|
Why was the Vigilante never offered as an Interceptor to the USN?
First I must confess that I have a bit of a fetish for North American Aviation designs, paticuarly what I like to call the big three of the Vigilante, Valkyrie and Rapier. So the question is why was the Vigilante never offered to the Navy as an interceptor for the same role that the F6D Missileer and F111B were designed for. The Vigilante seems like the perfect candidate, fully carrier capable, large radome, large payload, long range, two seater and high speed. It just seems strange that it was never proposed, I am sure that it could carry at least 4 AIM-47s?:confused:
I know that at least two interceptor variants were proposed to the Air Force, one with a rocket engine added and one with an extra J79. It seems to me that even without such extra propulsion the Vigilante could have filled the role for the USN up until the F-14 Tomcat came along? Thoughts opinions any extra information or pictures of sexy North American Aviation aircraft? Thanks in advance sealordlawrence. |
Hmmm... While the proposal has merit, I think that the main two problems were the lack of sufficient maneuverability (it was designed as a strike aircraft, after all) and the fact that despite some projects, the US never had the tradition of big interceptors with lotsa missiles - unlike the Soviet Union (Tu-128 et al)...
Also in service at the time was the Phantom, which was a very, very good airplane... |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
The A-5 - I just love those 1950s aircraft!!
Such a brilliant, ground-breaking but also something of a pig’s ear of a design. If they were to convert it into an air-defence fighter what were they to do with the strangely located bomb bay. Remember, the Vigilante’s wings were never even designed for underwing munitions carriage and I should thing that if North American were to go about redesigning the A-5 as a fighter, they would in effect be creating a completely new aircraft! Also, the A-5 was so large it wasn’t able to operate from many of the USN’s smaller carriers, which would have effected operational flexibility somewhat. I love this picture of an A-5. The aircraft still looks modern for a 50 year old design, the ancient looking tanker truck helping to provide a time period reference (you could almost expect to see Cary Grant running by, followed by a crop duster)!;) |
They could of used the bombay for a missile trapeze like the F-106. Or more fuel. And why not missiles streamlined into the fuselage like on so many other planes?
|
I have seen sources saying that the Vigilante could carry two 2000lb stores beneath each wing. As to what to do with the ridiculous bomb bay- do what was usualy done with it anyway, fill it with fuel.;)
Ps, thanks for the picture.:) |
Quote:
|
Oh, so that's what you could do with the redundant bomb bay - stick another engine in there!:eek: :diablo:
Never thought of that...:confused: :confused: |
Quote:
It was the A-5B that had the four 2000lb under wing store stations, it was developed along side the A-5C recon bird but was cancelled after just six were completed. |
I've got two books on the A-5/RA-5 that both show that it was tested with conventional air to ground munitions hung off four underwing hardpoints. The reason that the RA-5C was rarely seen with underwing tanks is, according to these books, the drag was enough to render the range boost provided by the tanks almost negligible, so they flew with internal fuel only.
The books are the Squadron/Signal Mini on the Vigilante and the Osprey book on the various units that operated the aircraft. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Vigilante also lacked "bring back" weight margins to land on a carrier with a full load of very expensive, very large Eagle or Phoenix AAMs. By today's standards, the Vigilante probably wouldn't be considered acceptable as a carrier aircraft. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The recon Vigilante could fly an impressive distance, but it's ability to loiter was rather limited. Quote:
Quote:
Can anyone imagine how disasterous a Vigilante based fighter would have been over the skies of North Vietnam? Imagine for a moment the operational nightmare of two full squadrons of Vigilantes aboard even the largest supercarrier. The Vigilante was a nearly Skywarrior sized aircraft with same turbojets as the much smaller Phantom. It was not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination. The Vigilante was expensive to produce, expensive to operate, limited in capability. It became a recon platform not only because the strategic mission disappeared, but also because it was a poor strike aircraft. |
Quote:
The B variant had 4 wing mounted hard points capable of taking 2000lbs each, the AIM-47 weighed 800lbs. You seem to have missed the point of the intended role of this series of aircraft, they were not intended to go one on one with Mig-21s but to carry long range missiles to bring down AShM carrying medium bombers- dog fighting was not a requirement. The radome would probably have been sufficient and could have probably been enlarged without too much difficulty. |
Quote:
The F6D was speciallized for long CAP endurance, being the first application of the TF30. It also had the advantage of employing a relatively inexpensive, low development risk airframe. All of the risk was isolated to the very expensive and comprehensive radar and missiles. Subsonic performance also meant that Missileer imposed less of a burden upon carrier operations. Quote:
MacNamara was right to cancel the FD6 airframe while continuing the development of the Missileer's radar and missiles. The F-4 eventually because the Navy's sole fighter, instead of sharing flight decks with the Missileer as originally planned. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that a RA-5B would never have landed aboard the carrier with the bombs still on the pylons. Taking off with 8,000lb of bombs might also have precluded a full fuel load. As previously stated, there would have been no "bring back" weight margin for a much heavier fighter version of the Vigilante to land aboard a carrier with 6 Eagle/Phoenix missiles. Quote:
Quote:
Look at a photograph of the Vigilante. It should be entirely obvious. |
The Vigilante, as you may know, was designed as a nuclear high-level strike aircraft.
To be sure it had a capacious weapons bay but was designed to let the weapons literally fall out of its back side as it climbed up in a half loop, rolling off the top and diving to exit from the blast ASAP. Thus it was not well designed for launching weapons forward. Of course a later version was developed for low level strike, however it was a large aircraft and not designed for combat manouvers. For one thing the cockpit was well ahead of the CofG and CofP and thus the crew would have experienced excessive G forces with even comparatively gentle air combat manouvers. The comments of RN test pilot Commander RM 'Mike' Crosley in his book 'Up In Harms Way' relating his experience of flying the Vigilante out of Patuxent could illuminate further. The gist of his narrative put across quite strongly that low level and high speed in the Vigilante could be most uncomfortable, detrimental to the pilots health by causing permanent eye damage and blindness if prolonged side buffet was experienced. This was caused by the aforementioned large distance between wing and cockpit combined with the rather slab slide. This latter was even more pronounced with the TSR2 and, as Mike Crosely indicates, may well have been one factor in that aircraft's cancellation. WRT the Vigilante attempts to change the role of this aircraft would made even more of a sow's ear out of a silk purse. As you probably know when aircraft are designed for specific roles their structures are stressed to suit. I doubt that the Vigilante was correctly stressed for the air combat role. A miss-match in stressing to role was IIRC one reason why the Canberra T22, with the Buc' nose, was retired earlier than scheduled, the airframe could not stand up to treatment when trying to emulate a Buc', a Buc, as anyone who gets close will appreciate, is built like the proverbial 'brick khazi'. |
Quote:
Two other proposals for a land based interceptor version of the Vigilante to the air force makes a mockery of some of your claims, apparently the people who designed it seemed to think it was capable of the mission. Maybe you could provide sources and numbers for the bring back weights, the C variant carried a significant quantity of recon sensors that would have created reasonably substantial weight. |
Quote:
|
There is a large difference between a missile-carrying interceptor (like the F-6D and the Vigilante proposals) and an air-superiority fighter (like the F-4, F-14, and planned F-111B).
The first is intended to never get into a maneuvering fight with another fighter, but to stand off and do ALL of its fighting from long range. This requires NO special airframe design. The second is intended to get into maneuvering fights with other fighters regularly, and need an airframe stressed for the mission. Yes, the Navy did invision the F-111B as being able to do close-quarters A-A combat if needed, it was just not expected to do more than survive there. And yes, the F-4 was also designed for A-G missions... as was the F-111B. http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...aft/NR-349.jpg |
Quote:
I'd like to see a TF-30 powered F-111B get into a manuvering fight with ANYTHING. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I like the idea of the rear bombay. True poop down shoot down.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
congratulations on this and the following posts. You put the things straight in a very efficient and entertaining manner. I am myself are great admirer of NAA designs, especially the Vigilante. However, a closer look makes clear that the Vigilante wasn't truly suitable, just "too far ahead of its time", or better said: too much new and unreliable technology. Additionally, it was far too heavy. 150kts approach speed would disqualify every aircraft. That's for example why the F-16N was cancelled, although approved by Congress as the new Navy fighter. To make a true fighter out of the Vigilante, I guess it would have needed better engines (or three engines as proposed), more lift (bigger and more sophisticated wing), better structure (more flight hourse and more maneuvering) and new avionics. In the end it would have been a new aircraft. With this option an update of the F-4 Phantom (which entered service same time) looks more promising. The F-4 offered everything a Vigilante could offer. |
Quote:
As for the Vigi being 'fully qualified' for carrier ops: it wouldn't be today. It even had taxiing restrictions at night (think about having a nosewheel way back from the cockpit, with the near-edge taxiing done on deck...) |
Can't help but notice that the Vigilante in the photo I posted has a single piece windscreen - something of an innovation for a 1950s aircraft I should think.
Was it the first combat jet to have such a windscreen? |
Quote:
http://www.zap16.com/Me%20163/luftw0...3-191904-2.jpg Ken |
Quote:
Even on carriers as large as those in the US Navy it is desirable to minimise the number of different aircraft types carried. Any body who has served on a carrier with an airgroup appreciates the truth of that, not just from the space required to accomodate the aircraft but the storage space for the multitude of spares and equipment workshops required. Each different aircraft type will also require its own maintenance personal contingent. This contigent needs to have all trades represented, of various levels of rank, training and experience and enough of each of these to create a workable watch system. Another aircraft type, of infexible capabilities would be a white elephant in this respect. Of course much of that discussed above does not apply to a land based airforce. This is a facet oft overlooked by those without first hand experience. Consider that in the FAA there was one trade to cover both airframe and propulsion systems of aircraft unlike the two trades in the RAF the RN arrangement easing pressure on accomodation. Any warship is a compromise between affordable size and capability, the space and weight penalty from supporting an indifferent aircraft type could induce a weekness elsewhere. Finally. You asked the questions and then used sarcasm against a person who was attempting to provide you with answers, was that necessary? |
Quote:
Furthermore US carriers in the cold war often operated a wide variety of types including the vigilante. |
Quote:
In terms of capability per used carrier space the Vigilante surely was a looser against nearly any other type. I think the Vigilante was designed with absolute focus on performance and less focus on maintainability and cost. The Vigilante offered the Navy an huge step in capability: a supersonic strike aircraft was futuristic in 1960, but supersonic all-weather capable, carrier-born strike aircraft with acceptable range was enormous. I think in terms of technology the Vigilante showed the edge American technology had over Soviet technology at that time. Fortunately most design aspects found itself in later designs, the general integration of the engines for example in F-15 and MiG-25. The avcionics were definitely "transition" technology (analogue computer, radar-INS). I remember that in an article of moderate length about the Vigilante the cost of the single piece canopy was specially remarked. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:39. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Key Publishing Ltd