VSX -- If Grumman did it Right

KJ_Lesnick · July 21, 2008, 10:11:51 AM

If Grumman didn't act so arrogantly and assumed that their design would automatically be accepted, and actually banged out a good design, would they and could they have beat Lockheed's S-3 design?

Would both companies have used largely the same electronics?

KJ_Lesnick
(BTW: Would the loss of the S-3 Viking would have been serious on Lockheed and hurt any other of their military and/or civilian projects)

Lawman · July 21, 2008, 10:57:48 AM

Do you have any links to the Grumman design?

In many ways, I suspect that an updated S-2 might have been a good option. Put turboprops on the S-2 (as has been done by third parties), update the avionics, and strengthen the wings (to allow carriage of suitable weapons externally), and you end up with a pretty good aircraft. This has the potential advantage of allowing it to replace existing S-2s in other nations, something which the much 'hotter' Viking never could (in landing run-out, launch requirements, weight and size). At the time (late '60s to early '70s), quite a few nations had carriers operational, and a number had just left the carrier-owners club! Argentina had 25 de Mayo (replacing Independencia); Australia had Melbourne (with Sydney on the way out); Brazil had Minas Gerais; India had Viraat (operating Hawker Sea Hawks and Alizes); France obviously had Clemenceau and Foch (though used the Alize, but the Tracker-replacement would have been much better, both for AEW and ASW); and Britain had Ark Royal and Eagle (the latter on the way out, but this could have been quite different).

Overall, the market for the new VS-X would be reasonable - lots of land-based Tracker users as well. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, US, Uruguay and Venezuela all used them!

As for Lockheed, this was their first real foray into modern carrier-based platforms, and hence relied heavily on LTV's experience. Lockheed were in pretty dire straits at this point in time, with their L1011 Tristar project facing major problems and overruns; I suspect that one of two things would end up happening had they lost this contract: either they would weather the storm, suffering a bit of economic damage, and possibly risking being taken over by a rival, (e.g. Grumman, Northrop, Boeing etc...); or alternatively, they would just have been forced out of business, with a possible government bail-out, being forced to sell off parts of its business. Basically, it's not really clear what the effect would be for Lockheed, but it would almost certainly be bad, and given the timing, any real 'hit' is very bad news!

kitnut617 · July 21, 2008, 12:02:55 PM

I don't think they would've been hurt that bad, at the time the Tristar was just a small part of the Lockheed business. They couldn't keep up with C-130 deliveries and then there was C-141, C-5, skunkworks, P-3's, um! what am I missing ----

jcf · July 21, 2008, 02:32:33 PM

Grumman proposed turbine-engined S2 developments to the USN throughout the 1950s, long before the VSX contest.

Design 215 of November 1959 came close to being ordered into production as the S2F-4.

Jon

KJ_Lesnick · July 22, 2008, 10:10:03 AM

Lawman,

Considering Lockheed won the contract, I would have to say that Lockheed did something right.

Everybody Else,

Anyone else have data regarding how Lockheed would have faired in regards to the S-3 failing (as the L-1011 was having trouble and stuff)? Would it have done okay?

KJ

kitnut617 · July 22, 2008, 10:29:26 AM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 21, 2008, 02:32:33 PM
Grumman proposed turbine-engined S2 developments to the USN throughout the 1950s, long before the VSX contest.

Design 215 of November 1959 came close to being ordered into production as the S2F-4.

Jon

Looking at that Jon, it would seem they ended up skipping it and going straight to the Hawkeye, now that would be an interesting build, Tracker nose and Hawkeye everything else

jcf · July 22, 2008, 11:06:44 AM

Quote from: kitnut617 on July 22, 2008, 10:29:26 AM

Looking at that Jon, it would seem they ended up skipping it and going straight to the Hawkeye, now that would be an interesting build, Tracker nose and Hawkeye everything else

Ectually old bean, Grumman tacked WF2 (later designated E-2) derived tail feathers onto a stretched Stoof fuselage to get Design 215.

Real world Ironworks Whiffery, gotta love it.

Jon

KJ_Lesnick · July 23, 2008, 11:34:48 AM

I was looking at the SECRET Projects website, and they have a post about this particular program. At least Convair in addition to Lockheed/LTV also went with a jet design, and I would not be suprised if all of them did except Grumman.

Obviously it would have been better had Grumman chose a jet-powered design like the S-3 and not have been so arrogant.

KJ

Metatron · July 24, 2008, 09:49:32 AM

The VSX competition was run just after the VFX, most of Grumman's A-team was working on turning the G303E into the YF-14. They were also working on the A-6E, EA-6B and E-2B/C. It has often been stated that a company with 2-3 programs on the backburner will not do as good of a job as one who is fighting for its life. They came in last behind Lockheed/Vought, General Dynamics, and McDonnell Douglas.

KJ_Lesnick · July 24, 2008, 12:42:40 PM

Quote from: Metatron on July 24, 2008, 09:49:32 AM
The VSX competition was run just after the VFX, most of Grumman's A-team was working on turning the G303E into the YF-14. They were also working on the A-6E, EA-6B and E-2B/C. It has often been stated that a company with 2-3 programs on the backburner will not do as good of a job as one who is fighting for its life. They came in last behind Lockheed/Vought, General Dynamics, and McDonnell Douglas.

So it was kind of an excessive work-load kind of thing? They weren't capable of cooking up a reasonable design?

KJ

Lawman · July 25, 2008, 05:33:22 AM

An S-2, with turbofan engines, slightly stretched, and slightly wider!

kitnut617 · July 25, 2008, 06:52:37 AM

interesting lawman, the the main u/c would really have to go in the fuselage don't you think.

elmayerle · July 25, 2008, 09:31:10 AM

Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2008, 06:52:37 AM
interesting lawman, the the main u/c would really have to go in the fuselage don't you think.

More likely it needs the engine nacelles carefully designed so that the gear can retract into the underside, most likely with a 90 degree rotation of the wheels (see, for ex. the P-40 and F4U main gear) to lie flat in the gear well.

jcf · July 25, 2008, 09:50:43 AM

Quote from: elmayerle on July 25, 2008, 09:31:10 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2008, 06:52:37 AM
interesting lawman, the the main u/c would really have to go in the fuselage don't you think.

More likely it needs the engine nacelles carefully designed so that the gear can retract into the underside, most likely with a 90 degree rotation of the wheels (see, for ex. the P-40 and F4U main gear) to lie flat in the gear well.

Boeing would have liked that, another set of licensing fees.

Jon

kitnut617 · July 25, 2008, 12:07:38 PM

The pylon attaching the engine to the wing would have to be a lot beefier then, it would have to become a major structure.