WI different A5 Vigilante?

The Vigilante copped it in the switch from carrier bombers to SLBMs, being a 1 trick pony with the backward ejecting nuclear bomb tunnel. But WI instead of being shunted into recon it was developed into a conventional strike aircraft? It had 4 wing pylons, presumably these could be loaded with bombs, and perhaps something could be done with the fuselage since a camera fairing was added to recon conversions.

Would having the Vigilante bombing in Vietnam have made much difference to loss rates and the sort of missions that the navy could tackle?

Riain said:

The Vigilante copped it in the switch from carrier bombers to SLBMs, being a 1 trick pony with the backward ejecting nuclear bomb tunnel. But WI instead of being shunted into recon it was developed into a conventional strike aircraft? It had 4 wing pylons, presumably these could be loaded with bombs, and perhaps something could be done with the fuselage since a camera fairing was added to recon conversions.

Click to expand...

Yeah. You could.
Although the F-4 actually could carry more in the way of munitions, some 8000kg versus the A-5's maximum of about 7000kg over loaded weight. The A-5's also slower, if much longer ranged with a full fuel load.

So you could do something with it, but at the same time, the F-4 wasn't as temperamental and showed more promise. Plus, with mid-air refueling from KA-3s and KA-6s making up for the difference in range, the A-5 wasn't really that spectacular.

I wouldn't compare it to the F4 but with the A6 instead. It's the big fuel capacity that makes it interesting, it would have long range, high performance and presumably a heavy bomb load.

Riain said:

I wouldn't compare it to the F4 but with the A6 instead. It's the big fuel capacity that makes it interesting, it would have long range, high performance and presumably a heavy bomb load.

Click to expand...

7000kg over a 2000km combat radius isn't that impressive. Especially since that probably drops below 1000km if the thing isn't in a clean configuration and goes supersonic at any point.

By the time the A5 could have considered as a strike aircraft, heavy F105 losses had alredy shown that it was not about flying fast and low, it was about flying very low and manouvering a lot while at it. The A5 would add very little to the F105 low level capabilities. What was needed was a Buccaneer

I remain one of the Vigi's biggest fans. Everything revolves around the one-trick bomb bay morphing into something more amenable to alternative munitions, such that would provide a ship-board attack aircraft with F-111 capabilities. The Vigi's low-level gust response characteristics combined with high-lift devices which folded into the wing, rather than employing wing variable sweep with it's weight, strength and complexity penalties, meant that it was a shoe-in for a supersonic long-range all-weather strike and interdiction role.

Okay, it wasn't perfect, even so. It was subject to the smoky J-79's engine warts, and the avionics, being state-of-the-art, bit hard on the maintenance bullet. The wing fold point left much to be desired for easing the major problem of ship-board storage, cutting seriously into deployable numbers. But that's all.

As one of the prettiest airplanes of all times, and being configurationally efficacious, apart from the tube up the butt, it deserved a better break.

I don't know enough about the Vigi to know if the bomb tunnel could be could be converted into something more conventional, or if there was too much structural 'stuff' in the way. But the beast strikes me as having the range and bomb load of an A6 (which was a maintenance nightmare) and the kinetic performance approaching the F4 (which also was high maintenance).

Riain said:

I don't know enough about the Vigi to know if the bomb tunnel could be could be converted into something more conventional, or if there was too much structural 'stuff' in the way. But the beast strikes me as having the range and bomb load of an A6 (which was a maintenance nightmare) and the kinetic performance approaching the F4 (which also was high maintenance).

Click to expand...

The tunnel was integral and structural. A "good" Vigi would have to have been designed with a conventional bay, like the Thud. Crappy thing is, it didn't work all that well with nuclear munitions, but fuel cells were designed to fit in just fine. Crazed cut-and-pasters such as myself have no difficulty adapting anything, but the reality is a bit more harsh. Does anyone recall that the Vigi set an altitude record?

Designing the A-5 with a conventional bomb bay would be a strong start, and the use of a better wing folding system would also be a huge benefit. A conventional bomb bay and six outside hardpoints (three on each wing) would make the A-5 pretty much a faster variant of the A-6, or perhaps even a naval F-111.

Alternate markings for Vigilante? RAF looked at it in comparison to TSR2. The Australians looked at it in comparison with Mirage IV, TSR2, Buccaneer and TFX (aka F111).

Apparently they (RAAF) preferred the A5 but the politicians overruled and they went for F111.

I think it's strange that the Vigi was a 1 trick pony with no conventional role, it's predecessor the A3 carried a decent conventional bombload and used it in the early days of Vietnam. A more conventional bomb bay and wing pylons from the start could have made all the difference. However apparently once the decision was made to go with Polaris a bunch of other stuff happened, least of which was the re-roling of the heavy attack squadrons into tanker/ELINT for the A3 and Recon for the A5 because the A6 was more cost effective for conventional bombing than the OTL A5.

And the A-6, unlike the Vigilante, was designed from the start for both conventional and nuclear delivery. The Vigi did turn out to be the best recon platform the Navy ever had-even today, with the SHARP pod hung on Super Hornets, the Navy still hasn't regained all of the capabilities lost when the Vigilantes were retired.

Found this off an aviation forum a few years ago, someone's idea for an enhanced Vigilante!

That enhanced Vigilante is courtesy of Mr Sentinel Chicken out of Texas, a mighty fine model builder!

That is quite a thing of beauty and you can see why the RAF looked at it. Mind you since they got rid of Park and Dowding have they been that good at making the correct decisions? Ie should've saved a packet and got the Buccaneer from the start for TSR2.

Matt Wiser said:

And the A-6, unlike the Vigilante, was designed from the start for both conventional and nuclear delivery. The Vigi did turn out to be the best recon platform the Navy ever had-even today, with the SHARP pod hung on Super Hornets, the Navy still hasn't regained all of the capabilities lost when the Vigilantes were retired.

Click to expand...

I think that the A6 was designed as a conventional strike aircraft which meant that it could carry nukes as well. This was the opposite design motive to the A5 which was designed to be a fancy-pants nuclear strike aircraft, in the same vein as the B58 Hustler, for SIOP missions at the expense of everything else. I think it's this specialisation that killed it, despite the general design being more than sound for what the USN could have used it for if it was a touch less specialised.

Interestingly the predecessors to the B58 and A5 (the B52 and A3) had long service lives and conducted combat bombing missions.