What's new

Top 10 Frigates

North American continued refining the design through 1960 in hopes that the program might be revived. Despite the extra money and time spent on the Rapier, it was not wholly in vain; the North American A-5 Vigilante supersonic reconnaissance bomber developed for the U.S. Navy retained the fuselage/weapon package and systems design of the Rapier. In many ways the Vigilante could be seen as the successful application of the Rapier design principles in a Mach 2 supersonic design.

The Rapier came first. Many of its design elements, including its fuselage are found in the A-5.

The info's from the same F-108 Wiki article you posted.
Not according to the timeline.

Besides:
The work on the Rapier did not entirely go to waste. The work that Hughes did on the AN/ASG-18 radar was later transferred over to the Lockheed YF-12A interceptor project, and the GAR-9 Falcon (redesignated AIM-47A in 1962) missile originally developed for the F-108A was used to arm the YF-12A.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f108.html

Eventhough it uses weapon and radar, that doesn't make the YF-12A offspring of the F-108.

Both the twin-engine F-108 and six-engine XB-70 featured variable inlets with unique configurations. A variable intake arrangement similar to the F-108’s would later appear on the Navy’s RA-5C Vigilante, capable of Mach 2. The MiG-25 Foxbat—developed by the Soviets to counter the B-70—used a similar intake configuration
...
The advanced Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar/fire-control system, GAR-9/AIM-47 Falcon nuclear/conventional missile technology, and the infrared search and track system meant for the F-108 migrated to the forthcoming Lockheed YF-12 program.
That's all the A-5 mentioned in "F-108" by Erik Simonsen in Air FOrce Magazine / Spetember 2014
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine Documents/2014/September 2014/0914rapier.pdf

The first RA-5Cs were delivered in 1963.

Vigilante
ava5_1.jpg


Rapier mock up
north-american-xf108-rapier-interceptor-prototype.jpg
 
.
Did those pics include folded wings? Nose and tail cone can also fold.

1420323d1443366236t-sukhoi-su-27-flanker-russias-eagle-killer-su33_fold_wings.jpg


1420324d1443366236-sukhoi-su-27-flanker-russias-eagle-killer-su33.3.jpg


http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...khoi-su-27-flanker-russias-eagle-killer.html1

FKxsvB3.jpg



1255233396_pwFnh5z-L.jpg


With deckedge elevators, though, it is not a problem if the aircraft sticks out over the outside elevator edge a bit, as seen here: http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.nl/2013/09/chinese-j-15-flying-shark-naval-fighter.html
Chinese+J-15+Flying+Shark+Carrier+Borne+Naval+Fighter+Jet+which+can+carry+SD-10A+PL-12+BVRAAM+along+with+YJ-83C-803+Anti-Ship+Missiles+export+pakistan+sold+operational+%283%29.jpg


Likewise Kuz.


Mig-29 v Su-27
The North American XF-108 Rapier was a proposed long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft designed by North American Aviation intended to defend the United States from supersonic Soviet strategic bombers. The aircraft would have cruised at speeds around Mach 3 (2,013 mph; 3,240 km/h) with an unrefueled combat radius over 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi), and was equipped with radar and missiles offering engagement ranges up to 100 miles (160 km) against bomber-sized targets.
To limit development costs, the program shared engine development with the North American XB-70 Valkyrie strategic bomber program, and used a number of elements of earlier interceptor projects. The program had progressed only as far as the construction of a single wooden mockup when it was cancelled in 1959, due to a shortage of funds and the Soviets' adoption of ballistic missiles as their primary means of nuclear attack. Had it flown, the F-108 would have been the heaviest fighter of its era.
During the early 1950s, the USAF proposed a very high-performance, long-range interceptor. On 20 July 1955, formal development of what became known as the Long-Range Interceptor, Experimental (LRI-X) was approved, planned as a F-102 Delta Dagger/F-106 Delta Dart replacement. The specification was laid down on 6 October 1955. Political and budgetary difficulties led to the cancellation of the program on 9 May 1956. After considerable confusion, the program was reinstated on 11 April 1957 with North American awarded a contract for two prototypes. The designation F-108 was issued. From September 1958, substantial engineering and design changes were implemented; however, SAC had lost interest in the escort fighter concept. On 30 December 1958, YF-108A preproduction aircraft on order were reduced from 31 to 20 test aircraft and the first test flight was delayed from February to April 1961. The eventual design, which was built as a full-sized XF-108 mockup, was displayed to Air Force officials on 17–20 January 1959. Cancelled (1959)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier

(R)A-5 Vigilante
First flight 31 August 1958
Introduction June 1961
Retired 20 November 1979
The North American A-5 Vigilante was a carrier-based supersonic bomber designed and built by North American Aviation for the United States Navy. Its service in the nuclear strike role to replace the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior was very short; however, as the RA-5C, it saw extensive service during the Vietnam War in the tactical strike reconnaissance role.
In 1953, North American Aviation began a private study for a carrier-based, long-range, all-weather strike bomber, capable of delivering nuclear weapons at supersonic speeds. This proposal, the North American General Purpose Attack Weapon (NAGPAW) concept, was accepted by the United States Navy, with some revisions, in 1955.A contract was awarded on 29 August 1956. Its first flight occurred two years later on 31 August 1958 in Columbus, Ohio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-5_Vigilante

Actually, I think the Vigilante predates the Rapier....

