Modified by Curtiss-Wright, with a supply chain coming from the United States. Armstrong would not be able to supply the J65 specific parts.
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.
That sounds about right on the weight. Per the SAC sheet for the A-6E, the J52-P-8B weighed 2,118 pounds dry. So I could see 2056 for an earlier model
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 thereRemind 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:
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
Could they not be dismantled and put aboard a cargo ship.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 thereRemind 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:
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
Plus, despite the political desire to keep West New Guinea part of the Netherlands, the bigger threat is the USSR.
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.
Except you still hit the issue of trying to introduce a new type when what you need is a here and now solution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clearly this calls for the Seaplane Striking Force to plug USPACFLT's gaps
Clearly this calls for the Seaplane Striking Force to plug USPACFLT's gaps
Fingers crossed
Faggot then meant, in addition to being used as a degoratory term for a homosexual, a bundle of sticks or steel tubes, or even the instrument which is (and already was then) usually called bassoon in English, but which is still known as fagotto in Italian, Fagott in German and Swedish, fagotti in Finnish etc.
Which perfectly circles back to our original discussions on upgrading the F-4 in the ~early 70s or so. Geez that was a few years ago already? GE has the engine core and technology to make a drop J79 replacement, now they just need customers…
