Grumman VSX

[MAD]

I'm sorry KJ_Lesnick

I've just revisited this forum and realised that I was on a 'What If' forum

I got a little carried away!!

M.A.D

[KJ_Lesnick]

MAD,

It should be noted that the U.S navy was notorious for deciding on who got contracts to Request For Proposals (RFP's) based on which of 'their' traditional favored aerospace / aircraft company's were in need of work at a given time and not due to which submission was the best for the job!

Technically the USAF did this too sometimes.  I'm guessing the USN was more notorious though in that particular aspect.

It has always had me tossed as to how Grumman - without doubt the most favored aircraft company of the U.S Navy - after all its contract from the F4F Wildcat to the F-14 Tomcat, was able to say that it was near broke and close to being out of the aircraft business.

That is a pretty impressive claim.

As to your question of McDonnell wining the VFX (F-14) competition over that of the Grumman G        . I very much doubt it, for Grumman had the 100% backing of the U.S Navy 'top brass', when it had gone along with the Navy's plan to kill its involvement in the TFX (F-111B) program!
Grumman was the prim contractor to General Dynamics in making the F-111B carrier compatible.
It was Grumman's insight and knowledge into the TFX program, which lead it to offer the initial unsolicited G-303 (F-14 Tomcat), which both excited and encouraged the U.S Navy to carry out the clear and obvious F-111B assassination!

When you talk about the unsolicited G-303, do you mean the original fixed-wing version?  If Grumman had gone ahead with a fixed-wing aircraft, would they have lost to McDonnell?  Or would they have won anyway?



I have always been a F-111 fan!
Loving both its technology (VG wings, TFR.....), range and warload
But I have always preferred the actual USAF and USN's preferred choice - the Boeing Model 818 - which itself was picked for political (The infamous Robert McNamara and other senators!) reasons rather than true military want and capability!
So for this reason in my own silly and irrelevant way - have little sympathy for Grumman sticking it to General Dynamics with their abandonment of the F-111B in favor of their own G-303 design.
Grumman was always going to be awarded the VFX by the USN for its part and risk it took in helping give the Navy a reason to build an all-Navy aircraft - as opposed to a force Joint USAF/USN TFX

I hope this answers some of your question

P.S I must say it is poor old Vought/LTV that I feel pity for!
Somewhere and somehow for reasons I do not completely understand (although I surmise its legal challenge it took against the US Navy over its loss of the VFAX competition, with its joint Vought/General Dynamics Model 1600/1601 navalized F-16 Fighting falcon!

So the USN adopted a vandetta against them for legally challenging their choice?

[MAD]

Technically the USAF did this too sometimes.

There is little doubt about this!
A good expample of this was when McNamara forced the Navy's F-4 Phantom II on the USAF in place of their want for a more advanced variant of the F-105.
And again with the USAF being forced to take the LTV A-7 on charge - another US Navy designed aircraft!
Although both proved to be excellent aircraft (ironically the USAF ended up developing the outstanding F-4E, and the USAF demand for modifications to the A-7, would influence the USN itself to adopt these improvements - including an engine type change!

That is a pretty impressive claim.

The fact is the F-14 program itself almost sent Grumman broke (although not all Grumman's fault - what with inflation, rising Grumman overheads and the new Total Package Procurement contracts
'In August 1972, Grumman Chairman and President, E. Clinton Towl, told the Navy if Grumman was not paid an additional $545 million for the final 227 of the 313 F-14A's on order, they would have to close their doors'. + Grumman's dabbling with a civilian 'Flexible Bus' program that was an expensive failure.

When you talk about the unsolicited G-303, do you mean the original fixed-wing version?  If Grumman had gone ahead with a fixed-wing aircraft, would they have lost to McDonnell?  Or would they have won anyway?

I can not answer this!
But something I have found is the fact - that Grumman quote undercut McDonnell Douglas's Model 225 design by $100 million

Again all I have is - the navy looked at the (Grumman) proposal very carefully and realized that it could be the answer to all their problems. The (Grumman) design took the best features of the F-111B and placed them in a brand new airframe; what was more important , the R&D had already been done on the engines and weapon system

So the USN adopted a vandetta against them for legally challenging their choice?

A very public legal challenge - which involved much of the U.S Congress directives to the USN, which they clearly and obviously chose to ignore!
i.e the fact that Congress had stated and directed that the U.S navy was to adapt their VFAX/NACF from the winner of the USAF's LWF/ACF competition = General Dynamics Model 401 / YF-16.
By bringing U.S Congress into the equation would not have made the U.S Navy very happy at all!


M.A.D

[KJ_Lesnick]

MAD,

There is little doubt about this!
A good expample of this was when McNamara forced the Navy's F-4 Phantom II on the USAF in place of their want for a more advanced variant of the F-105.

Really?  I didn't know the USAF wanted a modified F-105 (BTW: what were the details of that?).  The thing I wonder is why didn't the ADC end up with the F-4 as an interceptor?  After all, that's how McNamara managed to get his foot in the door with the F-4...  

And again with the USAF being forced to take the LTV A-7 on charge - another US Navy designed aircraft!

Was the USN happy about the A-7?  I can't imagine they'd have liked it much as they would probably have favored a supersonic design...

The fact is the F-14 program itself almost sent Grumman broke (although not all Grumman's fault - what with inflation, rising Grumman overheads and the new Total Package Procurement contracts
'In August 1972, Grumman Chairman and President, E. Clinton Towl, told the Navy if Grumman was not paid an additional $545 million for the final 227 of the 313 F-14A's on order, they would have to close their doors'.

So they actually did almost go bankrupt?

Grumman's dabbling with a civilian 'Flexible Bus' program that was an expensive failure.

What's a Flexible Bus?

I can not answer this!

I guess if you don't have the answer, you don't have the answer.

But something I have found is the fact - that Grumman quote undercut McDonnell Douglas's Model 225 design by $100 million

Which I could imagine must have played a big role in things...

The (Grumman) design took the best features of the F-111B and placed them in a brand new airframe; what was more important , the R&D had already been done on the engines and weapon system[/i]

What were the "best features" of the F-111B?  Does that mean the swing-wing?  Or does it mean the range, low-speed handling, loitering capability, bring-back capability, and ability to carry AIM-54's?

A very public legal challenge - which involved much of the U.S Congress directives to the USN, which they clearly and obviously chose to ignore!
i.e the fact that Congress had stated and directed that the U.S navy was to adapt their VFAX/NACF from the winner of the USAF's LWF/ACF competition = General Dynamics Model 401 / YF-16.

I thought they had the choice to pick one of the two of the competitors in the LWF program?  If they were obligated to develop the F-16 (which GD was coupled with LTV), and the USN flat out ignored it and picked the YF-17 design and chose to develop that instead, I could imagine LTV being pissed and blowing the whistle.  

By bringing U.S Congress into the equation would not have made the U.S Navy very happy at all!

Of course not, still if they were obligated to develop the F-16, LTV was within it's rights to make a big deal about it.  Unfortunately whistle-blowers usually enjoy little protection and usually end up getting squashed like bugs by the system.  Plus why didn't the USN just develop the design, and either point out/make-up flaws in the design of the aircraft, and do things to drive up the weight in every way imaginable, claim it's overweight and demand it be stripped down, thus reducing the capability of the aircraft to dirt.  If that doesn't get it cancelled, then wait until carrier certification trials, and find, inflate, and make-up every single flaw that existed during the tests, claim the plane's unsuitable for carrier-use (Navalese for I don't want this f***ing jet, now let me pick what I want!) for carrier use, junk the program, and develop the design you really wanted, which you were probably developing on the side?  Or did they use that trick up with the F-111?


KJ Lesnick

[MAD]

Really?  I didn't know the USAF wanted a modified F-105 (BTW: what were the details of that?).  The thing I wonder is why didn't the ADC end up with the F-4 as an interceptor?  After all, that's how McNamara managed to get his foot in the door with the F-4...

The USAF wanted its own designs in this role!
Improved F-106's and want for the likes of F-12's. And of the late 1960's they started the FX program (F-15 Eagle) and nothing was going to cloud or threaten this big ticket item!

Was the USN happy about the A-7?  I can't imagine they'd have liked it much as they would probably have favored a supersonic design...

