North American Rockwell NA-335 fighter project (to USAF FX requirement)

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,481
Reaction score
41
aim9xray said:
I'm surprised that the original poster/cameramonkey wasn't credited yet.
If I knew who it was I'd have put it. The pic has been on my hard drive for years as-is.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,244
Reaction score
22
sferrin said:
aim9xray said:
I'm surprised that the original poster/cameramonkey wasn't credited yet.
If I knew who it was I'd have put it. The pic has been on my hard drive for years as-is.
Funny, I had it too... We must have saved it from the same web page.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,481
Reaction score
41
Stargazer2006 said:
sferrin said:
aim9xray said:
I'm surprised that the original poster/cameramonkey wasn't credited yet.
If I knew who it was I'd have put it. The pic has been on my hard drive for years as-is.
Funny, I had it too... We must have saved it from the same web page.
I'm almost certain it's here somewhere. That or maybe OBB posted it on his blog at some point.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
0
Didn't this thing have even better avionics than the F-15?
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,503
Reaction score
58
I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Stargazer2006 said:
aim9xray said:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9771.msg90148.html#msg90148

BTW, search does not seem to work for image names for those images uploaded to the site.
Not only that, but a Google Images search using this image as a start doesn't even take you to that page.
Because guests (like Google bot) cannot access images. This was a deliberate decision taken after people posted links directly to images on other forums etc, increasing bandwidth requirements.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Mark Nankivil said:
I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
This is correct. The initial F-X avionics fit was better than the F-15 ended up with however because some stuff was removed to save cost e.g. the ATAR EO sight.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
6
Mark Nankivil said:
I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?
The F-15 project was possibly the first where the contractor was to deliver the entire weapon system including avionics whereas previously USAF tended to supply the radar and other weapons avionics as GFE. Of course USAF established the requirement for the avionics but it was up to the contractor to find a specific solution.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
0
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
This is correct. The initial F-X avionics fit was better than the F-15 ended up with however because some stuff was removed to save cost
So both would have ended up equally stripped down?


the ATAR EO sight.
I'm checking the web, I can't find anything that seems to tell me what this is...
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
0
Abraham Gubler said:
The F-15 project was possibly the first where the contractor was to deliver the entire weapon system including avionics whereas previously USAF tended to supply the radar and other weapons avionics as GFE. Of course USAF established the requirement for the avionics but it was up to the contractor to find a specific solution.
Why?
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Wow the American Su-27 before the Soviets even thought of it! As usual the DoD(don't know if it was the uniforms or the civvies who decided) picked the not as good one.

Any SACs on this NA-335?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
SACs are normally only generated when a design is selected to be built. It was supposed to meet the same requirements as the F-15, of course.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
SACs are normally only generated when a design is selected to be built. It was supposed to meet the same requirements as the F-15, of course.
Weren't there SACs on the McD Model 225 for the VFX competition? I'm looking right at them in hard copy.

For everyone else including Paul:http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.msg87116.html#msg87116
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
That is taken directly from the Performance section of the McDonnell proposal for the VFX competition.

I don't know if every proposal included such - and I've never seen a copy of the NAR FX proposal to see if it included one.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I don't know if every proposal included such - and I've never seen a copy of the NAR FX proposal to see if it included one.
Too bad. It would be interesting to see if it was better than the McD F-X.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Well, the final rankings placed it last behind McDonnell and Fairchild-Hiller. So the proposal had some deficiencies in the USAF's eyes.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Well, the final rankings placed it last behind McDonnell and Fairchild-Hiller. So the proposal had some deficiencies in the USAF's eyes.
Do you have original source data that you can post? Any original info on the proposals or the selection process would be great.

Back to your post, do we know with what "eyes"(we well know that technical reasons are not the only ones in many selection decisions) the USAF was seeing?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,481
Reaction score
41
Bruno Anthony said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Well, the final rankings placed it last behind McDonnell and Fairchild-Hiller. So the proposal had some deficiencies in the USAF's eyes.
Do you have original source data that you can post? Any original info on the proposals or the selection process would be great.

Back to your post, do we know with what "eyes"(we well know that technical reasons are not the only ones in many selection decisions) the USAF was seeing?
You will like this:


(page 57 of the PDF).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Rockwell FX design critique by USAF, from Aviation Week Archive. Note that the FX proposals were complete including avionics that were different for each airframe.
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Abraham Gubler said:
Mark Nankivil said:
I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?
The F-15 project was possibly the first where the contractor was to deliver the entire weapon system including avionics whereas previously USAF tended to supply the radar and other weapons avionics as GFE. Of course USAF established the requirement for the avionics but it was up to the contractor to find a specific solution.
It appears that McDonnell-Douglas worked with Hughes, Rockwell with Raytheon and Fairchild with Westinghouse. In the end however FX radar contracts were issued in 1968 to Hughes and Westinghouse (10 bids were received) well before FX selection.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Rockwell early blended configuration wind tunnel model. Many differences from the final design.

Source: Aviation Week Archive

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19691208/49/1
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Potential subcontractors in the FX air superiority fighter and advanced manned strategic aircraft (AMSA) programs are reluctant to supply technical data to North American Rockwell. They fear that proprietary information might be divulged in this way to competitive North American divisions. The airframe firm’s new aircraft efforts are headed by a company-wide advanced development organization staffed heavily from the Autonetics and Space divisions as well as the two traditional aircraft divisions in Los Angeles and Columbus. This has prompted concern that data may get into competitive hands. W. A. Davis, who heads the advanced development organization, recently cautioned North American personnel on the need to protect these data.
Aviation Week & Space Technology 16 Dec 1968
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
I thought I'd posted this before, but apparently not. This patent for a radar blocker probably reflects the method that would have been proposed for the Rockwell FX.

https://www.google.com/patents/US3509568
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
from Aviation Week 20 May 1968

R. H. Kemp was in charge of Rockwell's FX design team.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,481
Reaction score
41
I wonder if that front end is just notional or if it's something they looked at. It doesn't look much like their final FX design.
 

ScrutorAudax

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
I found this while going through NASA videos. It has a similar tail structure (although it differs in inlet and wing structure) to Rockwell's FX proposal. Does anyone know if this has any relation to the NA-335?

 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,429
Reaction score
307
Hard to answer Scrutor,I can't judge well ?.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
I doubt it. Even if the tail was exactly the same as the Rockwell project's model, that would most likely be because NASA recycled parts of the old model for a new test.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Confirmation that Northrop teamed with North American Rockwell on FX and would have produced portions of the airframe at Hawthorne.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19690303/10/1
Another reference

Northrop Corporation has joined with North American Rockwell in its bid for development and production of the F-15 (F-X) air superiority fighter...Northrop had earlier opted out of the FX competition on the grounds that it was unlikely to succeed in competition with larger corporations with a longer background of USAF fighter development. The agreement with North American Rockwell provides for Northrop to design and manufacture portions of the airframe if th bid is successful.
Flying Review International April 1969
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
703
Reaction score
5
Could the NAA submission have survived losing a wing as an F-15 in IAF service did?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Foo Fighter said:
Could the NAA submission have survived losing a wing as an F-15 in IAF service did?
Rather difficult one to answer.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,577
Reaction score
8
Foo Fighter said:
Could the NAA submission have survived losing a wing as an F-15 in IAF service did?
It would mainly depend on how the flight control system operated. If the aircraft could still maintain hydraulic pressure after one side of the wing was ripped off, it probably could have, as fighters have a large amount of control power.
 
Top