Need help to identify this designs

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
22 January 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
1,149
Dear Gentlemen,

I have found this US Projects in Aircraft 2000 by Bill Sweetman that are unknown to me.


Any help will be wellcome

Thanks a lot
 

Attachments

  • Grumman Stealth Fighter.jpg
    Grumman Stealth Fighter.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 630
  • unknown ATF 1.jpg
    unknown ATF 1.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 512
  • unknown ATF 2.jpg
    unknown ATF 2.jpg
    126.6 KB · Views: 549
  • Unknown.jpg
    Unknown.jpg
    119.2 KB · Views: 577
That third one looks like a Rockwell design similar to what's been posted in this thread: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=331.0
 
Sentinel Chicken, you're right, they seem to be family but jet intake philosophy is clearly different. I don't know if it is an indication of different role..

Note:
Pic number 2 and number 3 are two views from the same aircraft
 
I'm thinking pics 2 & 3 are from a SAE paper and not necessarily representative of any one company's design.
 
Is any practical reason to launch missiles from the back better than the classical belly bomb bay?. It is stealthier?
 
pometablava said:
Is any practical reason to launch missiles from the back better than the classical belly bomb bay?. It is stealthier?

Mostly because it can remove lowest-height release altitude limit and allow strike aircraft continue terrain-following flight during ground target attack. Northrop also studied that in 1983-1985 on F/A-18 and Advanced Recearch Configuration (ARC) wind tunnel models. But ARC is not alike any of above concepts.

I agree to elmayerle, AFAIK pics 2-3 are generic fighter images.
 
pometablava said:
Is any practical reason to launch missiles from the back better than the classical belly bomb bay?. It is stealthier?

Well, conformal carriage that way is less likely to cause radar hot-spots than on the underside and with good ejection to get proper separation, there's no real problems in doing it that way. Biggest problem would likely be getting that proper ejection under all conditions.
 
The Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger had dorsal carriage for two Sidewinder missiles in tandem just aft of the cockpit. If I remember right, there was a retractable rail that elevated the Sidewinder for firing.
 
Back during the 1950s, NAA built a series of supersonic Vigilante bombers for the US that carried a massive nuclear bomb in the centre fuselage. The bomb launched out the tail, between the exhausts of a pair of jet engines. Launching from the tail allows tiny bomb-bay doors.
For a different mission, NAA's OV-10AM Bronco were primarily designed as forward air controllers (aka. Bird-dogs or Ravens) but could also carry a few parachutist a sitting in the central fuselage. If they needed to deposit a ground-pounding FAC team on the battle-field for a few days, they would leave the tail at home base and sit the FAC team in the center fuselage. Sitting with a rucksack on your knees may not be comfortable, but it is half as much work and standing up and carrying that rucksack out of a C-130! Over the DZ, the Bronco would pull up into a steep climb and gravity would dump the para-FACS out the back.
 
First pic is actually Rockwell's Low-Level Weapon Delivery System. It was discussed briefly, with a color version of this picture, here.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,331.msg227792/topicseen.html#msg227792
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom