The F-111 is never built, what bomber does the USAF take instead ?

[Michel Van]

Let assume that F-111 get never into existence.
That McNamara never become SoD or is kill in Nuclear War in 61/62.

With phase out of older bomber from 1950s and 1960s, the USAF need medium bomber.
between the B-57 and B-52 (or successor)
Under McNamara this let to TFX and to F-111.

Now under other management, what USAF take for global operating medium Bomber ?
global i mean mid air refuel or operating from US base oversea.
with load of 31,500 lb or 14300 kg on Bombs.

 

[TsrJoe]

i'm not usually into alt history but a few snippets of possible interest from the National Archives at Kew (file references noted) re. trying to interest the US. in TSR.2 ! Initial approaches to Boeing then Lockheed re TSR.2 for SOR.183 ...
'US. OR.343' ?, 1959, PRO./TNA. AVIA 65/1651
'Lockheed TSR.2' ?, 1961, PRO./TNA. DEFE 13/203
'(Boeing) Lockheed TSR.2' ?, 1961, PRO./TNA. AVIA 65/1677
'Lockheed TSR.2' ?, 1961, PRO./TNA. AVIA 65/1677

 

[Michel Van]

Now that is surprise TSR.2 as USAF bomber, one way to survive against Harold Wilson...
I will take that for another alternate History
let say here, Wilson kills the TSR.2 in preference of this new Medium US Bomber for RAF

 

[uk 75]

This is a fascinating what-if.
By1962 the USAF has tried to replace B57 and B47 to some extent with the F105 and the B58.
Both aircraft have "issues" of cost and complexity.
TFX whether GD or Boeing (I think we did this alt a long time back) would leave these aircraft in service but not necessarily in production.
The Australians and the US would, as suggested above, have TSR2 as a possible alternative. The problems with TSR2 are well known (similar in many ways to B58).
The US Navy has developed the A6 Intruder for a similar role from its carriers with the RN doing the same with the Buccaneer.
Comparing F105, A6 and Buccaneer capabilities would be interesting.
Meanwhile Boeing and Fairchild are about to develop a tactical aircraft with West Germany which emerges as a VG/VSTOL aircraft not unlike the TFX in appearance.
SAC in the US are clear what they want. More B52s not medium range bombers that have to be based overseas or constantly refueled in the air. B70 or AMSA is their supersonic aircraft of choice.
Meanwhile the F4 Phantom is emerging as a maid of all work. The RAF are reluctantly looking at this aircraft as a way out of the TSR2. The Buccaneer S2 is still not in service by 1963 so the disappointing S1 is a hard sell.
Lockheed already has hundreds of F104G nuke carrying strike aircraft in W Europe and has looked at TSR2 as an F105 substitute.
McDD seem to be in the lead with various improved F4 variants, including VG.
Hawker Siddeley in UK are torn between the P1154 and the Buccaneer.
Across the Channei a certain M, Dassault starts to look at the possibilities...

 

[Justo Miranda]

The B/J-58 with two engines

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/convair-b-58-projects.4471/

North American A-5 Vigilante

North American A-5 Vigilante - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

es.wikipedia.org

 

[Michel Van]

Now much i love B-58 with two J-58 engines,
That is very expensive aircraft to build and maintain.

A-5 Vigilante was odd contraption of reconnaissance / nuclear Bomber, do its bomb bay /fuel tanks design.

A-6 intruder, F-105, TSR.2, Buccaneer, F-4 and A-7 Corsair II have only half of demanded bomb load.
looking back on F-111 was load of 31,500 lb or 14300 kg on Bombs, the right idea ?

here comes other question supersonic or not ?
USAF were in time fun of Supersonic aircraft, what let to YF-12, the F-111 and F-15.
While some people in NAVY took subsonic option with success like the A-7 Corsair II

i wonder would someone in USAF had courage to say we need small subsonic bomber like A-7 ?

 

[BlackBat242]

The A-5 would be easy via converting the linear internal bay to a permanent fuel tank (rather than the removable tank they historically used for the RA-5C to preserve the nuke capability), then fitting conformal carry for 4 2000lb bombs (or possibly more 1000/750lb bombs) under the fuselage instead of the recon canoe.

