AHC: More Successful A-5 Vigilante

Despite having an unusual linear bomb bay, the A-5 Vigilante had a long and successful career in the United States Navy as a reconnaissance aircraft. At one point the Australians even considered purchasing it as a replacement for their Canberra bombers, but instead opted to acquire the F-111. Later, an advanced variant was proposed to Aerospace Defense Command as a replacement for the F-106, with a third J79 engine being placed in the space formerly reserved for the linear bomb bay.

The aircraft clearly had a lot of potential even in its original configuration, as its long career shows. But what might have made the A-5 even more successful? Might something as simple as a more conventional internal bay have made the A-5 more successful and exportable?

The configuration of the weapons bay surely curtailed a large segment of its potential mission capability.

A5 had one mission only.

The A5 was built for one thing and one thing only. That was to put a nuclear device on target for the U.S. Navy part of the SIOP. It never was thought of as a conventional attack aircraft except as an after thought. They Navy needed their part of the SIOP pie and the AD1 and A6 just did not cut the mustard when it came to being a penetration plane.

Just Leo said:

The configuration of the weapons bay surely curtailed a large segment of its potential mission capability.

Click to expand...

This, I think. Very few potential customers would have had any use for an aircraft which can only carry weapons in this manner. Converting it to fuel tankage and hanging some hardpoints off the wings might have made it more attractive, but it's still going to lack versatility.

The A-5B introduced additional internal fuel in the hump, plus 2 more, total 4 hardpoints for fuel or bombs. It rarely required extra fuel, and never carried bombs Go figure. I recall that the Buccaneer was as fast as a dirty F4, when it was clean, but it only took 500 lb bombs internally. The Viggi was faster than the Phantom, clean, as RA-5C, but such would not be the case with external stores or tanks.

Apparently the navy looked at the a5 in the conventional attack role and decided that it offered little to no operational advantage over the a6 but cost a hell of a lot more per bomb dropped, so they didn't pursue development of conventional bombing capabilities.

Riain said:

Apparently the navy looked at the a5 in the conventional attack role and decided that it offered little to no operational advantage over the a6 but cost a hell of a lot more per bomb dropped, so they didn't pursue development of conventional bombing capabilities.

Click to expand...

I don't know how it could use the linear bay to carry conventional ordnance anyways. Everything comes out at the same time and the stores train probably significantly degrades accuracy.

Could it have been given a Buccaneer style rotary bomb bay?

Could it have been given a North American F-108 Rapier rotary weapons launcher?

The Oncoming Storm said:

Could it have been given a Buccaneer style rotary bomb bay?

Click to expand...

The A-5 had a longer fuselage, and the linear bomb bay occupied a lot of space, so I think it probably would have been possible. The internal bay on the Buccaneer is an interesting approach too.

Just Leo said:

Could it have been given a North American F-108 Rapier rotary weapons launcher?

Click to expand...

Judging from how large the linear bomb bay was compared to the rotary launcher on the F-108, and the fact that they were developed by the same company and had a generally similar layout, I think that probably would have been possible.

What kind of career might the Vigilante have had in USN service with a more conventional internal bay? Might it have been able to keep USN aircraft carriers in SIOP? Would the Vigilante have been a better platform for the AN/AWG-9 and AIM-47 Falcon/AIM-54 Phoenix missile system than the F-111B?

Delta Force said:

What kind of career might the Vigilante have had in USN service with a more conventional internal bay? Might it have been able to keep USN aircraft carriers in SIOP? Would the Vigilante have been a better platform for the AN/AWG-9 and AIM-47 Falcon/AIM-54 Phoenix missile system than the F-111B?

Click to expand...

I saw a Vigi take off once, and became smitten, so I'm totally biased. Apparently, nobody that mattered was similarly affected. There are some problems, such as the lack of a neater wing fold system, and the eventual limitation of the J-79 engines. So, while anything would be better than the F-111B, it would have required a bit of doodling, at the right time to fill such a specification.

It's a curious thing that the Vigi appears quite ungainly on the ground, while awesome in the sky. Perhaps all those big guys only saw it on the ground.

If the Vigilante was turned into a long range interceptor along the lines of the F111B, a job I believe it could do with some development, it would get cut to pieces under the RoE in Vietnam. Its sad to think that an aircraft can be considered a success or failure based on the beliefs of a politician rather than its performance and the like.

Also, if the Vigilante did become a long range interceptor rather than the F111 AND the RoE in Vietnam were relaxed over time to allow it to exploit the weapons system then the F14 would most probably not occur, which would be a worse result than OTL.

Riain said:

If the Vigilante was turned into a long range interceptor along the lines of the F111B, a job I believe it could do with some development, it would get cut to pieces under the RoE in Vietnam. Its sad to think that an aircraft can be considered a success or failure based on the beliefs of a politician rather than its performance and the like.

Also, if the Vigilante did become a long range interceptor rather than the F111 AND the RoE in Vietnam were relaxed over time to allow it to exploit the weapons system then the F14 would most probably not occur, which would be a worse result than OTL.

Click to expand...

I don't think it necessarily butterflies away the F-14, but it might cause a similar aircraft to come along later than historically, which would likely be a better aircraft than the F-14.

Delta Force said:

I don't think it necessarily butterflies away the F-14, but it might cause a similar aircraft to come along later than historically, which would likely be a better aircraft than the F-14.

Click to expand...

When it became apparent in the early 60s that the F111B would go ahead the Navy started the VFAX competition to replace the F4 and A7 in the escort/air superiority fighter and ground attack roles, working alongside the F111B in CVWs. The 1966 VFAX spec demanded it be able to beat the Mig 17 and Mig 19 in close combat, and the 1967 spec demanded later Soviet fighters, as well as undertaking the attack missions of the A7.

In parallel Grumman was working on the F 111B, trying to reduce weight, AND was contracted by the Navy to undertake studies of advanced fighters. In the event the VFAX proved to be a dud, not better than the F4 as a fighter or the A7 as an attack aircraft. In the process Grumman came up with design 303 and in 1967 reworked this design to include the AWG9-Phoenix system without ruining the ability to defeat the Migs in close combat.

As a result, bearing in mind the problems with F111B which was pushing it towards inexorable cancellation, the Navy was presented with the answer to both of its problems; a replacement for the failing F111B and a replacement for the F4 in the escort/air superiority role. The F111B was cancelled in July 1968 and a month later the Navy issued the VFX requirement written around Grumman design 303. 6 manufacturers submitted proposals but Grumman's 6th refinement of 303 won the competition.

I would think that until 1967-8, as the 303 evolved into the F14 and the F111B was plummeting toward cancellation the Navy planned to replace the A7A with the VFAX in the early/mid 70s. At about this time the USN gave the OK to re-navalise the Spey powered USAF A7D into the A7E, giving the A7 a new lease on life and providing the improved light attack aircraft that the VFAX re-write into the VFX now made necessary.

HOWEVER

If in 1962 the Navy wriggled out of the F111B and into the Vigilante then the impetus to squeeze the AWG9/Phoenix into the Grumman model 303 doesn't exist and the USN soldiers on with the unsatisfactory VFAX competition which isn't much better than the F4/A7 that it was supposed to replace. In contrast the F14 is obviously better than the F4 and F111B and although we can't know for sure almost certainly the F5 Vigilante-interceptor.

Just Leo said:

I recall that the Buccaneer was as fast as a dirty F4, when it was clean, but it only took 500 lb bombs internally.

Click to expand...

That seems somewhat odd since they were meant to be able to carry WE.177 nuclear bombs which, for the B and C models at least, were IIRC apparently rather heavier and larger than the conventional 500 lb bombs. But as I said this is from memory so I could well be mistaken.

The Buccaneer took 4 of the British 1000lb MC bombs internally.

Simon said:

That seems somewhat odd since they were meant to be able to carry WE.177 nuclear bombs which, for the B and C models at least, were IIRC apparently rather heavier and larger than the conventional 500 lb bombs. But as I said this is from memory so I could well be mistaken.

Click to expand...

The WE.177A was smaller than the WE.177B, but it came into service later because workers were needed for development of the Polaris and strategic gravity bomb designs. Perhaps the WE.177A turned out to be larger than anticipated when it finally entered service, so only 500 pound bombs could be carried? In terms of weight, it was around 600 pounds, so dimensions must have been the issue.

Riain said:

The Buccaneer took 4 of the British 1000lb MC bombs internally.

Click to expand...

Could it carry the WE.177 internally?

It looks as if it could.