Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

SSgtC said:
isayyo2 said:
SSgtC said:
starviking said:
Arrows over Jakarta...
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good name for an epic war film
Click to expand...
STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND II: Arrows over Jakarta - Presented in Technicolor!
Click to expand...
But who's starring in it? That's the real question
Click to expand...
Hmmm just throwing darts out there...

Clark Gable - SAC B-58 Wing Commander; long time veteran of 30s, WWII, and Korea and nearing his forced retirement coming into the 60s. Long time supporter of the Bomber Force and SACs deterrent mission.
Marlon Brando - SAC Strategic Fighter Wing pilot; Young and green hot-shot pilot for SACs new Avro Arrow long-range escort fighter. Father died in Korea under Gables command and Brando holds a grudge against him.

Synopsis - Indonesia intervenes in the Malayan Emergency turning the whole region hot and forcing the United States to assist the Commonwealth against the communist scourge. During a supersonic strike mission, Gables B-58 takes a missile intended for Brando planes, the pod ejects successfully but Gable is killed by shrapnel. Brando is distraught and returns home understanding sacrifice for his nation, like the one his father made; He later goes onto to become a SAC Wing Commander himself.

*cues Wild Blue Wonder and Stars and Stripes Forever*
 
Well if Argentina got some of them and manage to keep them flying until the Falklands... range won't be an issue (although obsolescence and maintenance would be). But there won't be a falklands like OTL ITTL.

The F-101 certainly had one hell of a terrific range. And J79 should improve it even more.
 
Archibald said:
Well if Argentina got some of them and manage to keep them flying until the Falklands... range won't be an issue (although obsolescence and maintenance would be). But there won't be a falklands like OTL ITTL.

The F-101 certainly had one hell of a terrific range. And J79 should improve it even more.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting option for sure. Though it may be too expensive for the countries in the region to both buy and operate. The Voodoo cost over 1.8 million. For comparison, the F11F cost half of that. Granted, it was less capable as well, but cost is a major factor here
 
It tells something that the F-101B all by itself snatched the first LRI contest (in 1954, reborn as LRI-X in 1957-59 with the F-108) and later slained the Arrow.
Not bad for
- the son of an older generation fighter
- not even Mach 2
- plus so many shift in its mission (escort, nuclear strike, reconnaissance, and finally - interceptor !)
 
Archibald said:
It tells something that the F-101B all by itself snatched the first LRI contest (in 1954, reborn as LRI-X in 1957-59 with the F-108) and later slained the Arrow.
Not bad for
- the son of an older generation fighter
- not even Mach 2
- plus so many shift in its mission (escort, nuclear strike, reconnaissance, and finally - interceptor !)
Click to expand...
The fact that it stayed in service into the eighties is a testament to its design and capabilities.
 
While any South American order would be less than 100 units, Japan and the Republic of China might be ideal markets as well.

In theory, and I'm getting way ahead of myself, Argentina could earn enough good-boy points from the State Department to purchase Grumman's F-11 tooling? From there they could build their own Super Tiger with J79, Avon or Atar 9 etc...
 
isayyo2 said:
While any South American order would be less than 100 units, Japan and the Republic of China might be ideal markets as well.

In theory, and I'm getting way ahead of myself, Argentina could earn enough good-boy points from the State Department to purchase Grumman's F-11 tooling? From there they could build their own Super Tiger with J79, Avon or Atar 9 etc...
Click to expand...
That's probably not gonna happen. They barely got approved to build T2V SeaStar trainers and that's pushing the boundaries of what they're capable of. They asked for a license to build Skyhawks and got shot down. Even with the SeaStar, they have to source the Allison J33 from the United States instead of building them locally. Argentina has a very nascent aviation industry and they aren't really capable of building advanced fighters by themselves.
 
Earlier in the thread I asked about the used of the F5 as a carrier aircraft, and was told it was really a non starter. But I have wondered since as the suitability of the F20 as a carrier point defence fighter?
 