As a matter of fact this was probably one of the most sensable USN aircraft RFP's ever issued.
The USN and Marines were very impressed with the little A-4 Skyhawk and this design went a long way in braking all the rules, for its size, its cost and its punch. Its only short coming was its range, which 'VAL' intended to remedy!
With the main specification being that of 'subsonic' - with the knowledge that a supersonic aircraft was going to equate to a much larger, complex and expensive aircraft.
Infact the USN's stipulated that it had to be a development of an existing platform to save both money and time in fielding it in operational service!
Oh and of course the United States was involved in Viet Nam
I often hope that the USN would revisit and relearn from the 'VAL' program!

So they actually did almost go bankrupt?

Yep - the true saving grace being the Iranian F-14 Tomcat order and probably part of the reason Grumman was selected by the USN as the winner of the AEW comp, with their E-2 Hawkeye over that of the said superior Vought's V-404 AEW design!

What's a Flexible Bus?

Grumman's attempt to diversify its business outside the military - the Flexible Bus was acquired from Rohr Industries, never worked properly, with Grumman seemingly forever to be repairing them - with costs in the vicinity of $250 million more than they banked on.

What were the "best features" of the F-111B?  Does that mean the swing-wing?  Or does it mean the range, low-speed handling, loitering capability, bring-back capability, and ability to carry AIM-54's?

VG wings, Aim-54, AWG-9 radar system, and of course the TF30 afterburning turbojets!

I thought they had the choice to pick one of the two of the competitors in the LWF program?  If they were obligated to develop the F-16 (which GD was coupled with LTV), and the USN flat out ignored it and picked the YF-17 design and chose to develop that instead, I could imagine LTV being pissed and blowing the whistle.

The original wording of Congress was the winner of the USAF's LWF/ACF comp.
The USN played on the idea that the YF-17 was more carrier suitable because of its two-engine overwater safety and they said the YF-17 had better development potential. And like the Versailles Treaty, nobody enforced it so they ran with it!

Of course not, still if they were obligated to develop the F-16, LTV was within it's rights to make a big deal about it.  Unfortunately whistle-blowers usually enjoy little protection and usually end up getting squashed like bugs by the system.  Plus why didn't the USN just develop the design, and either point out/make-up flaws in the design of the aircraft, and do things to drive up the weight in every way imaginable, claim it's overweight and demand it be stripped down, thus reducing the capability of the aircraft to dirt.  If that doesn't get it cancelled, then wait until carrier certification trials, and find, inflate, and make-up every single flaw that existed during the tests, claim the plane's unsuitable for carrier-use (Navalese for I don't want this f***ing jet, now let me pick what I want!) for carrier use, junk the program, and develop the design you really wanted, which you were probably developing on the side?  Or did they use that trick up with the F-111?

You hit the nail right on the head

M.A.D

[KJ_Lesnick]

MAD,

The USAF wanted its own designs in this role!
Improved F-106's and want for the likes of F-12's.

Yeah, but I remember hearing even the ADC was quite impressed with the F-4 design as it had a number of advantages over the F-106 (It had a superior intercept-radius, superior and overall more reliable radar, superior missiles, twin man crew, and could work independent of SAGE)

Regardless, what specifics do you have on that modified F-105 program you were talking about in your previous post?

And of the late 1960's they started the FX program (F-15 Eagle) and nothing was going to cloud or threaten this big ticket item!

The F-X program came after the F-4 entered USAF service, and was kind of developed as an F-4 replacement for the US Navy.

As a matter of fact this was probably one of the most sensable USN aircraft RFP's ever issued.
The USN and Marines were very impressed with the little A-4 Skyhawk and this design went a long way in braking all the rules, for its size, its cost and its punch. Its only short coming was its range, which 'VAL' intended to remedy!

To the best of my knowledge the A-4 was far more agile than the A-7, but I could be wrong.  I assume, the VAL-program was the A-7 right?

With the main specification being that of 'subsonic' - with the knowledge that a supersonic aircraft was going to equate to a much larger, complex and expensive aircraft.

Generally the case.

Infact the USN's stipulated that it had to be a development of an existing platform to save both money and time in fielding it in operational service!

I didn't know that.  Regardless, it is logical

Yep - the true saving grace being the Iranian F-14 Tomcat order and probably part of the reason Grumman was selected by the USN as the winner of the AEW comp, with their E-2 Hawkeye over that of the said superior Vought's V-404 AEW design!

