PDA

View Full Version : Re: RF-4 vs RA-5C


July 3rd 03, 02:14 PM
Another interesting tidbit about the Vigilante is that the AF
considered putting it back into production for use as an interceptor.

Ralph Savelsberg
July 3rd 03, 02:54 PM
TWINMAKER wrote:

> Here is a good "what if" question. From all that I have read, the
> RA-5C Vigilante seemed to be a very good photo recon aircraft -
> longer range and faster than an F-4. I know the USAF used RF-4s
> for a long time, but what if a deal had been made for "commonality"
> in the 60s that had the USAF using RA-5Cs as the primary photo
> recon bird? The large size of the Vigi would not have made much
> difference on a land base (the size and fast approach speed made
> them rather carrier-unfriendly, from what I understand), and if
> purchased in the quantities that the RF-4 was purchased (about 500,
> IIRC), the unit price would have come way down.
>
> Was the RA-5C as good or better than the RF-4C for the recon mission?
>
>
>

Recently somebody posted a letter to rec.aviation.military.naval about
this. It was an exchange between to high ranking officers comparing the
RF-4B (which was in USMC service) to the RA-5 and the conclusion of it
was somewhat mixed. The RA-5 undoubtedly had the best sensor suite of
the two, but was more vulnerable. (I frankly don't know whether the
sensor capability of the RF-4C was very different from that of the
RF-4B. The former had SLAR, but I don't know about the latter.)
Anyway, the Vigilante was faster (as was pointed out by another poster),
which decreased vulnerability to some extent. It was faster primarily
because of carrying all its fuel internally, instead of having to resort
to external fuel tanks. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall reading
somewhere that they would normally be in afterburner during pretty much
their entire trip in enemy airspace. Escorting F-4s would have to
struggle to keep up because without
external fuel they wouldn't be able to do it because they'd simply run
out of fuel and with external fuel their drag was much higher.
However, the speed advantage was offset by the G-limitation of the
airframe. It was limited to something like 3Gs, which meant that it was
vulnerable to SAMs. Phantoms were often able to outmanoeuvre an
approaching SAM, but for a less agile aircraft like the Vigilante, this
would have been much more difficult.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Bill Silvey
July 3rd 03, 02:56 PM
> wrote in message

> Another interesting tidbit about the Vigilante is that the AF
> considered putting it back into production for use as an interceptor.

During what time period?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Ralph Savelsberg
July 3rd 03, 03:24 PM
Bill Silvey wrote:

> > wrote in message
>
>
>>Another interesting tidbit about the Vigilante is that the AF
>>considered putting it back into production for use as an interceptor.
>>
>
> During what time period?
>

It was somewhere during the late 'sixties/early 'seventies, as part of
the almost never-ending quest for an F-106 replacement.
`Considered putting it back into production' is a bit of a stretch, but
at the time North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the
Vigilante, with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings and
armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage. If
built it would have been quite a beast.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

D. Scott Ferrin
July 3rd 03, 04:48 PM
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:24:57 +0200, Ralph Savelsberg
> wrote:

>
>
>Bill Silvey wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Another interesting tidbit about the Vigilante is that the AF
>>>considered putting it back into production for use as an interceptor.
>>>
>>
>> During what time period?
>>
>
>It was somewhere during the late 'sixties/early 'seventies, as part of
>the almost never-ending quest for an F-106 replacement.
>`Considered putting it back into production' is a bit of a stretch, but
>at the time North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the
>Vigilante, with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
>two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
>impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings and
>armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage. If
>built it would have been quite a beast.
>
>Regards,
>Ralph Savelsberg
>
>


I've also read they kicked around the idea of one with two J-58s.

Greg Hennessy
July 3rd 03, 06:01 PM
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:48:39 -0600, D. Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>
>I've also read they kicked around the idea of one with two J-58s.

I read that elsewhere, the J58 was also mooted for the Thud and the B58 as
well I believe.

I am sure Ed would like to fill us in on the merits of a J58 powered F-105
:-).

greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

Bill Silvey
July 4th 03, 12:16 AM
"Ralph Savelsberg" > wrote in message

> Bill Silvey wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Another interesting tidbit about the Vigilante is that the AF
>>> considered putting it back into production for use as an
>>> interceptor.
>>>
>>
>> During what time period?
>>
>
> It was somewhere during the late 'sixties/early 'seventies, as part
> of the almost never-ending quest for an F-106 replacement.
> `Considered putting it back into production' is a bit of a stretch,
> but at the time North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the
> Vigilante, with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above)
> the two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an
> artist's impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF
> markings and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the
> fuselage. If built it would have been quite a beast.

Aha, Hughes Missile Systems strikes again. During that timeframe I'm going
to take a WAG and say that this was mayhap the AIM-45 (not -54) precursor to
the Phoenix. Or perhaps it was Phoenix itself.

