Register here

Author Topic: RN with F8 instead of F4  (Read 2951 times)

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1215
RN with F8 instead of F4
« on: April 09, 2018, 03:12:24 am »
The arrival of a new book on the F8 Crusader got me thinking of the old chestnut of giving the RN a fighter
for Ark, Eagle, Victorious and Hermes

I have always felt that if we had done what France did and purchased the F8 we could have kept a carrier force
as long as the French did.  We could have run on two carriers (Eagle and Hermes) into the 80s without CVA01
and decided in the late 70s what should replace them

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2018, 03:56:09 am »
Do-able and close to history.
The twin seater was offered.
A Spey actually solves some issues.
Pile in AI.23 and Red Top for compatibility.
Operable from Hermes.

Of course a massive downgrade for their ambitions

Successor. ....Mirage G if early 70's or ......later on a a Canard FBW CCV type wrapped around a scaled up XG40 engine.
Think Typhoon but with just one big engine.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2018, 04:59:52 am »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2018, 09:57:47 am »
One of my all time favorite movies. Harold Ramis and Bill Murray at their best.

Considering how many cooperative aeropace projects France and Great Britain got inthe 60's a joint Crusader with a Spey would make a ton of sense. Not only France did consider both F-4 and F-8 for the Clemenceaus, but circa 1968 SNECMA and Dassault also shown  lot of interest in the Spey as an alternative to both TF-306 and M53.

Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2514
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2018, 10:36:06 am »


Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2018, 11:51:41 am »
The flipside of this is that the FAA would need more Tankers to support CAP and this would eat into available aircraft on the CV.
Another more subtle point is that the wingfold needs to move inward or else the folded Span eats into available width in the hangers to the point it could cut hangered aircraft by a third.
The single engine is likely to increase the numbers of lost aircraft.
And it would be viewed as a 'interim' solution until the projected wonder planes are canceled along with the new carrier. So monies would not be forthcoming as it would be viewed as "only a few years from being replaced".

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2018, 07:33:11 pm »
After picking up the Naval Fighters F8 Crusader by the late Steve Pace he mentioned the V-466 as being a two seater but with the 2nd seat set level with front rather than stepped higher and the airframe being longer.
Thus the artist impressions based on the Twosader are just that impressions, we really need to see if the brochure has more accurate drawings or CAs in the Bought Archive.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2018, 01:28:44 am »
Why did the RN need a two-seater F-8 anyway? The single-seat did a sound enough job for the USN and the FN.
I note the period artist's impression has a hefty attack load, was this really supposed to be an interim Buccaneer replacement?

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2018, 01:58:59 am »
Why did the RN need a two-seater F-8 anyway? The single-seat did a sound enough job for the USN and the FN.
I note the period artist's impression has a hefty attack load, was this really supposed to be an interim Buccaneer replacement?

Sea Vixen replacement, so looking for all weather Day and Night interception so a Navigator to do the radar work for the Pilot i suspect. The P1154 at this time was still seen to be two man as was the Phantom the RN were wanting. They were possibly looking at Radar Guided missiles as well as IR ones and the secondary strike role may have meant what became Martel.

The brochure may answer some of those questions as all we have to date are period magazine snippets and mentions in books without a great deal of fact, figures and illustrations.!
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 02:00:55 am by Geoff_B »

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2018, 05:27:01 am »
Something I noticed a while ago is that both the F11F Tiger and the FJ-4 Fury have a low enough folded height to fit in the standard Implacable Class 14' high hanger. Both types could potentially have operated from a minimally modernised Implacable class, i.e. interim angled decks and steam cats.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2018, 07:43:44 am »
Where this could be interesting is if say Shorts produced a new variable inlet design that allows for mach 2+ flight.
Then the type could be sold as a cheaper alternative to the Lightning.

Another thought is that Vought did produce a twin engined A7 design and doing that to the F8 opens up a host of possibilities.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2018, 09:14:18 am »
Let's pile in the projected cost.....0.5million
Compared to the F4 at 1.2 million
And the P1154 at 1.5 million

So you could have 2 F8 for the price of one F4.

However I'll say that it seems a far easier task to fit the Spey in the F8 than the F4 so I would not expect a near tripling of the cost. But even if it did it's only going to be 1.5 million. ..... or still about half the real cost per plane of the Spey f4
« Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 10:03:45 am by zen »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2018, 11:51:34 am »
I think an important aspect to remember is that the RN were very aware of the fact of how obsolescent the Sea Vixen was by the time it entered service.
They wanted the F4 with its advanced radar, Sparrows etc. and did not want to get stuck with another "old" sub-optimal interim aircraft.
And the blunt truth is that the F4 was significantly more advanced than the F8 and was also wanted by and bought for the RAF (who had no interest in the F8).
Apart from being the superior fleet defender the F4 was also so much easier to land on a carrier.
The decision to go for the F4 was also made in the expectation of operating from the follow-on UK aircraft carriers that were subsequently cancelled.
In the actual context of when the decision was made the F4 was a more logical choice.
While I appreciate the F8 as a fine aircraft and how one can be an enthusiast for a particular aircraft I think emotion may be clouding the arguments of some contributors.


Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2018, 01:07:36 am »
I think an important aspect to remember is that the RN were very aware of the fact of how obsolescent the Sea Vixen was by the time it entered service.
They wanted the F4 with its advanced radar, Sparrows etc. and did not want to get stuck with another "old" sub-optimal interim aircraft.
And the blunt truth is that the F4 was significantly more advanced than the F8 and was also wanted by and bought for the RAF (who had no interest in the F8).
Apart from being the superior fleet defender the F4 was also so much easier to land on a carrier.
The decision to go for the F4 was also made in the expectation of operating from the follow-on UK aircraft carriers that were subsequently cancelled.
In the actual context of when the decision was made the F4 was a more logical choice.
While I appreciate the F8 as a fine aircraft and how one can be an enthusiast for a particular aircraft I think emotion may be clouding the arguments of some contributors.

So the first point here is if you want to discuss history, you're posting in the wrong section.
Second I agree that the F4 made enormous sense after the '63 Airdisplay by the Soviets showing their new large anti-ship missiles.
Hence not investing in what were thought more modern and superior aircraft to either F8 and the sainted F4.
Time had become critical and the F4 had enough future potential to put back the effort for wonder weapons.

Thirdly
It's actually the other way around as the FAA pushed for the F4 while the RAF stuck with the P1154 'Harrier' until '65.
Even then they afterwards tasked only 72 for MRI until the cheaper to operate Jaguar came into service.
FAA got stuck with the P1154 for the sake of commonality in imitation of the then US TFX concept.
It's not what they originally wanted which was OR.346, think TSR.2 navalised. .....

Fourthly
The context of any decision for the F8 is either:-
A less ambitious CV force. Such as focused on ASW with more limited fighter and offenaive systems.

Or that the F8 might be quicker to service.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 01:42:55 am by zen »

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1215
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2018, 07:46:17 am »
The problem the F8 could have helped solve, was the small size of the 4 largest RN carriers available in 1962.
Even Ark had a tight time operating the F4.
The answer was intended to be CVA01.
However, even in 1962 the cost of a carrier force was troubling the Treasury.
There were also doubts as to the value of carriers in a full on general war with Russia, there role being primarily East of Suez.
If a coherent carrier policy like that of France with its two Clemenceau ships had emerged, the RN could have used the F8 to keep all or some of its 4 carriers in service until the 70s when a new generation of vstol types like P1154 could have replaced them.
Of course the RN set its sights higher and wanted interoperability with the USN.