You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vought F-8 Crusader
- Thread starter KJ_Lesnick
- Start date
A few hundred Crusaders were rebuild
- F-8H – upgraded F-8D with strengthened airframe and landing gear, with AN/APQ-84 radar. A total of 89 rebuilt.
- F-8J – upgraded F-8E, similar to F-8D but with wing modifications and BLC like on F-8E(FN), "wet" pylons for external fuel tanks, J57-P-20A engine, with AN/APQ-124 radar. A total of 136 rebuilt.
- F-8K – upgraded F-8C with Bullpup capability and J57-P-20A engines, with AN/APQ-125 radar. A total of 87 rebuilt.
- F-8L – F-8B upgraded with underwing hardpoints, with AN/APQ-149 radar. A total of 61 rebuilt.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 11,427
- Reaction score
- 13,934
Unlikely, IMO. The F-8 was a pretty hot plane, IIRC more plane than a lot of young pilots could handle (See the "Ensign Eliminator" nickname). The French lost, what, 29 of 42? Fast landing speed, plus IIRC a little slow on power response.As to the F-8 losses in Nam, why were they so numerous? Was the lack of redundancy actually the main contributor?
(See the "Ensign Eliminator" nickname).
In that case why weren't there TF-8As produced alongside the initial F-8A variant?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 11,427
- Reaction score
- 13,934
USN is stupid.In that case why weren't there TF-8As produced alongside the initial F-8A variant?
In that case why weren't there TF-8As produced alongside the initial F-8A variant?
Congress canned them circa 1963. https://web.archive.org/web/20250203142029/http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f8_8.html
Congress canned them circa 1963. https://web.archive.org/web/20250203142029/http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f8_8.html
Talk about a shortsighted act of stupidity.
TBH I think it was a bit more complicated than what I wrote. Vought developped a 2-seat Crusader for the Navy but very late in Crusader production history (1957 -1964 : in 1963). The Navy was not sure it wanted two seat Crusaders and waited too long - until its budget got a massive cut by Congress for FY64, and now the USN had no money left for a TF-8A order.
The Navy was not sure it wanted two seat Crusaders and waited too long - until its budget got a massive cut by Congress for FY64, and now the USN had no money left for a TF-8A order.
The USN should've had a two-seater (AKA the Twosader) right from the beginning.
Yeah that's weird. I wanted to say that most naval jets had 2-seat variants early in their development cycle, but in fact that might be wrong. TF9 Panther, yes, but not sure about others. D'oh, I realize that while USAF always got two-seat, -B and -D variants of their combat jets, the USN reasoning is different except perhaps the F-18.
Last edited:
It did, that said by the time of Rolling Thunder there were far fewer Essex class carriers operating. So, more sorties for the F-4/A-6 off of the big decks while some of the Essex got A-7's. The Oriskany was the last Essex and operated F-8's and A-7's when it retired in '76.Interesting. The F-4 and A-4 were the carrier-based workhorses throughout the Vietnam War. I wonder if the F-8 (not RF-8) retained such a capability till the last hours of that conflict. Anybody knows?
FWIW there is a story during Rolling Thunder that a Mig-17 driver ejected at the sight of an F-8 merging with him, and some debate as to whether the Crusader driver should have been credited with a kill.
The last two Essex carriers still around for Rolling Thunder were Hancock and Oriskany. Both were flying J model Crusaders.Interesting. Do you happen to know the exact version of the Crusader that scared the Fresco driver and forced him to eject? Just wondering whether it was an upgraded variant, or the older one.
The J variant was a pretty nice upgrade in terms of avionics compared to the early ones. The series was reportedly fitted with the ASA-63A Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM) rig for launching AIM-9C (radar) missiles. I wonder if that was indeed their real feat in Nam.
Anyway, the upgraded avionics suite could explain the advantage even over the more maneuverable Fresco.
Anyway, the upgraded avionics suite could explain the advantage even over the more maneuverable Fresco.
The series was reportedly fitted with the ASA-63A Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM) rig for launching AIM-9C (radar) missiles.
Is there anywhere on this board that goes into great technical detail about how the SEAM box worked?
