What if the US Navy chose the F3H Super Demon over the F-8 Crusader

[helmutkohl]

McDonnell developed a larger, twin engined version the Demon, the F3H-G to compete with the F-8 Crusader. In the end the USN chose the F-8.

Let's say in this alternative time line, the F3H-G was chosen instead.. what would change? for example
- Would McDonnell still develop the F-4 Phantom? or would the USN keep using the F3H-G instead?
- Would the Super Demon also be popular among exports? (on a related note, any reason why many USN aircraft from the 50s and early 60s generally did poorly on the export market compared to their USAF counterparts?)
- Would Vought still exist as a company?

 

[pathology_doc]

I thought the F3H-G was a mock designation to get funding for the Phantom II under the basis that it was easier to get funding for improvements rather than a new program. Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[CV12Hornet]

I thought the F3H-G was a mock designation to get funding for the Phantom II under the basis that it was easier to get funding for improvements rather than a new program. Or am I thinking of something else?

No, it was a legit Demon development they drew up in-house and offered to the Navy - right as the Navy committed to the Crusader.

- Would McDonnell still develop the F-4 Phantom? or would the USN keep using the F3H-G instead?

Yes, the Phantom logically piggyback of the F3H-G, and more importantly the F3H-G has a number of undesirable features the Navy would want to correct, mostly related to the J65 engines supposed to be powering it.

- Would the Super Demon also be popular among exports? (on a related note, any reason why many USN aircraft from the 50s and early 60s generally did poorly on the export market compared to their USAF counterparts?)

Probably not. There wasn't exactly a lot of demand for an all-weather heavy fighter with sub-Mach 2 performance in the late 50s and early 60s. This scuppers even the French purchase; two J65s points to a plane too big for the Clemenceaus.

As for export performance of Navy aircraft versus Air Force, well, that's always been the case. Carrier ops introduce compromises that tend to make pure land-based birds more attractive.

 

[Hanse]

 

[pathology_doc]

No, it was a legit Demon development they drew up in-house and offered to the Navy - right as the Navy committed to the Crusader.

Sounds like someone I knew. There were two guys who really, really liked her and one of them had the misfortune (unbeknownst to him) to propose to her literally JUST AFTER she'd said yes to the other guy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

McDonnell developed a larger, twin engined version the Demon, the F3H-G to compete with the F-8 Crusader. In the end the USN chose the F-8.

Let's say in this alternative time line, the F3H-G was chosen instead.. what would change? for example
- Would McDonnell still develop the F-4 Phantom? or would the USN keep using the F3H-G instead?

I'm pretty sure that the F-4 Phantom would be developed, because trying to run a radar equipped night/all weather fighter with one crew didn't work in the 1950s. Crusader with Sparrows was going to be a two-seater, but the Phantom was just flat that much better.

- Would the Super Demon also be popular among exports? (on a related note, any reason why many USN aircraft from the 50s and early 60s generally did poorly on the export market compared to their USAF counterparts?)

Carrier aircraft are heavier, which really hurts when the early jet engines only made a few thousand lbs of thrust. So unless a country was specifically looking for carrier aircraft, they almost always bought USAF fighters. Notable exception being the A-4 Skyhawk.

 

[uk 75]

The US is the only nation able to build and operate Midway then Forrestal sized carriers in the 1950s. The UK abandoned its Malta class in order to build the smaller ships it needed for Empire/Commonwealth work.
Other carrier nations used the smaller UK ships or US escort carriers (France and Spain).
The A4 Skyhawk was ideal for such ships but it was the only US attempt at a small carrier aircraft.
The Bell XF109 was the closest the US came to a viable P1154RN alternative.
The US Navy showed no interest in getting a US improved Sea Harrier. It knew Congress would use it to reduce the number of Nimitz.

 

[EwenS]

The US is the only nation able to build and operate Midway then Forrestal sized carriers in the 1950s. The UK abandoned its Malta class in order to build the smaller ships it needed for Empire/Commonwealth work.

The UK abandoned the Malta class because - money.

In June 1945 the plan was to build 2 for completion in 1950/51 and defer the other pair. By Sept/Oct the latter were to be cancelled and then by Nov/Dec the other pair were cancelled. While I don't have a figure for the Maltas, other savings from the Dec 1945 cancellation round added up to in excess of £30m in 1945 terms. At that point there wasn't even an agreed design. It had gone from an armoured hangar design in 1943/44 to an open hangar design in design in 1945. But that was never signed off by the Admiralty and according to Goodall in his diary, the debate was ongoing in light of what had happened with the kamikazes in the Pacific against the BPF carriers.

