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

[Pioneer]

Fleet Air Defence Aircraft (FAD)

Although this once banished to history project, has continued to resurrect itself from time to time, I thought I would flog this horse one more time. With the hope that I can get the information I so desperately sorted for many years.

The 1957 US Navy submitted a Request for Proposal (RfP) for a Fleet Air Defence (FAD) aircraft.

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?
Does anyone know of these other designs?
Who they were they submitted by?
Do you have any artwork, drawings and specifications for these other five submissions??.

Does anyone have a 3-view drawing of the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer?
I have been looking for a 3-view drawing of the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer for years.
The only picture I have and have ever been able to find of the F6D-1 is a very boring one, that everyone uses (as per attachment)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TinWing]

Does anyone have a 3-view drawing of the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer?

Here is a (supposedly) Douglas sourced drawing.

 

[Orionblamblam]

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."

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks Guys

These are great

But as you said Orionblamblam 'what was Boeing thinking'?

Keep them coming!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

I think it's a pretty safe bet we all know which of those Boeing designs fall under the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" category.......

 

[elmayerle]

To the best of my knowledge, Grumman looked at three basic design approaches for this one.

1) Supersonic - Basically a variation on their XF12F proposal
2) High-Subsonic - Using the basic Intruder airframe as a starting point.
3) Low-Subsonic - Using a derivative of the S2F or W2F airframe.

I don't currently have any drawings of these.

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

A fleet air defense Stoof? I'm sure some in Grumman nixed that one just on principle alone!

 

[Pioneer]

Hay Orionblamblam

The 3-view drawing of the Boeing Model 835-6 looks as if it has the designs specifications / technical data, to the right of the drawing. Are you able to please post a copy of those on this forum, as I would like to see the designs specs when compared to the Douglas F6D-1's

Regards
Pioneer

 

[elmayerle]

I think it's a pretty safe bet we all know which of those Boeing designs fall under the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" category.......

Actually, I'd be tempted to call it "What were they smoking?", 'cept the funny stuff wasn't that available back then, as far as I know.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Enjoy.

 

[frank]

I think Lockheed offered a version of the Neptune.

 

[Tophe]

Thanks a lot Orion for the Boeing 835-12, a twin-fuselage to add to my collection... :-*

 

[flateric]

Another F6D-1 3-view from Steve Ginter's Naval Fighters series No.4 'F3D Skyknight'

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

I've seen but do not have archived images and drawings of the Douglas F6D Missileer. I do have drawings for Vought's proposal which I've attached below. Who else had proposals? Seeing as the hardware from this program evolved into the F-14, there's some importance to the program though I doubt anyone at the time could have imagined the end result being the F-14!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[elmayerle]

Reminds me of my thought that a variant of the two-seat A-10, with a large AAW radar in place of the GAU-8, would make a good stand-off interceptor missile platform.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Merged with existing topic.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Thanks Overscan - missed that in my search.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[TinWing]

Greetings All -

I've seen but do not have archived images and drawings of the Douglas F6D Missileer. I do have drawings for Vought's proposal which I've attached below. Who else had proposals? Seeing as the hardware from this program evolved into the F-14, there's some importance to the program though I doubt anyone at the time could have imagined the end result being the F-14!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Thanks for an incredible contribution.

I can only assume that the aft podded turbofans are TF-30s, but this very flexible configuration would have lended itself to true high bypass turbofans, such as the later TF-34 that powered the eventual S-3 Viking.

From the standpoint of the late 1950s, the Missileer concept didn't seem quite so radical. Keep in mind that the "night fighter" concept was still entirely current. Only a few years before the low performance Douglas Skynight had be entirely successful against the MiG-15 over the skies of Korea!

Concentrating on avionics development while taking advantage of the loiter time afforded by the newly developed turbofan actually made quite a bit of sense. The airframe itself was a risk free proposition - in contrast to the very high risk, and expensive avionics suite.

It is fair to say that the final F-14 benefited from the fact that its radar and long range missiles had started development in the late 1950s. Similarly, the F-14's variable geometry airframe benefited from all of the lessons learned from the failed F-111B. The F-14 was beneficiary of previous cancellations, which seems like a very odd thing indeed - until you realize that the cancellations in question had never been as absolute or destructive as the cancellation that had occured in the United Kingdom in the same era. The Pentagon killed Missileer and F-111B for good and sufficient reasons, not for misguided notions of economy.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Was the P&W TF30 first proposed for the F6D Program? Seeing as it did not appear until the F-111, it seems a wee bit early to me though a quick google says otherwise. Just wondering....


Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[elmayerle]

Yep, the TF30 did originate with the F6D and, if you look at the specs, it's obviously intended as a subsonic engine with a higher bypass ratio than most first generation supersonci turbofans (heck, the JT8D/RM8 has a lower, and more suitable for afterburning, bypass ratio, at least in the early JT8D variants). Almost certainly there was component development work going on between the end of the F6D and the start of the TFX, but the bypass ratio didn't change and, IMHO, probably should have.

 

[Pioneer]

Great find with the Vought V-434 design!

I was corresponding with the Vought archives a couple of years ago, and it is interesting as when I enquired to Vought’s Missileer design submission, they said that Vought did not submit a design to this competition!
Hence again well done on this find!
I must say that I am very surprised to see that Vought submitted a ‘low-wing’ design configuration. But then it was probably due to ease of loading those large and heavy Eagle missiles

Regards
Pioneer

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is a slow interceptor designed by Mr. Heinemann from Douglas company,
can anyone identifiy it? please.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202631.html

 

[Petrus]

I am not sure, but the F6D Missileer has just came to my mind.

Piotr

 

[Antonio]

I am not sure, but the F6D Missileer has just came to my mind.

It seems to be armed with Eagle AAM's so it could be a Missileer design

 

[frank]

Not the F6D, it had straight wings. Maybe a relative, tho. Makes me think of the swept wing proposal for the F3D.

I am not sure, but the F6D Missileer has just came to my mind.

Piotr

 

[LowObservable]

I'd guess that it's a concept for a USAF equivalent of the Missileer.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

is there any hint to this aircraft in US Secret Project Fighters book ?.

 

[avatar]

it seems to have only four underwing pylons, a tad too low for a missileer or am i missing something?
multiple racks?

on second thoughts this might have been an early concept that carried few ultra long range missiles to knock out enemy support aircraft or inter-continental bombers. so maybe a missileer.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

I think Lockheed offered a version of the Neptune.

The Lockheed CL-520 aircraft was based on the P-3.

Jon

 

[frank]

That's all well & good, but they also proposed a version of the P-2.

I think Lockheed offered a version of the Neptune.

The Lockheed CL-520 aircraft was based on the P-3.

Jon

 

[Rickshaw]

Out of a matter of interest, did any of the proposals have a large, rear-mounted radar scanner, allowing the firing aircraft to basically to turn-away after launch and still maintain radar contact? It would have allowed them to engage at what were essentially much greater ranges (as the launching aircraft retreated in front of the advancing target). I've often wondered if the Su-27 wasn't designed with this idea, with its very large "stinger" which I understand houses fuel, rather than a radar aerial but which would be beautifully set up to do this without much modification IMO.

 

[frank]

I still haven't found the drawing, but the P-2 Missileer was CL-438.

I think Lockheed offered a version of the Neptune.

The Lockheed CL-520 aircraft was based on the P-3.

Jon

 

[Orionblamblam]

I still haven't found the drawing, but the P-2 Missileer was CL-438.

 

[frank]

Thanks, but maybe I misread a line in the listing. It didn't say it was also a TP! I'll look again tonight. Do you have other Neptune variant drawings as well?

I still haven't found the drawing, but the P-2 Missileer was CL-438.

 

[F-14D]

Greetings All -

I've seen but do not have archived images and drawings of the Douglas F6D Missileer. I do have drawings for Vought's proposal which I've attached below. Who else had proposals? Seeing as the hardware from this program evolved into the F-14, there's some importance to the program though I doubt anyone at the time could have imagined the end result being the F-14!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Thanks for an incredible contribution.

I can only assume that the aft podded turbofans are TF-30s, but this very flexible configuration would have lended itself to true high bypass turbofans, such as the later TF-34 that powered the eventual S-3 Viking.

From the standpoint of the late 1950s, the Missileer concept didn't seem quite so radical. Keep in mind that the "night fighter" concept was still entirely current. Only a few years before the low performance Douglas Skynight had be entirely successful against the MiG-15 over the skies of Korea!

Concentrating on avionics development while taking advantage of the loiter time afforded by the newly developed turbofan actually made quite a bit of sense. The airframe itself was a risk free proposition - in contrast to the very high risk, and expensive avionics suite.

It is fair to say that the final F-14 benefited from the fact that its radar and long range missiles had started development in the late 1950s. Similarly, the F-14's variable geometry airframe benefited from all of the lessons learned from the failed F-111B. The F-14 was beneficiary of previous cancellations, which seems like a very odd thing indeed - until you realize that the cancellations in question had never been as absolute or destructive as the cancellation that had occured in the United Kingdom in the same era. The Pentagon killed Missileer and F-111B for good and sufficient reasons, not for misguided notions of economy.

What of the things that made the concept acceptable in the late '50s was that at that time the Navy had a lot of carriers. It's function would be to operate from any of the Navy's many carriers, even the small ones, loiter for a long time with its enormous radar, throw long range missiles at hordes of incoming bombers and then hope nobody came after them because an F6D would not survive an encounter with almost anything. It would have to have been protected by other Navy fighters if that happened, notably the F-4, if any were around. When it became apparent that the Navy's Cornucopia o' Carriers wouldn't continue, the concept of such a single purpose aircraft was no longer viable so it was canceled. Plus, other developments going on in the Air Force promised the capability in simpler, more versatile ways (after going through the agony of what would become the F-111B).

The TF30 did originally start with the F6D, and lousy as it was, in its defense it should be remembered that one of the reasons it did so badly on the F-111 and the F-14 (for which it was never intended to be the production engine) was their profiles (low altitude, supersonic, rapid power changes, divergent airflows, afterburner, etc.) were totally different from that for which it was designed. Of course, it also sucked on the non-afterburning subsonic A-7, so that can't be too much of a defense.

The F-111B was not killed by the Pentagon. It was killed by Congress. McNamara's Department of Defense had too much ego tied up with the aircraft and would have continued it forever.

F-14 did benefit from earlier programs. The F-111B disaster showed then how not to do VGW, especially as regards locating the pivot points. The (supposed to be interim) TF30s came to the Tomcat from the F6D via the F-111B, while its AWG-9/AIM-54 combination arguably started with the F-108, midwifed by the YF-12.

 

[Stargazer]

I would like to ask a question regarding the F6D Missileer project.

Aerospace Review quotes the designation D-790 for the program, while other sources give D-766...

Were there two successive proposals for the same specification? Was D-766 a forerunner of D-790? Any help on this question would be most welcome!

 

[Pioneer]

Out of a matter of interest, did any of the proposals have a large, rear-mounted radar scanner, allowing the firing aircraft to basically to turn-away after launch and still maintain radar contact? It would have allowed them to engage at what were essentially much greater ranges (as the launching aircraft retreated in front of the advancing target). I've often wondered if the Su-27 wasn't designed with this idea, with its very large "stinger" which I understand houses fuel, rather than a radar aerial but which would be beautifully set up to do this without much modification IMO.

Would have made for a intersting and practical system, which would have gone some way to hushing speed concerns of some!
Then again I have been a supporter of such a system on 1960-70's fighter designs who's primary weapon system was the semi-active Aim-7 Sparrow - Nothing wrong with shoot and scoot!!


Regards
Pioneer

 

[circle-5]

While most 3-view drawings show only six AAM-N10 missiles, the Douglas D-766 (F6D) was, in fact, designed to carry eight Eagles, as shown on these two photographs of a Douglas factory proposal model. The red lettering on the base reads "Classified", but don't worry -- I'm sure it's OK to look at these pictures anyway.

 

[AeroFranz]

The red lettering on the base reads "Classified", but don't worry -- I'm sure it's OK to look at these pictures anyway.

[sound of blackhawk helicopters and shattering glass] ;D ;D ;D

 

[Pioneer]

I think Lockheed offered a version of the Neptune.

The Lockheed CL-520 aircraft was based on the P-3.

Jon

Sorry Jon, but I'm quite shore that this CL-520 proposal was much later than the Missileer program!
Just as the USAF Air Defence Command looked at a similar arrangement littoral interceptor utilizing a Boeing C-137 Stratotanker design as its basis, equipped with powerful search and fire control radars and armed a battery of either Eagle or Phoenix AAM's - From memory it was called Project Aries????

Regards
Pioneer