FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0205.PDF
This purely hypothetical study illustrates features which might be expected in the eventual TFX aeroplane. The wings are depicted in the folded, intermediate and spread positions. Virtually every major US military- aircraft manufacturer has made a TFX submission, variously using as engines the Pratt & Whitney TF30, Allison AR.I68 (Americanized R-R Spey) or a GE project. Our artist has indicated a possible dorsal intake, tandem seats, four-leg undercarriage, four underwing stores pylons and large elevons; fuel is shown shaded ON February 1 the US Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, named The Boeing Co and General Dynamics to build the finally agreed design in the TFX competition. The initials TFX may mean little to most British readers; but to the US aircraft industry they promise a new lease of life in the development of manned weapon systems, and a king-sized assurance that aircraft development is not being allowed to atrophy while billions of dollars are poured into missiles and space research. As these words are written the specification of the winner has yet to be announced, and details of the design remain classified. But it is possible to present some of the background thinking in order to explain what TFX is supposed to achieve and why it is so important. The initials, incidentally, stand for "Tactical Fighter Xperimental" or tactical fighter project. The programme was initiated to meet Specific Operational Requirement 183, and the production aero plane may have any of several designations. Essentially, the TFX is a state-of-the-art advance in the field of multi-purpose tactical aeroplanes, of which some examples are given in the small sketch overleaf. By 1945 such aircraft as the Tempest, the later Spitfires, the P-47 and P-51 were on the verge of replacement by the Meteor, Vampire.. F-80 and F-84. The former were the end-product of 40 years of unbroken development of piston-engined aeroplanes, while the newcomers were the first flashing fruits of the new era of jet propulsion. The jets were faster than any propeller-driven aeroplane, and the two American examples quoted—better known as the Shooting Star and Thunder- jet—proved in Korea that they could also fly the most demanding defensive and offensive missions in primitive environments. Nevertheless, they also Suffered from fundamental shortcomings, which have persisted in greater or lesser degree to the present time. In today's tactical machines, the outstanding examples of which are the F-104G and F-105D, speed, rate of climb and ceiling have reached more than twice the figures achieved with the same manu facturers' F-80 and F-84. In addition, the contemporary aircraft can operate at night or in very bad weather, navigating and striking point targets automatically. But there is another side to the balance sheet: Concrete: With full external load, the modern tactical aeroplane needs up to two miles of high-strength concrete. This is a crippling handicap, which would never have been accepted had it not come about in gradual increments over a period of years. In many parts of the world it is physically impossible for such a runway to be © lliffe Transport Publications Ltd 1962 constructed; and when an operating platform to this standard has been built, at a cost of over one million dollars, it becomes an immovable and unconcealable target which would almost certainly be destroyed within a few minutes of the start of a "hot" war. Specialization. In the past there have been one or two classic cases of aircraft which were outstanding in every type of tactical role. To a limited degree the same can be said today of the F-105D, F4H and Mirage IIIE; but it is not practicable to employ only one type of fighter/bomber/reconnaissance aeroplane. Admittedly it is difficult to make a case for the Hunter, Swift, Canberra, Lightning, Javelin, Scimitar, Sea Hawk, Venom and Sea Vixen (plus a host of cancelled designs); but the fact remains that several nations have had to buy at least four types of aeroplane to be sure of meeting their requirements in these categories. Tankers. Some countries have no need of aircraft with a range greater than, say, 1,000 miles. For example, the NATO BMR-3 tactical strike requirement is said to stipulate a low-level radius of action of but 250 n.m. On the other hand, the United States and United Kingdom have global commitments which may demand the hurried transfer of tactical aircraft from one continent to another. Such an operation cannot presuppose the availability of en-route staging points, and this explains the huge outlay which the USAF Tactical Air Command have to make on KB-50 and KC-135 tankers. Even the US Navy task force, which bring their airfields with them, have a refuelling probe on every jet aeroplane. Taking into account its effect on equipment, personnel, training and support costs, reliance on air-refuelling as a standard operation significantly reduces the size of force which the budget allows. Support. Despite good engineering design, the modern fighter/ bomber costs dozens of times as much to maintain as did its equivalents of World War II. The aircraft alone are expensive enough, but when one takes into account the complete weapon system (the word is used in its all-embracing American sense) money must be found for such equipment as gas-turbine power trucks, ground-conditioning equipment for airborne systems and aircrew suits, and automatic electronic analysers for rapidly and correctly checking thousands of circuits and systems. Thus there has been no shortage of people who believe that the development of military aircraft—some would even say all aircraft —has steadily led to a far from optimum product, which is inherently inflexible, dangerous and tied to acres of concrete. Such was certainly the belief two years ago of Gen Frank F. Everest, who was
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
