Grumman A-6 Intruder projects

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    30 KB · Views: 1,268
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    35.4 KB · Views: 1,252
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    41.6 KB · Views: 995
Last edited by a moderator:
That is almost certainly a display model depicting the proposed tanker variant. It is loaded with five external fuel tanks and incorporates what looks like a refueling drogue housing on the underside of the aft fuselage. The tanker didn't need the attack radar so I'm guessing that the nose was reshaped to reduce drag. That feature didn't make it to the KA-6Ds that resulted.
 
The following is a cockpit photo of an A-6E SWIP Block 1A. This version took it's maiden flight in 1994 and featured composite wings, ASN-139 INS, ARN-118 TACAN, GPS, MFD for the B/N and a new HUD and warning lights. The Block 1A was never introduced to the fleet.
 
Via a link (h/t Orion) at the Ryan Model 147S-2 thread, a couple of interesting images (courtesy of Tony Chong):
 

Attachments

  • C 5133w.jpg
    C 5133w.jpg
    50.8 KB · Views: 622
  • C 5166-Cw.jpg
    C 5166-Cw.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 604
1959 Grumman manufacturer proposal model of their Design 128 (later A2F-1) with centerline Corvus missile by Temco, Bullpups and drop tanks. Note initial location of refueling probe, early canopy, nose radome, air intakes, etc. This was very close to the final configuration.
 

Attachments

  • Grumman Design 128 02.jpg
    Grumman Design 128 02.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 399
  • Grumman Design 128 01.jpg
    Grumman Design 128 01.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 415
Among the recent San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives Ryan Aeronautical postings on Flickr are these photos of an A-6 Intruder model configured with a wing-mounted trapeze to air launch (at least that's what I initially believed) a Ryan Firebee reconnaissance variant.

Strangely enough, the arrangement reminds me of the B-36/F-84 FICON trapeze, with what appears to be a small hook on the top of the Firebee that would fit into a loop in the front of the trapeze, and two braces on the trapeze that would straddle/support the rear of the drone. Also, Firebees of similar size and wingspan were frequently launched from Intruders simply from a wing hard point - which would seemingly make an arrangement such as this unnecessary. Perhaps, instead of solely being a launching mechanism, this is a recovery system?

Unlike FICON, where the parasite aircraft's hook faces forward, the hook on the drone here faces to the rear. If this is a proposed recovery system, it would require the A-6 to approach and snatch the drone from above and behind - which would explain the hook on the drone facing the rear. Also, when fully extended, the trapeze stretches forward so that that the "eye" for the hook would be almost perfectly parallel with the A-6 pilot's line of sight. Then again, my imagination has probably run wild, as this all strikes me as an extremely risky and dangerous maneuver ("How do you deploy the trapeze in a recovery without striking the drone's vertical stab?") that could just as easily send that same drone crashing into the "recovery" aircraft.

Anyway, here are the photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34125292750/
34125292750_8f9a9e14e7.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/33700528143/
33700528143_675099a5f0.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34122953590/
34122953590_8246cf44cd.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/34123287970/
34123287970_6c5feb9b8a.jpg


For comparison purposes, here's the typical arrangement for two Firebees on an A-6 (photo is posted at The Aviationist site - albeit sourced from SDASM):
https://theaviationist.com/tag/ryan-firebee/
teledyne-ryan_20-473x360.jpg
 
The Model appears to be in SEA Camoscheme. Navy-based reconaissance project for Vietnam? Fly the drones out to highly defended areas in North Vietnam, recover them with the A-6?
 
That would be one way to increase the mission radius of the drone...although i don't know that that would be enough to justify what is obviously a complicated recovery.
But i do agree with you that aerial recovery makes sense for the device shown here. The guidance systems required are just now becoming available, so i don't know how successful they would have been in their endeavor.
Very cool find!

edit: just took a second look at the device...with the vertical tail of the Firebee a few feet behind the rear portion of the recovery device, that doesn't seem to leave much room for maneuvering the device into place for a recovery.
 
Cutaway in free interpretation in progress...!
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqJHJCoE-0IWW1CHBP1!cj4TUw~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJHJCoE-0IWW1CHBP1!cj4TUw~~60_57.JPG
    303.6 KB · Views: 741
My guess is that the trapeze device is a drone launch option conceived before launching from a fixed hardpoint was demonstrated. The illustrated mechanism would have helped ensure a clean separation any problems arose. It shows none of the alignment aids (for want of a better term) that would be necessary during recovery.
 
Triton said:
Previously discussed model of Grumman A-6D Intruder tanker variant.

I wonder what the purpose of the altered nose profile was. The actual KA-6D had a standard A-6 radome without the radar. The model's radome seems to have gunports, which seem like a useless addition to a tanker. Maybe the revised profile reduced drag.
 
taildragger said:
Triton said:
Previously discussed model of Grumman A-6D Intruder tanker variant.

I wonder what the purpose of the altered nose profile was. The actual KA-6D had a standard A-6 radome without the radar. The model's radome seems to have gunports, which seem like a useless addition to a tanker. Maybe the revised profile reduced drag.

Isn't that a model of a proposed single seat "simplified" A-6 that competed against the Vought design that became the A-7 Corsair II? Or maybe a proposed A-6 variant that derived from that configuration?
 
No, the G-128 was the single-seat development proposed for the VAX competition won by Vought. The photos of the A-6D model I was referring to were posted by Triton on 11/5/2012 and depict a tanker-configured aircraft with a 2 seat cockpit.
 
There's not a huge amount on non-built aircraft, but there is an awful lot of info to let you put design work in the context of the requirements and functions they were supposed to meet. For example there are big sections on early Cold War CAP requirements and the complications of trying to meet fairly onerous targets about not letting a mirror-imaged bombing threat get within launch range. CAP on deck couldn't reach intercept distance in the time from first detection, airborne CAP didn't have the endurance, and the carriers couldn't cycle them fast enough to keep them airborne. That kind of thing. Aircraft highlight for me was the description of the Outer Air Battle and what the A-6Fs were supposed to be doing during it (extra AIM-152 shooters) which I'd not seen clearly defined before, including the minor detail that a CVBG would need to put other ops on hold for a day to prep for a regimental strength Backfire raid. Of course it helps that Friedman was working for SecNav on precisely that at the time.

As an aside, I picked up my ebook copy ridiculously cheap (couple of pounds) in a recent Amazon sale, along with several other Friedmans. So worth keeping an eye open.
 
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
1592475722529.png
 
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
View attachment 635539

Pretty impressive numbers. Would have been quite a useful thing for the Marines especially. So, what was the downside?
 
A whole pile of promising projects & programs died during the cesspool that was the Carter administration.
To add further insult to injury, I just found out there was a KA-6H proposed and cancelled during that time. A very straightforward design of using the EA-6B airframe and replacing the back seats with fuel tanks. Also mentioned a "KX" competition between the KS-3 and KA-6; Congress killed it and bought more KA-6D conversions.

1981 Congressional Hearing
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-12-03 at 1.00.25 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-12-03 at 1.00.25 PM.png
    1,003.5 KB · Views: 209
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
View attachment 635539

Pretty impressive numbers. Would have been quite a useful thing for the Marines especially. So, what was the downside?
Range and probably speed... Camber provides an increase in lift but add also a lot of drag.
Look at that reconfigured tail plane to get convinced.
 
A whole pile of promising projects & programs died during the cesspool that was the Carter administration.
And a whole lot of great ones were created/started (Have Blue, Tacit Blue, F-117, B-2, and others still classified) under his administration.

Yes, Carter's admin really cut out a lot of the chaff and leftovers from WW2/Vietnam-era of aviation. B-2 was really the only thing that matters, but F-117 was a nice hedge for the '80's.
 
I stumbled across this A-6A CCW demonstrator, which by this flew in 1979. I cant say I've heard of the program. Interesting what such an arrangement does to the the A-6's performance!

(Source: Some High Lift Aerodynamics Part 2 _ Powered Lift Systems (By W.H. Mason))

Regards
Pioneer
AN ENGINEERING METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CIRCULATION CONTROL WINGS (CCW)
Campbell Henderson
Aircraft & Crew Systems Technology Directorate
NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER
JUNE 1982
 

Attachments

  • a126436.pdf
    1 MB · Views: 17
My dear Pioneer,

for more details about A-6 CCW,please see reply # 21 & 33.
 
Grumman actually built a "stealthified" modified A-6 mockup, in an attempt to show stealth knowhow for the AX (A-12) program.
Do any pictures exist of this?
I have hard about this A-6 mockup too and would like to see pictures if available. This is from a post on the "Grumman A-6 Intruder projects blog from 14 April 2006.

From 'The $5 Billion Misunderstanding: The Collapse Of The Navy's A-12 Stealth Bomber Program' by James P. Stevenson

'The Stealthy A-6

While General Dynamics was busy with its development of what would become the A-12, Grumman was attempting to influence the navy on an alternate plan. Grumman, which had hired Global Analytics two years earlier, had been doing its homework on stealth. Tom Kane was attending an annual event at the Naval War College known as the "Current Strategy Forum." This event was designed to let the navy and industry get together and discuss issues of the day. "During the 1984 Strategy Forum," Kane said, "I buttonholed Lehman and said, 'John, you've got to come up and see this A-6 we've put together.' We had been working, with Global Analytics' help, on our stealth range for a long time. Once we had completed our analytical work, we built a modified A-6. The mock-up probably took less than two weeks working around the clock. We were still working on it when Lehman arrived."

Secretary Lehman visited Grumman on Friday, 6 July. What Grumman wanted to show the navy was an actual A-6E in the back of Plant 5, on one side of which it had applied a stealth treatment. The stealth side had a pointed nose, nose chine, V-tail, a single-piece windshield, and some faceted treatment to the inlets. It also hid the fuel probe that normally stood out as a permanent fixture and applied a stealthy treat-ment to the external ordnance. One former Grumman employee, who requested anonymity, recalled that the major thrust of that meeting was to convince Lehman that Grumman could become a good team player in the forthcoming competition:

The briefing to Mr. Lehman (and others before him) had to do with demonstrating overall progress relative to starting to develop an intrinsic knowledge about stealth technology and about its integration and application. The purpose was to show that we could be a viable partner to one of the three designated leads for stealth so that we could become a part of the competition to replace the A-6.
The navy wanted an industrial team approach for the A-6 replacement program, so that team members subsequently could compete for production. To do that, you had to know enough about stealth going in, so that you could then learn what else you needed along the way and subsequently stand alone as one of two prime sources for production articles. That mission was accomplished. We were permitted to become a part of the program. In order to accomplish that objective, we had to deal with technology, processes, products, and people, across a broad array of functional areas, because stealth (like carrier suitability) is so pervasive across the design.
The rationale for Grumman's efforts to get smart on stealth may have evolved into one of making a good team player but that was not the focus at the time of Lehman's visit. When Grumman hired Global Ana¬lytics to help it get into the stealth business, the teaming concept was not being advocated by Paisley. So, at least in the beginning, Grumman was looking at the possibility of working alone. If they were able to convince Lehman their new version of the A-6E was the proper approach, it was unlikely Grumman would have looked for another aerospace company to help it.

Global Analytics was represented in the meeting by Ronald "Mugs" McKeown (McKeown was a MiG killer from Vietnam and former skipper of the Navy Fighter Weapon School's Topgun squadron), the program manager for Program Eleven as it was called. He was accompanied by Alan Wegner and Sam Ursini. Grumman's Greg Kutz and Paul Bavits gave the presentation. Tom Kane, Renso Caporali, and George Skurla were also there for Grumman. But Lehman was not impressed.

"I thought Grumman was way out of touch," said Lehman. "What they were attempting to do was like taking a dump truck and trying to make it pretty by adding fins. One thing I distinctly remember was they had no treatment for the cockpit canopy." (One of the Global Analytics employees said they had such a treatment but simply did not show it.) Grumman was claiming numbers like minus 35 dB nose on and minus 30 dB at other angles. But these figures did not impress Lehman either.
I didn't believe it and I didn't care. I knew the A-6 - any A-6 - would not perform the precursor mission. It simply wouldn't be stealthy enough with its large radar antenna out front. So in that sense, I knew we needed a new airplane to perform the job of a silver bullet. I thought we should have a couple of squadrons of them. We would keep them in the desert and practice carrier landings with them at night. I was a skeptic about this stealth stuff but I also knew that if I tried to sell a tarted-up A-6 to OSD, they would laugh me out of court. I told Skurla they were behind the technology and needed to get up to speed. I suggested they visit some of the people who were heavily involved.

"I drove Lehman to his aircraft," said Skurla. "He told me, 'George, I'm partial to the A-6 but the world has really moved ahead. And there are some people who are really ahead—GD, Lockheed, and Northrop. I think you should take a look at them. And if I were you, I would take a good look at Northrop.'" In the end, the stealthy A-6 had, as Tom Kane put it, "a shelf life of three days." Here was Grumman, the navy's premier aircraft provider for fifty years, which had a history of developing new aircraft, warming up an old design and adding some stealth treatments to the external ordnance. The question was why? "We didn't think it made sense financially to pay for a totally new program," said Skurla, "when you could get something reasonably close without starting a new program. We figured the research and development bill would be around $500 to $600 million."

Kane's comments were more to the point: "We knew the navy could not afford it. The navy had just received the OK to start the A-6F and the F-14D. Where was it going to get the money for a new design? All our internal analysis showed us it would have been useless to offer a completely new design."
 
Can't say I'm surprised, Kelly did say you couldn't make a fourth gen aircraft (or third gen as I think the a-6 was) and make it stealth, it gust wouldn't work. The money was of course an issue, but it wasn't a silver bullet, the usn was planing on putting 2 suqandrons of the things on every carrier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom