Congress does not limit the USN to a single type of air defense fighter in 1957

[bobtdwarf]

Spinning off from the Alt-Tiger thread and resting on the video in the last post in that thread...


In Ed Nash' recent Crusader III video he notes that the USN was more than happy to use BOTH the F-4 and the Cru III but congress tied them only using a single type for the role.

Let us remove that impediment and workshop this!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=615&v=GOuQFpUhgKk&feature=youtu.be
reposted to save time

 

[F-2]

I know the Crusader III was a beast compared to the early F-4. But how did it compare to later versions? Was it worth having two types to sacrifice the Phantoms growth potential?

 

[bobtdwarf]

I know the Crusader III was a beast compared to the early F-4. But how did it compare to later versions? Was it worth having two types to sacrifice the Phantoms growth potential?

I think the deeper question is if the Cru III is available how many Cru II's do buy if any? Followed by a variation on yours: At what point in the development cycle will adding capability to each type get them to rough parity in performance?

 

[CV12Hornet]

I know the Crusader III was a beast compared to the early F-4. But how did it compare to later versions? Was it worth having two types to sacrifice the Phantoms growth potential?

I think the deeper question is if the Cru III is available how many Cru II's do buy if any? Followed by a variation on yours: At what point in the development cycle will adding capability to each type get them to rough parity in performance?

The F-4J is a significant tipping point - while the Crusader III would still retain an advantage in loiter time, the F-4J even with an external tank climbed better than the Crusader III, and I have my doubts the Crusader III would be able to fit something as capable as the AWG-10.

Presumably, Crusader IIIs would equip the 27C Essexes, and one squadron on the bigger carriers. Which points to 21 squadrons, and about 450 aircraft.

One potential complicating factor: the F-111B. The Crusader III could be sold in the early 1960s as the fighter complement to the F-111B the Navy knew it needed. It's smaller than the Phantom, already equipping the smaller carriers, and overall an easier sell than having to develop a whole new plane for the job. I could easily see Congress sitting on the Navy to go with a Seavark/Crusader III mix.

 

[sferrin]

Crusader III would have made a nice fighter for the USAF. Ditch the variable incidence wing and other carrier-specific items. Outfit it with the J58 they'd kicked around (or a J93).

 

[BlackBat242]

Indeed - with the Cru III providing the fast-response interceptor/dogfighter, the F6D is much less a liability as a pure fleet-defense anti-bomber/cruise missile "shooter" even for Forrestal/Kitty Hawk class carriers.

Therefore the USN would really hit the "more expensive than is needed" side of the F-111B to keep it from going ahead at all.

 

[BlackBat242]

J58 was not useable for a dogfighter - remember, it was a specialized hybrid turbo/ram-jet, designed just for the A-12/SR-71.

The proposed F-12 version of the Blackbird was to carry exclusively long-range anti-bomber missiles, which supports that fact.
https://airandspace.si.edu/collecti...58-jt11d-20-turbojet-engine/nasm_A19920006000

Pratt & Whitney designed this engine for continuous operation at high Mach number flight with compressor inlet temperatures above 400 degrees C (750 degrees F). Development began about 1958, and production began in 1964.

 

[sferrin]

J58 was not useable for a dogfighter - remember, it was a specialized hybrid turbo/ram-jet, designed just for the A-12/SR-71.

You're thinking of the modified J58. The standard J58 (without the ducts in the engine and a ramjet wrapped around it) was kicked around for many aircraft, from the A-5 Vigilante, to the B-58, F-106 and the XF8U-3.

 

[bobtdwarf]

That bit of context rich detail about congress really changes things

 

[_Del_]

The standard J58 (without the ducts in the engine and a ramjet wrapped around it) was kicked around for many aircraft, from the A-5 Vigilante, to the B-58, F-106 and the XF8U-3.

Started as a Navy engine for the SeaMaster and a Vig variant. Later became a monster, as you've noted.

 

[SSgtC]

The Crusader III was never going to match the Phantom in the SEAD and ground attack missions. It was a pure fighter with limited growth capability for ground attack. You could probably get it bombed up with a semi-submerged 2,000 pound bomb between the main gear on the fuselage and probably hang another 2,000 pounds of bombs on each wing the way Crusader IIs did with their custom ejector racks that could hold 4x500 pounders each. While a 6,000 pound bomb load is good, the Phantom could carry 3 times that.

In the A2A role, I think it really depends on what you're angling for. As a bomber interceptor, the Crusader III would be fine with a single pilot. It had a pretty advanced autopilot for the day and that would free up the pilot to operate the weapons system. But if you want it to dogfight and use Sparrows, you really do need a RIO. If the Navy had been allowed to buy it, they probably would have insisted on Vought adding a RIO. Once you do that, you probably could install the AWG-10 (IIRC, Vought had a plan to move the radar electronics behind the cockpit). You'd lose some internal fuel, but even with that, it would still have more loiter time on CAP and more range for escort missions than the Phantom would with its 600 gallon external tank. Add drop tanks to the wings, and you'll gain that lost fuel back and then some.

I think @CV12Hornet is right on the numbers. You'd probably see an initial plan to put them on the 27C Essex decks, and one squadron each on the rest of the fleet. Though you might see them withdrawn from the Super Carriers as more effective dogfighting tactics were developed for the Phantom, allowing the Navy to basically standardize its air wings with either Phantom IIs or Crusader IIIs as the fighter.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, Crusader III may came into life if USSR started to deploy its own carriers in early 60s - i.e. if dogfighting against Soviet fighters over the ocean would be expected.

 

[apparition13]

It's a significantly larger aircraft than the Crusader II. I have no confidence it would fit on Essex.

The A7 showed you can add multiple pylons to the wing. And since the wing lifts the fuselage up rather than the other way around, it wouldn't strain the VI mechanism to be carrying additional ordinance on the wings (you'd have to reinforce the wings though).

 

[SSgtC]

It's a significantly larger aircraft than the Crusader II. I have no confidence it would fit on Essex.

The A7 showed you can add multiple pylons to the wing. And since the wing lifts the fuselage up rather than the other way around, it wouldn't strain the VI mechanism to be carrying additional ordinance on the wings (you'd have to reinforce the wings though).

It would fit fine. There are zero limits on its operation from the Essex class. The Phantom was cleared to operate off the Essex without issue, and it would be significantly heavier than the Crusader III. The "too small" argument was based on the fuel and ordinance storage of the Essex class, something that wouldn't come into play with the Crusader III.

The Crusader III had a power-off stall speed of only 134 knots at 37,000 pounds. The C11 could launch 39,000 pounds at 136 knots. So basically, the carrier could have 2 knots of tailwind over the deck and still safely launch an F8U-3.

 

[bobtdwarf]

It's a significantly larger aircraft than the Crusader II. I have no confidence it would fit on Essex.

The A7 showed you can add multiple pylons to the wing. And since the wing lifts the fuselage up rather than the other way around, it wouldn't strain the VI mechanism to be carrying additional ordinance on the wings (you'd have to reinforce the wings though).

It would fit fine. There are zero limits on its operation from the Essex class. The Phantom was cleared to operate off the Essex without issue, and it would be significantly heavier than the Crusader III. The "too small" argument was based on the fuel and ordinance storage of the Essex class, something that wouldn't come into play with the Crusader III.

The Crusader III had a power-off stall speed of only 134 knots at 37,000 pounds. The C11 could launch 39,000 pounds at 136 knots. So basically, the carrier could have 2 knots of tailwind over the deck and still safely launch an F8U-3.

But now the question will become.. A-7, do you base it off the Cru2 or the Cru3 airframes?

 

[SSgtC]

It's a significantly larger aircraft than the Crusader II. I have no confidence it would fit on Essex.

The A7 showed you can add multiple pylons to the wing. And since the wing lifts the fuselage up rather than the other way around, it wouldn't strain the VI mechanism to be carrying additional ordinance on the wings (you'd have to reinforce the wings though).

It would fit fine. There are zero limits on its operation from the Essex class. The Phantom was cleared to operate off the Essex without issue, and it would be significantly heavier than the Crusader III. The "too small" argument was based on the fuel and ordinance storage of the Essex class, something that wouldn't come into play with the Crusader III.

The Crusader III had a power-off stall speed of only 134 knots at 37,000 pounds. The C11 could launch 39,000 pounds at 136 knots. So basically, the carrier could have 2 knots of tailwind over the deck and still safely launch an F8U-3.

But now the question will become.. A-7, do you base it off the Cru2 or the Cru3 airframes?

I'd say off of the Crusader II. It's smaller airframe is better suited to adapting into a light attack aircraft than us the Mach 2.5+ Crusader III.

 

[CV12Hornet]

It's a significantly larger aircraft than the Crusader II. I have no confidence it would fit on Essex.

The A7 showed you can add multiple pylons to the wing. And since the wing lifts the fuselage up rather than the other way around, it wouldn't strain the VI mechanism to be carrying additional ordinance on the wings (you'd have to reinforce the wings though).

The addition of BLC to the Crusader airframe dramatically improved its takeoff and landing characteristics. Per the Standard Aircraft Characteristics, the Crusader III was expected to have a stall speed on takeoff of 134 knots, while the F-8E had to hit 145 knots. Granted, it was also 8000 lbs heavier in an air to air configuration, but the reduction in speed needed matters more.

As for raw size, 3 feet of wingspan and two feet of length isn't exactly a deal-breaker. It would still be far smaller than the Trackers and Skywarriors the Navy routinely flew from Essex decks.

 

[BlackBat242]

And since the wing lifts the fuselage up rather than the other way around, it wouldn't strain the VI mechanism to be carrying additional ordinance on the wings (you'd have to reinforce the wings though).

Only in-flight.

On the deck, the fuselage supports the wing (and anything hanging off the wing)... and the VI mechanism certainly needed to raise the front of the wing before launch along with whatever you have hanging off the wing.

Anything still hanging from the wing on landing becomes a serious issue with stress on the VI mechanism then as well.