sealordlawrenceYeah, that’s internally, though it was very much a theoretical if memory serves. Basically, the bay could physically hold them, but the aircraft would be too heavy then. I suspect a new built B.3 with the better Conways would have worked, and might even have given the aircraft its full capacity. The problem of course was that there simply wasn’t a perceived need for it, especially after Polaris came on the scene.
As for Skybolt, it was actually surprisingly large (more particularly, long!). It was lighter, obviosly, but even the Polaris A3 is only around 35,000lbs, i.e. the bombload of the Victor! This, in theory, would mean that the Victor could have been adapted to carry a single Polaris…
Both of those would be interesting developments. The Victor was always the most advanced of the V bombers but its career was curtailed by the government cancellations and thus so was its development. I would be very surprised if the designers did not have in the back of their minds a vague idea for Mark-3.
IIRC it was initially intended for the B2 to have Olympus’s or a further development of the Sapphire, I dont know which variants were going to be used but that may have had an impact on the amount of power that was ultimately available. Also the B.2 (RS) of which 21 were converted from the 34 B.2s featured up-rated conway 201s with 20,000lbs of thrust so I would be surprised if even more powerful versions could not be fitted without too much difficulty. I also seem to remember that it was intended to upgrade the Vulcan B.2 with the Olympus 301 (22,000lbs I think).
sealordlawrenceSorry Bager, to my knowledge (admittedly culled from several books and articles) CVA-01 never left the drawing board. Perhaps you are thinking of the wartime HMS Malta supercarrier laid down and then broken up on the slipway or the USS United States? The order was never actually placed. I wish it were the case, the likelihood then would have been the ship would have been built. From what I can see CVF’s design, development and construction is a lot further along than CVA-01’s.
There was a class of carriers ordered in the 50s, the engines had already been ordered when they were cancelled.
sealordlawrenceThe funny thing being that it could physically take 48 x 1000lb bombs, but not without exceeding max weight. It may have been possible to improve this situation by improving the engines – e.g. better Conways or similar. If newer Victors had been built in the ’60s, they could have been very useful.
As for weapons, how about an internally carried Polaris? :diablo:
Thanks for that Ed I had not heard that before. Is that with all 48 1000lb bombs in the bomb bay? It sounds like there was plenty of room for a Mark-3 version. The Mk550 Conway had 22,500lbs of thrust so that would offer an extra 20,000lb over a Victor Mk2.
sealordlawrenceIndeed, but the Vigilante still had a dangerously high approach speed – without having to bring back any external stores.
The Air Force didn’t buy the proposals, did it?
The substantial weight of any early predeccessor of the AWG-9, with the many structural modifications necessary, and 6 Eagle missiles would be far greater than the recon package.
Sources evidence numbers???
sealordlawrenceWith catapults and a deck lay-out that would allow launches from the bow cat independently of landing operations – too bad it won’t look like that 🙁
That said, I’ve been thinking for a bit and have come up with something that is technically possible (if unlikely, in the current UK defence budget climate) and would reconcile me with the STOVL decision. What if this plan is simply intended to bridge the gap until the US clears EMALS for export to the UK? The hulls are being fitted for a future installation of catapults and installing steam cats on a ship that fully embraces the concept of integrated full electric propulsion is surely not optimal. So after that happens, the existing F-35B fleet is turned over to the RAF to replace the Harrier and deliveries to the RN switch to the F-35C 😎 Well, I can always dream, can’t I?!
I am afraid I think it is just a dream (a nice one at least), the Harriers are joint force and the the F-35s will be the same. In effect the RN and RAF have to share there planes now, however I still dont see why they cant do that with the C variant.:(
sealordlawrenceThe Vigilante had a 150 knot+ approach speed, which is far too high for a modern carrier aircraft.
But it appear that this capacity was never actually employed operationally.
The reality is that a RA-5B would never have landed aboard the carrier with the bombs still on the pylons. Taking off with 8,000lb of bombs might also have precluded a full fuel load.
As previously stated, there would have been no “bring back” weight margin for a much heavier fighter version of the Vigilante to land aboard a carrier with 6 Eagle/Phoenix missiles.
Yes, but endurance figured prominently in the CAP mission, especially against bomber and patrol aircraft targets. The J79 powered Vigilante lacked both the power-to-weight ratio or a conventional fighter, and the the endurance of the speciallized long range CAP mission. It would have been the worst of both possible worlds.
No it wouldn’t have. The Vigilante’s radome was entirely too small, and the forward cockpit bulkhead was too far forward for a large radar set.
Look at a photograph of the Vigilante. It should be entirely obvious.
The Vigilante was fully carrier capable, thats why it operated of them reguarly.:rolleyes:
Two other proposals for a land based interceptor version of the Vigilante to the air force makes a mockery of some of your claims, apparently the people who designed it seemed to think it was capable of the mission.
Maybe you could provide sources and numbers for the bring back weights, the C variant carried a significant quantity of recon sensors that would have created reasonably substantial weight.
sealordlawrenceTwo guess’s: #1, we have it, it’s a known quanity, and it’s reasonable effective. #2, it’s a distinctively British design, a little national hubris can be allowed 😉
Matt
It might not have been required, it may simply have been the case that the Bomb bay of the Victor was just designed large enough without any thought to the grand slam. Remember that the Victors bomb bay was the largest of the V-Force, it could take 35 1000lb bombs as opposed to as opposed to 21 for the Vulcan. That is the equal to the maximum bomb load of a standard Lancaster more than the Vulcan!:eek:
sealordlawrenceNo, it was cancelled because it was yet another single role, single service aircraft. By the late 1950s, it was obvious that there were too many individual types of aircraft aboard carrier. It was equally obvious that there was a need for some commonality between very similar Air Force and Navy programs. This is precisely why MacNamara didn’t reverse the cancellation of the Missileer, and simulataneously forced the Air Force to accept the the Navy’s F-4 Phantom.
The F6D was speciallized for long CAP endurance, being the first application of the TF30. It also had the advantage of employing a relatively inexpensive, low development risk airframe. All of the risk was isolated to the very expensive and comprehensive radar and missiles. Subsonic performance also meant that Missileer imposed less of a burden upon carrier operations.
It was only with the TFX and the F-111B that MacNamara’s drive for interservice commonality went awry.
MacNamara was right to cancel the FD6 airframe while continuing the development of the Missileer’s radar and missiles. The F-4 eventually because the Navy’s sole fighter, instead of sharing flight decks with the Missileer as originally planned.
It was also cancelled becouse the navy did not like the idea of a subsonic aircraft, almost all sources state that.
sealordlawrenceThe Vigilante had a very high approach speed – far too high for a CAP fighter that was expected to operate frequently and routinely during adverse weather conditions.
The Vigilante also lacked “bring back” weight margins to land on a carrier with a full load of very expensive, very large Eagle or Phoenix AAMs.
By today’s standards, the Vigilante probably wouldn’t be considered acceptable as a carrier aircraft.
No, it didn’t. The Vigilante had a relatively small radome, far smaller than the later F-14, which had a smaller radome than the F-111B. The frontal area of the Missileer was huge for a fighter, and there is no way that the avionics of the Missileer could have been accomodated aboard the Vigilante without a forward fuselage redesign and a far smaller antenna.
Not really. The massive empty weight and fuel load limited the payload of the Vigilante compared to most smaller tactical naval aircraft. Payload was very limited compared to a far smaller Intruder.
…but not long endurance. Endurance was important for a long range naval CAP fighter. Endurance was the driving factor behind the low performance design of the Missileer.
The recon Vigilante could fly an impressive distance, but it’s ability to loiter was rather limited.
The Vigilante was already a hugely expensive aircraft with more than a few operational deficiencies. You could have hung a few Eagle missiles under the wings, but there was no space or weight margin for the avionics.
No, it couldn’t have.
Can anyone imagine how disasterous a Vigilante based fighter would have been over the skies of North Vietnam?
Imagine for a moment the operational nightmare of two full squadrons of Vigilantes aboard even the largest supercarrier.
The Vigilante was a nearly Skywarrior sized aircraft with same turbojets as the much smaller Phantom. It was not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination.
The Vigilante was expensive to produce, expensive to operate, limited in capability. It became a recon platform not only because the strategic mission disappeared, but also because it was a poor strike aircraft.
The Vigilante was a fully carrier capable aircraft- period.
The B variant had 4 wing mounted hard points capable of taking 2000lbs each, the AIM-47 weighed 800lbs.
You seem to have missed the point of the intended role of this series of aircraft, they were not intended to go one on one with Mig-21s but to carry long range missiles to bring down AShM carrying medium bombers- dog fighting was not a requirement. The radome would probably have been sufficient and could have probably been enlarged without too much difficulty.
sealordlawrenceEr, I have read through this thread and there is nothing on the outcome of any of the encounters so I think it is a little bit premature to start making conclusions.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI’ve got two books on the A-5/RA-5 that both show that it was tested with conventional air to ground munitions hung off four underwing hardpoints. The reason that the RA-5C was rarely seen with underwing tanks is, according to these books, the drag was enough to render the range boost provided by the tanks almost negligible, so they flew with internal fuel only.
The books are the Squadron/Signal Mini on the Vigilante and the Osprey book on the various units that operated the aircraft.
It seems to me that it would be best to use the otherwise useless internal weapons bay for added fuel.
sealordlawrenceUsing a fast jet for maritime patrol seems like a very strange idea and I’m not sure what advantages it would bring – can they not use a CN-235 or Do-228 twin-prop like everyone else?
Also, spending long periods of time far out over seawater in a single engined L-39 doesn’t seem like a good idea – better an Alpha jet or a Yak-130 (if they must use a “fast jet”).
This is not Maritime patrol in the conventional sense, its more an AWACs and interception role against drug smuggling light aircraft. Personally I think that the flanker with its large radar and long range would be pretty well suited to the role. The only munitions that would be required would be for the 30mm gun and that would only be in small numbers. IIRC one of the US law enforcement agencies uses a number of buisness jets fitted with F-16 radars for exactly this sort of mission.
sealordlawrenceHow ’bout this: (although I think Aerospacetech gets the credit as I think I got it from him at some point)
Thanks Sferrin, that looks like the NR-349 that was offered to the air force with a third J-79 in the bomb bay. It seems to have been intended to fulfill a similar role to the F-108 only not quite so extravagantly.
It was the A-5B that had the four 2000lb under wing store stations, it was developed along side the A-5C recon bird but was cancelled after just six were completed.
sealordlawrenceI have seen sources saying that the Vigilante could carry two 2000lb stores beneath each wing. As to what to do with the ridiculous bomb bay- do what was usualy done with it anyway, fill it with fuel.;)
Ps, thanks for the picture.:)
sealordlawrenceWell, some immediate observations.
Red Hebe was actually the 1300lb weapon, not Red Dean. I’m looking for a reference for weight for Red Dean but it was less.
Red Dean requirement was 1951, some 6 years earlier than work started on GAR-9 (AIM-47). Doesn’t seem like that much, but it was a very fast moving time, and thats a fair gap. Red Dean was design, built, tested, and cancelled, before GAR-9 had left the drawing board.
Red Dean was never intended as a long range weapon. British airborne radars of the mid 50s struggled to exceed 18-20nm detection range even on a bomber sized target, so the idea of a long range AAM was simply fantasy then.
Red Dean was intended as an all aspect AAM, compared to Firestreak (Blue Jay) which was rear aspect only. It was required that it needed no support from the host aircraft after launch, so it had to use active radar homing. This therefore limited launch range considerably, and there was no way to use inertial guidance / midcourse updates like AMRAAM. The requirement was about 5nm I believe, though I believe Red Dean could probably exceed that. Its diameter was fixed by the active radar seeker, which couldn’t be any smaller, and was very bulky. Due to the lower precision of the radar guidance versus the IR guidance of Firestreak, miss distances were going to be higher so it had a much larger warhead. That’s why the missile was large overall.
GAR-9 is a totally different thing. It used semi-active radar homing, was later in timing and relied on a brand new radar (AN/ASG-18) of revolutionary capability and complexity that actually took the best part of 25 years to get into service.
Thanks Aerospacetech, I do love mid fifties to the mid sixties- there is always a sense that technology was really being pushed in a truly exploratory way!
Sign In
