British F-18s

[Hood]

Stock Hornet or Anglo-Hornet or No Hornet?

As I said in the Mirage 3000 thread a while back:

The Germans were very keen on F-18L. The MoD was also very keen on F-18L. After Mirage 2000 was ruled out as a starting point the F-18L was considered the only aircraft capable of meeting AST.403 but not meeting the STOL runway requirements. ECA as it became had to offer something superior to the F-18 to make it worthwhile - the resulting Typhoon and its bespoke engines, radar and avionics and configuration stems from that.

F-18L was possibly the best option for a new buy (at that time the F/A-18 was still two seperate versions and hadn't flown at that time I think). I think the MoD/RAE did see what the RB.199 would bring to the Hornet, I'll have to dig out the file again, but I don't think it offered any particular advantages in solving the STOL requirements.

So the Hornet was judged the best of the starting points from existing Western fighters in that class. So the options were - buy it and possibly doom European aviation to irrelevance and hope they could maintain enough expertise to design a fighter in the 90s for the 2000s or go all out and leapfrog Hornet in terms of performance, agility, high AoA combat capability, sensors and avionics.
Today you could argue Typhoon/Rafale are better than the F/A-18A but the revamped Super Hornet probably is on par. Had EFA/ACX materialised as Typhoon/Rafale 5-10 years sooner the leap might have been more obvious.

Politically though there was serious implications from buying/building Hornets. Doubtless Germany could have gotten away with it having no serious indigenous capability to design their own fighters. For the UK it was unthinkable and jobs like ADV and Sea Harrier FRS.2 (to become FA.2) were cut 'n' shut tinkering jobs and all the heavy lifting on Harrier II was being done by McD. Hawk 200 looked cute but was like building tonka toys and siphoning what little remained from Warton's lightweight ECA into SAAB's Gripen didn't bring great dividends.
Without keeping at least RB.199 development going there is no hope of RR managing to keep expertise to develop a new engine for a putative 2000s fighter.

So yes, there would be temptations to fit more local avionics than required, maybe to tinker with fitting RB.199s at the risk of associated R&D costs.
Plus there is the legal wranglings in the US and F-18L is shoved under the pillow by McD and snuffed out. Then the RAF/MoD needs to explain to the Treasury why they need to buy a heavier carrier-fighter when they have no carriers. "The wings fold so we can park them easier int the hangar" probably won't cut it as a sensible argument. Could have been messy and all the time BAe is shouting "we told you so" and then losing out all chance of begging crumbs from Dassault its either back the dubious P.1216 horse as the only fighter show in town or devise a Super Phantom upgrade or wheel out the P.110 concept again and putting pressure on the MoD.

Maybe a McD-BAe tie-up on Hawk (Goshawk)/Harrier II/Hornet is too cozy - might make the Westland Affair look like a sideshow if McD obtains a large shareholding into BAe Military Division.
Certainly a pro-US shift by BAe and Westland and Shorts sold off to Bombardier might kill off any hopes of European collaboration. Factor in BAe flogging the 125 family to Raytheon too and you have a nice little US carve up of the UK aviation industry.

 

[zen]

either back the dubious P.1216 horse as the only fighter show in town or devise a Super Phantom upgrade or wheel out the P.110 concept again and putting pressure on the MoD.

A point to make here.
What P.1216 represents is a domestic effort and one that defines clear paths forward in terms of component systems.
The Blue Vixen radar.
Zeus ECM suite
Scaled up XG40 engine
Domestic FBW RSS CCV technologies that were funded in development on a modified Jaguar.
Maunfacture of modern carbon fibre structures.
HoTaS cockpit interface.

None of these exclude a options in aircraft design.

 

[Archibald]

Why "dubious" ? P.1216 seemed a rather mature design, much more than troubled P.1154.

 

[Hood]

What P.1216 represents is a domestic effort and one that defines clear paths forward in terms of component systems.

Why "dubious" ? P.1216 seemed a rather mature design, much more than troubled P.1154.

True a domestic effort but a limited one at that. 150-250 production run for RAF/FAA. The USA already had Harrier II in the pipeline and by 1987 were already looking in a stealthy ASTOVL that would ultimately become JSF. Other exports seem unlikely and Italian and Spanish naval numbers are penny packets. But even as early as 1983 the RAF was prepared to put off its ASTOVL type until the 21 century so there was no pressing need and P.1216 could not replace the Phantom and Lightning.
Even by 1988 design work hadn't finished, a prototype wouldn't be likely until 1992-93, given 3-4 years of development flying production at Warton wouldn't probably begin until 1995-98 and can you really say the non-stealthy mid-80s P.1216 design with Blue Vixen would be a good investment for 2000 and beyond with the X-35 flying in 2000 and showing a whole new level of advanced in ASTOVL?

It was technically interesting but then so many British projects have been technically interesting to fulfil certain niches that never materialised into proper markets and consequently have been ill-timed and ill-costed.

I would say that backing ECA was 110% the right decision at the right time. The need was there, the market was there and the technology was within reach - the political haggling and funding issues hampered it a great deal in terms of timing there is no doubt.

 

[Archibald]

Alt history to the above: british big wing Harrier in 1975 nips AV-8B & GR.5 in the bud; and P.1216 as DARPA ASTOVL in 1983...

In this scenario, Great Britain keeps the upper hand on Harrier and post-Harrier VSTOL development; instead of dropping the ball to MDD first (AV-8B) and later the F-35.

Big Wing Harrier could have brought together
- RN Sea Harrier Mk.1 and Mk.2
- RAF 2nd gen Harriers (in place of GR.5)
- USMC 2nd gen Harriers (in place of AV-8B)
- Italy's Harriers (same as USMC, Garibaldi)
- Spain 2nd gen Harriers (post AV-8S & Dedalo: same as USMC, Asturias)

Maybe I should start an alt-history Big Wing Harrier thread, if no such thing already exists.

 

[kaiserd]

The Harrier II was the US Marine version of where they wanted the Harrier to go (their requirements prioritised, etc.)
The UK no longer really owned or controlled where the Harrier went and realistically they no real option but to buy what the US wanted to buy in this context.

To have been bought/ existed the P.1216 would have to substituted for the UK Eurofighter Typhoon buy (and likely been quite unsuccessful in that role - a under whelming dead-end overshadowed by the earlier US-Harrier II and the later US JSF).

The F-18 was never a real rival/ competitor to the Tornado ADV. The F-18 a bit late in timing to be an option when decisions were being made, it couldn’t meet the requirements and really the ADV variant was effectively chosen when they UK went with the Tornado program in the first place.

The UK considered the F-18 when starting down the road of what became the Eurofighter Typhoon but decided for industrial and capability reasons to go for something better in combination with European partners. And they ended up with something better.

I remember reading about the UK considering a version of the Super Hornet when the Eurofighter looked rocky when Germany was reviewing their involvement following reunification (with EJ200’s etc).
I don’t know how real that “considering” or that possible/ potential project was but again the Eurofighter Typhoon survived and the UK ended up with the better aircraft anyway, while ensuring the survival of a local industry (win -win).

 

[F-2]

I can imagine the F18L being a strong case for licensed production and leveraging systems like Blue Vixen and EJ200 (presumably given a RB designation as just a RR product) adding UK content along with Skyflash.

An UK engine is almost a given if you ask me with XG40 (Basically early EJ200) as the lead contender. Also agree on Blue Vixen and but with AMRAAM instead. Would be interesting fighter if they could get an F-18L version. Might even tempt Germany into buy F-18's if you ask me.

I think an XG40 derived engine makes much more sense in a hornet 2000 derived fighter. That could really come in handy as it lost out on some export opportunities waiting because no one wanted to pay for an engine and airframe development.

