why is it so fat and stubby looking?looks like it does about 250mph max.You telling me that making it more pointy wouldn't add another 100mph or 20% range?
>>65243074low altitude subsonic design, it's actually quite fast down there, faster than the bomb-laden Phantoms for examplealso the longest range tactical carrier aircraft ever made.
>>65243074I just think they're neat. Also flying EW with 3 buddies in a 2-by-2 layout sounds comfy.
>>65243074it's called thicc, and thicc doesn't make things slow, you seen the thighs and bum of a female sprinter?
>>65243086>also the longest range tactical carrier aircraft ever made.what about picrel, if it had drop tanks?PS-also stubby I guess I don't get lower speed flow dynamics. big tankers are also very blunt, but some are pretty fast at least over 15knots.
" and with short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability for Marine close air support."did that ever happen or was it always from carriers?something about prototype with tilting jet nozzles.
>>65243213Lower combat range when armed. Drop tanks shouldn't matter.
>>65243074Here is the thread (videos):https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64944626
>>65243213S-3 didn't have the combat maneuverability; its design was optimized for medium speed long range cruise and loiter.>>65243086Yes A-6 was a superb near-transonic long range strike aircraft. Highly agile and maneuverable even fully laden. Size of a World War II medium bomber with payload of a WWII heavy bomber.
>>65243074Subsonic.Literally minimum drag body with wings attached.Also fun fact: without afterburner engaged neither F-14 nor F-18 could keep up with Intruder at sea level.
>>65243588checked, the A-6 was an awesome low-medium altitude performer and maneuverersee the videos at ^^^desuarchive
>>65243074Subsonic things are bulbousSupersonic things are pointy
More cushion for the pushin'
>>65243074>why is it so fat and stubby looking?Its so McCain can sink an aircraft carrier why doing his wet start shennanigans, but he was so incompetent he could only cause massive damage and kill a bunch of people
>>65243074I thought these were the coolest fucking plane when I was a kid. I got a Revell model of one for my birthday one year and painted it a rad gray and black camo pattern.
>>65244826mccain flew a skyhawk
>>65243249>prototype with tilting jet nozzlesYes the initial design had that feature. Abandoned for mechanical and cost reasons, in addition to not satisfying performance requirements. Production aircraft had a slight downward angle to the exhaust nozzles.
>>65244371>bulbousDesign was steered by the technical requirements of side-by-side crew seating and two radar arrays for DIANE (Digital Integrated Attack & Navigation Equipment, named after Grumman engineer Bob Navis' daughter) with the twin engines as far forward CG as possible; the tail cleanly tapers to rear. Center wing box milled from a single block of aluminum alloy. The plane's nav-attack system was more advanced than the A-5 Vigilante, and optimized for low altitude and blind target acquisition. Most advanced attack aircraft of the early 1960s.
>>65243249Kind of. >>65245195Even without this it was a pure turbo jet (not turbofan) and had a much shorter takeoff roll than you would expect even when loaded for bear. Didn't really come up that often but was surprising to see how quickly they could rotate when on the beach
>>65243074>You telling me that making it more pointy wouldn't add another 100mph or 20% range?It's been a while since middle school aerodynamics, but a pointy cone nose is less effective than a round one.
>>65245462
>>65243086>tacticalDoes the A-3 count?
>>65245465it and the A-6 have similar range (though obviously the design intent of the A-3 was 'strategic bomber' which had fickle definition in U.S. Navy 1950s-early 60s)A-6 had a greater bomb load
>>65245465A-3 and A-5 were strategic bombers purpose and design-wise even if they were also used for tactical roles later.
Going from task-specific planes, to "one size fits nobody" MUHltipurpose craft, was a strategically unsound decision, change my mind (protip: you can't).
>>65245462>>65245464>air launched tomahawk Why did the U.S. cancel this?
I never realized how roomy the A-6's cockpit was...I bet you could get up to all kinds of things in there
>>65243213The s-3 was never designed to be in any kind of dangerous situation. It was an apex predator in ASW but as a bomber it was a bus.
>>65243074I think you need punched in the dick OP.
>>65245786Yeah, especially on those long, hard penetration missions.
>>65245750(finally) an anon that gets it
>>65245867It was like a carrier based mini-airliner.
>>65246587
2 decades and still no organic fixed-wing ASW for the fleet. Navy needs to get its head out of its ass and doubletime out a sonobuoy kit for the RQ47.
>>65246639It was de-prioritized after the USSR cold war ended and mideast foreverconflicts became de riguer, don't you follow Pentagon powerpoints anon? also see (smart /k/ user) >>65245750
>>65245750Canceling the A-12 and early retirement of the A-6 led directly to the strike fighter shortfall
>>65247178A-6 isn't a 'strike fighter' it is a long range strike aircraft aka naval bomber. Twice the capability of any Hornet (<--which was just a replacement for the A-4/A-7 light strike to begin with)Modern USN carrier deck air wing is a neutered "hi tech" simulacrum of what it was a few decades ago (we won't talk about the LR fleet defense interceptor)Yes I get what you're saying the Dorito was canceled etc. (back to post (You) replied to)
>>65246777What about my post led you to believe I was unaware of any of that?
>>65243588Is it assumed that the half-sphere and cone have a body behind the flat base of the half-sphere and cone?
>>65247193I don't know if you do get what I'm saying. Canceling the A-6 meant you had to turn 3 birds to send 2 downrange, and the conoco F/A-18Cs got trapped out at astounding rates. Navy first tried to band aid this by doing some swaps with low trap marine corps squadrons, then had to pull marine air back on the CVNs for the first time in years, then had to jump into the compromise design of the Super Hornet all due to the gas issue. If you had any of the pieces, the A-12, the A-6, or even the S-3, that wouldn't have been nearly as big of a problem. Also I obviously know the A-6 was not a strike fighter, but in GWOT the "fighter" part was completely superfluous so without the intruder either to buddy tank or just fly strike itself the legacy hornets got clapped out at insane rates, leading to the strike fighter shortfall
>>65247229No apparently (You) do not get anything (yes I and many others here are versed that chronology-sequence of events). The anon (You) replied to clearly explicated that 'one size fits all' procurement doctrine beginning mid-late 1980s was what started this all. Right now 2026 the United States Navy current today fleet air wing on carriers *ought* consist of:>S-3B / upgraded **ASW >C-2 (should have been kept in low-rate on demand production since the 1980s) **COD>A-6F **LR STRIKE>Tomcat 21 **FLEET DEFENSE>F-35C **"""stealth""">E-2D **AEW>F/A-18C **ATTACK/FIGHTER>UAV drone-dorito **AERIAL TANKERDoes the 'real' world, or U.S. government / global geopolitics / defense / Joint Chiefs operate like that? No it does not.>GWOTThat's the other half of the problem and the biggest mistake of all. None of it should ever have occurred in first place to begin with and yes national defense strategy/'warfighting'<--and choice to do so *is* an integral part of procurement overall. Post-1970s America is a Total Clusterfuck (yes including the entire MICgrift military) and we're run by traitors to the U.S. Constitution such as GHWB + Cheney, Tom Cotton et al.
>>65247340What the fuck is your problem? I made a statement saying the premature retirement (aka "intruder reef") caused the strike fighter shortfall, in conjuction with GWOT. Then some other anon (or maybe you) said BRO THE A-6 WASNT A STRIKE FIGHTER BRO. Then I said no, it wasn't and explained why despite that, it's early retirement was causal in the strike fighter shortfall. Then you insult me directly and rant about a mixed air wing, like okay sure, I would like that too, but it has nothing to do with my narrow claim that the A-6 retirement directly led to the Charlies getting trapped into oblivion. What the fuck is wrong with this board
>>65247581>insult, 'w-what's wrong'(You) perceived that all on your own, Idgaf about the fucking post-1970s giga atrocity of the United States military overall or the entire history of /k/ since 2010. Nobody gives a flying fuck about muh GWOT excuses it all occurred sequentially-simultaneously: 1990-ish the A-6 replacement is cancelled, by early 2000s it's out the door, Stupid Hornet becomes reality and then 9/11 happens. YES WE KNOW THE FUCKING SOB STORY CHRONOLOGY, *dumb fuck*.
>>65247599>>65247581Two retards agreeing with each other
>>65247623Pretty much. (Idk why he got so upset about the legacy hornets thing) We can all just agree that the present U.S. carrier air wing is an MIC dumpster fire
>>65247599Meds
>>65247760>derp
>>65243074You shut your asshole mouth she was a best girl
>>65245221Rather I'm talking about supersonic aircraft versus fast subsonics (airliners, etc).
>>65248236Not all subsonics (fast or slow) are bulbousMost supersonic aircraft spend vast majority of their airframe hours at subsonic speed
>>65248248Subsonic (exclusively/predominantly) vs supersonic capable generally has the bulbous vs pointness differentiation.
>>65247634While there is something extremely kino about the late Cold War loadout of Tomcats, Intruders, Prowlers, Corsairs, Hawkeyes, Vikings, Crusaders, and Sea Kings, they were a logistical and maintence nightmare tied your hands in terms of mission tempo.
>>65248258six of one half dozen of the other>>65248358>logistical and maintence nightmareAre there western aircraft since that time which aren't? context required(RE: more recent engineering developments yes even some of the older types have had improvements made to increase performance, task load. But then, very few individual types today are even operated by western air arms)
>>65247340>The anon (You) replied to clearly explicated that 'one size fits all' procurement doctrine beginning mid-late 1980s was what started this all. That anon was wrong because what started all of it was the A12 program being a total clusterfuck for a bunch of reasons. F/A18 and an unspecialised all-multirole CAW happened because the developmental A6 replacement went over budget and under capability and then fell through entirely. JSF (F35) would not even exist if A12 didn't fall through - the timeline is A12 goes to shit -> derisked Super Hornet interim + A/F-X program -> USN A/F-X cancelled, USAF MRF cancelled, common strike aircraft projects CALF and JAST started then merged into JSF program.Everything that you write here can never exist:>Right now 2026 the United States Navy current today fleet air wing on carriers *ought* consist of:>S-3B / upgraded **ASW >C-2 (should have been kept in low-rate on demand production since the 1980s) **COD>A-6F **LR STRIKE>Tomcat 21 **FLEET DEFENSE>F-35C **"""stealth""">E-2D **AEW>F/A-18C **ATTACK/FIGHTER>UAV drone-dorito **AERIAL TANKERThe real combo, ignoring ASW, C2, AEW etc, would be:>SuperTomcat: CAP/Fleet Defence>A12: Strike bomber/self escorting attack/surface attack/SEAD/EW/buddy tankerYou will note that the A12 was basically intended to be a stealthier A6 that could do the taskings of the whole A6 series (buddy stores, EW, attack), retaining the range, availability rates and payload.In short, the A12 is basically an F35, but with all the attack, strike and EW prioritised, and being a budget F22 deprioritised. The interesting what-if has always been what if the USN understood stealth a little better and listened to Northrop Grumman and retendered at higher unit cost to allow their submitted design (a shrunk down carrier-borne B2, that would have comfortably met all the various program goals, and thus also a world with a long-range self-escorting navy attacker/bomber and no F35 and a Super Tomcat).
>>65248500None of this sounds meaningfully different than the current F-35C & F/A-18 E/F loadout of today.
>>65248500>textwallchecked, no the A-12 should never have existed (but it did).>"A-6F over budget"And the A-12 didn't? fucking kek The A-6F was a *company funded* + proposed venture preceding the ATA proposals that Grumman was trying to get the USN to adopt for its ATA [Advanced Tactical Aircraft], the 1985-1988 per-year timeline is critical. A-6F had all new composite wing (the 5 developmental E-converted prototypes had existing metal wings), F404 propusion and new electronics. By end of 80s the USN / Lehman—that couldn't make up its mind—had decided the 'stealth' A-12 would be the aircraft of choice (and then imploded itself a few years later with zero A-6 successor). A 1990 study estimated the A-12 would consume more than half the USN's entire aircraft budget. Nothing (You) typed is even close to what actually occurred
>>65248546Are you joking? The level of capability is in another league.Super Tomcat was a mach 2.5 aircraft that could supercruise at mach 1.3 even with xboxhueg external stores. It had a radar more powerful and advanced than anything fielded even to this day other than dedicated AEW aircraft. It had a combat radius of 1800km without refuelling. It had a unit cost within about $3m of a Super Hornet at equal production numbers. It also has a similar deck spot value to a superbug and better than a F35.(Unfucked) A12 was in the order of a 1800km combat range, internal carriage for 4 large missiles as well as bombs (ie same as F35 for missiles but with bombs internal as well) but also able to carry external stores to exceed even an A6's bomb lugging ability (and obviously also an F35). The Grumman A12, that said "no" to doing any low altitude profile missions, is basically an RQ-180/mini B2 (so 60k ft service ceiling, transcontinental combat radius, internal weapons only but still a large load). This is all with a deck spot value better than an F35 as well.
>>65248654>"A-6F over budget"I never wrote that, what the fuck are you talking about anon?
>>65245221as much as I love pics of airplanes with lots of full TERs, that's painfully grainy>>65245393>>65245221He's right though:>>65244371>Subsonic things are bulbous>Supersonic things are pointyIt's extremely summarized and reductionist to boot but it's not wrong.
>>65248794>I never(You) = # 65248500>the developmental A6 replacement went over budget
>>65248822checked
>>65248833well, you're feeding my fetish at least
>>65248829>the developmental A6 replacement went over budgetThe developmental A6 replacement was the A12. The A6F was a company pitch for an interim vaguely comparable to superbug, not a developmental program of note in any way comparable to A12. You are being violently argumentative and retarded to the point that you're arguing with multiple different anons in multiple different posts in multiple different conversations on points that they don't disagree with you about. Just have a bex and a lie down, let your blood pressure go down, calm down a bit and stop chimping out.
>>65248851How do they land with the drop tank? Just super flat and barely compressing the gear??
