I’ll explain the design concept:
1) My first hypothesis is that the A-4’s role as a bomb truck is dead. The mission is no longer “plaster some jungle with bombs” but “destroy targets X, Y and Z with precision weapons”. So while in Vietnam a typical A-4 bomb load was 6-12x 250lb or 500lb bombs (3,000-5,000lb total), a modern load out would focus on small guided ordnance against 2-6 aimpoints (e.g. 2x GBU-12s, 4x SDBs, or 6x Brimstone (1,000-1,500lb total).
2) Second hypothesis is that no one has budget for a dedicated light attack aircraft. So the aircraft needs to also serve as a LIFT trainer.
3) Final hypothesis is that there is a need for increased “fighter” performance to take some load off expensive front line fighter fleets. Not necessarily for air superiority missions, but more for peacetime air patrols, red air, and more recently anti-drone intercepts.
So why not just buy a T/F-50 or T-7A, which should meet goals #1 and #3? Well I was intrigued by the idea of a smaller, cheaper aircraft, that didn’t require an afterburning F404. Something like Northrop’s N400NT, but with better transonic performance and able to make the best use of limited thrust.
And that’s when I went “aha”! Dassault spent the 1950s experimenting with lightweight, low drag, transonic Mirages and Etendards to offset the crappy engine offerings of the day. And NBMR-1 was all about cheap light attack aircraft powered by the Orpheus, which in its afterburning form turns out to be very similar in size & weight to a modern M88 or F404 without reheat. So if you take the Etendard VI designed for NBMR-1, with its low transonic drag, add a much more powerful and fuel efficient engine, and an even better delta canard planform to reduce transonic drag even further, you have a potentially good starting point.
Like I said, I took a little roundabout way to get there…
Of course it would also be possible to scale-up the basic concept with an F414 EPE, with 30-40% more power. That would be identical to the Skyhawk in size, or bigger.
