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

Vought (LTV) A-7 Corsair II Projects

Creative

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
241
Reaction score
2
I'm curious. Was there any thought of putting the Sidewinder rails at the wing tips instead of the fuselage?
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
45
Creative said:
I'm curious. Was there any thought of putting the Sidewinder rails at the wing tips instead of the fuselage?
Wing tip missile rails and swept wings can be aerodynamically problematic.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
112
I know I promised back in May to revisit this topic and provide more information about the A-7F, and I really mean to do that, eventually. In the interim, as a teaser, here's a drawing of the modifications that would have been done to turn an A-7D into a full-blown, production -7F, had the Air Force proceeded with the program
 

Attachments

r16

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
377
Reaction score
10
ı have just noticed the Speicher case explained by F-14D and thank him for this and while it is quite offtopic ı guess this is the place ı should put it .ı would still believe that it was a SA-6 that got Speicher and despite the original claims that the Mig had actually destroyed a VF-103 F-14 , ı think Iraqis failed to score air to air in 1991 .
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
112
r16 said:
ı have just noticed the Speicher case explained by F-14D and thank him for this and while it is quite offtopic ı guess this is the place ı should put it .ı would still believe that it was a SA-6 that got Speicher and despite the original claims that the Mig had actually destroyed a VF-103 F-14 , ı think Iraqis failed to score air to air in 1991 .
The original official explanation was that he had been hit by a SAM, but there were reports from the fleet that said that the crews who were there didn't buy that. For one thing, US intelligence was reporting no SAMs in the area, before or after, particularly of the type that could hit Speicher @ 30,000 ft. For another, evidence shows that he ejected. This would be problematic if shot down by the large warhead of a SAM, but more likely with a smaller AAM warhead. Also, there were detections of Iraqi fighters closing the strike group, but not of SAMs in that area. The MiG-25, after escaping the other F/A-18 that couldn't get permission to fire, was observed heading towards the area where LCDR Speicher's jet was knocked down soon thereafter.

One thing that is also overlooked is that there were also reports that the wreckage of a MiG-25 was also in that genreal area. Maybe they got each other, or it's also possible that neither shot the other, but might have collided.
 

r16

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
377
Reaction score
10
one of the aspects of observing from outside is that you may be proven wrong or least mistaken as ı have been here in claiming the SAM . Once again thanks for the information .
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
112
r16 said:
one of the aspects of observing from outside is that you may be proven wrong or least mistaken as ı have been here in claiming the SAM . Once again thanks for the information .
We're getting a bit off topic here, but on Jan 21 1991 one F-14B from VF 103 on a recon run was lost, one crewmember was rescued the other taken prisoner. The official reason given for the loss was a mobile or shoulder launched SAM. However some credit it to a trap technique the Iraqiis had been observed to use in the past. A Mirage F1 would light up the target, while a MiG (in this case a -25) would be in the area, radar silent, possibly using terrain for masking. The target would turn to either engage or evade, and would be concentrating on the Mirage. If position was good, the MiG would quickly light up and fire, before the target could react to the new threat. Some have said this is what happened to the VF 103 bird, but I have no certain knowledge of it.

I'll be posting some more Corsair stuff
 

Rosdivan

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
4
I thought that Tomcat was said to be lost to an SA-2?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
112
Rosdivan said:
I thought that Tomcat was said to be lost to an SA-2?
An SA-2 is not mobile, and the location of all of those would be known to a TARPS F-14. The official explanation was, I believe, a mobile SAM or shoulder launched weapon. r16 was talking about an F-14 loss to a MiG-25 and that tracks nicely with the alternate explanation of the Tomcat's loss to a trap. Again, I can't speak to the veracity of this, as there hasn't been as much reexamination of this loss as there was of LCDR Speicher.

To keep this on topic, here's a drawing of the standard panel proposed for the production A-7F/Strikefighter. What would have actually gone into the bird, if USAF has allowed it to be built, would be up to USAF. The displays could have been all monochrome, there might have been less glass, or it could have been even more digital, or it could have just kept he steam guages of the A-7D. This drawing, though, is representative of the probable configuration
 

Attachments

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
382
Greetings All!