>>65248878>"interim vaguely comparable to," "muh multiple" babbleSlopcopeWRONG and *you never knew or EVEN HEARD OF* the A-6F until this thread. (F/A-18F didn't even begin until 1990s after the A-6 successor had totally imploded). The aftermath of ATA implosion was—briefly—the Cheney-era NATF (F-22 navalized) and then F/A-18F, a lot of which had to simultaneously do also with coup de grace of Grumman's F-14 programs.(You) know *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* about this topic and never even heard of the ATA before this thread. Back to pleddit, Brainlet.
>>65248894My dude, I am a forum regular on secret projects, know the history of all these projects in reasonable detail and have read books about them, have been on this website for nearly 20 years now, and you are on a whole new level of raging and lashing out randomly. Once again, calm your farm retard.
>>65248911>btfo with Zero acknowledgement ownership or responsechecked (calmer than you are)
>>65248911>>65248953I wonder if any of you retards took the time to self-teach yourselves aerodynamics, compressible flow, flight dynamics, or even how to use a basic simulation program to understand the design philosophies behind these planes so you could understand what you were arguing about instead of throwing around jargon, model numbers and claiming intellectual superiority based on how many documents you've read. If you guys have done so, it would be cool if a regular on this board created some collected form of knowledge through a wiki or pinned post so people wouldn't ask retarded questions like why planes look fat. Or you could could continue to chimp out, maybe that's more fun for you.
>>65248971Yes I've got all that. These discussions are about post-1970s government $ programs. No point in having engineering discussions anywhere-any board on 4chan. My engineering library dwarfs (You)rs and decades of field testing and laboratory experience as well.>muh chimpDo (You) somehow see yourself here itt / on 4chan as some sort of 'neutral broker' or benevolent umpire? Idk how long you actually have been, time spent on 4chan but that kind of redditor stance typically isn't well taken 'round these parts. ymmv you do you
>>65248991Good larp, surely someone will believe you one day.
>>65248953Why would I argue with a raging monkey whose only method of argument is counter-assertion? You think NATF came out of ATA (you are mixing it up with F/A-X) and you don't understand the lineage and relationship between A-6E, A-6F, A12 and F/A-18E/F at all. You still appear not to comprehend at all why there could literally never even hypothetically be an air wing with Super Tomcat, A-6F and F35C because those three things can't even hypothetically come into existence in the same universe. You're not worth talking to. We're done here. See a psychiatrist - unironically - there is something very wrong with whatever is going on between your ears.
>>65249000checked, believe what you want. (And fwiw come over some time, tour the library yourself)I could always be doing a lot better things with my time than 4chan.
>>65248894>Back to pleddit, Brainlet.>>65248991>redditor stancego back to your discord hugbox you faggot/tranny/both
>>65249002>NATF came out of ATA, "muh relAYYYYshuuhhhnship"No, I didn't say that (was merely recounting the complex 1985-1993 timeline of USN aircraft type procurement). Go back to yr video games.I'll make a bunch of subsequent posts write-up of all of it w/ cited reference sources in a few days from now and post it into this thread, at my leisure for my own amusement and anyone else's.>"w-we're done here"'I accept your concession'? 'Not an argument'? kekGo back to x, plebbit, boomerbook wherever it was you came from
>>65245768Standardizing on a navy missile would have hurt egoes of USAF some guys.
>>65249010I don't even know what discord is (from what I've heard it's an insane asylum). You lost tranny
>>65248822The more supersonic you want to go (and stay at) the more you look like a X-15. If you don't intend to break the sound barrier you're going to have gentle round curves.
>>65248400Regime exclusivity versus flexibility (Or rather "exclusivity capable of both regimes"), still bulbous/pointy to summarize it.
>>65249025>summarizeYes it's not that reducible/encapsulable/simple. Look at the Buccaneer pic again (or don't)believe what you want
>>65243074https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZMf0jbu8pOUFall star casthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crashIf you asked me if a jet could hit a 1" steel cable and cut it and keep flying no problem, I'd say "unlikely".PS-fuck Italy and Italians. They literally started WW2, kinda more or at least as much as Germany, without any of the very valid beefs Germany had, then chickened out first chance.Then, they enjoy protection of US funded NATO for 1/2 century then act like bitches when our boys are training hard to defend them, and doing some much needed rule bending.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0613224/
>>65248886gain some clearance once they lose the bombs and most fuel>Just super flat sure, its the Chair Force
>>65243074Can't believe doctrine was to strap nukes to these and tell pilots to get fucked it's WW3
Cancelling A6G was the beginning of the end of American Aviation
>>65249176what's with all the Catherine Bell posting these days? (not complaining) And how the fuck did CBS go from the cable car crash into airing a JAG episode that totally-wasn't-about-it-because-its-an-F14 within a few months of the crash?
>>65249039>Supersonic capable>PointyI think you're missing the point hard.
>>65250558Idk what (You)r point is
