Vought two-seat F-8 for the UK

[Archibald]

...and also from Foch and Clemenceau. The spey would much shorter than old J57, the shorter rear fuselage would help at launch
from the carrier, making the variable incidence wing (and improved blown flaps done OTL by the French to help further) far less necessary.

Spey general characteristics

• Type: Low bypass turbofan
• Length: 204.9 in (5204.4 mm)
• Diameter: 43.0 in (1092.2 mm)
• Dry weight: 4,093 lb (1856 kg)

J57 general characteristics

• Type: Afterburning turbojet
• Length: 244 in (6197.6mm)
• Diameter: 39 in (990.6mm)
• Dry weight: 5,175 lb (2,347 kg)

40*2.54 cm = 1 m shorter !
Also a 100 pound / 450 kg weight gain (491 kg, actually).

The Crusader variable incidence wing really happened because the bulky J57 needed a very long aft fuselage. There was a very real risk that the rear fuselage would hit the deck when the Crusader took the angle of attack (AoA) it needed for liftoff. So instead they made a wing with a changeable AoA - a variable incidence wing.
And for the French it was even worse, as the Clemenceaus were barely the size of upgraded Essex carriers, not even mentionning the Midway and Forrestal and Kitty Hawk and Nimitz. We had to improve the blown flap system.
Now had the Crusader engine been replaced by a shorter one (J79, Spey, whatever) allowing the rear fuselage to be truncated, the issue would have vanished.

 

[uk 75]

I alway wonder why the RN didnt just go for a Buccaneer with SideWinder and Sparrow or even Phoenix. Again, sorry not an engineer.
It would have given the RN an F18 style capability in one airframe.

 

[TomS]

Well, not Phoenix because that requires AWG-9, which probably would not fit. And the Bucc as built (even the S.2) was solidly subsonic, with a fairly high wing loading, which was nice for limiting gust response at low level, less so for dogfighting.

There were a bunch of proposed supersonic Buccs, including at least one fighter, but they would be nowhere near competitive with later types like the Hornet.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

I wonder if there was any thought in replacing the under nose intake with side intakes and expanding the nose for a larger radar?

 

[Archibald]

Or just bring back the Crusader III, which intake was far back enough to allow for a radome large enough...

 

[taildragger]

I wonder if there was any thought in replacing the under nose intake with side intakes and expanding the nose for a larger radar?

I've seen drawings of what is clearly an early concept of the Crusader with a radome in the nose and side intakes - it would have been a great looking airplane, sort of like an overgrown F11F Tiger.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Is it possible to show those drawings please?

 

[Archibald]

I wish somebody could modify that stupendous Twosader color profile with a Spey exhaust and some of the other goodies planned for the RN bird...

Only by looking at this picture one can understand why the Crusader got his variable incidence wing. That rear fuselage is sooo loooong... as I mentionned in my earlier post, a shorter Spey would allow a drastic cut of the rear fuselage. Look at the picture author signature DEBARRE Michel: it corresponds to what would be cut thanks to the shorter Spey (up to the strakes).

two-seat trainer version based on F8U-2NE, fuselage stretched 2 ft (0.61 m)

Length: 54 ft 3 in (16.53 m)

17 m in length,

J57

Length: 244 in (6197.6mm)

So the J57 is 1/3 the length of the entire Twosader ! Which bring its length up to the "N" in NAVY on the rear fuselage.

The spey is 1/6 shorter (5.2 m vs 6.2 m). More or less the dark grey exhaust is gone.

 

[taildragger]

Is it possible to show those drawings please?

I'll post them someday but they're unavailable to me now.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thank you, Sir.

 

[uk 75]

An Anglo French Crusader keeping the existing UK carriers in service does seem a nice what if, at least for the modellers and artists.

If it could have allowed the Dutch and Canadian navies to keep their carrier forces (perhaps with second hand Essex class ships), NATO would have had a pretty formidable set of carriers to support the big US ships in the 70s and 80s. Though perhaps ASW carriers might have been more useful, but that is a whole new thread

 

[Arjen]

The Dutch carrier Karel Doorman had a flight of Sea Furies, then a flight of Sea Hawks in the early fifties. It reverted to a strict ASW role later on. I don't think there ever was a chance of the Dutch navy acquiring a strike carrier.

 

[Pioneer]

While the RN was looking at the F-8 Crusader, did they ever consider the Crusader III, or was that to far dead to be considered a viable project option?

Also, I thought the F-8's Variable-incidence wing's limit the placement of hard points to the fuselage, limiting its war load. The crusader doesn't seem to have much multi-role Potential.

They did manage to put pylons and hard points on that wing, at least with the F-8J, capable of carrying a good load of bombs. Not along the size of the F-4 or A-7, but a pretty good punch, none the less.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the A-7 was ever offered to Britian... :-\

Also if I may Akaikaze, as clearly depicted in fantastic book: Vought F-8 Crusader: Development & Operational use of the Navy's first supersonic jet fighter , it shows that the V-383 was designed with four underwing pylons for Aim-7 Sparrow II AAM's..... Saying this I'm not 100% sure the original V-383 had the Variable-incidence wing?


Regards
Pioneer

​

 

[iverson]

An Anglo French Crusader keeping the existing UK carriers in service does seem a nice what if, at least for the modellers and artists.

If it could have allowed the Dutch and Canadian navies to keep their carrier forces (perhaps with second hand Essex class ships), NATO would have had a pretty formidable set of carriers to support the big US ships in the 70s and 80s. Though perhaps ASW carriers might have been more useful, but that is a whole new thread

But why would the Netherlands and Canada have wanted strike carriers? Who and what would they have struck? The end of the Dutch naval fighter-bombers coincided with the surrender of Dutch New Guinea to Indonesia and, thus, the end of the Dutch colonial presence in the Far East. A decade or so later and for much the same reason, the UK retired Eagle and Ark Royal and transferred the RN Phantoms to the RAF.

In the Cold War, with the USSR and Warsaw Pact as the enemy, and in the absence of empires (real or imagined), ASW carriers, frigates, and maritime patrol aircraft made sense. Strike carriers did not.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

An Anglo French Crusader keeping the existing UK carriers in service does seem a nice what if, at least for the modellers and artists.

If it could have allowed the Dutch and Canadian navies to keep their carrier forces (perhaps with second hand Essex class ships), NATO would have had a pretty formidable set of carriers to support the big US ships in the 70s and 80s. Though perhaps ASW carriers might have been more useful, but that is a whole new thread

In the Cold War, with the USSR and Warsaw Pact as the enemy, and in the absence of empires (real or imagined), ASW carriers, frigates, and maritime patrol aircraft made sense. Strike carriers did not.

Strike Carriers were vital to attacking the Bastions where the Soviet's SSBNs resided, not to mention that every Backfire or Badger shot down trying to sink carriers with anti-ship missiles are Backfires and Badgers that are unable to deliver nuclear weapons when the balloon goes up.

Then again, Crusader wouldn't be good enough for that task, you'd want F-4 Phantom at minimum, and the role really demands F6D, F-111B, F-14, or in a UK context, something like OR.346.

 

[iverson]

Strike Carriers were vital to attacking the Bastions where the Soviet's SSBNs resided, not to mention that every Backfire or Badger shot down trying to sink carriers with anti-ship missiles are Backfires and Badgers that are unable to deliver nuclear weapons when the balloon goes up.

Then again, Crusader wouldn't be good enough for that task, you'd want F-4 Phantom at minimum, and the role really demands F6D, F-111B, F-14, or in a UK context, something like OR.346.

I think not. How would a carrier battle group, especially a small one from the UK and the Netherlands, ever get close enough during war conditions, while operating in Arctic waters full of nuclear-armed SSNs and SSKs, while the Bears, Backfires, and Badgers were lobbing nuclear cruise missiles at them? If any carriers succeeded in running such a gauntlet, how long would it take for them to finally reach a launch point? The "bastions" would be empty by then and the war over.

In open warfare, SLBMs and cruise missiles were the only systems capable of attacking "bastions" in the Russian arctic, not to mention other equl or higher priority military targets in the USSR. So, given the real-world choice, the UK government chose Polaris/Trident.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Strike Carriers were vital to attacking the Bastions where the Soviet's SSBNs resided, not to mention that every Backfire or Badger shot down trying to sink carriers with anti-ship missiles are Backfires and Badgers that are unable to deliver nuclear weapons when the balloon goes up.

Then again, Crusader wouldn't be good enough for that task, you'd want F-4 Phantom at minimum, and the role really demands F6D, F-111B, F-14, or in a UK context, something like OR.346.

I think not. How would a carrier battle group, especially a small one from the UK and the Netherlands, ever get close enough during war conditions, while operating in Arctic waters full of nuclear-armed SSNs and SSKs, while the Bears, Backfires, and Badgers were lobbing nuclear cruise missiles at them? If any carriers succeeded in running such a gauntlet, how long would it take for them to finally reach a launch point? The "bastions" would be empty by then and the war over.

In open warfare, SLBMs and cruise missiles were the only systems capable of attacking "bastions" in the Russian arctic, not to mention other equl or higher priority military targets in the USSR. So, given the real-world choice, the UK government chose Polaris/Trident.

They cover the SSNs that do the hunting of the SSBNs, and they do so in the initial conventional phase of the war (although the carrier airwings could also lay minefields). The Netherlands was obviously incapable of operating large Strike Carriers, but the US and UK would be operating together. This of course demands something like CVA-01.

SLBMs and Cruise Missiles cannot attack submerged SSBNs, although they could attack the airbases and ports. There are however, no conventional SLBMs, and the number of conventional cruise missiles required would be vast. Hence the carrier airwings.

Without the Strike Carriers, the RAF is forced to operate Phantoms and Buccaneers in the Maritime Role (which is what ended up happening) so the cancellation of the Strike Carriers would not have resulted in all that much in the way of savings for airwings.

 

[MadRat]

Spey powered F-8 would have probably offered a slight advantage in subsonic range, but probably was a push on low level performance due to increase in its associated drag. Maritime fighters seemed to be less concerned with flight ceilings than terestial counterparts, so the low altitude performance was probably the focus.

 

[uk 75]

An Anglo French Crusader keeping the existing UK carriers in service does seem a nice what if, at least for the modellers and artists.

If it could have allowed the Dutch and Canadian navies to keep their carrier forces (perhaps with second hand Essex class ships), NATO would have had a pretty formidable set of carriers to support the big US ships in the 70s and 80s. Though perhaps ASW carriers might have been more useful, but that is a whole new thread

But why would the Netherlands and Canada have wanted strike carriers? Who and what would they have struck? The end of the Dutch naval fighter-bombers coincided with the surrender of Dutch New Guinea to Indonesia and, thus, the end of the Dutch colonial presence in the Far East. A decade or so later and for much the same reason, the UK retired Eagle and Ark Royal and transferred the RN Phantoms to the RAF.

In the Cold War, with the USSR and Warsaw Pact as the enemy, and in the absence of empires (real or imagined), ASW carriers, frigates, and maritime patrol aircraft made sense. Strike carriers did not.

I was only envisaging Canadian and Dutch CVS with Seakings or S3Vikings and the F* in an anti snoooper role. Their main work would have been clearing the way in front of the NATO resupply convoys to Europe and perhaps off Norway. In the event NATO used P3 and Nimrods for this.

 

[uk 75]

An Anglo French Crusader keeping the existing UK carriers in service does seem a nice what if, at least for the modellers and artists.

If it could have allowed the Dutch and Canadian navies to keep their carrier forces (perhaps with second hand Essex class ships), NATO would have had a pretty formidable set of carriers to support the big US ships in the 70s and 80s. Though perhaps ASW carriers might have been more useful, but that is a whole new thread

In the Cold War, with the USSR and Warsaw Pact as the enemy, and in the absence of empires (real or imagined), ASW carriers, frigates, and maritime patrol aircraft made sense. Strike carriers did not.

Strike Carriers were vital to attacking the Bastions where the Soviet's SSBNs resided, not to mention that every Backfire or Badger shot down trying to sink carriers with anti-ship missiles are Backfires and Badgers that are unable to deliver nuclear weapons when the balloon goes up.

Then again, Crusader wouldn't be good enough for that task, you'd want F-4 Phantom at minimum, and the role really demands F6D, F-111B, F-14, or in a UK context, something like OR.346.

The concept of attacking the bastions I always associate, perhaps wrongly, with Lehmann and Reagan in the 80s. Before that Striking Fleet with its two Carrier groups was very much devoted to keeping the sealanes to Europe and Norway free and perhaps supporting forces in Iceland and Norway as in the Norhern Wedding exercises.
My contention is that with the introduction of decent crew accomm on the Type 12 and later escorts the RN found it increasingly hard to crew its carriers. Thus by the 70s only Ark and a Commando Ship could be kept at sea at one time.
Things had got even worse by the 80s when it was barely possible to keep two Invincibles at sea for any length of time.
I also contend that what the RN really wanted was a Forrestal with a US style airgroup and CVA01 was the closest it could get.
So all these amusing what-if scenarios founder on UK political and economic reality.

 

[iverson]

The concept of attacking the bastions I always associate, perhaps wrongly, with Lehmann and Reagan in the 80s.

Precisely. I was trying to remember the name.

Lehmann was a defense-industry insider before, during, and after his time as Navy Secretary. He was the guy that forced Adm. Rickover to retire. Rickover pushed hard in favor of an investigation of and penalties for General Dynamics' attempts to hide faulty welding on submarine hulls. Lehmann backed General Dynamics and engineered Rickover's forced retirement. He saw the strategic ascendancy of the submarine as a threat to the Navy because it raised questions about the need for spending on a 600-ship surface navy and on the carrier in particular.

Lehman was also a showoff and a self-aggrandizing wannabee. He served long and honorably as a part-time A-6 navigator in the Reserves--even while he was the civilian Navy Secretary. But this apparently wasn't enough. who He cultivated the image of the stereotypical, Top-Gun-style, playboy/fighter-pilot and bore more than a little responsibility for the evolution of the Tailhook fiasco. When the Chief of Naval Operations ordered service clubs to stop hosting strippers, in the interest of professionalism and good discipline, Lehman countermanded the order, becausem as he would later say, the order did not allow for the swagger and daring of Navy pilots. Lehman himself made a habit of joining strippers on stage in the Tailhook hospitality suites. He eventually had to resign after acting out sexually with one in front of a large audience.

Why is the above relevant you ask? It is relevant because Lehman's Forward or Northern Strategy (I don't recall the exact terms he used) reflects both of the core characteristics developed above. It was lobbying/advertising aimed at obtaining funding for pet defense projects and at building up the prestige of the role he had set for himself.

Lehman came up with the "bastion" idea in the days when we were all supposed to bury our cars and live inside so that Reagan-era Washington could fight a hypothetical "winnable" nuclear war with the Communists. A scheme for eliminating Arctic SLBM "bastions" was Lehman's way of giving his essentially tactical, carrier navy strategic relevance and thereby capturing funding that might otherwise go to the Air Force. His plan, such as it was, was never tactically sound, given the proximity of Soviet shore-based aviation and submarines armed with nuclear missiles and torpedoes. Strategically, the plan was a disaster, at once provocative and irrelevant. Attempting to approach the "bastions" by sea in time of crisis would provoke war well before the battle groups were in range. And once the ICBMs left their silos and mobile launchers and once the cruise missiles and the SLBMs already at sea launched from planes and submarines, the war would be over. Even if the "bastions" on one side and the carrier battle groups on the other survived the initial cataclysm, they would have lost their significance. Both sides would be struggling to simply survive, and would have no interest in continuing.

Thoughtful policy was just not Lehman's thing. He was a salesman at heart, with his eyes always on the potential commission, and a wannabee flyboy, not a strategic thinker.

 

[uk 75]

The US Naval War College did an annual global wargame throught the Cold War years..Texts are available on Amazon.
My copies are buried in one of my navy books but all the flat tops are killed or seriously damaged by the end of the game.
The difficulty of getting US equipment across the Atlantic once the Soviets attacked led to the provision of POMCUS divisional sets to allow US III Corps to fly its troops over and pick up equipment. The 101Airmobile also had a European role alongside its Centcom one.

 

[zen]

probably was a push on low level performance due to increase in its associated drag.

Not a given at all.
What would restrict high altitude and speed is inherent to the turbofan engine.

 

[hesham]

This the one Ralph ?



Cheers

Geoff

A clearer view.

 

[GK. Dundas]

The US Naval War College did an annual global wargame throught the Cold War years..Texts are available on Amazon.
My copies are buried in one of my navy books but all the flat tops are killed or seriously damaged by the end of the game.
The difficulty of getting US equipment across the Atlantic once the Soviets attacked led to the provision of POMCUS divisional sets to allow US III Corps to fly its troops over and pick up equipment. The 101Airmobile also had a European role alongside its Centcom one.

As I recall at the time the theory was that you would waltz into the North Sea / Arctic Ocean with a 4 carrier battlegroups formed into a task force . And basically punch your way into the Bastion.
One wargame I saw came to the conclusion that you'd be able to do with around 8 to 10 carriers. But it would still be ugly.
They called it a Bastion for a reason.

 

[GK. Dundas]

While Lehman and crew were pushing for 16 attack carriers in the fleet. What they would have needed was closer to 24.
Simply put you have far more possible conflict points to cover then you have Carrier Battle Groups.