Were they thinking about a whole redesign (e.g., redesigned for
land-versus-carrier use undercarriage, without tow bar etc.) or just
painting USAF on the fins?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Ralph Savelsberg
July 4th 03, 08:48 AM
Bill Silvey wrote:


>> It was somewhere during the late 'sixties/early 'seventies, as
>> part of the almost never-ending quest for an F-106 replacement.
`Considered
>> putting it back into production' is a bit of a stretch, but at
>> the time North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the Vigilante,
>> with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
>> two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
>> impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings
>> and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage.
>> If built it would have been quite a beast.
>>
>
> Aha, Hughes Missile Systems strikes again. During that timeframe
> I'm going to take a WAG and say that this was mayhap the AIM-45
> (not -54) precursor to the Phoenix. Or perhaps it was Phoenix
> itself.
>
> Were they thinking about a whole redesign (e.g., redesigned for
land-versus-carrier
> use undercarriage, without tow bar etc.) or just painting USAF on
> the fins?
>

I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
(close to the bottom)
It seems like it's a rather extensive redesign.
Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late `sixties
involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's weapons' /camera
bay and the one I referred to and which is pictured in the above
mentioned page,
fitted with three J-79 engines. This dates back
to 1972 and at least according to the web site, the missile intended
for it was the actual AIM-54 Phoenix, and not one of its older
siblings/ predecessors.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Scott Ferrin
July 4th 03, 07:11 PM
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:01:28 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:48:39 -0600, D. Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I've also read they kicked around the idea of one with two J-58s.
>
>I read that elsewhere, the J58 was also mooted for the Thud and the B58 as
>well I believe.
>
>I am sure Ed would like to fill us in on the merits of a J58 powered F-105
>:-).
>
>greg



Never heard that about the Thud though I could imagine :-) Others
I've heard considered for the J-58 were a variant of the Crusader III
(which was already pretty fast with the J-75) and several types of
B-58. On the downside I was reading some of the history of the J58
and it seems the one looked at for the Crusader III would have only
had about 26,000lbs of thrust so I'm not sure what it would have got
them as the J75 the prototypes had put out 29k

Bill Silvey
July 5th 03, 04:03 AM
"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:16:14 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> > wrote:

>> Aha, Hughes Missile Systems strikes again. During that timeframe
>> I'm going to take a WAG and say that this was mayhap the AIM-45 (not
>> -54) precursor to the Phoenix. Or perhaps it was Phoenix itself.
>
> Are you thinking of the AIM-47 perhaps? Actually though "late
> sixties/ earlly seventies" would have fit with the Phoenix. Remember
> it was initially going to be used on the F-111B before it got
> cancelled. There's even a picture floating around that has an F-111
> with four Phoenix missiles under it's wings. It would have carried
> two more in the internal bay.

Yes, that's it. -47.

Would it have? The 'cat...well, right, F111B. I stand corrected. Welp, as
I said, WAG :-)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Mary Shafer
July 5th 03, 05:38 AM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:03:48 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> wrote:

> Yes, that's it. -47.
>
> Would it have? The 'cat...well, right, F111B. I stand corrected. Welp, as
> I said, WAG :-)

Don't forget the YF-12A. Twelve launches, twelve good hits.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN

Bill Silvey
July 5th 03, 11:07 AM
"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:03:48 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> > wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's it. -47.
>>
>> Would it have? The 'cat...well, right, F111B. I stand corrected.
>> Welp, as I said, WAG :-)
>
> Don't forget the YF-12A. Twelve launches, twelve good hits.
>
> Mary

Well, the '14 got 6 of 6 on a single test firing (well, 5 of 5 - one of the
test drones failed in flight and was considered a "no test")...

But by the same token I can't think of a single Air to Air Phoenix kill in
combat.

Can anyone?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Rob van Riel
July 7th 03, 12:32 PM
Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message >...
> However, the speed advantage was offset by the G-limitation of the
> airframe. It was limited to something like 3Gs, which meant that it was
> vulnerable to SAMs. Phantoms were often able to outmanoeuvre an
> approaching SAM, but for a less agile aircraft like the Vigilante, this
> would have been much more difficult.

I'm not too sure about this. I seem to remember reading about an
unauthorised "dogfight" between an A-5 and an F-4 (as I recall, the
A-5 was intercepted by F-4s during an exercise, and rather than
playing dead, decided to pretend it had a gun and went after his
attacker). The F-4 was not pleased with the things the A-5 did to
him...
If this is true, the agility of the A-5 would be better than you imply
here.

Of course, I might be totally confused, or the report may have been a
legend. Can anyone confirm this?

Rob

Juvat
July 7th 03, 04:39 PM
Greg Hennessy commenting on the BFM abilities of the
Vigilante...opined thusly:

>Given its wing area I wouldnt be surprised. A J58 engine'd version with
>bubble canopy and a flat belly could well have been a contender.

