NATF again

[+Julhelm 266]

Basically rebuilt most of this since last time.

[Mladuna 0]

Stealthy Tomcat :dirol: I want it!!!

 

Keep up the good, o sorry I mean GREAT work.

[Silverbolt 104]

Wow!

sexy!

wll it's just a suggestion, but you could pull off that thing on the nose to let it more fin as possible xD

Please Don't take as an offense, i just love you cat!

[MAKO69 186]

Holy crap that is cool.

 

In reality how stealthy can a swing wing be?

Edited April 20, 2008 by MAKO69

[triplethr3at 0]

[tn_prvteye 36]

Ahhhh, what could have been...

[Silverbolt 104]

Holy crap that is cool.

 

In reality how stealthy can a swing wing be?

Who cares man?

i't a Tomcat rising, i't like chuck norris, nothing more we need to say.

[+Gunrunner 313]

By the Lord's Holy Loincloth, you have me grinning like an imbecile.

 

Actually I think what you have here is an AF/X proposal (Lockheed's one if I'm not mistaken), not a NATF one.

 

But that was a good choice as it looks way better than the NATF proposals I know (closer to the F-22, single seaters and somewhat more angulous in design), even though the target performances of the AF/X program were lower than the NATF (the AF/X was more the search for a heavier Hornet complement (a "stealthy" self escorting mud mover, the Super Bug somewhat replacing it) while the NATF was a navalised F-22, primarily destined to air superiority.

 

Strangely enough there seems to be very little information on the AF/X requirement lying around on the net.

 

IIRC, the AF/X requirement was started to find a replacement for the cancellation of both the NATF program and the A-12.

 

Judging by the lines you probably worked from the artist's impression and cutouts once published in Air & Cosmos (I can't remember if they were published elsewhere, any mention of these drawings I found always point back to A&C).

 

Brilliant anyway, wish I was that good when it comes to modelling -_-

[+Viggen 516]

Shadowcat

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,544]

Damn I like it!!! want it need it order it!!!

[+Julhelm 266]

Yeah I followed the AFX concepts for it, which btw clearly shows what looks like an IRST or TV camera like on the F-14.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Wonderful, I never saw the 3rd picture before.

 

IIRC, on the AF/X it was supposed to house a FLIR/Laser designator/tracker combination, but without sources to confirm it right now (even though that seems logical).

[Stratos 3,166]

Is that a future model for SF?

[Wraith27 6]

US Navy could have it but they take Super Hornet Don't get me wrong: F/A-18E/F is great plane but...

[+Gunrunner 313]

From what I remember that's not exactly the story.

 

In the 80's the USN was pushing a few programs to modernize the fleet, namely the next generation strike aircraft that was to be the ill-fated A-12, the interim solution that was the A-6F (a reengined, rewinged, renforced A-6) and the upgraded F-14D.

 

Unfortunately funding, development troubles and political pressure forced the USN to drop the A-6F, then the A-12, leaving them with no heavy strike airframe.

That's when they started the AX program (not to be confused with the USAF AX which gave birth to the A-10) to procure an advanced strike aircraft (mostly a reboot of the A-12 procurement process).

But in the meantime they still needed an interim strike aircraft to replace the aging A-6, the two main proposal were transforming the F-14D to a more multirole aircraft (with plans to produce new built F-14D AND converting the whole Tomcat fleet to the D standard), or an evolution of the Hornet (what would become the SuperBug).

For various reasons, but mostly budget ones, the procurement of new F-14D was limited (about 40) and only a handful of of upgrades were performed, making the Super Hornet program a vital and crucial one for the USN if they wished to keep some operationnal capability.

 

At approximately the same time, the ATF program for the USAF was progressing and a NATF variant was studied for the USN, as a long term replacement for the aging Tomcats, but due to budgetary constraints and afraid of losing yet another program, the Navy cancelled the NATF program, favoring the SuperBug and thus chosing strike capacities over air superiority.

 

The AF/X program was born from those cancellations, as the Navy was now with a handful of interim air superiority oriented fighters (F-14D), a handful of aging heavy strike aircrafts (A-6), quite a lot of light strike aircrafts not suited to modern constraints (F/A-18A/C), an in-development interim heavy strike aricraft (F/A-18E) and no long term solution in development for either strike or air superiority.

The AF/X was thus started, to procure a modern heavy strike aircraft with good air capabilities.

 

As you know, the AF/X was cancelled (which must have been a dreadful time, imagining the future of the USN with an interim design being the only modern asset).

 

Yet, it was not completely dead, as the need for a long term solution for the USN was still present, and the AF/X specification served as the basis for the Navy part of the JSF requirement.

 

BTW, if they had chosen the AF/X over the F/A-18E, the Navy would have been without a heavy strike aircraft and possible Tomcat replacement before at least the 2020's, which was clearly unacceptable in a context where budgets were shrinking and it was safer to bet on a well underway program than one that could be cancelled, go over-budget, thus leaving the USN with no plane at all.

 

PS : A quick look at Greg Goebel's site partly confirms my memories, yeah !

[+Julhelm 266]

From one thing to another - since I'm gonna have to build a pit for it, which layout would be more probable? An A-12ish one (Think tandem F-22 panels) or Superbug one (Pilot different from WSO)?

[+Gunrunner 313]

Well, traditionnally Navy dual seaters have had very differentiated pits with a pilot and a radar/weapons/system/whathever officer, while Air Force aircrafts had more similar pits, both crew being able to fly the plane and being qualified pilots.

Since either the NATF or the AF/X were Navy planes I would say something along the Superbug lines would be more logical (if you ignore the A-12 exception).

Also, since the A-12, the doctrine evolved toward a more network centric task repartition, so you could see the AFX/NATF as a super-dual-seat-superbug.

 

Now, from a gameplay point of view and given SFP engine limitations, a pit with all functionnalities is probably more interesting though.

 

Well, that's my 2 cents, I can't remember reading anything concerning the pits.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,544]

Good point Gunrunner.

[Atreides 144]

Fantastic work Julhelm. Really looking forward to this one.