Conformal carry would preserve the supersonic dash capability the F-111 had with its internal bay, and if TF30s replaced the J79s in a modified rear fuselage, added range would be a bonus (in addition to higher thrust).

The F-111 virtually never used all of its underwing pylons (the outer non-swiveling pair on each wing were rarely fitted for operational missions), and the RA-5C's 4 underwing pylons would cover any load the F-111 actually carried in combat.

 

[Hood]

Wouldn't have this been the cancelled Martin XB-68?

 

[1635yankee]

Let assume that F-111 get never into existence.
That McNamara never become SoD or is kill in Nuclear War in 61/62.

With phase out of older bomber from 1950s and 1960s, the USAF need medium bomber.
between the B-57 and B-52 (or successor)
Under McNamara this let to TFX and to F-111.

Now under other management, what USAF take for global operating medium Bomber ?
global i mean mid air refuel or operating from US base oversea.
with load of 31,500 lb or 14300 kg on Bombs.

If McNamara is killed in a nuclear war, it's unlikely the US would be in a position to build an advanced supersonic bomber, what with the areas where the engines, radar, and other systems would be build being somewhat destroyed and radioactive.

Leaving aside WWIII for a moment, McNamara's school of management "science" was very much in vogue. Chances are not slim that a different SecDef, appointed by a different president, of a different party would have similar ideas.

Removing the inane carrier fighter alternate role could leave the F-111 just as it was historically. After all, much of its design was driven by USAF requirements with the USN role very much glommed on.

 

[Archibald]

Moar F-105s ? Production line was re-opened in the mid to late 1960's to fill in for Vietnam losses, so...

Martin B-68 was sleek and beautiful, but was toast by 1957. How about B-58B ? as in, B-58A with more diverse A2G capabilities ? Otherwise - Vigilante or Buccaneer or TSR-2 (already suggested). Mirage IV with J79s. But USN or foreigners ? bleeeeh ! (although B-57 and AV-8 are proof anything can happen).

 

[TomS]

Moar F-105s ? Production line was re-opened in the mid to late 1960's to fill in for Vietnam losses, so...

Martin B-68 was sleek and beautiful, but was toast by 1957. How about B-58B ? as in, B-58A with more diverse A2G capabilities ? Otherwise - Vigilante or Buccaneer or TSR-2 (already suggested). Mirage IV with J79s. But USN or foreigners ? bleeeeh ! (although B-57 and AV-8 are proof anything can happen).

USN wasn't that problematic -- see F-4 Phantom (though that was also McNamara's idea, and the USAF might have opted for something else if he wasn't around.)

 

[Michel Van]

If McNamara is killed in a nuclear war, it's unlikely the US would be in a position to build an advanced supersonic bomber, what with the areas where the engines, radar, and other systems would be build being somewhat destroyed and radioactive.

It depends on war scenario and timing, do slow deployment of Soviet ICBM.
1961 nuclear war can US survive and can recover in 10 years (4-8 Soviet ICBM).
1962 nuclear war can damage the US serious (around 20 Soviet ICBM).
1967 nuclear war would be end of civilisation event. (Soviet match the US ICBM numbers).

Until 1961 had USSR only four Targets for their ICBM: New York, Chicago, Washington D.C. Los Angeles.
Do lack of operational ICBM: only eight R-7, while R-16 undergo testing.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Now under other management, what USAF take for global operating medium Bomber ?

Remember, the F-111 wasn't a bomber - it was, doctrinally, a fighter. As much as its envisaged usage centred around dropping bombs on people (and primarily the nuclear kind), a bomber wouldn't be acceptable. Nor, for that matter, would a foreign type.

So you're really looking at a US type designed to meet SOR 183, without the requirement to be common development with the Navy fleet air defence aircraft. That's going to look a lot like an F-111 in broad strokes, because the Air Force more or less got the aircraft it wanted, with a few compromises for the Navy. You probably get something like the Boeing 818 with tandem seating.