The Centaur class had always been controversial as they were seen as postwar ships able to take a new generation of aircraft planned. 8 ordered in 1943 and 4 almost immediately deferred, to be cancelled finally in Oct 1945.

 

[Hanse]

"

What if the US Navy chose the F3H Super Demon over the F-8 Crusader"​

Heh. In a way they did. They chose the F4H Phantom over the XF8U-3 Crusader.

 

[helmutkohl]

"

What if the US Navy chose the F3H Super Demon over the F-8 Crusader"​

Heh. In a way they did. They chose the F4H Phantom over the XF8U-3 Crusader.

haha funny but true.
on a related note, I wonder if the Super Crusader was developed as a twin-seater, would it have a better chance against the Phantom

 

[Scott Kenny]

on a related note, I wonder if the Super Crusader was developed as a twin-seater, would it have a better chance against the Phantom

Yes, it would have.

 

[SSgtC]

haha funny but true.
on a related note, I wonder if the Super Crusader was developed as a twin-seater, would it have a better chance against the Phantom

It depends on the mission. The Phantom was a better climber and carried a heavier warload (4xAIM-7s & 4xAIM9s vs 3xAIM-7s and 2-4xAIM-9s for the Crusader). However, the Crusader beat the pants off the Phantom in range, speed and maneuverability. The Crusader could fly farther on internal fuel than the Phantom could with a 600 gallon drop tank. It's going to boil down to which set of criteria the Navy places more value on. Or alternatively, if Congress let's them buy both. IIRC, the Navy intended to buy both types originally, but Congress stepped in and told them to pick one.

 

[Hanse]

It depends on the mission. The Phantom was a better climber and carried a heavier warload (4xAIM-7s & 4xAIM9s vs 3xAIM-7s and 2-4xAIM-9s for the Crusader). However, the Crusader beat the pants off the Phantom in range, speed and maneuverability. The Crusader could fly farther on internal fuel than the Phantom could with a 600 gallon drop tank. It's going to boil down to which set of criteria the Navy places more value on. Or alternatively, if Congress let's them buy both. IIRC, the Navy intended to buy both types originally, but Congress stepped in and told them to pick one.

I often wonder what might have happened if the USAF decided to buy the Crusader 3. A land based version could be lighter than the carrier version with even more performance. And they already had two J75-powered fighters in the F-105/-106.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I often wonder what might have happened if the USAF decided to buy the Crusader 3. A land based version could be lighter than the carrier version with even more performance. And they already had two J75-powered fighters in the F-105/-106.

"ewwwwwwwww, it's a Navy plane! Disgusting!"

 

[helmutkohl]

who knows how it may have went back then. the USAF some how or another ended up with the F-4 and A-7, despite it being navy.
I am sure very reluctantly.
it seems at some point they were also considering the F-14 as well, to replace their century fighter interceptors.

 

[Scott Kenny]

who knows how it may have went back then. the USAF some how or another ended up with the F-4 and A-7, despite it being navy.
I am sure very reluctantly.
it seems at some point they were also considering the F-14 as well, to replace their century fighter interceptors.

The F-4 and A-7 were basically forced on the USAF by McNamara.

Note that rather than buy an F-14, the USAF chose to keep 1950s aircraft in service another 15 years or so.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Note that rather than buy an F-14, the USAF chose to keep 1950s aircraft in service another 15 years or so.

The 1950s aircraft were not kept in service in preference to the F-14, the F-14 lost to a dedicated interceptor version of the F-15 called the F-15Y.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The 1950s aircraft were not kept in service in preference to the F-14, the F-14 lost to a dedicated interceptor version of the F-15 called the F-15Y.

Which then lost to the F106.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Which then lost to the F106.

More of a case of it dying in the procurement process, rather than competing with the F-106. The prospect of improved F-106s died in the late 1960s.

F-15Y was more of an early 1970s prospect, it's competitors were the F-14, F-111X-7, the NR-349, and LTV's Quick Reaction Interceptor.

 

[CV12Hornet]

who knows how it may have went back then. the USAF some how or another ended up with the F-4 and A-7, despite it being navy.
I am sure very reluctantly.
it seems at some point they were also considering the F-14 as well, to replace their century fighter interceptors.

The USAF was very enthusiastic about the F-4 once McNamara got them to take a good look at it.

The A-7, less so; they wanted the F-5 instead.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USAF was very enthusiastic about the F-4 once McNamara got them to take a good look at it.

The A-7, less so; they wanted the F-5 instead.

Which is bizarre, except for being subsonic only the A-7 walks all over an F-5. Bombload, cannon ammo, maneuverability...

 

[Yellow Palace]

Which is bizarre, except for being subsonic only the A-7 walks all over an F-5. Bombload, cannon ammo, maneuverability...

I don't think the USAF particularly wanted to do that job at all. The F-5 would at least let them entertain fantasies of shooting down the Red Baron while over the front lines.

Flying a Navy plane, that can't even dogfight properly, where the Army can see? No thank you!

 

[SSgtC]

Which is bizarre, except for being subsonic only the A-7 walks all over an F-5. Bombload, cannon ammo, maneuverability...

Because the Air Force despises any and everything having to do with ground support. The F-5, despite being totally unsuited for the role of CAS, was preferred because it was still a "fighter," and the air force was more concerned about that than they were with what the plane was actually supposed to do

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think the USAF particularly wanted to do that job at all. The F-5 would at least let them entertain fantasies of shooting down the Red Baron while over the front lines.

Flying a Navy plane, that can't even dogfight properly, where the Army can see? No thank you!

A-7s dogfight quite well, actually...

 

[SSgtC]

A-7s dogfight quite well, actually...

But they aren't *pointy and supersonic.*

 

[pathology_doc]

The Phantom was a better climber and carried a heavier warload

Could you have hung as many bombs off a Crusader 3, though? The C3 is probably the best pure fighter the Navy never had, but can it perform the ground attack mission anywhere near as well? The E and F versions of the Phantom also showed that fitting an internal gun wasn't too much of an issue if you really had to; I'm not sure the C3 had the weight or space for one, and it might have had to be scabbed onto the outside as a conformal pod.

The Navy was right to want to buy both, but if it couldn't have both then I think it made the right call buying the F-4. The Super Demon feels like a less developed version, an outgrowth rather than a clean sheet of paper, and it might not have ascended to the greatness the Phantom achieved.

McDonnell developed a larger, twin engined version the Demon, the F3H-G to compete with the F-8 Crusader. In the end the USN chose the F-8.

Let's say in this alternative time line, the F3H-G was chosen instead.. what would change? for example
- Would McDonnell still develop the F-4 Phantom? or would the USN keep using the F3H-G instead?
- Would the Super Demon also be popular among exports? (on a related note, any reason why many USN aircraft from the 50s and early 60s generally did poorly on the export market compared to their USAF counterparts?)
- Would Vought still exist as a company?

If the Super Demon does get the job over the Crusader, Vought's redemption (after the disaster of the Cutlass) is denied it and my guess is they're probably finished as an independent firm. About the only chance for them in this timeline is that the existence of the Super Demon and need to develop and produce it pushes development of the Phantom II several years into the future, at which point the Crusader 3 actually stands a chance of winning the fighter competition since it doesn't have to compete with one of the all-time greats.

 

[SSgtC]

Could you have hung as many bombs off a Crusader 3, though? The C3 is probably the best pure fighter the Navy never had, but can it perform the ground attack mission anywhere near as well? The E and F versions of the Phantom also showed that fitting an internal gun wasn't too much of an issue if you really had to; I'm not sure the C3 had the weight or space for one, and it might have had to be scabbed onto the outside as a conformal pod.

The Navy was right to want to buy both, but if it couldn't have both then I think it made the right call buying the F-4. The Super Demon feels like a less developed version, an outgrowth rather than a clean sheet of paper, and it might not have ascended to the greatness the Phantom achieved.

Short answer? No. At most, I think you could hang about 6,000 pounds of bombs on one (two wing hardpoints at 2,000 pounds each plus a semi-submerged well in the fuselage with another 2,000).

Also no on mounting an internal canon. Considering where the fuel cells, avionics, engine and engine inlet are, I don't think you could fit a Vulcan into the airframe. You could probably physically fit a Colt 20mm in, but then you run into issues with ingesting gasses from the gun into the engine

 

[pathology_doc]

Short answer? No. At most, I think you could hang about 6,000 pounds of bombs on one (two wing hardpoints at 2,000 pounds each plus a semi-submerged well in the fuselage with another 2,000).

Also no on mounting an internal canon. Considering where the fuel cells, avionics, engine and engine inlet are, I don't think you could fit a Vulcan into the airframe. You could probably physically fit a Colt 20mm in, but then you run into issues with ingesting gasses from the gun into the engine

All of this is why I agree that the Phantom was the way to go if you could only have one. An air force can be wholly equipped with Phantoms and still be well-rounded, but not Crusader 3s. Of course the USN had other aircraft to be its bomb trucks and might have coped, but foreign customers may not be in the same situation and foreign sales would suffer accordingly.