North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante

[Volkodav]

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.

[The Big Gimper]

Found this on the WWW:



Source: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=275133 and Mr Sentinel Chicken

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Found this on the WWW:



Source: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=275133 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. 

[GTX_Admin]

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:





I know the above is actually a Super Hornet fictional derivative though it still looks like a Vigi' development to me.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Nice! ^ :)

[M.A.D]

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

[ysi_maniac]

http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/features/nr349pb_1.htm
LOVE THIS!!

[The Big Gimper]

Vigilante GR.1

[Volkodav]

Very nice, any back story on the RAF Vigilantes?

[The Big Gimper]

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).

[The Big Gimper]

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/RAFVigilanteSR302.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR303.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/RAFVigilanteSR304.jpg

[Gingie]

RAF Vigilantes look great!

[The Big Gimper]

John Lacey just posted some A-5Bs in RN colours:





Source: Facebook - John's Aircraft & Armour Profile Page

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I wish Spinners would join us here to share his work with us.

[The Big Gimper]

And another three:





Source: Facebook - John's Aircraft & Armour Profile Page

[elmayerle]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

Just a cool photo:

[The Big Gimper]

A3J Pilot: V2. Negative rate of climb.
A3J Nav: I can't hear you! La-la-la-la!

[Rickshaw]

No wonder they had to design the tail to fold to make it fit in the hangar...

[tankmodeler]

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

[elmayerle]

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).

[Rickshaw]

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.

[elmayerle]

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.

[tankmodeler]

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

[elmayerle]

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.