Royal Navy with F-8 Crusader instead of F-4 Phantom II

[Scott Kenny]

1" may not sound like much but its a dramatic increase at supersonic speeds.

You're assuming that there's not a couple inches of clearance around the engines already...

 

[TomcatViP]

Especially in the rear portion of the fuselage, where boundary layer is already turbulent, this dramatic statement around 1 inch is exacerbated. (see Karman equation for estimation of BL thickness in function of wet body length).

 

[Yellow Palace]

Can anyone imagine the F-8's tilting/high incidence wing mechanism being added to one?

Not in a million years. Moving from a mid-wing to a high-wing configuration is really designing an entirely new aeroplane. That decision is one of the things you lock in at the earliest stage of the design process.

 

[orlovsky]

Also British Phantoms had a much greater requirement to bring back unused ordnance compared to the USN, which would dump unused bombs into the sea. All of these changes were likely most useful as a heavily bombed up and therefore very sluggish Phantom was coming in to land.

The maximum arrested landing weight of the F-4 was increased over time from 28k to 40k lbs. The F-4B was 34k lbs, the J version took that to 38k lbs, same for the F-4K. As the K was a bit heavier bringback was probably a bit lower.



What the F-4K had was a strengthened hook for 4.8g, allowing the arrest on the dax2 with higher speeds/weights.



Which reminds me of another problem of the speyed Phantom: very high single engine approach speed.

 

[H_K]

Coming back to this topic with a closer look at the Spey Twosader… as this was probably the only realistic alternative to the Phantom. Here's what it might have looked like:

- TF-8A two-seat fuselage
- J57 replaced by Spey (much like J79 re-engining proposal)... 650lb weight savings, +900lb thrust, 20-25% less fuel consumption. Inlet area would have to be increased slightly, but this should not be a problem and was shown to be possible in the later Super V-1000 proposal (F100 powered F-8)
- Other big change would be a big nose (Sea Harrier FA2 style) for a ~23" radar (instead of 21" on F-8E)… still small but the best that could be done in such a small nose
- Ideally replace 2x 20mm guns with a single 30mm Aden

Power-to-weight and climb rate would be the same as an F-4 (ie. excellent), combat radius on internal fuel alone would be similar to an F-4 with a single 600 gallon external tank. Armament would be 2x AIM-7E (later Sky Flash) underwing and 2-4x AIM-9B (later AIM-9L) on the fuselage pylons.

 

[BlackBat242]

Your proposed radome looks much like that of the FA.2 Sea Harrier... optimised for subsonic speeds.

For the Speyed F-8Two it should be pointier - and with the tip below the centerline of the radome to properly place the supersonic shock cone.

 

[H_K]

Your proposed radome looks much like that of the FA.2 Sea Harrier... optimised for subsonic speeds.

OK fixed the nose a little... here's the Spey Twosader with a 24" pulse doppler radar. This mostly involved raising the front seat by ~11”, and a slightly longer radome (+~1ft).

(The radar is patterned on the JA-37's Viggen’s pulse doppler set, the 27.5in PS-46/A, but slight scaled down)

 

[BlackBat242]

OK fixed the nose a little... here's the Spey Twosader with a 24" pulse doppler radar. This mostly involved raising the front seat by ~11”, and a slightly longer radome (+~1ft).

(The radar is patterned on the JA-37's Viggen’s pulse doppler set, the 27.5in PS-46/A, but slight scaled down)View attachment 744940

That looks much better.

The intake would be a little wider than that of the F-8E to maintain the airflow, which should be easy.

(I know... famous last words)

 

[Rule of cool]

Would Britain even bother with a bigger radar when they could just use the Red Top and modify the radar to slave the Red Top seekers like the Lightning.

 

[zen]

Would Britain even bother with a bigger radar when they could just use the Red Top and modify the radar to slave the Red Top seekers like the Lightning.

I've have thought this too.
Everything they have is already geared to support 30mm ADEN, AI.23, Firestreak and the coming Red Top.

Next generation radar is at that time very much a developing thing and while there's efforts on seekers. No actual future AAM design has been chosen.

 

[H_K]

Would Britain even bother with a bigger radar when they could just use the Red Top and modify the radar to slave the Red Top seekers like the Lightning.

I believe pulse doppler radar was a must-have for the RN, as having a look down/shoot down capability was the best way to handle low level Soviet attacks by the Tu-22 Blinder/AS-4 Kitchen combo, which was the big new threat in the 60s.