JohnR said:
Earlier in the thread I asked about the used of the F5 as a carrier aircraft, and was told it was really a non starter. But I have wondered since as the suitability of the F20 as a carrier point defence fighter?
Click to expand...
It's better, but still has a lot of roadblocks to being effective. For starters, modifying it for carrier operations will probably add at least 1,000 pounds to the empty weight of the aircraft, and that's assuming it doesn't need a bigger wing (it's OTL wing is tiny, under 27' span clean). That's probably going to knock down its range. When operating as an interceptor, it had 320nmi of range with 5 minutes combat time. But that is also with only 2xAIM-9 missiles hung on it. Start adding in Sparrows and is probably going to drop to somewhere between 175-200nmi combat radius. That's at least marginally effective against air launched ASMs like the Exocet (but not any of the big Soviet missiles). The big issues show up once you start bombing it up. Range drops like a stone. Flying CAS, it has 150nmi of range. Less for a carrier version. Hi-lo-hi missions are better at 550nmi, but you can only carry 2,500 pounds of bombs with 2 drop tanks.

That's not to say it's all bad. The F404 is a damn good powerplant that sips fuel at altitude. In a CAP role with drop tanks and 2xAIM-9s, it could fly out 300nmi from base and stay there for over 2 hours and still have enough fuel for combat. And it's tiny. Less than 48' long and less than 27' wide. You don't even need folding wings. It was also designed to be easy to maintain, making carrier operations somewhat less of a logistical burden (assuming it was properly modified).

To me, it's an acceptable option for a prestige carrier or a nation operating in a low threat environment. Assuming the US is willing to eat the cost of navalising it.
 
From what I remember from the navalising the Harrier, any Magnesium components had to be replace. Also I would assume it needs to be fitted with an arrester hook - reinforcing the rear fuselage necessary - and the undercarriage needed to be stronger and the forward undercarriage would need to be fitted for cat launch.

What else was necessary?
 
JohnR said:
From what I remember from the navalising the Harrier, any Magnesium components had to be replace. Also I would assume it needs to be fitted with an arrester hook - reinforcing the rear fuselage necessary - and the undercarriage needed to be stronger and the forward undercarriage would need to be fitted for cat launch.

What else was necessary?
Click to expand...
Now why would you want to overcomplicate the Harrier by adding a catapult capability? I think we've seen they're quite useful without it. As for the F-20, how about finding some low-time A-4 airframe and stuffing in the F404 and APG-67? Sure you'd be lacking in a supersonic dash capability, but you'd make that up with Harpoon and a variety of radar guided missiles.
 
JohnR said:
From what I remember from the navalising the Harrier, any Magnesium components had to be replace. Also I would assume it needs to be fitted with an arrester hook - reinforcing the rear fuselage necessary - and the undercarriage needed to be stronger and the forward undercarriage would need to be fitted for cat launch.

What else was necessary?
Click to expand...
The airframe as a whole needs to be beefed up to survive carrier landings. Especially where the undercarriage attaches. There's a reason trapping on carrier is referred to as a controlled crash.i don't know what it's landing speeds looked like, but with that tiny wing, I'm guessing they were pretty high. If that's the case, that could mean you need a BLC system or an enlarged wing. Or worse case scenario, both. Survival equipment also needs to be updated to include things like a life raft and shark repellent. You need a dual nose wheel instead of a single wheel and provision for a tow bar and hold back bar. You'll need equipment like the ICLS and ACLS for recovery in bad weather. I don't know if the F-20 had a onboard oxygen generator or if it used bottles, but if it used bottles, it'll have to be switched to a generator system. And last but not least, all the systems need to be protected against salt water contamination and corrosion., which is not a simple task.
 
isayyo2 said:
JohnR said:
From what I remember from the navalising the Harrier, any Magnesium components had to be replace. Also I would assume it needs to be fitted with an arrester hook - reinforcing the rear fuselage necessary - and the undercarriage needed to be stronger and the forward undercarriage would need to be fitted for cat launch.

What else was necessary?
Click to expand...
Now why would you want to overcomplicate the Harrier by adding a catapult capability? I think we've seen they're quite useful without it. As for the F-20, how about finding some low-time A-4 airframe and stuffing in the F404 and APG-67? Sure you'd be lacking in a supersonic dash capability, but you'd make that up with Harpoon and a variety of radar guided missiles.
Click to expand...
Sorry didn't make myself clear I was referring to what was needed to change a land based to a shipborne aircraft, the only fact I could remember from when Harrier was modified into Sea Harrier was the replacement of Magnesium components due to salt water corrosion.