F-108 Rapier would have been even larger than Vigilante.
  • Length: 27.2 m
  • Wingspan: 17.5 m
  • Height: 6.7 m
Thanks Guys ! BUT My Q is more related to the carrier and less of the Aircraft . The Difference between the Su33 (j15) and the American aircrafts - is the Carrier itself , for most of the American aircrafts @Olaf One-Brow has mentioned flew out of carriers (Eg forrestal class) though older , are still larger than the Russian Kuznetsov. Thus to some extent making it a bit easier to handle.

Now back to the Kuznetsov. The Su33 looks nicely packed, it limits the no.of other aircraft on board and isn't place on a carrier a premier and here on this carrier the prices are quite high. :D How does one do standard maintenance of the aircraft? the placing and maneuvering of the aircraft will probably take time. just imagine doing all this in a combat situation. And isn't this one of the reasons? that the Su33 being a large aircraft , that the RuN decided to go for the MiG29K (thus stopping production of the Su33)

Hence the original Q. have the Chinese, enlarged the elevators and hanger for the J15 on the 001A. Though the pics all look nice, im sure the reality on the deck is a difference story!
 
.
that the Su33 being a large aircraft , that the RuN decided to go for the MiG29K (thus stopping production of the Su33)

Hence the original Q. have the Chinese, enlarged the elevators and hanger for the J15 on the 001A. Though the pics all look nice, im sure the reality o001n the deck is a difference story!

As the pic I posted suggests, the elevator dimensions on PLAN CV 001A appear the same size as on the original. We can't look inside, but I would expect some rearranging internally, particularly since the 001A doesn't appear to get VLS forward in the flight deck. Rather than converting and rearranging a series of compartments, as would have been necessary in the Liaoning, the new ship can be built from scratch with an enlarged (mostl longer) hangar. Whether this is the case remains to be seen.

Also, I'm not so sure Su-33 production was stopped due to Mig29K:

In 2009, the Russian Navy announced an order for 24 MiG-29Ks to replace the Su-33, to be delivered from 2011 to 2015. Yet, as late as 2010, Sukhoi developed an updated version of the Su-33; flight trials began in October 2010.This modernised Su-33 was to compete with a potential Chinese indigenous version of the original Su-33, and to encourage orders from the Russian Navy. In 2015, Major-General Igor Kozhin, the Commander of the Navy's Air and Air Defense Forces, announced that a second fighter regiment would be formed to augment the current force, with the intention that the MiG-29s be used by this new unit, with the existing Su-33s refurbished for further use. So, it is not the case that RuN has abandoned the Su-33.
 
.
As the pic I posted suggests, the elevator dimensions on PLAN CV 001A appear the same size as on the original. We can't look inside, but I would expect some rearranging internally, particularly since the 001A doesn't appear to get VLS forward in the flight deck. Rather than converting and rearranging a series of compartments, as would have been necessary in the Liaoning, the new ship can be built from scratch with an enlarged (mostl longer) hangar. Whether this is the case remains to be seen.

Also, I'm not so sure Su-33 production was stopped due to Mig29K:

In 2009, the Russian Navy announced an order for 24 MiG-29Ks to replace the Su-33, to be delivered from 2011 to 2015. Yet, as late as 2010, Sukhoi developed an updated version of the Su-33; flight trials began in October 2010.This modernised Su-33 was to compete with a potential Chinese indigenous version of the original Su-33, and to encourage orders from the Russian Navy. In 2015, Major-General Igor Kozhin, the Commander of the Navy's Air and Air Defense Forces, announced that a second fighter regiment would be formed to augment the current force, with the intention that the MiG-29s be used by this new unit, with the existing Su-33s refurbished for further use. So, it is not the case that RuN has abandoned the Su-33.

What I understands that it is ideal to have mid size Mig-29s than heavier Su33s. You can have more Migs in AC at the cost of a little less range which Su33 offers. May be that is the reason IN going ahead with NLCAs-Mig29k mix for their ACs.
 
.
What I understands that it is ideal to have mid size Mig-29s than heavier Su33s. You can have more Migs in AC at the cost of a little less range which Su33 offers. May be that is the reason IN going ahead with NLCAs-Mig29k mix for their ACs.
Vikramaditya is much more limited
 
.
According to this article yes but in majority of opinion from around the world no its not
Then why u don't find a article where chinese frigate at no1 position & Indian frigate at last
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom