons are common; you don't need 10 bombs to blow up 1 target, as in the start of F-111 era. And can even drop nukes.
SsgtC
Banned
That was a Japan specific issue though stemming from, as you mentioned, issues regarding tech transfer with the F2. OTOH, the US has less concerns regarding technology theft from the UK, Australia and Canada so would be more likely to sell the aircraft to them. (There are concerns with technology theft from Israel, so they may end up in the same boat as Japan).
