SAC Keeps the Hustler

[Spino]

As mentioned here https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=54071.msg1087167#msg1087167 if USAF never got the F-111 then that opens the door for upgrades to existing aircraft.  I already did a whiff of one such upgrade, my F-107E build.  That takes care of TAC's interdictor/low level strike aircraft needs (at least in theory), but SAC also had a version of the F-111 (the FB-111) that they wouldn't be getting in my what-if universe.  I considered coming up with a clean-sheet design and 3D-printing it to solve that (partly because I have some 3D-printed SRAMs that have never really had a plane to carry them), but recently I realized that an even better answer might be staring me right in the face - the B-58 Hustler.  Apparently at least one USAF general would have agreed with me, because when McNamara wanted the Air Force to get a new supersonic bomber he was supposedly met with a request from said general for more B-58s.  The Hustler's podded engine configuration would make an engine upgrade to something like Allison TF41s a relatively simple affair, and the avionics developed for the F-111 could largely be carried over I imagine.  So with all that being said, I now have two problems to solve.  Firstly, since I build pretty much exclusively in 1/48 scale, a B-58 kit is just too expensive for me to justify, so I'll be using my go-to method for getting around such problems (3D-printing).  This will also allow me to design in changes to the B-58 much more easily.  The second (and bigger) issue is storage for this thing.  In 1/48 scale a B-58 will be roughly 24 inches long, which dwarfs even my A-5 Vigilante by a considerable margin!  I'm still working on solving that...

Meantime, here's a preview of the 3D model as it currently stands.  I have sized the engine nacelles such that there should be room for the intake cone and associated equipment in addition to the afterburning TF-41s themselves.  The nozzles will be added separately.  I'll likely be adding the four external stations that the Hustler had in real life plus two wing pylons (one between each engine pair).  Hopefully that will be enough to get 8-10 SRAMs on board, with some stored on the underside of a heavily redesigned belly pod.

You cannot view this attachment.

[Pellson]

Nice! I've been looking into something similar, but in my case not modifying so extensively.  The Hustler was a capable if ridiculously expensive aircraft to operate, and I find it rather easy to imagine the original aircraft staying in service with mainly smaller engine upgrades but more significant such to electronics and armament.

But that's m project. I'll be keeping a keen eye at this build as well. 

[Spino]

Nice! I've been looking into something similar, but in my case not modifying so extensively.  The Hustler was a capable if ridiculously expensive aircraft to operate, and I find it rather easy to imagine the original aircraft staying in service with mainly smaller engine upgrades but more significant such to electronics and armament.

But that's m project. I'll be keeping a keen eye at this build as well. 

Was it really that expensive?  I've heard that, but supposedly what was really going on was that the two B-58 wings that SAC had somehow ended up with about 40 aircraft each, compared with 12-15 for a B-52 wing.  So on that basis, yes two wings of B-58s cost as much as six B-52 wings to operate, but if taken on a per-aircraft basis the Hustler wasn't necessarily any more expensive to operate than a B-52.  Granted the B-52 had a lot more range and payload, but it was nowhere near as fast and couldn't operate down in the weeds nearly as well as the Hustler could. 

I'd be interested to know how the Hustler's operating costs stacked up against the FB-111s that eventually replaced it.  The real issue (in terms of range) was the four gas-guzzling J-79s that powered the B-58.  With the right engines and maybe a wet wing, I suspect the Hustler could have done the same job as the FB-111 and done it better in most regards.  Most likely Hustler could have carried more weapons in a useful configuration than the FB-111 ever thought about.  But that's just conjecture on my part, at best maybe you could call it an educated guess.  Hence the TF-41 powered version I'm working on here...

[Rheged]

The RAF had a go at the Hustler in Whiffworld.  https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=45430.msg823979#msg823979.  Herewith my backstory written to support Brad in July 2018

[Spino]

The RAF had a go at the Hustler in Whiffworld.  https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=45430.msg823979#msg823979.  Herewith my backstory written to support Brad in July 2018

Nice build!  In my whiff universe, RAF gets a Spey-powered Hustler version instead of TSR.2, essentially a minimum change derivative of the TF-41-powered B-58.  Would look good next to the Crusader III's they'd also be getting.

[McColm]

Thinking outside of the box, your rendering reminds me of the North American's/Rockwell early design for the B-1A Lancer with a fixed delta wing.
I tried kitbashing the two Airfix kits using the 1/72 BAC Concorde wings, should have started with the Concorde model first and then added the Lancer parts onto it.

