Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
593
Reaction score
815
Errr J65 is a licensed Sapphire.
Modified by Curtiss-Wright, with a supply chain coming from the United States. Armstrong would not be able to supply the J65 specific parts.

I would also imagine a Sapphire ASSa.7 would need new mounting hardware for American planes, and additional cooling capacity to match its higher thrust output?
 
Last edited:

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
394
I like the idea of an F-11 in almost any application... but if we are talking about a scenario where speed is a major part of the equation then we have to ignore a whole lot of the fun options initially.. they can come in a bit later in the game though.

If the Dutch did their naval carrier training with the US then we have to go with F9F-8 Cougars. Transition time for the type would be minimal since they had already essentially flown them in training. IF NOT trained by the US then we have to go with the updated Seahawk, about the only available upgrades to the air group that can be deployed NOW, NOW! The cougar also folds up smaller under 15 feet as opposed to the 27.5 for most of the other American types under discussion.

Longer term? Converting existing Tiger's to something like SuperTigers in the Netherlands would be a good option especially if Grumman lets them know you can chop the wing and fold her up to about 10 feet. Depending on how ambitious the Dutch want to be and how much sweat they want to expend in the conversions they can take up the same space as their existing Seahawks.

Another decent option would be re-engine the F9F-8 with a J-52: SFC goes from 1.14 with the stock engine to .79 with the new with greater thrust. Though it will weigh 2-300 pounds more. The flexibility of being able to play with fuel load without really losing any range over the base model could come in handy not just to offset the weight of the heavier engine. She won't be as fast as the ST but she had a higher G limit and could probably out turn her.

I mainly mention this last one as an example of thinking outside the box
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
394
Though it will weigh 2-300 pounds more.
At least according to this site, the J52-P-6 that flew on the A2F-1/A-6A put out 8500 lb.f of thrust and only weighed 2056 pounds vs 2080 pounds on the J48-P-8...
The source I saw was for a different model(EDIT it was the 408) and listed the weight as 2308 or so.. but it was also putting out 11,000 pounds of thrust.. Glad to use this one instead. Still better SFC and thrust than the regular.
 
Last edited:

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
2,882
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Remind me again why the Dutch F-84Fs aren't also in the picture here? We have Hunters on their way but the Thunderstreaks would also provide a useful complement for non-carrier based platforms:

p-238_f-84f_315-sqn_rnlaf.jpg


Moreover, when one applies some range circles and includes the possible use of the following airbases (mostly allied but quite conceivable): RAAF Darwin, RAF Singapore, Kuala Lumpur & Butterworth + possibly Christmas Island, Dili & Labuan you get the following:

For Hunters (I forgot Christmas Island on this one):

Image 1-1-22 at 8.10 am.jpeg

For F-84Fs:

Image 1-1-22 at 8.26 am.jpeg
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,502

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,502
Remind me again why the Dutch F-84Fs aren't also in the picture here? We have Hunters on their way but the Thunderstreaks would also provide a useful complement for non-carrier based platforms:

p-238_f-84f_315-sqn_rnlaf.jpg


Moreover, when one applies some range circles and includes the possible use of the following airbases (mostly allied but quite conceivable): RAAF Darwin, RAF Singapore, Kuala Lumpur & Butterworth + possibly Christmas Island, Dili & Labuan you get the following:

For Hunters (I forgot Christmas Island on this one):

View attachment 670713

For F-84Fs:

View attachment 670714
Mainly because they don't have an easy way to get them there. There is also the logistics issue to consider. The British have Hunters already in theater, so if the Dutch really need spare parts, or even spare aircraft, the British with their logistics stream, are right there. Whereas the US doesn't have any F-84s in theater, but they do have them in Europe, along with a pretty damn good logistics tail there

Plus, despite the political desire to keep West New Guinea part of the Netherlands, the bigger threat is the USSR.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
2,882
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Fair enough...it just gives the Dutch another option already in service rather than trying to generate other what if scenarios with new platforms altogether.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
741
Reaction score
605
Remind me again why the Dutch F-84Fs aren't also in the picture here?
...
Plus, despite the political desire to keep West New Guinea part of the Netherlands, the bigger threat is the USSR.

