Grumman A-6 Intruder/EA-6 Prowler Ideas and Inspiration

[GTX_Admin]

Hi folks,

A thread for your Grumman A-6 Intruder/EA-6 Prowler Ideas and Inspiration.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX_Admin]

To start with, here are two ideas:

• RAAF A-6As instead of F-4Es whilst awaiting the F-111s
• A dedicated recon A-6

[Maverick]

Profile wise, I think a few Antipodean examples have been done.  I've done RAAF & RAN examples in various camos & marks including A-6As, Es & Prowlers.

Regards,

John

[Weaver]

That's a lovely drawing!  :)

Grumman's proposals for the Missileer requirement were based on the A-6, one with the original engines and one with TF-30s in bigger nacelles. The nose was bigger for the AI radar and they carried 6 of the Eagle missiles under the wings.

Outer wing pylons and F-404s would be a good idea: so good in fact that they were the basis for the proposed but cancelled A-6F....

Given the TF-30s troubles, you might imagine a mid-1970s update using the TF-41/Spey.

Paint-job-wise, how about a Marineflieger one for the Baltic anti-shipping role armed with 4 x Kormorans? With the same thought process, you could also then do a JMSDF "anti-landing-craft" one with 4 x ASM-1s and one of those gorgeous Mitsubishi F-1 schemes.

It's a hard aircraft to whiff, because most of the really logical variants have actually been done IRL.

[dy031101]

Missileer!

(I remember there to be two proposals to that project.  One with TF30s and the other keeping the J52s; what would the performance difference have been in your estimation?)

[elmayerle]

How about an EA-6G version of the EA-6B with the A-6F engines and mods?  Then how about a KEA-6G with only the front seats used and the back seat area becoming an extra fuel tank for transfer?

[Daryl J.]

Hawker codevelops a VTOL/STOL version complete with ogival tips on all flying surfaces.

[elmayerle]

Hawker codevelops a VTOL/STOL version complete with ogival tips on all flying surfaces.

Stol version applying the Harrier's nozzles in place of the deflecting nozzles originally contemplated for the A-6.

[GTX_Admin]

Profile wise, I think a few Antipodean examples have been done.  I've done RAAF & RAN examples in various camos & marks including A-6As, Es & Prowlers.

Regards,

John

Pictures outweigh words...

[Maverick]

Over 5000 profiles, it sometimes is difficult to mention everything or, in fact, repost everything.












Regards,

John

[Weaver]

Here's a thought: What If the USAF went through the same 1960s trauma as the RAF, that is to say, the F-111 is cancelled (or severely scaled back) and they end up adopting the despised subsonic naval aircraft as a quick off-the-shelf fix, the A-6 in this case taking the part of the Buccaneer? Now there's no way they'd replace all the projected F-111s with Intruders, but two possibilities occur to me:

1. Night Intruder A-6Es, to replace the B-57Gs,

2. EA-6B style aircraft to replace the EB-66 Destroyer.

Missileer!

(I remember there to be two proposals to that project.  One with TF30s and the other keeping the J52s; what would the performance difference have been in your estimation?)

Hard to say: the TF-30s had more thrust, but then the cross-section was greater and the weight higher..... Probably about the same speed-wise, but with considerably more range/endurance due to the turbofans' lower fuel burn.

[Diamondback]

Dusting off an old thread... what if the Intruder II and VEP Prowler reconverged in a single best-of-both design? I envision something for the backseat like the F7F Tigercat, where you could stick an auxiliary fuel-cell in the backseat when no GIB's are aboard...

Do we have any diagrams available on the Intruder II and VEP Prowler conversions? I'm actually building this using the Revell 1/48 kit, slowly... the bird I've written is basically the sloppy-seconds from FrankenProwler reassembled and with A-6F components added, along with a mix of F-22 and F-35 systems inside the skin and newer engines. REALLY want to go for VTOL capability if possible... but I need 40,000# per engine in a package not a lot bigger than a J52, unless I can get some truly radical weight savings since I'm looking to add wingtip rails and a dual-rail missile+ECM pylon under each outer wing section. TRAM imager head replaced with a Litening G4, maybe in tandem with an F-35 EOTS and/or an IRST... while the bird's still primarily a jammer/bomber, I want it to be able to put up a decent fight against most of the fighters it might encounter in combat if necessary.

[Geoff]

IIRC the SAAF looked at A-6As at the same time as the Bucaneer. The A-6 wasn't politically viable though.

[elmayerle]

Given the sealed and pressurized nature of modern cockpits, replacing the back seats with a drop-in fuel tank may not be totally viable or practical.  You'd likely need to be able to isolate the two cockpit sections to prevent fuel fumes from affecting the primary flight crew.  Now I could see the same airframe being used for new-build A-6, EA-6, and KA-6 (or KEA-6) variants with the after cockpit area sealed and used for fuel tankage on the A-6 and KA-6 versions.

Using the upgraded systems of the A-6F (possibly the wings, though I'm given to understand that the new, all-composite, wings dumped far more load into teh fuselage structure and were one reason the A-6F was cancelled - P&W problems as second-source for F404s being the other (not a slight on P&W, more the difference in shop processes between P&W and GE).

Outfitted with a large AESA, such an aircraft could do well today, especially if the dry F404s were replaced by dry F414s.

[Diamondback]

Evan, I was thinking the backseat cell would be some kind of completely sealed system, possibly even involving unmounting the rear canopy and seats and having some kind of separate ventilation built into the metal skin-section replacing the glass. Dry F414 would be a good start... maybe keep the afterburner but relocate it onto the end of the extended tailpipe? (I'm trying to figure out if you can get enough power for a Harrier-style vertical lift, at a usable weight, while still fitting inside existing skin.)

F414-EPE with AB gets us to 26,400# wet (52,800# total), and both it and A-12's F412 are evolved from the F404, so maybe grafting on the F412's larger fan might give some more boost--but would it be enough to take a 60-65,000# aircraft straight up? Or, IF sources are correct that the INS6 version is rated at about 26,977# (120 kN), that gets us a little closer at 53,954#, but I'd still expect some loss from tapping the bypass duct into forward vectoring. Also, could fuselage reinforcement help with the added load from the composite wing?

Also, F414 takes a 35x154 envelope... most Intruder/Prowler kits are cut with a MUCH shorter-than-correct intake, so could that buy some extra length room?

And another idea... could a dedicated station for two rails and a small ECM pod (kind of a hybrid of F-15A as-conceived and F-15SA/SE Stations 1/9) be fitted under each outer wing, and/or a rail on each tip? A Prowler crewdog I consulted on ARC suggested a limit of 500-1000# on each A-6F/EA-6A outboard pylon for reasons of bring-back weight, but if you aren't trapping on a carrier maybe you could get away with more.

[elmayerle]

Essentially a 'plug and play" cell that would slide down the ejector seat rails and with an upper surface that would fit in place of the aft canopy?  I could see it working, especially if you were careful on the ventilation and drain provisions (you certainly would want drain provisions there and they could be shut off when the aft seats are manned).

The engine bays were bulged on the A-6F to accomodate the F404 and I can see that being done on any other mods using the F412 or F414 (or combination of bits and pieces from both - ISTR that the F412, like the F118, has a fan designed for high distortion levels, rather higher ones than normal installations see).  I don't think I'd try for vstol, stol using swiveling aft nozzles like the A-6 prototypes might be feasible (or joggle the thrust path and use zero-scarf rotating nozzles that could accomodate the hot and cold flows - perhaps with a mixer upstream?).

I'd be leery of putting too much out there (I notice that the wing-fold on the proposed navalized F-15 was just outboard of the F-15 Stations 1/9 - one reason for activating those on my navalized F-15).

[Diamondback]

I once emailed Grumman History Center and NG Public Affairs trying to find info on Tomcat 21, A-6F and VEP, but never got a response from either... there any starting references about any of these birds in the way of drawings? The only photo I've found of VEP is a rear 3/4 that shows the tailfin extension, but not the wing strakes.

Heck, if it's gotta have a bulge over the engines anyway, could it even move past F414 into bigger engines like the F100/F110 or F119/F120 class without a lot of external structural change except the cover panels?

[elmayerle]

Well, I've got a Tomcat 21 3-view I acquired somewhere along the way and I've got the drawings from the C-Scale conversion kit for the A-6F.  I don't have anything on upgraded Prowler variants.  Really, bugling the bays to take a dry F404/412/414 is reasonably doable because they aren't that much larger than a dry J52 (and remember, a J52-based turbofan is called a JT8D/RM8) much like Singapore was able to replace the A-4's J52 with a dry F404 with very little noticeable external differences.  Going for a lot larger engine could start getting into heavy and obvious mod work including, likely, some "one off" AMAD gearboxes.

[Diamondback]

Figures it'd be an obscure and OOP conversion kit from what appears to be yet another dead company... looked at JT8D, but they were a little long, and wasn't sure an RM8 would fit for available length.

What the heck have I gotten myself into? *facepalm*

[elmayerle]

The difference in diameter between a J52 and a JT8D/RM8 is sufficient that I doubt one of the fans would fit.  I'll have to see if I can dig up the drawings from the C-Scale instructions.

[Diamondback]

Another idea... what  mechanical or structural barriers are there to grafting F-15-style shoulder rails onto Intruder/Prowler wing pylons? Thinking about possibly adding them to the six wing stations on "FrankenProwler II"...

[elmayerle]

Another idea... what  mechanical or structural barriers are there to grafting F-15-style shoulder rails onto Intruder/Prowler wing pylons? Thinking about possibly adding them to the six wing stations on "FrankenProwler II"...

My first thought is that you'd probably be best off adapting the F-15 pylons rather than re-engineering A-6 pylons, probably fewer changes.  Beyond that, I'm not convinced the pylons are far enough apart that facing missiles on adjacent launchers wouldn't interfere with each other (definitely something to be engineered out if you can.

I'm definitely considering doing a F404/412/414-powered KA-6B with the back seats converted to extra fuel tankage.   It would look nice parked next to my KA-5D "Fast Texaco" for refueling aircraft in situations where a fast refuel is necessary.

[M.A.D]

With the resurgence of submarine threat by the growing potential clashes with PLAN's diesel-electric submarines in the Pacific, the Navy is forced to admit it's wrong by prematurely withdrawing it's dedicated and purpose designed and built carrier-based Lockheed S-3 Viking's. The USN is desperate to make up for its ignorance and shortfall and reinstate a carrier-based fixed-wing ASW capability......................... But regrettably when the obvious choice is to reinstate the venerable Viking's from their slumber in the sun of the U.S military's aircraft grave yard, it is discovered that due to a USN political decision to be permanently rid of the Viking / ASW need within the USN and the USN ASW community, the Viking's had been quietly donated and disposed of as artificial reef, just as had the USN's A-6 Intruder fleet.
It is only by chance that an ex-Prowler (Grumman EA-6B) commander suggests the utilization of the 'now' surplus Prowler airframes, which have just been replaced and phased out of operational service with the introduction (and infatuation) of a derivative of the Boeing EF-18G Growlers. The ex-Prowler commander points out that the Prowlers could be cost effectively adapted to an ASW platform with the gutting of its ECM/EW systems and radar, which could be replaced by modular ASW systems.
So it was that the SA-6B was born.
It had a retractable 'trailing' M.A.D system fitted into the EA-6B's existing tail fin fairing, which once supported ALQ-99 jamming system. Most importantly the EA-6B Prowler inherited a four-man crew arrangement, which allowed for two dedicated ASW systems operators. Enough TRAM sensor turret of the retired A-6E/TRAM Intruders were found and fitted to give the SA-6B's an effective night observation and tracking capability - which was so effective, the system proved to give the crew the ability to see submarine periscopes over great distances. The tremendous inherited offensive lift capability of the A-6/EA-6 meant that they were able to routinely carry and launch anywhere up to four Mk 50 Barracuda air-launched lightweight torpedoes. To support the ASW role and mission of the adapted SA-6B, the standard A-6/EA-6B 1,136 lit (250 gal) drop tank was simply and cost-effectively modified to hold and deploy eight AN/SSQ-53F sonobuoys each.
So it came to pass, that until the USN was able to develop and deploy their new VSX dedicated carrier-based ASW aircraft, the add-hock SA-6B usually operated with the following configuration -
  4 x Mk 50 Barracuda ASW torpedoes (on its inner wing hardpoints)
16 x AN/SSQ-53F sonobuoys (on its outer wing hardpoints)
  1 x 1,136 lit (250 gal) drop tank (on its fuselage hardpoint)

So what do you recon about this configuration for a 'What If'?

M.A.D                   

[Cliffy B]

DO IT!!! DO IT NOW!!!!!!! 

Great idea man, honestly!!  Only suggestion would be to try and find room in the fuselage for more sonobuoys.  The S-3 carried about 60 and the SH-60s carry 25 and the SH-3s carried 12.  The helos had less but they have/had dipping sonars which more than make up for it.  Try looking in the speed brake area of the underside.  Should be some room for there for 10-20.

Only other suggestion would be to retain its other ordnance capabilities and allow for Harpoons, HARMs, bombs, rockets, etc... to be able to be carried just in case.

[elmayerle]

Perhaps a sonobouy storage and launch system where the KA-6D has its refueling package?  Follow this basic conversion with an upgrade that picks up the A-6F fuselage structural changes and allows installation of dry F414s to improve supportability.