 

[BlackBat242]

Stock Hornet or Anglo-Hornet or No Hornet?

As I said in the Mirage 3000 thread a while back:

The Germans were very keen on F-18L. The MoD was also very keen on F-18L. After Mirage 2000 was ruled out as a starting point the F-18L was considered the only aircraft capable of meeting AST.403 but not meeting the STOL runway requirements. ECA as it became had to offer something superior to the F-18 to make it worthwhile - the resulting Typhoon and its bespoke engines, radar and avionics and configuration stems from that.

F-18L was possibly the best option for a new buy (at that time the F/A-18 was still two seperate versions and hadn't flown at that time I think). I think the MoD/RAE did see what the RB.199 would bring to the Hornet, I'll have to dig out the file again, but I don't think it offered any particular advantages in solving the STOL requirements.

The F-18L was conceived as part of the original partnering agreement between Northrop (which had designed & built the YF-17) and McDonnell Douglas (the agreement was made in late 1974).

The F-18L was a non-navalized, lightened land-based-only version intended for export as a replacement/upgrade for F-5A/B & F-5E/F fighter operators.

The plan was to build lighter wings without the folding mechanism & hinges, a lighter fuselage center-barrel, and lighter ("less robust") landing gear.

So it would be a "no-go" for the RN.



The merging of the F-18 and A-18 into the F/A-18 via improved avionics was approved in 1976.



* No need for the heavy structure to absorb the steep-angle heavy-impact carrier landings means a lighter structure.

 

[zen]

F-18L would be replacing Jaguar for the RAF.

F/A-18 would be replacing F4K.....sorta.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

OK, having avoided this thread up until now, I am moved to post. FA-18 AND F-18L?! I have to suspend my disbelief that the UK would buy Hornet in the first place, thereby trashing itself for no good reason. Fine. Buying effectively two different types (any commonality only extends so far - insert skin deep cliché here) strains that to breaking. Being launch customer for the F-18L, without any US buy of same puts that disbelief in a shallow grave.

If the RAF & RN were to buy Hornet (and yes that is disdain dripping in the background), it will be a common i.e. naval sub-type. For exactly the same reason as every other Hornet user. The US already bought some.

 

[Hood]

OK, finally gotten around to checking my Kew file notes on AST.403, namely AIR 2/19156 to 19159 covering 1976-80.

At Farnborough in 1976 there were unsolicited approaches and presentations on the F-18, F-18L and F-16 from the manufacturers concerned. From these the MoD/RAF concluded that the F-18L appeared significantly more capable of development than the F-16.

By February 1978 McD had made formal presentations on the F-18A to the Air Force Department and MoD(PE) branches of the MoD. Northrop had presented the F-18L. Hughes briefed them on the AN/APG-65 radar selected for the F-18A.
In December 1977 two RAF staff officers had visited McD and had examined the fully representative working cockpit layout and flown missions in the simulator.
From these sources of information, they considered the F-18L more attractive due to the enhanced performance on paper from de-navalising but were worried that it had no status in procurement terms with US forces and that seemed unlikely to change in the future.

In June 1979 the Controller Aircraft made a summary for the Defence Equipment Policy Committee.
The US option was clearly a fallback and even a trilateral approach (UK-Ger-US) was only a fallback. Interestingly nobody dared even mention getting F-18 data for baseline analysis against the TCA concepts to the French as they feared political blowback and complaints.
Oddly, CA claimed that all current technical assessments on the F-18 were based on unclassified literature and information on costs and timescales from published US Congress reports, which contradicts the previous file and all the presentations and etc. mentioned above!
The F-18L was recognised as still being a paper proposal dependant on an overseas order and it was noted that Canada was now only considering the F-18A and F-16.
Paradoxically more performance data was available for the F-18L as the F-18A was by now covered by US military classifications. UK assessments of the F-18A were therefore based on F-18L data which was problematic as the F-18L was a paper project and there was no access to reliable technical information on the differences between them.

The judgement was that the F-18A should meet AST403 on payload, range and loiter time but was slightly deficient in air combat and agility. The F-18L would meet nearly all agility targets but significantly failed in loiter time and penetration distance, achieving only 30% of AST.403 values. Both had longer landing runs than specified.
It was considered that a closer match might be the F-18L with RB.199 and more internal fuel. Another option was to fit landing brake parachute to the F-18A.

Cost data was available for the F-18A only (1979 dollars based on 800 aircraft); flyaway cost $8.18M, procurement unit cost $10.77M, programme unit cost $13.14M, R&D amortisation $2.37M which implies R&D cost of $1,900M.
Financial and industrial implications needed further study but US data was unlikely without a stronger commitment to buy.
Provisional UK national programme costs:
200 P.106 type = £2,150M
200 F-18A = £1,100M
F-18A licence production would cost £1,200M, avionics changes would add £200M, adding RB.199 a further £200M = £1,900M (capital costs only).

Warton's P.96F was seen as having some advantages over the F-18L but in terms of exports, it was recognised the P.96 could never compete with McD and Northrop's track record.

As late as January 1980 the Air Staff liked the F-18, it was available for the 1990 in-service date, largely met AST.403 and would be £1,000M cheaper than TCA. It was also £1M cheaper than Tornado per airframe (£8M Vs. £9M). [They would have had a fit had they known the real EFA total by 2011 would be £37bn!]
The RN liked the F-18/ASVTOL mix despite it being expensive as they wanted ASTOVL in service for 1995 (highly ambitious) and they weren't prepared to pay for developing an AV-8B/GR.5 variant, wanting to leapfrog into supersonics.
But gradually the European option gained more traction given the technologies to put into it and the goal firmly remained to build something better than F-18L.

 

[uk 75]

Assuming the RN does not have a conventional carrier in service in the 1980s (CVA01 or HMS Eagle) it is the RAF in two NATO roles that might benefit from using say the CF18 bought off the shelf.

RAF Germany has two F4 squadrons replacing ancient F2A Lightnings. Unlike UKAIR range is not an issue but fast response and possible dogfights with Mig29 and Su27 might be.

In the UK three Jaguar squadrons are assigned like the old Hunter FGA9s of 38 Group to NATO flanks. Again CF18s would seem to offer a significant improvement in capability.

Of course in reality the RAF were committed to what eventually becomes the Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

[GTX]

Talking RAF Hornets:

 

[RAP]

F-18 w/Rolls Royce engines from MD 1979 study. From: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2013/08/mcdonnell-aircraft-corp-achievement.html

 

[Desertfox]

So assuming the F-18L(or A) enters service with the RAF and Luftwaffe and kills Tornado and Eurofighter in the process, what about the RAF leasing F-14As for the ADV role? Could Eurofighter then morph into a more capable Tornado designed to replace the F-14A?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-18 w/Rolls Royce engines from MD 1979 study. From: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2013/08/mcdonnell-aircraft-corp-achievement.html

22,000lb thrust RB.199-like R-R engine in 1979... Hmmm.

 

[Hood]

Yeah that seems ambitious, even the RB.409 was only rated at 15,500lb in reheat.
20,000lb class would be something like the straight-through RB.431 Pegasus but that wouldn't fit in an F-18.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

XG40 was initiated in 1982, three years later, and was targeted at 90KN+ (20,232lb+)

 

[Yellow Palace]

22,000lb thrust RB.199-like R-R engine in 1979... Hmmm.

I don't think the document is claiming 22,000 lb thrust - that's how far off the aircraft centreline the engine exhaust centreline is. There are three numbers shown preceded by X: the Rolls-Royce engine at 22.000, the F404 at 18.872 (which doesn't correspond to the thrust of an F404) and the centreline at 0.000.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I don't think the document is claiming 22,000 lb thrust - that's how far off the aircraft centreline the engine exhaust centreline is. There are three numbers shown preceded by X: the Rolls-Royce engine at 22.000, the F404 at 18.872 (which doesn't correspond to the thrust of an F404) and the centreline at 0.000.

