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

Need help to identify this designs

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
313
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: 583
  • unknown ATF 1.jpg
    unknown ATF 1.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 469
  • unknown ATF 2.jpg
    unknown ATF 2.jpg
    126.6 KB · Views: 504
  • Unknown.jpg
    Unknown.jpg
    119.2 KB · Views: 529

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
108
Website
theavgeeks.com
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
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
313
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
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
217
I'm thinking pics 2 & 3 are from a SAE paper and not necessarily representative of any one company's design.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
313
Is any practical reason to launch missiles from the back better than the classical belly bomb bay?. It is stealthier?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
1,239
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.
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
217
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.
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
108
Website
theavgeeks.com
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.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
743
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.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
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

Top