• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Navy AX and A/F-X projects

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
overscan said:
Looks like Lockheed/Boeing to me.
Both of them? Because there seem to be 2 designs here. One that we have seen so much and one with V tail and different nozzle shape.
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
109
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
"McAir Vought AXInlet 1993" Does somebody recognize this configuration? B-2 like air intakes on the top and the swept wing.
 

Attachments

  • McAir Vought AX Inlet 1993 93-91766.jpg
    McAir Vought AX Inlet 1993 93-91766.jpg
    343 KB · Views: 254
  • McAir Vought AX Inlet 1993 93-91767.jpg
    McAir Vought AX Inlet 1993 93-91767.jpg
    336.6 KB · Views: 253

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
Can you provide links to the images?

EDIT: nevermind, found it!
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_450:_McAir/Vought_AX_Inlet
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,015
Reaction score
817
huh. this one is from first page of this topic)))
so many discoveries are still hidden...
 

Attachments

  • AWST_1991_NOV_04_AXs.jpg
    AWST_1991_NOV_04_AXs.jpg
    117.4 KB · Views: 226

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
You know, it's interesting that Lockheed ran away as fast as it could from participating in the ATA competition, but was on three of the five AX-A/FX teams.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
donnage99 said:
Because Lockheed was......smart?

You got it; and they knew it, too. This was a conscious decision on their part.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,015
Reaction score
817
Key Lockheed smarties principle was to run away from such things as 'fixed price contract' Northrop was as smart in ATA case
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
flateric said:
Key Lockheed smarties principle was to run away from such things as 'fixed price contract' Northrop was as smart in ATA case

Navy tried to get Northrop Grumman to reduce their proposal price by at least $1/2 billion or more. Northrop knew this was crazy, and Grumman still had the experience of how they got screwed in the early F-14 program. They replied, "Look; we know how to build this thing and there's no way it can be done for that amount". Navy/DoD answer was, "You'll lower your price or else"!. to which the team replied, "OK. Else"! They then picked up their marbles and walked away, no doubt breathing sighs of relief.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
I wonder if the Navy found it odd that for their first attempt at building stealth jet, the only 2 companies at the time with any experience and knowledge in building stealth jets were running away. Wouldn't you hesitate for a moment if things like that happen?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
484
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
I don't understand how Lockheed could be on three of the five AX-A/FX teams. Wouldn't the partners have been concerned that proprietary information would be shared with the other two competing teams that Lockheed was on? Would Lockheed have to operate under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) and keep its product teams separate within the company?
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
49
Triton said:
I don't understand how Lockheed could be on three of the five AX-A/FX teams. Wouldn't the partners have been concerned that proprietary information would be shared with the other two competing teams that Lockheed was on? Would Lockheed have to operate under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) and keep its product teams separate within the company?

I suppose that might be one explanation. Of course, looking at the example of the amalgamated British aircraft industry, various establishments offered competing proposals, simply because the various factories retained separate design staffs from the days when they were independent companies.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
donnage99 said:
I wonder if the Navy found it odd that for their first attempt at building stealth jet, the only 2 companies at the time with any experience and knowledge in building stealth jets were running away. Wouldn't you hesitate for a moment if things like that happen?

Lockheed didn't want to play because they could see the program would fall on its face, the way it was set up. . Almost certainly the makeup of the two teams that eventually participated was dictated by DoD. It would have been more logical for Northrop to team with MDD, as they had repeatedly done in the past. Northrop didn't run away because of the requirements or even the stupid contract. They and Grumman walked away because they had enough experience to see what was happening, and they had no desire to get involved with something where they'd probably lose money. With ATA, the only thing worse than losing the contract would be winning it.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
TinWing said:
Triton said:
I don't understand how Lockheed could be on three of the five AX-A/FX teams. Wouldn't the partners have been concerned that proprietary information would be shared with the other two competing teams that Lockheed was on? Would Lockheed have to operate under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) and keep its product teams separate within the company?

I suppose that might be one explanation. Of course, looking at the example of the amalgamated British aircraft industry, various establishments offered competing proposals, simply because the various factories retained separate design staffs from the days when they were independent companies.

What would happen is that those who worked on one team would be "walled off" from talking shop with other members of the company working on another bid, even if they were in the same building For example, the MDD people working With Northrop on the ATF couldn't work with the MDD people working Against Northrop on ATA.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
431
donnage99 said:
I wonder if the Navy found it odd that for their first attempt at building stealth jet, the only 2 companies at the time with any experience and knowledge in building stealth jets were running away. Wouldn't you hesitate for a moment if things like that happen?

You BET I would !!!
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Stargazer2006 said:
donnage99 said:
I wonder if the Navy found it odd that for their first attempt at building stealth jet, the only 2 companies at the time with any experience and knowledge in building stealth jets were running away. Wouldn't you hesitate for a moment if things like that happen?

You BET I would !!!
Clearly you don't work near Washington DC. Otherwise you would understand the philosophy, "Everything we do is correct. If you think what we just did was wrong, clearly you are mistaken. It was simply correct to a lesser degree than what we are doing now".

Or, as a Wise Person once put it, "In Washington, it is much more important not to be wrong than it is to be right".

Stepping back would have meant a loss of face. It might also have meant consulting with users in the Fleet (unwashed plebeians, don't you know), who had very little say on the final requirements for ATA. AX-A/FX, on the other hand did utilize a lot of Fleet input, but you know how that ended up.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
This could be the new design from Lockheed/Boeing/Grumman that the article was referring to. Though, most likely, it's in the same catergory with the Lockheed/Boeing/GD f-22 derivative. They were, presumably, testing out 2 tails and 4 tails configurations for the same design.

EDIT: never mind, the Lockheed/Boeing/GD has already been revealed. This is not it. Though I do want to point out something that makes it look like they could attach and detach the horizontal tails from the model.
 

Attachments

  • untitled2.jpg
    untitled2.jpg
    111.7 KB · Views: 625

SDN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
Out of curiousity, do you guys think the AF/X would have been more manueverable than the Tomcat? I'm guessing with internal stores, since there is less drag, the plane might have been able to go faster than the F-14B/D. Also, have there been any drawings released, or models, showing how the weapons would be internally stored? Was there provision for a gun?

I'm guessing the AF/X would have been a decent A-6 and F-14 replacement, not as potent as a fighter as the NATF, but also better than the Super Bug. Also, if it did go into production, would it have been call F/A-22? Until reading this thread, I had no idea it was even classified with the "22" designation number.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
SDN said:
Out of curiousity, do you guys think the AF/X would have been more manueverable than the Tomcat? I'm guessing with internal stores, since there is less drag, the plane might have been able to go faster than the F-14B/D. Also, have there been any drawings released, or models, showing how the weapons would be internally stored? Was there provision for a gun?

I'm guessing the AF/X would have been a decent A-6 and F-14 replacement, not as potent as a fighter as the NATF, but also better than the Super Bug. Also, if it did go into production, would it have been call F/A-22? Until reading this thread, I had no idea it was even classified with the "22" designation number.

A/FX was designed to be a strike aircraft with good stealth, but not the extreme stealth of the A-12, which was actually more than needed. Its strike role was to be similar to that of the F-35 but more capable. In other words, the first strikes would be stealthy, but then larger loads would b carried via external stores. For it, fighter capability was secondary, mainly to be able to fight off defenders, or for missions to "sweep" airspace, rather than get into roundy-roundy dogfights. Maneuverability beyond that of the Tomcat was probably not something for which the Navy would have been willing to pay extra. It was expected that what would become AIM-152 would be the primary air-to-air weapon, backed up by what would become AIM-9X using helmet sights for closer-in combat. It would not be as good a fighter as NATF but a better striker, just as NATF was optimized to be a better striker than ATF.

I'm sure someone will correct me, but I believe that some of the A/FX proposals did not even have afterburning engines, illustrating where the priorities were. Almost certainly it would not have been designated F/A-22 (a nomenclature the AF used for a while in a PR ploy that backfired). It would have been too different.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
484
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
F-14D said:
Almost certainly it would not have been designated F/A-22 (a nomenclature the AF used for a while in a PR ploy that backfired). It would have been too different.

What would be your guess of the nomenclature? Do you believe that it would have lost its fighter designation? Perhaps designated A-13 or A-14? Would the 13 be dropped for superstitious reasons?
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
148
Triton said:
What would be your guess of the nomenclature? Do you believe that it would have lost its fighter designation? Perhaps designated A-13 or A-14? Would the 13 be dropped for superstitious reasons?

F/A-24 seems the obvious choice. The Navy went from F-17 to F-18/A-18 (later F/A-18) for much less change between the Nortrop Cobra and the McAir Hornet than from the F-22 to A/FX.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
484
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Abraham Gubler said:
F/A-24 seems the obvious choice. The Navy went from F-17 to F-18/A-18 (later F/A-18) for much less change between the Nortrop Cobra and the McAir Hornet than from the F-22 to A/FX.

True, F/A-24, or FA-24, does seem like a sensible and obvious choice. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has not been consistently following the rules it established for the Tri-Service aircraft designation system in 1962 and so there is an element of uncertainty when we have exceptions. I was curious if F-14D was aware of any internal or external politics that would have influenced the decision of the designation chosen for the aircraft if it had been built.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
One reason against the F/A-22 designation would be that that would most appropriately be assigned to a derivative of the F-22. Maybe the Lockheed NATF might have been assigned that, or it might be considered too different to share the -22 number. Certainly the AX wouldn't have such a designation. This would be especially true if the a/c built was not one that had its genesis in the F-22 design. AX would have had an A- designation.

A/FX might have been slightly different. Normal designation is that the letter closest to the "-" indicates the aircraft's design mission. When modified so that a different mission becomes significant, a letter is added to the left, such as "RF" or "KA". The Hornet invented the"F/A" designation, never used before, because it was claimed that it would be "equally" good at" two primary missions. So, depending how they wanted to sell it, A/FX could have been "FA" or "F/A". The number would have been interesting. Normally, one would think it would be "-24". However, there was apparently a classified program that produced a "YF-24" (of which I know nothing about). This would put the designators in a dilemma, if said aircraft had been produced early enough to get the designation before A/FX. Do you use the -24, and cause some confusion with a classified aircraft? Of course, that happened with the A-12 designation and the system survived. Or do you go on to -25, which might bring on unwanted curiosity wondering what happened to the -24?

One way out of that would to go to attack numbers and call it an "FA-13", because its primary role was strike and fighter was secondary.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
256
F-14D said:
One way out of that would to go to attack numbers and call it an "FA-13", because its primary role was strike and fighter was secondary.

Of course, they probably would have skipped 13 for obvious reasons, in which case it would have been the F/A-14, which would have been interesting. Or they could have gone the F-20 route and maybe just jumped to F/A-30 and claimed the contractor wanted to move into the new designation, 3n instead of 2n, due to to how much more advanced it was when compared to current generation aircraft, thereby avoiding the YF-24 conundrum. Or, since it predated the JSF, they may have decided to call the demonstrator/prototype the X-32, therefore making the production version the F/A-32. They can always find a way to justify any change in their designation system.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Sundog said:
F-14D said:
One way out of that would to go to attack numbers and call it an "FA-13", because its primary role was strike and fighter was secondary.

Of course, they probably would have skipped 13 for obvious reasons, in which case it would have been the F/A-14, which would have been interesting. Or they could have gone the F-20 route and maybe just jumped to F/A-30 and claimed the contractor wanted to move into the new designation, 3n instead of 2n, due to to how much more advanced it was when compared to current generation aircraft, thereby avoiding the YF-24 conundrum. Or, since it predated the JSF, they may have decided to call the demonstrator/prototype the X-32, therefore making the production version the F/A-32. They can always find a way to justify any change in their designation system.

You're right, they probably would have skipped A-13 since they skipped -13 for Fighters, Cargo, V/STOL/ Drone (Q), etc. (although interestingly there was an X-13). I can't see them jumping to -30; F-19 was skipped for marketing reasons. Northrop asked for F-20 for two reasons. One, as you said, to show the first of a 'new generation'. The second was to differentiate it form the various Soviet fighters on the export market, all of which had odd numbers. Neither would apply in this case.

Whether it would have been F/A or FA is hard to tell. Expanding on what I wrote before, originally there was to have been an F-18 and an A-18 as separate, differently equipped aircraft. The two were combined into one which was called the F/A-18, to show it was "equally good" (I'm resisting the temptation to make a comment) in both roles. Since the A/FX didn't come from two separate aircraft, it could reasonably be designated "FA", indicated a strike aircraft with secondary fighter capability, which would put it in the attack numbers. Or they could go "F/A", which would probably put in in the fighter series. Or simply "A". Or they could have drawn something out of a hat, the way it seems the US names warships nowadays...
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
256
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
484
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
F-14D said:
Almost certainly it would not have been designated F/A-22 (a nomenclature the AF used for a while in a PR ploy that backfired). It would have been too different.

I know that some authors were calling the US Navy aircraft derived from the F-22A the "Sea Raptor." I have not read any articles to suggest that the project was known as the Sea Raptor at Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Though it would have been interesting if the aircraft had been designated FA-22N.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
I think it's important to note that it's essentially a new aircraft based on the f-22, and not a derivative of the f-22. So most likely no -22 designation
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
148
Triton said:
I know that some authors were calling the US Navy aircraft derived from the F-22A the "Sea Raptor." I have not read any articles to suggest that the project was known as the Sea Raptor at Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Though it would have been interesting if the aircraft had been designated FA-22N.

Any use of the name "Sea Raptor" would be pure fiction. A/FX - the last gasp of a navalised ATF - was cancelled in late 1993 and the F-22 did not recieve the name "Raptor" until April 1997.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
685
Reaction score
35
At this point I am thinking it would make sense for the attack and fighter designation series to be merged. So for example a future fighter or attack aircraft would get the "24" designation regardless of if it is the F-24, F/A-24, or A-24.

Presuming the "24" designation was not used for some classified project.
 

SDN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
F-14D said:
SDN said:
Out of curiousity, do you guys think the AF/X would have been more manueverable than the Tomcat? I'm guessing with internal stores, since there is less drag, the plane might have been able to go faster than the F-14B/D. Also, have there been any drawings released, or models, showing how the weapons would be internally stored? Was there provision for a gun?

I'm guessing the AF/X would have been a decent A-6 and F-14 replacement, not as potent as a fighter as the NATF, but also better than the Super Bug. Also, if it did go into production, would it have been call F/A-22? Until reading this thread, I had no idea it was even classified with the "22" designation number.

A/FX was designed to be a strike aircraft with good stealth, but not the extreme stealth of the A-12, which was actually more than needed. Its strike role was to be similar to that of the F-35 but more capable. In other words, the first strikes would be stealthy, but then larger loads would b carried via external stores. For it, fighter capability was secondary, mainly to be able to fight off defenders, or for missions to "sweep" airspace, rather than get into roundy-roundy dogfights. Maneuverability beyond that of the Tomcat was probably not something for which the Navy would have been willing to pay extra. It was expected that what would become AIM-152 would be the primary air-to-air weapon, backed up by what would become AIM-9X using helmet sights for closer-in combat. It would not be as good a fighter as NATF but a better striker, just as NATF was optimized to be a better striker than ATF.

I'm sure someone will correct me, but I believe that some of the A/FX proposals did not even have afterburning engines, illustrating where the priorities were. Almost certainly it would not have been designated F/A-22 (a nomenclature the AF used for a while in a PR ploy that backfired). It would have been too different.

Interesting. Do you know if external stores would have been carried with swiveling pylons on the wings, or like the F-14, with pylons and mounting points on the body of the fighter? I've never seen what the proposed internal bay structures for the A/F-X proposals looked like, nor lists showing how much it was slated to carry internally and externally. I imagine pylons on the wings would definitely bring it's loadout close to, or exceeding that of the A-6.

Though it would not be as potent as a fighter as the NATF, do you think it would be more capable than the F-14 close-in(aside from using HMS+AIM-9X)? I ask this because the long range capability was accounted for(AIM-152). Could the area between the wings on the A/F-X give the same benefit that the lifting body did on the Tomcat? Or does that only apply to aircraft with wide areas between engine nacelles, like the F-14 & MIG-29?

Sundog said:
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.

Yeah the F-18 and A-18 were marketed as 2 separate aircraft. IIRC, Mcdonnell had ads and artwork showing the Hornet in "A" "F" configurations, trying to show it as an all-in-1 aircraft.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Sundog said:
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.

The F-18L was separate from the F and A -18s. It had higher performance, but what happened to it was the basis for a number of interesting lawsuits. The original l Naval Air Combat Fighter program envisioned two related but separate aircraft, each optimized for its role (along with the associated crew training). When they were merged it was claimed that advances in electronics permitted one aircraft to perform either role equally well, but actually it was cost. In reality a multi-purpose aircraft will not do as good a job as an aircraft optimized for the role, and the crews won't be as well trained in either.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Gridlock said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Presuming the "24" designation was not used for some classified project.

"was"? ;)

Whatever the YF-24 was, it was a plane of some years ago; doubtful if it could have been kept secret if entered large scale production, especially today and especially in the US.
 

SDN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
F-14D said:
Sundog said:
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.

The F-18L was separate from the F and A -18s. It had higher performance, but what happened to it was the basis for a number of interesting lawsuits. The original l Naval Air Combat Fighter program envisioned two related but separate aircraft, each optimized for its role (along with the associated crew training). When they were merged it was claimed that advances in electronics permitted one aircraft to perform either role equally well, but actually it was cost. In reality a multi-purpose aircraft will not do as good a job as an aircraft optimized for the role, and the crews won't be as well trained in either.

Reminds me of how the Super Bug is referred to at times as jack of all trades, master of none, especially since it was the replacement(albeit not ideal) for the A-6 and F-14.

I think if the A/F-X entered service, it would have had an "F/A" designation in the USN, and "F" designation in the USAF. Since the Hornet was multi-role, it had an F/A designation, and I think the USAF would just use the "F" just to make it easier. Hell they did that with the F-117 and the Strike Eagle still bears the fighter designation even though it's primarily used for attack. Do you guys think the A/F-X would have been a good Strike Eagle replacement? Being that the design was proposed in the 90's with assumed entry into service close to the Super Hornet, and being that it was aimed at also replacing the F-111, I figure it would have replaced the Strike Eagle too. I'm guessing low level flight at high speed would be less turbulent than the Strike Eagle too.

Has anyone drawn up an A/F-X in F-111 SEA camo?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
SDN said:
F-14D said:
Sundog said:
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.

The F-18L was separate from the F and A -18s. It had higher performance, but what happened to it was the basis for a number of interesting lawsuits. The original l Naval Air Combat Fighter program envisioned two related but separate aircraft, each optimized for its role (along with the associated crew training). When they were merged it was claimed that advances in electronics permitted one aircraft to perform either role equally well, but actually it was cost. In reality a multi-purpose aircraft will not do as good a job as an aircraft optimized for the role, and the crews won't be as well trained in either.

Reminds me of how the Super Bug is referred to at times as jack of all trades, master of none, especially since it was the replacement(albeit not ideal) for the A-6 and F-14.

I think if the A/F-X entered service, it would have had an "F/A" designation in the USN, and "F" designation in the USAF. Since the Hornet was multi-role, it had an F/A designation, and I think the USAF would just use the "F" just to make it easier. Hell they did that with the F-117 and the Strike Eagle still bears the fighter designation even though it's primarily used for attack. Do you guys think the A/F-X would have been a good Strike Eagle replacement? Being that the design was proposed in the 90's with assumed entry into service close to the Super Hornet, and being that it was aimed at also replacing the F-111, I figure it would have replaced the Strike Eagle too. I'm guessing low level flight at high speed would be less turbulent than the Strike Eagle too.

Has anyone drawn up an A/F-X in F-111 SEA camo?


Actually, the Super Bug was originally sold as the "interim" aircraft until the A/FX could arrive. We all know how that worked out.

A/FX would have been much better than Strike Eagle, since this would be its design role. it wouldn't have been as exportable, though. Thing is, we can't be all that sure it would actually made it into USAF service given their aversion to acquiring an aircraft/system they didn't develop themselves. Regarding the obvious exceptions, F-4 was forced on them, A-1 was all there was, A-7 was because there was a war on and they were running out of F-105s. In the latter case they greatly modified and improved the aircraft to the point where the Navy started buying the AF version with minor changes. Even then, after the war they worked hard to phase it out.

My point is, that although A/FX (or even AX) would be the ideal F-111 and then F-15E and F-117 replacement, we can't be sure it would have entered USAF service. For the more cynical of us, they might even try what they did on the ATA (although that wasn't the only reason for its collapse). For details, see James P. Stevenson's superb "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding". It would be harder to do, though, given the plethora of teams involved with A/FX.
 

SDN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
F-14D said:
SDN said:
F-14D said:
Sundog said:
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.

The F-18L was separate from the F and A -18s. It had higher performance, but what happened to it was the basis for a number of interesting lawsuits. The original l Naval Air Combat Fighter program envisioned two related but separate aircraft, each optimized for its role (along with the associated crew training). When they were merged it was claimed that advances in electronics permitted one aircraft to perform either role equally well, but actually it was cost. In reality a multi-purpose aircraft will not do as good a job as an aircraft optimized for the role, and the crews won't be as well trained in either.

Reminds me of how the Super Bug is referred to at times as jack of all trades, master of none, especially since it was the replacement(albeit not ideal) for the A-6 and F-14.

I think if the A/F-X entered service, it would have had an "F/A" designation in the USN, and "F" designation in the USAF. Since the Hornet was multi-role, it had an F/A designation, and I think the USAF would just use the "F" just to make it easier. Hell they did that with the F-117 and the Strike Eagle still bears the fighter designation even though it's primarily used for attack. Do you guys think the A/F-X would have been a good Strike Eagle replacement? Being that the design was proposed in the 90's with assumed entry into service close to the Super Hornet, and being that it was aimed at also replacing the F-111, I figure it would have replaced the Strike Eagle too. I'm guessing low level flight at high speed would be less turbulent than the Strike Eagle too.

Has anyone drawn up an A/F-X in F-111 SEA camo?


Actually, the Super Bug was originally sold as the "interim" aircraft until the A/FX could arrive. We all know how that worked out.

A/FX would have been much better than Strike Eagle, since this would be its design role. it wouldn't have been as exportable, though. Thing is, we can't be all that sure it would actually made it into USAF service given their aversion to acquiring an aircraft they didn't develop themselves. Regarding the obvious exceptions, F-4 was forced on them, A-1 was all there was, A-7 was because there was a war on and they were running out of F-105s. In the latter case they greatly modified and improved the aircraft to the point where the Navy started buying the AF version with minor changes. Even then, after the war they worked hard to phase it out.

My point is, that although A/FX (or even AX) would be the ideal F-111 and then F-15E and F-117 replacement, we can't be sure it would have entered USAF service. For the more cynical of us, they might even try what they did on the ATA (although that wasn't the only reason for its collapse). For details, see James P. Stevenson's superb "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding". Iw would be harder to do given the plethora of teams involved with A/FX.

Ah I see, and that does make sense. I'll try to find that book. I think that with the Navy and USAF, they'll only use each others planes if there is no other alternative. Like with the Prowler taking on roles that the EF-111 used to fulfill. So Super Bug was the bridge to A/F-X, does that mean that the Super Bug was to be the secondary strike fighter in the fleet, with A/F-X taking over the primary strike fighter role? Or was there another fighter in line(JSF?) meant to replace the Super Bug? What I am trying to figure out, is after the A/F-X came into service, what would the Super Bug be relegated to?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
SDN said:
F-14D said:
SDN said:
F-14D said:
Sundog said:
I hadn't realized they originally intended the F-18 and A-18 as two separate aircraft. I do remember Northrop offering the land based F-18L to no avail. Once again, I know you want to comment on the YA-7F. ;) I mean seriously, we don't need supersonic attack planes. Hell, it isn't like they're able to fly supersonic anyway with a full attack load. BTW, I mean Attack in the classic sense of the word, not the strike role, or in the F-35 limited internal load sense.