Right - that would make a lot more sense!

 

[Kiltonge]

So assuming the F-18L(or A) enters service with the RAF and Luftwaffe and kills Tornado and Eurofighter in the process, what about the RAF leasing F-14As for the ADV role?

The usual reason given for not procuring the F-14 is the cost of Phoenix rounds, which gives the simple solution; don't buy Phoenix. The F-14 already had a CW illuminator that could cue Skyflash.

On paper fuel consumption was also higher than the ADV, but on the other hand the F-14 didn't need partial reheat to keep up with a Bear. And 30% more internal fuel is a good leveller.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The usual reason given for not procuring the F-14 is the cost of Phoenix rounds, which gives the simple solution; don't buy Phoenix. The F-14 already had a CW illuminator that could cue Skyflash.

On paper fuel consumption was also higher than the ADV, but on the other hand the F-14 didn't need partial reheat to keep up with a Bear. And 30% more internal fuel is a good leveller.

More specifically the cost of the Phoenix and its weapon system and without AWG.9 there was not much reason to buy the F-14 hence more reason to invest in ADV.

To be fair, had the AI.24 been delivered at the level it was during Gulf War 1 and improved from there I am convinced F3 would have a far better repuatation. That poor starting reputation dogged it for its entire career. It was by no means the perfect fighter but better than it was given credit for in my view.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thread 'F-18A with Rolls Royce Engines' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-18a-with-rolls-royce-engines.18633/

There were already studies done to fit RB199's into an F-18 although these show an A not an L model. This however seriously impacts the Tornado ADV. I doubt it would exist as no doubt an "F-18K/M" would have sucked quite a bit of cash. The bean counters would have recommended it for all the roles of the ADV I think. Eurofighter obviously doesn't go ahead. Maybe BAe gets more involved in Super Hornet or does a new European consortium form to build an 5th gen platform in the mid 90's?

How so? The Tornado ADV has far greater range than the Hornet, which for late 1970s planning is a death sentence to the Hornet. The UK BARCAP role is significant in NATO planning!

In a military sense the RN would be much more interested in F14 Tomcats ro succeed the F4

Think you mean RAF there.

Problem was the high cost of Phoenix rounds, and the AWG-9 radar to drive them. If you don't buy Phoenixes you don't need the AWG-9, and if you don't need the AWG-9 you don't need Tomcats either.

Now, 170 British Tomcats times, say, 10 Phoenixes each, is one hell of a buy and I can understand Treasury balking on 1700 odd Phoenix missiles. If someone at the RAF knew where some bodies were buried at Treasury so they could get this bought, I would honestly hope that someone would insist on a British supplied engine for the Tomcats. While I think the RAF Tomcats would be least affected by the crappy TF30 engines, having someone else making new engines to stick in there would be a dramatic improvement, long before F101DFE was a thing.

My personal giggle-inducing what-if is Straight-through Pegasus. 48" diameter inlet? check. 4000lbs weight? check. (not sure about length, since Pegasus isn't afterburning natively) 28,000lbs thrust dry? *giggle* How much thrust in reheat (~40klbs or so)?!? *gigglegigglegigglegigglegigglegiggle maniacal laughter*

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

How so? The Tornado ADV has far greater range than the Hornet, which for late 1970s planning is a death sentence to the Hornet. The UK BARCAP role is significant in NATO planning!

As I stated... Cash flow. At the time the UK was not in a very strong position. This forum is filled with many great studies which were abandoned seeking collaborative efforts. An F-18K/M model would have tied up Warton enough in development and likely assembly work too. Fitting RB199 as shown in layout drawings gives you the same engine efficiency either way. Now the F3 does carry more fuel internally which is in its favour but greater performance in Hornet and multirole gives a plausible Jaguar replacement too which might be a big advantage in its favour again.

