Register here

Author Topic: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies  (Read 67089 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10923
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2006, 05:43:56 pm »
Identified as "Advanced Design Composite Aircraft", with 80% composite structure, weighing 25% less, costing 20% less and saving 30% on fuel over a conventional fighter, from Grumman advert in Flight International 2 Sept 1978.

Those wingtip fuel tanks remind me of spaceships from the 50s  :)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10785
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2006, 05:48:39 pm »
So exactly happened at Grumman? Did the F-14 engineers all leave or something? Their ATF bids were pretty rubbish...
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10923
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2006, 06:14:05 pm »
So exactly happened at Grumman? Did the F-14 engineers all leave or something? Their ATF bids were pretty rubbish...

This is just speculation on my part and not strictly speaking about Grumman but when stealth came to the forfront with the ATF it left some companies in a bind it would seem.  Lockheed of course had a lot of experience and Northrop was right there too.  Convair (General Dynamics) had experience going back to Kingfish at the least.  And those were the 1, 2, and 3 positions on the first downselect when they went from 7 to 4.   I don't know where Boeing got their stealth experience ( position 4),  supposedly McDonnell hired some Lockeed individuals away and presumably their non-competition agreements ran out (I don't know how that would apply to privilaged/classified info they had in their heads though) and they came in 5th.  AFAIK Grumman and Rockwell International have never been involved in any stealth programs which would kinda leave them out in the cold.  Looking at the Rockwell submission I'm reminded of the concepts of the day that were floating around for public consumption and that one fits right in.  As it turns out features that you typically find on stealth aircraft are nowhere to be seen.  I'm guessing Grumman and Rockwell were the ones who "just didn't get it" which is unfortunate but those are the breaks I suppose.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2006, 11:44:31 pm »
For what it's worth, I understand that Northrop's interest in "stealth" goes back to roughly 1964 when they started an in-depth look at why the Snark was so difficult to track on radar.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 781
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2006, 10:56:06 am »
So exactly happened at Grumman? Did the F-14 engineers all leave or something? Their ATF bids were pretty rubbish...

This is just speculation on my part and not strictly speaking about Grumman but when stealth came to the forfront with the ATF it left some companies in a bind it would seem.  Lockheed of course had a lot of experience and Northrop was right there too.  Convair (General Dynamics) had experience going back to Kingfish at the least.  And those were the 1, 2, and 3 positions on the first downselect when they went from 7 to 4.   I don't know where Boeing got their stealth experience ( position 4),  supposedly McDonnell hired some Lockeed individuals away and presumably their non-competition agreements ran out (I don't know how that would apply to privilaged/classified info they had in their heads though) and they came in 5th.  AFAIK Grumman and Rockwell International have never been involved in any stealth programs which would kinda leave them out in the cold.  Looking at the Rockwell submission I'm reminded of the concepts of the day that were floating around for public consumption and that one fits right in.  As it turns out features that you typically find on stealth aircraft are nowhere to be seen.  I'm guessing Grumman and Rockwell were the ones who "just didn't get it" which is unfortunate but those are the breaks I suppose.

Sounds reasonable, but wouldn't Rockwell have had a fair bit of LO experience with the B-1B?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10923
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2006, 12:09:23 pm »
Quote

Sounds reasonable, but wouldn't Rockwell have had a fair bit of LO experience with the B-1B?

True but on on the B-1B the efforts seem to consist mainly of RAM and hiding the compressor faces which the Rockwell entry probably had but that seems to be about it.  You didn't see edge-alignment in there and I wouldn't be surprised if Lockheed's and Northrop's RAM and RAS technology were ahead of Rockwell's by a generation or two. Obviously this is all just speculation but that quote earlier about some "just not getting it" would seem to indicate that Rockwell and Grumman missed the mark completely.  Which doesn't neccessarily mean they were horrible by the standards of the day in other regards such as performance, manueverability etc. but if they came in with say an RCS of 0.001m^2 and Lockheed, Northrop, and GD were around 0.00001m^2 that's a huge difference.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 04:03:52 am by overscan »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10923
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2006, 07:48:31 am »
For what it's worth, I understand that Northrop's interest in "stealth" goes back to roughly 1964 when they started an in-depth look at why the Snark was so difficult to track on radar.

Maybe even earlier than that.  They'd noticed the B-49 was pretty small on the radar of the day too, particularly from head on.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2006, 10:06:53 pm »
For what it's worth, I understand that Northrop's interest in "stealth" goes back to roughly 1964 when they started an in-depth look at why the Snark was so difficult to track on radar.

Maybe even earlier than that.  They'd noticed the B-49 was pretty small on the radar of the day too, particularly from head on.

True, but all the papers and other materials I read while there indicate that the experience with the Snark was the real start of a strong interest on their part.  That matches what T.V. Jones claimed in one talk.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10785
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2006, 11:41:13 pm »
Grumman Patent 4,569,493 (1983)

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2006, 12:24:09 am »
Just another question reagrding Grumman's pre-ATF studies !

Does anyone know anything about concepts / studies not directly related to the pre-ATF-aera ... only between F-X & FV-X and the later ATF-concepts ??   ???

Cheers, Deino
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline consealed

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2006, 04:27:07 am »
I also think that many FX, VFX and ATF project are same category. There is no any superior parts I can seen ccompare with F-X or VFX. ???
The key to any great story not is who or what, when or where, but why

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8551
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2006, 12:15:41 pm »
« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 12:25:32 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8551
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2006, 11:33:34 am »
Looks pretty like this one 'High/Dive' Grumman concept
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=106.msg1208#msg1208
« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 11:37:04 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Yildirim

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 110
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2006, 07:38:18 am »
Grumman lost because they little experince with stealth tech, also they had not build a Airforce fighter in years.
"Madness," he murmured. I bowed. "But a great madness,"

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8551
Re: Grumman Pre-ATF & ATF Studies
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2007, 06:54:06 am »
Grumman ATF scetches by notorious Nathan Kirschbaum
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works