Bager1968The original proposal that led to the F-5 was for a lightweight supersonic fighter that would be relatively inexpensive, easy to maintain, and capable of operating out of short runways and secondary airstrips as well as from small aircraft carriers.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5.html
from Joe Baugher’s entry:
The development of the Northrop F-5 began as far back as 1954, when a Northrop team toured Europe and Asia to examine the defense needs of NATO and SEATO countries. The result of the tour was a 1955 company design study for a lightweight supersonic fighter that would be relatively inexpensive, easy to maintain, and capable of operating out of short runways and secondary airstrips as well as from small aircraft carriers.
The design of the lightweight fighter began in 1955 under the company designation N-156. The N-156 went through several different configurations before the final design was decided. The N-156TX proposal had the engines mounted in two underwing pods and had a crew of two seated in tandem underneath a shallow canopy.
The N-156NN was a proposal for a naval version that had a configuration similar to that of the Grumman F9F and was intended for use from US Navy escort carriers and similar-sized ships such as those operated by the Royal Navy. The mothballing of the Navy’s fleet of escort carriers effectively killed off the N-156NN. In 1965, some studies were made of an aircraft with a folding ventral fin and a booster rocket.
The proposal was submitted to both the Air Force and the Navy. The Navy turned down the Northrop proposal, since it had already decided to take its small aircraft carriers out of service. The Air Force did not initially look favorably upon the proposal either, since it perceived no need for a lightweight fighter.
However, it did need a new trainer to replace the Lockheed T-33, and Northrop decided to press forward with the two-seater to meet this requirement, which was formalized in the USAF’s 1955 General Operational Requirement SS-240L. In June of 1956 the Air Force announced that it was going to acquire the N-156T trainer version under the designation T-38.
The F-5 was then developed from the T-38.
Bager1968Colonel Russell Williams has given police a lengthy and wide-ranging statement about four dozen so-called “lingerie break-ins,” two home invasions that turned into bizarre sexual assaults last September, and the murders of two young women, one a military steward with whom he may have flown.
Several sources have also told The Globe and Mail that the 46-year-old commander of Canadian Forces Base Trenton took detectives to the body of Jessica Lloyd, a 27-year-old who suddenly disappeared on Jan. 29 after texting a friend she had safely arrived home.
…..
According to those close to the investigation, Col. Williams’ statement was delivered in a crisp, almost business-like fashion, less out of contrition, it appeared, than out of a sense of duty ingrained during a 22-year military career.
Bager1968Well, the early reports all said Russia wanted 4… one built in France and 3 built in Russia with French assistance… does this mean they want France to build all 4?
Or is it just typical media mis-understanding of reality?
Bager1968Based on what?
based on the fact that only France would/will really provide help about … a permanent seat at the security council.
For once, the (usually limited) political weight of France has some relevance in the deal.
You have to realize that this deal is not only about the planes.
Funny, the US has been supporting a UN Security Council seat for Brazil since 2004… so I doubt there is any lack there… regardless of the outcome of this fighter competition.
nuclear sub, aircraft carrier, space tech
I’ll grant France has a point there, but NONE of those is in any dependent on Rafale being chosen… they are all separate programs already well underway!
Bager1968I would expect that it is the same thing cited for why the Blackburn Buccaneer naval strike aircraft could fly faster within 100′ of the ocean surface than the F-4 Phantom… despite the Phantom having over twice the top speed (at altitude).
Wing area is actually a negatively-biased factor in low-level performance… the larger the wing area the more strongly the turbulent air near ground shakes & stresses the aircraft structure, thus aircraft with larger wings have a rougher ride and shorter structural life in low-level roles than a small-winged aircraft like the F-104.
That rougher ride means reduced control of the aircraft, and the shorter structural life means buying more aircraft & spending more money.
Bager1968Ok, the way you phrased it, with the two parts separated by the comma and the “transport” in the second part, led me to believe you were implying an operating capacity of 40, and a transport capacity of 50.
Now that we understand each other… 😀
Bager1968I have never been able to find any reference to any proposed competitor for the Intruder… all I can find is that the original request for proposals was for an “all-weather and night attack aircraft to replace the A-1 Skyraider”, and that Grumman was awarded the contract in 1957.
It is quite possible that Grumman was the only one to submit a detailed proposal… which would mean “A2F or nothing”!
The first flight of the Super Tiger was in May-1956, the carrier-qualification trials of the first production version of the Crusader were in April 1956.
I am not sure just when the USN made its decision, but the first Cutlass squadron stood up April 1954 and the last stood down November 1957… giving an indication of when it became critical for Vought to get a contract for its new design.
An alternate possibility would be for an earlier A-7. The A-7 was developed from the F-8… very loosely… for a 1963 design competition to replace the A-4.
However, starting in 1957, the USN was examining designs for improved A-4s… culminating in the re-engined A-4E (J52 replacing the J65) approved in 1959.
What if Vought was asked to convert the F-8 design into a light attack replacement for the A-4 then, instead of 6 years later? There would be no TF30 available, so the engine would likely be a version of the non-afterburning J57 that powered the B-52, A-3, & B-57D.
The F-8, A4D, F-100, F-101, & F-102 were also powered by the J57 in afterburning form.
In 1957, the J57-P-25 of the F-102 produced 11,700 lb thrust without afterburner… a bit more than the TF30 of the A-7A, and just a tad less than that of the A-7B.
This seems a nice fit for an alternate prize for Vought… and perhaps the J52 A-4 variants might still come in for the USMC and as trainers for the USN.
Bager1968Ja Worsley –
Good information.
The Bouge class of steam-powered transport hulls converted in quantity to Atlantic CVE’s is roughly where I originally seemed to draw my figures from. Approximately 500 feet long, 70 foot beam, 23 foot draft, 7000 tons empty, 13000 tons fully equipped, 15 knot cruise, 8000nm range, flight hanger for 40 warbirds, decks used to transport 50 warbirds in a pinch, and light armament for self defense.
Ja Worsley’s idea of a catamaran would fill the role nicely.
Ummm… EVERY source I have seen for the Bogue (CVE-9, ex-ACV-9, ex-AVG-9) class says 24 aircraft… not 40.
The slightly larger (converted from fleet oilers) Sangamon CVE-26 class carried 25,
the improved (based on the C-3 hull of the Bogues, but purpose-designed from the keel up) Casablanca CVE-55 class carried 28,
and the ultimate WW2 CVE class, the Commencement Bay CVE-105 class (557′, 11,100t std 24,500t full) carried 35.
Bager1968The two Super-Tiger prototypes were modified from stock Tigers, but by the time they had proven themselves the USN had already decided to go with the faster Crusader… in a good part because Grumman had other aircraft in production, and had won the contract for the A2F (A-6 Intruder)… while Vought had only the F7U Cutlass which had just been canceled, and was therefore in danger of going out of business… “the industrial base must be preserved”, eh what?
Bager1968F11F-1 Tiger: J65-W-18 (US-built Sapphire 100 w/afterburner); thrust 7,400 lb (10,500 lb); weight 3,485 lb; length 130″/181”; diameter 37.7”; SFC .91/?; airflow 120 lb/sec
F11F-1F Super Tiger: J79-GE-3B; thrust 9,600 lb (14,800 lb); weight 3,255 lb; length 110”/207.5”; diameter 30.4” (38.3” over afterburner); SFC .85/1.97; airflow ~150-170 lb/sec
The J79-GE-8 (&-15) used in the A-5 Vigilante & F-4B/C/D from 1960 produced a thrust of 10,900 lb (17,000 lb).
Therefore, a developed Super Tiger would be a nasty beast, with the later J-79.
Another option for a “Improved Tiger” would be simply a better version of the engine it already had.
The RAF’s Javelin FAW 8 fighter had the following engine:
Sapphire 200: ASSa.7LR (Limited-use Reheat); thrust 11,000 lb (12,390 lb above 20,000′ only); weight (3,180 lb); length 125”/293”; diameter 37.5”; SFC ~.88; airflow 150 lb/sec
Also available was:
ASSa.9 (tested before 1963, not placed in production); thrust 12,700 lb; other data similar to ASSa.7
Fit the ASSa.7 or 9 with an all-altitude-rated afterburner, and you get a pretty nice engine.
Bager1968Japan has been making noises about a “civilian certified” version of C-X that would be available for international sales, so…
Bager1968And only Sudan is inaccessible to carrier aircraft in a reasonable scenario.
Most of Pakistan is readily accessible to sea-based air power, and all the others have the entire nation easily accessible from sea-based air power.
Bager1968looking at the image realy places it to scale as a it looks like most of a T-45 is in the background you can realy see what huge ship its going to be when completed.
I think that’s just one of the middle hull sections, but you’re right it does look pretty damn impressive all the same.
Elsewhere, it has been identified as one of the aft sections of HMS Duncan D37, 6th T-45 destroyer.
Bager1968No one has ever done a “successful carrier aircraft” from a “terrestrial aircraft” “the first time” they tried….
North American? FJ-2 (from Sabre).
Ummm I wouldn’t call that successful… the USN decided it would stick with the lower-performing, but more carrier-suitable Grumman F9F-6 Cougar instead.
Most of the 200 FJ-2s built went to land-based Marine Corps units, with the F9F-6s going to carrier-based units. Very few FJ-2s ever went to sea.
It was not until the FJ-3 Fury, with its more powerful J65 engine replacing the J47 of the F-86/FJ-2 and with more modifications, that it was considered “satisfactory”.
The only truly “successful” Fury was the FJ-4… which had an all-new fuselage and an all-new wing to go with the J65 engine!
Bager1968The fact remains that while the Gripen might have suitable flight dynamics for a carrier landing, it can’t withstand the sink rate and isn’t current reinforced for either a tail-hook landing or a catapult launch. Saab estimates the weight penalty from carrier modifications to be 500kg, but it should be remembered that Saab doesn’t have any experience in this field.
Re-read what I posted, the current Gripen is rated for a much higher sink rate than other land-based fighters, and Saab IS planning to further strengthen the airframe, landing gear, and hook to allow for full carrier sink rates, impact forces, catapult or ramp take-offs, and arrested landings (the current hook is for the “field arresting gear” which allows it to stop in less than 800 meters on roads).
Sign In