Personally BAe P.110 should have gone ahead instead of ADV (same everything but better airframe) but that is off-topic here.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Think you mean RAF there.

The RN was very interested in F-14s to replace the RAF's F-4s in the TASMO(AD) role. The fact that they didn't come out of the RN's budget, and that the RN didn't have to find pilots or ground crew, may have led to them being rather more enthusiastic than they might otherwise have been.

Cost wasn't the only objection to the F-14. IIRC, and interestingly given recent discussion in another thread, there were concerns that the AWG-9's ECCM capability wasn't adequate.

I'm not convinced the Spey would be as much of an improvement over the TF30 as people think. Possibly some improvement, but fundamentally it's replacing a bomber engine from the mid-1960s with an airliner engine from the mid-1960s.

An F-14 with British engines, AI.24 and Skyflash is interesting, but at that point can you really pretend you're saving money?

My personal giggle-inducing what-if is Straight-through Pegasus. 48" diameter inlet? check. 4000lbs weight? check. (not sure about length, since Pegasus isn't afterburning natively) 28,000lbs thrust dry? *giggle* How much thrust in reheat (~40klbs or so)?!? *gigglegigglegigglegigglegigglegiggle maniacal laughter*

When the straight-through Pegasus was actually proposed, as the RB.431, it was about 15,850 lbf dry and 28,030 lbf in reheat. It found its way into the HS.1202 studies, some of which looked a bit like a British F-16.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RN was very interested in F-14s to replace the RAF's F-4s in the TASMO(AD) role. The fact that they didn't come out of the RN's budget, and that the RN didn't have to find pilots or ground crew, may have led to them being rather more enthusiastic than they might otherwise have been.

Ah, that makes sense!

Cost wasn't the only objection to the F-14. IIRC, and interestingly given recent discussion in another thread, there were concerns that the AWG-9's ECCM capability wasn't adequate.

I'm not convinced the Spey would be as much of an improvement over the TF30 as people think. Possibly some improvement, but fundamentally it's replacing a bomber engine from the mid-1960s with an airliner engine from the mid-1960s.

An F-14 with British engines, AI.24 and Skyflash is interesting, but at that point can you really pretend you're saving money?

Spey/TF41 probably wouldn't have been a huge improvement for the Tomcat, no. Tomcat needs an engine with a good 20k or more dry thrust and good fuel economy. Oh, and a max diameter of about 48".

No matter how good the AI.24 radar is, the reason to have Tomcat is AWG-9 and Phoenix. If you don't have Phoenix, you don't need the AWG-9; and if you don't have the AWG-9 you don't need Tomcats.

Skyflash may be (probably was) better than Sparrows, but that's not the missile you want for BARCAP.

When the straight-through Pegasus was actually proposed, as the RB.431, it was about 15,850 lbf dry and 28,030 lbf in reheat. It found its way into the HS.1202 studies, some of which looked a bit like a British F-16.

I find that very strange, as the historical Pegasus is some 20-22klbs dry with the bends in the flow that restrict some significant thrust.

Not to mention that the Pegasus apparently has a 420lbs/sec air mass flow, while an F110 is only about 280lbs/sec.

 

[zen]

First off "NURSE, SCOTT NEEDS HIS MEDICATION!!!!!"

Ok second off.
What the RAF and RN wanted was AWG.9 and AIM-54 Pheonix. They even looked at jamming it in other airframes to see if cut the cost enough.

Third off.
Pegasus rating is normally the 'wet short lift' rating.
'Wet' is water injection to increase thrust through higher compression due to cooling compressor air.
'Lift' rating is engine overspeed measured in minutes before permanent damage.
'Short' rating is engine overspeed measured in seconds.

This does have a benefit in air-to-air combat as Harrier pilots surprised others with this ability to squeeze out more power and thus keep tighter turns (without dropping too much speed or recovering speed faster) going.
It also allowed a faster initial acceleration from cruise without reheat. One of the reasons AMRAAM Blue Vixen armed Sea Harriers were so highly rated.

 

[FighterJock]

Would the AWG.9 really have fitted in the Hornet? and how many Pheonix's would the Hornet carry in this case? If indeed this was remotely possible.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Would the AWG.9 really have fitted in the Hornet? and how many Pheonix's would the Hornet carry in this case? If indeed this was remotely possible.

Not in a million years. Somehow we've veered away from Hornets and onto Tomcats.

Not to mention that the Pegasus apparently has a 420lbs/sec air mass flow, while an F110 is only about 280lbs/sec.

As well as the Pegasus having water injection (was it the last operational engine with that feature?), it also had quite a high bypass ratio compared to most fast jet turbofans. I wouldn't be surprised if the RB.431 had a smaller fan for a lower bypass ratio, and therefore lower mass flow.

 

[Scott Kenny]

First off "NURSE, SCOTT NEEDS HIS MEDICATION!!!!!"

Nah, I'm happily medicated already, thanks.

Third off.
Pegasus rating is normally the 'wet short lift' rating.
'Wet' is water injection to increase thrust through higher compression due to cooling compressor air.
'Lift' rating is engine overspeed measured in minutes before permanent damage.
'Short' rating is engine overspeed measured in seconds.

Right, and I'm looking at Pegasus Mk107, aka the -408 in US service, which appears to not use water injection at all.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Right, and I'm looking at Pegasus Mk107, aka the -408 in US service, which appears to not use water injection at all.

It looks like the Pegasus only used water injection for cooling, rather than to boost mass flow. The 107 had it, but better turbine materials meant that it wasn't necessary except at very high ambient temperatures.

 

[NoBarrelRolls]

In this this State Department cable of 1977, it is said that there was some consideration towards the F-16 and F-18 for AST.403, with certain favoritism to the first.

Here is the link: https://archive.org/details/State-Dept-cable-1977-40753/mode/1up?q=AST.403

 

[MadRat]

F-18A with RB.199 seems like too much change when EFA was already flying with the same engine. RB.199 was a consortium engine, not from just the UK. EJ200 was not an option until long after Typhoon was firmly decided.

 

[BlackBat242]

Ah, that makes sense!

Spey/TF41 probably wouldn't have been a huge improvement for the Tomcat, no. Tomcat needs an engine with a good 20k or more dry thrust and good fuel economy. Oh, and a max diameter of about 48".


Not to mention that the Pegasus apparently has a 420lbs/sec air mass flow, while an F110 is only about 280lbs/sec.

48" engine body diameter may well require a major redesign of the F-14 aft end (and we saw what doing that to the F-4 for Spey did to it).

Here are the engines that went into the F-14:

TF30-P-412/414 (F-14A): thrust 12,350 lb (20,900 lb); weight 3,969 lb; length 125” main body /235.5” incl. afterburner; diameter 42.06” main body (50.90” afterburner module); SFC .63/2.78

F110-GE-400 (F-14B/D): thrust 16,800 lb (27,000 lb); weight 4,404 lb; length 110” main body/232.2” including afterburner; diameter 46.45” main body (52” over afterburner module); SFC.735/2.00

The F110 only fit in because the engine bays had been designed for the never-approved "F101 DFE", which was just about the same size.

An extra 1.5" main body diameter increase might be too far - my understanding was that fitting the F110 in required a lot of adjusting of the movable stuff outside the main engine casing and of the internal engine bay structure to work.

 

[royabulgaf]

Stock Hornet or Anglo-Hornet or No Hornet?

