Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
Basically the entire fuselage haha. J46 was supposed to generate 10,000 each when they selected it. J57 would have helped (thrust to weight), bit you'd still be well shy of 20,000lbs.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
430
Reaction score
566
Way off topic as the time lines don't fit but something I noticed about the FJ-4, F4D and F11F is they would all have fit in the hangar of the Implacable Class armoured fleet carriers. They would have been ideal if the last two armoured fleets had been transferred to / crewed by the RAN from completion as proposed during WWII and had been retained post war instead of the acquisition of the Majestics. These types would have been suitable for operation from an upgraded Implacable (angled deck, steam cats) that retained the original hangar height. With is folding tail the Vigilante would have fit as well, if the aircraft elevators were modified.

Anyway this is why I am a fan of these types, they fit my own little scenario that I will type up one day.

Actually while I'm at it I recall reading the Ford was a bit of a pig, has anyone else heard or read this? I have also read it was a rocket ship that pilots loved, I wonder what the truth is.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
I suspect it's like most other things. Some people love it. Some hate it.

When I was reading about Australian Black Cats the other day, an article mentioned that some brand new sea plane pilots said it handled like a brick, while the old hands who had started in open-air South Hamptons and Walruses called it "light and breezy".
Pilots almost universally hated the P-38 and the troubled Allisons in the ETO, but in the Pacific they were screaming for as many as they could get. In one theater it was a low reliability mission-killer, and in another the hottest ship available.

With planes it's probably worse because you also get different models or tranches, and the different experiences. If you were a pilot of a P-38B, you probably had a different experience than the guys who got a L -model, who also had the benefit of having had all the kinks (and tactics) worked out by earlier experience. If you're a German student pilot in a F-104A, you probably had a different sort of relationship with it than an Italian years later in a nifty S-model. Etc.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
Way off topic as the time lines don't fit but something I noticed about the FJ-4, F4D and F11F is they would all have fit in the hangar of the Implacable Class armoured fleet carriers. They would have been ideal if the last two armoured fleets had been transferred to / crewed by the RAN from completion as proposed during WWII and had been retained post war instead of the acquisition of the Majestics. These types would have been suitable for operation from an upgraded Implacable (angled deck, steam cats) that retained the original hangar height. With is folding tail the Vigilante would have fit as well, if the aircraft elevators were modified.

Anyway this is why I am a fan of these types, they fit my own little scenario that I will type up one day.

Actually while I'm at it I recall reading the Ford was a bit of a pig, has anyone else heard or read this? I have also read it was a rocket ship that pilots loved, I wonder what the truth is.

... and both Skylancer and Super Tiger weren't much bigger than Skyray and Tiger before them...
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
While I don't want to stuff words into @SSgtC's mouth, the Dutch could not have been a more perfect operator for the Super Tiger.
They have at least a hundred F-84s and a dozen Sea Hawks that need replacement; I like the Skylancer too but it doesn't seem like Douglas tried to market it too hard? Historically the Royal Netherlands Air Force bought 138 Starfighters and 105 NF-5s that were mostly built under license.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
When for my TL I turned the Skylancer into the Arrrow half-brother to save both, in my researches I couldn't find any export atempts by Douglas. Steve Ginter has nothing, nada.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
They just got the Thunderstreaks in '55. About half got replaced by the F-104's in '64. The other half stayed active until 1970. when they got enough F-5's. Under the "current" circumstances, I would be looking to simply get anything I could get my hands on. Even RAF Venoms or Vampires -- I'd just want to find something in theatre that some one is willing to give up, and I can get into service quickly.

They likewise, just got their hands on the Sea Hawks in 1957. The Sea Hawk performed well enough in the Suez Crisis, that I'm not sure how "urgent" they would view the replacement. It's still in production until 1961! Obviously, faster, more advanced is better, but as one recent SecDef noted, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time".

Interesting note I learned with the Sea hawks is that they came out of the NATO pool-funding. I'm not sure where the money comes from for more advanced replacements. Here's another opportunity with the RN has already started to transition to new types, so there might be Sea Hawks in theatre for delivery available as things like the Scimitar and Vixen arrive.

Given the West's combat record against developing countries with the MiG-15's, -17's, and -19's, with transonic fighters, I don't know if anything else is even needed until the MiG-21 shows up. Then the game changes, but that's a few years away, even for India. And in the case of India, while the MiG-21 (combined with Hunters and Gnats) clearly outclassed the Pakistani Canberra's, Sabres, Starfighters, it wasn't exactly a one-sided bloodbath in 1965. They held their own (or better, depending on who you want to listen to haha).
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
Followed a link from the B-52 thread that was just bumped and found this.


ital Includes: PDF WebViewer
This issue presents a highly detailed overview of the North American FJ-5 fighter, a proposal for a navalized derivative of the F-107A prepared for BuAer on July 6, 1955. With its dorsal inlet and sleek aerodynamics, the FJ-5 was among the more unusual and exciting naval fighter proposals of the 1950's. This monograph covers the prototype, basic (production), supersonic reconnaissance, and rocket-boosted interceptor variants of the design. It is illustrated with 5 wind tunnel model photos and 28 drawings, the majority of which are incredibly detailed and provide ample reference for those wishing to create an accurate model or illustration of this radical jet fighter. The accompanying text is based on official North American reports submitted with the proposal and covers the type in exhaustive detail.

How did I not know this existed?! You could have your cheap multirole carrier wing.

I'm tempted to buy this, but for 36 pages, I'm not sure how much it can possibly contain.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
I’m fairly certain it’s mentioned in the F-107 thread on here. What I found interesting in that preview was the mention of folding fin Sidewinders and “MK 4 30mm cannons;” the sidewinder was mentioned in China Lake’s documentary, but the cannons are new, ADEN maybe?
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309
Shouldn't that have been designated F2J? I mean that's not really even artificially similar to the Fury.

Not so sure about giving the Navy a single type Air Wing though. The proposed aircraft doesn't have Sparrow capability and seems to be, essentially, a supersonic Skyhawk. At least in the role it was aimed at.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,813
Reaction score
2,332
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I'm tempted to buy this, but for 36 pages, I'm not sure how much it can possibly contain.
I have it and think its worthwhile. If nothing else, its probably going to be the only source like it.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
Consider the FJ-5 to be a more politically usable name, like "Super Hornet" and the F11F-1F vs F12F Super Tiger. The FJ-5 is more or less the VFAX requirements but a few years early?
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
761
Reaction score
1,309
Consider the FJ-5 to be a more politically usable name, like "Super Hornet" and the F11F-1F vs F12F Super Tiger. The FJ-5 is more or less the VFAX requirements but a few years early?
But those at least looked similar to the preceding aircraft. Idk how you convince anyone that the F-107 is just an updated F-86.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
Consider the FJ-5 to be a more politically usable name, like "Super Hornet" and the F11F-1F vs F12F Super Tiger. The FJ-5 is more or less the VFAX requirements but a few years early?
But those at least looked similar to the preceding aircraft. Idk how you convince anyone that the F-107 is just an updated F-86.
Chair a Congressional Committee and have the North American factory reside in your district?
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
Not so sure about giving the Navy a single type Air Wing though.
USN would never go for a single type. Too much risk, and it doesn't have guided AAM's. No one but RN is using anything big enough to field it, I imagine. But, it'd be better than Corsairs or Skyhawks and Sea Hawks for fleet air defense, and as an attack platform.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,813
Reaction score
2,332
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I like to imagine in the timeframe we're talking more alcohol...

images
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
Nah, Hemp and it’s cousin was banned in the 20s I think? Thankfully commercial hemp is back in vogue with the semi recent farm bill.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
What is really remarquable is that they created an even whackier character for Lloyd Bridges in Hot Shots !
I remember a guy passing him ear plugs and the guy swallow them with a drink, then complain "it doesn't work, the bloody thing !"
And the burial, when he goes AWOL thinking the Japs are attacking again.
Dear God...
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
Strolling through the VA(L) thread and I see @Tailspin Turtles post about a TF-30 powered F11F. So it seems like Grumman kept the Tiger on the backburner instead of entirely dumping it after the Super Tigers failure, very interesting. Spey Super Tiger anyone?
I doubt that the F11F model accurately represents the TF30 powered derivative under consideration. I would have expected a bigger wing and fatter fuselage.

Picture courtesy of Grumman Aircraft History Center
GrummanVALEvaluation.jpg
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
Seamaster may be able to land in a swamp no ? we need to mount a rescue mission, but grand style...
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
546
Reaction score
747
Somewhat on tangent with the P6M fans, did Martin ever make an unsolicited proposal for a turbofan powered SeaMaster? A notional "P6M-3" with TF33s would provide a lot more bleed air for the BLC system and tad more thrust than the J75s.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
You'd probably lose the supersonic dash capability, because the TF33 exhaust velocity is so low. Also drag at the face is going to increase. So more drag and less thrust at the same time.
To produce X-lb thrust on a bench, I need to move a given amount of air quickly, or a smaller mass of air much more rapidly. Once the entry velocity to the engine increases, you'll get less thrust in either method, but as a ratio, it stacks up quickly working against the low exit velocity method (like a propeller or turbofan).

Fun trivia: the Seamaster ended up with the J75 as an interim engine while they waited for the delayed development of the engine it was originally planned for -- the J58!
Though, the eventual A-12/SR-71 J58 was substantially modified to deal with the higher projected speeds for those aircraft.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
I think the requirement was for Mach .9 on the deck. Should have translated to higher speeds at altitude. The only beasts I can think of doing that at the timeframe involved were the Hustler and Vig.

Edit: forgot the Thud. There may be others
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
Wow, I never knew that the SeaMaster had a supersonic dash requirement! Thanks @_Del_

Never knew either. And first time I red that Seamaster was to have J58s I thought it was a typo or that the author was nut.
I mean, no flight profiles can be as different as Seamaster and SR-71
-low altitude above the ocean, subsonic
-90 000 feet at mach 3
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
721
Reaction score
561
Well, the J58 was originally going to be a little different than the Mach 3 monster it turned into over time haha. Wasn't exactly dropping four of the engines from the Blackbird family into a seaplane.

If memory serves it was aiming for over 18,500 lb static thrust, and the ability/resilience to use max power and/or afterburning for extended periods without melting/grinding the innards into scrap metal. It had it's own origins in a nuclear engine design using the heat from a reactor instead of a "combustion" chamber burning kerosene, so a keen eye to heat tolerance was "baked in" to the ancestry, so to speak. The Navy funded it for the SeaMaster and potentially a high -altitude, high-dash Vig. Then it was considered for the short-lived Crusader III, but development was lagging behind all the platforms.

Just tried to dig and get some information from something more reliable than my memory, but searching for info on the J58 is looking scarce apart from the overwhelming returns for the Blackbird family production models. Buried somewhere is probably something more concrete.

Different beast later, after the AF took over development which led to it being installed on the A-12's.
 
Top