Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: elmayerle on February 06, 2013, 02:09:17 AM
-
When I posted in Wild Weasels about a proposed EA-5, I started looking and realized we didn't have a thread for this significant and outstanding aircraft.
For "real world" whifs, I give you the Retaliator proposal to the USAF and the NAR-348 3-engined interceptor.
For more "out there" ideas, I give you my EA-5, a KA-5 using the A-5C fuselage with all wing tanks and the centerline refueling set-up. Though I could see an alternate with the boomed drogue system flown on the F-105A. Too, I could see interceptor versions of the basic A-5A or A-5C airframe. Finally, later engine upgrades with F404/F414 engines or PW1120 engines.
Of course, there are potential export versions and I could see some countries re-engining the aircraft with their own engines (developed Avon 300 series, or its replacement for the Uk and ATAR 9K-50 engines for France).
-
A pair of Rockwell NR-349 Improved Manned Interceptor factory display model, from different angles as posted by Circle-5 over on Secret Projects:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RockwellNAANR-349IMI02_zpsc93dea75.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/RockwellNAANR-349IMI01_zps0eb58cd4.jpg)
-
EA-5, a KA-5
I am sure that I drew these up a while back...but do you think I can find them... >:D
-
EA-5, a KA-5
I am sure that I drew these up a while back...but do you think I can find them... >:D
Well, here's your EA-5!
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/EA-5A.jpg)
-
Were there any artists impressions of the proposed RAAF version that was recomended to Government by the RAAF in the early 60's?
-
Post #2 has a model of the RAAF version
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1127.0.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1127.0.html)
For those that aren't members (IE cant see the pictures...)
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/RAAFRetailator.jpg)
-
Definitely an A-5B/C airframe with the "hump".
-
Thanks for that, it almost belongs in the righting wrongs thread.
Ah what could have been, proven, affordable, available and perfectly good enough for the intended role and could have quite easily been built in Australia. It would have served the RAAF well and passed out of service honourably during the late 80's early 90's being replaced by a more modern more capable type, probably also Australian built or assembled. Perhaps above all it would have been less likely to have attracted an a almost pathalogical fanboy following which the F-111 did.
-
Thanks for that, it almost belongs in the righting wrongs thread.
Ah what could have been, proven, affordable, available and perfectly good enough for the intended role and could have quite easily been built in Australia. It would have served the RAAF well and passed out of service honourably during the late 80's early 90's being replaced by a more modern more capable type, probably also Australian built or assembled. Perhaps above all it would have been less likely to have attracted an a almost pathalogical fanboy following which the F-111 did.
Not according to the RAAF studies. Greg posted sometime ago a link to the RAAF report comparing the various contenders to the competition that the F-111 won. The Vigilante lacked the range and performance requirements that were set out by the RAAF. They wanted an advanced, supersonic attack aircraft with terrain avoidance radar that could reach southern China from Butterworth. The Vigilante was a high altitude, supersonic attack aircraft without terrain avoidance radar. It was also already IIRC already out of production, which is always the kiss of death as far as the ADF is concerned.
Must admit though, it looks damned good.
-
While it may not have had as advanced a TFR set as the F-111, the Vigilante was capable of low-altitude performance. It was one of the two, the other being the F-105, aircraft used over Vietnam that was capable of exceeding Mach 1 at sea level. As for being out of production, I'm not sure how big a problem that would be since all the tooling was preserved (as evidenced by the fact that it was put back into production for the USN because it was by far the most capable recce platform they had).
It's too bad it was never developed more, but part of that is NAA's extreme reluctance to modify the massive forging that includes all three tail surface spindles to allow for larger engines than the J79.
-
Thanks for that, it almost belongs in the righting wrongs thread.
Ah what could have been, proven, affordable, available and perfectly good enough for the intended role and could have quite easily been built in Australia. It would have served the RAAF well and passed out of service honourably during the late 80's early 90's being replaced by a more modern more capable type, probably also Australian built or assembled. Perhaps above all it would have been less likely to have attracted an a almost pathalogical fanboy following which the F-111 did.
Not according to the RAAF studies. Greg posted sometime ago a link to the RAAF report comparing the various contenders to the competition that the F-111 won. The Vigilante lacked the range and performance requirements that were set out by the RAAF. They wanted an advanced, supersonic attack aircraft with terrain avoidance radar that could reach southern China from Butterworth. The Vigilante was a high altitude, supersonic attack aircraft without terrain avoidance radar. It was also already IIRC already out of production, which is always the kiss of death as far as the ADF is concerned.
Must admit though, it looks damned good.
Interesting!!
The Vigilante lacked the range and performance requirements that were set out by the RAAF. They wanted an advanced, supersonic attack aircraft with terrain avoidance radar that could reach southern China from Butterworth.
The fact that 1/ The F-111 never operated out of Malaysia! 2/ The lack of Australian politician spine to support either winning design with a air refuelling platform to eleviate the range issue on the grounds of not upsetting Indonesia. 3/ What was the proposed RAAF Vig's weapons bay arrangement? Fuel, weapons, sensors??? (I would be very interested to know this!!)
The Vigilante was a high altitude, supersonic attack aircraft without terrain avoidance radar.
Granted
It was also already IIRC already out of production, which is always the kiss of death as far as the ADF is concerned.
How imperitives was this, when one considers the number of Vig's siting in the desert in storage after USN retirement of the type?
M.A.D
-
The production issue is a big one for the ADF. Unless domestically produced, the numbers it can afford, particularly of big ticket items are invariably too small to make support of them very expensive. The reason why the F-111 was a good deal was 'cause the US produced hundreds of them for their own use, so there was a massive infrastructure in place to support them which the RAAF could tap into. The Vigilante would have been very expensive to put back into production for the two or three dozen that the RAAF would need.
If you want to understand this, perhaps the best place is the passage written in the new book "Battle Flight" where the idea of ordering replacement F-4M Phantoms is discussed for the RAF. There was an aircraft with a massive support base and when the line closed, it was simply too expensive for the UK to order more, after production had ceased (despite all the jigs, etc., still being in existence). Building Tornadoes was cheaper.
The low numbers required for the RAAF for its strike aircraft was too small for domestic production. We needed to ride "on the shirt-tails" of a much larger order.
The fact that 1/ The F-111 never operated out of Malaysia! 2/ The lack of Australian politician spine to support either winning design with a air refuelling platform to eleviate the range issue on the grounds of not upsetting Indonesia. 3/ What was the proposed RAAF Vig's weapons bay arrangement? Fuel, weapons, sensors??? (I would be very interested to know this!!)
1. The F-111 did operate out of Malaysia
2. In-flight refuelling was perceived as expensive. Nothing to do with Indonesia and of course, considering the time period, we didn't exactly enjoy cordial relations with Jakarta anyway. Remember, we had nearly been to war with Indonesia in 1959-60 and actually engaged in conflict with them in Borneo in 1965 during Konfrontasi.
3. No idea. Perhaps Greg could provide the link to the report?
While the RAAF dreamt of nuclear strikes against southern China (which was what the Canberras were originally obtained for in 1950) the reality was that the Government of the Day was seeking an aircraft with the primary purpose of deterring the Indonesians after their acquisition of Tu16 BADGER aircraft from the fUSSR. The 1963 Federal Election was the only one ever fought over defence policy as it's primary issue. The purchase of new strike aircraft, DDGs, growing engagement in Asia were all hot topics. The US tried to influence the decision about the new strike aircraft by proposing B-47Es as "stop gaps"until the arrival of the F-111 and even sent three on a tour downunder. Nothing came of it of course as the B-47E was not configured for conventional bombs and was grossly unsuitable for Australia's needs.
Now there would be an interesting Whiff, an RAAF B-47E. The Vigilante was a fine plane and of course building a Whiff would be an excellent endeavour.
-
I wonder what possibility as an interceptor would VG wings open for the Vigilante......
(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=116.0;attach=2248)
-
It definitely looks interesting, but I think a developed and flying version would look a bit different. If I'm reading that drawing correctly, the pivot point for the wing is right above the external line of the fuselage side; that's going to make for "challenging" structural design. I'm not saying it couldn't be designed, just that it would have a fair degree of difficulty. That you'd also have a maze of systems to re-route wouldn't make things any easier. I'm thinking that the structural loads, aero loads, and aerodynamics folk would be having some intense discussions to resolve this.
Still, as the basis for a whif v-g Vigilante interceptor, it's a good basis. It would probably also work for an attack aircraft, too. In either case, I can see the "humped" A-5C fuselage being used instead of the A-5A one shown in this drawing.
-
Just going off what I have read about the A-5 being recommened by the RAAF for the RAAF while the government selected the, then still highly developmental, F-111 off the brochure. While it is true the F-111 was a more capable platform then the A-5 the factor often overlooked is what was to oportunity cost of spending so much money on buying and maintaining the F-111, after waiting so long for it to enter service verses what else could have been afforded had something like the A-5 been bought in its place.
-
Check your references again Brian, the B-47E could, and did, carry conventional bombs, as did the B-47B.
The ability to switch between special and conventional weapons was a standard feature. In 'Long Bomb Bay'
mode it could carry a Grand Slam.
It was not a 'nuke only' aircraft.
As the model photo shows, the RAAF Vigilante would probably have been configured for external
weapons carriage with the 'bomb-tunnel' converted to hold fuel and/or electronics.
-
Hi folks,
The documents Brian referred to are in the in the National Archives of Australia (http://naa.gov.au/collection/using/search/). The files Brian referred to ( I think) are these:
- Selection of a Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft as replacement for the Canberras of the RAAF
- Report of the Evaluation Team on a strike/ reconnaisance aircraft for the RAAF, Department of Air, August 1963
If you look, both of these have full electronic copies available for viewing. The aircraft considered are the F4C and RF4C, Mirage IVA, RA5C, TSR2, TFX (F111). There is also some correspondence etc related to interim aircraft pending the F-111 arrival. The aircraft discussed are the B-47, V-bombers, F-4C and Blackburn Buccaneer.
To go to them, just click the "National Archives of Australia" link at the top then choose the "begin your search" Option and then enter the search term "Selection of a Replacement Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft".
.
Enjoy.
Regards,
Greg
-
I find it interesting that the RA-5C was still capable of conventional strike missions as it retained the AN/ASB-12 bombing system of the A-5B as well as the ability to carry bomb on the under wing stores stations. Sort of brings out the obvious whif of an armed USN machine with TFR etc.
-
Check your references again Brian, the B-47E could, and did, carry conventional bombs, as did the B-47B.
The ability to switch between special and conventional weapons was a standard feature. In 'Long Bomb Bay'
mode it could carry a Grand Slam.
It was not a 'nuke only' aircraft.
Yet that was the criticism that was explicitly levelled against it by the RAAF at the time. Perhaps they got their facts wrong or it was merely a convenient excuse to avoid being lumbered with them?
[/quote]
-
How about an in service circa late 90's "super" Vigilante. Redesigned airframe including twin vertical stabs, longer nose with newer radar as fitted in the F-18, upgraded engines, and a gun, just incase.Bombay converted to fuel tank, and all current available weapons carried on under wing pylons.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo154/chrisonord/PICT0383.jpg)
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo154/chrisonord/PICT0385.jpg)
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo154/chrisonord/PICT0384.jpg)
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo154/chrisonord/PICT0386.jpg)
Chris.
-
:)
-
How about an in service circa late 90's "super" Vigilante. Redesigned airframe including twin vertical stabs, longer nose with newer radar as fitted in the F-18, upgraded engines, and a gun, just incase.Bombay converted to fuel tank, and all current available weapons carried on under wing pylons.
Oh, I like that and the twin-verticals is going back to the original mock-up, not what BuAero forced them into.
I've got a couple verticals from the Revell 1/83 (?) kit to use in making a twin-tailed Vigi; the rest of the details are still TBD at this point.
Engines could either be F404/F414s or PW1120s, but would fit without structure modification. I really need to get busy and learn to cast, I've got a bunch of 1/72 PW1120 nozzles to make.
-
If you want a customer for some of the nozzles let me know as I want some for another Vigilante build and a few other projects on the drawing board.
Chris
-
Well there is this one created by Nils_D:
(http://www.ducker.se/images/profile_spine_720p.jpg)
Although an UltraHornet, there is a distinct Vigi look there as well.
-
That looks amazing, and would suit the Vigilante II name too. I need to look at the vigilante again and see what could be used as an alternative canopy to bring it more up to date.
Chris
-
Well there is this one created by Nils_D:
([url]http://www.ducker.se/images/profile_spine_720p.jpg[/url])
Although an UltraHornet, there is a distinct Vigi look there as well.
Yes, definitely a Vigi look there too. Hmm, 1/48 Super Hornet intakes and LERX as a starting point for the mod. Go back to the original twin verticals and make the nozzles of the upgraded engines LO in finish and with the LOAN sawtooth (as shown here). That'd go a good ways toward upgrading the Vigi. For a new canopy, how would the F-14's canopy do if set at an angle. You'd definitely want to go with the frameless "blown" windscreen, too.
On second thought, after looking at F-14 and Vigi side views, I don't think the F-14 canopy would work well. At this point, I'm be tempted to go for the blown, frameless, windscreen and a similar canopy for the second seat. Adding windows to the structure in between would be optional for a strike aircraft but likely necessary for a fighter/interceptor.
-
The Vig was just gorgeous, so it's no surprise that these derivatives are fantastic, too.
Cheers,
Logan
-
As some pointed out on the "What If" forum, the wings from the Avro Arrow fit the Vigilante fuselage beautifully.
-
This fighter proposal has a hint of Vigilante, too. At least I think so.
-
If you want a customer for some of the nozzles let me know as I want some for another Vigilante build and a few other projects on the drawing board.
Chris
I'll keep that in mind. It takes a bit of hybridizing. You need the exhaust nozzle(s) from a good 1/100 F-15 and the bogus "Spey" exhaust(s) from one of the early, lame, attempts at doing a British Phantom. With the nozzle mated to that bogus exhaust, it comes out looking very much like the pics of the PW1120. It's definitely easier, and cheaper, than buying a Lavi kit to clone the exhaust nozzle. Oh, and yes, I do have all the parts in hand, I just don't yet have the RTV and resin.
-
Diameter of the J-79 38.4" and the Spey 43", could the Vig fit an extra 4.6" or not?
-
As some pointed out on the "What If" forum, the wings from the Avro Arrow fit the Vigilante fuselage beautifully.
Hmm! interesting ----
And the TSR2 too Evan --
-
As some pointed out on the "What If" forum, the wings from the Avro Arrow fit the Vigilante fuselage beautifully.
Hmm! interesting ----
And the TSR2 too Evan --
Presumably that's also true in 1/72...
I'd do that in 1/48 as I have a some Arrows, a Vigi, and the TSR kits but the dollar cost is a bit, well it's :o
-
Diameter of the J-79 38.4" and the Spey 43", could the Vig fit an extra 4.6" or not?
Not without major structural redesign. There's a major forged fuselage frame that has holes for the engines, the bomb bay, and the spindles for all three all-moving tail surfaces. That would have to be totally redesigned to fit the Spey, or any other alternate engine. One reason no alternate engines were ever considered was that NAA-Columbus did not want the upfront design and tooling costs for that; I can't truly blame them. To put it in perspective, re-doing that forging to go from a single vertical tail spindle to spindles for twin vertical tails would be a major change, but not a major redesign. Enlarging the engine bays would enlarge the outer mold lines and force a major redesign of, at a SWAG, the aft half of the fuselage structure.
