A-6 intruder-thrust vectoring.
 

Interesting


The A-6 Intruder Was Originally Designed With Thrust Vectoring

Wow. Never knew that. :ok:

''The jet already had a large and relatively thick ring, but the STOL requirement would require more innovation''


Is this some sort of naval aviation requirement.......?!

Very interesting.

I like some of the articles on this guy's site, and at the risk of going off topic it's hard to disagree with him when he suggests that aircraft such as subsonic A-6s and A-7s would have been far more useful over Iraq and Afghanistan than faster pointy nosed jets.

Mind, with the latest scheme to retire the A-10 the USAF don't seem to agree...

Aircraft like the A-6 and A-7 would be more use as bomb trucks in Iraq and Afganistan but they have one issue that a pointy jet such as the Hornet and Super Hornet that do their job today, they can't defend themselves. A pointy jet can drop bombs and fly as a fighter, it may not carry bombs as well a bomb truck but the bomb truck can't act as a fighter. With limited money to buy aircraft you might aswell just by fighters and live with the compromise.

Neither can the A-10 and that did the job OK.

Interesting article, not a fan of the line

"...and was certainly a forerunner of things to come with the famous Harrier Jump Jet years later, an aircraft that used rotating nozzles with fantastic results. "

The P.1127 first flew in Mid 1960, roughly the same time as the YA2 did.

Would be interested to know the effect of the vectored thrust on a CAT launch.

The A-10 is capable of defending itself with the gun and AIM-9, the A-6 while it could also carry the AIM-9, their crews only dreamed they could manuever as well as the Hog. The A-10 is also a product of a timeframe when dual role wasn't as emphasized as it is 1980s and beyond.
The thought of not a pound for air to ground is largely history.

Any combat aircraft can defend itself if it has to - Sandy vs MiGs anyone?

That's kinda a "yeah, but.." Statement

Of course they do.

Some good discussion about the A-7F, A-10, and F-16 and how they all came to be or not be what they are today?

Can We Learn Something From The Defunct A-7F "Strikefighter?"

Any fighter pilot worthy of that title will just sit back and take BVR shots at strike aircraft. If he gets in close enough for an A-10 to use it's gun then he is an idiot. Same deal with the AIM-9

You mean "interceptor Pilot" I think.....fighter pilots will be gunning it going for the Kill!

Rubbish. Fighter pilot 101: fight to your advantages not the enemy's. Any fighter pilot that deliberately goes into a dogfight when he can avoid it and shot the enemy at long range with no danger to himself is reckless and stupid. (Barring any restrictive rules of engagement or other restriction on firing BVR missiles).

Not much of a "Fight"! Heck fire, a Drone Operator can do that. Think not, arm up a QF-4 or QF-16 then hide and watch!

Have you been drinking today?

Eight manufacturers submitted eleven proposals to meet specification CA-10504 issued on 2 Oct 1956, which included a Marine Corp requirement for STOL operations from unimproved airstrips. The requirement called for a 1,500 foot take off over a 50 foot obstacle. Lift off speed with nozzles deflected was 78 to 86 knots for a lightweight aircraft.

Test pilot Bob Smyth cites - The tail pipes normally bent down 7° with respect to the fuselage reference line, but to satisfy the Marine Corp STOL requirement a hydraulic actuator, controlled by a knurled knob on the outboard throttle, could deflect the nozzles down to 30° (23° of travel). There was no trim change, and they reduced the stall speed by five knots, or for a given approach speed they reduced the angle of attack by 3°. Only the first seven aircraft were so fitted, as they were found to be only marginally effective in meeting the Marine Corp requirement. Actually, the concept would have worked well on the heavyweight EA-6B.

"Intruder - The Operational History of Grumman's A-6", Mark & Rick Morgan

The A-6 was cleared for (and did on occasion in Vietnam) carry (and fire) the 20mm external gun pod.

Hey, if it's good enough for F-4s, its good enough for the "Sky Pig"!

And West Coast - the A-6 was more maneuverable than you think.

No, it couldn't keep with the A-10 through rolls & turns, but it was more maneuverable than the F-4s that didn't have the maneuvering slats - and no one says the Phantom II couldn't do air-air!

The A-6 could use "Noise" all by itself to deafen the Enemy! :E

Lot of that about...