That is why they were so insistent on the F-4 (and specifically a derivative of the F-4J). That also excludes any AI.23 derivative and likely Red Top too as I'm not sure its IR seeker would perform well against a warm background like the sea. The only alternative was to fly low and slow, burning up tons of gas and with less ability to quickly vector on an inbound threat coming from an unexpected axis.

Without pulse doppler, your air defense would still be useful flying CAP against high altitude patrol aircraft (Tu-95 Bear etc) and flying fighter escort missions for your strikers... but that would leave your task force less well defended against massed Soviet attacks.

 

[Rule of cool]

I believe pulse doppler radar was a must-have for the RN, as having a look down/shoot down capability was the best way to handle low level Soviet attacks by the Tu-22 Blinder/AS-4 Kitchen combo, which was the big new threat in the 60s.

That is why they were so insistent on the F-4 (and specifically a derivative of the F-4J). That also excludes any AI.23 derivative and likely Red Top too as I'm not sure its IR seeker would perform well against a warm background like the sea. The only alternative was to fly low and slow, burning up tons of gas and with less ability to quickly vector on an inbound threat coming from an unexpected axis.

Without pulse doppler, your air defense would still be useful flying CAP against high altitude patrol aircraft (Tu-95 Bear etc) and flying fighter escort missions for your strikers... but that would leave your task force less well defended against massed Soviet attacks.

Which brings me back to my earlier comment that the Spey Twosader is putting lipstck on a pig, getting a superseeded fighter in order to keep substandard carriers in service. Instead the RN saw the emerging threat and decided to buy the worlds best fighter and put it on the biggest carriers it could; Eagle, Ark Royal, CVA01 & 02. This great plan was thwarted by short sighted politicians who spent the same money on less capability.

Another thing about the Spey Twosader is the schedule. The last new-build Crusaders were the French F8E-FN built in 1964, the same year as the Spey first ran. When would the Spey Twosader be built, 1966-67, 2-3 years after the final production of the fighter that was in service for a decade at this point and well and truly surpassed?

 

[H_K]

Instead the RN saw the emerging threat and decided to buy the worlds best fighter and put it on the biggest carriers it could; Eagle, Ark Royal, CVA01 & 02.

Except that it never added up to 4 fleet carriers. It was more like 1.5 fleet carriers, with Eagle/Ark Royal switching in and out of operational status as they went through modernisation and extended refits throughout the 50s and 60s. They rarely ever both were available. Then came CVA-01, which was so delayed that if it had entered service as planned around 1972-74, the RN would have been down to 1 Audacious, and by the time CVA-02 arrived in the late 70s, both Audacious carriers would be long gone leaving a lone CVA-01 which would likely have to go into refit.

This could have been foreseeable since the 1940s. Back then, Eagle was the only modern fleet carrier in any advanced stage of build; the fleet carrier gap was known and the (bad) plan was to rebuild the wartime fleet carriers to make up numbers... which produced the expensive Victorious debacle, leaving the gap still unfilled.

When I look at this late 40s picture of Eagle, Centaur & Bulwark, all far from completion, I feel like those Centaur hulls (which were just shells at that point) were begging for a more ambitious rebuild. With an 800ft flight deck, they'd be as long as Eagle/Ark Royal and Phantomization could even have been an option down the road (after all Hermes was considered for Phantoms).

Bulwark & Centaur (foreground) & Eagle (background), Harland & Wolff shipyard, late 1948 or 1949

 

[Rule of cool]

Except that it never added up to 4 fleet carriers. It was more like 1.5 fleet carriers, with Eagle/Ark Royal switching in and out of operational status as they went through modernisation and extended refits throughout the 50s and 60s. They rarely ever both were available. Then came CVA-01, which was so delayed that if it had entered service as planned around 1972-74, the RN would have been down to 1 Audacious, and by the time CVA-02 arrived in the late 70s, both Audacious carriers would be long gone leaving a lone CVA-01 which would likely have to go into refit.

This could have been foreseeable since the 1940s. Back then, Eagle was the only modern fleet carrier in any advanced stage of build; the fleet carrier gap was known and the (bad) plan was to rebuild the wartime fleet carriers to make up numbers... which produced the expensive Victorious debacle, leaving the gap still unfilled.

