Author Topic: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante  (Read 66781 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« 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).
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 02:12:15 AM by GTX_Admin »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 02:15:49 AM »
A pair of Rockwell NR-349 Improved Manned Interceptor factory display model, from different angles as posted by Circle-5 over on Secret Projects:


All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 02:33:01 AM »
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
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 02:48:52 AM »
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!


Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 06:21:32 AM »
Were there any artists impressions of the proposed RAAF version that was recomended to Government by the RAAF in the early 60's?

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2013, 07:16:27 AM »
Post #2 has a model of the RAAF version

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1127.0.html

For those that aren't members (IE cant see the pictures...)
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2013, 07:25:40 AM »
Definitely an A-5B/C airframe with the "hump".

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2013, 07:52:10 AM »
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.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2013, 08:00:43 AM »
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.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2013, 08:15:57 AM »
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.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2013, 10:01:46 AM »
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!!
Quote
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!!)

Quote
The Vigilante was a high altitude, supersonic attack aircraft without terrain avoidance radar.
Granted

Quote
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



Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2013, 01:02:40 PM »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 01:04:50 PM by Rickshaw »

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2013, 01:24:18 PM »
I wonder what possibility as an interceptor would VG wings open for the Vigilante......

Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2013, 01:54:26 PM »
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.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2013, 02:10:57 PM »
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.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2013, 02:30:20 PM »
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.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2013, 03:32:06 PM »
Hi folks,

The documents Brian referred to are in the in the National Archives of Australia.  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
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 03:34:15 PM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2013, 03:41:30 PM »
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.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2013, 03:46:03 PM »
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]

Offline Diavel

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2013, 07:07:02 AM »
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.




Chris.
Just call me the thread killer.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2013, 07:10:17 AM »
 :)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2013, 07:20:12 AM »
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.

Offline Diavel

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2013, 07:27:17 AM »
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
Just call me the thread killer.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2013, 07:27:19 AM »
Well there is this one created by Nils_D:



Although an UltraHornet, there is a distinct Vigi look there as well.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Diavel

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: North American A3J (A-5) Vigilante
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2013, 07:33:07 AM »
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
Just call me the thread killer.