-
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter? If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.
-
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter? If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.
But then how do you get them out for maintenance? What might have been interesting would have been the development of a leaky J-79 a sort of turbo fan, but how would you do that without increasing the diameter for the new fan stages?
Actually this is a Whif site so what about a Super Vig with two TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was), a conventional weapons bay and TFR as a low risk alternative to the F-111. When the F-111 hit its development issues the Vig could have pulled its underpants on over its tights and entered production as a gap filler for the USN and USAF. Later version with F-100, F-101 or F-110 combined with updated avionics could have served into the 90s, maybe even negating the need for the F-15E and serveing even longer until an FB-22 or 23 was developed.
-
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter? If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.
But then how do you get them out for maintenance? What might have been interesting would have been the development of a leaky J-79 a sort of turbo fan, but how would you do that without increasing the diameter for the new fan stages?
Removalable fuselage panels? How did they get them out on the real A-5? Through the forging? If you're going to give the tubular bombbay over to fuel, put a strengthened spine in there as well and make the entire tail removable.
Actually this is a Whif site so what about a Super Vig with two TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was), a conventional weapons bay and TFR as a low risk alternative to the F-111. When the F-111 hit its development issues the Vig could have pulled its underpants on over its tights and entered production as a gap filler for the USN and USAF. Later version with F-100, F-101 or F-110 combined with updated avionics could have served into the 90s, maybe even negating the need for the F-15E and serveing even longer until an FB-22 or 23 was developed.
In Whiffdom, there is always a way... ;D
-
TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)
The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
-
TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)
The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
I've never quite understood why Americans think it was a failure. Seemed to work quite well in the F-111.
-
TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)
The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
True, I should have said "as more modern engines became available to expand the envolope" :-[
-
The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
I've never quite understood why Americans think it was a failure. Seemed to work quite well in the F-111.
I think this view may have more to do with the combination of the F-14 and the TF30 than with the engine on its own. It may have worked well on the F-111, but was apparently not that suited to the flight regimes of a dog-fighting aircraft. What may add to that view is that the F110 later used on the F-14 was not only more reliable in these flight regimes, but also much more powerful (finally giving the F-14 a thrust-to-weight ratio better than 1). So, in hindsight, the engine gets an inordinate share of the blame for having been used in an airframe and role it wasn't that suited to.
-
For anyone considering modelling a North American N.R.349, may I recommend you look here (http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/features/nr349pb_1.htm)
-
Why not place the Speys in front of the forging and have the exhausts narrow by 5 inches through the forging and then expand to their proper diameter? If you placed the afterburners, after the forging and the engines in front of it, I suspect it wouldn't have made things too hard for the engine exhausts.
The engines slide out through that forged frame, so that approach wouldn't work (I understand just that approach was used for a cartooned J93-powered version within NAA-Columbus' Advanced Design Group).
-
TF 30 (to be replaced with a decent engine once it was realised how bad it was)
The TF30 was actually quite successful in service and became very reliable when maintained properlery and operated appropriately.
I've never quite understood why Americans think it was a failure. Seemed to work quite well in the F-111.
After considerable development and refinement. Initially, the TF30 in the F-111 was as troublesome as the TF30 in the F-14 was. The TF30 was originally designed as a non-augmented medium-bypass turbofan for the F6D-1. It was picked up for the TFX and developed as an afterburning turbofan. It's bypass ratio was not that well suited, hence all the problems.
-
I have never heard any horror stories from the RAAF employment of the TF30 on their pigs, even from the early days. Perhaps Greg can confirm?
-
AFAIK, the problems were sorted out before the RAAF ever got their F-111s; we're talking about the late 1960's and early 1970's. P&W went through a whole bunch of effort to get the engine fixed.
-
Not according to the RAAF studies. Greg posted sometime ago a link to the RAAF report comparing the various contenders to the competition that the F-111 won. The Vigilante lacked the range and performance requirements that were set out by the RAAF. They wanted an advanced, supersonic attack aircraft with terrain avoidance radar that could reach southern China from Butterworth. The Vigilante was a high altitude, supersonic attack aircraft without terrain avoidance radar. It was also already IIRC already out of production, which is always the kiss of death as far as the ADF is concerned.
The RAAF recommended the Vigilante to the Menzies Government because it was in service, in production and could meet the requirements. The Government thought the RAAF was trying to do them over and then ask for another aircraft in the 1970s so chose the developmental F-111 which was sold as far cheaper and more capable than it was.
The Vigilante the RAAF looked at was the A3J-2, later renamed the A-5B, which fitted with a recce package was produced as the RA-5C. The Vigilante had a low altitude attack capability and the A-5B was ordered specifically to boost this after the withdrawal of the nuclear attack role in 1961. The A-5A had an automatic terrain avoidance system and with the pilot’s HUD (first aircraft to have one) was the best high speed low altitude aircraft until the F-111 came along. It didn’t have a specific terrain following radar because they didn’t exist at the time.
As to radius of action the A-5B on a hi-hi-hi mission with buddy refuelling rom another A-5B can reach 1,530 NM with the last 100 NM at Mach 1.5 and >50,000 feet (which uses about the same fuel as 100 NM at sea level and max speed). This is enough range to hit anywhere in coastal Canton flying from RAAF Butterworth in Malaysia with a dog leg around Vietnam.
-
Wouldn't that have been something if they had adopted Viggies, kept them in service as long as the F-111s, and retained their carrier capabilities/training. We could have seen Aussie Viggies cross decking with CVNs alongside Hornets and maybe even Super Bugs! Might have even inspired the USN to keep the Viggies around as something other than a photo bird.
-
What it might also see is upgraded A-5's of various types having their J79s replaced by F404s or PW1120s as well as general system upgrades. I still think KA-5 conversions of the A-5B/C airframe would make sense from certain roles.
-
Wouldn't that have been something if they had adopted Viggies, kept them in service as long as the F-111s, and retained their carrier capabilities/training. We could have seen Aussie Viggies cross decking with CVNs alongside Hornets and maybe even Super Bugs! Might have even inspired the USN to keep the Viggies around as something other than a photo bird.
What would have been very interesting is if the RAAF and RAN cooperated on the acquisition of both the Vigilante and the Phantom, the RAAF operating the bulk of them with the RAN FAA flying a smaller number from a pair of 1960s new build carriers. The Raaf aircraft would still be carrier capable and able to provide a surge capability to support the FAA. :D
-
What would have been very interesting is if the RAAF and RAN cooperated on the acquisition of both the Vigilante and the Phantom, the RAAF operating the bulk of them with the RAN FAA flying a smaller number from a pair of 1960s new build carriers. The Raaf aircraft would still be carrier capable and able to provide a surge capability to support the FAA. :D
Maybe in a world where the FAA was never formed and the RAAF maintained the carrier air groups (like onboard HMAS Albatross before WWII). Though I can’t see the RAN ever getting a Forrestal class sized carrier needed to fly Vigilantes.
-
I doubt the RAAF would keep the Vigilante (or is it the Retaliator?) in service beyond the mid 80s. Menzies was right they would want another aircraft in the 70s pretty much as soon as the US Navy stopped flying them. Which is not such a bad thing because the Vigilante replacement could then be in sync with the Mirage III replacement.
If you did keep the Vigilante in service after the US Navy then the J79 is not such a bad engine to keep. Plenty of life left in it and changing engine types with the Vigilante’s titanium fuselage ribs sounds real tough.
That's why I suggested the engines I did. Both were available starting from the late 1970's and both fit within the installation envelope of the J79 without difficulty. Both also give improved range due to better sfc.
-
That's why I suggested the engines I did. Both were available starting from the late 1970's and both fit within the installation envelope of the J79 without difficulty. Both also give improved range due to better sfc.
I originally thought that because of the one piece titanium structure in the aft fuselage any engine change, even to one within the dimensions of the J79, wouldn’t work because it would be too hard to fit in changes in piping, accessory gear etc. But looking in detail at the Vigilante engine bay and there is a lot of room around the engine for secondary airflow. Almost the full radius of the engine below the actual engine.
(http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o627/AGRA105/A3Jengineairflow.png)
Also about 40% of the surrounding structure is the fold out engine access doors. These could always be replaced with a new bulged door if more volume was needed.
(http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o627/AGRA105/A3Jengineaccess.png)
So after a rethink I agree that an engine change would be quite easy. However my upgrade timeframe is 1976-82. Both the F404 and PW1120 would be too late for this schedule and both the YJ101 and RB199 Mk 101 do not have enough power to replace the J79. PW1120 would be ideal so I guess it’s time for some more research on the topic.
-
Looking up the PW1120 on Flight Global’s excellent archive shows it was first publically proposed in 1980 as a low risk turbojet version of the F100.
P&W develops new turbojet
FLIGHT International, 12 July 1980
PRATT & WHITNEY is developing a turbojet of around 20,0001b thrust, based on the core of its F100 turbofan. The new PW1120 will compete with growth versions of the General Electric F404 and Rolls-Royce RB.199. The company expects to flight-test the engine in 1983 with qualification in 1985. The PW1120 is regarded as a low-risk programme.
Design thrust-to-weight ratio is 7-25:1 compared with 7-9:1 for the 25,0001b-thrust F100. Operating temperatures will be lower than the F100 throughout the flight envelope, P&W says. More than 60 per cent of parts will be common with the existing engine. New components will include a low-pressure compressor and turbine and a simplified afterburner.
The PW1120 is 170in long (F100: 190in) and 33in diameter (F100: 40in). The company sees a market for 4,000 to 5,000 engines of this size over the next 20 years. Possible applications include Israel's Lavi and Sweden's JAS single-engined multirole fighter projects. By the time the PW1120 enters service, the F100 will have logged some 3 million flight hours.
In my whiff world I have this nation selecting the F-15 in 1973 for customisation and licence production as the new RAAF tactical fighter and RAN naval fighter. Including production of the F100 engine. So it is perhaps feasible in 1975-76 when the ‘Vigilante’ rebuild program was required that someone could have suggested a leaky turbojet version of the F100. The local engine company is similar to CAC with their engine experience but more extensive local programs (R2800 during WWII and had been licence producing J79s rather than Avons and Atars) and had developed with Rolls-Royce a lightweight turbofan (similar to Adour but a few years earlier) for a light fighter/trainer project. So they would have the experience to lead with P&W support a ten years earlier PW1120 project.
The PW1120 would transform the Vigilante like it was proposed to do with the Super Phantom. More thrust, lower SFC, lower engine weight and less need for reheat in flight profiles. Have to look at the numbers to see how much of an improvement in radius it will provide but it is likely to be substantial: maybe even as much as x 1.5.
-
The F404, which has better sfc and the same thrust as the J79-8 used in the first production batch of RA-5C's, would be available in the late 70's since the F-18 flew with it in 1978. The real driver for re-engining the Vigilante was an engine capable of fitting through the rear spindle frame which was a massive and expensive forging. NAA-Columbus was loathe to change that frame on cost considerations; an entirely understandable response given the cost and time penalties involved in re-designing it.
-
The F404, which has better sfc and the same thrust as the J79-8 used in the first production batch of RA-5C's, would be available in the late 70's since the F-18 flew with it in 1978. The real driver for re-engining the Vigilante was an engine capable of fitting through the rear spindle frame which was a massive and expensive forging. NAA-Columbus was loathe to change that frame on cost considerations; an entirely understandable response given the cost and time penalties involved in re-designing it.
The A-5B and RA-5C were designed for the J79-GE-8 with a maximum 11,000 lbs dry and 17,000 lbs reheat thrust, this is the engine my license built A-5s are built with. The reopened line RA-5Cs built for the USN from ’68 were powered by J79-GE-10s (some were delivered with dash 8s but) that could produce 12,000 lbs dry and 18,000 lbs reheat thrust.
The F404-GE-400 as fitted to the initial F/A-18As had a maximum 10,000 lbs dry and 16,000 lbs reheat thrust. It was a much lighter engine than the J79 but that is still a lot less thrust than the Vigilantes were flying with. Its only with the EPE F404, the F404-GE-402, that wasn’t available until 1990ish that this engine was able to produce as much as 17,600 lbs thrust. Which is still less than the dash 10.
In 1975 that GE could say to the Vigilante rebuild team we have this great new F404 that will fly in a few years and be much lighter and better than the J79 but won’t quite produce as much thrust as the dash 8s and 10s. But P&W could say you can take the engine you are currently producing for the F-15 and cut stuff out of it and it will be lighter and have lower SFC, etc but produce 20,000 lbs and importantly fly the aircraft at speeds that you currently use first stage afterburner for in full military thrust. And with the benefit of being an engine that is highly similar to the J79 in footprint and uses the same mass flow to the intake. I can’t see the F404 being able to compete with this despite the better SFC and weight it can offer.
-
I do know that there were serious studies that said putting the F404 in the F-4 would be a good thing but St. Louis didn't want to compete with itself and I understand that the USN wasn't too keen on generating any concept that might hinder procurement of the F-18.
I agree, though, that the PW1120 would be the better choice and would be feasible in that time frame.
-
Thank you for bringing it up because it really helps the Vigilante do things I want it to be able to do in the 1980s like fly very long range tanker supported missions and also fly 500 nm lo-lo-lo missions with 24 Mk 82s under the wings (A-5B could fly 400 nm lo-lo-lo with less draggy and weighty four Mk 84s). Because the PW1120 is being developed primarily for the Vigilante it would be a requirement of the project to fit it within the spindle frame.
Also the PW1120 (have to find a new name for it) fits into the strategic situation this Alternate Australia faces in 75-76 which is a real threat of an invasion. They have the F-15 project underway but it won’t deliver fighters until 78 and even building 50 planes a year won’t replace their legacy tactical fighter well into the 80s. So they have a large fleet of J79 powered Grumman Tigers that could find themselves up against lots of MiG-21s. The Tiger has the edge but fitting them with PW1120s makes it unassailable. 100 a year would be needed to re-engine all the Vigilantes within the time frame providing ample numbers to transform the Tigers instead if an air battle was to break out.
They also have good relationships with the Israelis (only country other than the Dominicans to put into place a large scale immigration scheme for German Jews before WWII) so the ‘Australian’ made PW1120 could make their Lavi plans more concrete.
-
Since the Vigilante did demonstrate the ability to tank other aircraft using a drogue and reel set-up in the linear bomb bay, I could see dedicated KA-5's supporting A-5's and others in a strike. It would also give you the option of getting a tanker out there quickly if needed. That's one I intend to model, only question is what markings.
-
Unlike the A-6 there is no need to build a dedicated KA-5 because the bomb bay provides room for the drogue/hose unit. KA-6s had to remove their DIANE avionics complex to carry a drogue/hose making them unusable as a strike aircraft. Apart from the easily removable unit in the bomb bay the only other thing a tanking A-5 needs is the buddy tanker control panel which space for was designed in from the start.
It’s one of the advantages of the linear bomb bay that you can just roll in a train of fuel cans with the drogue unit at the end and presto a tanker. My thinking was to use this to make a modular fleet of strike aircraft. After the late 70s rebuild the RAAF Vigilante force is a mix of strike (two wings of 48 aircraft each) and recce aircraft (reinforced squadron of 24), which have different navigator cockpits adn the direct view sight on the recce version (plus of course the ventral canoe). The strike aircraft use the bomb bay to be configurable as:
# conventional strike: three fuel cans in the bay and bombs, napalm, rockets, etc on the wing pylons (3,600 gallons internal fuel).
# submunition strike: full length dispenser in the bay for either anti personnel, anti tank or anti runway loads (2,715 gallons internal fuel).
# PAVE TACK strike: vertical packaged AVQ-26 PAVE TACK laser designator in the forward end of the bay and three fuel cans. Up to four PAVEWAY III laser guided bombs under the wings (3,600 gallons internal fuel)
# WILD WEASEL strike: APR-35 radar homing and warning receiver in forward end of bay with anetennas in short ventral canoe (also plugging into other RWR antennas on the aircraft) and three fuel cans. Up to four AGM-78 Standard ARM under the wings (3,600 gallons internal fuel).
# stand off strike: Project Long Arm TV guided glide bomb with auxiliary fuel in bay (3,520 gallons internal fuel).
# nuclear strike: nuclear weapon with two cans and fin assembly in the bay (3,305 gallons internal fuel).
# refuelling tanker: two cans, buddy can and 78 feet hose reel unit. (3,595 gallons internal fuel)
Like the RA-5C the recce aircraft is configurable between imagining recce and electronic recce and has 3,600 gallons of internal fuel. Plus I’m thinking they have to put a few Vigis (6-8) aside during the rebuild project for conversion to NR-349 standard in long range optical photography and signals intelligence.
-
I've also considered a dedicated EA-5C with a full ALQ-99 in the weapons bay and canoe with a "football" on the tip of the vertical (though that might impede folding the vertical). I was considering a dedicated KA-5C with appropriate signal lights at the back end of the canoe and with all four wing tanks capable of offloading fuel to other aircraft.
Still, I can see where your modular approach would maximize assets.
I can see a recce derivative of the NAR.349 for high and fast recce work. For that matter, since the Vigilante is one of only two US aircraft capable, and stressed for, going Mach 1+ on the deck, low and fast recce work.
-
The other aircraft being.......?
Thanks.
-
I've also considered a dedicated EA-5C with a full ALQ-99 in the weapons bay and canoe with a "football" on the tip of the vertical (though that might impede folding the vertical).
The RA-5C actually had something similar via the Passive ECM system (PECM). Fitted around every RA-5C aircraft were a series of antennas and for those flying ELINT missions one of three fuel cans would be removed and replaced by an electronics can (minus 285 gallons of fuel). This was the capability in the fleet which the ES-3 Shadow replaced.
There is no reason the folding tail couldn;t have the antenna football mounted on top of it and it didn’t come close to any other part of the aircraft when folded. The folding tail would actually make it easier to upgrade because you could just build a new one with the football and then bolt it onto the aircraft in place of the old tail. Combined with fuel can located electronics and appropriate wiring you could even make it a mission based modular configuration.
I was considering a dedicated KA-5C with appropriate signal lights at the back end of the canoe and with all four wing tanks capable of offloading fuel to other aircraft.
Surely the wing fuel issue is just a matter of upgrading the internal plumbing? And signal lights wouldn’t need a canoe but just a scabbed on housing? Lights could even be possibly mounted on an extended bar from the bomb bay train.
I can see a recce derivative of the NAR.349 for high and fast recce work. For that matter, since the Vigilante is one of only two US aircraft capable, and stressed for, going Mach 1+ on the deck, low and fast recce work.
For the IMGINT role I was thinking something along the lines of PEACE JACK with the HIAC-1 LOROP camera mounted in the nose. It would be like the IDF Phantoms in this role but with much longer range which is important for the ‘Australians’ compared to the Israelis. The ELINT NR-349 would be used as part of a SEAD/DEAD system. Fly up over and around the enemies integrated air defence system while a few ‘Jindivik’ target drones are fired into it and then record all the signal types and locations. Next day the RAAF launches a major strike package to destroy all the emitters.
-
PEACE JACK with the HIAC-1 LOROP camera mounted in the nose.
:)
-
The other aircraft being.......?
The aircraft who's mention was edited out of this thread and transferred to the Sparring Room. This is where an emoticon for a face making the 'shush' sound would be appropiate!
-
Got it....my brain is slow tonight. :-X :-\ :-\ :-X
Now to think up some scenario where the Swedes could do some development work on it.
-
I was considering a dedicated KA-5C with appropriate signal lights at the back end of the canoe and with all four wing tanks capable of offloading fuel to other aircraft.
Surely the wing fuel issue is just a matter of upgrading the internal plumbing? And signal lights wouldn’t need a canoe but just a scabbed on housing? Lights could even be possibly mounted on an extended bar from the bomb bay train.
I imagine most of the changes would be internal modifications to the fuel system, though there are also wiring mods and a separate panel to mount. I could see a group of aircraft, if not all of them, modified so that they could take on the refueler role with a minimal amount of work. You'd carry a bit more gear around the rest of the time, but it's the easiest approach.
Yeah, you could probably go with a scabbed on housing rather than using the entire canoe, but I could see it using the same mounting points as the aft portion of the canoe (you've already got them designed and cleared, why re-engineer more than necessary?).
Regarding the EA-5 concept, I was envisioning using a jamming system similar to that used by the "Spark 'Vark", which is an adaptation of that used by the EA-6B, in addition to the usual passive ESM fit.
-
The other aircraft being.......?
The aircraft who's mention was edited out of this thread and transferred to the Sparring Room. This is where an emoticon for a face making the 'shush' sound would be appropiate!
The F-111 can be mentioned all right. It's just that we would like the discussions to be polite and not degenerate into online fisticuffs, 's all. ;)
-
How about a Vigilante given similar mods as the F-4X Peace Jack with HIAC-1 LOROP camera and updated performance?
-
How about a Vigilante given similar mods as the F-4X Peace Jack with HIAC-1 LOROP camera and updated performance?
A couple of posts ahead of you:
For the IMGINT role I was thinking something along the lines of PEACE JACK with the HIAC-1 LOROP camera mounted in the nose. It would be like the IDF Phantoms in this role but with much longer range which is important for the ‘Australians’ compared to the Israelis. The ELINT NR-349 would be used as part of a SEAD/DEAD system. Fly up over and around the enemies integrated air defence system while a few ‘Jindivik’ target drones are fired into it and then record all the signal types and locations. Next day the RAAF launches a major strike package to destroy all the emitters.
There was a real world proposal for an ELINT version of the NR-349. There is a picture in Ginter’s Naval Fighters but no details:
(http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o627/AGRA105/elint-vigi.png)
The IMGINT NR-349 would be similar but without the ventral canoe and the PEACE JACK in the nose. Which should look very cool with the faceted cheeks to accommodate the camera vision ports.
-
Yeah...the Peace Jack Vigi. It would be particularly handsome. Maybe the unassembled Trumpeter kit in the basement will need a bottle of Mr. Dissolved Putty, a reduction in the height of its arched back, and a Peace Jack nose. Originally being from Montana, perhaps the MT ANG or the USAF Malmstrom, Glasgow, or Minot had a Recce squadron to train in Eastern MT and western N Dak.
-
Doh! Missed that one. Like your scenario.
What about following up with a dedicated SEAD version with ARMs such as Standard/Shrike/HARM?
-
What about following up with a dedicated SEAD version with ARMs such as Standard/Shrike/HARM?
Missed that one, too.
