Viggie "Ass-Bomb"

[jmcquate]

From Wikipedia:

Given its original design as a carrier-based, supersonic, nuclear heavy attack aircraft, the Vigilante's main armament was carried in a novel "linear bomb bay" between the engines in the rear fuselage, which provided for positive separation of the bomb from the aircraft at supersonic speeds. The single nuclear weapon, commonly the Mk 28 bomb, was attached to two disposable fuel tanks in the cylindrical bay in an assembly known as the "stores train". A set of extendable fins was attached to the aft end of the most rearward fuel tank. These fuel tanks were to be emptied during the flight to the target and then jettisoned with the bomb by an explosive drogue gun. The stores train was propelled rearward at about 50 feet per second (30 knots) relative to the aircraft. It thereafter followed a typical ballistic path.[6]


A YA-5C prototype, 1963
In practice, the system was not reliable and no live weapons were ever carried in the linear bomb bay. In the RA-5C configuration, the bay was used solely for fuel. On three occasions, the shock of the catapult launch caused the fuel cans to eject onto the deck resulting in one aircraft loss.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ile:North_American_A-5A_internal_bomb_bay.PNG

Who knew?

 

[Gatordev]

A friend of the family flew Vigilantes for a small time and talked about the issues it had. A major problem was that once delivery was executed, the bomb would follow the jet up for a while (since it pooped it out the back), which greatly reduced accuracy...and was even more of an issue when the weapon may have been special.

 

[brownshoe]

She flew during my time. The Vigilante was a beautiful aircraft and the Navy did try to find her value for operations. I primarily remember how they used them to deice the flight deck with their low exhaust, some E in the cockpit. Yessirree... money well spent.

 

[nittany03]

She flew during my time. The Vigilante was a beautiful aircraft and the Navy did try to find her value for operations. I primarily remember how they used them to deice the flight deck with their low exhaust, some E in the cockpit. Yessirree... money well spent.

I'm now wondering not if a Prowler was ever used for that, but how many times.

 

[Lawman]

As to the stores train. It was a completely viable delivery method hampered by the technology of the time. Just like every other major mechanical/electrical evolution in aviation at the time the design was a sound path to go down, it just needed another 10-15 years of mechanical engineering to make it work right. Remember with the Vigi we were only 12 years removed from a Carb'd V12 piston engines and a 40 year old Machinegun design being the pinnacle of fighter design. Its interesting to look at aircraft development post Jet/Avionics Age. Its almost like design teams were working on a system only to come back in to work after a long weekend and find out the system they were working on (Im looking at you Mach 3 Bomber and Variable Geometry) was already out of date either due to another system of approach or some technology coming out and making it way less worthwhile.

Looking at some of the more creative methods to launch the Griffon family of missiles out of the back of C-130/C-27 type airplanes has pretty much demonstrated that the long running standard of a bomb bay isnt a necessary. Easier, absolutely, but not the only way to do things.

 

[Flash]

...Looking at some of the more creative methods to launch the Griffon family of missiles out of the back of C-130/C-27 type airplanes has pretty much demonstrated that the long running standard of a bomb bay isnt a necessary. Easier, absolutely, but not the only way to do things.

Reinventing and the wheel again I see, only before they did it with an ICBM.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I remember seeing a video of that C-5 launched ICBM. It put me in mind of The Hunt for Red October. "Could you launch an ICBM from a C-5?" "Sure. Why would you want to?"

I think at least part of the concept wasn't so much for ICBMs, but for alternative methods to launch low-orbit satellites, either to get costs down or launch into unconventional orbits. If you need to get a sat into a polar orbit, for example, there's only so many places you can launch from, and obviously a launch complex would be a vulnerable target in a Big War. The Pegasus does the same thing, but it's payload-limited.

 

[wink]

A Dept Head of mine flew Recce Viggies in Vietnam. I remember him always referring to his squadron as "heavy", setting it apart from "light attack" A-4s and A-7s. But of course his squadron was designated RVAH and he never dropped a bomb. I don't remember anyone giving his grief over it though. Viggies had the highest loss rate of any aircraft over Vietnam. He was happy to survive and a degree of respect came with it.

 

[jmcquate]

As to the stores train. It was a completely viable delivery method hampered by the technology of the time. Just like every other major mechanical/electrical evolution in aviation at the time the design was a sound path to go down, it just needed another 10-15 years of mechanical engineering to make it work right. Remember with the Vigi we were only 12 years removed from a Carb'd V12 piston engines and a 40 year old Machinegun design being the pinnacle of fighter design. Its interesting to look at aircraft development post Jet/Avionics Age. Its almost like design teams were working on a system only to come back in to work after a long weekend and find out the system they were working on (Im looking at you Mach 3 Bomber and Variable Geometry) was already out of date either due to another system of approach or some technology coming out and making it way less worthwhile.

Looking at some of the more creative methods to launch the Griffon family of missiles out of the back of C-130/C-27 type airplanes has pretty much demonstrated that the long running standard of a bomb bay isnt a necessary. Easier, absolutely, but not the only way to do things.

Are you referring to the XB-70 and TFX?

 

[Renegade One]

Viggies had the highest loss rate of any aircraft over Vietnam.

I dunno…could be true, based on the relatively low numbers…but do you have a source? Many other aircraft come to mind….A-4s, F-105s, A-1s, Hueys, you get the idea. Again, it may be a "rate" function…numbers lost over numbers deployed? I dunno…
They surely did good work in the recce role…

 

[jmcquate]

I dunno…could be true, based on the relatively low numbers…but do you have a source? Many other aircraft come to mind….A-4s, F-105s, A-1s, Hueys, you get the idea. Again, it may be a "rate" function…numbers lost over numbers deployed? I dunno…
They surely did good work in the recce role…

Agree. May be by percentage deployed, but there were a lot more F-4s lost in combat in SEA due to there were so many F-4s flying combat missions in SEA.

 

[Flash]

I dunno…could be true, based on the relatively low numbers…but do you have a source? Many other aircraft come to mind….A-4s, F-105s, A-1s, Hueys, you get the idea. Again, it may be a "rate" function…numbers lost over numbers deployed? I dunno…
They surely did good work in the recce role…

Here is one source that says it dieectly and from Wikipedia page on the losses suffered by all aircraft in Vietnam it is plausible given how few Viggies deployed.

 

[Lawman]

Are you referring to the XB-70 and TFX?

Pretty much prime examples of a design concept being outrun by the march of technology (especially XB-70). ICBM and Cruise Missile go from drawing board to viable and suddenly Valkyrie makes no sense. F-108 (and later YF-12) would be another great example of "hey guys its cool but you should read a newspaper... theres this new thing called Sputnik."

Though its funny that now Hypersonic is being toted as the new survivability model to go for once somebody completely cracks the egg on stealth defeat.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Though its funny that now Hypersonic is being toted as the new survivability model to go for once somebody completely cracks the egg on stealth defeat.

Oh, no, that'll never happen...

I read Command and Control not too long ago. The author did a very good job of putting most of the bombers-vs-ICBM, faster-higher-lower-invisible-er strategic weps delivery thinking in context and perspective. Plus some really hair-raising shit on how long it took SAC to adopt the idea of multiple safeties on their nukes, and how many accidents and accidental detonation close calls there were over the years.

 

[wink]

Agree. May be by percentage deployed, but there were a lot more F-4s lost in combat in SEA due to there were so many F-4s flying combat missions in SEA.

I did specify RATE. Of course it had to do with the relative small numbers deployed versus the hazard of the mission. The claim of highest loss rate comes from the Viggie Association web site, the book Vigilantes in Combat, my former DH, and naturally, Wikipedia. The raw data provided by Flash suggests the claim is likely true.