RF-4 vs RA-5C

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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

"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.