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

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

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

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

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

"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.