North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante

[Rickshaw]

Did they squish the engine itself or the intake and/or exhaust ducts?  I'm thinking that would be simpler.  If the engine geometry would permit, I could see the complete gas generator section forward of the frame, a duct of reduced diameter through the frame, and then the reheat and nozzle.  Removing the engine would be a pain, but could be done and the reduced diameter section contoured for maximum efficiency, possibly including a mixer of the hot and cold streams to improve IR signature when not in burner.

Primarily it was the exhaust duct, before the afterburner.  Effectively, they extended the exhaust, passed it under the wing carry through structure and then placed the afterburner there, AIUI.   If it worked for the Buccaneer, it would work for the Vigilante.   What was lacking was imagination and of course, a willingness by the USN to keep on with the Vigilante in service.   The reality though, was that the Vigilante was simply too big and complex for the USN to operate effectively from carriers.   It was easier to operate the Phantom and the Intruder.   Now, if you could convince the USAF to take on the Vigilante, instead of the F-111 or for the US Navy to operate land based attack squadrons...

[GTX_Admin]

I like the idea of a simpler updated attack Vigilante with the J79 engines being kept (it was after all still an outstanding engine) but with something like PaveTack added to the belly and LGBs etc under the wings.

[elmayerle]

Re-package the Pave Tack "guts" to fit the existing "canoe" with the sensor "ball" at the forward end?  Perhaps with the canoe extended forward as proposed on the NAR-349?

[ScranJ51]

Some time ago I did a model of a Vigilante in RAAF Colours (posted on the Aero-space models board) - repeated here as a Recce bird:

AUS RA-5C-1 by David Freeman, on Flickr

AUS RA-5C-2 by David Freeman, on Flickr

AUS RA-5C-3 by David Freeman, on Flickr

At the time, someone (might have been GTX) suggested a Vigilante as a missile carrier, so why not!

The AA-5C Vigilante Archer:

AA-5A-1 by David Freeman, on Flickr

Now I got carried away and put a Infra-Red Search and Tracking sensor on the upper surface above the Radar Intercept Officers (in place of the Nav) Cockpit, with the thought that this would not be retractable like on the F-106 but would be jettisoned as part of the ejection sequence.  As the background story (in my mind) had Archer's developed because of problems with the F-14 Tomcat, I put the Camera/IRST from a Tomcat under the nose!

AA-5A-3 by David Freeman, on Flickr

So, I guess the Archer has dual ISRT's, one searching above and one below.  On the upper surface centered between the wings is a fairing that the USN has never really explained.  Most believe it covers a SATCOM antenna, allowing the Archer to transmit data from the sensors back to the carrier or to receive additional data from the carrier. While the antenna of the AN/APG-71 is not as large as the proposed F-14 version, the Avionics for the radar are located in the centre of the internal weapons bay, along with the avionics to allow sensor fusion and processing.

AA-5A-4 by David Freeman, on Flickr

There are also two small fairings on the side of the fuselage (on each side) that are unexplained, but as there is a small opening at the front of each, they are thought to be air intakes to provide cooling for the avionics bay.

The Archer carries (as shown here) a maximum load of 2 AGM-54 Phoenix and 8 AAMRAAMs.

AA-5A-5 by David Freeman, on Flickr

One issue with this loading is that the aircraft cannot land back on the carrier with the second (rear) Phoenix on-board, as the rear surfaces foul the Archer's Tailhook.  The Navy is believed to be developing a modified Phoenix with folding rear surfaces that would "spring" into position when the weapon is launched to overcome this issue.

[elmayerle]

Your modified Phoenix sounds very much like the AIM-47B.  Scroll down on http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html to see a drawing.

Beyond that, beautiful Vigi variants.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[GTX_Admin]

[GTX_Admin]

[Gingie]

well halllo there!

[finsrin]

Saw a few at airshows in Washington State and British Columbia.

[GTX_Admin]

CFBVs

[Blackbat242]

Did they squish the engine itself or the intake and/or exhaust ducts?  I'm thinking that would be simpler.  If the engine geometry would permit, I could see the complete gas generator section forward of the frame, a duct of reduced diameter through the frame, and then the reheat and nozzle.  Removing the engine would be a pain, but could be done and the reduced diameter section contoured for maximum efficiency, possibly including a mixer of the hot and cold streams to improve IR signature when not in burner.

Primarily it was the exhaust duct, before the afterburner.  Effectively, they extended the exhaust, passed it under the wing carry through structure and then placed the afterburner there, AIUI.   If it worked for the Buccaneer, it would work for the Vigilante.   What was lacking was imagination and of course, a willingness by the USN to keep on with the Vigilante in service.   The reality though, was that the Vigilante was simply too big and complex for the USN to operate effectively from carriers.   It was easier to operate the Phantom and the Intruder.   Now, if you could convince the USAF to take on the Vigilante, instead of the F-111 or for the US Navy to operate land based attack squadrons...

6 years later... but to correct the record: the Spey in the Buccaneer did NOT have an afterburner... there were supersonic fighter-variants of the Bucc proposed that would have had an afterburner, but the actual produced ones did not.