Douglas F6D Missileer
This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2016) |
F6D Missileer | |
---|---|
Artist's conception of the F6D-1 Missileer in flight | |
Role | Fleet defense fighter
|
Manufacturer | Douglas Aircraft Company |
Status | Canceled |
Primary user | United States Navy (intended) |
Number built | 0 |
The Douglas F6D Missileer was a proposed
Development
Background
Through the later part of the 1950s and into the 1960s, military air planners increasingly believed that future air combat would be carried out almost entirely by long-range missile fire. This changed the basic requirements for a fighter design considerably. The pilots would be expected to fight primarily through their radar and fire control systems, hopefully never even seeing their opponent. Because of this, the emphasis was on "head down" combat and an all-round view was considered unimportant. Radar systems were so complex that a pilot could not be expected to operate both the aircraft and the radar, so a second crewman, the "radar intercept officer", or "RIO", became a common fixture.[1]
In the case of the Navy, the primary threat to their air operations would be high-speed aircraft attacking their aircraft carriers, potentially with long-range anti-ship missiles that were assumed to have nuclear warheads.[1] Even if detected at long distances, these aircraft would be traveling so fast that the carrier-borne interceptors simply would not have enough time to launch and attack them before they had closed with the carriers. For instance, given a 100-mile (160 km) range on the shipboard radars, an aircraft traveling at Mach 2, about 1,400 mph (2,300 km/h), would close from initial detection to a five-mile (8 km) firing range in just over four minutes. In this time, an interceptor would have to launch, climb to altitude, maneuver into position, and fire.
One solution to this problem was to keep the interceptors in the air at all times. But given the short loiter times of high-performance aircraft like the
Missileer forms
In 1957, the Navy began the formal process of ordering what they referred to as a "fleet defense fighter".[2] They envisioned a large aircraft with loiter times on the order of six hours, supported by a dedicated radar aircraft providing early warning. In order to get the loiter times they wanted, the aircraft had to carry a large fuel load and was thus very large. The complex radar required dedicated operators, which resulted in a three-man crew. Additionally, they specified a side-by-side layout so both the pilot and co-pilot could concentrate on a single, centered radar display, avoiding duplication of equipment and helping reduce communications errors that could occur if they were looking at different screens. Since dogfighting was out of the question, the aircraft was strictly subsonic and did not require all-round visibility, suggesting a cockpit layout similar to the Grumman A-6 Intruder.[3]
The process formally started in December 1958 when Bendix was awarded a contract to develop the
At the same time,
To support the fighters, an improved early warning radar aircraft was needed, and Grumman won the contract with the
Finally, in July 1960,
Cancellation
In order for the F6D "system" to work, a large number of technologies had to work at the same time. Among these were the new engines, radar, missiles, and the supporting early warning aircraft. Development of the F6D itself was highly likely to be successful and low cost, but the system as a whole was very risky and expensive.
Throughout the program, others in the Navy questioned the entire concept. They argued that, once the Missileer had fired its missiles, it would be completely unable to defend itself, and would have to return to the carrier as quickly as possible to re-arm. During that time, its slow speed and lack of dogfighting ability would make it an easy target for any escorting forces in the strike package. These arguments eventually won out, and, when combined with a desire to cut military spending in pursuit of a balanced budget, led to the cancellation of the F6D in December 1961.[2]
However, the idea of a long-range interceptor was accepted even by those that did not support the F6D. Around this time, the Air Force had been studying its own interceptor needs and had made some progress on their North American XF-108 Rapier design, along with supporting radars and missiles. With the ending of the Missileer, the Navy turned to these projects to see if they could be adapted to their needs. Hughes had been working on the GAR-9 Falcon, a very large missile design similar to the Eagle in many ways. Hughes was also supplying the AN/ASG-18 radar system for the F-108, and while it was less advanced than the AN/APQ-81 and lacked track-while-scan, it had even greater range.
Although the F-108 was cancelled at about the same time as the Missileer,[2] the Air Force was interested in keeping the weapons and radar programs alive for their Lockheed F-12 interceptor project. Hughes proposed that the systems could be adapted for Navy use as well, offering a newer version of the Falcon as the AAM-N-11 Phoenix, and a modified version of the radar as the AN/AWG-9. The Navy was eventually forced to participate in the TFX joint-services program that resulted in the General Dynamics/Grumman F-111B, which would have used these systems.[10] When the F-111B ran into intractable problems in terms of aircraft performance as an air-to-air fighter and operational difficulties as a sea-based aircraft aboard aircraft carriers, the same systems were instead fitted to the F-14 Tomcat.
The Missileer's lasting contribution was not only its systems, but its engines. The TF30, with an afterburner, was used on both the F-111 and F-14, and turbofans are now commonplace in military jets. But while the TF30 was well-suited to the land-based fighter-bomber performance parameters of the F-111s and FB-111s operated by the U.S. Air Force and the
Design
The F6D-1 would have weighed approximately 50,000 pounds (23,000 kg). It would have been powered by two
Specifications (XF6D-1, as designed)
Data from The American Fighter [8]
General characteristics
- Crew: Three (pilot, co-pilot/radar operator, radar operator)
- Length: 53 ft (16 m)
- Wingspan: 70 ft (21 m)
- Height: 18 ft 1 in (5.5[14] m)
- Wing area: 630 sq ft (59 m2)
- Gross weight: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,216 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-2 turbofans, 10,200 lbf (45 kN) thrust each
Performance
- Maximum speed: 546 mph (879 km/h, 474 kn)
- Thrust/weight: 0.41
Armament
See also
Related development
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
Related lists
References
- Notes
- ^ a b Thomason 1998, pp. 3-5.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Simonson 2016, p. 108.
- ^ Davies 2013, p. 7.
- ^ a b Friedman 1982, p. 177.
- ^ Kennedy Stresses Step-up of Polaris., Missiles and Rockets, April 3, 1961, p.13.
- ^ a b c Parsch 2003
- ^ a b Lorell and Levaux 1998, p. 101.
- ^ a b Angelucci 1987, p. 95.
- ^ Kinzey 1983, p. 4.
- ^ Robinson 1979, p. 1056.
- ^ Vistica 1997, pp. 205–209.
- ^ Holder 2007, p. 87.
- ^ Williams and Gustin 2004, p. 103.
- ^ "Douglas F6D Missileer". Military Factory. Retrieved 14 January 2023.
- Bibliography
- Angelucci, Enzo (1987). The American Fighter. Sparkford, Somerset: Haynes Publishing Group. ISBN 0-85429-635-2.
- Davies, Peter E. (2013). General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark. Air Vanguard. Vol. 10. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78096-611-3.
- ISBN 978-0-87021-735-7.
- Holder, William G. (2007). Lost Fighters: A History of U.S. Jet Fighter Programs That Didn't Make It. Warrendale, PA: SAE International. ISBN 978-0-7680-1712-0.
- Kinzey, Bert (1982). F-14A & B Tomcat in detail & scale (2nd ed.). London: Arms & Armour Press. ISBN 978-0-8536-8511-1.
- Lorell, Mark A.; Hugh P. Levaux (2008). The Cutting Edge: A Half Century of U.S. Fighter Aircraft R&D. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. ISBN 978-0-8330-2607-1.
- Parsch, Andreas (6 January 2003). "Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, Appendix 1: Early Missiles and Drones. Designation-Systems. Retrieved 2017-12-21.
- Robinson, Anthony (1979). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aviation, Volume 9. London: Marshall Cavendish. ISBN 0-85685-318-6.
- Simonsen, Erik (2016). A Complete History of U.S. Combat Aircraft Fly-Off Competitions: Winners, Losers, and What Might Have Been. Forest Lake, MN: Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-227-4.
- Thomason, Tommy (1998). Grumman Navy F-111B Swing Wing. Naval Fighters. Vol. 41. Simi Valley, CA: Ginter Books. ISBN 978-0-9426-1241-7.
- Vistica, Gregory L. (1997). Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the US Navy. New York: Touchstone Books. ISBN 978-0-684-83226-5.
- Williams, Anthony G.; Emmanuel Gustin (2004). Flying Guns of the Modern Era. Marlborough, England: The Crowood Press. ISBN 978-1-8612-6655-2.