Rockwell XFV-12; The VTOL Fighter That Couldn’t
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- In the 1970s the US was looking at fielding large numbers of cheaper carriers and they wanted a VTOL fighter to go with it.
The problem was the design chosen for development, the XFV-12, couldn't get off the ground.
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Considering how well the Sea harrier performed in the air-to-air role, this is a perfect example of people not understanding what they have while chasing something they cannot have.
I knew Ed Gillespie, North American's chief test pilot and Naval Aviator who test flown this aircraft. Ed told me even attached to the crane at Langley, he was not happy with the aircraft at all and knew that the project was in serious trouble.
Awesome video, as always!
It's incredible how myopic could be the branch of an army comanded to the supplies combined with the volubility of the politicians. Simply crazy to have spent so much, being already overbudget and not trying a short take of. Some sort of tabù regarding the STOBAR in the Navy (and with that thrust-to-weight ration a STOBAR wasn't maybe even needed...)
Rockwell sometimes gives the idea of a visionary company, really unfit to interact with the establishment...
Hence, everbody is sporting F-35Bs.
Superlative piece Ed! Many thanx 👍👍😉
Many thanks!
Never seen this awesome aircraft before... so cool looking... love it!
I saw this thing in a book or magazine when I was a kid and thought it looked like something straight out of Star Wars. I was disappointed when I heard it had been cancelled.
Any chance we can get a video featuring the IML Addax? That was a wild proposal.
Just as effective as the Zhumwalt class ship.
Cool. I hadn't even heard of this one, or the SCS light carriers.
I knew one of the engineers at North American in Columbus, OH...... This plane was never intended to fly, but was used only as a technology test platform to determine what strategies were feasible. It was a success in that vane.
Looking at the comment below, if you research the p1154 you'll find that this aircraft had all that was needed to STILL be a formidable fighter, but politics got in the way.
True what a great what If aircraft love your channel!!
Nobody is talking shot how good this thing looks like. The XFV-12 looks like it was wasn’t made to fly in just our atmosphere.
Other than the fact that it didn't work its an impressive a/c.
Another "I could've been a contender!" aircraft. A fascinating topic, all the might have beens.
To cool a stream of jet exhaust is, by engineering definition, to cut the energy of the thrust. For energy and heat are one and the same here, in the context of a jet engine, and differentiates it from a simple desk fan. For it is not a question of moving a gentle breeze, when it is rather that of heating and compressing this gas and expelling it at extremely high temperatures & velocities. Ergo, a jet engine or turbine.
So... Some sort of Sea Harrier then...
Another road not taken.
Naval aviation was underwhelmed by the SCS concept.
Effective VTOL is harder to crack than Dark Souls
A new class of light carriers might be on the horizon.
The Lightning carrier, which if names one battles would be sure winner all around. This would use the F-35 B variant on a small carrier with helicopters making up the rest of the complement.
It might be wise for the United States to build a few of these dedicated to escort service.
The F35 B would be useless on a small carrier as it is not capable of VTO when fully fuelled and armed
You are correct however they need a ski jump that would make would it like the Queen Elizabeth I class carrier. What you are trying to do is copy the South Korean Dokdo & Japanese Izumo Aircraft carriers where they don't have the ski jumps for F-35B operations
To bad, looks like a cool concept and a STOL version could work have worked on a small carrier !
Not ugly enough for the Earth to repel them....
Could have gone with the Hawker P.1154 :D
It’s surprising that McDonald Douglas didn’t use its links with Hawker Siddeley, and later British Aerospace, to put that proposal forward, or maybe they did and the U.S. Navy adopted that common U.S. attitude of “not designed here” and rejected it.
@@mrjockt I read too that the Harrier was also perfect because its jet exhaust was not hot enough to damage carrier decks. The XFV and P.1154 would certainly have been more of a problem (just like the F35 B today).
@@mrjockt "McDonald Douglas"(sic)
McDonnell Douglas
If it looks right it would fly right. This one didn't from the beginning.
The secondary consideration of STOL, certainly with a ramp, would still be very current today, as is explicit in HMS Elizabeth carrier. (Which conforms so closely to Zumwalt's concept it would seem?) It is such a shame that the Pentagon don't seem to concern themselves at all with budgets, or this would be a natural in service. While filling the role of that strange modern term, 'force multiplier' two of these in combination with an Arley Burke class destroyer might be just the ticket for the projection of tiny and subtle power. (If the Americans can consider that as an option?) Some aircraft and marine attack helicopters, and the vertically launched missile systems protecting the small flotilla would seem ideal?
Even though it was a cludge- it’s looked great …… rub some modern stealth on that and away we go! Some one remind me why we can put missile points on the top of the aircraft.
it's a pain in the ass to load them on there, and pilots get a bit scared and blinded when a missile roars past the top of the cockpit!
If that isn't the sexiest aircraft I have ever seen.
I'm sure there's a moral in there somewhere about the dangers of thinking within rails or something 🙄
You said you wanted a gun to shoot Mice ...........
We've made one that can shoot Hippos or Elephants anywhere within a 4 mile radius but .....
Nah, the foresight's too big so - you can't see mice - bin it.
Which is ironic, as they lacked a lot of foresight.
With relatively few US supercarriers that would likely be damaged out of service or sunk outright in the first few odd weeks of a coming war, well, the Chinese, with their incredible anti-ship missile capability and steadily imposing submarine fleet, would have a near-run at will in the Pacific. The US quest for always projecting power with the best in the very few is nearing termination. It should be capably very good in the many: smaller carriers, anti-submarine/aircraft frigates, and ships not yet imagined. Question: would or will?
See: Hendrix, Jerry. The Age of American Naval Dominance Is Over. The Atlantic. March 13, 2023.
And now we have this concept of "SCS" with the F-35 Boondoggle able to operate off smaller ships, like the Gator-Freighters. We will get to test this concept when China ramps up the WWIII.
Murazik Port
Remember when Bidden said there would be no Saigon style evacuation in Afghanistan? Good times.
Didn’t GI Joe use these?
Yes the Hurricane V/TOL or something like that
Great concept. Bad implementation.
Rickover had ZERO influence over NAVAIR. Absolutely ZERO.
Western social issues seem to be successfully engineered by the kgb, a gift that keeps on giving for Putin.
Another smart choice by the Navy was cancellation of this program. The thinking that almost brought us the light sea control carriers and these silly fighters seems to have returned years later to spawn the littoral combat ship, which my Navy friends consider the worst Navy shipbuilding program ever.
You've done it again Ed.
I knew nothing of this aircraft before.
Thank you for this.
☮
If the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 had been pursued, it might have been in service by the early/mid 70's. I think that the high-tec, multi-role escort carrier for sea control is a really interesting concept that still has merit.
Family connections in the Swiss Military believed that they should have adopted the Harrier and, had something like the P1154 had it become available, for their defence requirements. No long runways just lots of rock caverns next to roads with a few aircraft at each location.
That said the Harrier would not have existed had the US not put the money in, and despite an amazing platform our Civil Service would never support VTOL and sadly the P1154 was an opportunity lost. The blame lies very firmly with pen pushers who had no vision.
The side-nozzle layout is fundamentally flawed from the high-speed perspective. That's why none of the supersonic VTOLs ever built were using it.
@@sergeychmelev5270 Yes I agree but it still could have been a very capable bomber/patrol aircraft interceptor at high subsonic speed - a sort of Phantom light.
F-35B exists now
@@jameshodgson3656 But it didsn't 40 years ago and the P1154 could have....
When you couldn't recognise the elegant simplicity of the Harrier...
I feel a video on the Kestrel might be in the offing.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Which one?
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters yes please
Unfortunately, the Harrier couldn't go supersonic, a requirement by the US Navy. Yeah, I know it defeated Argentine supersonic fighters but the USN people probably thought they would be facing far harder opponents like the Soviets.
@@shaider1982 it didnt need to go supersonic
Rockwell was overloaded with projects at the time B-1A, Space shuttle etc . I remember reading that one early concept was for it to use a version of the BS-100 "super pegasus" but this was superseded by the "de Haviland ejector " system for lift and the conventional turbofan. Looking back in my notes from my time in the aerospace industry I see a number of references to the xfv-12 needing a very complex flight control computer which is born out by the complexity of its geometry and its very large control surfaces. If this project had been under the military unit of MDD then the outcome may have been different as they had experience from the AV-8B that would have helped a lot.
it never cease to amaze me how you dig up thoses obscure/unknown designs! I've been interested in aviation history since I was very young and I keep learning, thanks to you!
That that obscure; had a toy of this as a kid in the US!
As soon as Ed stated it didn't work in VTOL, I said to myself, "But what about STOL"? And, of course, Ed mentioned that immediately after I had the thought. Yes, seems like a real missed opportunity, indeed.
It still need to land vertically. With significantly lower than expected lift on the actual test plane, it was doubtful if even that possible.
@@ohredhk Landing vertically seems like it'd be less challenging than taking off vertically. You don't actually need enough thrust to hover for that, just enough thrust to come down slowly.
Sad to not hear the RN’s term for taking out Soviet recon/strike aircraft shadowing a surface force: “hack the shad”. Apparently this became something of a much chanted motto during the design of the Illustrious class. I love the mental image of the inmates at the Royal College of Naval Architects chanting it over the drawing boards:
“Hack the Shad! Hack the Shad! Hack the Shad!”
Thanks Ed. Another very interesting video. Could a navalised Hawker 1154 been worth considering?
The Royal Navy had selected a navalised version of the P1154 to operate from its new CV01 carrier back in the early sixties, then both the new carrier and the 1154 were cancelled so the RN ended up buying F-4 Phantoms.
I was wondering about that as well.
Definitely not, It needed a catapult for takeoff
After 1970s the balance had already shifted towards three aircraft companies, with the main aspect that the time to market for their products was long, unreliable and expensive. In other words, what the 50s and 60s have seen in the rapid development of aircraft and associated technologies, has given its way to slow development based on mature and sometimes obsolete technologies (just to keep the productions running). The Rockwell was a result of undecided policies and luck of creativity, though everyone would like this to see it flying. Take care everyone.
Should we put a radar on a AV-8? Nar build and entirely new airframe!
You have just shown me more of the XFV-12, than I have found in over 40 years. Great work. STOL would have been the way to go.
If they cuda they wuda.
Dragi lookin f**kin ting.x😂
Never forget tsr2.
First time I’ve ever heard of this one! Very interesting. Once airborne it was much faster than the Harrier.
No it wasn't faster because it never flew,it was potentially faster though
Theoretically, since it never actually flew.
It certainly should've been, yes.
As the video points out, it was quite a blunder on Rockwell's part to never fly the XFV-12 as a STOVL aircraft. Particularly given that decades of Harrier operations have shown that VTOL is more gimmick than useful capability for a warplane, while STOVL (still allowing operation off a short deck but allowing far more fuel and weapons to be carried) is insanely valuable.
@@jameshisself9324It would have been because that’s why they chose to build their own over getting the Harrier. They wanted Mach 2. If they couldn’t do that, either harrier or keep working their asses.
@@TeenWithACarrotIDK Yep, lots of projects that never flew for many different reasons
At least the Hawker Harrier could fly.
I think part of the reason for not flying it in a conventional or STOVL mode, is that the design arguably isn't capable of either.
