AHC: The F-4 Phantom is never designed

[Zheng He]

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.

I don't agree, the USAF did a fly off between the F4H and the F-106 in 1962 (Operation Highspeed) in which the F4H won hands down. Further evaluations showed the F4H to be superior to the F-105 as an attack aircraft and superior to the RF-101 as a recce platform. So the Air Force moved forward with the acquisition of the F-110 Spectre/F-4 Phantom.

Bottomline - jazz up Century Series fighters all you want, the F-4 was simply a superior combat aircraft across the board. However, without the F-4, the Air Force has nothing to evaluate the Century Series fighters against and so it probably soldiers on through the 1960s with Century Series fighters until a combination of combat results in Vietnam and the rise of the fighter mafia (probably even more pronounced that it was OTL) push the Air Force to develop something better which will ultimately lead to F-15 and F-16 type airframes.

 

[USN vet]

Interesting discussion, which is what I wanted. I agree that the F-106 probably would have seen expanded service. Also, the poor exchange rate during Vietnam had little to do with the aircraft themselves, except perhaps for their lack of an internal gun, and over reliance on missile systems before they had really matured enough.

 

[Zheng He]

Interesting discussion, which is what I wanted. I agree that the F-106 probably would have seen expanded service. Also, the poor exchange rate during Vietnam had little to do with the aircraft themselves, except perhaps for their lack of an internal gun, and over reliance on missile systems before they had really matured enough.

Even on the gun equipped fighters though there were only a few guns kills. F-8 Crusaders shot down 18 MiGs in the Vietnam War and only three kills were guns kills.

Interesting that Steve Ritchie got all five of his kills with Sparrows. I read that he was tight with the weapons maintenance troops and they would help him hand pick his missiles before every mission.

 

[bsmart]

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.

Being a comm/nav/ecm tech on the F-15 in 1 TFW in the early days I remember the 'not a pound of air to ground' and while that was the mantra and the pilots and load crews loved it there were manuals for the loading and use of air to ground ordinance written and available. They were just not distributed or trained with because at the time there was no need to do so. Once the new 'smart weapons' came along the concept of 'Strike Eagle' blossomed.

I don't see the F-5 as having any hope to be a general purpose aircraft with the USAF. Just doesn't have enough range or flexibility. I wonder if the F-104G would have ended up as a general issue fighter/attack plane. (I can here the gasps out there)

It was being built as the 'NATO standard' so it would have provided commonality with the European allies. in USAF service it would not have had as much of a problem with less experienced pilots that it did in the recently reconstituted Luftwaffe.

Another choice I see as a possibility would be an F-8 or derivative. Maybe not the A-7, but something similar. I could see the USAF wanting to retain the supersonic performance of the F-8 but adding more external stores capacity. Maybe using the J-75 engine that the XF8U-3 used instead of the J-57.

While I see the F-105 staying in production longer and picking up more of the deep strike role It wasn't going to handle Air to Air.

 

[Zheng He]

Being a comm/nav/ecm tech on the F-15 in 1 TFW in the early days I remember the 'not a pound of air to ground' and while that was the mantra and the pilots and load crews loved it there were manuals for the loading and use of air to ground ordinance written and available. They were just not distributed or trained with because at the time there was no need to do so. Once the new 'smart weapons' came along the concept of 'Strike Eagle' blossomed.

I don't see the F-5 as having any hope to be a general purpose aircraft with the USAF. Just doesn't have enough range or flexibility. I wonder if the F-104G would have ended up as a general issue fighter/attack plane. (I can here the gasps out there)

It was being built as the 'NATO standard' so it would have provided commonality with the European allies. in USAF service it would not have had as much of a problem with less experienced pilots that it did in the recently reconstituted Luftwaffe.

Another choice I see as a possibility would be an F-8 or derivative. Maybe not the A-7, but something similar. I could see the USAF wanting to retain the supersonic performance of the F-8 but adding more external stores capacity. Maybe using the J-75 engine that the XF8U-3 used instead of the J-57.

While I see the F-105 staying in production longer and picking up more of the deep strike role It wasn't going to handle Air to Air.

Might have seen something like the A-7K a lot earlier. That was an A-7 upgrade program in the 1980s that was going to fit an afterburning engine on the A-7 but it got axed in 1990 like a lot of other program for obvious reasons.

 

[bsmart]

Interesting discussion, which is what I wanted. I agree that the F-106 probably would have seen expanded service. Also, the poor exchange rate during Vietnam had little to do with the aircraft themselves, except perhaps for their lack of an internal gun, and over reliance on missile systems before they had really matured enough.

There were studies and tests of mounting an M-61 on the F-106 using space dedicated to the internal missile bays. I would have to dig up some books I think I have in storage to provide details.

 

[bsmart]

Might have seen something like the A-7K a lot earlier. That was an A-7 upgrade program in the 1980s that was going to fit an afterburning engine on the A-7 but it got axed in 1990 like a lot of other program for obvious reasons.

Remember the timeline though. If there is no F-4 we need to be looking at a late 50s early 60s design. Even the F-15 and A-10 came about based on experience in Vietnam and plans for the Red Horde attacking Europe in the 70s & 80s.

As an F-4 replacement we need something that could be deployed in the mid 60s at the latest. Even if you keep the F-100 in production as the main fighter longer there is a big gap without the F-4. Even the A-7 was initially seen (at least by the Air Force) as a quick short term gap filler until the ultimate Air to Ground platform (A-9/A-10) was deployed and even then it was never seen as a survivable platform in the high intensity European environment.

 

[Andras]

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.

Is having the F-4 stay with the original Attack design (AH-1) allowed?
Small radar, single seat, 4x 20mm cannon.

 

[bsmart]

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.

Maybe North American develops an F-100 derivative with better radar, maybe based on the F-107 to follow the F-100 into production.

 

[AdA]

There were studies and tests of mounting an M-61 on the F-106 using space dedicated to the internal missile bays. I would have to dig up some books I think I have in storage to provide details.

All F106 were equipped with a 20mm Vulcan in a belly fit in one of the weapon bays as part of the "project six shooter" upgrade. And all reports I've read claimed the F106 beat early model F4s in air combat exercises easily.

Check the six site I posted earlier.

 

[Delta Force]

Is having the F-4 stay with the original Attack design (AH-1) allowed?
Small radar, single seat, 4x 20mm cannon.

AH is an attack helicopter designation. It would be given the A-6 or A-7 designation.

 

[bsmart]

AH is an attack helicopter designation. It would be given the A-6 or A-7 designation.

Not back in the 50s AH-1 was under the old Navy system
A - Primary mission Attack
H - manufacturer McDonnell
-1 - First variant

Under the combined system it may have endd up with the A-5 or A-6 desigantion
The A-5 began life as the A3J and the A-6 was born as the A2F

 

[Andras]

McD AH-1

 

[Zheng He]

Remember the timeline though. If there is no F-4 we need to be looking at a late 50s early 60s design. Even the F-15 and A-10 came about based on experience in Vietnam and plans for the Red Horde attacking Europe in the 70s & 80s.

As an F-4 replacement we need something that could be deployed in the mid 60s at the latest. Even if you keep the F-100 in production as the main fighter longer there is a big gap without the F-4. Even the A-7 was initially seen (at least by the Air Force) as a quick short term gap filler until the ultimate Air to Ground platform (A-9/A-10) was deployed and even then it was never seen as a survivable platform in the high intensity European environment.

But with no F-4 to evaluate against the USAF's Century Series fighters in 1962, does the USAF realize that the Century Series fighters aren't what it needs? I'm not sure they do and by the time they realize it, they are already looking at what would become the F-15 (contract for that was awarded in December 1969). IMWO it is very possible that with no F-4 the USAF would stumble into Vietnam with the Century Series (which it did anyhow) and make do with what it had while lessons learned and the fighter mafia push for something a lot better which results in the F-15 and then the F-16. In other words, with no F-4 the USAF may end up "skipping a generation."

 

[Delta Force]

Not back in the 50s AH-1 was under the old Navy system
A - Primary mission Attack
H - manufacturer McDonnell
-1 - First variant

Under the combined system it may have endd up with the A-5 or A-6 desigantion
The A-5 began life as the A3J and the A-6 was born as the A2F

That's why the pre-1962 designation systems were such a mess.

 

[SactoMan101]

In the end, if there was no F-4 Phantom, the US Navy would be flying the F8U-3 Super Crusader--and the USAF would have bought the plane, too. And by the middle 1970's, an improved engine about the same size as the J75 but with P&W F100 technology would have upped the maximum thrust with afterburner to 35,000 lb, improving the climb rate and maximum speed of the plane.

 

[bsmart]

I just had another possible idea.

The F5D Skylancer lost out to the F8U in the mid 50s. The decision was seen to be as much political as technical. At the time Douglas had a large number of navy contracts already. This was not uncommon at the time as the DOD tried to balance contracts between companies.

There were also plans to replace the J-57 in the F5D to the more powerful J-79 in a later variant.

So what if the J-79 powered version was developed to compete against the XF8U-3 in the competition that the XF4H was also developed for? I dub this variant the F6D Skyflash in keeping with the Douglas naming scheme of the time.