F-111 the Modular Approach

[Michel Van]

Under F-111 program the USAF and NAVY were in dispute what they need
Tandem and Parallel Cockpit are small dispute in Program compare to rest.

But What if
Someone in Pentagon or Contractors comme up with Modular concept ?
means one Airframe were build different for USAF and NAVY needs.
USAF - Tandem or single pilot Cockpit, more powerful engines
NAVY - Parallel Cockpit, reenforce airframe, standard engines the NAVY use.

Under Modular could be also build for needed purpose.
Interceptor
interdictor/strike
Bomber
ECM/Reconnaissance

although to use one Airframe for all those need is problematic
could stretching the Airframe help ?

 

[Foo Fighter]

For me the old adage of "More pounds in airframe means more pounds to carry", bigger airframe = more fuel etc. Depending on the power unit of course.

 

[iverson]

I don't think that divergent Navy and Air Force "fighter" requirements were really the problem. After all, the F-4 worked fine for both. The problem was that the Navy wanted a fighter/interceptor, and the Air Force/TAC wanted a medium bomber but had to call it a fighter because of SAC.

 

[isayyo2]

Spend the big joint bucks on developing a common engine and electronics, ideally agree on some measurements like bomb-bay dimensions and a common production line. After that, everyone goes there separate ways to build a purpose built airframe. How the JSF should have been developed IMHO...

I don't think that divergent Navy and Air Force "fighter" requirements were really the problem. After all, the F-4 worked fine for both. The problem was that the Navy wanted a fighter/interceptor, and the Air Force/TAC wanted a medium bomber but had to call it a fighter because of SAC.

I agree with this mostly, however the F-4E & J models were pretty much separate planes with their own mission sets and unique equipment.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't think that divergent Navy and Air Force "fighter" requirements were really the problem. After all, the F-4 worked fine for both. The problem was that the Navy wanted a fighter/interceptor, and the Air Force/TAC wanted a medium bomber but had to call it a fighter because of SAC.

It's undoubtedly been said before, but as you've alluded iverson, the USAF benefitted greatly from the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II. But I've often wondered how much different the TFX program might have developed, had the USN led the program instead of the USAF....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Under F-111 program the USAF and NAVY were in dispute what they need
Tandem and Parallel Cockpit are small dispute in Program compare to rest.

But What if
Someone in Pentagon or Contractors comme up with Modular concept ?
means one Airframe were build different for USAF and NAVY needs.
USAF - Tandem or single pilot Cockpit, more powerful engines
NAVY - Parallel Cockpit, reenforce airframe, standard engines the NAVY use.

In which case, this in itself opens up an interesting engineering question, in that how would they have grafted the say Tandem and Parallel cockpit/forward fuselage to the common fuselage, given the Parallel cockpit/forward fuselage would be much narrower?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[BB1984]

I think iverson and isayyo2 have hit the nail on the head here:

• One of the many studies which led to, and then were discarded during, the JSF program arrived at isayyo2's conclusion: standardizing the high dollar components, and now that includes software, gets you much of the value of a common plane while still allowing each service to optimize the airframe.
  • Over time, the JSF program de facto used an inferior version of this strategy as the B version diverged for weight reasons and the C version, IIRC, diverged more from the A than was originally planned
• Historically, naval designs have migrated to CTOL use far better than the other way around (F4, A4, A7 being prominent modern examples). If you're committed to a "common" airframe, then develop the carrier version first.