That's not really accurate, the rebuilt Victorious was a fleet carrier given the aircraft available to the RN until the Phantom entered sqn service and the Hermes could do a credible stand in for a fleet carrier. The Centaur was a less capable stop-gap until there were 4 acceptable carriers in the fleet rotation and even it carried the RNs standard fighter. We know that the Ark could be refitted for Phantoms in 3 years for 32 million pounds and then serve for 8 years and the Eagle's rebuild should have given her 15-20 years of life. So if the CVA01 was laid down in 1966 and CVA02 as soon as she was launched its feasible that by 1970 Ark and Eagle are carrying Phantoms, CVA01 replaces Hermes and Vic in ~1972-73, to give 3 big fleet carriers, CVA02 replaces Ark in 1976-77 and the Eagle serves on until the early-mid 80s at which point the RN drops to 2 strike carriers.

All in all it means that with a good political procurement policy and plan there is no need for the RN to adopt a lesser fighter to equip lesser carriers.

 

[BlackBat242]

Which brings me back to my earlier comment that the Spey Twosader is putting lipstck on a pig, getting a superseeded fighter in order to keep substandard carriers in service. Instead the RN saw the emerging threat and decided to buy the worlds best fighter and put it on the biggest carriers it could; Eagle, Ark Royal, CVA01 & 02. This great plan was thwarted by short sighted politicians who spent the same money on less capability.

Another thing about the Spey Twosader is the schedule. The last new-build Crusaders were the French F8E-FN built in 1964, the same year as the Spey first ran. When would the Spey Twosader be built, 1966-67, 2-3 years after the final production of the fighter that was in service for a decade at this point and well and truly surpassed?

Your schedule is not correct.

Let me remind you of the actual timeline of events...

The first flight took place on February 6, 1962. On September 18, 1962, the F8U-1T was redesignated TF-8A under the new Tri-Service designation system.
Although developed under a Navy contract, the two-seat Crusader was not ordered into production because of a cutback in the fiscal 1964 budget.
After being evaluated by the Navy in the USA, the TF-8A underwent a European tour in the hopes of attracting customers. For a while, the British were interested in the two-seat Crusader. If ordered, the British Crusader would have been powered with the Rolls-Royce Spey engine. However, the British decided instead to order the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, and the idea of a Spey-powered Crusader never achieved fruition.

On July 1, 1964, the Royal Navy gave the official go-ahead for a version of the Phantom to fulfill its needs.

This looks like the TF-8A made its visit to the UK in 1963, with provisional/preliminary discussions seeing Short selected to be the UK production partner IF the Spey Twosader is chosen.

So the decision for the Spey Twosader instead of the Phantom would be the same - mid-1964 (or earlier). I can see no possibility that would result in a F-8(RN) decision that would take the extra 2-3 years you suggest - instead I see, if the decision against CVA-01 had already been made, a likely earlier (mid-1963?) decision date.

While the last US F-8E was delivered mid-summer 1964, the first production F-8E(FN) for the French Navy first flew on 26 June 1964, and the last was delivered to France on 1 March 1965.

Therefore, the RN ordering the F-8(RN) would see Vought and the UK setting up a production line in the UK in 1963-64, to allow Vought to concentrate on A-7 production (Short had already been suggested for the role historically). Vought could easily fit in a couple of prototype and a couple of developmental aircraft while finishing off the US and French orders in 1964. Considering the extra decks available* some 150 or so would be planned for production.

In any case, considering that the modifications to the TF-8A would be no more, and likely less than, those for the F-4K - entry into production should take no more than 2 years, more likely 18 months or so. Also note that many of the changes to the F-8 (the second seat in the cockpit especially) were already done, so much less time would be used up in getting the developmental F-8(RN)s flying than was used in the "start from nothing" state of the F-4K modifications (which only took 2 years to see developmental models flying).

We could see production F-8(RN)s being delivered to the RN in late 1965 or early 1966 (compared to April 1968 for the FG.mk1/F-4K), with 4 flight decks available (3 until first Hermes then Ark are overhauled).


* Eagle would require no modifications for the F-8(RN) other than to her aircraft test & repair equipment, and neither would Victorious. Hermes would be fitted for them during her Feb 1964 - May 1966 modernization, and Ark Royal would not only be able to operate them from the start, but the aircraft-related modifications needed would be less, so her 1967-1970 (1969?) modernization could focus more on her propulsion plant and other issues that historically were not properly addressed.

Since Victorious would need to be retired no later than 1978, Eagle no later than 1984, Hermes 1986, and Ark 1988 or so, building of new carriers would only be a pressing issue in the early 1970s (for delivery in the mid-late 1980s) - and those could well be "Harrier-carriers" sized more like Hermes than the historic Illustrious class.

 

[Archibald]

That's the neat thing with the Crusader : adaptability to far smaller carriers than the massive Phantom. A good case could be made that the "Crusader treshold" tonnage might be around 30 000 tons, against 45 000 tons for Phantom. Very much the difference in capability between Foch & Clem on the smaller side, PA58 Verdun and CdG on the other.
Crusader can do a) Clemenceaus b) modernized Centaurs and c) Essex ultimate upgrade when Phantom as a bare minimum needs PA58 Verdun, much modernized Audacious, and Midways : all of them way past 45 000 tons.

 

[Archibald]

By the way it might be possible that the French jump into the SpeySader bandwagon, considering how the timelines match.

 

[BlackBat242]

By the way it might be possible that the French jump into the SpeySader bandwagon, considering how the timelines match.

Not sure about that... the UK wouldn't like France trying to gain control of the program, and France wouldn't want to delay getting their new fighters a year (or more) later than just buying the historic F-8E(FN) version.

The French could, though, see about getting that more-capable version in the 1970s as a modernization of their Crusaders.

 

[Archibald]

Common it is an american plane. No Dassault involved.

 

[zen]

Hmmmm.....
First potential is the alternative J65 version of what became the F8. This could see AS pull out improved Sapphires with reheat and alter history further.

Second is RR getting an Avon aboard as an 'interim' supersonic fighter in place of Scimitar to F.177. This could ride Lightning Avon coat tails and offer delivery before 1960. That would undermine DH-Saro F.177.

Third is the real exploration of F8U-III with reheated Conway.

Fourth is the Shorts bid.

Intriguingly if RN opt in on F8-K then there lurks the potential Vought-Brough offerings of Buccaneers to the USN and the UK jumping on the A7 bandwagon......and then why bother loading MRI missions on the 'supersonic trainer' after Dassault kills the AFVG.

 

[PMN1]

Could a Crusader use a MRAAM - Skyflash/Sparrow?

 

[Rule of cool]

This looks like the TF-8A made its visit to the UK in 1963, with provisional/preliminary discussions seeing Short selected to be the UK production partner IF the Spey Twosader is chosen.

So the decision for the Spey Twosader instead of the Phantom would be the same - mid-1964 (or earlier). I can see no possibility that would result in a F-8(RN) decision that would take the extra 2-3 years you suggest - instead I see, if the decision against CVA-01 had already been made, a likely earlier (mid-1963?) decision date.

While the last US F-8E was delivered mid-summer 1964, the first production F-8E(FN) for the French Navy first flew on 26 June 1964, and the last was delivered to France on 1 March 1965.

Therefore, the RN ordering the F-8(RN) would see Vought and the UK setting up a production line in the UK in 1963-64, to allow Vought to concentrate on A-7 production (Short had already been suggested for the role historically). Vought could easily fit in a couple of prototype and a couple of developmental aircraft while finishing off the US and French orders in 1964. Considering the extra decks available* some 150 or so would be planned for production.

In any case, considering that the modifications to the TF-8A would be no more, and likely less than, those for the F-4K - entry into production should take no more than 2 years, more likely 18 months or so. Also note that many of the changes to the F-8 (the second seat in the cockpit especially) were already done, so much less time would be used up in getting the developmental F-8(RN)s flying than was used in the "start from nothing" state of the F-4K modifications (which only took 2 years to see developmental models flying).

We could see production F-8(RN)s being delivered to the RN in late 1965 or early 1966 (compared to April 1968 for the FG.mk1/F-4K), with 4 flight decks available (3 until first Hermes then Ark are overhauled).

I don't disagree with any of that, it's only months different from what I imagined the case was. However I'd suggest you are being very optimistic with the Spey, it first ran in 1964 and you're expecting a mature afterburning, supersonic model ready for production in 1965-66.

However to put this into context in mid 1964 it was clear the USN would not buy any more F8s, it was buying and improving F4s and was developing the F111B and buying/modifying its carriers to accept this aircraft.

By mid 1964 it was pretty much settled that CVA01 would be as big as the British could build, ~53,000t and be equipped with BS6 catapults that could in theory launch the emerging F111B and certainly handle the F4. I don't know when the orders were placed but prior to cancellation some 3.5 million pounds of orders had been placed for long lead items for CVA01, it wasn't just an idea by the mid 60s.

Further the Eagle had just come out of a major rebuild with BS5 and BS5A catapults that could handle the Buccaneer and F4 and the RN also had the Ark Royal that in theory could be refitted to a similar standard.

Its a retrograde move to order a bespoke version of a fighter that the parent user has abandoned in production because its small enough for 2 of the 4 carriers in service but not big and powerful as the other 2 can handle let aline the planned ships of the immediate future.

 

[uk 75]

The problem with all the carriers in this discussion ( including CVA01) is that they were too small and inefficient compared even with the US Essex class let alone the Midways and Forrestals.
In 1966 the government grasped this nettle (albeit for many good and bad reasons often discussed on this site). Once the UK accepted its main role was in NATO the RN could leave coping with the Soviet air and missile threat to the USN and focus on ASW which combined excellent new equipment (Nimrods, Seakings and SSNs) with experienced frigates and destroyers plus a new class of cruiser and future destroyers and frigates. This force would be vital to SACLANT in any battle for the Atlantic whereas UK Phantoms would be nice to have but hardly essential.
After the Cold War ended the ASW threat diminished and carrier air power seemed once more worth having.
Unfortunately from 1991 to 2011 when this was true, Britain had only its three ageing CVS. By the time the new CV(F)s entered service the need for ASW was re-emerging but the UK as in 1966 could not afford carriers AND ASW. Healey and Nott may well look at the hollow RN of 2024 and mutter "We told you so.. "

 

[CV12Hornet]

The problem with all the carriers in this discussion ( including CVA01) is that they were too small and inefficient compared even with the US Essex class let alone the Midways and Forrestals.

... What?

CVA-01 is bigger than the Essex-class, in all facets. Frankly, they're not at all inefficient compared to the Midways, which were badly limited in many ways.

 

[_Del_]

By the way it might be possible that the French jump into the SpeySader bandwagon, considering how the timelines match.

I don't know. The brightest advantage of the F-8 (for the UK as well as France) seems to me is that one would be able to leverage the USN buy and supply train (and later the aircraft themselves).
The more you change it, the less attractive it becomes in my mind. Not because the Spey wouldn't be a great option for the Crusader, but because then you're adding substantially to the costs unless you can convince the Navy to throw-in with the Spey for the Crusaders and SLUFFS at the same time.
As someone else already noted above, the Spey probably isn't really ready in 64, 65, and by 68 when they bring the TF-41's on board in the A-7's, I can't imagine the Navy pouring any money into the F-8 fleet.

It's a lot easier to put in local avionics, etc than redesigning both the aft fuselage and intakes down the whole fuselage.

 

[Rule of cool]

In 1966 the government grasped this nettle

That's a very generous interpretation of events. The Wilson government may have cancelled CVA01 in 1966 but they stated that the UK would remain EoS until 1975, put Ark into Phantom refit and ordered enough Phantoms for 2 embarked and an ashore HQ sqn to support Ark and Eagle until at least 1975.

It wasn't until devaluation in November 1967 that the Wilson government 'grasped the nettle' to cut and run by '71 in early 1968. That course of action wasn't planned, indeed the cancellation of CVA01 was a desperate attempt to avoid devaluation and associated early EoS withdrawal.

 

[uk 75]

I did say it was done for many good and bad reasons.. My point remains that it had to be done.
No in service British aircraft carrier could carry as many modern aircraft as an Essex in 1966 or had its range.
For various reasons CVA01 could not operate a Midway sized airgroup let alone F111Bs safely.
ASW was the right focus for the RN.

 

[CV12Hornet]

For various reasons CVA01 could not operate a Midway sized airgroup let alone F111Bs safely.

Because the Midways generally carried smaller aircraft and the USN was stuffing them to the gills to operate that air wing. The Midway air wings were genuinely unsafe with how many aircraft they crammed onto them.

And meanwhile British airwings undershot their carriers' maximum capacity by a full squadron in peacetime, giving them the ability to surge another squadron for wartime as they did during Suez.

ASW was the right focus for the RN.