To this point, many of the Dutch -84F's are assigned to Allied Command Europe as part of the AMF. So they are bouncing all over Europe (mostly Scandinavia, in practice) doing their best to provide a credible NATO quick reaction force as a deterrent.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
394
found some validation for some of my musings doing some research on the Cougar... Grumman did make a pitch for an improved version of the trainer with a J-52 in the mid '60s, and I found a post from 2008 on this forum about Grumman 110 projects (thanks to the side bar thingy that recommends threads), that had a really interesting image of the 98L Tiger with notes in the margins about the F-11F that indicates that they did, or were thinking OF increasing the wingspan and therefore wing area, but they do list it as 300 sq.ft.

Cool to know that I am not completely off base in some of my thinking, and it was not totally original... that I find somewhat comforting oddly.

EDIT: Will add a link to the thread. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-design-110-study.5545/
 
Last edited:

lordroel

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
200
Remind me again why the Dutch F-84Fs aren't also in the picture here? We have Hunters on their way but the Thunderstreaks would also provide a useful complement for non-carrier based platforms:

p-238_f-84f_315-sqn_rnlaf.jpg


Moreover, when one applies some range circles and includes the possible use of the following airbases (mostly allied but quite conceivable): RAAF Darwin, RAF Singapore, Kuala Lumpur & Butterworth + possibly Christmas Island, Dili & Labuan you get the following:

For Hunters (I forgot Christmas Island on this one):

View attachment 670713

For F-84Fs:

View attachment 670714
Mainly because they don't have an easy way to get them there. There is also the logistics issue to consider. The British have Hunters already in theater, so if the Dutch really need spare parts, or even spare aircraft, the British with their logistics stream, are right there. Whereas the US doesn't have any F-84s in theater, but they do have them in Europe, along with a pretty damn good logistics tail there

Plus, despite the political desire to keep West New Guinea part of the Netherlands, the bigger threat is the USSR.
Could they not be dismantled and put aboard a cargo ship.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,502
Could they not be dismantled and put aboard a cargo ship.
I think what they're trying to say is that the F-84s are allocated to SHAPE/SACEUR control and cannot be pulled away for essentially a colonial policing mission.
@lordroel Sure, they could. But it would take months, at a minimum to get them knocked down, loaded onto a slow cargo ship, sent to Holandia, reassembled, tested, then the squadron stood back up. Even getting the Hunters into the theater is going to take a solid month. And @isayyo2 is correct. Those airframes are assigned to NATO missions. Pulling them out of Europe to try and fight their former colony would not go over well with their Allies.
 

Topi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
I do wonder if a naval version of the Folland Gnat (possibly the twin-engined Mk. 5) or a navalised version of the Folland Light bomber proposed for the requirement which led to the TSR-2 could be pursued here. If I have understood correctly, these could be operated by the 1942 design light fleet carriers. Of course, a quick and dirty, albeit subsonic, solution would be a navalised Gnat Mk. 1.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
2,882
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I do wonder if a naval version of the Folland Gnat (possibly the twin-engined Mk. 5) or a navalised version of the Folland Light bomber proposed for the requirement which led to the TSR-2 could be pursued here. If I have understood correctly, these could be operated by the 1942 design light fleet carriers. Of course, a quick and dirty, albeit subsonic, solution would be a navalised Gnat Mk. 1.
Except you still hit the issue of trying to introduce a new type when what you need is a here and now solution.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,717
Reaction score
6,950
I vaguely remember F-84F were maintenance hogs, if not pigs. Better to go for Hunters.
Note that France played hardball with its F-84F during the Suze crisis of 1956: they were sent to Israel and even got IDF/AF markings (from memory).
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,502
I do wonder if a naval version of the Folland Gnat (possibly the twin-engined Mk. 5) or a navalised version of the Folland Light bomber proposed for the requirement which led to the TSR-2 could be pursued here. If I have understood correctly, these could be operated by the 1942 design light fleet carriers. Of course, a quick and dirty, albeit subsonic, solution would be a navalised Gnat Mk. 1.
It's certainly possible. But it would be obsolete before it even entered service. The way forward was supersonic aircraft for fighters and fleet air defense, with transonic types being phased out. You also have a plethora of types for both the fighter and attack missions being designed, built and sold by the United States, which is just economically a better option for 99% of countries
 

Topi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
I do wonder if a naval version of the Folland Gnat (possibly the twin-engined Mk. 5) or a navalised version of the Folland Light bomber proposed for the requirement which led to the TSR-2 could be pursued here. If I have understood correctly, these could be operated by the 1942 design light fleet carriers. Of course, a quick and dirty, albeit subsonic, solution would be a navalised Gnat Mk. 1.
It's certainly possible. But it would be obsolete before it even entered service. The way forward was supersonic aircraft for fighters and fleet air defense, with transonic types being phased out. You also have a plethora of types for both the fighter and attack missions being designed, built and sold by the United States, which is just economically a better option for 99% of countries
All of the proposed Gnat fighter models from Mk. 2 onwards would have been capable of supersonic speeds, though even the twin-engined Mk. 5 would not likely have been capable of much more than Mach 1.5. However, in stark contrast to nearly all of the naval fighters under development in the late 1950's and early 1960's, the Gnat would have been lightweight and able to be operated and carried in non-trivial numbers even by light aircraft carriers. Of course, all the Gnat variants would have been rather short-legged and with quite low payloads.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
394
all the Gnat variants would have been rather short-legged and with quite low payloads.
Which is a big issue for a carrier.
Looks like my Cougar recommend is a no go. The Dutch did their training in house after building up a cadre with the RN. So surging them Cougars would require to much work up time.

Might be worth doing depending on how long things are anticipated to go.. you can go three across in Doorman's hangar with them opposed to 1.89 across for the FJ and A4
 

lordroel

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
250
Reaction score
200
Could they not be dismantled and put aboard a cargo ship.
I think what they're trying to say is that the F-84s are allocated to SHAPE/SACEUR control and cannot be pulled away for essentially a colonial policing mission.

Could they not be dismantled and put aboard a cargo ship.
I think what they're trying to say is that the F-84s are allocated to SHAPE/SACEUR control and cannot be pulled away for essentially a colonial policing mission.
@lordroel Sure, they could. But it would take months, at a minimum to get them knocked down, loaded onto a slow cargo ship, sent to Holandia, reassembled, tested, then the squadron stood back up. Even getting the Hunters into the theater is going to take a solid month. And @isayyo2 is correct. Those airframes are assigned to NATO missions. Pulling them out of Europe to try and fight their former colony would not go over well with their Allies.
By now it is looking more like a war between countries than a colony war as most likely more sides are drawn into this conflict.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
832
Reaction score
1,502
By now it is looking more like a war between countries than a colony war as most likely more sides are drawn into this conflict.
Not yet. The US/UK/AUS/NZ group are all "interested" and making their displeasure known, but neither they nor the USSR want to escalate this to a general war.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
486
Reaction score
668
Always been a fan of the P.1081 as it could have conceivably have been adopted instead of latter Seahawk models. Probably a non starter due to the assumption the Super Priority Scimitar and Sea Vixen would soon be in service. The obvious follow on to the P.1081 is a fully navalised Hunter.

Fuselage stretch forward of the wing for extra fuel, radar nose and Firestreak and / or Sidewinder.

I have been collecting Revell Hunters and Freightdog bits and pieces for a while to do some RAN FAA Hunters, now for the first time in over a decade I have a hobby room so it may happen.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
1,697
P.1081 navalised is P.1087 with reheat.
Arguably one of the planes that ought to have been ordered instead of the hooked Swift.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
486
Reaction score
668
P.1081 navalised is P.1087 with reheat.
Arguably one of the planes that ought to have been ordered instead of the hooked Swift.
I have the wings, the radar nose and the Firestreaks ready to go, just need to determine the wing fold, arrester hook and catapult strop points,
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
521
I do wonder if a naval version of the Folland Gnat (possibly the twin-engined Mk. 5) or a navalised version of the Folland Light bomber proposed for the requirement which led to the TSR-2 could be pursued here. If I have understood correctly, these could be operated by the 1942 design light fleet carriers. Of course, a quick and dirty, albeit subsonic, solution would be a navalised Gnat Mk. 1.
I would think they’d need a lot of work on the undercarriage, with knock-on effects to the fuselage, and then there’s the tail hook work on top of that. Too much work for an asset that‘s needed fast.
 

Similar threads

Top