With the rear landing gear located so far aft, a conventional rotation wouldn't be possible. Similarly, in order for the vertical lift system to operate, the exhaust nozzle had to be closed off, eliminating forward thrust. In contrast to the harrier, which could provide thrust at any angle from fully forward to fully down (and even slightly rearward), this aircraft could only produce thrust downward or forward. That would make a stovl takeoff difficult and perhaps quite risky for a test pilot to carry out when there was no certainty it could take off at all. I'm not surprised they didn't risk it.
It’s a canard aircraft - it didn’t need to rotate the fuselage much to change the wing angle of attack.
@@allangibson8494 I think his point is that the gear is way behind the center of mass, so you wont be able to rotate the plane even a little bit. It may work with a ski jump, but I am no engineer.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 Canards lift the nose up directly unlike conventional trailing edge elevators that push the rear of the aircraft down to raise the nose. This changes the dynamics of the forces on the undercarriage significantly.
@@allangibson8494 In my understanding you still rotate around the center of mass, irrespective on which end you apply torque. Do I miss something?
@@delfinenteddyson9865 the difference is that without a canard the main wheels be close to the centre of mass to permit rotation of the tail down to push the nose up.
With a canard they don’t because the nose is directly lifted up - and an aft pivot point actually helps with lever lengths.
On landing things get a bit sketchier for a conventional landing because the aircraft will need to maintain canard lift (and hence speed) until the nose is on safely the ground to avoid slamming the nose onto the runway - for a vectored thrust VTOL this isn’t a problem and having gear at all corners would make the aircraft far more stable on a moving deck. Canard aircraft do however have 110% more lift than a conventional tailed aircraft because the canard is a lifting surface while a conventional tail pushes down all the time (if it didn’t a stall becomes unrecoverable - a problem for pretty much every airliner designed after 1980 when the designers deliberately did this to reduce drag at the expense of stall safety). The tail stalls first, stops pushing down and the nose drops - the difference in a canard is the canard stops lifting to the same effect.
The Harrier used four gear - two on the centreline and one smaller one on each wing tip for similar reasons. With a conventional tail the Harrier had to have one of the main gear further forward for angle of attack control.
Yes YES *YEESSS!!!* about dang time one of my favorite Jets is being reviewed
Thank you for picking this one up, ed! ✈️😄👏👏👏
👍
Seems fitting that Zumwalt had a crappy class of ship named after him 🤣😂.
Which only supports the old adage that one should under promise and over deliver with your product or service. By demannding VTOL performance instead of the "less capable" STOVL capability the Navy forced its supplier to over reach and it failed. This was a hard lesson in the consequence of demanding technology that doesn't exist in the development of new weapon systems. Fifty years later and the Military still lets Admirals & Generals pull design requirements out of their asses with disasterous results.
You've got to talk about the Convair 200 now. It was the other aircraft designed for the SCS & it's the origin of the F35's VTOL where the engine's nozzle is pointed down using a 3 part joint that twists the nozzle downward
The Convair 200 seems like it was by far the more promising of the two designs, but for some reason the XFV-12 was the one that got a prototype built.
Yak 141(??)
@@iiwhatisyouremailprivatenn2470 The Yak-141 uses a similar system that was developed independently. Lockheed Martin (which now owned all the Convair designs via their purchase of General Dynamics' Fort Worth division) licensed all the Yak-141 test data from Yakovlev, since the Yak-141 had actually been built and flown whereas the Convair 200 had not. Thus, the F-35B's nozzle isn't directly based on the Yak-141's, Lockheed Martin just used the Yak-141 to verify that the system would work they way they expected it to.
The Convair 200 never got built so not much to talk about.
@@RedXlV It really wasn't as it had 2 dedicated lift engines which absolutely destroy usable payload they are dead weight that have to be carried all the time and would have weighed 250-500kg each depending on what type.
Vertical take-off is practically useless with any harrier and they have more spare weight for fuel and armament than the Convair 200 would have had.
Lots of V/STOL aircraft and been built and tested but the only useful ones are the harrier family and the F-35B both use one engine. Hell the F-35B is classed as a STOVL (short take off vertical landing) because Vertical take off is worthless for it and even for vertical landing it's range and payload are sacrificed heavily for it.
You seem to forget the Sea Harrier, designed from the outset to be a capable fighter as well as carrying out other roles, proving to be so in the Falklands with a 10:1 kill ratio. One of its big advantages being it did have for the day a very capable radar system.
Had the USN seriously pursued the high-low doctrine, with AV8s already in service with the USMC, I suspect that that commonality coupled with an aircraft successfully combat proven against a near peer adversary would have led to an American Sea Harrier rather than this.
He did not forget anything. Did you miss the part where the US Navy wanted a _supersonic_ fighter? Also, you might want to check on the "very capable radar system". The Ferranti Blue Fox radar was considered being one of the worst aircraft radars of its time. That's why it was very quickly replaced with Blue Vixen, but that happened after the Falklands.
@@sergeychmelev5270 The usefulness of the radar is very heavily debated, It's wrong to call it "one of the worst", some viewed it as a great piece of kit, others, not so much.
@@seaharrierfrs1 I’m not aware of any debates over the Blue Fox. Of course it was better than nothing, but name me a worse aircraft radar that went into service even 5 years before the Blue Fox. No look down capability unless the sea is perfectly calm in the freakin’ 1979? No radar-guided AA missile compatibility? Yeah, “debatable”. Of course, if there were AEW planes in RN, that wouldn’t be too much of a problem. But we’re yet to see a STOVL AEW. Those helicopter AEWs abroad QEs are not even half-measures.
Let's not forget the Convair Model 200.
Every internet idiot wrongly accuse lockheed copied the Yak141.
When Yak 141 is a direct rip off copy of the Convair Model 200 VTOL Sea Control Fighter.
with peer competitors having advanced space based isr whats the point of surface fleets at all anymore. they are dead ducks in waiting. now if the enemy can see you with advanced space based sensors or other recon sensors instantly relayed to rockets traveling 10x or more the speed of sound well, anything thats seen is dead sailing or rolling. that basically leaves submarines as the only real viable naval ship out there. the carriers are only good for intimidating 3rd world countries into doing your bidding much like our armed forces are now and not even that as we saw in Afghanistan and now ukraine...the wests mill is also bankrupt strategically. corruption and but kissers getting to the top has a big price tag. outsourcing all your production to china killed the wests mills....they wake to this far too late. better learn chinese...
The problem with the Essex Class carriers was age not capability. They could have continued to fulfill the role of Sea Control role and provide air defense with embarked F8 Crusaders. The last Essex Class carrier to deploy was the Oriskany in 1975 with a 70 aircraft airwing.
Never heard of that abomination......and I thought I knew a lot....
For those who think the original AV-8A /harrier gr3 and Sea Harrier FRS1 wasnt a capable aircraft tell that to the Argentinian AirForce and Navy and see what they tell you
All Argentinian aircraft were of the 50s design, and were flying subsonic. Even the Mirage-IIIs could not go supersonic as they were at the limits of their range. Not to mention virtually zero radar coverage as Argentinians had neither ground nor AEW radar presence where RN had complete coverage using powerful ship-based radars. If this is not a perfect setup for turkeyshot, I do not know what is.
@@sergeychmelev5270 it doesnt matter...at the end of they day its the results that matter and the history books dont lie.the Argentine Airforce and Navy got their asses kicked by an aircraft that was "incapable" according to the us navy....and not only "incapable" but was originally desined as aground attack aircraft and even more ironicly the us marines bought it and while i realise the real world situation might be different as no member of the us marines would consider themselves as "navy" on paper the marine corps IS part of the navy and therefore,technicaly, the dept of the navy DID buy the very aircraft they said was incapable
Along with the Avro Arrow, YF-23, this is one of the aircraft I most wish came to be that didn't. Ever since I first saw a picture of the thing it just seemed like the coolest, most sci-fi like fighter I'd ever seen. Would have been so cool to see these flying around of Naval and Marine vessels.
The TSR.2 which was built and flying until the Brits ran around cutting things, they wanted to buy F-111s instead but those took forever so they ended up with fat Phantoms.
The Hawker P.1154, the twin engine supersonic super-Harrier that never did get to metal.
The Grumman F11F-1F, which would have sold well were it not for Lockheed bribery.
Hawker P1154 What might have been 🤔🤔
The world of what if aircraft so many got so close.
As usual an underpowered engine kills a fascinating plane.
When you try and design a f-35b in the 70s
I love how the military budget is measured in "Billions of constant $"
Did it really need to be supersonic?
Love your videos! Could you talk more about the sea control ship concept and whether it applicable in today's environment? Thanks!
Reckon you might be better off talking to Drachinfell ;)
Too bad Drach doesn't delve into post-WW2 ships. I wish he did, but you can't have everything!
@@Jon.A.Scholt True true true.
@@lugenfrankwood5234 He doesn't?! Huh! Maybe I should expand my purview 😀
@@Jon.A.Scholt
Drach is another victim of Nagasaki, lol.
This aircraft was in top trumps.
Nicely balanced video, the XFV-12 normally gets relegated to the same slag pile as the Christmas fighter. I was fascinated with the design after I first saw on the cover of (Wings/Airpower, I think).
I remember in 1970’s Aviation Week seeing the flashy and confident ads for the future XFV-12- my first reaction was “are they serious? this will never work”.
2 Words, " Ski Jump"
I wonder if it really would be cheaper to buy cheaper aircraft carriers if it means you need to buy significantly more expensive airplanes.
A VTOL that can't lift itself up is a bit of an issue
That is a good looking plane.
A lesson in over engineering.
i think they missed a great interceptor, looking at its layout in general. low weight and high power might have made it work from small carriers alone. carriers grew because the airplanes operating at it grew in first place. this kind of airplane could have been used on older, smaller carriers, keeping the first post WW generation active. or adding converted tankers/freighters to protect the rear off the US coast. as land based fighter, it could have closed a gap while forces dumped the F-104 ditching the idea of a pure interceptor for multi role fighters early on.
Zoomy did have ideas..... SCS (small crappy ships) was succeeded by LCS (LARGE crappy ships) and finally by the modern form of LCS (LOUSY crappy ships, built to CIVILIAN standards, and SUPPOSED to do everything and being good at NOTHING).
On a particular note here, Rockwell is a small company, with limited resources. Which explains why they shipped it instead of flying the potential brute beast of a Fighter
Also, the scs displacing less than 14k tons; 9,773 tons (light) · 13,736 tons (full load) when I checked, it can pass through the Turkish strait (preferably with a bunch of it) with near impunity had it been built & entered service
And they're a "good enough" solution for the situation at the time, *& it's freakin' CHEAP!* rather than waiting for the expensive supercarriers to come out one at a time in a long time... So Zumwalt was right all along!
On a final note, oh how I wish our Philippine navy could've had some had Zumwalt's plan was given a go-ahead...
Wai-what...? Oh shit you're right! How have I not realized that?
It's just permanently stuck off of China though, & with very small aircraft fielded. And your content reminded me of midway Island
It's a bitsa... bitsa this and bitsa that... bitsa Skyhawk and bitsa Phantom.... we used to operate Skyhawks with our RNZAF and we have a GR3 Harrier in a museum here in NZ 👍✈️🇳🇿
HEY..........@7:38 THAT LOOKS LIKE NORTH AMERICAN/ROCKWELL COLUMBUS, OHIO!!!! They unveiled it just after I graduated High School (just 5-6 miles down the road Gahanna Lincoln HS) Also was there in the plant from June 83 to Oct 87 on B1B sections. Then it was off to St. Louis for McDonnell-Douglas and actually working on the plane that it was suppose to replace...AV8 (B) Harriers. Many fun(relative term) years for sure. Now doing the Harrier replacement........F-35A,B,C variants in sunny and warm Texas.
