North American Rockwell NA-335 fighter project (to USAF FX requirement)

[sferrin]

I'm surprised that the original poster/cameramonkey wasn't credited yet.

If I knew who it was I'd have put it. The pic has been on my hard drive for years as-is.

Funny, I had it too... We must have saved it from the same web page.

I'm almost certain it's here somewhere. That or maybe OBB posted it on his blog at some point.

 

[aim9xray]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9771.msg90148.html#msg90148

BTW, search does not seem to work for image names for those images uploaded to the site.

 

[Stargazer]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9771.msg90148.html#msg90148

BTW, search does not seem to work for image names for those images uploaded to the site.

Not only that, but a Google Images search using this image as a start doesn't even take you to that page.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Didn't this thing have even better avionics than the F-15?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9771.msg90148.html#msg90148

BTW, search does not seem to work for image names for those images uploaded to the site.

Not only that, but a Google Images search using this image as a start doesn't even take you to that page.

Because guests (like Google bot) cannot access images. This was a deliberate decision taken after people posted links directly to images on other forums etc, increasing bandwidth requirements.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

This is correct. The initial F-X avionics fit was better than the F-15 ended up with however because some stuff was removed to save cost e.g. the ATAR EO sight.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?

The F-15 project was possibly the first where the contractor was to deliver the entire weapon system including avionics whereas previously USAF tended to supply the radar and other weapons avionics as GFE. Of course USAF established the requirement for the avionics but it was up to the contractor to find a specific solution.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

This is correct. The initial F-X avionics fit was better than the F-15 ended up with however because some stuff was removed to save cost

So both would have ended up equally stripped down?

the ATAR EO sight.

I'm checking the web, I can't find anything that seems to tell me what this is...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Look up TISEO, it was a new version of that for the F-15:


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=18609.0

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F-15 project was possibly the first where the contractor was to deliver the entire weapon system including avionics whereas previously USAF tended to supply the radar and other weapons avionics as GFE. Of course USAF established the requirement for the avionics but it was up to the contractor to find a specific solution.

Why?

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Wow the American Su-27 before the Soviets even thought of it! As usual the DoD(don't know if it was the uniforms or the civvies who decided) picked the not as good one.

Any SACs on this NA-335?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

SACs are normally only generated when a design is selected to be built. It was supposed to meet the same requirements as the F-15, of course.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

SACs are normally only generated when a design is selected to be built. It was supposed to meet the same requirements as the F-15, of course.

Weren't there SACs on the McD Model 225 for the VFX competition? I'm looking right at them in hard copy.

For everyone else including Paul:http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.msg87116.html#msg87116

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That is taken directly from the Performance section of the McDonnell proposal for the VFX competition.

I don't know if every proposal included such - and I've never seen a copy of the NAR FX proposal to see if it included one.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

I don't know if every proposal included such - and I've never seen a copy of the NAR FX proposal to see if it included one.

Too bad. It would be interesting to see if it was better than the McD F-X.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, the final rankings placed it last behind McDonnell and Fairchild-Hiller. So the proposal had some deficiencies in the USAF's eyes.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Well, the final rankings placed it last behind McDonnell and Fairchild-Hiller. So the proposal had some deficiencies in the USAF's eyes.

Do you have original source data that you can post? Any original info on the proposals or the selection process would be great.

Back to your post, do we know with what "eyes"(we well know that technical reasons are not the only ones in many selection decisions) the USAF was seeing?

 

[sferrin]

Well, the final rankings placed it last behind McDonnell and Fairchild-Hiller. So the proposal had some deficiencies in the USAF's eyes.

Do you have original source data that you can post? Any original info on the proposals or the selection process would be great.

Back to your post, do we know with what "eyes"(we well know that technical reasons are not the only ones in many selection decisions) the USAF was seeing?

You will like this:

The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development by Jacob Neufeld

https://media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2001330012/-1/-1/0/AFD-120516-036.pdf

(page 57 of the PDF).

 

[Bruno Anthony]

You will like this:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2001330012/-1/-1/0/AFD-120516-036.pdf

(page 57 of the PDF).

Warm up that printer! Thank you Sferrin

 

[kcran567]

I'm surprised this one hasn't been posted yet.

Looks like a T-10/Mig-29 hybrid

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm surprised this one hasn't been posted yet.

Looks like a T-10/Mig-29 hybrid

But older than either of course.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Confirmation that Northrop teamed with North American Rockwell on FX and would have produced portions of the airframe at Hawthorne.

Two Firms Team In Bid for F-15

Los Angeles—Northrop Corp. will assist North American Rockwell as a team member in the latter’s attempt to win Air Force’s competition for the projected F-15 air superiority fighter. Northrop initially will provide special design teams to review the North American progress to date in USAF’s contract definition studies to determine how and where it design talents can best be used.

Should North American succeed in winning the program, Northrop would produce portions of the airframe at its facilities which are located in nearby Hawthorne. North American is seeking the USAF program in a three-way competition against McDonnell Douglas Corp. and Fairchild Hiller Corp.

AWST 3 March 1969

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Rockwell FX design critique by USAF, from Aviation Week Archive. Note that the FX proposals were complete including avionics that were different for each airframe.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm pretty sure the avionics fit was defined by the Air Force. Curious - have you seen something that spells out contractor defined equipment?

The F-15 project was possibly the first where the contractor was to deliver the entire weapon system including avionics whereas previously USAF tended to supply the radar and other weapons avionics as GFE. Of course USAF established the requirement for the avionics but it was up to the contractor to find a specific solution.

It appears that McDonnell-Douglas worked with Hughes, Rockwell with Raytheon and Fairchild with Westinghouse. In the end however FX radar contracts were issued in 1968 to Hughes and Westinghouse (10 bids were received) well before FX selection.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Seems this was never posted in full res?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Rockwell early blended configuration wind tunnel model. Many differences from the final design.

Source: Aviation Week Archive

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19691208/49/1

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Potential subcontractors in the FX air superiority fighter and advanced manned strategic aircraft (AMSA) programs are reluctant to supply technical data to North American Rockwell. They fear that proprietary information might be divulged in this way to competitive North American divisions. The airframe firm’s new aircraft efforts are headed by a company-wide advanced development organization staffed heavily from the Autonetics and Space divisions as well as the two traditional aircraft divisions in Los Angeles and Columbus. This has prompted concern that data may get into competitive hands. W. A. Davis, who heads the advanced development organization, recently cautioned North American personnel on the need to protect these data.

Aviation Week & Space Technology 16 Dec 1968

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I thought I'd posted this before, but apparently not. This patent for a radar blocker probably reflects the method that would have been proposed for the Rockwell FX.

US3509568A - Inlet attenuator assembly - Google Patents

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

from Aviation Week 20 May 1968

R. H. Kemp was in charge of Rockwell's FX design team.

NAR Team Seeks New Fighter Efforts

Los Angeles—North American Rockwell is concentrating into a single advanced development team a_ corporate-wide drive to win new military fighter aircraft programs.
The newly formed organization— headed by Harrison A. Storms, vice president for advanced program development in the company’s Aerospace and Systems Group—initially will pursue the Air Force’s projected FX air-superiority fighter and the Navy VFX interceptor. The team will handle all advanced fighter development work previously conducted by the Columbus and Los Angeles divisions and will enlist support from other divisions as well. Should the Columbus Div. win a contract definition study on the Navy’s VSX anti-submarine warfare aircraft, for which it recently submitted a proposal, the new team will participate in it.

Storms will be assisted by John W. Paup, formerly vice president for special projects at the Los Angeles Div. Storms and Paup originally headed North American’s Apollo program. More recently, Paup directed the successful incorporation of Wild Weasel electronic countermeasures equipment in the F-100., H. W. Powell, assistant to the aerospace group president for program operations, will direct the management staff of the aircraft group in support of the new fighter effort. Both Powell and Storms will report to W. A. Davis, vice president of the aircraft group.

R. H. Kemp, who headed fighter research and engineering at the Los Angeles Div., will manage the company’s effort on the FX project, while Frank G. Compton, previously general manager of the firm’s Ocean Systems Operations, will direct the VFX effort.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder if that front end is just notional or if it's something they looked at. It doesn't look much like their final FX design.

 

[hesham]

Hard to answer Scrutor,I can't judge well ?.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I doubt it. Even if the tail was exactly the same as the Rockwell project's model, that would most likely be because NASA recycled parts of the old model for a new test.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Confirmation that Northrop teamed with North American Rockwell on FX and would have produced portions of the airframe at Hawthorne.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19690303/10/1

Another reference

Northrop Corporation has joined with North American Rockwell in its bid for development and production of the F-15 (F-X) air superiority fighter...Northrop had earlier opted out of the FX competition on the grounds that it was unlikely to succeed in competition with larger corporations with a longer background of USAF fighter development. The agreement with North American Rockwell provides for Northrop to design and manufacture portions of the airframe if th bid is successful.

Flying Review International April 1969

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Source: https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/8/86/Meetings-Lectures.pdf

 

[blackkite]

Good find.

 

[hesham]

From Air Force magazine 1970,

and in advertisement,this was an American fighter,maybe for Northrop,
Rockwell or Lockheed,can anyone help in ID it ?,they never mentioned
any name of companies.

 

[starviking]

From Air Force magazine 1970,

and in advertisement,this was an American fighter,maybe for Northrop,
Rockwell or Lockheed,can anyone help in ID it ?,they never mentioned
any name of companies.

Looks like a North American Model from their FX studies. It can be seen on page 176 of the first edition of ASP: Fighters & Interceptors 1945-1978.

 

[hesham]

Yes my dear Starviking,

very close,but the air intakes are different ?.

 

[starviking]

Those could be lighting artifacts - as you can see in the first picture the engine nacelle upper surface in the background (port) looks more pronounced compared to the foreground (starboard) nacelle.

Also, the other pictures on p176 of ASP: Fighters & Interceptors shows the forward ends of the engine nacelles separated, canted outwards a little, with an extreme backwards slant, and either extending just ahead of the wing leading edge or at the edge.