I would generally concur on the overall flow of things here... even if the RN kept the centaurs conventional eventually Albion and Bulwark go the commando route. I had not thought about new carriers being possible
An alternate F-11 Tiger
- Thread starter bobtdwarf
- Start date
I would generally concur on the overall flow of things here... even if the RN kept the centaurs conventional eventually Albion and Bulwark go the commando route. I had not thought about new carriers being possible
If you look at my posts elsewhere you will see that the 1956-57 iteration of the Medium Fleet Carrier could have blended very well with the French PA54 PA55 PA58/59 - that is, Clemenceau Foch and Verdun. A 42000 tons compromise would nail it.
Foch and Clem' carriers actually borrowed Eagle and Ark BS-5A catapults - the short, 46 m variant.
The 61 m variant did not fit Foch and Clem. PA58 however at 45000 tons could handle it.
This would greatly help French Crusaders later on...
Foch and Clem' carriers actually borrowed Eagle and Ark BS-5A catapults - the short, 46 m variant.
The 61 m variant did not fit Foch and Clem. PA58 however at 45000 tons could handle it.
This would greatly help French Crusaders later on...
I exactly mean, this very one
(copied from this book
)
The above is the exact moment when *French and British carriers* should have been happened.
PA58 "Verdun" was 45 000 tons (as per above)
PA59 was closer from Foch and Clemenceau to try and reduce cost - so 35 000 tons, again - as per above.
With the full length BS-5 catapults, and the Suez crisis, and Arromanches being a Colossus, and the Aéronavale first jets (SNCASE Aquilons) being licence-build Sea Venoms...
translate.google.com
translate.google.com
(copied from this book
Rebuilding the Royal Navy
This design history of post-war British warship development, based on both declassified documentation and personal experience, is the fourth and final volume in the author s masterly account of development of Royal Navy s ships from the 1850s to the Falklands War. In this volume the author...
books.google.fr
The above is the exact moment when *French and British carriers* should have been happened.
PA58 "Verdun" was 45 000 tons (as per above)
PA59 was closer from Foch and Clemenceau to try and reduce cost - so 35 000 tons, again - as per above.
With the full length BS-5 catapults, and the Suez crisis, and Arromanches being a Colossus, and the Aéronavale first jets (SNCASE Aquilons) being licence-build Sea Venoms...
Avant-projet d’embarquement de Regulus II sur les Clemenceau, Foch et PA59
L’introduction de l’atome dans les plans de la Marine nationale devait passer par une succession d’étapes et de réflexions discontinues, entre programmation à long terme et opport…
translate.google.com
PA 58 : du PA2 vers le PA3 ?
Dans les années d’après-guerre la France reconstruisait sa marine. La IVe République effectua, alors, un travail plutôt fantastique, vu les conditions du pays, vu ses finances, par conséquent…
translate.google.com
Last edited:
I exactly mean, this very one
(copied from this book
)Rebuilding the Royal Navy
This design history of post-war British warship development, based on both declassified documentation and personal experience, is the fourth and final volume in the author s masterly account of development of Royal Navy s ships from the 1850s to the Falklands War. In this volume the author...books.google.fr
View attachment 631862
The above is the exact moment when French and British should have been happened.
PA58 "Verdun" was 45 000 tons (as per above)
PA59 was closer from Foch and Clemenceau to try and reduce cost - so 35 000 tons, again - as per above.
With the full length BS-5 catapults, and the Suez crisis, and Arromanches being a Colossus, and the Aéronavale first jets (SNCASE Aquilons) being licence-build Sea Venoms...
Avant-projet d’embarquement de Regulus II sur les Clemenceau, Foch et PA59
L’introduction de l’atome dans les plans de la Marine nationale devait passer par une succession d’étapes et de réflexions discontinues, entre programmation à long terme et opport…
PA 58 : du PA2 vers le PA3 ?