 

[Michel Van]

Remember, the F-111 wasn't a bomber - it was, doctrinally, a fighter. As much as its envisaged usage centred around dropping bombs on people (and primarily the nuclear kind), a bomber wouldn't be acceptable. Nor, for that matter, would a foreign type.

So went McNamara for a "Fighter" and avoid words "bomber" of "multi-combat Aircraft" at USAF and NAVY or international press...

Boeing 818 that would be this plane
Oddly Boeing 818 was favour by USAF, but suddenly McNamara took the General Dynamics proposal...

 

[red admiral]

I struggle to see how the requirements aren't still for supersonic speed and low altitude ingress (e.g. TFR) and that variable geometry wings aren't still the preferred answer to these. So you basically end up with an F-111.

More differences would be significant changes to the requirements; subsonic only might be the biggest change, but it feels unlikely for the time

 

[kaiserd]

I struggle to see how the requirements aren't still for supersonic speed and low altitude ingress (e.g. TFR) and that variable geometry wings aren't still the preferred answer to these. So you basically end up with an F-111.

More differences would be significant changes to the requirements; subsonic only might be the biggest change, but it feels unlikely for the time

Agree with this view.
An airforce-only “F-111 equivalent” may loose some structural weight associated with F-111B carrier operations compatibility but without the Navy pushing to keep weight down to try to enable that compatibility this theoretical “F-111 equivalent” may well see weight increases from US airforce requirement-creep, etc.

As for some of the claimed weapon loads quoted above for the actual F-111 (31,500lb?) they appear to have no relationship with what any operational F-111 ever carried or could have carried on an actual operational mission.

 

[Michel Van]

I struggle to see how the requirements aren't still for supersonic speed and low altitude ingress (e.g. TFR) and that variable geometry wings aren't still the preferred answer to these. So you basically end up with an F-111.

More differences would be significant changes to the requirements; subsonic only might be the biggest change, but it feels unlikely for the time

So far i understand were in late 1960s, USAF was downright obsessed with:
Supersonic speed of mach 2+, low altitude flying, using short runway in case it bomb or nuked.
The engineers found solution in sweep wings used in F-111, F-14, B-1A and Tornado.
the Price higher maintenance costs what became fatal for F-111 and F-14 after Cold War ended.

 

[PlanesPictures]

Last version of Boeing 818. 3D model is based on original drawings

 

[1635yankee]

Remember, the F-111 wasn't a bomber - it was, doctrinally, a fighter. As much as its envisaged usage centred around dropping bombs on people (and primarily the nuclear kind), a bomber wouldn't be acceptable. Nor, for that matter, would a foreign type.

So went McNamara for a "Fighter" and avoid words "bomber" of "multi-combat Aircraft" at USAF and NAVY or international press...

Boeing 818 that would be this plane
Oddly Boeing 818 was favour by USAF, but suddenly McNamara took the General Dynamics proposal...

The F-105 -- which was about as tuned for air combat as the F-111 -- predated McNamara. It wasn't McNamara deciding "fighter" was the proper category; it was the AIr Force. The USAF's logic seemed to be that there are two types of combat aircraft: strategic bombers, with a "B" and everything else with an "F." I'm mildly surprised the A-26 and A-1 didn't get designations in the "F" series

 

[uk 75]

This makes a lot of sense.
Strategic Air Command (SAC) used aircraft that operated from bases in the USA. It did not really want medium bombers that needed overseas deployment. B58 and FB111A operated from US bases but needed a lot of refueling.
Tactical Air Command (TAC) operated fighter bombers.overseas such as the F100 and F105.

 

[BlackBat242]

Remember, the F-111 wasn't a bomber - it was, doctrinally, a fighter. As much as its envisaged usage centred around dropping bombs on people (and primarily the nuclear kind), a bomber wouldn't be acceptable. Nor, for that matter, would a foreign type.

So went McNamara for a "Fighter" and avoid words "bomber" of "multi-combat Aircraft" at USAF and NAVY or international press...

Boeing 818 that would be this plane
Oddly Boeing 818 was favour by USAF, but suddenly McNamara took the General Dynamics proposal...

The F-105 -- which was about as tuned for air combat as the F-111 -- predated McNamara. It wasn't McNamara deciding "fighter" was the proper category; it was the AIr Force. The USAF's logic seemed to be that there are two types of combat aircraft: strategic bombers, with a "B" and everything else with an "F." I'm mildly surprised the A-26 and A-1 didn't get designations in the "F" series

In 1948, as soon as the Martin B-26 Marauder was out of service, the USAF redesignated the Douglas A-26 Invader as the B-26.

This persisted until the mid-1960s, when political imperatives forced the USAF to re-redesignate it A-26 to soothe the sensibilities of Thailand, which did not allow U.S. bombers in-country at the time (although they did later).


The A-1 Skyraider was not their decision, as it was already in USN service for 19 years before the USAF accepted its first ex-USN Skyraiders in 1965 (all USAF Skyraiders were ex-USN airframes).

 

[BlackBat242]

As for some of the claimed weapon loads quoted above for the actual F-111 (31,500lb?) they appear to have no relationship with what any operational F-111 ever carried or could have carried on an actual operational mission.

Here is a photo of an external load F-111 test... note the text about the wing pylons:




All eight wing pylons were rated for 5,000lb each (40,000lbs total including racks etc, plus the internal payload), but the max payload was limited to 31,500lb due to wing and landing gear strength and take-off weight limitations.

The FB-111A, with its longer and stronger wings, stronger landing gear, and stronger engines, had a total weapon load of 35,500 lb (16,100 kg). SAC did fit the inner pair of the fixed pylons to carry a drop tank for ferry missions only... these were angled more sharply than the ones TAC had, allowing the fixed wing angle to have more sweep.

 

[uk 75]

F111s in US service relied on forward bases.
Two wings were stationed in the UK. Others based in the USA would operate from bases in UK in wartime.
Curtis Le May amongst others prefered to have his assets based in the US.
If the F111 had not been developed, SAC would have pressed earlier for AMSA and B1 or similar might have been deployed in the 70s rather than the 80s.
The F105 and F4 were both candidates for further development to improve range and penetrative capability.

 

[kaiserd]

As for some of the claimed weapon loads quoted above for the actual F-111 (31,500lb?) they appear to have no relationship with what any operational F-111 ever carried or could have carried on an actual operational mission.

Here is a photo of an external load F-111 test... note the text about the wing pylons:


View attachment 701011

All eight wing pylons were rated for 5,000lb each (40,000lbs total including racks etc, plus the internal payload), but the max payload was limited to 31,500lb due to wing and landing gear strength and take-off weight limitations.

The FB-111A, with its longer and stronger wings, stronger landing gear, and stronger engines, had a total weapon load of 35,500 lb (16,100 kg). SAC did fit the inner pair of the fixed pylons to carry a drop tank for ferry missions only... these were angled more sharply than the ones TAC had, allowing the fixed wing angle to have more sweep.

Taken from Joe Baugher’s website:

General Dynamics F-111

 

[uk 75]

The two F111 Wings in the UK (Upper Heyford and Lakenheath) became the only assets NATO had for deep strike with conventional or nuclearweapons until the deployment of cruise missiles in the 80s.

Since the end of the Cold War this role has.fallen to F15s based at Lakenheath.

Without the F111 in the 1970s NATO would have had no supersonic deep strike aircraft.

Only the Mirage IV offered some of the capabilities of the F111. TSR2 would also have done.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Why not use the French solution of building a steroid version of the Mirage III as a supersonic nuclear bomber. An enlarged F-106 with two engines???

 

[zen]

Wouldn't the twin engined B58 variant offer a way forward?

 

[uk 75]

B58 Hustlers could have been transfered to TAC from SAC and based in the UK.

Would certainly have livened up my childhood as Upper Heyford is just up the road from where I live.

 

[BlackBat242]

As for some of the claimed weapon loads quoted above for the actual F-111 (31,500lb?) they appear to have no relationship with what any operational F-111 ever carried or could have carried on an actual operational mission.

Here is a photo of an external load F-111 test... note the text about the wing pylons:


View attachment 701011

All eight wing pylons were rated for 5,000lb each (40,000lbs total including racks etc, plus the internal payload), but the max payload was limited to 31,500lb due to wing and landing gear strength and take-off weight limitations.