The E-2 Hawkeye entered service in 1964 and first flew in 1960.  The Tomcat made it's first flight at the end of 1970.

Grumman's attempt to diversify its business outside the military - the Flexible Bus was acquired from Rohr Industries, never worked properly, with Grumman seemingly forever to be repairing them - with costs in the vicinity of $250 million more than they banked on.

So the Flexible Bus was actually a real bus design?

VG wings, Aim-54, AWG-9 radar system, and of course the TF30 afterburning turbojets!

I was just curious because one of the first-designs Grumman submitted was a fixed-wing design.  Regardless, had Grumman's design not ultimately featured a variable-geometry wing, the USN would not have liked it as much (even if it could meet the same performance, and was lighter?)?

The original wording of Congress was the winner of the USAF's LWF/ACF comp.

So they were obligated to pick the F-16.  I'm not sure if you answered this further down the thread, but why didn't the USN just develop the F-16 design going through the motions, then point out and make-up flaws in the design of the aircraft, do everything imaginable to drive up the weight of the aircraft, then claim it's overweight and demand it be stripped down to the point that it can't do anything useful and use that to justify canceling the program outright.  Should that fail, then wait until carrier-certification trials, find, inflate, and make-up every single flaw that existed during the tests (few airplanes perfectly pass carrier-certification trials on the first shot, and require some modifications, and procedural changes), claim the aircraft's unsuitable to carrier use, then use that as ammunition to junk the aircraft program; then proceed to develop the design you really wanted (which you were largely developing in secret)?  It worked pretty well with the F-111.

The USN played on the idea that the YF-17 was more carrier suitable because of its two-engine overwater safety and they said the YF-17 had better development potential. And like the Versailles Treaty, nobody enforced it so they ran with it!

I don't believe rules have to be obsessively enforced, but if they aren't enforced at all (and this was not "un-enforceable" order), some people will just defy them knowing they can get away with it.

You hit the nail right on the head

That whistle-blowers tend to get squashed like-bugs?


KJ Lesnick

[Jschmus]

This bus business intrigued me, so I did a little searching.  There was a bus manufacturer called the Flexible Bus Company.  In 1919, they changed the spelling to "Flxible", but still pronounced it as Flexible.  I thought by the name that these might have been what are called "articulated" buses, but these turn out to have been conventional buses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flxible_Metro

[MAD]

Regardless, what specifics do you have on that modified F-105 program you were talking about in your previous post?

I think the USAF's main drive and want for the F-105 series was due to its nuclear strike capability, more than anything else. The USAF as a whole was nuclear obsessed at around that era!
Plans to build over 1,500 F-105Ds for the USAF were cut short by Robert McNamara!
I think it was the F-105H(?) - Republic proposing it to be a two-seat, with larger area wing, a new nose, and new landing gear and if memory serves me correctly a more powerful version of the Pratt & Whitney J75, in the 30,000lb thrust range!

The F-X program came after the F-4 entered USAF service, and was kind of developed as an F-4 replacement for the US Navy.

The first USAF McDonnell Douglas F-110 Spectre (later F-4C Phantom II) arrived in December 1964.
The Air Force Systems Command, overlooking the events in Southeast Asia, began their "Preliminary F-X Concept Formulation Package" in 1965 and presented it a year later.
Like the USN and its VFX (F-14 Tomcat) program – the USAF as an organization can be very protective of its pet projects! Don't forget that the USAF tried everyway it could to kill the LWF (F-16) program – for it saw the LWF program as a direct threat to its prized FX (F-15 Eagle) program!

I assume, the VAL-program was the A-7 right?

Correct!!

I didn't know that.  Regardless, it is logical

LTV proposed the A-7 - a so-called development of the F-8 Crusader
Grumman proposed Design 128G-12 - a single-seat development of the A-6 Intruder
North American proposed an upgraded FJ-4B Fury with an enlarged fuselage for the TF-30 engine and strengthened wing to carry a 15000 lb payload.
Douglas proposed the A4D-6, an enlarged A-4 Skyhawk, powered by a GE TF-30 turbofan.

I was just curious because one of the first-designs Grumman submitted was a fixed-wing design.  Regardless, had Grumman's design not ultimately featured a variable-geometry wing, the USN would not have liked it as much (even if it could meet the same performance, and was lighter?)?

VG wings was everything back then - state of the art, which offered the best of both worlds (if you overlook complicate, cost, added maintenance and weight!!)

So they were obligated to pick the F-16.  I'm not sure if you answered this further down the thread, but why didn't the USN just develop the F-16 design going through the motions, then point out and make-up flaws in the design of the aircraft, do everything imaginable to drive up the weight of the aircraft, then claim it's overweight and demand it be stripped down to the point that it can't do anything useful and use that to justify canceling the program outright.

It was the end of the Viet Nam War.
It had cost the United States more than it could really afford!
The U.S Military had had its day in the sun, with almost endless money for every weapon system it wanted!
Congress had said enough - the party is over - You will comply, by working smarter and harder!
As for the USN and the F-16/Model 1600/1601 - they had to be seen abiding to Congress directives!
They had to tread lightly after after pulling what they did with the TFX/F-111B circus show!
The USN was petrified (as to was the USAF), that acceptance of a aircraft which was designed for the USAF would lead if successful (which I have no doubt that the LTV/GD Model 1600/1601 could and would have been very effective and successful - and cheaper!), could have started a precedents of it having more Air Force aircraft force upon it!

I don't believe rules have to be obsessively enforced, but if they aren't enforced at all (and this was not "un-enforceable" order), some people will just defy them knowing they can get away with it.

Yes - it happend then and it still happens today on a massive scale.
That's why the services love black projects!
Look at the LHX program, the ATF program and the still on going and problem filled JSF program!
Congress is a paper tiger! The United States Military has become a product of the U.S Military industry!

That whistle-blowers tend to get squashed like-bugs?

Always has!
Always will!
Regardless of legislation, Congress protection......bla, bla, bla.
U.S defence is an industry. You only need to look at how the career path of the services works ....service programs, more service programs, early retirement from services - 'bang' executive in a military industry over night!

M.A.D

[KJ_Lesnick]

MAD,

I think the USAF's main drive and want for the F-105 series was due to its nuclear strike capability, more than anything else. The USAF as a whole was nuclear obsessed at around that era!

They really seemed to have almost a fetish for nuclear weapons.

I think it was the F-105H(?) - Republic proposing it to be a two-seat, with larger area wing, a new nose, and new landing gear and if memory serves me correctly a more powerful version of the Pratt & Whitney J75, in the 30,000lb thrust range!

Wasn't the landing gear a tandem type like the B-52's?

The first USAF McDonnell Douglas F-110 Spectre (later F-4C Phantom II) arrived in December 1964.

Odd, I thought it entered USAF service in late '62...

Like the USN and its VFX (F-14 Tomcat) program – the USAF as an organization can be very protective of its pet projects!

But of course...

Don't forget that the USAF tried everyway it could to kill the LWF (F-16) program – for it saw the LWF program as a direct threat to its prized FX (F-15 Eagle) program!

And to an extent they did manage to somewhat compromise it's performance, the wing-area wasn't sufficiently enlarged to compensate for the weight increase (YF-16 = 280 square feet, F-16A = 300 square feet, Ideal Square Footage = 320 square feet), and I've been told that the reason they drastically increased it's air to ground capability was to weigh it down and make it less maneuverable.  They were actually hurting themselves so as to protect the F-15.

Correct!!

Understood

Douglas proposed the A4D-6, an enlarged A-4 Skyhawk, powered by a GE TF-30 turbofan.

Why didn't that one win?  That would have been awesome!

VG wings was everything back then - state of the art, which offered the best of both worlds (if you overlook complicate, cost, added maintenance and weight!!)

So, if Grumman ultimately submitted a fixed-wing proposal (even though one of their proposals was a fixed-wing concept) the USN's opinion of it would be lowered, and they might not have accepted it?

It was the end of the Viet Nam War.
It had cost the United States more than it could really afford!
The U.S Military had had its day in the sun, with almost endless money for every weapon system it wanted!
Congress had said enough - the party is over - You will comply, by working smarter and harder!
As for the USN and the F-16/Model 1600/1601 - they had to be seen abiding to Congress directives!

But didn't they basically flagrantly defy the Congressional Directive?

They had to tread lightly after after pulling what they did with the TFX/F-111B circus show!

So, Congress learned it's lesson...

