Interesting. It's clear from the color schemes and weapons that we are talking early 70s or late 60s and yet the emphasis on the gun and the European style architecture is suggestive of a post SEA mindset.
Separate engine pods with short lip:fan relief and very wide mouths with no boundary separation will be problematic for rough field ops or those which require high AOA operations under assymetric (high yaw snapshot gun pointing and evasive jinks) loaded sliprate turns. Podding should enable fast servicing/changes though.
At the same time, the large, double slotted flap and the engines being very near a forward CG placement suggests a flat approach angle and coanda blown lift surfaces to provide maximum STOL characteristics.
Having jets that far forward will also mess with outwar/downward vision in the orbit turn and the scabbed, KCA (Jaktviggen) style gun pod is not going to be very conducive to NLG FOD castings.
In general, large fan engines (these are TF34s) will have slow spool up and lower direct thrust than a turbojet in the same range with the latter also getting by with smaller inlets. Given the CAS mission is seldom one of more than 120-150nm radius separation from the supported troops, it is a wonder to me that the TF34 was in fact chosen at all.
A unique looking airframe and one which highlights the degree of change on the way to the final A/X configured YA-9 which was far more conventional with it's cruciform centered wings and fuselage mounted engines.
The one thing which isn't readily apparent here is the dual rudder assembly which enables direct sideforce control on the later flying prototypes.
Had anyone /asked/ the acting CAS exponents with time in the business (including the British with the Jaguar and Harrier); both the YA-9 and 10 would have dropped the heavy gun and gone to Pave Spike or similar (turreted) targeting for the period Hornet (neh Hellfire), all under the control of a second crewman.
Standoff on long slants is really critical to the low-slow CAS environment and at the time period Maverick (A and later B) was utterly incompatible with the operating conditions of both Vietnam and NATO where the total daylight hours when a reliable seeker lock could be achieved beyond a 4,000ft gun slant was perhaps 20-40 minutes around noon, each day. Hornet was tested with both TV, IR (not IIR) and SALH modes and would have allowed perhaps as many as 16 Hellfire shots using the 4 round rail quad.
Gun bunts enable shoulder fired return shots and SA-7 Grail had already made large portions of the HCMT unapproachable to slow, high flying, aircraft, day or night.
Those gaping mouth on the wings.. FOD magnet ?
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It's clear from the color schemes and weapons that we are talking early 70s or late 60s and yet the emphasis on the gun and the European style architecture is suggestive of a post SEA mindset.
ReplyDeleteSeparate engine pods with short lip:fan relief and very wide mouths with no boundary separation will be problematic for rough field ops or those which require high AOA operations under assymetric (high yaw snapshot gun pointing and evasive jinks) loaded sliprate turns. Podding should enable fast servicing/changes though.
At the same time, the large, double slotted flap and the engines being very near a forward CG placement suggests a flat approach angle and coanda blown lift surfaces to provide maximum STOL characteristics.
Having jets that far forward will also mess with outwar/downward vision in the orbit turn and the scabbed, KCA (Jaktviggen) style gun pod is not going to be very conducive to NLG FOD castings.
In general, large fan engines (these are TF34s) will have slow spool up and lower direct thrust than a turbojet in the same range with the latter also getting by with smaller inlets. Given the CAS mission is seldom one of more than 120-150nm radius separation from the supported troops, it is a wonder to me that the TF34 was in fact chosen at all.
A unique looking airframe and one which highlights the degree of change on the way to the final A/X configured YA-9 which was far more conventional with it's cruciform centered wings and fuselage mounted engines.
The one thing which isn't readily apparent here is the dual rudder assembly which enables direct sideforce control on the later flying prototypes.
Had anyone /asked/ the acting CAS exponents with time in the business (including the British with the Jaguar and Harrier); both the YA-9 and 10 would have dropped the heavy gun and gone to Pave Spike or similar (turreted) targeting for the period Hornet (neh Hellfire), all under the control of a second crewman.
Standoff on long slants is really critical to the low-slow CAS environment and at the time period Maverick (A and later B) was utterly incompatible with the operating conditions of both Vietnam and NATO where the total daylight hours when a reliable seeker lock could be achieved beyond a 4,000ft gun slant was perhaps 20-40 minutes around noon, each day. Hornet was tested with both TV, IR (not IIR) and SALH modes and would have allowed perhaps as many as 16 Hellfire shots using the 4 round rail quad.
Gun bunts enable shoulder fired return shots and SA-7 Grail had already made large portions of the HCMT unapproachable to slow, high flying, aircraft, day or night.
I thought the Hellfire was incompatible with fast movers?
DeleteNow if this doesn't look like the father of the SU25, ill kiss your rosy red ass.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that looks like the father of the SU-25 google some real pictures....
Delete