As I said in the Mirage 3000 thread a while back:



F-18L was possibly the best option for a new buy (at that time the F/A-18 was still two seperate versions and hadn't flown at that time I think). I think the MoD/RAE did see what the RB.199 would bring to the Hornet, I'll have to dig out the file again, but I don't think it offered any particular advantages in solving the STOL requirements.

So the Hornet was judged the best of the starting points from existing Western fighters in that class. So the options were - buy it and possibly doom European aviation to irrelevance and hope they could maintain enough expertise to design a fighter in the 90s for the 2000s or go all out and leapfrog Hornet in terms of performance, agility, high AoA combat capability, sensors and avionics.
Today you could argue Typhoon/Rafale are better than the F/A-18A but the revamped Super Hornet probably is on par. Had EFA/ACX materialised as Typhoon/Rafale 5-10 years sooner the leap might have been more obvious.

Politically though there was serious implications from buying/building Hornets. Doubtless Germany could have gotten away with it having no serious indigenous capability to design their own fighters. For the UK it was unthinkable and jobs like ADV and Sea Harrier FRS.2 (to become FA.2) were cut 'n' shut tinkering jobs and all the heavy lifting on Harrier II was being done by McD. Hawk 200 looked cute but was like building tonka toys and siphoning what little remained from Warton's lightweight ECA into SAAB's Gripen didn't bring great dividends.
Without keeping at least RB.199 development going there is no hope of RR managing to keep expertise to develop a new engine for a putative 2000s fighter.

So yes, there would be temptations to fit more local avionics than required, maybe to tinker with fitting RB.199s at the risk of associated R&D costs.
Plus there is the legal wranglings in the US and F-18L is shoved under the pillow by McD and snuffed out. Then the RAF/MoD needs to explain to the Treasury why they need to buy a heavier carrier-fighter when they have no carriers. "The wings fold so we can park them easier int the hangar" probably won't cut it as a sensible argument. Could have been messy and all the time BAe is shouting "we told you so" and then losing out all chance of begging crumbs from Dassault its either back the dubious P.1216 horse as the only fighter show in town or devise a Super Phantom upgrade or wheel out the P.110 concept again and putting pressure on the MoD.

Maybe a McD-BAe tie-up on Hawk (Goshawk)/Harrier II/Hornet is too cozy - might make the Westland Affair look like a sideshow if McD obtains a large shareholding into BAe Military Division.
Certainly a pro-US shift by BAe and Westland and Shorts sold off to Bombardier might kill off any hopes of European collaboration. Factor in BAe flogging the 125 family to Raytheon too and you have a nice little US carve up of the UK aviation industry.

I remember around this time Roy Baybrook thought that Northrop should have proceeded with the F-18 on spec. Northrop did that already with the f-20 and GD with the F-16/79. Both of these debuted to the sound of one hand clapping, although both were regarded as second tier aircraft, for countries deemed not worthy of real F-16s. First, I'm not sure how much commonality there would be between the Northrop and McD versions. There were well over 300 export F=18s, all land based. With an RAF order, granted licensed production with maybe the BaE Hornet having privilege in Commonwealth countries you could be looking at well over 500 produced with a more capable competitor to the Viper.

 

[Manuducati]

48" engine body diameter may well require a major redesign of the F-14 aft end (and we saw what doing that to the F-4 for Spey did to it).

The F110 only fit in because the engine bays had been designed for the never-approved "F101 DFE", which was just about the same size.

An extra 1.5" main body diameter increase might be too far - my understanding was that fitting the F110 in required a lot of adjusting of the movable stuff outside the main engine casing and of the internal engine bay structure to work.

The F-14 engine nacelles were originally designed for the Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 (not for the later GE F101/110), and were oversized for the "long-term interim" TF-30.

The podded design of the F-14 made it well suited for a new engine modification, at least compared to the Phantom. Basically everything after the inlets could be swapped without affecting the original structure.

Thread about the F401/F110 comparison:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pw-f401-pw-400-and-ge-f110-400-for-f-14.23340/