Respectfully...are you making your statement simply because the RA-5
had a huge wing area?

Based upon that, would you surmise the MiG-31 with huge motors is a
good BFM platform? I would not.

Juvat

Jeb Hoge
July 7th 03, 08:41 PM
Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message >...
> Bill Silvey wrote:
> >>North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the Vigilante,
> >> with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
> >> two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
> >> impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings
> >> and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage.
> >> If built it would have been quite a beast.
> >>
>
> I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
> http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
> (close to the bottom)
> It seems like it's a rather extensive redesign.
> Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late `sixties
> involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's weapons' /camera
> bay and the one I referred to and which is pictured in the above
> mentioned page,
> fitted with three J-79 engines.

I find this really interesting since a fella I knew in college who
grew up down on the Gulf Coast was telling me once about a military
aircraft that crashed somewhere in the North Florida brush swamps
once. Said that the people who saw it going down talked about it
having three afterburning engines in the configuration shown in that
photo. It's been a long time since I've seen the guy, let alone heard
the story, so I don't know what the timeframe was, but could be that
the three-J79'd airframe at least made it to flying test stage.

Ralph Savelsberg
July 8th 03, 09:48 AM
Jeb Hoge wrote:

> Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> Bill Silvey wrote:
>>>> North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the Vigilante,
with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
>> >> two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
>> >> impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings
>> >> and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage.
>> >> If built it would have been quite a beast.
>> >>
>>
>>I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
>>http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
>>(close to the bottom)
>>It seems like it's a rather extensive redesign.
>>Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late `sixties
>>involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's weapons' /camera
>>bay and the one I referred to and which is pictured in the above
>>mentioned page,
>>fitted with three J-79 engines.
>>
>
> I find this really interesting since a fella I knew in college who
> grew up down on the Gulf Coast was telling me once about a military
> aircraft that crashed somewhere in the North Florida brush swamps
> once. Said that the people who saw it going down talked about it
> having three afterburning engines in the configuration shown in that
> photo. It's been a long time since I've seen the guy, let alone heard
> the story, so I don't know what the timeframe was, but could be that
> the three-J79'd airframe at least made it to flying test stage.
>
That's the first time I read anything about that. As far as I know, it
really never progressed beyond a proposal, some design work and perhaps
wind-tunnel tests.





>>>> with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above)
>>>> the two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have
>>>> an artist's impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in
>>>> USAF markings and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no
>>>> less) under the fuselage. If built it would have been quite a
>>>> beast.
>>>>
>>
>> I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
>>

>> (close to the bottom) It seems like it's a rather extensive
>> redesign. Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late
>> `sixties involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's
>> weapons' /camera bay and the one I referred to and which is
>> pictured in the above mentioned page, fitted with three J-79
>> engines.
>>
>
> I find this really interesting since a fella I knew in college who grew
> up down on the Gulf Coast was telling me once about a military aircraft
> that crashed somewhere in the North Florida brush swamps once.
> Said that the people who saw it going down talked about it having
> three afterburning engines in the configuration shown in that photo.
> It's been a long time since I've seen the guy, let alone heard the
> story, so I don't know what the timeframe was, but could be that the
> three-J79'd airframe at least made it to flying test stage.
>
That's the first time I read anything about that. As far as I know, it
never progressed beyond a proposal, some design work and perhaps
wind-tunnel tests. I've never heard about any flying hardware having
been built.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Ralph Savelsberg
July 8th 03, 09:57 AM
Rob van Riel wrote:

> Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message >...
>
>>However, the speed advantage was offset by the G-limitation of the
>>airframe. It was limited to something like 3Gs, which meant that it was
>>vulnerable to SAMs. Phantoms were often able to outmanoeuvre an
>>approaching SAM, but for a less agile aircraft like the Vigilante, this
>>would have been much more difficult.
>>
>
> I'm not too sure about this. I seem to remember reading about an
> unauthorised "dogfight" between an A-5 and an F-4 (as I recall, the
> A-5 was intercepted by F-4s during an exercise, and rather than
> playing dead, decided to pretend it had a gun and went after his
> attacker). The F-4 was not pleased with the things the A-5 did to
> him...
> If this is true, the agility of the A-5 would be better than you imply
> here.
>

My knowledge about it is decidedly second hand. As I wrote, that was
part of an exchange between some naval officers in a letter somebody
posted to ramn a few weeks ago. It stated that the Vigilante airframe
was stressed for 3Gs.
It did have a reputation of being not very sturdy. I'm fairly certain
quite a few airframes were write-offs because of being over stressed
during landings.


> Of course, I might be totally confused, or the report may have been a
> legend. Can anyone confirm this?
>
> Rob
>

It could very well be that it did happen, though, the way you describe
it, the Phantom crew allowed themselves to be surprised. That doesn't
tell you anything about the agility of the Vigilante, perhaps with the
exception that this Phantom crew underestimated it.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Google