The F-18L was separate from the F and A -18s. It had higher performance, but what happened to it was the basis for a number of interesting lawsuits. The original l Naval Air Combat Fighter program envisioned two related but separate aircraft, each optimized for its role (along with the associated crew training). When they were merged it was claimed that advances in electronics permitted one aircraft to perform either role equally well, but actually it was cost. In reality a multi-purpose aircraft will not do as good a job as an aircraft optimized for the role, and the crews won't be as well trained in either.

Reminds me of how the Super Bug is referred to at times as jack of all trades, master of none, especially since it was the replacement(albeit not ideal) for the A-6 and F-14.

I think if the A/F-X entered service, it would have had an "F/A" designation in the USN, and "F" designation in the USAF. Since the Hornet was multi-role, it had an F/A designation, and I think the USAF would just use the "F" just to make it easier. Hell they did that with the F-117 and the Strike Eagle still bears the fighter designation even though it's primarily used for attack. Do you guys think the A/F-X would have been a good Strike Eagle replacement? Being that the design was proposed in the 90's with assumed entry into service close to the Super Hornet, and being that it was aimed at also replacing the F-111, I figure it would have replaced the Strike Eagle too. I'm guessing low level flight at high speed would be less turbulent than the Strike Eagle too.

Has anyone drawn up an A/F-X in F-111 SEA camo?


Actually, the Super Bug was originally sold as the "interim" aircraft until the A/FX could arrive. We all know how that worked out.

A/FX would have been much better than Strike Eagle, since this would be its design role. it wouldn't have been as exportable, though. Thing is, we can't be all that sure it would actually made it into USAF service given their aversion to acquiring an aircraft they didn't develop themselves. Regarding the obvious exceptions, F-4 was forced on them, A-1 was all there was, A-7 was because there was a war on and they were running out of F-105s. In the latter case they greatly modified and improved the aircraft to the point where the Navy started buying the AF version with minor changes. Even then, after the war they worked hard to phase it out.

My point is, that although A/FX (or even AX) would be the ideal F-111 and then F-15E and F-117 replacement, we can't be sure it would have entered USAF service. For the more cynical of us, they might even try what they did on the ATA (although that wasn't the only reason for its collapse). For details, see James P. Stevenson's superb "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding". Iw would be harder to do given the plethora of teams involved with A/FX.

Ah I see, and that does make sense. I'll try to find that book. I think that with the Navy and USAF, they'll only use each others planes if there is no other alternative. Like with the Prowler taking on roles that the EF-111 used to fulfill. So Super Bug was the bridge to A/F-X, does that mean that the Super Bug was to be the secondary strike fighter in the fleet, with A/F-X taking over the primary strike fighter role? Or was there another fighter in line(JSF?) meant to replace the Super Bug? What I am trying to figure out, is after the A/F-X came into service, what would the Super Bug be relegated to?

Although both services are somewhat parochial, USN is more open to using something developed elsewhere than is USAF, and generally won't work to sabotage someone else's program, even if they don't want it themselves, just because it intrudes on their "roles and missions". USAF, on the other hand has been notorious for that.

The EA-6 got the EF-111 roles because USAF was no longer interested in paying for the assets necessary for such a role. Yes, the Hornet E/F would become secondary, which was a very expensive way to do things. However, their lobby was stronger, so the interim became the end. There was nothing in line to replace the Super Hornet as the A/FX would have fulfilled all its roles (except maybe tanker) better so there would be no need for a Hornet successor. If A/FX had come to fruition, there would be no need for a Navy JSF, although USAF might stil have partnered with USAF on something for the two of them.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
Matej said:
"McAir Vought AXInlet 1993" Does somebody recognize this configuration? B-2 like air intakes on the top and the swept wing.
Look like this:
 

Attachments

  • rivet3vw.jpg
    rivet3vw.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 802

Similar threads

Top