Rockwell pre-ATF and ATF studies

Interesting concept - I wonder about guidance though... would a second platform designate the target? It might also require getting quite close (leading to a vulnerability to ground fire and MANPADs)
 
This was one of the ASTEI (pre-ATF) concepts shown in the famous 2/4/79 AW&ST issue on USAF R&D.
 
Thanks.

GIGO got me again with the search. Maybe a moderator could merge this into the Rockwell pre-ATF / ATF thread.
 
GeorgeA said:
This was one of the ASTEI (pre-ATF) concepts shown in the famous 2/4/79 AW&ST issue on USAF R&D.
Click to expand...
damn. has someone a copy or scan of this article? pveazze
 
flateric said:
GeorgeA said:
This was one of the ASTEI (pre-ATF) concepts shown in the famous 2/4/79 AW&ST issue on USAF R&D.
Click to expand...
damn. has someone a copy or scan of this article? pveazze
Click to expand...

Article? It was damn near the entire issue. Many of the pics I first posted when I joined here were from that issue. From the Rockwell and Boeing bomber concepts to a bunch of fighter concepts, including Grumman. It was the ultimate fan boy drool issue of Aviation Week ever published.(fixed ;) )
 
overscan said:
[pedant]Penultimate means "Next to last", so what the ultimate fan-boy AWST issue?[/pedant]
Click to expand...

Pumpkins seeds or Blackstar. ;D
 
Rockwell ATF Flyer purchased from Ebay.
 

Attachments

  • Rockwell ATF.jpg
    Rockwell ATF.jpg
    724.5 KB · Views: 4,390
  • Rockwell ATF 2.jpg
    Rockwell ATF 2.jpg
    276.3 KB · Views: 2,991
These appeared in a 1981 article from AW&ST.
I have extracted the text from the article and affixed it to each picture.
 

Attachments

  • Rockwell fighter study 1.gif
    Rockwell fighter study 1.gif
    43.9 KB · Views: 1,260
  • Rockwell fighter study 2.gif
    Rockwell fighter study 2.gif
    43.1 KB · Views: 1,226
Nice! I stitched the inboard profile together.
 

Attachments

  • Rockwell ATS Inboard Profile.png
    Rockwell ATS Inboard Profile.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 650
Thanks for the 3 view! I have been after more info on this design since the front view was shown in AWST in '81, well, I found it in the early '90s. Dan Raymer's book has an artist concept of it on the ground as well as I think the in flight art. I had even emailed Mr. Raymer about the front view being the same design and he said it was and I still found it hard to believe tho it came directly from him. I can't wait to build a model of this thanks to the 3 view and I still have trouble envisioning the front view as being the same aircraft in the side and top view but it is. Love the design and thanks again for the 3 view. 36,000 lbs. TGOW seems a little light to me tho.
 
I too remember this from that old Aviation Week. Thanks for posting this guys, for filling another hole in my what if files.
 
What's that on the floor of the NAA trisonic wind tunnel in El Segundo, under the big F-107? Why yes, it's a Rockwell ATF!
 

Attachments

  • NAA F-107, ATF & ALCM WTMs.jpg
    NAA F-107, ATF & ALCM WTMs.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 518
was this the final submission design and if it's not, did rockwell submit a stealthed up version of it or something else drastically different?
 
It's Rockwell my dear Rolf,great find.
 
Rockwell AFW (Active Flexible Wing) wind tunnel models (higher res/better copies)

The wind tunnel model is shown installed in the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel and
is a preliminary design version of a Rockwell fighter concept. Five outboard wing
panel geometries were tested: a 48deg leading-edge sweep baseline; a 55deg leading-edge
sweep wing with a camber distribution biased toward a maneuver lift coefficient for
Mach 1.6; an uncambered 55deg reference wing; and two redesigned 48deg leading-edge
sweep wing panels (multi-operating point wings - subsonic, transonic, supersonic ) .
The redesigned 48deg wings represented a low twist cruise wing (M = 1.5) and a high
twist maneuver concept (M = 1.6). Testing was performed at Mach numbers of 1.5 to
2.5. Both longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic force characteristics were
measured. Surface pressure data were obtained at Mach numbers of 1.5 to 1.8 for the
55deg cambered wing and the 48deg low and high twist wings.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Rockwell-AFW.jpg
    Rockwell-AFW.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 579
  • 741523.jpg
    741523.jpg
    295.4 KB · Views: 554
Sukhoi even to this day has gone so heavily towards the Rockwell approach, the Flanker and Pakfa are it's cousins. There are trade-offs but the Rockwell approach seems to make sense from an internal weapon carrying requirement. Was it the simple fact that Northrop and Lockheed had to themselves not borrow too much from Rockwell in their own proposals?
 

Attachments

  • L-86-186.jpg
    L-86-186.jpg
    397.4 KB · Views: 900
  • L-86-240.jpg
    L-86-240.jpg
    376.2 KB · Views: 196
  • L-86-856.jpg
    L-86-856.jpg
    356.8 KB · Views: 1,901
  • L-86-1374.jpg
    L-86-1374.jpg
    391.6 KB · Views: 227
  • L-86-63.jpg
    L-86-63.jpg
    378.6 KB · Views: 956
  • L-85-14261.jpg
    L-85-14261.jpg
    358.3 KB · Views: 1,000
  • L-83-1800.jpg
    L-83-1800.jpg
    329.1 KB · Views: 1,260
  • L-83-1799.jpg
    L-83-1799.jpg
    367.6 KB · Views: 1,412
flateric said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Advert
Click to expand...
Ah, cool! Aviation Week? What was the issue date?
Click to expand...


http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-1986-PUB-NORTH-AMERICAN-ROCKWELL-ATF-ADVANCED-TACTICAL-FIGHTER-ORIGINAL-AD-/301171239042?pt=JG_FR_Collections_Aviation&hash=item461f346882


Presumably June 1986
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:

Thanks Grigori - did you notice it was an Israeli Rockwell ATF...
Click to expand...

While an entertaining notion, it's still a USAF ATF. What you're seeing as the Israeli Star of David is still the five-pointed USAF star... just a pale blue, surrounded by *very* pale gray USAF "wings."
 

Attachments

  • Image2.jpg
    Image2.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 1,852
donnage99 said:
was this the final submission design and if it's not, did rockwell submit a stealthed up version of it or something else drastically different?
Click to expand...

There was indeed a final, low-observable design submitted. According to Dr. Dan Raymer (the original designer), there was a lot of data gathered about the original design and they didn't want to have to discard all of it in the process of producing a brand-new design. For that reason, they tried to keep the final design as close as reasonably possible to the original whilst allowing for a reduced radar signature. From the top, the aircraft's silhouette remained practically identical. There were some changes, however. The engines were pulled more closely together and the inlets were placed along the sides of a reshaped forward fuselage. The engines were given a two-paddle nozzle system in place of single paddle and were rotated at ~45 degrees on their side (I'm pleased that there now seem to be photos available of this system as posted by PaulMM!). The vertical tails, now connected to the angled nacelles, had their cant angle increased to 45 degrees. Instead of pitch-control flaps inboard of the engines, they now lay outboard of them. I believe the nose was chined as well.

This information came from Dr. Raymer in his personal biography and also in E-mail exchanges between him and myself. Unfortunately, no official drawings or photographs of the final submission seem to have made it out to the public...yet. However, there is a thread somewhere around here with attempts to visualize it (including CG renders).
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Nice - resized and attached.
Click to expand...

rockwell-jpg.371383


Identified as Rockwell LLWDS study

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981 - 1535.PDF

Rockwell researches top-mounted weapons

ROCKWELL'S North American Aircraft Division is to investigate a topmounted low-level weapons delivery system (LLWDS) under a $1-6 million USAF contract. The weapons, each a lifting body, will be carried on and released from the top of the aircraft's rear fuselage in high-threat target zones, at attack heights below 200ft.

The lifting-body munitions will be in the 1,000lb-weight class. On release they will climb to attack altitude and then eject either cluster munitions or single terminally guided bombs. The principal advantage of LLWDS is that the relatively smooth airflow over the aircraft's top surface makes a more reliable and predictable weapon release possible, out of the wing downwash. Other advantages are the very-low-level delivery and the lower drag and radar crosssection of the carrier to ground-based search radars. Rockwell will design and build an aircraft mockup to test the idea on a rocket sled at Mach 1.2.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Seems like the LLWDS platform was also intended to leverage Rockwell's Active Flexible Wing research that Overscan mentioned earlier in the thread.
 
Rockwell's pre-ATF designs from TsAGI's Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya (No.13, 1984):
 

Attachments

  • Rockwell pre-ATF.jpg
    Rockwell pre-ATF.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,913
fightingirish said:
The Artist said:
I don't remember seeing this one before I found this book today and running some searches here has not turned up anything. Has anyone got any additional information on this?


I found this in Airplanes of the Future by Don Berliner, Learner Publications, 1987
Click to expand...


Grumman or Rockwell???


A great picture at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolutz/8697685570/sizes/l/
Click to expand...

Does anyone have more information on the drone/missile things that seem to be conformally mounted on the top? Is it a concept for a stealthily mounted missile without internal weapons bays?

Tyler

Edit: On second examination they appear to be unpowered, perhaps they are bombs rather then missiles?
 
And where is my comment that is quoted here? This gets to be a problem when threads get broken up and parts shifted around.


.Tyler H said:
fightingirish said:
The Artist said:
I don't remember seeing this one before I found this book today and running some searches here has not turned up anything. Has anyone got any additional information on this?


I found this in Airplanes of the Future by Don Berliner, Learner Publications, 1987
Click to expand...


Grumman or Rockwell???


A great picture at Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmolutz/8697685570/sizes/l/
Click to expand...

Does anyone have more information on the drone/missile things that seem to be conformally mounted on the top? Is it a concept for a stealthily mounted missile without internal weapons bays?

Tyler

Edit: On second examination they appear to be unpowered, perhaps they are bombs rather then missiles?
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom