Obviously the F-15E is a better multi-role platform than the F-111 but for deep strike, the USAF lost range and payload when they retired the 111s in the 1990s.
AHC: TSR2/F111 class replacement.
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
Obviously the F-15E is a better multi-role platform than the F-111 but for deep strike, the USAF lost range and payload when they retired the 111s in the 1990s.
Yes it was.
It was offered to the UK in 1986 and again in 1995.
There was also a proposal for a carrier based version of the F-117.
F-117 and Mirage 4000 don’t have the legs. Combat range is a very different animal compared to combat radius.
I should also note a lot of this will depend on what flight profile you want. If you stick at high altitude the whole flight range jumps massively.
But you want a tactical aircraft post-1964 that I know for a fact can pull this off? A-6F. The A-6E can just barely crack a combat radius of 1000 nautical miles in a Hi-Hi-Hi flight profile, 3 external tanks, and 6 1000-lb bombs. The A-6F, with two additional pylons and more fuel-efficient F404 engines, would have better legs to start with and can carry more payload with the external tanks.
Still, the A-6F is limited in the ways it can achieve that kind of range. The FB-22 is still probably your best bet.
I should also note a lot of this will depend on what flight profile you want. If you stick at high altitude the whole flight range jumps massively.
But you want a tactical aircraft post-1964 that I know for a fact can pull this off? A-6F. The A-6E can just barely crack a combat radius of 1000 nautical miles in a Hi-Hi-Hi flight profile, 3 external tanks, and 6 1000-lb bombs. The A-6F, with two additional pylons and more fuel-efficient F404 engines, would have better legs to start with and can carry more payload with the external tanks.
Still, the A-6F is limited in the ways it can achieve that kind of range. The FB-22 is still probably your best bet.
To go a little sideways for fun: both the British and French manage a couple carriers big enough for the F-14 in the 1970s. With the US pushing hard the Bombcat is developed from early on, with no European plane measuring up for navies the air forces also see pressure to use it in order to cut costs—F-14 is widely adopted on license build shared across key European military firms to make up for not winning with their own planes to some extent. Heavy and early upgrades with all the orders gets better models earlier—the F-14 wins much of the strike contracts ITTL especially anything F-15 IOTL and McDonnell-Douglas can be bought cheaply by whoever and their culture dissipated 
(Yeah the F-14 is still too small to quite fit the OP, pity lol)
(Yeah the F-14 is still too small to quite fit the OP, pity lol)
Last edited:
I offered the Vickers Valiant Mk2 in post 8 tongue in cheek but the more I look at it the more plausible it becomes. Intended (albeit for an obsolete role) to fly at 1,000' at over 600 mph with the intended Conways and, were it made with a non age crumbling alloy (!), it could be the low level B52 of the RAF with a repeated updating programme. Thus skipping the TSR2 and Tornado etc. Vickers themselves had a Low Level Bomber study for the Valiant. By 2020 it would be the proverbial axe/broom with new engines, spars, skinning and avionics etc. with little left of the 1950's airframes but 640 mph at 1,000' is no slouch even now at that height for 3,000 miles.
Riain
Banned
Way back in 1963 the A6 and Buccaneer were rejected by the RAAF as they lacked the supersonic dash speed required to get past/ through danger zones faster. As much as I like the Valiant Mk II (I'd love to see a Vulcan and Victor developments for low level) it suffers from the same problem: inability to outrun supersonic fighters and medium/low level SAMs.
The Sukhoi T-60S project is the only other one I can find that fits the bill, though politically if it's replacing the TSR-2 and F-111 it's not an option.
Basically, we need a whole new aircraft to meet these kind of requirements.
Basically, we need a whole new aircraft to meet these kind of requirements.
I mean the only aircraft that are being produced now that sort of fit that role entirely would be the Chinese JH 7 and the Russian SU 34.
You could probably stretch the F15E with a fuselage plug(s) to push it over the 1000 mile by carrying more fuel, but you would lose agility and most of it's air combat capability.
The best option would be a clean sheet design, the size of a medium bomber with an internal weapons bay.
Last edited:
Except a. this is a target introduction date of 2000 and b. it doesn't have the payload to replace the F-111 and doesn't have the range to go supersonic if it wants to push over 1000 nautical miles. More modern turbofan engines would help with both, but, well, see point A.
marathag
Banned
After the F-11 looks to be a Dog by 1967, visit NAA and say
'show us an updated A-5'
Riain
Banned
I once saw an opinion that the TAC got F111 production all wrong buying 4 different batches of ~95-145 aircraft, all with different avionics, intakes and engines. A better course would have been to stop production when the first problems arose and then order much bigger batches in 12-18 months to a single standard, more akin to the D & F. If this course of action was taken then TAC might have gotten ~600 instead of ~450 and SAC more than 76.
With 700 F111s to replace, and perhaps 193 TSR2 or 110 F111K, 66 Mirage IV and 24 F111C there is a higher likelihood of a big tactical strike aircraft being developed.
With 700 F111s to replace, and perhaps 193 TSR2 or 110 F111K, 66 Mirage IV and 24 F111C there is a higher likelihood of a big tactical strike aircraft being developed.
Riain
Banned
The RAAF actually selected the A5C in 1964 to replace the Canberra by 1966, but the Govt said a 1969 replacement was better so we swapped to the F111.
The USAF won't want another rainwater plane and the F111 matured into an awesome plane.
Also, I'm think of the Pacific problem of the 2020s, a Vigilante would be replaced by Strike Eagle and Super Hornet which lack the required legs.
The problem with the A5 was that it's lack of hardpoints and the design of it's internal bomb bay pretty heavily limited it's potential development. It was really only designed to carry a single large nuclear weapon a long distance at high speed. I think they could stick one or two conventional bombs on it but it really didn't do that role very well. The only other thing it could handle capably (that wasn't nuclear war) was high speed photo recon.
As true as this is, the A-5B did have additional hardpoints, and I can't see it being impossible for the internal bomb bay design to be modified so that it can drop out of the bottom. That and additional hardpoints could probably have made the A-5 a pretty capable aircraft.
Probably best to just have the POD be that the A5 was designed from the start to be more multi role.