View Full Version : What if the RN had gone with the F-8 ?
Fonsini
4th Aug 2016, 04:29
I saw recently that the fighter choice for the navy was between a Spey powered F-8 Crusader probably an E model or equivalent and the Phantom, with the latter winning out of course.
Does anyone have more information to share, or better yet do you think the Phantom was the way to go ? (the French certainly didn't).
Different generations. The F-8 was a 1950s comparable to the Lightning, single role, 2 x Mx, AN/APQ-94 could track a bomber target out to 45-60 miles (comparable to AI-23). The F-4, as when comparing the Lightning vs F-4 in the RAF was in a different league in AD - let alone as a multi-role mud mover.
Heathrow Harry
4th Aug 2016, 10:00
Bill Gunston reckoned it would have been a far better choice IIRC
You could probably have kept more carriers in service as I think Ark, Eagle, Victorious and Hermes could operate the F-8 without the modifications that were needed to operate the F-4. Does still leave you with the problem of replacing them at some point though probably in the 1980-90 time frame.
ian16th
4th Aug 2016, 10:37
Weren't the Navy rather keen on having 2 engines?
F8 has a rather short range, even by 1960s standards.
PDR
The Crusader was too ugly, but at least it could fly a circuit with the wings still folded!
https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/F-8-folded-wings.png
As could the F-4...
https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/f-4folded.gif
Rhino power
4th Aug 2016, 13:49
Apologies for the dread thrift but, another image of the 57th FIS F-4E in flight with the wings folded and a brief explanation of what happened...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/3a/e9/2a/3ae92a0820a61edf8ff2997b4701b384.jpg
'57th FIS F4E 66-0304 that took off, flew and landed safely with wings folded, August 1, 1978. PIlot: Capt. Greg Harrison; WSO: Capt. Denny Dawson. Photo taken with an Instamatic by WSO lst Lt. Jim Uken flying in 66-328. The F4 became pitch sensitive at 205 kts, so Harrison landed at 230 kts. Wing fold locking nuts retracted, lock indicator pins fully extended. But the F4 had just been painted gray & the pins, which should be red, were also painted gray no one noticed they were extended.'
-RP
Martin the Martian
5th Aug 2016, 13:13
I know these things do happen, and sorry if it's a bit simplistic, but did nobody actually think to take a look at the wings before they started the take off roll? What about the 'last chance' check?
sandiego89
5th Aug 2016, 13:25
I think there is some merit that the F-8 was a better fit for smallish carriers. With the Buccaneer in the attack role, it may have been fine for the F-8 to serve as a fleet fighter (really an interceptor), but the Phantom did bring a better systems for all weather fleet defense (radar, WSO, Sparrow+sidewinder) plus 2 engines. It was really pushing the limit to operate the F-4 on the Ark Royal, and the UK models had to have several tricks added to allow effective F-4 operations off the smallish deck.
The US Navy did not deploy F-4's on the modernized Essex class, and used F-8's.
F-8's did suffer from a high loss rate.
GlobalNav
5th Aug 2016, 16:25
The Crusader was too ugly,
Of course, Navy airplane. But then some air forces also seem attracted to ugly airplanes...
Haraka
5th Aug 2016, 17:34
S.R. 177 anybody????
The Crusader was too ugly Well it's shorter GA brother was the SLUFF, the runt of the litter..... (A-7)
Dare one mention F-8 and commonality with Aeronavale?
No, probably not. Sorry. Merde.