Dans les années d’après-guerre la France reconstruisait sa marine. La IVe République effectua, alors, un travail plutôt fantastique, vu les conditions du pays, vu ses finances, par conséquent…
Yup.. this is what lead me down the path of my proposed carrier plan vis a vis the Implacable's and Indomitable that I detailed in the other thread...
I do like the PA58
posted these caps on another site, posting here as well
Attachments
-
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.18.05 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.19.32 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.19.49 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.23.16 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.24.17 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.26.22 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.35.40 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.27.55 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.36.20 PM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 4.39.45 PM.png
The two big advantages of this alt- Super Tiger, over the Crusader, are
- shorter fuselage, no need for V.I wing, because no J57 - it went straight from J65 to J79
- much larger nose for larger radar dishes, since the intake(s) are far away
Just thought about something... if that alt S.T is so good, maybe Vought will see the writting on the wall. Making Crusader III a very different beast.
Indeed, instead of competing with the Phantom with a big J75 - maybe Vought could instead get a J79 Crusader ? and where it gets even more funny, there is a dark horse coming very fast: that other fantastic flying machine that was the F-5D Skylancer. Maybe early successes of the "Alt Super Tiger" will motivate Douglas to dust off this one, too ?
Skylancer, Super Tiger and J79 Crusader (V-1000 anybody ?) - this is true "naval fighter porn".
when you think about it, it is a shame none of the three could get a short production run, if only to extend those old Essex OR (even better) for the two crippled WWII veterans hold in reserve - USS Franklin and USS Bunker hill.
- shorter fuselage, no need for V.I wing, because no J57 - it went straight from J65 to J79
- much larger nose for larger radar dishes, since the intake(s) are far away
Just thought about something... if that alt S.T is so good, maybe Vought will see the writting on the wall. Making Crusader III a very different beast.
Indeed, instead of competing with the Phantom with a big J75 - maybe Vought could instead get a J79 Crusader ? and where it gets even more funny, there is a dark horse coming very fast: that other fantastic flying machine that was the F-5D Skylancer. Maybe early successes of the "Alt Super Tiger" will motivate Douglas to dust off this one, too ?
Skylancer, Super Tiger and J79 Crusader (V-1000 anybody ?) - this is true "naval fighter porn".
when you think about it, it is a shame none of the three could get a short production run, if only to extend those old Essex OR (even better) for the two crippled WWII veterans hold in reserve - USS Franklin and USS Bunker hill.
yeah it gets to be interesting... Tiger fitted with AI.23 and enough room to fit CW illuminators... the J-79 crusader would be like an A-7 with area ruling.
I keep forgetting that the Marines flew F-8's.. replace all of those squadrons with AltF-11 and it will last in US service until 90's
Last edited:
that TL reminds us how "lucky" was LWF (F-16 and later F-18) were OTL. Indeed Boyd and his Fighter mafia could start from a blank sheet of paper (using the F15 engine), since
- F-104 was too old, had bad rep, and was not very agile
- Vought had stopped the Crusader production line with the French birds in 1964 and moved to the A-7
- the F-5 was underpowered and for export only
- Phantom was too big
Crucially, there was no LWF with a J79 (early 60's) and ready to take a TF41 by 1968. In a nutshell: a US Viggen or Mirage F1.
ITTL if the Alt Super Tiger hangs on with a J79 or (worse) a TF41 then the LWF path is partially blocked.
Vought biggest mistake was they never build a J79 Crusader. They missed that bus in 1956, 1960, 1965 - and the V-1000 come too late and lost to the F-5E.
Northrop made a similar mistake moving toward the P.530 Cobra with the J101. Had they made a "proto F-20" with a J79 or TF41... those engines of course were far bigger and thirsty than the F404.
Lockheed also tried with the CL-1200 but once again picked the wrong engine - TF33.
Seriously, folks: early LWF, 1958-59, screams for J79 later upgraded to TF41.
I think the key of all this is that the F-104 was that J79 bird, and then the F-5 come and swept the unexpensive fighter market. In the end the two sold 2200*2 copies, total 4400 aircraft. It is not a coincidence the F-16 sold similar numbers... and this remains the F-35 target.
It would make for an interesting TL to have an aircraft able to crush both F-104G and F-5 on export markets, taking a J79 first and then a TF41.
Yup... I think the inner pylon was a "wet" one as well but might be confusing it with the A-7 in my mind. The mid pylon was for big ferry tanks and nuclear weapons.
not to bump this but need to add this data.. http://www.teamgivan.com/underblog/f11f. the per unit cost of the Tiger is under a million, by way of comparison the F-8 per unit was 1.2 million and F-4 over 2
adding some 98L data found here in another thread about Grumman 110 project... notes the wing area as 300 square feet at the correct wingspan. The top view indicates a place on the wing where you could fold it and take her down to about 18 feet across
adding some 98L data found here in another thread about Grumman 110 project... notes the wing area as 300 square feet at the correct wingspan. The top view indicates a place on the wing where you could fold it and take her down to about 18 feet across
Attachments
Last edited:
A return to the hobby horse but using the as built F-11 and SuperTiger
The alternate version I previously presented was based in part on my bias toward NOT trusting the amount of folded wing depicted in the illustrations for the Tiger modified for the AN-1 project.
Though I trusted the Buccaneer and Cougar with similar amount of folded wing span because they were thicker wings which I equated with being "stronger"... while not taking into account that that also made them heavier so proportionally it would be a wash most likely. In the case of the F9F-8 if it could pull greater G's using a wing built using a weaker construction method than the F-11 while also being thinner than the -6 version then I have no valid reason to distrust it.
This has a major impact on my reasoning to position the Tiger as a fallback for the SR.177. The primary role for which was a high altitude interceptor with a secondary attack role.. SuperTiger had a minimum time to 65,000 feet of 9.5 minutes, not as high, nor as fast as the SR with the rocket motor; but the rocket was out in what the RN was going to get if it was built. So ST still gets up high and pretty fast with a higher service ceiling than the SeaVixen....
This is the air group for Victorious in 1963 as projected in October 1956
8 SR.177
8 Buccaneer
10 Sea Vixen
8 ASW helicopters
4 Gannet AEW
2 SAR helicopters
40 Total
This is the air group for Eagle in 1963 as projected in October 1956
12 SR.177
12 Buccaneer
10 Sea Vixen
8 Gannet ASW or ASW helicopters
6 Gannet AEW
2 SAR helicopters
50 total
These are the two RN carriers that had fueling facilities for the SR.177 built into them... let me look at the effect of the as built AN-1 Tiger/SuperTiger would have as a replacement for the SR.177, and possibly overall. The above air groups include the safety gap between aircraft and hangar.
SR.177, Buccaneer and SeaVixen are all longer than even the possible two seat ST but not by so much that I really have to worry about it. Width though?
AN-1 modified is a 10 foot folded span.
The RN version of the SR.177 has a folded span of 18 feet... 8x8= 64 feet. One foot between aircraft gives you room for five more aircraft on the Victorious if that is all you do. They can replace SeaVixen 2-1 without the need to factor in additional room for safety gap and Buccaneer 2-1 with figuring in additional safety gap space. So a total air group replacement would look like this:
16 in place of Bucc's. 64 feet -8 feet for safety= 56 feet... need to keep track of this..
20 in place of SV
13 in place of SR with safety space taken into account
A total of 49 combat jets...63 total aircraft with Gannet's and helicopters. Call it 48 and 62 because I like even numbers.
Another thing to factor in here, though tangentially related, is that we often talk about the materiel state of RN carriers and much of that is based on the poor quality of war time steel used in construction... Victorious was about 2 years into her construction at the start of WW2; so what was left of the original Victorious after her reconstruction would have been excellent quality pre war steel... she probably came out of the barn with a 25-30 year hull life in '58.
Lets swap four SeaVixen's for Buccaneers: Bucc's fold to 20 feet, SV to 23, 4x3= 12 feet so you gain one ST in that swap for a total of 26.. a total air wing of 52 on Victorious!
Eagle was in better shape than Ark Royal, but both were built with wartime steel in their deep down so prone to rot, but for a time she could be a monster! Swapping SR for ST gives 96 feet of available space. Swapping out the SV's for ST gives you 40 plus 12 Bucc's... or 20 Bucc's and 24 ST's easy.
EDIT: Even if we go with the 98L with an 18 foot folded span(which makes me more comfortable) that leaves you a slightly better than 1-1 replacement for SV, for every 10 SV you get 50 feet (23-18=5), enough for 2 98L's and some spare space. On Victorious swap 4 SV's for Bucc's to give you 12, swap the remaining SV's for 98L's gives you 42 feet: So 16 98L's and 12 Bucc's.
Yet another Edit: I looked at the 98-L drawing again and after converting the wingspan to inches and then dividing it by the number of pixels that was tip to tip and then multiplying that number by the number of pixels between where I would put the fold(the control surface break), it is actually 15.5 feet and some fractional change so add 1.5 feet to cover storage safety margin and we got ourselves 17 feet in actuality... I wasn't to far off with the dead eye estimate.
The alternate version I previously presented was based in part on my bias toward NOT trusting the amount of folded wing depicted in the illustrations for the Tiger modified for the AN-1 project.
Though I trusted the Buccaneer and Cougar with similar amount of folded wing span because they were thicker wings which I equated with being "stronger"... while not taking into account that that also made them heavier so proportionally it would be a wash most likely. In the case of the F9F-8 if it could pull greater G's using a wing built using a weaker construction method than the F-11 while also being thinner than the -6 version then I have no valid reason to distrust it.
This has a major impact on my reasoning to position the Tiger as a fallback for the SR.177. The primary role for which was a high altitude interceptor with a secondary attack role.. SuperTiger had a minimum time to 65,000 feet of 9.5 minutes, not as high, nor as fast as the SR with the rocket motor; but the rocket was out in what the RN was going to get if it was built. So ST still gets up high and pretty fast with a higher service ceiling than the SeaVixen....
This is the air group for Victorious in 1963 as projected in October 1956
8 SR.177
8 Buccaneer
10 Sea Vixen
8 ASW helicopters
4 Gannet AEW
2 SAR helicopters
40 Total
This is the air group for Eagle in 1963 as projected in October 1956
12 SR.177
12 Buccaneer
10 Sea Vixen
8 Gannet ASW or ASW helicopters
6 Gannet AEW
2 SAR helicopters
50 total
These are the two RN carriers that had fueling facilities for the SR.177 built into them... let me look at the effect of the as built AN-1 Tiger/SuperTiger would have as a replacement for the SR.177, and possibly overall. The above air groups include the safety gap between aircraft and hangar.
SR.177, Buccaneer and SeaVixen are all longer than even the possible two seat ST but not by so much that I really have to worry about it. Width though?
AN-1 modified is a 10 foot folded span.
The RN version of the SR.177 has a folded span of 18 feet... 8x8= 64 feet. One foot between aircraft gives you room for five more aircraft on the Victorious if that is all you do. They can replace SeaVixen 2-1 without the need to factor in additional room for safety gap and Buccaneer 2-1 with figuring in additional safety gap space. So a total air group replacement would look like this:
16 in place of Bucc's. 64 feet -8 feet for safety= 56 feet... need to keep track of this..
20 in place of SV
13 in place of SR with safety space taken into account
A total of 49 combat jets...63 total aircraft with Gannet's and helicopters. Call it 48 and 62 because I like even numbers.
Another thing to factor in here, though tangentially related, is that we often talk about the materiel state of RN carriers and much of that is based on the poor quality of war time steel used in construction... Victorious was about 2 years into her construction at the start of WW2; so what was left of the original Victorious after her reconstruction would have been excellent quality pre war steel... she probably came out of the barn with a 25-30 year hull life in '58.
Lets swap four SeaVixen's for Buccaneers: Bucc's fold to 20 feet, SV to 23, 4x3= 12 feet so you gain one ST in that swap for a total of 26.. a total air wing of 52 on Victorious!
Eagle was in better shape than Ark Royal, but both were built with wartime steel in their deep down so prone to rot, but for a time she could be a monster! Swapping SR for ST gives 96 feet of available space. Swapping out the SV's for ST gives you 40 plus 12 Bucc's... or 20 Bucc's and 24 ST's easy.
EDIT: Even if we go with the 98L with an 18 foot folded span(which makes me more comfortable) that leaves you a slightly better than 1-1 replacement for SV, for every 10 SV you get 50 feet (23-18=5), enough for 2 98L's and some spare space. On Victorious swap 4 SV's for Bucc's to give you 12, swap the remaining SV's for 98L's gives you 42 feet: So 16 98L's and 12 Bucc's.
Yet another Edit: I looked at the 98-L drawing again and after converting the wingspan to inches and then dividing it by the number of pixels that was tip to tip and then multiplying that number by the number of pixels between where I would put the fold(the control surface break), it is actually 15.5 feet and some fractional change so add 1.5 feet to cover storage safety margin and we got ourselves 17 feet in actuality... I wasn't to far off with the dead eye estimate.
Last edited:
The RCN will take 60 , which now that I think of it. Was the number of Banshees they were going to purchase.
Except they dithered until McD shut down the production line And they ended up if memory serves paying more for less aircraft and used too into the bargain.
Last edited:
Supacharjed
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 12 April 2020
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 11
Hey Bob
Love the work you've done for this, it's been a fairly large inspiration for my own stuff.
I'm curious though, what would you say is the definitive version of your alt-SuperTiger?
I personally prefer the one that folds smaller though I can definitely see the appeal in range
Love the work you've done for this, it's been a fairly large inspiration for my own stuff.
I'm curious though, what would you say is the definitive version of your alt-SuperTiger?
I personally prefer the one that folds smaller though I can definitely see the appeal in range
About the same here... that extra range with the pig J-65 is so damn seductive!!! But numbers, numbers on board sings its own sweet siren song.
I would probably bite the bullet and go the 27.5... good STIFF wing and enough fuel to loiter an obscene amount of time with the later engines. But I really want to take the short boi and just flood the zone with so many AAM's that Ivan sh**s himself
Thank you for the kind words
I am pretty sure I have referred to it on here before.. but I have a bias about the hinges: It is totally a "me" thing and is mostly irrational I grant you, but those things seem like voodoo to me and I have chosen to be conservative here. Some aircraft had internal fuel in the outer panel and you could probably snake in another 100 gallons between the two sides which would leave you down 108 between the two. The thing is still plumbed to fit a drop tank on the outer panel and the fuel dumps out the tips still...
I guess what I am saying here is if someone who is more experienced like Zen or Blackbat say it would be fine I would be cool with putting more fuel in the outer panel... and that pushes the short boi over the line into "take it, take it ALL day".
I guess what I am saying here is if someone who is more experienced like Zen or Blackbat say it would be fine I would be cool with putting more fuel in the outer panel... and that pushes the short boi over the line into "take it, take it ALL day".
Supacharjed
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 12 April 2020
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 11
Yeah honestly the specifics are going to elude me because I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of these things like where the fuel actually lives.
But I would be a major fan of the short fold fella with any extra gas you could squeeze into it. With like a J79 or a Avon 200 you'd be looking at like a late 50s Tigershark in terms of capability which is pretty hilarious. Do you reckon the 2-seater with sparrows is a good shout or is it trying to fit too much in? (For my own alt-universe project I'm looking at locust clouds of two-seaters for various reasons)
But I would be a major fan of the short fold fella with any extra gas you could squeeze into it. With like a J79 or a Avon 200 you'd be looking at like a late 50s Tigershark in terms of capability which is pretty hilarious. Do you reckon the 2-seater with sparrows is a good shout or is it trying to fit too much in? (For my own alt-universe project I'm looking at locust clouds of two-seaters for various reasons)
The 2 seater is totally viable.. you can even attempt to pull it off with the single seater, the F3 didn't have a RIO and was hurling sparrows, so in a pinch why not Tiger? Maximum case you have 2 bags, 4 center-line AIM9s and four sparrows, with four cannon as an option. As to where the gas lives.. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm. the SAC sheets frequently show where and how much is stored in the tanks and bladders. The FJ-3 carried 29 gallon in the leading edge of the outer panel of each wing. Most I have seen referenced is about 50 gallons..so the extra 100 thing.
I did finally get off my butt and did the math on the 98-L... the drawing doesn't have a scale on it so I converted the wingspan into inches and divided it by the number of pixels from tip to tip (assuming the drawing was to scale or near enough), then multiplied the pixels between the mid wing control surface "breaks" to get an idea of the folded span.. 15.5 and change feet, add in the safety margin and that is near enough to 17 feet as not to matter. Just correcting the error in a prior post without actually editing the post which might bite me in the butt later.
I wonder if there would be a market for a detuned version? Put two more cannon in the lower nose, no big radar might as well. Keep the additional underwing stations and payload just going to restrict you to AIM9's and use a higher output J-52 like the 408 model.
That gets you slightly faster than historic with substantial improvements in range/endurance.
Still can act as a day fighter in the F-5 speed range, and a decent bomber all for reasonably cheap. Good for people who need just a bit more than the F-5 but where jumping to the F-4 would be way to much.
That gets you slightly faster than historic with substantial improvements in range/endurance.
Still can act as a day fighter in the F-5 speed range, and a decent bomber all for reasonably cheap. Good for people who need just a bit more than the F-5 but where jumping to the F-4 would be way to much.
isayyo2
Lurker alert
- Joined
- 24 November 2011
- Messages
- 1,090
- Reaction score
- 2,159
I would stick with the J79 unless a large order customer had specific interest in commonality with a A-6 or A-4. I would like to see the Super Tiger played to its strengths as a fighter as great as the Crusader, though with a much more potent warload in the fighter-bomber role; as well as its strongest asset: Grumman's industrial offset and willingness to license out their design.
I was thinking this would be more for countries like Argentina and others that the US wants to keep from kicking off an arms race in a region.. used to be a policy to not sell supersonic aircraft to some parts of the world, mildly supersonic like the F-5 was ok but nothing even close to mach 2 would be considered.
isayyo2
Lurker alert
- Joined
- 24 November 2011
- Messages
- 1,090
- Reaction score
- 2,159
That’s a good thought! You could also skip the development costs of a J52 afterburner and engine fitment with a higher thrust J65/Sidney Sapphire found in the Gloster Javelin: 11,000 dry and 12,300 wet. A big jump in thrust from 7,500 dry and 10,500 wet while using older tech.
If you can get it then late AW Sapphires with better reheat would solve a lot and a compatible successor was on it's way. Until AW concentrated on the supersonic recce bomber engines and left the field to RR....
Frankly you could swap out for Avon and a Swedish afterburner....
Or....if you're also licensing Buccaneers, then Gyron Junior.
Or dare we say go French?
Frankly you could swap out for Avon and a Swedish afterburner....
Or....if you're also licensing Buccaneers, then Gyron Junior.
Or dare we say go French?
I was thinking a NON AB J-52 408.. 11,200 thrust would put it at slightly better performance than the J-65 at a lower weight to offset the additional two cannon in the nose... a "tinpot dictator" version: Capable and effective but not overly dangerous... but could be with some after purchase modifications later.
speaking of swaps... I would love to swap the 20MM's for ADENS especially with the Swedes making armor piercing for it... but it looks like it is easier to swap the Colts with DEFA with how easily the Israelis did it with the A-4. Will have to see if I can find some good images and do some jig saw puzzles in my head
Supacharjed
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 12 April 2020
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 11
Is there actually much reason to a gun swap beyond marketing? I know the 30mm hits like a train compared to the 20mm but is there some secondary weight thing or it is mostly just for how nice the gun is?
The Colts were unreliable and very inaccurate, a swap fixes that.
Edit to add context for future readers coming in from Google or its inheritors: The Colts were derivative designs of the US copy of the UK licensed Oerlikon in WW2, and the US screwed up the length of the chamber slightly; as such the firing pin would not make strong or reliable enough contact with the primer. As a result the round would not go off, no BANG and the gun stops and there was no means to re-cock them in flight. The Colts could be cocked in flight but they omitted the mechanism to save weight. The pressure variation from the wonky chamber also would throw off the shot...
Last edited:
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 2,800
I'm actually toying with a "Second World" version of the Tiger for my Essex class TL. It needs something better than the J65, but worse than the J79. My initial idea was to use a J79-GE-5, which only gives 15,600 pounds of thrust vs the J79-GE-8 which gives you 17,000 (plus other changes).
even at 15k it will still crack M2 just not as quickly as at 17k.
My idea was for something in the 11k-12.5k range without reheat, still a good dog fighter but no faster than Mach 1.4 so "home team" aircraft can evade pretty easy if need be... I will add to this a bit later, I have some ideas if Hawker was the British partner
In the last couple of days have watched some vids on the TA-50/FA-50 and it reminded me so much of some aspects of the Tiger and that started me riffing....
Why not replace some or most of the Cougar trainers with a trainer version of Tiger but with a J-52? It would make sense to the navy since they were going to be using the Tiger for intro training... you could use it just as easily from the beginning and instead of the cougar and be able to transition to supersonic in the same bird. Add in a surplus radar in the nose and you can do RIO training in basically the same platform.
Which makes it an easier purchase for the UK since the initial costs have been paid... have Hawker be the production partner locally.. and they start thinking about merging some Hunter like features into it, like some variation of the gun pack and Sabrina's, on a step up replacement for the Hunter in some markets: Think avionics no better than the Hunter but in the Tiger with 11k pounds of thrust and a maximum of 8 Adens between the nose and intakes sold as a ground attack type to the Kuwaitis...
Why not replace some or most of the Cougar trainers with a trainer version of Tiger but with a J-52? It would make sense to the navy since they were going to be using the Tiger for intro training... you could use it just as easily from the beginning and instead of the cougar and be able to transition to supersonic in the same bird. Add in a surplus radar in the nose and you can do RIO training in basically the same platform.
Which makes it an easier purchase for the UK since the initial costs have been paid... have Hawker be the production partner locally.. and they start thinking about merging some Hunter like features into it, like some variation of the gun pack and Sabrina's, on a step up replacement for the Hunter in some markets: Think avionics no better than the Hunter but in the Tiger with 11k pounds of thrust and a maximum of 8 Adens between the nose and intakes sold as a ground attack type to the Kuwaitis...
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 2,800
What about something like a J52-P-6A? 8,500 pounds dry, with an afterburner, that should get it up to about 12-13,000 pounds. Figure roughly Mach 1.5 performance. That should make Congress (and the military) feel a little better about selling to them. Particularly since that's well below what Grumman was predicting as the top speed for a production Super Tiger (IIRC, they thought maybe Mach 2.1-2.2 once the airframe was cleaned up).
it would be nice to have two manufacturers producing engines of nearly identical size and peformance like the UK with the Avon and Sapphire.. I have mainly been thinking about non A/B units with higher outputs to make them as cheap to operate as possible: Better SFC at max speed. Like the J-52 408/9 at 11k pounds of thrust has an SFC of IIRC .79 a J-65 at about the same thrust is closer to 2.0 using AB. The J-52 would also be at least 400 pounds lighter than the J-65.