Eh ... Rockwell never had a good day after it stopped being North American ...
.
There was a sort of schyzoprenic way the DoD and politicians handled the defence, expecially after 'Nam's debacle. Think about how Carter close B1's program, then revived (luckily) by Reagan, perhaps they should've collaborated with the UK for a Supersonic Harrier, moreover a VTOL/STOL fighter/attacker would've been invaluable for the Navy.
the UK's Hunting Aircraft 126 pioneered the 'Jet Flap' technology idea; it did not work. It was loaned to the USA, shipped out in a Belfast. So the XFV-12 did not work either.
Zumwalt was right about the VTOL Carriers, but how about the BAeS proposal to put Harriers on Frigates using the 'Sky Hook technology?
Meanwhile, the USN forgot Zummwalt's philosophy -- cheap and many, with expensive and few backups. So, they tried to do expensive and many with the Zummwalt class of DDG (recall the navy wanted 34 of them). Such a sad waste of a man's legacy.
As to the XFV-12, I'm sure by either modifying the main exhaust so it didn't fully close, or adopting the Harrier's quad-rotatable exhaust, it may have been a very good S/VTOL craft. Would much rather have had a stealthy version of this craft rather than either the Boeing or Lockheed-Martin abominations we got. But then again, the Northorp-Grumman design was superior to the Lockheed-Martin, and politics got in the way. Probably would have happened with this one as well.
Meanwhile, Hawker designed the P1214 Harrier II, which was supposed to be a supersonic Vertical takeoff fighter, an upgrade to the original Harrier….
I have a (very) basic grasp of aerodynamics, so I understand it would have provided some additional challenges. But given it's a VTOL aircraft, couldn't they have added some OVER wing hard points, particularly near the wing roots?
One of Hushkit's ten worst American aircraft.I think they called it the "Prolapsed firefly",as a rear angle view amptly demonstrates....
Quality over quantity? Germany and Japan tried that in WW2 it didn't work so well when the US built 20+ tanks/planes/ships for each one Germany or Japan built.
That is a superb looking design!
I was thinking sexy and ugly at the same time.
Should dig my 1970s Interavia magazines out to find the articles.
With regard to the Soviet Yak-28, which by some process, this aircraft was developed in conjunction with Lockheed. This seems an odd partnering of Cold War adversaries toward a common goal. If anyone can please comment on this, I would be grateful.
If you vector the thrust instead of aiming it in the desired direction, part of that thrust will still result in horizontal movement, because it gets deflected by panels. So I think the plane could not have landed vertically, because half of the thrust is always "lost" in pushing the plane forward.
I'm surprised rockwell kept their blinkers on and didn't fly the plane. Missed an opportunity
It would likely have required months to validate its flying characteristics before it could have made the trip itself, and the question has alwaays been if it would have ever been controllable without a more modern flight computer to handle some of the pilots work.
In hindsight, they should have just bought FRS.1 Sea Harriers.
Incredible design blast from the past probably in ways would become the lilium jet of the future.
I disagree with the premise at the beginning that “counter insurgency” was ever a priority of the U.S. Army over the conventional strategic plans for a European war against the Eastern bloc. History demonstrates the exact opposite in fact. The war in Vietnam was never more than a sideshow compared to the doctrines developed to defend the Fulda Gap.
Special Forces was John F. Kennedy’s political wet dream and the concept was undercut and undermined at the Pentagon every step of the way, and rightly so. The Green beret “hearts and minds” policy of training locals in counter insurgency was a bust, then and now.
Nimitz carriers the most powerful at sea? every attack and ballistic missile sub captain laughs!