[kerick]

I might think twice about the F-111 avionics. My uncle worked at the maintenance depot for them and swore about it all the time. Part was stuff that didn't work with other parts and the other part was just terrible initial construction. Cables that connected from one black box to another that it wasn't even supposed to. Just dumb stuff. They constantly had to rewire stuff. No wonder they were a maintenance hog. That's the biggest reason the USAF got rid of them after Desert Storm.

[Rick Lowe]

Dumb stuff or sabotage? 
Paranoid, me? Highly likely...

[Spino]

I might think twice about the F-111 avionics. My uncle worked at the maintenance depot for them and swore about it all the time. Part was stuff that didn't work with other parts and the other part was just terrible initial construction. Cables that connected from one black box to another that it wasn't even supposed to. Just dumb stuff. They constantly had to rewire stuff. No wonder they were a maintenance hog. That's the biggest reason the USAF got rid of them after Desert Storm.

Hmm, maybe just an update to the best version of the existing tech the Hustler had then.  I seem to recall that the Hustler got some solid-state electronics late in its life, although I could be mistaken about that.  There was some kind of upgrade made to the B-58's electronics that improved things quite a bit, that much I do recall.

[jcf]

General Dynamics would be happy either way as they owned Convair from 1953 up until they sold Convair-Ft. Worth to Lockheed in 1993. GD rebranded all of its Convair divisions in the early '60s for marketing reasons but internally they all continued to operate under the Convair name.

The F-111 was a Convair designed and built aircraft and the F-16 is the last Convair and it's still being produced. One could argue that it's the most successful Convair aircraft since the B-24.


The Convair/GD/Lock-Mart factory in Ft. Worth is actually owned by the Air Force and always has been.

Piecemeal upgrading of the avionics of the B-58 would just produce the same issues as experienced with the F-111 later in its life, and many other long lived types for that matter. Incorporating systems changes to an existing aircraft but not wanting/unable to do the job properly due to monetary or time constraints is always going to lead to maintenance issues. Then there's the issue of whether or not the aircraft was designed from the start to actually be upgradeable. It's not a matter of "pull out the old boxes and shove in the new".
Adding new capabilities further complicates the issues and if it's done with a "we'll find a place for the box and rum some new wires" approach then it'll become a bigger headache down the road. Especially when the paperwork never quite catches up with what's actually on the aircraft.
To properly upgrade systems requires taking the aircraft out of service for as long as it takes to strip out the old equipment and all related wiring, which will usually require more "opening up" of the airframe than one would assume.

[Weaver]

There were proposals by Convair for a twin-engined B-58 powered by two P&W J-58 (Blackbird) engines mounted on the inboard pylons. The nacelles would have been much bigger of course, with notably flared-out multi-petal nozzles.

The proposals date from 1959. The B-58C was an improved bomber. The B/J-58 was an interceptor with just two crew, a bulged nose for a big AN/ASG-18 AI radar, a 5ft fuselage stretch, a taller fin, small fins near the wingtips, increased wing area and leading edge sweep, and IR sensors (like those of the YF-12A) in the wingroots. The bomb pod would be replaced by a long, slim one containing three GAR-9 (AIM-47) AAMs, fully enclosed in individual tandem bays. The Vulcan tail stinger would be removed.

Elements of the B/J-58 actually flew, although only as a technology demonstrator for the XF-108 Rapier, not the first step towards an actual Hustler interceptor. The aircraft, nicknamed "Snoopy" due to it's enlarged nose, had the AN/ASG-18 radar, IR sensors on the sides of the nose rather than the wing roots, and a pod containing a single GAR-9. It carried out a series of test launches between 1962 and 1964.

Information and a 1/180th scale drawing can be found in Scott Lowthers SR-71 book.

[jcf]

A J58 powered B-58 would be silly as it would have an even shorter range than the four
J79 engined regular B-58.
🤣

[PR19_Kit]

Yeah, but it would have been QUICK! 

[kerick]

There was something I read about the last time B-52s had major upgrades and the miles of wire pulled out of each one. Probably boosted fuel economy with all the saved weight too.

[Weaver]

There was something I read about the last time B-52s had major upgrades and the miles of wire pulled out of each one. Probably boosted fuel economy with all the saved weight too.

Same thing happened when the USAF got ex-navy Skyraiders for Vietnam: miles of wiring pulled out of each one.