The FB-111A, with its longer and stronger wings, stronger landing gear, and stronger engines, had a total weapon load of 35,500 lb (16,100 kg). SAC did fit the inner pair of the fixed pylons to carry a drop tank for ferry missions only... these were angled more sharply than the ones TAC had, allowing the fixed wing angle to have more sweep.

Taken from Joe Baugher’s website:

General Dynamics F-111

Note Baugher cites only 6 pylons - whereas 8 could be (but rarely if ever were) fitted - that would bring the total to 32 x 1,000lb bombs (except for that 31,500lb limit).

 

[kaiserd]

As for some of the claimed weapon loads quoted above for the actual F-111 (31,500lb?) they appear to have no relationship with what any operational F-111 ever carried or could have carried on an actual operational mission.

Here is a photo of an external load F-111 test... note the text about the wing pylons:


View attachment 701011

All eight wing pylons were rated for 5,000lb each (40,000lbs total including racks etc, plus the internal payload), but the max payload was limited to 31,500lb due to wing and landing gear strength and take-off weight limitations.

The FB-111A, with its longer and stronger wings, stronger landing gear, and stronger engines, had a total weapon load of 35,500 lb (16,100 kg). SAC did fit the inner pair of the fixed pylons to carry a drop tank for ferry missions only... these were angled more sharply than the ones TAC had, allowing the fixed wing angle to have more sweep.

Taken from Joe Baugher’s website:

General Dynamics F-111

Note Baugher cites only 6 pylons - whereas 8 could be (but rarely if ever were) fitted - that would bring the total to 32 x 1,000lb bombs (except for that 31,500lb limit).

As far as I am aware F-111s never used more than the 4 “moving” pylons in actual combat. Or in almost any instance other than some limited testing (maybe excepting FB-111s and use for extra drop tanks?)

And that’s before considering the impact on take-off and general performance, range etc. of such overloads and inability to sweep the wings.

All fascinating for some, apparently, but largely irrelevant to considerations of the F-111s actual real-world operational capabilities (and the topic of this discussion - what would have been the alternative if it hadn’t been around).

This is not a dig at the F-111; similar scenarios play out with claims of the F-4s max bomb load - you better be planning for a very long run way and your target needs to be directly adjacent to your airfield.

 

[uk 75]

The NATO missions either involved Paveways or similar precision munitions.
Or of course just a bucket of sunshine.
The FB111s seemed mainly to ioperate with the SRAM as route clearers for the B52s..

Not sure that payload.mattered that much.

 

[BlackBat242]

As far as I am aware F-111s never used more than the 4 “moving” pylons in actual combat. Or in almost any instance other than some limited testing (maybe excepting FB-111s and use for extra drop tanks?)

And that’s before considering the impact on take-off and general performance, range etc. of such overloads and inability to sweep the wings.

All fascinating for some, apparently, but largely irrelevant to considerations of the F-111s actual real-world operational capabilities (and the topic of this discussion - what would have been the alternative if it hadn’t been around).

This is not a dig at the F-111; similar scenarios play out with claims of the F-4s max bomb load - you better be planning for a very long run way and your target needs to be directly adjacent to your airfield.

Which is why I think that an A-5D (A-5B with TF30s, permanent internal fuel tank in the linear bay, and conformal bomb carry under the fuselage) could do basically the same missions as the F-111 did, thanks to its 4 underwing pylons.

 

[Michel Van]

so we can pin-point the selection to this:

Modified F-105, F4 or B-58E
or new aircraft analog to Mirage IV (delta wing two engine )

 

[Archibald]

On the last option Convair would be a top outsider. How about a B-58 with only two engines ? no lack of options: J58, J93, J75... or, damn it, two GE4s from the SST. Or just one. Or two TF30s for better sfc.

 

[Michel Van]

On the last option Convair would be a top outsider. How about a B-58 with only two engines ? no lack of options: J58, J93, J75... or, damn it, two GE4s from the SST. Or just one. Or two TF30s for better sfc.

That would be the B-58E proposal:

Tactical Bomber for Tactical Air Command - canceled, do not match TAC requirement,
2 x P&W-J58 with afterburner
Mach 0.9 - 1.2 (max Mach 2.4)
Mach 2.4 with one refuel with KC-135 for USA-Indochina
ferry range USA-Europe with equipment for 2 Mission on board
Armament: conventional weapon capability

 

[1635yankee]

In 1948, as soon as the Martin B-26 Marauder was out of service, the USAF redesignated the Douglas A-26 Invader as the B-26.

This persisted until the mid-1960s, when political imperatives forced the USAF to re-redesignate it A-26 to soothe the sensibilities of Thailand, which did not allow U.S. bombers in-country at the time (although they did later).


The A-1 Skyraider was not their decision, as it was already in USN service for 19 years before the USAF accepted its first ex-USN Skyraiders in 1965 (all USAF Skyraiders were ex-USN airframes).

The USAF did assign an "F" designation to their F-4s, but it didn't stick. The USN also did the same sort of thing with numerous aircraft that were originally USAF (or USAAF) models. Some of these did stick, but many didn't

 

[Michel Van]

The USAF did assign an "F" designation to their F-4s, but it didn't stick.

original the USAF F-4 had complete other designation

 

[H_K]

Which is why I think that an A-5D (A-5B with TF30s, permanent internal fuel tank in the linear bay, and conformal bomb carry under the fuselage) could do basically the same missions as the F-111 did

I like this idea a lot. How would internal fuel carriage & fuel fraction have compared to the F-111?

And how easy was it to fit TF30s instead of J79? Maybe Speys would have been an easier fit? (we can imagine a trade where the US licenses the Spey in exchange for the UK’s purchase of the F-4K and A-5K?

 

[BlackBat242]

The Spey and TF30 are the same physical footprint, thrust, and fuel consumption (.63 military, 1.95 in AB Spey, .62 mil, 2.6 AB TF30* vs .86 mil, 1.93 AB J79)- both have a larger diameter main engine body than the J79, but their afterburners are basically the same diameter as the J79's afterburner.

* This is significantly higher in AB consumption than any other US military turbojet/turbofan engine, and should have been redesigned at some point, so maybe the Spey would be best.

The US would put a modified Spey into A-7D/Es in 1966+ as the Allison/RR TF41, so moving that up a few years should be easy (remembering that the Spey afterburner also didn't come along until 1966).



Internal fuel carriage of the A-5B (base for the RA-5C) was 2,590 gallons (up from 2,110 gallons in the A-5A via an extra 210 gallon tank above the center fuselage in the new "humpback", increasing the wing tank from 695 to 715 gallons, and increasing the two main fuselage tanks from 695 to 945 gallons combined) - including the two removable fuel tanks in the linear bomb bay carrying 590 gallons (2x295).

If the nuclear store was not carried a third 295 gallon tank would go in the linear bay for a total of 885 gallons (2,885 total) - a permanent tank (most likely 2 for better weight/balance control) in that location would likely hold around 1,000 gallons (and be much more secure).


So we could see 3,000 gallons or so, plus the better fuel consumption of either turbofan to give increased range.

A-5A fuel tanks:




A-5B/RA-5C fuel tanks:

 

[martinbayer]

In 1948, as soon as the Martin B-26 Marauder was out of service, the USAF redesignated the Douglas A-26 Invader as the B-26.

This persisted until the mid-1960s, when political imperatives forced the USAF to re-redesignate it A-26 to soothe the sensibilities of Thailand, which did not allow U.S. bombers in-country at the time (although they did later).


The A-1 Skyraider was not their decision, as it was already in USN service for 19 years before the USAF accepted its first ex-USN Skyraiders in 1965 (all USAF Skyraiders were ex-USN airframes).

The USAF did assign an "F" designation to their F-4s, but it didn't stick. The USN also did the same sort of thing with numerous aircraft that were originally USAF (or USAAF) models. Some of these did stick, but many didn't

So if the USAF "F" designation for the F-4 "didn't stick", why is it known to this very day as the F-4? Inquiring minds want to know...