You say that like the CVAs don't have a place in an ASW-centric navy. Look at the USN's SCB-100 series - most of those designs carry 20 Phantoms for air defense, and the Brits needed 25 Sea Dart destroyers even after 1966 to provide AAW cover for all the disparate ASW groups their new ASW-centric plans required.

As it happens, a big-deck carrier capable of throwing up a credible CAP really comes in handy in ASW work when the opponent is planning to toss maritime strike aircraft into the mix, as the Soviets were liable to do. Sea Harriers could not do this - their AAW capabilities amounted to chasing off MPAs.

 

[Rule of cool]

Because the Midways generally carried smaller aircraft and the USN was stuffing them to the gills to operate that air wing. The Midway air wings were genuinely unsafe with how many aircraft they crammed onto them.

And meanwhile British airwings undershot their carriers' maximum capacity by a full squadron in peacetime, giving them the ability to surge another squadron for wartime as they did during Suez.

The British weren't the lone rangers. In the brief period in 1964 when Australia looked at an Essex to replace the Majestic class Melbourne the CAG they envisioned was 16 F4s and 12 S2 plus helicopters. IIUC there was no attack sqns or AEW, recce, ECM or tanker flights, a far cry from ~60 fighters and attack aircraft and large numbers of cats and dogs the USN embarked.

As for CVA01s CAG, ~36 big fighters and bombers is much like the USN "Grumman air wings" of ~48 F14s and A6s (but no A7s) carried by a couple of carriers in the early-mid 80s during the transition to the F/A18.

 

[CV12Hornet]

60 fighters and attack aircraft - the Essexes were even more stuffed to the gills than the Midways.

 

[Rule of cool]

60 fighters and attack aircraft - the Essexes were even more stuffed to the gills than the Midways.

My bad, 36 A4s and 24 F8s!

In any case it's not just numbers that count. 12 Spey Phantoms and 14 Buccaneers wouldn't fare too badly again 36 A4s and 24 F8s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could a Crusader use a MRAAM - Skyflash/Sparrow?

Not natively, it'd need a new radar for that. And probably a RIO in a back seat like Phantom had.

I don't disagree with any of that, it's only months different from what I imagined the case was. However I'd suggest you are being very optimistic with the Spey, it first ran in 1964 and you're expecting a mature afterburning, supersonic model ready for production in 1965-66.

Yes, that's stretching it a bit. 1968 or 69 is a bit more likely, based on when the SLUFs were flying.

However to put this into context in mid 1964 it was clear the USN would not buy any more F8s, it was buying and improving F4s and was developing the F111B and buying/modifying its carriers to accept this aircraft.

That's strictly because Congress told them "F-8s or F-4s, PICK ONE"

An interim Twosader with an enlarged inlet for later adaptation to sticking a Spey in there would be possible as of 1964.

 

[zen]

If the HSA had been allowed to just focus on P.1154RAF, then the FAA would be free to pursue AW.406 as their 'interim' solution til OR.346 could be resolved. This potentially after 1962-1963 'broke' NMBR.3.

Under these circumstances a relatively cheap and cheerful F8 option is a viable path

 

[Yellow Palace]

As it happens, a big-deck carrier capable of throwing up a credible CAP really comes in handy in ASW work when the opponent is planning to toss maritime strike aircraft into the mix, as the Soviets were liable to do. Sea Harriers could not do this - their AAW capabilities amounted to chasing off MPAs.

And especially when the opponent adds fighters to the mix. The Sea Kings you're flying for ASW are totally defenceless against even a Yak-38. And when the Striking Fleet shifts to offensive operations in the northern Norwegian Sea, you need to worry about land-based fighters entering the mix as well.

Even if you try to rely on your own fleet submarines for the ASW work... when you shift to the offensive, they'll be operating inside the bubble of opposing land-based aviation. It's awfully handy to be able to deal with Il-38s and their escorts so your submarines can operate more freely. It's better yet to permanently deal with them by going after their bases. Torpedoes, while excellent weapons, are very limited in this role. And submariners get quite cross about air defence missiles on their boats.

The RN didn't lose large carriers because they're no use in the North Atlantic battle. It lost large carriers because it failed to justify why they were needed for the North Atlantic battle.

 

[Rule of cool]

That's strictly because Congress told them "F-8s or F-4s, PICK ONE"

Fair enough too.