The USN was petrified (as to was the USAF), that acceptance of a aircraft which was designed for the USAF would lead if successful (which I have no doubt that the LTV/GD Model 1600/1601 could and would have been very effective and successful - and cheaper!), could have started a precedents of it having more Air Force aircraft force upon it!

So the issue was that the USN wanted it's own airplanes, and the USAF wanted their own airplanes?

Yes - it happend then and it still happens today on a massive scale.

Of course.

That's why the services love black projects!

To hide from oversight?  Doesn't Congress have intelligence and military oversight capacity?  At least with Special Access Programs, at least the head of the committee is briefed on it.

Congress is a paper tiger! The United States Military has become a product of the U.S Military industry!

So, basically the military industrial complex has become so powerful that Congress does not have sufficient power (either manpower, or willpower) to exert proper oversight over these programs, and the military goes out of it's way to circumvent and bypass oversight whenever possible?

Always has!
Always will!

Of course.  Those in power do not like having their power questioned or challenged, and they will do anything in their power to remain in power.


KJ Lesnick

[Jschmus]

I have never seen, in any searches, an image of Grumman's standalone VSX proposal.  The library at the Carolinas Aviation Museum (where I used to volunteer) has an extensive collection of declassified Grumman documents, mostly related to the development of the F-14 Tomcat.  I remember seeing something about their VSX being based on the E-2 Hawkeye airframe, but I could be wrong.  There was an article in Air & Space, I think, written by Corky Meyer, who was a Grumman test pilot for many years, about the development of the F-14, but it briefly mentions the Grumman VSX.  At the time of the VSX RFP, Grumman had designed ALL of the Navy's fixed-wing carrier ASW assets, beginning with the ASW variants of the TBF Avenger, followed by the AF Guardian and finally the S-2 Tracker.  I don't remember the exact quote, but Grumman's attitude about the whole business was very lax.  That got them bounced out in the first round.  According to the Wikipedia article on the S-3, Grumman collaborated with Convair on one of their proposals, which can be seen here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,409.0/highlight,vsx.html

[MAD]

I don't remember the exact quote, but Grumman's attitude about the whole business was very lax.  That got them bounced out in the first round.

Yes Jschmus you are correct I too can remember them making some argent quote about just giving them the specs and the Navy sign the cheque....................or something to that effect!
I will try and find it!!
I would love to see what Grumman submitted to the VSX program - As I too have not seen their proposal!
The finalists were Lockheed (California) (and LTV) and General Dynamics!

Wasn't the landing gear a tandem type like the B-52's?

I can not answer that sorry!

Hay KJ_Lesnick  - if  you want to read a great book about the TFX/F-111B, VFX (F-14), LWF/ACF (YF-16 vs. YF-17),VFAX, and NACF (F/A-18 and the GD/LTV Model 1600/1601) can I suggest the book The Pentagon Paradox - by James P. Stevenson
Its an eye opener to the US military, the political system and most importantly how the US Navy and USAF were heading down the wrong path with their want for bigger, faster and more expensive combat aircraft!
Well worth the money!
Well worth the read!

M.A.D

[KJ_Lesnick]

Jschmus,

I don't remember the exact quote, but Grumman's attitude about the whole business was very lax.  That got them bounced out in the first round.

They basically said "give us the money, and we'll build you you're ASW plane". 

According to the Wikipedia article on the S-3, Grumman collaborated with Convair on one of their proposals, which can be seen here:

So some of Grumman's proposals were exclusively Grumman designed, and some were collaborations with Convair and Grumman?


MAD,

Yes Jschmus you are correct I too can remember them making some argent quote about just giving them the specs and the Navy sign the cheque....................or something to that effect!

Yeah, it was unbelievably arrogant.

Hay KJ_Lesnick  - if  you want to read a great book about the TFX/F-111B, VFX (F-14), LWF/ACF (YF-16 vs. YF-17),VFAX, and NACF (F/A-18 and the GD/LTV Model 1600/1601) can I suggest the book The Pentagon Paradox - by James P. Stevenson
Its an eye opener to the US military, the political system and most importantly how the US Navy and USAF were heading down the wrong path with their want for bigger, faster and more expensive combat aircraft!

I think I may have read excerpts from that book, I definitely have seen the cover of the book

Well worth the money!
Well worth the read!

I'll consider it.