Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

What's a significant amount of time to you? Surely a lot more than 10% of total flight time? Optimizing an aircraft to save fuel for such a small portion of mission time is just silly. If this were an aircraft that would be required to operate at speeds from mach 1 to mach 3 in a combat context, then a variable cycle engine may be worth considering. But, that isn't what this appears to be and nor should it be either.

Varying cycle doesn't work like a turbocharger, it's merely a way to have an engine perform better over a wider range of air speeds. Employing this technology will not produce any greater efficiency nor thrust than a properly optimized turbojet engine at Mach 3 speeds. So the extra weight, which is going to be a lot more than few pounds, will be effectively dead weight at Mach 3 travel. Dead weight is not desirable on any aircraft.

Except that a VCE is more efficient across the entire range of air speeds as a result of its bypass stream and higher pressure ratio compared to a turbojet. And the time spent at subsonic speeds is significant more than 10%, with multiple AtA refuelings it maybe be >50% of the time. If you look at virtually every post 1970 SST study like HSCT you'll see they pretty much all use VCEs or VSCE. The Concorde would burn over a quarter to a third of its fuel just climbing and descending to and from supersonic cruise altitude which is where a VCE would have its largest performance advantage. The VABI system of the YF120 was after all developed from GE's experience designing VCEs for the HSCT. A VCE will also have a good deal more sea-level thrust which although isn't important for cruise is obviously relevant for takeoff performance which is how an engine's are sized in the first place. The VCE will also be a lot less loud at takeoff and have lower NOX emissions which are overlooked but important characteristic to consider. Pure turbojets are useful for cheap cruise missiles and little else because a LBR turbofan or VCE is better in basically every way.

The weight gain is negligible. The F120, a VCE, weighs as much as the F119, a non VCE. Both have the same amount of afterburning thrust but the F120 has around 10% more dry thrust in its turbojet regime. According to GE the VABI's added 10 pounds to the engine.

If by "ambient" you mean "probably around 80 C", then yes. If you wanted to turn it around "quickly", you'd need a couple hours from touchdown and a sturdy pair of asbestos gloves.

It wasn't a big deal for the SR-71 because its missions weren't exactly ad hoc. It would be a big deal for a supersonic or hypersonic bomber or fighter, though.

The SR-71 was never designed for high-tempo operations so it can't really be faulted for that. A flight a week would probably be considered fast.

The B-70's flight plan has it loitering in a loop at 30K feet before coming in for its final landing approach. I'm guessing they would loop around at 30K feet(where the air is at its coldest) until the fuselage has cooled enough to where they would then land and have the plane immediately worked on/refueled/rearmed, etc.

[Pavelania]

What's a significant amount of time to you? Surely a lot more than 10% of total flight time? Optimizing an aircraft to save fuel for such a small portion of mission time is just silly. If this were an aircraft that would be required to operate at speeds from mach 1 to mach 3 in a combat context, then a variable cycle engine may be worth considering. But, that isn't what this appears to be and nor should it be either.

Varying cycle doesn't work like a turbocharger, it's merely a way to have an engine perform better over a wider range of air speeds. Employing this technology will not produce any greater efficiency nor thrust than a properly optimized turbojet engine at Mach 3 speeds. So the extra weight, which is going to be a lot more than few pounds, will be effectively dead weight at Mach 3 travel. Dead weight is not desirable on any aircraft.

Except that a VCE is more efficient across the entire range of air speeds as a result of its bypass stream and higher pressure ratio compared to a turbojet. And the time spend at subsonic speeds is significant more than 10%, with multiple AtA refuelings it maybe be >50% of the time. If you look at virtually every post 1970 SSt study like HSCT you'll see they pretty much all use VCEs or VSCE. The Concorde would burn over a quarter to a third of its fuel just climbing and descending to and from supersonic cruise altitude which is where a VCE would have its largest performance advantage. The VABI system of the Yf120 was after all developed from GE's experience designing VCEs engines for the HSCT. A VCE will also have a good deal more sea-level thrust which although isn't important for cruise is obviously relevant for takeoff performance which is how an engine's are sized in the first place. The VCE will also be a lot less loud at takeoff and have lower NOX emissions which are overlooked but important characteristic to consider. Pure turbojets are useful for cheap cruise missiles and little else because a LBR turbofan or VCE is better in basically every way.

The weight gain is negligible. The F120, a VCE, weighs as much as the F119, a non VCE. Both have the same amount of afterburning thrust but the F120 has around 10% more dry thrust in its turbojet regime. According to GE the VABI's added 10 pounds to the engine.

The internal components of engines will be very hot. They won't be cooled as effectively as what they were at flying altitude. I presume this is what galla is referring to.

Either way I'm developing a VCE for my interceptor. And a new long-range a2a missile.
Also here is a revision with a blended fuselage.

[I didnt vote for Trump]

What's a significant amount of time to you? Surely a lot more than 10% of total flight time? Optimizing an aircraft to save fuel for such a small portion of mission time is just silly. If this were an aircraft that would be required to operate at speeds from mach 1 to mach 3 in a combat context, then a variable cycle engine may be worth considering. But, that isn't what this appears to be and nor should it be either.

Varying cycle doesn't work like a turbocharger, it's merely a way to have an engine perform better over a wider range of air speeds. Employing this technology will not produce any greater efficiency nor thrust than a properly optimized turbojet engine at Mach 3 speeds. So the extra weight, which is going to be a lot more than few pounds, will be effectively dead weight at Mach 3 travel. Dead weight is not desirable on any aircraft.

Except that a VCE is more efficient across the entire range of air speeds as a result of its bypass stream and higher pressure ratio compared to a turbojet.

No, it is not. At Mach 3, there will be no bypass and it will be operating purely as a turbojet. There will be no difference in efficiency assuming both engines are comparable and properly optimized.

And the time spend at subsonic speeds is significant more than 10%, with multiple AtA refuelings it maybe be >50% of the time.

Air to air refuelling comes at the expense of take off and landing time, not combat time. The purpose of air to air refuelling is so you don't need to land to refuel.

If you look at virtually every post 1970 SSt study like HSCT you'll see they pretty much all use VCEs or VSCE.

They were also pie-in-the-sky studies that yielded very little in the way of workable technology.

The Concorde would burn over a quarter to a third of its fuel just climbing and descending to and from supersonic cruise altitude which is where a VCE would have its largest performance advantage. The VABI system of the Yf120 was after all developed from GE's experience designing VCEs engines for the HSCT. A VCE will also have a good deal more sea-level thrust which although isn't important for cruise is obviously relevant for takeoff performance which is how an engine's are sized in the first place.

This is about the only performance advantage which would be considered practical for this aircraft. So the question becomes, is it really worth the added weight, expense and complexity to save fuel during take off, landings and the occasional subsonic cruise. I don't believe it is. You may believe differently.

The VCE will also be a lot less loud at takeoff and have lower NOX emissions which are overlooked but important characteristic to consider.

In Nationstates though? I guess, if that's a concern.

Pure turbojets are useful for cheap cruise missiles and little else because a LBR turbofan or VCE is better in basically every way.

A low bypass turbofan won't operate comfortably at those speeds so the point is moot. The variable combustion engine you're proposing is simply a turbojet that can act a little bit more like a turbofan at lower speeds because when you really get down to it, that's all the YF-120 was. It's nothing special, it's simply a feature you add to your turbojet to make it work better at lower speeds. Not every aircraft needs this feature, and I don't see how a Mach 3 bomber will travel at other speeds often enough to make this a practical solution.

Again, this is where some more background information on the purpose of the aircraft would be extremely useful. A typical mission profile would pretty much be black and white in showing whether this would be worthwhile or not.

The weight gain is negligible. The F120, a VCE, weighs as much as the F119, a non VCE. Both have the same amount of afterburning thrust but the F120 has around 10% more dry thrust in its turbojet regime. According to GE the VABI's added 10 pounds to the engine.

This is where grains of salt need to be taken, as the F119 is a production engine in full service while the F120 remains a what-if. However, when we think about this, adding an extra stage to the engine and installing a mechanism to allow air to bypass on demand is always going to weigh a lot more than 10 pounds if we're measuring comparable engines.

[I didnt vote for Trump]

Except that a VCE is more efficient across the entire range of air speeds as a result of its bypass stream and higher pressure ratio compared to a turbojet. And the time spend at subsonic speeds is significant more than 10%, with multiple AtA refuelings it maybe be >50% of the time. If you look at virtually every post 1970 SSt study like HSCT you'll see they pretty much all use VCEs or VSCE. The Concorde would burn over a quarter to a third of its fuel just climbing and descending to and from supersonic cruise altitude which is where a VCE would have its largest performance advantage. The VABI system of the Yf120 was after all developed from GE's experience designing VCEs engines for the HSCT. A VCE will also have a good deal more sea-level thrust which although isn't important for cruise is obviously relevant for takeoff performance which is how an engine's are sized in the first place. The VCE will also be a lot less loud at takeoff and have lower NOX emissions which are overlooked but important characteristic to consider. Pure turbojets are useful for cheap cruise missiles and little else because a LBR turbofan or VCE is better in basically every way.

The weight gain is negligible. The F120, a VCE, weighs as much as the F119, a non VCE. Both have the same amount of afterburning thrust but the F120 has around 10% more dry thrust in its turbojet regime. According to GE the VABI's added 10 pounds to the engine.

Either way I'm developing a VCE for my interceptor. And a new long-range a2a missile.
Also here is a revision with a blended fuselage.

VCE for an interceptor makes more sense. I'm still skeptical you'll need it, however it is your design after all.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Either way I'm developing a VCE for my interceptor. And a new long-range a2a missile.
Also here is a revision with a blended fuselage.
(Image)

Canting the tails inward or outward is only really done when you're concerned with RCS (it eliminates the corner reflection between the vertical tail and the wing) as with the tail canted it will have to be larger to provide the same control force (the effectiveness of the tail is relative to its vertical height) and thus draggier. It isn't a huge deal, just a small nitpick.

[Gallia-]

The SR-71 was never designed for high-tempo operations so it can't really be faulted for that. A flight a week would probably be considered fast.

The B-70's flight plan has it loitering in a loop at 30K feet before coming in for its final landing approach. I'm guessing they would loop around at 30K feet(where the air is at its coldest) until the fuselage has cooled enough to where they would then land and have the plane immediately worked on/refueled/rearmed, etc.

That works fine for a M3 cruiser. Like I said, you'd only need thick asbestos gloves and some balls to work on a M3 cruiser on landing because its "warm". It still burns you bad if you touch it.

It doesn't work for an hypersonic cruiser, though. M5+ would be lethal on touchdown without a substantial cooling period.

Turnaround time for both is atrocious, but SR-71 may have been more due to its size: It would have still required about two hours on the ground before being airborne again, assuming the ground crew went to work immediately.

The point is M3 is first generation supercruiser. Unless you are literally the 1950s, you're looking at M5+ because you've done M3 decades ago and need to go faster. It's why ATB never went supercruiser. Stealth was the easier game.

[Techoligia]

For most fight purposes the TAF Uses the Eurofigher Typhoon
Sorry its big.

[Pavelania]

Enlarged the tail fins

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

No, it is not. At Mach 3, there will be no bypass and it will be operating purely as a turbojet. There will be no difference in efficiency assuming both engines are comparable and properly optimized.

There's still going to be bypass at mach 3 to provide additional cooling air flow for the core and (more likely) the afterburner. That's what the bleed-bypass system on the J58 is for.

Air to air refuelling comes at the expense of take off and landing time, not combat time. The purpose of air to air refuelling is so you don't need to land to refuel.

It's still time the aircraft is flying subsonic, time where a low pressure turbojet will be very inefficient.

They were also pie-in-the-sky studies that yielded very little in the way of workable technology.

That's because the economies of SST's don't work out, not because the technology doesn't work.

This is about the only performance advantage which would be considered practical for this aircraft. So the question becomes, is it really worth the added weight, expense and complexity to save fuel during take off, landings and the occasional subsonic cruise. I don't believe it is. You may believe differently.

I would call a 30% or more reduction in fuel consumption "worth the added weight, expense and complexity".

A low bypass turbofan won't operate comfortably at those speeds so the point is moot. The variable combustion engine you're proposing is simply a turbojet that can act a little bit more like a turbofan at lower speeds because when you really get down to it, that's all the YF-120 was. It's nothing special, it's simply a feature you add to your turbojet to make it work better at lower speeds. Not every aircraft needs this feature, and I don't see how a Mach 3 bomber will travel at other speeds often enough to make this a practical solution.

Again, this is where some more background information on the purpose of the aircraft would be extremely useful. A typical mission profile would pretty much be black and white in showing whether this would be worthwhile or not.

A LBR turbofan would still be better. The Russians went from a low-pressure turbojet on the Mig-25 to a LBR turbofan on the Mig-31 specifically because it had lower fuel consumption across the entire flight envelope in addition to the obvious significantly better performance at subsonic speeds. The YF120 is also not a "turbojet that can act a little bit more like a turbofan at lower speeds". It's a turbofan, it has a fan section with separate high and low pressure compressors and turbines. What it has is a split fan with two VABis each leading to two separate bypass streams. It's more fuel efficient than a turbojet across the entire flight envelope so there's no mission profile where the trade off would not be worth it. For the same thrust it would also be lighter. Yes, it's more complex but so whatt? engines are complicated, and if you have the money to develop mach 3 aircraft's it's an extremely sound investment.

This is where grains of salt need to be taken, as the F119 is a production engine in full service while the F120 remains a what-if. However, when we think about this, adding an extra stage to the engine and installing a mechanism to allow air to bypass on demand is always going to weigh a lot more than 10 pounds if we're measuring comparable engines.

What? The YF120 was a fully functional jet engine which accumulated hundred of hours of flying time on both the YF-22 and YF-23 during the ATF competition. The VABI system is designed into the engine, it's not an add on. A properly designed VCE will be negligibly larger and heavier than a LBR turbofan in the same thrust class.

[New Vihenia]

It doesn't work for an hypersonic cruiser, though. M5+ would be lethal on touchdown without a substantial cooling period.

RIP hypersonic cruise-liner ;w; ?

[Pavelania]

It doesn't work for an hypersonic cruiser, though. M5+ would be lethal on touchdown without a substantial cooling period.

RIP hypersonic cruise-liner ;w; ?

lol. To achieve hypersonic flight, looks like you would need pulse detonation engines, pulsejets, or scramjets/ramjets.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

It doesn't work for an hypersonic cruiser, though. M5+ would be lethal on touchdown without a substantial cooling period.

Turnaround time for both is atrocious, but SR-71 may have been more due to its size: It would have still required about two hours on the ground before being airborne again, assuming the ground crew went to work immediately.

The point is M3 is first generation supercruiser. Unless you are literally the 1950s, you're looking at M5+ because you've done M3 decades ago and need to go faster. It's why ATB never went supercruiser. Stealth was the easier game.

M5+ would be quite the challenge and even if you solve the thermal heating issues induced by sustained M5+ flight there's virtually no way it could ever have a high sortie rate. There's theLockheed M5 (methane fueled, mach 5) penetrator study which used combined cycle turbojet/ramjet engines with the engines and fuselage being actively cooled with the cryogenic methane fuel. It could certainly be made to work although you'd have to deal with the hassle of cryogenic fuel.

Some of the LRSB aka B-21 studies were super cruisers in the M2-M4 range while another was a M7 (!!!) waverider (I'm guessing it was never seriously considered). Subsonic stealth was the choice because it's a proven commodity with the lowest risk of massive cost overruns and means Northrup could reuse lots of flight test data from the B-2. IMO if you want to go for speed a M5+ hypersonic cruise missile launched from a subsonic stealth bomber or submarine would be a more sound investment. Since you don't have to care about reusability or sortie rate you could save on weight with an aluminum fuselage with an ablative TPS coating and then use an actively cooled scramjet fed with some JP-7/RJ-5/pentaborane mix which would have a much higher energy density than any cryogenic fuel which you would need on a re-usable vehicle to actively cool thr metal TPS (I'm guessing having to reapply ablative TPS coatings after every flight or every few flights would be rather annoying and undesirable).

Hypersonic aircraft could be useful but IMO not as a bomber. A penetrating ISR asset like the SR-72 or the M5 penetrator seems like a better idea as it's a unique (and TBH also rather niche) capability that you can't really replace with an expendable hypersonic cruise missile or a conventionally armed ICBM.

[Oultremer]

Current inventory of the Oultremer Air Force (only helicopters for now).

Type Huey 2 Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Utility/Transport/Utility
(Image)

Type CH-46 Sea Knight Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Transport/ASW
(Image)

Type MD 500 Defender Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Light multi-role helicopter

Type AH-1 Cobra Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Attack helicopter
(Image)

Type Gripen Origin Sweden Class Jet Role Fighter, attack and reconnaissance aircraft
(Image)

Any other helicopters you suggest? For other roles or something.
Oultremer is not a particularly large country geopgrahically speaking. Spanning roughly the borders of modern Lebanon and or without Cyprus.

