Fleet Air Defense Fighter - Douglas F6D-1 Missileer and its rivals

[taildragger]

More on Northrop Multipurpose Project

A long-endurance high-warload missile carrier would be an ideal role for a flying wing. I guess that Northrop had accepted no for an answer by then though.
By the way, what does BLC stand for?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Boundary layer control

 

[Bruno Anthony]

AvWeek article on Missileer

 

[apparition13]

I was just reading Friedman's Aircraft Carrier book, and one of the factors he mentions that played a roll in the decision to get rid of the Commencement Bay CVEs rather than convert them into ASW carriers was the cancellation of the F6D, which left them without CAP aircraft since none of the supersonic jets could operate from them.

 

[starviking]

I was just reading Friedman's Aircraft Carrier book, and one of the factors he mentions that played a roll in the decision to get rid of the Commencement Bay CVEs rather than convert them into ASW carriers was the cancellation of the F6D, which left them without CAP aircraft since none of the supersonic jets could operate from them.

I haven’t reached that part in the book, but wiki gives most Commencement Bay’s as being out of commission by 55, quite a few years before F6D got the chop. Were the carriers being stored for re-fitting as Missileer-capable ASW carriers?

 

[apparition13]

It's in the ASW chapter, but my error there. The discussion of the F6D was a couple pages after modernization proposals for the C-Bays*. It led to size inflation of the CVS design proposals, since once the Missileer got cancelled it meant F-4s for air defense, which meant longer and more powerful catapults, which meant bigger ships, which wasn't ideal for the CVS role, and all the waffling led to the Essexes being given the CVS role.

That led to SCS and CVV in the 70s, with the eventual outcome being no ASW carriers and the CVAs becoming CVs as the attack carriers took on the ASW role. Which implies that if the missileer had gone forward, a class of dedicated ASW carriers could have been built in the 60s, and the big carriers would have remained attack carriers, perhaps increasing their combat power by allowing another combat squadron to be carried.

*There were 23 hulls available; 19 commissioned, and 4 completed but not commissioned. They would have been given angled decks, but even with reinforced decks they wouldh have had a 23000 pound limit on aircraft weight. Although I do kind of like the idea of angled deck C-Bays with S2F Trackers and the proposed Mark 4 naval Gnat.

 

[alanqua]

Hello, here are some plans I published in Le Fana de l'Aviation French magazine a long time ago. Full Res. Enjoy.

 

[Bill S]

Artist's impression of the Vought V-434 found on Facebook.

Source:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Just to close the loop, this is the same artwork that appears on the cover of the V-434 Technical Proposal Summary Report

 

[Pioneer]

Artist's impression of the Vought V-434 found on Facebook.

Source:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Just to close the loop, this is the same artwork that appears on the cover of the V-434 Technical Proposal Summary Report

So, somewhere out there is a tantalising binded V-434 Technical Proposal Summary Report. Have you seen it in it's entirety Bill?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From Angellucci & Bowers The American Fighter.

In 1959 the U.S.Navy commissioned Bendix and Grumman to develop
new air-to-air AAM-N-10 Eagle missiles, which had to be capable of
traveling at a speed of Mach 4 to hit a flying target 100mi (161km) away.
Since the Navy needed a launching platform for these new warheads,
the American aviation industry was asked to submit proposals for an
aircraft which could loiter for several hours near the aircraft it had to
protect, ready to fire its Eagle interceptor missiles as soon as the enemy
was sighted on the radar screen. In 1961 Douglas’ project was chosen
with an order for two prototypes. The new plane’ lines were reminiscent
of the F3D Skyknight and was known as the F6D Missileer: a very
large airplane to be flown by a crew of three, capable of carrying from
six to eight Eagle missiles and launching them at an unfriendly target.
The prototype had yet to start to take shape when the U.S.Navy decided
to drop the project in favor of exploring the feasibility of using the
General Dynamics F-111B (q.v.) under pressure from the Defense
Secretary of the time, Robert McNamara.

Technical data
XF6D-1 - Type: Carrier-based, long range fighter (project)
Crew: 3 - First order: 2 - Order date: 7/21/1961.
Power plant: 2xPratt & Whitney TF-30-P2 turbofan, 10,0001b s.t. (4,536kg).
Max wingspan: 70ft (21.33m) - Wing area: 630sq ft (58.52m) - Length: 53ft (16.15m)
- Height: 18ft 1in (5.51m) - Gross weight: 50,000lb (22,680kg) - Max T.O. weight:
60,000lb (27,216kg) - Max speed: 546mph (879km/h). (Project data).

 

[acegeek9992]

Although Douglas would be winner of the Request for Proposal with its F6D-1 Missileer, what of the other five aerospace / aviation companies submitted designs?

Boeing studied the hell out of the idea. The designs they came up with ranged from the mind-snappingly-dull to the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking."

That Boeing Model 835-12 design looks like it utilizes lifting-body design to get airborne along with the wings. Anyways, has anyone thought of making a 3d model of that design?

 

[acegeek9992]

Although Douglas would be winner of the Request for Proposal with its F6D-1 Missileer, what of the other five aerospace / aviation companies submitted designs?

Boeing studied the hell out of the idea. The designs they came up with ranged from the mind-snappingly-dull to the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking."

As for the Boeing Model 835-222, yeah, that one definitely fits the "what the hell were they thinking" spectrum of their designs. I'm no expert on planes, but I can probably see this plane NOT being accepted just because it would be way too large for carrier operations.

 

[Springtime]

It may have been covered before but i remember seeing somewhere that the McDonald Douglas/GD A-12 was at least considered for a secondary "Fleet Defense" role as a "Missileer" or something similar for the F-18A/C/D and Super Hornet with 10 to 12 AMRAAM'S or was this just a marketing thing over several years

 

[acegeek9992]

Here is the summary of Missileer proposals as reported by George Spangenberg in a memo dated 4 March 1960. (Note that Grumman submitted two A-6 alternatives.) The Type Specification was TS-151 dated 30 November 1959. Nine contractors received the RFP letter dated 11 December 1959.

Any pics on the Vigilante Missilieer?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hi,


here is an artist drawing to Boeing Model-835,looks different;


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rBksUk40jlEC&pg=PA89&dq=Boeing+Model+909&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CdkSVPu6JMPdaquDgtgB&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Boeing Model 909&f=false

A better copy of the Boeing 835 proposal art.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

After the Model 909 was cancelled, I was assigned the stability, control and performance lead job on the Boeing Model 835, Missileer program. This was a twin jet, carrier based, airplane which was designed with the ability to fire 12 Phoenix missiles over long ranges. The missiles were to be mounted on rotary launchers in the internal weapons bay. An artist’s conception of the Model 835, Missileer is shown in Figure 101.

Co-project engineers were Vernon Hudson and Bob Taylor, a former Boeing test pilot. Bob Burnham and I were primarily responsible for the external configuration of that airplane. We did a lot of wind tunnel testing and also did quite a bit of detail design work on this proposal to the US Navy. Alas, we came in second to Douglas. However, the Douglas victory did not last long. The project lost high rank support in the Navy and was cancelled.

Roskam, Jan. Roskam's Airplane War Stories: An Account of the Professional Life and Work of Dr. Jan Roskam, Airplane Designer and Teacher (p. 106-107). Design, Analysis and Research Corporation (DARcorporation).

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Thought I'd already posted this here . . .
Douglas D-790 Skywarrior missileer concept, up to 8 Bendix 'Eagles' . . .





Source Aerofax Aerograph 5, 'Douglas A-3 Skywarrior', pp. 29-30

cheers,
Robin.

 

[nugo]

Hi all!

D-976--is a mistake, should be D-766.

In one book it was written like this---D-9766 and should be mistake and
it was necessary not to remove the back digit -6, but to remove the front digit-9.

 

[Pioneer]

Sorry all I've skimmed over this thread and haven't been able to find/determine the official TS / SOR designation which derived the RfP for thr FAD/Missileer competition.

Does anyone know it?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

TS-151

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-forgotten-usn-os-and-ts-series.7589/

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Thank you Tailspin Turtle. So now we know this North American proposal was NAA Model CL-4166. I would have guessed this to be a Lockheed (CALAC) designation! Any other useful Missileer information in the Spangenberg papers?

CL- series is believed to be NAA Columbus charge numbers.

 

[Pioneer]

TS-151

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-forgotten-usn-os-and-ts-series.7589/

Thank you PaulMM.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

I haven’t reached that part in the book, but wiki gives most Commencement Bay’s as being out of commission by 55, quite a few years before F6D got the chop. Were the carriers being stored for re-fitting as Missileer-capable ASW carriers?

Nope. No F6D on Commencement Bay (AFAIK) too small and too slow.

What is really interesting is Friedman says that the F6D was considered a potential alternative to Phantom for the "new CVS" carriers (replacing the eponymous Essex CVS) so 52000 tons, average. The ones described by @Tzoli right here.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/scb-100-class-cvs.42298/

F6D obvious avantages over Phantom
a) subsonic, so even at 50 000 pounds, much more easy to handle for Essex size carriers
b) A large number of big missiles plus the APQ-81 that could pin down 8 targets at the same time
c) A small number of F6D could do the job of 24 Phantoms
d) F6D was slow and light enough to use C-11 catapults
e) when those 24 Phantoms needed C-13s, and C-13s really pushed carrier size and cost upwards (52 000 tons bare minimal)

Funny to think F6D would have been The Interceptor Solution for smaller carriers (Essex size)... something neither the Phantom, F-111B or Tomcat could do.

By the bay, a pity they didn't thought about that C-14 catapult, for those "new CVS". Could have solved the "air defense conundrum" "to Phantom or not - or nothing".

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Proposals under a Navy Bureau of Weapons competition for a subsonic missileer carrier-based aircraft, which probably will carry six Eagle air—to—air
interceptor missiles, are due Feb. 29. Bids probably will be submitted by at least eight companies, including Douglas, Chance Vought, Grumman, McDonnell, Boeing-Wichita, Bell, Convair and North American. Navy has not established detailed specifications, is leaving it to industry to propose the best solutions to the problems at hand. Limit of 50,000 lb. gross is generally applicable, and turboprop and fan-type turbojet powerplants are favored. Modified existing aircraft which may be considered include the Grumman A2F, whose rollout is scheduled for next spring, the Grumman W2F and the Douglas A3D.

AWST 4 Jan 1960

Navy’s missileer “slow-plane” system built around the Bendix Eagle long range air-to—air missile has been designated Airborne Weapon System 404, minus the airframe. Industry proposals for the missileer aircraft are due by Feb. 29

AWST 11 Jan 1960

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Navy has designated the Pratt & Whitney JTF10A-1 turbofan engine the TF—30. Navy will use the 8,250 lb. thrust engine as the powerplant for its subsonic Missileer aircraft to be used as a launching platform for the Navy—Bendix—Grumman Eagle air-to-air missile (AW Mar. 21, p. 23). Navy decision for a Missilecr airframe is expected before May 1.

AWST 4 April 1960

 

[hesham]

After amazing displaying by my dear PaulMM,

we can say about the competitors;

- Douglas F6D-1 D-766 & D-790
- Boeing Model 835
- Vought V-434
- Lockheed CL-438 & CL-520
- McDonnell M-153
- North American CL-4166
- Grumman G-123 & G-200 ?
- Northrop Missileer
- Bell D-?
- Convair ?

 

[apparition13]

Is there any information on why the F6D won? We have some information of the competitors, but I'm still unclear as to what the actual program requirements were, or why the F6D was judged to meet them the best.

I could have missed it somewhere in the thread, but I don't recall ever seeing the requirements other than 50,000 pounds, 6 eagle missiles, 'long' loiter time. I'm curious if there was an altitude requirement as well, since that would impact radar horizon and missile range.

 

[BlackBat242]

Nope. No F6D on Commencement Bay (AFAIK) too small and too slow.

What is really interesting is Friedman says that the F6D was considered a potential alternative to Phantom for the "new CVS" carriers (replacing the eponymous Essex CVS) so 52000 tons, average. The ones described by @Tzoli right here.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/scb-100-class-cvs.42298/

d) F6D was slow and light enough to use C-11 catapults
e) when those 24 Phantoms needed C-13s, and C-13s really pushed carrier size and cost upwards (52 000 tons bare minimal)

Funny... Midway (1957-66), FDR (1956-69), Coral Sea (1960-1990), and Forrestal & Saratoga (both waist cats their whole lives) all had C-11 catapults, and operated Phantoms perfectly well.

 

[Archibald]

Drats !

 

[hesham]

After amazing displaying by my dear PaulMM,

we can say about the competitors;

- Douglas F6D-1 D-766 & D-790
- Boeing Model 835
- Vought V-434
- Lockheed CL-438 & CL-520
- McDonnell M-153
- North American CL-4166
- Grumman G-123 & G-200 ?
- Northrop Missileer
- Bell D-?
- Convair ?

I think for Bell,they didn't use D-2xxx series ?.