Here's a few more gems from the visit to the Vought Archives a few weeks ago. Thanks to PhotoGator giving me a heads up, I had the chance to peruse some study/proposal files on the A-7 that included these two along with some tanker studies. I'll post the tanker study drawings later.

The RA-7 is a "cheeky" conversion of the A-7 to perform recon duties.

The profile comparison is for a Spey with afterburner equipped A-7 - I did not find any info on the A-7+16 and A-7+48 profiles noted.

The supersonic A-7 obviously makes use of the F8U-3 development effort motivated by a Spey with afterburner.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
Nice scans Mark. You made something good out of those blue prints.

bill
 

r16

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
377
Reaction score
10
any chance of specifications on the supersonic Sluf ?
 

hs1216

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
110
Reaction score
5
it looks like some of the f-8u3 experience made it into the supersonic a-7
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Was there any real advantage over the F/A-18 in the role they were pitching this twin engined Corsair for?
 

norseman

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
pometablava said:
I don't know the precise source but it is an italian mag from 1986.

A-7 CAS/BAI (Close Air Support/Battlefield Air Interdiction)

Interim solution for the USAF consisting in reengining the 337 Air National Air Guard A-7 fleet with a new afterburning engine (no more details :- ???), updated avionics and structural modifications.
Was this not related to the RR/Allison project offering a 17,500lb Spey/TF41 to a number of airforces (also a 17,500/27,000 Reheat) version. I vaguely remember this engine being offered for the F-14 and F-111 as well. Would certainly have been interesting in the RAF Phantoms. I think this engine was actually built for testing and wasn't just a paper product. I can imagine this engine would have interested the Chinese with their JH7A and it's lack of thrust. If anyone has further info about these Spey/TF41 versions it would be interesting as I lost all the PDF's I had about them years ago in a hard drive crash. :0(
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
112
Lampshade111 said:
Was there any real advantage over the F/A-18 in the role they were pitching this twin engined Corsair for?
That was one of the proposals mooted for A-7X. The main advantages were range/payload/endurance, less R&D expense and time and sooner availability, along with lower procurement cost. Part of this was due to the fact that there was no attempt to perform the air-to-air portion of the F/A-18's mission, that being met by additional F-14s.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
30
Coming full circle. Amazing how the supersonic F-8 Crusader morphed to subsonic A-7 Corsair II and the supersonic YA-7F nearly created a reborn F-8 Crusader.
 

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
Proposed two seat A-7E upgrade with TRAM, LST, TARPS, and
a 912-B32K engine upgrade (TF-41-A-2 with RR Spey afterburner)
From Vought Archives
 

Attachments

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
87
F-14D said:
Lampshade111 said:
Was there any real advantage over the F/A-18 in the role they were pitching this twin engined Corsair for?
That was one of the proposals mooted for A-7X. The main advantages were range/payload/endurance, less R&D expense and time and sooner availability, along with lower procurement cost. Part of this was due to the fact that there was no attempt to perform the air-to-air portion of the F/A-18's mission, that being met by additional F-14s.
that the F404 was built in Teddy Kennedy's home state and"Tip"O'Neill's district was considered something of an advantage to selling the idea to Congress.
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
45
Bill S said:
Proposed two seat A-7E upgrade with TRAM, LST, TARPS, and
a 912-B32K engine upgrade (TF-41-A-2 with RR Spey afterburner)
Are there any details on the engine itself?
 

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
TinWing said:
Are there any details on the engine itself?
Here is what I have. From Vought Archives
 

Attachments

MIRAGE 4000

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
151
Reaction score
13
Vough proposed an A-7E "French Navy" (A-7E Export) with French carrier suitability (catapult, nose gear tow)

It was proposed with Aerospatiale in 1972.

I have some details, if you want.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
398
MIRAGE 4000 said:
Vough proposed an A-7E "French Navy" (A-7E Export) with French carrier suitability (catapult, nose gear tow)

It was proposed with Aerospatiale in 1972.

I have some details, if you want.
Of course we do! What are you waiting for? ;D ;D ;D
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
87
norseman said:
pometablava said:
I don't know the precise source but it is an italian mag from 1986.

A-7 CAS/BAI (Close Air Support/Battlefield Air Interdiction)

Interim solution for the USAF consisting in reengining the 337 Air National Air Guard A-7 fleet with a new afterburning engine (no more details :- ???), updated avionics and structural modifications.
Was this not related to the RR/Allison project offering a 17,500lb Spey/TF41 to a number of airforces (also a 17,500/27,000 Reheat) version. I vaguely remember this engine being offered for the F-14 and F-111 as well. Would certainly have been interesting in the RAF Phantoms. I think this engine was actually built for testing and wasn't just a paper product. I can imagine this engine would have interested the Chinese with their JH7A and it's lack of thrust. If anyone has further info about these Spey/TF41 versions it would be interesting as I lost all the PDF's I had about them years ago in a hard drive crash. :0(
The Afterburning TF41 was tested in the late 1960's; I used to have copies of an article from AW&ST from 1967 on the testing Allison/RR did at AEDC where they wre getting 26,000 lbt. in full afterburner. If someone has access toAviation Week from that year, I'd appreciate a scan of that article.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
130
Stargazer2006 said:
Of course we do! What are you waiting for? ;D ;D ;D
Hear, hear.

This would be as a competitor for the Super Etendard as a Jaguar M replacement?
 

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
MIRAGE 4000 said:
Vough proposed an A-7E "French Navy" (A-7E Export) with French carrier suitability (catapult, nose gear tow)

It was proposed with Aerospatiale in 1972.

I have some details, if you want.
Yes sir! Count me among the interested.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
847
Abraham Gubler said:
Stargazer2006 said:
Of course we do! What are you waiting for? ;D ;D ;D
Hear, hear.

This would be as a competitor for the Super Etendard as a Jaguar M replacement?
That's an odd way to put it. It seems more accurate to say that Jaguar M and Super Etendard (and the A-7) were both proposed replacements for the original Etendard IV.
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
45
[edit - deleted post - Admin]

Now that is interesting. Does this suggest a noseleg catapult attachment point, as in the A4D-6? Why would M-D suggest such an extensive modification of the A-4M?
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
130
TomS said:
That's an odd way to put it. It seems more accurate to say that Jaguar M and Super Etendard (and the A-7) were both proposed replacements for the original Etendard IV.
The French Navy was originally committed to a carrier capable Jaguar as the replacement for the Entendard as part of the formation of SPECAT and the Jaguar program in the 1960s. As the Jaguar progressed into the early 1970s, including carrier trials for the first Jaguar M, the French Navy abandoned it for a range of reasons.

They then sought a replacement with Dassault offering the Super Entendard, Mirage F1 and it would now appear Vought offering a new French version of the A-7 (as opposed to a standard A-7E) and McAir with the A-4T. Of course Dassault won (it helped that they had brought out the French competition in Breguet who were the French side of SPECAT) and the Super Entendard was ordered in 1973.

So it’s not an ‘odd’ way to put it but rather chronologically decision cycle correct way to put it.

For a good source on the Aeronaval check out:

http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/jaguar_fr.htm

Including data on the 45,000 tonne carrier Verdun that was to carry navalised Mirage IVs in the nuclear strike role…
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
847
The chronology is not entirely clear to me. If the A-7 was offered in 1972, as stated, that was before the formal abandonment of Jaguar M in 1973. IN any case, since Jag M never reached service, I would not say it was being replaced.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,122
Reaction score
2,640
Its pretty obvious - the Jaguar-M was in trouble before its cancellation. Thoughts as to what might replace it started before the formal end of the program.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
382
Been busy in the files eh?! Interesting finds - thanks for posting them.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
30
What's out there on the YA-7Fs? V-number, drawings, etc.
 

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
XB-70 Guy said:
What's out there on the YA-7Fs? V-number, drawings, etc.
Have you looked at page 1 and 2 of this topic, lots of good info on YA-7F there.
 

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
Mark Nankivil said:
Been busy in the files eh?! Interesting finds - thanks for posting them.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Actually these were scanned when I did the V-382 drawings.
I had forgotten about them until you posted the 382 stuff.
 
Top