Register here

Author Topic: RN with F8 instead of F4  (Read 664 times)

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1180
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: 761
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 JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3307
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2018, 04:50:44 am »

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 761
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2018, 04:59:52 am »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1779
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #4 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 - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Online GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2444
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2018, 10:36:06 am »


Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 761
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #6 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: 583
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #7 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: 863
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #8 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: 583
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #9 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: 109
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #10 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: 761
Re: RN with F8 instead of F4
« Reply #11 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.