North American 'Retaliator' & NR-349 Interceptor proposals

[Pioneer]

Hello gents

I am looking for information, drawings (including 3-views) and specifications for North American Aviation’s ‘Retaliator’ and the NR-349 Interceptor proposals.
These were based on the A-5 Vigilante carrier-based strike-bomber

Regards
Pioneer

[SOC]

This bit from A/RA-5 Vigilante In Action (Squadron/Signal, Terry Love, 1995):  Retaliator was proposed as an F-106 replacement for ADC.  Twin J79-GE-10 engines, and a Rocketdyne XLR46-NA-2 for high altitude performance.  There was initial USAF interest, but the project wasn't proceeded with.  Around 1972 a second project was proposed.  This one fitted a third J79-GE-10 in the former weapons tunnel.  Projected capabilities were speeds in excess of Mach 2.5 and altitudes over 80,000 feet.  Armament was six AIM-54s carried semi-submerged under the fuselage.  No apparent interest in this one.

These additions from Wings Of Fame Volume 19:  Retaliator was proposed in 1960.  The rocket engine was in the former weapons bay.  Retaliator was revived in 1970 as NR349 and redesigned as a bid for the IMI (Improved Manned Interceptor, the F-101, F-102, and F-106 replacement).  Bifuricated intakes on the upper surface fed the third engine.  There's a cutaway of NR349 and a bit of artwork showing two of them flying underneath what would appear to be an eight-engined E-3.

That's all I found so far around here.

[Skybolt]

Mmmm, some confusion here. AFAIK, the Retailator was an attack bomber - land based version of the A3J. NAA was proposing it in 1959 to fill the role of light bomber left open in TAC inventory by the cancellation of the XB-68. There was much debate in the USAF on that role in 1958-1959, expecially for the European theatre. The discussion involved the succession to the F-105 as  heavy strike aircraft. In 1960 the decision was: leave the purely nuclear role to missiles (and was the MMRBM), develop a new advanced strike aircraft, and this was GOR-183, later TFX, for coventional and minor nuclear roles.
Retailator model here:  http://cgi.ebay.com/1959-TOPPING-A3J-1-Vigilante-RETALIATOR-Prototype-Model_W0QQitemZ160051831489QQihZ006QQcategoryZ86954QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The interceptor versions of the A3J were a quite different story. Already covered in another topic thread here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=423.msg2813#msg2813

The Retailator concept was developed further by NAA and a derivative with the hunchback of the Aj3-2 (Later A-5B) was looked upon with interest by the RAF during the TSR-2 definition phase. It was proposed to the Aussies too. Our Elmayerle has a lot of info on inner NAA workings, so maybe he can help...  Here a model photo of the RAAF Retailator with a couple of Bullpups and a score of iron bombs.
I think the confusion originated in the Aerofax Minigraph 9 by Grove and Miller (even the greatest lapse at times    ) when the Retailator line was conflated with another line of A3J-derived proposals for the USAF, i.e. those for the ADC, starting with the 1960 proposal of taking the basic plane and add a rocket to push high-altitude performance. The proposal probably was devised to try and  hold the interceptor place for NAA following the F-108 cancellation (the advanced long-range interceptor remained alive for all the 60's decade and beyond).

[Archibald]

I don't want to add to the confusion. Just adding this pic of the three-engine vigilante (coming from Prototypes.com)

[Skybolt]

Thanks Archie 
Look at the big radar for the six Phoenixes....

[Archibald]

Be nice with me...
so the pic would represent.... this one...

Around 1972 a second project was proposed.  This one fitted a third J79-GE-10 in the former weapons tunnel.  Projected capabilities were speeds in excess of Mach 2.5 and altitudes over 80,000 feet.  Armament was six AIM-54s carried semi-submerged under the fuselage.  No apparent interest in this one.

 

[Archibald]

...and this definitively NOT the retaliator, which was an attack bomber (to replace the B-68)

[Skybolt]

Actually the Vigilante is a not-so-well covered topic. Different books but no-one seems much improving from the original Aerofax one. I was very disappointed by the much-awaited one by Ginter Books, from an historical point of view at least. Great for modellers, though.

[Pioneer]

Thanks gents

Regards
Pioneer

[elmayerle]

Actually the Vigilante is a not-so-well covered topic. Different books but no-one seems much improving from the original Aerofax one. I was very disappointed by the much-awaited one by Ginter Books, from an historical point of view at least. Great for modellers, though.

Well, this modeller was disappointed that the Ginter book didn't have any drawings of the camo patterns tested on selected RA-5C's over Vietnam.

According to my sources, NAA-Columbus did look at replacing the J79s with other engines, but the upper management at NAA vetoed them because they would require a major redesign of the forged frame that carried the spindles for the all-moving tail surfaces.  The three-engined one only had a chance because the engine and the bomb/fuel tank assembly were of similar diameters.

[SOC]

If you want a color side profile and some good photos of camo Vigis, then you want the Osprey RA-5C Vigilante Units In Combat book.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The US Navy persued a J-58 powered advanced interceptor version of the A-3J/A-5 Vigilante during the mid/late-1950's. 

Does anyone have a drawing/schematic, or a picture of what it was to look like? 


K.J. Lesnick

[dan_inbox]

This was the NR-349.

[Skybolt]

Actually the question ought to be: what the hell was the Navy thinking of doing with the J-58 engine they were paying for developing ? There are three typical answers: they were thinking of a J-58 engined version of the Crusader (Crusader IV); they were thinking of a Mach-3 attack seaplane as a successor of the SeaMaster; they were thinking just in case. Anyway, for notorious reasons, the A3J was very difficult to adapt to new engines. Due to the structure of the rear engine box, the plane would have to be re-designed to house new engines. If you look at the NR-349, they had to resort to a three-J79 configuration, that's not the optimum in my opinion. Ditto for the NASA-explored A3J-based VG configuration for a CAP Navy plane (a sort of supersonic Missileer).
And by the way, it was USAF that was interested in adapting the A3J to the interceptor (different from the CAP) role, as the insignia on the art clearly tell.

[pometablava]

Dan,

NR-349 was an interceptor design proposal for the USAF, not for the USN as KJ asks...

look here for info about NR-349

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,423.0/highlight,us+manned+interceptor.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,139.0/highlight,us+manned+interceptor.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1127.0/highlight,us+manned+interceptor.html