Alt F6D Missileer: Skywarrior or Intruder airframe ?

[Archibald]

Friedman briefly discuss such a project in "Fighters over the fleet" book. D-790, or so it seems.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-f6d-1-missileer-and-its-rivals.33890/page-2
https://www.google.fr/books/edition...+four+external"&pg=PT1110&printsec=frontcover
So - why not stick the APQ-81 in a big nose, and a few Bendix Eagles in the bomb bay ? (yes, I do know a few A-3s were "hired" as testbeds to do exactly that: flight testing of AMQ-81 & Eagle, early 1961).

What's wrong with not re-inventing the wheel ? even more since A-3 podded J-57s can easily be swapped for goddamn TF30 turbofans.

So - what's wrong with a TF30-Skywarrior Missileer ? With a bit of luck, this may nip the F-111B in the bud: one way or another.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Probably the biggest problem is that the Skywarrior is huge. This is a problem on two levels: first, it can't fit at all into the hangers of the Essex and Midway classes. Second, it takes up a ton of parking space. As in, almost twice that of the F-111B, let alone the smaller Missileer.

 

[Archibald]

Would the A-6 Intruder be a better choice ? could something akin to an EA-6B - four seats - be stuffed as a Missileer ?

 

[kaiserd]

Would the A-6 Intruder be a better choice ? could something akin to an EA-6B - four seats - be stuffed as a Missileer ?

A-6 developments (standard 2-seat) were among the competitors to the winning Douglas design.
The 4 seat Prowler design is a latter development (not sure what you think the extra 2 operators would do in this context - the E-2 Hawkeye was already deep in development before the US Navy really got the Missileer program going).

 

[iverson]

Probably the biggest problem is that the Skywarrior is huge. This is a problem on two levels: first, it can't fit at all into the hangers of the Essex and Midway classes. Second, it takes up a ton of parking space. As in, almost twice that of the F-111B, let alone the smaller Missileer.

I have been told that the A-3 also could not be recovered aboard safely if there were a problem with the tailhook--too heavy for the barriers. It is an old design that lacks ejection seats as well, so ditching or bailout at low altitude were not survivable.

 

[Pioneer]

Is there any USN documentation as to how many FAD platforms were deemed needing per carrier?
The A-3's massive spotting factor is an obvious thing in my mind. It's for that reason (along with commonality) that I'd support the Grumman Design 128E FAD derivative of the A-6 Intruder.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

Seems like a better idea, I concede. Funny to think that 30 years later the A-6F was to be able to fire AMRAAM for self dense and perhaps fleet defense too.
EDIT: I changed the thread title accordingly.

How hard would it be to fit TF30s into the Intruder engine bays ?

Could a TF30-Intruder-Missileer derail McNamara F-111B folly ?

 

[apparition13]

Seems like a better idea, I concede. Funny to think that 30 years later the A-6F was to be able to fire AMRAAM for self dense and perhaps fleet defense too.
EDIT: I changed the thread title accordingly.

I think the eventual A6F plan was for AIM-152, but I'm not terribly confident in that.

How hard would it be to fit TF30s into the Intruder engine bays ?

F404s required larger intakes and a somewhat bulged fuselage. I think TF30s might be too big.

Could a TF30-Intruder-Missileer derail McNamara F-111B folly ?

Not unless A-6s replace the USAF F-111. Which the Air Force wouldn't go for since they wanted supersonic. I think McNamara was too convinced of his own press to compromise on one design for two projects.

Is there any USN documentation as to how many FAD platforms were deemed needing per carrier?

As I recall it's 12 per. Where I've read that I don't remember though. Maybe one of the Congressional records that I think are linked to in the F6D thread?

 

[kaiserd]

Per Tony Butlers Secret Projects book on post-war US fighters there were A-6 variants powered by TF30s looked at by Grumman as part of the Missileer competition.

I can’t quite recollect if Grumman stuck with a J52s only variant for their submitted proposal (cheaper, quicker to develop land enter service) or included one or more TF30 variants as an option. Either the TF30 variants lost Grummans own internal competition to get included in their proposal or they were included in the proposal and also lost to the Douglas design.

 

[1Big Rich]

Probably the biggest problem is that the Skywarrior is huge. This is a problem on two levels: first, it can't fit at all into the hangers of the Essex and Midway classes. Second, it takes up a ton of parking space. As in, almost twice that of the F-111B, let alone the smaller Missileer.

Skywarriors were assigned to Essex and Midway class. That's why their tails folded down:

Fully agree on the deck-spot factor. They weren't nicknamed 'Whales' for nothing!

Regards,

 

[Archibald]

I can see the point. But the prospect of a few "Missileers" (= ultra long range interceptors) flying out of the smallish Essex decks could be interesting. That's something neither a F-111B nor a Tomcat could do.

 

[robunos]

Thought I'd already posted this here . . .
Douglas D-790 Skywarrior missileer concept, up to 8 Bendix 'Eagles' . . .





Source Aerofax Aerograph 5, 'Douglas A-3 Skywarrior', pp. 29-30

cheers,
Robin.

 

[isayyo2]

I can see the point. But the prospect of a few "Missileers" (= ultra long range interceptors) flying out of the smallish Essex decks could be interesting. That's something neither a F-111B nor a Tomcat could do.

Even the knock-on effects of a turbofan powered Whale are tantalizing. Imagine a new build EKA-3 with TF-30s or JT8Ds. Their offload rate and on-station time would be beyond impressive.