The rest was my surmise of what would be necessary for cats and traps. for the F20.
 
Last edited:
I changed my mind on the Vig. You know what's substantially cheaper than operating a brand new carrier, and I don't recall anyone mentioning? The Seamasters now being trailed by the USN!

An old favourite that I can't believe I forgot in this context, until I was just browsing and saw that thread.

Jump in with the Navy on the SeaMaster project and get your FAA theatre bomber on the cheap. Also gives the RAN new toys to support operations, while avoiding a brand new big -ticket purchase with large carrier.

And as it happily turns out, you'll happily be able to get a screaming deal in a couple years on a handful already paid for by someone else.


You know you want to... What? No? Not even a little tempted. Okay, fine... Haha
 
_Del_ said:
I changed my mind on the Vig. You know what's substantially cheaper than operating a brand new carrier, and I don't recall anyone mentioning? The Seamasters now being trailed by the USN!

An old favourite that I can't believe I forgot in this context, until I was just browsing and saw that thread.

Jump in with the Navy on the SeaMaster project and get your FAA theatre bomber on the cheap. Also gives the RAN new toys to support operations, while avoiding a brand new big -ticket purchase with large carrier.

And as it happily turns out, you'll happily be able to get a screaming deal in a couple years on a handful already paid for by someone else.


You know you want to... What? No? Not even a little tempted. Okay, fine... Haha
Click to expand...
You have my support!

 
The Seaplane Striking Force (SSF) was one hell of an amazing concept.
Go figure: Sea Dart escort fighters for Seamaster strike jet flying boats, supported by Sea Mistress big jet flying boat cargo, Commencement bay carriers and submarines tenders ! :eek::eek::eek::eek:

What is even more crazy is to think how circa 1957 the USN was developing, side by side
-the Vigilante (nuclear strike aircraft, from a carrier)
- the Seamaster (nuclear strike aircraft, directly from the sea surface)
- the Regulus II (nuclear strike cruise missile, from submarines)
- the Polaris (nuclear strike ballistic missile, from submarines)

Four different takes at "nuclear strike, from the sea" ! Even if only one (logically) survived, that damn impressive, and quite "technology porn" when you think about it.
And four damn impressive tech wonders.

That's why I have this TL in a corner of my mind, some kind of "USN wank" where a major threat from the sea (revengeful-nazi AIP Type XXI & I-400 submarines) gets all those 50's tech wonders pressed into service.
 
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat ?????!!!

I want to know more about this ! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
I'd have to dig through the books, but from memory, Regal was a last ditch proposal from Martin. Regulus II would be dorsal launched from the Sea Master. Bit like an ancestor to the Caspian Sea Monster.
 
On a more serious note, RAAF has a dozen old Mariners, and the Marlin is keying up for maritime patrol, SAR, and ASW role. The USN is retiring a generation of WW-II seaplane tenders, many newly modified with a helicopter deck.
It makes me wonder if there isn't some timeline where RAN doesn't grab Marlins and tenders as it shifts to an ASW-role.

A SeaMaster for strike, mine-laying, even tanking, might eventually be a viable extension in such a world, but it's hard to imagine the stars all aligning at the same time.
 
_Del_ said:
On a more serious note, RAAF has a dozen old Mariners, and the Marlin is keying up for maritime patrol, SAR, and ASW role. The USN is retiring a generation of WW-II seaplane tenders, many newly modified with a helicopter deck.
It makes me wonder if there isn't some timeline where RAN doesn't grab Marlins and tenders as it shifts to an ASW-role.

A SeaMaster for strike, mine-laying, even tanking, might eventually be a viable extension in such a world, but it's hard to imagine the stars all aligning at the same time.
Click to expand...
Good lord, the sheer number of different PODS needed for that to come about is jaw dropping. Though it sounds like a fun TL.
 
I think Marlins is easy. There are still countries operating flying boats in a MAP/SAR/ASW role. Most of them in the region. It's not much of a stretch to go that direction with a ASW-focus-- the USN still used tenders and Marlins through most of Vietnam. Tenders, even, are readily available.

SeaMasters would require a lot of "work", because you not only have the huge investment, you have a very narrow timeline or window to make such a decision. An even that decision only really makes remote sense if you already shifted to seaplanes and have infrastructure, and a reason for further investment for strike power.

You'd really need the USN to operate a decent number and piggyback, or wait until the Navy phases them out.

It'd be a fun timeline, though.
 
isayyo2 said:
How about a second run of P5Ms with T56 engines and BLC?
Click to expand...
Or you could reengine existing versions similar to how Argentina replaced the piston engines of their S-2 Trackers with turboprops. One thing the US wasn't was shy about transferring retired equipment to second tier nations where it could still give good service.
 
SSgtC said:
isayyo2 said:
How about a second run of P5Ms with T56 engines and BLC?
Click to expand...
Or you could reengine existing versions similar to how Argentina replaced the piston engines of their S-2 Trackers with turboprops. One thing the US wasn't was shy about transferring retired equipment to second tier nations where it could still give good service.
Click to expand...
Don't see why not? Especially when it's well researched fiction such as yours. The Martin Company would bend over backwards for any potential sales, be it refits or new units.
 
isayyo2 said:
SSgtC said:
isayyo2 said:
How about a second run of P5Ms with T56 engines and BLC?
Click to expand...
Or you could reengine existing versions similar to how Argentina replaced the piston engines of their S-2 Trackers with turboprops. One thing the US wasn't was shy about transferring retired equipment to second tier nations where it could still give good service.
Click to expand...
Don't see why not? Especially when it's well researched fiction such as yours. The Martin Company would bend over backwards for any potential sales, be it refits or new units.
Click to expand...
No promises they'll show up, but I gotta admit that flying boats are really cool. And unfortunately I also have to admit that I completely missed the fact that the USN was still flying them into the late 60a
 
RAAF Marlins would be a challenge given the RAAF disposed of their Mariners in 1948. I suppose you could have them retaining the flying boat ASW/SAR/MPA capability longer with something such as the Marlin. One could easily have them keep Sunderlands post war too - the Catalinas were kept in service until 1950 after all. The Sunderlands might be justifiable given the RNZAF kept theirs until the mid 1960s and the related Sandringham kept flying in Australian civilian service until the 1970s. Maybe keep Sunderlands and/or Mariners and then replace them with an Australian Shin Meiwa PS-1 in the late '60s?

Anything to establish RAAF Base Whitsundays...;):

314
HNL-18.jpg
 
Last edited:
SSgtC said:
isayyo2 said:
SSgtC said:
isayyo2 said:
How about a second run of P5Ms with T56 engines and BLC?
Click to expand...
Or you could reengine existing versions similar to how Argentina replaced the piston engines of their S-2 Trackers with turboprops. One thing the US wasn't was shy about transferring retired equipment to second tier nations where it could still give good service.
Click to expand...
Don't see why not? Especially when it's well researched fiction such as yours. The Martin Company would bend over backwards for any potential sales, be it refits or new units.
Click to expand...
No promises they'll show up, but I gotta admit that flying boats are really cool. And unfortunately I also have to admit that I completely missed the fact that the USN was still flying them into the late 60a
Click to expand...
Not just sub-hunting and SAR, but even combat action in Vietnam using pindle mounted machine guns in the doors and HVARs against riverine coastal boat traffic.

And while the USN is still using newer tenders through that time, they started retiring a good deal of the older tenders in the mid'50's...
 
I think if some of the Polaris cost overruns could be avoided, then niche programs like the P5M or a theoretical turboprop successor could remain for the "limited wars." Just looking at the production numbers of P5Ms and P2Vs, it's apparent to what the Navy preferred.
Since it's still 1959, (panning the camera way out) the Marines could fully pivot to the Small Wars/Limited War reaction force with Pantobase Transports and Navy Seaplanes inserting UDTs and providing SAR? Ideally the Seaplanes would be turned amphibious too, helps reduce specialized equipment; can't forget the OV-10 on floats either!
 
I suppose another option might be if the Convair XP5Y-1 were to have entered service or perhaps they and/or the R3Y Tradewinds were to be re-engined with something such as T56s?

Or alternatively, the Martin P7M SubMaster making it into operations either instead of or alongside the P-3 Orion...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom