AHC: The F-4 Phantom is never designed

[USN vet]

What would be the effect on fighter development? The USN was testing the Super Crusader, or they could have gone another direction.

The USAF and export orders are the big question. The Century series fighters were all very specialized. The F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-106 were all interceptors, and the F-105 was a tactical bomber. The F-100 did well in the role of a multi function fighter bomber, but by the late 1950's it was limited by its lack of a radar and modern avionics.

 

[Delta Force]

What would be the effect on fighter development? The USN was testing the Super Crusader, or they could have gone another direction.

The Grumman Super Tiger is another option for the USN. If you mean where that leaves USN tactical strike, the A-6 Intruder might see additional orders.

The USAF and export orders are the big question. The Century series fighters were all very specialized. The F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-106 were all interceptors, and the F-105 was a tactical bomber. The F-100 did well in the role of a multi function fighter bomber, but by the late 1950's it was limited by its lack of a radar and modern avionics.

The Republic F-105 was proposed as an interceptor for Canada, but I think it would probably remain a strike fighter. The F-106 might branch out, as proposals for a multirole variant were considered in the early 1960s before McNamara made the USAF adopt the F-4.

If the F-106 sees wider service, the AIM-4 might be more fully developed as a dogfighting missile. The internal bays were designed with it in mind, so they can't substitute AIM-9 missiles. If the AIM-4 can be brought up to par with the AIM-9, the F-106 might have more dogfighting potential than the F-4.

 

[NothingNow]

The F-101 was produced in a couple different variants. It's pretty much the only natively multi-role century-series design.
The F-101A/C was a fighter-bomber for TAC, the F-101B was a dedicated interceptor, and then Recon versions of both models were also built.

If the F-106 sees wider service, the AIM-4 might be more fully developed as a dogfighting missile. The internal bays were designed with it in mind, so they can't substitute AIM-9 missiles. If the AIM-4 can be brought up to par with the AIM-9, the F-106 might have more dogfighting potential than the F-4.

The AIM-9 can fit in an F-106's missile bays, but it'd be a fairly major redesign of the launch system. It could probably be snuck in as part of the F-106E/F redesign program. Along with possibly using the underwing hardpoints to mount more ordinance instead of just drop tanks, and giving it an internal gun.

Given a Thrust-vectoring nozzle and the AIM-9's guidance system, the AIM-4 could be made into a (barely) passable dogfighting AAM.

But yeah, turning the F-106 into a Viggen or Mirage III clone is probably a decent choice.

 

[Zheng He]

The F-106 was actually a pretty maneuverable fighter for something designed to be a high altitude interceptor. I think the Navy looked into it for their aggressor squadrons and I know in the USAF, F-4 pilots who had had the opportunity to engage F-106s in mock dogfights felt better prepared when they went to Vietnam (before the establishment of formal DACT).

Not sure where fighter design goes after that but I concur the F-106 would have seen more development.

That said, we probably still would have seen designs along the lines of the F-15 and F-16 between fear of the MiG-25 and a desire by the fighter mafia to develop planes optimized for fighter vs. fighter combat from the start. Even without the F-4 our fighter pilots in Vietnam would have been flying something that was not designed for fighter vs. fighter combat so their would have been similar lessons learned.

 

[Delta Force]

The AIM-9 can fit in an F-106's missile bays, but it'd be a fairly major redesign of the launch system. It could probably be snuck in as part of the F-106E/F redesign program. Along with possibly using the underwing hardpoints to mount more ordinance instead of just drop tanks, and giving it an internal gun.

Given a Thrust-vectoring nozzle and the AIM-9's guidance system, the AIM-4 could be made into a (barely) passable dogfighting AAM.

But yeah, turning the F-106 into a Viggen or Mirage III clone is probably a decent choice.

I looked at AIM-9 internal carriage on the F-106 once, and it looks like its not possible to carry four of them as a one for one replacement of the AIM-4. At one point in the 1960s the USAF was considering development of a new seeker and other improvements on the AIM-4, but they had already decided to "provisionally" use the AIM-9. Eventually the USAF just went with the AIM-9, since the F-106 was the only aircraft they planned on keeping that would have an orphaned weapons system, and it was an interceptor anyways. They decided they would rather spend money on developing the AIM-82 than on making the AIM-4 do what the AIM-9 already could.

 

[Zheng He]

One thing that is interesting to think about is the impact on USAF tactical strike developments. The F-4's great strength is that it truly was the jack of all trades and it literally did everything fairly well.

While jazzed up versions of various Century Series fighters like the F-106 probably could have covered the F-4 in the air-to-air role just fine, none of them could have filled the bill in the various air-to-mud roles (including SEAD) that the F-4 performed admirably into the early 1990s.

Assuming the Air Force still develops something like the F-15 (highly likely IMWO), would we have seen air-to-mud capabilities added to the F-15 much earlier than the development of the specialized F-15E variant that we got OTL, cries of "Not a Pound for Air-to-Ground" from the Fighter Mafia not withstanding.

 

[bsmart]

Remember the F-4C and F-4D originally were fitted to use the AIM4 by the USAF. When they actually tried to use them there was a rework program to use the AIM9 instead. The primary reason was the cost of the AIM4s from Hughes. It was a very complex financial agreement that made it cheap to carry and train with the missiles but expensive when you actually used one.

The other disadvantage of the F-106 was that it was very tightly coupled to the SAGE system and as a forward deployed system would need extensive new avionics that would have overstressed a single man crew in that era of electronics.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the real competitor to the early F4 - The F8 Crusader, especially the XF8U-3 which was developed to compete against the F4H-1.

 

[NothingNow]

I looked at AIM-9 internal carriage on the F-106 once, and it looks like its not possible to carry four of them as a one for one replacement of the AIM-4. At one point in the 1960s the USAF was considering development of a new seeker and other improvements on the AIM-4, but they had already decided to "provisionally" use the AIM-9. Eventually the USAF just went with the AIM-9, since the F-106 was the only aircraft they planned on keeping that would have an orphaned weapons system, and it was an interceptor anyways. They decided they would rather spend money on developing the AIM-82 than on making the AIM-4 do what the AIM-9 already could.

Yeah, but remember, four to five AAMs was actually a pretty hefty load at the time.
The initial Mirage IIICs could only carry two Magic R550s and a Magic R530.

It's not that bad a trade off given the higher hit percentage of the AIM-9 anyway. Plus there's the option of external carriage on the outer pylons of the F-106, which would still impose a performance penalty, but not that much of one, since it can still carry a decent load internally, or swap it out for an avionics bay without a massive rebuild.

The other disadvantage of the F-106 was that it was very tightly coupled to the SAGE system and as a forward deployed system would need extensive new avionics that would have overstressed a single man crew in that era of electronics.

Which was already dealt with in the F-106E/F proposal, and it wouldn't be that hard given that it was apparently doable on both the Mirage IIIC and the Viggen.

As for air to ground work, there's always the option of building more F-105s, or another supersonic tactical bomber.

 

[Simon]

While jazzed up versions of various Century Series fighters like the F-106 probably could have covered the F-4 in the air-to-air role just fine, none of them could have filled the bill in the various air-to-mud roles (including SEAD) that the F-4 performed admirably into the early 1990s.

Well the Navy used the A-6 Intruder, aka. The B, for defence suppression and it came into service only a couple of years after the F-4 Phantom so you might see the Air Force use it as well.

 

[Riain]

The USAF was the worlds biggest or second biggest fighter customer in the early 60s. They would just develop something that they wanted rather than having to extend the lives of century series fighters designed in the 50s. Surely there would be fighter proposals, concepts and designs from the early 60s from several of the large aviation manufacturers.

 

[AdA]

F106 follow on models

no Phantom would leave room for the USAF to merge this two F106 follow on models (advanced interceptor and export multirole) into one advanced multirole aircraft.

From: http://www.f-106deltadart.com/history.htm
F-106E/F Models
On 9 February 1968, the Defense Department announced they were not going to purchase the Lockheed F-12A interceptor (later the SR-71), opting instead to remain with the F-106 as the primary interceptor to protect the continental USA from air attack.

On 3 September 1968, Convair issued a proposal for an "improved" interceptor that was to be designated F-106E/F. It was to be compatible with the upcoming airborne warning and control systems as well as with the over the horizon radar defense network. The F-106E/F would have had a longer lose, with a new and improved radar with a "look-down/shoot-down" tracking and missile launch capability. It would also have had a two-way UHF voice and datalink radio. It would be capable of launching both nuclear and non-nuclear missiles, including the AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon and the AIM-47. Unfortunately for Convair, this project never got off the drawing board.

Foreign Customers
The Delta Dart was never exported to foreign air forces. A pair of F-106's were displayed at the 25th Paris Air Show in June of 1963, but no customers were forthcoming. Convair tried to interest Canada in a Canadian version-not merely as in interceptor but also for the strike role. Nothing ever came of this idea. There were also plans for F-106 final assembly and production in Germany, but these plans never reached fruition. There was a proposal for an F-106 version for Japan with an MG-10 fire control system (the same one that was fitted to the F-102A Delta Dagger) and six Super Falcon missiles. It was also to have ground-attack capability, with a pair of pylons underneath each wing capable of carrying bombs or fuel tanks. The Japanese sale never took place and several years later Japan undertook manufacture of the F-4EJ Phantom.

 

[Just Leo]

Potential alternatives to foreplaning the six.

 

[Delta Force]

The North American A-5 Vigilante is an interesting aircraft. I wonder what kind of potential it might have had as an interceptor or even a nuclear attack aircraft (its original role). The unusual linear bomb bay is an issue, but perhaps it might have done better if it had been designed with a conventional bay or had the void converted to an integral fuel tank, as opposed to a jettisonable one.

 

[Zheng He]

Well the Navy used the A-6 Intruder, aka. The B, for defence suppression and it came into service only a couple of years after the F-4 Phantom so you might see the Air Force use it as well.

Highly unlikely that the fighter jocks who run the US Air Force will show any interest in that ugly @$$ thing. It was hard enough getting them to swallow the A-10 and they've been trying to get rid of it ever since. Plus, while it was a fine attack aircraft it lacks the Phantom's multi-role capability which was the F-4s true calling card.

Without the F-4, the USAF probably deals with the whole issue of its evolving fighter fleet in a number of ways:

1. Modifications of various century series designs but that is really only a short term fix given the limitations on the designs. Most long lasting aspect of this option is modernized F-106s serving as the primary interceptor in the Air National Guard much longer.

2. Possible increased production of the F-111 and/or modifications to existing F-111s to carry out other missions such as recce and SEAD although this has its limitations as well given the F-111 cannot serve as a fighter.

3. Earlier modifications of the F-15 or whatever F-15 type aircraft is designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s for air-to-ground missions.

4. Acquisition of the F-5 beyond the aggressor role by the USAF for light fighter and light attack duties as a gap filler until the F-16 comes along.

Regardless, F-4 or no F-4 - Boyd and Fighter Mafia will still have their impact on USAF fighter design and acquisitions into the 1970s so you will still see F-15 and F-16 type aircraft in the pipeline.

 

[Just Leo]

The unusual linear bomb bay is an issue, but perhaps it might have done better if it had been designed with a conventional bay or had the void converted to an integral fuel tank, as opposed to a jettisonable one.

The rotating weapons dispenser from the stillborne F-108 Rapier, weapons stores utilizing the recon pod externally on centerline, plus the four existing underwing stores stations are alternatives to a more fundamental and conventional redesign.

 

[NothingNow]

1. Modifications of various century series designs but that is really only a short term fix given the limitations on the designs. Most long lasting aspect of this option is modernized F-106s serving as the primary interceptor in the Air National Guard much longer.

Yep, the F-106 is the best of the bunch there, and could make for a decent interceptor into the late 80's if it were separated from SAGE.

2. Possible increased production of the F-111 and/or modifications to existing F-111s to carry out other missions such as recce and SEAD although this has its limitations as well given the F-111 cannot serve as a fighter.

This is fine. It's a perfectly acceptable design for most Tactical strike roles, provided some care is made to fix it's issues.
It's also a better platform for SEAD ops than anything else the USAF would have save the F-5F, which would have trouble with carrying a load of AGM-45 and AGM-78 ARMs.

3. Earlier modifications of the F-15 or whatever F-15 type aircraft is designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s for air-to-ground missions.

So the Lightweight Fighter program would likely be for a cheap multirole design in the first place. That's not too bad.
There'd probably be something comparable in performance to the Mirage F1 and SAAB 37 Viggen than the initial F-16s then.

4. Acquisition of the F-5 beyond the aggressor role by the USAF for light fighter and light attack duties as a gap filler until the F-16 comes along.

Yep. The Fighter Mafia would love that thing. It'd likely be a workhorse along with the A-7 until the next generation Lightweight Fighter is ready, and well afterward given it's usefulness as a DACT platform.

 

[Zheng He]

Yep, the F-106 is the best of the bunch there, and could make for a decent interceptor into the late 80's if it were separated from SAGE.


This is fine. It's a perfectly acceptable design for most Tactical strike roles, provided some care is made to fix it's issues.
It's also a better platform for SEAD ops than anything else the USAF would have save the F-5F, which would have trouble with carrying a load of AGM-45 and AGM-78 ARMs.


So the Lightweight Fighter program would likely be for a cheap multirole design in the first place. That's not too bad.
There'd probably be something comparable in performance to the Mirage F1 and SAAB 37 Viggen than the initial F-16s then.


Yep. The Fighter Mafia would love that thing. It'd likely be a workhorse along with the A-7 until the next generation Lightweight Fighter is ready, and well afterward given it's usefulness as a DACT platform.

Not sure how much the Fighter Mafia liked the F-5. It existed during the days of their ascendency and they didn't see to advocate too heavily for it other than as an aggressor fighter. The F-5 was the poster child for the Defense Reformers of the 1980s.

The Lightweight Fighter competition was for a cheap multi-role aircraft OTL. The F-16A was supposed to do air-to-air and air-to-ground from the start, unlike the F-15 which was "Not a Pound for Air-to-Ground." My thinking is that without the F-4, we would have seen some air-to-mud capability integrated on to the F-15 much earlier than the F-15E which did not achieve IOC until 1989. I think the USAF would have wanted something that could haul more bombs than an F-16 but was not as complex as the F-111. I also think that without the F-4 there would not have been such a violent reaction against the "jack of all trades" which is what the F-4 became and which drove the design theories behind the F-15. Just my theory though.

 

[Zheng He]

BTW, if anybody wants a good read on USAF fighter developments in the 1970s and early 1980s, check this book out. It is an easy read and it can be downloaded for free, and it was written by somebody who lived it:

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100929-043.pdf

 

[Riain]

The F4 was foisted onto the USAF in 1962, at that time SAC bomber Generals controlled the USAF. Boyd's fighter mafia didn't gain a voice until the late 60s, after the poor exchange rate in air to air combat in Vietnam. The question is what aircraft will the USAF use in the mid-late 60s and I seriously doubt they'd be using any century series fighter, they'd buy some new design from the early 60s.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Boyd's fighter mafia didn't gain a voice until the late 60s, after the poor exchange rate in air to air combat in Vietnam.

Although that poor exchange rate in air to air was due more to the lack of training in air combat (especially training against aggressor aircraft emulating the abilities of the fighters and the Soviet-style tactics the NV used) and over-reliance on missiles than of the aircraft themselves. Things got better after the 2 deficiencies were addressed.