Having an AB J-52 gives flexibility in case there is a hitch in J-79 production and vice versa... you just swap to the other unit and you are out basically nada.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 2,800
The reason I was thinking a somewhat weaker engine with afterburner was to keep the aircraft from being too capable. For example, lighting off the burner tells whoever you're fighting that you're demanding max power from your aircraft. Whereas if you can go supersonic without using burner, you can surprise your opponent by either running away or closing much faster than they thought you could. Plus, you don't want the aircraft being too cheap to operate. Because then you're opponent will have more hours in their jets, will be better trained, and will end up being a more capable enemy.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 1,188
It’s a nice idea, but I can’t see Hawker going for it, as it’s a product that would leech sales off the Hunter.
Depends on the timing, if it is close to the end of the historic Hunter sales run it would give them something to sell after... Grumman as noted previously is having some issues with overseas sales that Hawker as their overseas partner wouldn't.
If the timing is right this would save Hawker from the need to develop a follow on to the Hunter. But you make a more than fair point
Last edited:
I was looking at the Cougar trainer SAC sheet because of the lead in trainer angle I was thinking about and noticed that all of the wing fuel in that bird is outboard of the hinge. Given that is about 108 gallons and how much would be in the outer panel of the short boi? I think it would maintain a full fuel load or so close to it that I am not going to bother trying to noodle out the difference...
Felt like I should update the record.. the 13.5 is the better deal from a carrier perspective
Okkaaaaay so I was looking at Aerion atempts at finding an engine for their SSBJ. It happens that they tried a smart trick related to the JT8D. Which was a civilian J52. And then Wikipedia mentionned it was used as basis for the Viggen engine. So that made it supersonic. Hence the core was both civilian and supersonic, and that's why Aerion wanted it.
Later they tried the same trick with the CFM56 / F101 core dual nature: RR Affinity.
...
And there, SHAZAM !
I realized that made the Viggen and Skyhawk engine cousins if not half-brothers.
Also that the Swedes had essentially added an afterburner to the J52.
(facepalm)
I've been reading for years that a J52 with an afterburner might be an intriguing alternative for supersonic fighters. But I was like "Meh, it never had an AB, unlike the J79".
Also "at least the TF41 could have had an afterburner, if taken from the British Phantoms. " Never thought this exactly applied to the J52 going the Swedish way.
Now I'm feeling like a Simpson. D'oh, d'oh, d'oh !!! (as would say Frank Grimes when he goes over the edge).
We need a TL where those foreigners (GB, Sweden) provides "free" AB to the J52 and TF41... no need to reinvent the wheel !
Later they tried the same trick with the CFM56 / F101 core dual nature: RR Affinity.
...
And there, SHAZAM !
I realized that made the Viggen and Skyhawk engine cousins if not half-brothers.
Also that the Swedes had essentially added an afterburner to the J52.
(facepalm)
I've been reading for years that a J52 with an afterburner might be an intriguing alternative for supersonic fighters. But I was like "Meh, it never had an AB, unlike the J79".
Also "at least the TF41 could have had an afterburner, if taken from the British Phantoms. " Never thought this exactly applied to the J52 going the Swedish way.
Now I'm feeling like a Simpson. D'oh, d'oh, d'oh !!! (as would say Frank Grimes when he goes over the edge).
We need a TL where those foreigners (GB, Sweden) provides "free" AB to the J52 and TF41... no need to reinvent the wheel !
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
What if, Grumman went with a fixed wing for the Tomcat- Started by helmutkohl
- Replies: 110
-
battlecruiser HMS Tiger survives til Second World War?- Started by Owens Z
- Replies: 24
-
MiG 19 -> Soviet F-5 -> Soviet F-20?
- Started by tomo pauk
- Replies: 6
-
-
What If? game - the F11F-2 and F8U-3 replace the F-104 and F-4 in history.
- Started by apparition13
- Replies: 54