The Crusader II was beaten by the Phantom years earlier, the Crusader was at the end of its development path, the F111B was in development and the USN was building super-carriers. Keeping the Crusader in production was wasteful.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RN didn't lose large carriers because they're no use in the North Atlantic battle. It lost large carriers because it failed to justify why they were needed for the North Atlantic battle.

I recently read that the RAF team that argued for their EoS strategy were lawyers and well versing in making arguments, whereas the RN seemed to put in very little effort to make the most powerful and robust argument.

Funnily enough the RN aircraft that transferred to the RAF were used to form the TASMO, a balanced force of land based aircraft based in Scotland and tasked with supporting the now carrier-less Navy in the North Atlantic.

 

[Hood]

I still don't see why a hotted up mid-50s design is that popular. The whole notion of a two-seat Speyified F-8 is odd, its a freakish hybrid and there is no way that LTV is going to fund that kind of development on its own. Once you've redesigned the back end and fitted wholly new avionics and engine you might as well have started from scratch or bitten the bullet and bought off the shelf.
Shorts may well have proposed it, but they weren't exactly the sharpest pencil on the drawing board when it comes to aircraft.

Comparing CVA-01 with US carriers misses the point. Other than the Clemenceau-class there are no other new-build carriers in the non-US Western world - or the Soviet bloc for that matter - in this time period. It was the only keel-up design with a bunch of fresh ideas - not saying all of them were good or workable ideas - but it was it's own thing, it wasn't a Forrestal clone.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still don't see why a hotted up mid-50s design is that popular. The whole notion of a two-seat Speyified F-8 is odd, its a freakish hybrid and there is no way that LTV is going to fund that kind of development on its own. Once you've redesigned the back end and fitted wholly new avionics and engine you might as well have started from scratch or bitten the bullet and bought off the shelf.
Shorts may well have proposed it, but they weren't exactly the sharpest pencil on the drawing board when it comes to aircraft.

The Crusader was a good enough dogfighter to give Tomcats a hard time, NASA and Pax River pilots would jump east coast fighters flying from one base to another and embarrass the Phantom and Tomcat pilots, until someone whined and forced them to stop.

Where it has trouble is operating Sparrows, you'd need to stick a new radar in it for that.

It has the advantage of needing no modifications to fly off the postage stamps the RN claimed were carriers. Doesn't even need the Spey engine, but adding Spey greatly improves the performance. I could see the RN buying J57 Twosaders in 1964 and re-engining with Spey in 1970 or so. Optionally, they have Shorts buy the whole assembly line from Vought** since the USN isn't buying any more Crusaders and build for RN and possibly French use. I'm sure the MN would love the extra thrust for flying off their tiny carriers, too.

** Assuming that there was not a lot of tooling re-used for A-7s.

 

[Rule of cool]

Comparing CVA-01 with US carriers misses the point. Other than the Clemenceau-class there are no other new-build carriers in the non-US Western world - or the Soviet bloc for that matter - in this time period. It was the only keel-up design with a bunch of fresh ideas - not saying all of them were good or workable ideas - but it was it's own thing, it wasn't a Forrestal clone.

The Americans did a lot of things right in this period. They often combined innovations with great project management and plenty of financial and talent resources to deliver technology faster than other countries. Further, their great industrial and financial muscle allowed them to perform well on export markets.

I think all of this can make people think that the American way is the only and right way. As such the solutions other powers come to don't appear to be as good, or even wrong.

 

[_Del_]

The Crusader was a good enough ...

The only reasons to pick the Crusader over the Phantom by the mid-60's is if your carrier is not physically capable of operating a Phantom (France) or as an austerity measure.
In hindsight, arguably the RN is better off buying off the shelf Crusaders than pouring money into redesigning the F-4 to accomodate Speys, but that wasn't remotely apparent at the time when the RN still had sights on bigger carriers. It was better than the Sea Vixen needing to be replaced, but the bar is pretty low. Financially, it's a lot cheaper than redesigning the Phantom to use for 10-15 years.

The more redesigning of the Crusader, the less obvious the financial advantage (I don't recall the numbers, but I believe the Spey Phantoms ended up costing over twice as much as the RAF buy when the project was amortized over the airframes). Redesign doesn't make much sense unless you get the USN onboard somehow, and that seems very unlikely. French participation helps, but they are looking at the financial aspects, too.