It’s one of the advantages of the linear bomb bay that you can just roll in a train of fuel cans with the drogue unit at the end and presto a tanker. My thinking was to use this to make a modular fleet of strike aircraft. After the late 70s rebuild the RAAF Vigilante force is a mix of strike (two wings of 48 aircraft each) and recce aircraft (reinforced squadron of 24), which have different navigator cockpits adn the direct view sight on the recce version (plus of course the ventral canoe). The strike aircraft use the bomb bay to be configurable as:
# conventional strike: three fuel cans in the bay and bombs, napalm, rockets, etc on the wing pylons (3,600 gallons internal fuel).
# submunition strike: full length dispenser in the bay for either anti personnel, anti tank or anti runway loads (2,715 gallons internal fuel).
# PAVE TACK strike: vertical packaged AVQ-26 PAVE TACK laser designator in the forward end of the bay and three fuel cans. Up to four PAVEWAY III laser guided bombs under the wings (3,600 gallons internal fuel)
# WILD WEASEL strike: APR-35 radar homing and warning receiver in forward end of bay with anetennas in short ventral canoe (also plugging into other RWR antennas on the aircraft) and three fuel cans. Up to four AGM-78 Standard ARM under the wings (3,600 gallons internal fuel).
# stand off strike: Project Long Arm TV guided glide bomb with auxiliary fuel in bay (3,520 gallons internal fuel).
# nuclear strike: nuclear weapon with two cans and fin assembly in the bay (3,305 gallons internal fuel).
# refuelling tanker: two cans, buddy can and 78 feet hose reel unit. (3,595 gallons internal fuel)
-
Double Doh!
-
There was a real world proposal for an ELINT version of the NR-349. There is a picture in Ginter’s Naval Fighters but no details:
([url]http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o627/AGRA105/elint-vigi.png[/url])
Looking at this picture a bit closer and notice the ventral canoe. Its much longer, wider and deeper than the one on the RA-5C. It extends all the way to radome. This could be an interesting concept for conventional two engine Vigilantes. Like a conformal fuel tank or a pannier for missiles or something.
-
The extended ventral canoe on the NAR-349 had an IRST at the front and provided attachment points for 6 x AIM-54 or AIM-47 missiles. Using the AGM-76 conversion of the AIM-47 or a similar conversion of the AIM-54 could make for an interesting "pathfinder/path-maker" aircraft.
-
Dump and burn:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8515/8518500911_f0c509fceb_o.jpg)
Posted on What-If by Mossie, from the SADSM stream on flickr:
North American RA-5C Vigilante (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8518500911/#)
-
:)
-
EA-5, a KA-5
I am sure that I drew these up a while back...but do you think I can find them... >:D
Well, here's your EA-5!
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/EA-5A.jpg[/url])
Reminds me to go back to that peice of mine ;D
-
What if we were to fit a rocket in the central weapons tunnel…satellite launcher perhaps?
-
When Australia selects the A-5B as a Canberra replacement a minimum change long range interceptor version is also specified to equip three new long range interceptor squadrons and an OCU, one serving with each fighter wing in Wiliamtown and Butterworth and a stand alone squadron in Darwin. A total of 72 of the Vigilante Interceptors is ordered the Aircraft is fitted with the Ferranti Airpass radar, also used by the RAAFs Lightnings and Avon Mirages, and carries Fire Streak, Red Top and Sparrow missiles as well as being fitted with an internal 30mm Aden cannon. Its role is primarily as a long range bomber killer, supplementing the Lightning point defence interceptors and the Mirage IIIO tactical fighter bombers.
With a total of 72 interceptors, 48 strike and 18 reconnaissance Vigilantes local production is seen as a must with CAC producing the aircraft from 1963 unto 1970.
;D
-
I would possibly consider something like a AN/APQ-72 from a F-4 Phantom II as the radar.
-
I would possibly consider something like a AN/APQ-72 from a F-4 Phantom II as the radar.
I actually wrote that first then changed it as I was going for commonality with the Lightnings and Miracles, but yes it would probably be a better fit. The other option is a Super Tiger instead of the Mirage III so not sure. The idea is the sabre is superseded in production by the FJ-4B and cascaded to the RAAF Active Reserve and allies then the Fury is in turn superceded by the Mirage or Tiger. The Lightning is an urgent acquisition as a point defence interceptor with detachments, permanent and reserve, and occasionally squadrons protecting critical sights; the Vigilante Interceptor is obtained as a longer term solution as a long range interceptor to work in conjunction with the Lockheed Warningstars on continental and regional air defence. The strike roled Vigilantes are intended primarily to take out air defences, airfields and command and control facilities, being followed up by the Mirage in tactical strike.
-
Random Idea: A-5 with Avro Blue Steel missile semi-submerged under fuselage
-
Random Idea: A-5 with Avro Blue Steel missile semi-submerged under fuselage
Hmm! I don't know Greg, the Blue Steel is quite a big missile --- I think I've read somewhere that there was plans to have the TSR2 carry it, placing a Blue Steel next to a TSR2 I just don't see it - (I'll get a photo taken just for everyone to see)
-
Have to concur with Robert, the Blue Steel is/was huge. Dimensions and weight details courtesy of Wikipedia Blue Steel Missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Steel_%28missile%29)
Weight 17,000 lb (7,700 kg)
Length 10.7 m (35 ft 1 in)
Diameter 1.22 m (48 in) minimum
Wingspan 4 m (13 ft 1 in)
Additional search results for Blue Steel (https://www.google.com/search?q=Blue+Steel+Missile&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
Maybe something like the Blue Steel but about one-half to one-third in size might have been a contender but certainly not a full size Blue Steel. Something like the W.130 would be ideal as it was proposed to be used with the TSR.2. Nothing useful on-line but Secret Projects - British Hypersonics, Ramjets, and Missiles has a few drawings of the weapon including one suggesting semi-recessed carriage on the TSR.2. (Page 119)
-
Bah! Practicality be damned... ;)
Maybe a pair of Blue Water missiles instead:
(http://www.mastercasters.co.uk/resources/MST48031_1.jpg)
-
Maybe something such as a ASMP under the belly instead
(http://www.aviation-francaise.com/EMS2007/ASMP.jpg)
Speaking of which, does anyone do one in 1/48?
-
Maybe something such as a ASMP under the belly instead
([url]http://www.aviation-francaise.com/EMS2007/ASMP.jpg[/url])
Speaking of which, does anyone do one in 1/48?
There may be a resin ASMP available.
I have a couple of the ASMP shapes that were included in the Heller Mirage IVP kit and the Heller/Eduard Mirage 2000D kit.
If you want them, you know where to find me next time you are in town :)
-
I'm fairly sure I've read in one of the BSP books, there was a plan for a scaled down Blue Steel, maybe that was what was planned for the TSR2, if so that would work for an A-5 I think. I seem to remember now that the smaller missile was to be about 2/3rd the original size
-
I'm fairly sure I've read in one of the BSP books, there was a plan for a scaled down Blue Steel, maybe that was what was planned for the TSR2, if so that would work for an A-5 I think. I seem to remember now that the smaller missile was to be about 2/3rd the original size
The W.130 referred to in the text and drawings in the British Secret Projects book does look a bit like a scaled down Blue Steel albeit with the forward control fins located right at the nose of the missile.
-
I'm fairly sure I've read in one of the BSP books, there was a plan for a scaled down Blue Steel, maybe that was what was planned for the TSR2, if so that would work for an A-5 I think. I seem to remember now that the smaller missile was to be about 2/3rd the original size
The W.130 referred to in the text and drawings in the British Secret Projects book does look a bit like a scaled down Blue Steel albeit with the forward control fins located right at the nose of the missile.
That sounds like the store the RAF was discussing in talking to Avro-Canada about a strike version of the Arrow.
-
Strike Arrow! Now that is a whiff begging to be built!
-
Strike Arrow! Now that is a whiff begging to be built!
if you can find Randall Whitcomb's book on the Arrow, I believe he has a piece of concept art. attached, of it based on what Jim Floyd described to him; it would have been based on the Arrow Mk. III with the Fieri intakes.
-
How about Australia announces the selection of the Vigilante in late 1963 and is still in the process of determining the exact configuration of the aircraft when it becomes apparent to the RAF and British industry that the TSR2 is living on borrowed time. The RAF becomes desperate to find a backup plan that is not the Blackburn Buccaneer and British industry is looking for anything that isn't a US built F-111 with hardly any local content, Australia's earlier decision appears to offer a solution.
End result is a minimum change but Anglicised A-5B, using systems from the TSR2 and Buccaneer, assembled in the UK and Australia from a mix of UK and Australian components, as well as carry over US assemblies.
-
How about Australia announces the selection of the Vigilante in late 1963 and is still in the process of determining the exact configuration of the aircraft when it becomes apparent to the RAF and British industry that the TSR2 is living on borrowed time. The RAF becomes desperate to find a backup plan that is not the Blackburn Buccaneer and British industry is looking for anything that isn't a US built F-111 with hardly any local content, Australia's earlier decision appears to offer a solution.
End result is a minimum change but Anglicised A-5B, using systems from the TSR2 and Buccaneer, assembled in the UK and Australia from a mix of UK and Australian components, as well as carry over US assemblies.
Would it be fitted with British engines or would they stay with the J79? I would hope the later as there really weren't any equivalent engines at the time (the variable stators on the J79 offering better performance than equivalent single-spool engines without them) and trying to fit larger engines would be expensive because you would need to completely re-do the forged frame that has the spindles for the all-moving horizontal and vertical tail surfaces.
-
How about Australia announces the selection of the Vigilante in late 1963 and is still in the process of determining the exact configuration of the aircraft when it becomes apparent to the RAF and British industry that the TSR2 is living on borrowed time. The RAF becomes desperate to find a backup plan that is not the Blackburn Buccaneer and British industry is looking for anything that isn't a US built F-111 with hardly any local content, Australia's earlier decision appears to offer a solution.
End result is a minimum change but Anglicised A-5B, using systems from the TSR2 and Buccaneer, assembled in the UK and Australia from a mix of UK and Australian components, as well as carry over US assemblies.
I like it Volkodav!
M.A.D
-
How about Australia announces the selection of the Vigilante in late 1963 and is still in the process of determining the exact configuration of the aircraft when it becomes apparent to the RAF and British industry that the TSR2 is living on borrowed time. The RAF becomes desperate to find a backup plan that is not the Blackburn Buccaneer and British industry is looking for anything that isn't a US built F-111 with hardly any local content, Australia's earlier decision appears to offer a solution.
End result is a minimum change but Anglicised A-5B, using systems from the TSR2 and Buccaneer, assembled in the UK and Australia from a mix of UK and Australian components, as well as carry over US assemblies.
Would it be fitted with British engines or would they stay with the J79? I would hope the later as there really weren't any equivalent engines at the time (the variable stators on the J79 offering better performance than equivalent single-spool engines without them) and trying to fit larger engines would be expensive because you would need to completely re-do the forged frame that has the spindles for the all-moving horizontal and vertical tail surfaces.
The Spey is a comparable British engine with only some 110mm difference in diameter (Spey - 1092.2 mm versus J79 - 980mm). That amount of difference could be easily handled by a small compression "ring" which passes through the forged frame and then re-expands on the other side. It might actually lead to a slight increase in thrust from the Spey. The Spey is a Turbofan and hence more economical and cleaner burning than the J79 (which were notoriously smoky burners).
-
How about Australia announces the selection of the Vigilante in late 1963 and is still in the process of determining the exact configuration of the aircraft when it becomes apparent to the RAF and British industry that the TSR2 is living on borrowed time. The RAF becomes desperate to find a backup plan that is not the Blackburn Buccaneer and British industry is looking for anything that isn't a US built F-111 with hardly any local content, Australia's earlier decision appears to offer a solution.
End result is a minimum change but Anglicised A-5B, using systems from the TSR2 and Buccaneer, assembled in the UK and Australia from a mix of UK and Australian components, as well as carry over US assemblies.
Would it be fitted with British engines or would they stay with the J79? I would hope the later as there really weren't any equivalent engines at the time (the variable stators on the J79 offering better performance than equivalent single-spool engines without them) and trying to fit larger engines would be expensive because you would need to completely re-do the forged frame that has the spindles for the all-moving horizontal and vertical tail surfaces.
I'm agnostic on the engines but for this to work there can't be any major delays and re-engining would likely do just that.
What did cross my mind is if the RAF ended up with the Vigilante and either the J-79, or an alternative that fits through the forging without major modification, it could lead to a very different F-4K/M Phantom. This would especially be the case if the TSR2 requirement had been re-evaluated (using accurate maps) and Mountbatten got his new strike carriers and there was no longer the need for the specific small carrier Phantom.
-
Oh, I agree, a re-engining program would make for significant delays and should be avoided. I could see upgrades to the J79 being pursued even more intently than in our history with possible licensed production in either Australia or the UK. I wonder if availability of J79s would lead to Mirage IIIO derivatives similar to the Kfir?
-
Actually "if" the RAF selected and licence produced an anglicised Vigilante in the late 60's, "and" Mountbatten got his three modern strike carriers, then an updated, 1970s Vigilante could have become a Buccaneer replacement in the RN FAA. Such an aircraft could even have found its way into the USN (suitably re-Americanised) as a supplement then replacement for the RA-5C.
-
Found this on the WWW:
(http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=201391&stc=1&d=1365145596)
Source: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=275133 (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=275133) and Mr Sentinel Chicken
-
Found this on the WWW:
([url]http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=201391&stc=1&d=1365145596[/url])
Source: [url]http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=275133[/url] ([url]http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=275133[/url]) and Mr Sentinel Chicken
That A-5 Vigilante is a 1:144th scale model so you can really appreciate the amount of work that Sentinel Chicken put into that project. First time I saw his Vigilante was whatifmodelers many years ago. Glad to see it is still out there for all to see.
-
Hmmm...the thing I like about the Vigilante is that it still looks quite advanced today even though it first flew in the late 1950's.
It might be interesting to do a modern day advanced version that looks something like this one posted earlier:
(http://www.ducker.se/images/profile_spine_720p.jpg)
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/RVAH-5.jpg)
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/clayc.jpg)
I know the above is actually a Super Hornet fictional derivative though it still looks like a Vigi' development to me.
-
Nice! ^ :)
-
Yes, very nice thanks' Greg!
I like the fact that it's resorted back to the original NAA 'NAGPAW' design of two tailfins!!
M.A.D
-
http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/features/nr349pb_1.htm (http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/features/nr349pb_1.htm)
LOVE THIS!!
-
Vigilante GR.1 (http://martins-models.co.uk/Galleries/whatif%20gallery/VigGR1.htm)
(http://martins-models.co.uk/Galleries/whatif%20gallery/whatif%20gallery/gr1pair17rj.jpg)
(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%20IF%202010/RAFVIGILANTEGR1A01.jpg)
(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%20IF%202010/RAFVIGILANTEF202.jpg)
-
Very nice, any back story on the RAF Vigilantes?
-
They are from the collection of Spinners Strike Fighters. I found them on his Photobucket page ( I don't have the link handy but I posted it a few weeks back).
-
Very nice, any back story on the RAF Vigilantes?
Here are direct links to some of the drawings:
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR301.jpg (http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR301.jpg)
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR302.jpg (http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR302.jpg)
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR303.jpg (http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR303.jpg)
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR304.jpg (http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR304.jpg)
-
RAF Vigilantes look great!
-
John Lacey just posted some A-5Bs in RN colours:
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13254624_1701548090099972_5836923371014776979_n.jpg?oh=8a3512a2b5ac77a27a9050f99342b34f&oe=57E64927)
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13227070_1701548086766639_4113320074293701934_n.jpg?oh=77584ff16758f705ceebca53f310d8af&oe=579E05FA)
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13260179_1701548076766640_7913152471399042711_n.jpg?oh=beae47f1be9cf48ca0c50b58cfe7114d&oe=57E5F2D1)
Source: Facebook - John's Aircraft & Armour Profile Page
-
I wish Spinners would join us here to share his work with us. :(
-
And another three:
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13260262_1701876893400425_1860648136417609493_n.jpg?oh=425903d7113e37ee4940d7e9dc538c12&oe=57E7EB4E)
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13245250_1701876880067093_8809928804570826799_n.jpg?oh=7ff4388fb50e9adfe9869510055c75cd&oe=57D11834)
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13238923_1701876896733758_6505331091258561492_n.jpg?oh=afcd6da99694b90b5996f502919b6c14&oe=57CCD071)
Source: Facebook - John's Aircraft & Armour Profile Page
-
A recent issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling, the one with the B-36 on the cover, has a four-view of a four-tone gray camouflage scheme on a RA-3B; I'm thinking that a Vigilante would look most attractive in something similar to that scheme.
-
Just a cool photo:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/92/09/e1/9209e15e194532ea0ee6ab176ecb547d.jpg)
-
A3J Pilot: V2. Negative rate of climb.
A3J Nav: I can't hear you! La-la-la-la!
-
No wonder they had to design the tail to fold to make it fit in the hangar...
-
For those considering RN/RAF Vigilantes and re-engining them, the RN did exactly that with their Phantoms. The cost a bit more mostly because the numbers bought were ridiculously low for the effort expended, but the same philosophy would work for the A-5s and I dare say you would get a quite useful increase in range for a strike aircraft.
The hemp scheme shown above is also quite fetching. :)
Paul
-
For those considering RN/RAF Vigilantes and re-engining them, the RN did exactly that with their Phantoms. The cost a bit more mostly because the numbers bought were ridiculously low for the effort expended, but the same philosophy would work for the A-5s and I dare say you would get a quite useful increase in range for a strike aircraft.
Re-engining the Vigilante with any engine larger than the J79 is going to be a very expensive proposition, because you will have to redesign the massive forged frame that holds the spindles for the all-moving tail surfaces. The engine bay holes in it are designed for the J79 and any larger engine is going to be a major redesign. I won't say it can't be done, but it would be a very expensive undertaking. Your best bet would be to find a turbofan engine suitable for application of reheat that would fit the J79's installation envelope (it would have been interesting if the USN had done a CILOP effort on their RA-5's to zero-time the airframe, update the recce equipment fit, and replace the J79's with uprated F404s of PW1120s).
-
For those considering RN/RAF Vigilantes and re-engining them, the RN did exactly that with their Phantoms. The cost a bit more mostly because the numbers bought were ridiculously low for the effort expended, but the same philosophy would work for the A-5s and I dare say you would get a quite useful increase in range for a strike aircraft.
Re-engining the Vigilante with any engine larger than the J79 is going to be a very expensive proposition, because you will have to redesign the massive forged frame that holds the spindles for the all-moving tail surfaces. The engine bay holes in it are designed for the J79 and any larger engine is going to be a major redesign. I won't say it can't be done, but it would be a very expensive undertaking. Your best bet would be to find a turbofan engine suitable for application of reheat that would fit the J79's installation envelope (it would have been interesting if the USN had done a CILOP effort on their RA-5's to zero-time the airframe, update the recce equipment fit, and replace the J79's with uprated F404s of PW1120s).
Why not split the Spey in two? Place your first few spindles in front of the frame, carry through the drive to behind the frame and put the last few spindles there, with the reheat cans. You might have a small space where the airflow is restricted but I don't think that would upset the engine that much... Afterall, they "squashed" the Spey for the Buccaneer to allow it to fit it's airflow past the wing carry through structure.
-
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.
-
Not sure how much more total effort it is than to redesign the entire arse end of a Phantom including the thrust structure.
Noting that the frame is structurally critical and quite expensive, to be sure, and that associated design analysis needed to prove the part and the associated structural integrity, but, other than the frame redesign, there would have had to be a significant effort to re-stress analyse the lower Phantom fuselage and mounts, rejig systems etc. etc. etc. to handle the quite different Spey. I mean were not talking cheap here under any circumstances, but I'm not sure that the total effort expended would increase much more than 10% of the total job to manage the redesign of the tail frame. Re-engining a Mach 2 airframe is never an inexpensive proposition. Your structural and flight test and recertification efforts frequently swamp many hardware redesign costs in an aerospace program.
Granting that it would be more expensive, though, it certainly wouldn't be impossible if one wanted to make the switch.
Start with a A-5B, delete the internal bomb bay in trade for additional fuel and avionics (imagine the ECM suite you could carry! Vigilante Wild Weasel anyone?), add an additional wing stores point each side (for 6) and strengthen the centreline station. Plumb the outermost stations for AAMRAM and Sidewinder. Optimise radar for surface search and weapon guidance and an external IRST ball.
Pretty killer long range naval strike platform, no?
;)
Paul
-
Internal bomb bay was one bomb and two fuel tanks (substituting a refueling drogue system for the bomb was demonstrated - there's a picture of one A3J-1 refueling another which is refueling a third one), so you'd not gain too much more tankage. Personally, I like the idea of CILOP'ing the RA-5C fleet into RA-5D aircraft, and perhaps re-instating it in production a second time, with PW1120s replacing J79s and converting a few into EA-5D aircraft much as EF-111A's were created (might need a deeper or longer "canoe", but that's doable, particularly the longer). Going back to the refueling demonstration, I can also see KA-5D aircraft or, combining functions, EKA-5D aircraft.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50944434263_a528b2635b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kBMxqT)AUS RA-5C-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2kBMxqT) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50945232792_54f78c7752_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kBRCNC)AUS RA-5C-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2kBRCNC) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50945233022_281637ed7c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kBRCSA)AUS RA-5C-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2kBRCSA) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), 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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51115352880_e54e725c08_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSTxzA)AA-5A-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSTxzA) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), 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!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113995227_ae535e53c9_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLzZM)AA-5A-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLzZM) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), 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.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51113995182_a1846e61de_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLzZ1)AA-5A-4 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSLzZ1) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), 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.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51115352830_f04940fb36_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kSTxyJ)AA-5A-5 (https://flic.kr/p/2kSTxyJ) by David Freeman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153018533@N06/), 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.
-
Your modified Phoenix sounds very much like the AIM-47B. Scroll down on http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-47.html) to see a drawing.
Beyond that, beautiful Vigi variants.
-
:smiley:
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/CF-108A409SqnCAF.png)
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/RA-5C6thSqn72.png)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/RA-5C40thSqnRAFantiflashwhite.png)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/RA-5Cwithrearglasscanopy15SQnRAFDSI.png)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/RA-5Cwithrearglasscanopy31SqnRAF.png)
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/CF-108A409SqnCAF.png)
well halllo there!
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/CF-108A409SqnCAF.png)
Saw a few at airshows in Washington State and British Columbia.
-
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_2021_02/img00496.JPG.1f03efa1655000054e06b68b089e98c9.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_2021_02/img00497.JPG.4a839c0a915126ed8533aa3e749f2d42.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_2021_02/img00498.JPG.b7a6d555e6fa609ad7d1e986f0a2d66c.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_2021_02/img00499.JPG.a867e20adf2f7c408715bbf9cdb780bb.JPG)
CFBVs
-
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.