May go with the Gripen fighter plane because why not I've already have one drawn and stuff.

Yes go with the gripen. It's an awesome cheap n' deadly multirole fighter. Very easy and cheap to maintain, and it has good STOL, meaning it can take-off from unprepped airfields and roads. Also its very agile.

Yeah, almost forgot about its ability to land and take off on motorways, good tip.
And a bit of patriotism involved too.

Type Little bird Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Light Observation Helicopter


Type MD 500 Defender Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Light multi-role helicopter


Also made a error it should be FAU instead of FOU on the craft.

[Gallia-]

It doesn't work for an hypersonic cruiser, though. M5+ would be lethal on touchdown without a substantial cooling period.

RIP hypersonic cruise-liner ;w; ?

Yes.

Besides that, 9/11 did more damage to SSTs than economics ever could.

[Pavelania]

Yes go with the gripen. It's an awesome cheap n' deadly multirole fighter. Very easy and cheap to maintain, and it has good STOL, meaning it can take-off from unprepped airfields and roads. Also its very agile.

Yeah, almost forgot about its ability to land and take off on motorways, good tip.
And a bit of patriotism involved too.

Type Little bird Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Light Observation Helicopter


Type MD 500 Defender Origin USA Class Helicopter Role Light multi-role helicopter


Also made a error it should be FAU instead of FOU on the craft.

We would've went with the JAS-39E/F Gripen to replace our F-5E/F Tiger IIs, or our older F-16C/D Fighting Falcons in the near future, but LM hasn't closed their F-16 assembly line yet so we decided to place our final large order of F-16s to replace the F-5.

However the JAS-39 Sea Gripen could be seen replacing our aging A-4 Skyhawks for our Navy.

Also I finished the side profile of the interceptor.


Added a side profile view with the VG wingtips down during supersonic flight. Also I chose the triple plow intake over the VG ramp intake.

[Iltica]

Regarding the compression lift wingtips, in the case of the B70 the effect was between the wingtips and the fuselage hence the high wing and boxy inlets. The sides of this aircraft's fuselage may not produce the same effect. You could probably save a little weight by using fixed fins instead of articulated tips unless you are concerned about ground clearance on takeoff/landing. Looks good overall though.

[Pavelania]

Regarding the compression lift wingtips, in the case of the B70 the effect was between the wingtips and the fuselage hence the high wing and boxy inlets. The sides of this aircraft's fuselage may not produce the same effect. You could probably save a little weight by using fixed fins instead of articulated tips unless you are concerned about ground clearance on takeoff/landing. Looks good overall though.

Techno said that the VG wingtips pointed down during mach 2-3 flight would provide increased stability for cruising. So the VG wingtips are meant for stability at mach 3, not compression lift.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Regarding the compression lift wingtips, in the case of the B70 the effect was between the wingtips and the fuselage hence the high wing and boxy inlets. The sides of this aircraft's fuselage may not produce the same effect. You could probably save a little weight by using fixed fins instead of articulated tips unless you are concerned about ground clearance on takeoff/landing. Looks good overall though.

That's also true. The VG wingtips did 3 things: moved the AC forward during supersonic flight, increased directional stability, and generated a "compression lift" effect at supersonic speeds. How effect the compression lift is is a bit murky, the B-70's L/D at supersonic speeds isn't any higher than other supersonic cruise aircraft (SR-71, concorde, etc) with lacked the VG wingtips and "compression lift" system.

Speaking of the B-70, this is a recent design I did for for an electronic warfare aircraft based off the B-70. I made some planform changes including a 5 dihedral for added roll stability (AV-2 had this, AV-1 did not), a cranked-arrow delta wing which has improved pitch stability and subsonic/transonic handling characteristics, and vertical tails canted 15 degrees inward for lower RCS and additional pitch control. The forward weapons bay (The B-70 has two bomb bays stacked in front of each other) is occupied by an enlarged ALQ-99E type jammer similar to the one used in the EF-111. The wingtip and vertical tails also feature pods which contain emitter locating systems similar to the ALR-62 on the EF-111 or ALQ-218 on the EA-18G. The aircraft retains its rear weapons bay which can be used to carry up to 16 AARGM-ER missiles for SEAD missions or eight JSOWS, 2,000 ib JDAMs or JASSMs if for some reason you want to use it as a conventional strategic bomber. It also includes two towed decoy launchers (ALE-50 or ALE-55) on either side of the engine "six pack".

[Austrasien]

I didn't see this get mentioned...

Israel is still conducting airstrikes near Damascus. Syrian air space is supposedly protected by Russian S400 and S300 systems and Russian interceptors. The target may have been missiles destined for Hezbollah.

Either Russia is willing to turn a blind eye to Israels attacks against Syria as long as they target Hezbollah, or they are unable to stop the IAF from entering Syrian air space.

[The Akasha Colony]

I didn't see this get mentioned...

Israel is still conducting airstrikes near Damascus. Syrian air space is supposedly protected by Russian S400 and S300 systems and Russian interceptors. The target may have been missiles destined for Hezbollah.

Either Russia is willing to turn a blind eye to Israels attacks against Syria as long as they target Hezbollah, or they are unable to stop the IAF from entering Syrian air space.

I got paywall'd so I didn't read any of the details, but I have to wonder whether the destruction of these missiles supposedly being shipped to Hezbollah would be worth revealing any potential S-300/400 countermeasures developed by the Israelis. Operation Orchard in 2007 seemed more worthwhile since it targeted a nuclear reactor, but I'm wondering how significant a threat these missiles were (if they were indeed the targets) to warrant the use of such measures if indeed they were used.

[Organized States]

Anyone have any idea on how difficult it'd be to hit a fighter-sized target with the Mighty Mouse FFAR rockets that were on the F-86D and the F-89?

I'd still be using the F-86Fs in my circa 1953 air force, but considering that some F-86Ds were actually in USAFE in the 50s, I was curious as to any potential air-to-air capability on them.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Anyone have any idea on how difficult it'd be to hit a fighter-sized target with the Mighty Mouse FFAR rockets that were on the F-86D and the F-89?

I'd still be using the F-86Fs in my circa 1953 air force, but considering that some F-86Ds were actually in USAFE in the 50s, I was curious as to any potential air-to-air capability on them.

Probably god-awful. The FFAR was considered to be a quite inaccurate weapon even for the job of offing big bombers due to the poor spin-rates - necessitating carrying and firing a lot of the things to ensure a hit.

Any anti-fighter jobs should be left to the gun-armed fighters at that point in time.

[Sareva]

I didn't see this get mentioned...

Israel is still conducting airstrikes near Damascus. Syrian air space is supposedly protected by Russian S400 and S300 systems and Russian interceptors. The target may have been missiles destined for Hezbollah.

Either Russia is willing to turn a blind eye to Israels attacks against Syria as long as they target Hezbollah, or they are unable to stop the IAF from entering Syrian air space.

If my memory is correct (I got paywalled too), Israel conducted airstrikes against targets in Damascus well before the Russian intervention. I haven't heard of any new strikes committed, but they may just be me.

[-Aztlan-]

Anyone have any idea on how difficult it'd be to hit a fighter-sized target with the Mighty Mouse FFAR rockets that were on the F-86D and the F-89?

I'd still be using the F-86Fs in my circa 1953 air force, but considering that some F-86Ds were actually in USAFE in the 50s, I was curious as to any potential air-to-air capability on them.

Absolutely terrible. The F-8 Crusader was originally equipped with a retractable belly tray full of the things. As far as I've been able to determine, there were only ever two successful rocket strikes using this system. Once when the pilot wasn't even aiming at the target and on one occasion the aircraft towing the target was hit. The tray was removed fairly early in the F-8's service life and all following models never had it installed. This is the only photo I've ever found of the thing:

[Pavelania]

Anyone have any idea on how difficult it'd be to hit a fighter-sized target with the Mighty Mouse FFAR rockets that were on the F-86D and the F-89?

I'd still be using the F-86Fs in my circa 1953 air force, but considering that some F-86Ds were actually in USAFE in the 50s, I was curious as to any potential air-to-air capability on them.

Absolutely terrible. The F-8 Crusader was originally equipped with a retractable belly tray full of the things. As far as I've been able to determine, there were only ever two successful rocket strikes using this system. Once when the pilot wasn't even aiming at the target and on one occasion the aircraft towing the target was hit. The tray was removed fairly early in the F-8's service life and all following models never had it installed. This is the only photo I've ever found of the thing:

Our Air Force, aka PAF, currently flies the F-8J Crusader, but it's mainly used for air space patrolling and it's being retired next year and being replaced by our new F-16E on order.