In fact, it was rated for a bombload of 20,100 lbs. But you still run into the problem of a supersonic low-level sprint drinking fuel like a college student at a frat party drinks beer.
AHC: TSR2/F111 class replacement.
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
Riain
Banned
In service the bomb bay of the F111 wasn't used for bombs a lot. By 1981 of the 24 RAAF F111C 4 had recon packs, 10 had Pave Tack and guns were often fitted. In the USAF all F111F had Pave Tack.
So 4 wing pylons on the Vigilante isn't a deal breaker, especially when the bomb tunnel carries extra fuel.
So 4 wing pylons on the Vigilante isn't a deal breaker, especially when the bomb tunnel carries extra fuel.
If we are talking genuinely alternate history aircraft, well you need a bit of snowball effect to make this one fly;
but I have a timeline where, amongst lots of other things the TSR2 doesn't quite live up to it's promise, being a fine airframe virtually paralysed by a hopeless kludgy mess of electronics, and the projected build run is cut short at four squadrons and an OTU's worth, tweaked and optimised as intruders- what the Americans would have called wild weasel - which means it needs replacing there and then as a theatre medium bomber.
The Royal Navy at this point has the Blackburn P.150 enlarged supersonic Buccaneer to play with, and wonderful fun it is too, but RFC Bomber Command just has to be different; and what they choose in the end is the Fairey Fencible B(I).1, effectively FD-IV, fifty- six thousand pounds dry weight, one hundred and forty- eight thousand maximum, 87ft length, 61ft span, two crew, twin- tailed canard delta built around two of the Olympus 622 engines originally developed for Concorde phase 2. Sixty-eight thousand pounds of fuel, twenty-four thousand pounds bombload on ninety thousand pounds dry thrust. Totally AH of course, but supercruising as the earlier 593 did that could be an 1800- mile strike radius, all of it at or above Mach 2. 'Baby Bombcorde' might really have been the way to go. Ah, well.
but I have a timeline where, amongst lots of other things the TSR2 doesn't quite live up to it's promise, being a fine airframe virtually paralysed by a hopeless kludgy mess of electronics, and the projected build run is cut short at four squadrons and an OTU's worth, tweaked and optimised as intruders- what the Americans would have called wild weasel - which means it needs replacing there and then as a theatre medium bomber.
The Royal Navy at this point has the Blackburn P.150 enlarged supersonic Buccaneer to play with, and wonderful fun it is too, but RFC Bomber Command just has to be different; and what they choose in the end is the Fairey Fencible B(I).1, effectively FD-IV, fifty- six thousand pounds dry weight, one hundred and forty- eight thousand maximum, 87ft length, 61ft span, two crew, twin- tailed canard delta built around two of the Olympus 622 engines originally developed for Concorde phase 2. Sixty-eight thousand pounds of fuel, twenty-four thousand pounds bombload on ninety thousand pounds dry thrust. Totally AH of course, but supercruising as the earlier 593 did that could be an 1800- mile strike radius, all of it at or above Mach 2. 'Baby Bombcorde' might really have been the way to go. Ah, well.
Why would this lead to anything but a TSR2 MKII batch......with potentiality a third with Tornado electronics later?
(I also questing intruder/wild weasel both in terms of descriptions and what it would be used for as RAF would not have anything nuclear delivery means with anything like as good range/speed)
Gods but it’s confusing trying to keep track of all the various configurations and proposed variants of the F-117 sometimes. Was the version on offer to the UK one of the ones with the bulged bomb bay do you know?
True, but that's gonna be the case for any aircraft. I can't imagine the A-5 Vigilante is any different than the F-4, which used the exact same GE J79 engines as the Vigilante.
Ah yes, the Bombcorde. The problem there is that adapting a commercial airliner for use as a bomb truck is not likely to be an easy task, and would surely be detrimental to the range of the Concorde.
Wouldn't the range be better than the original Concorde if it only uses it's "Mach 2" capability as a 'dash'?
I'm thinking it would double or even tripling it's range from Concorde's 3,900 nmls with a payload of 29,500lb
