Since Vought was facing extreme pressure from MaCAir and Grumman I think they may have been very willing to share, especially in the F8U-3 that was competing against the Phantom. They pretty much new they weren't going to win that early on so making Shorts a full partner may have allowed them to continue. With the French on board for the Naval version it may have had a head start on a NATO joint program. ANd maybe some potential for Canada and/or Australia.
Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
Since Vought was facing extreme pressure from MaCAir and Grumman I think they may have been very willing to share, especially in the F8U-3 that was competing against the Phantom. They pretty much new they weren't going to win that early on so making Shorts a full partner may have allowed them to continue. With the French on board for the Naval version it may have had a head start on a NATO joint program. ANd maybe some potential for Canada and/or Australia.
Riain
Banned
How do you get past the fact that the Spey Twosader is a piece of shit? Its a tarted up 50s transonic day fighter that is too slow, too short ranged with too small a radar and not enough weapons for the 60s.
The F8U-3 was designed for the competition that produced the F4H Phantom. It had new radar Sparrow missiles and a big new engine. Was capable of Mach 2 speeds and by many was considered technically superior to the McDonnell design. But the Powers that be were concerned about concentrating too many contracts with one vendor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF8U-3_Crusader_III
Having a second crewmember solves the workload problem, and it has guns! The planned out fit was 4 Colt Mk 12 20mm but I'm sure two 30mm Aden could be used.
SsgtC
Banned
The lack of a RIO was actually the biggest knock on the XF8U-3. The Crusader was already a plane that demanded the pilot's constant attention. Adding in the early, complex fire control radar would have overloaded the pilot. If Vought had been able to get a backseater in before they pitched it to the Navy, it probably would have won the competition. Even after the program had been terminated, NASA operated Crusader IIIs would routinely beat the snot out of Navy Phantoms in simulated dog fights. It got so bad, the Navy eventually had to ask NASA to stop.
Whatever for? It's not like the North Vietnamese Migs weren't doing that on a daily basis.
SsgtC
Banned
Morale, partly. Getting your ass handed to you on the daily by a fighter that the Navy could have easily had is kinda demoralizing. But more importantly, pride. NASA was beating the Navy. Losing to an opposing Air Force, or even your own is one thing. But losing to a civilian agency? That was too much.
Pretaporter
Banned
I have to ask, WTF are NASA practicing dogfighting for?
Are they expecting the Race to turn up in orbit?
Because no self respecting fighter pilot - any era, any nation, any service / employer - is going to turn down the opportunity of a 'Bounce'. It's who they are and what they do, as they'll tell you themselves - incessantly...
SsgtC
Banned
^^This. Don't forget, at this point in time, the majority of NASA Astronauts are Navy, Air Force and Marine fighter pilots. The chance to bounce a couple of unsuspecting Phantoms would just be far too tempting to resist.
Riain
Banned
The Spey Twosader wasn't based on the Super Crusader but on the F8E, with its small radar dish and Mach 1.7 top speed.
If the RN had picked up the Crusader III it would have the worst of both worlds: a fighter that wasn't used by any other air force but built in a foreign country. It would have been an expensive nightmare to fly for 30 years.
Riain
Banned
The F4K was based on the F4J used by the USN, apart from the intakes and lower rear fuselage most parts would be common. The same would apply for the Spey Twosader proposed, wings etc would be common. The Crusader III would have no commonality as the USN chose the Phantom.
MatthewB
Banned
Yes. The Draken was already fitted with an arrestor hook, and was optimized for hard landings and short field ops. Reinforce the hook and add folding wings, all set.
That was the original idea but by the time the redesigned the fuselage frames to handle the larger spey, which required all new sheet metal on the central fuselage They ended up with a lot less commonality than they planned. The new frames also required re-routing cabling and wire bundles as well as hydraulic lines beyond what was expected to support the different feed patterns for the Spey. According to a MaCAir tech rep assigned to our F-15 avionics squadron in the mid 70s it was so bad that McDonnell was wishing they had started a new parts catalogue from scratch instead of incorporating it in the existing one. Even threads on tubing and bolts could be a problem when they wanted to connect British designed instrumentation to American systems.
I thought the idea of this thread was to produce a common advanced fighter for both the RAF and FAA to be deployed in the early 60s? To do that you have to be developing it in the mid to late 50s. From what I see the Spey first ran in 1964. I was thinking mid to late 50s that was why I suggested an Avon for the Crusader and an Olympus for the Crusader III. Both are very close (evin a touch smaller) than the American J-57 and J-75 used in the American planes. Also any dimensional issues are concentrated in the aft fuselage not in the mid body where the wings attach like in the Spey Phantom. And the Spey later was fitted into an F-8 derivative, the A-7 with great success, granted it was a non AB Spey.
So I believe if Vought saw the opportunity to ally with Shorts to provide a supersonic standard fighter for the RAF and RN in the form of an Avon Crusader they could leverage that to Shorts participation in an Olympus engined two seatalwaether Mach2 Super Crusader that may (along with the Avon Crusader) have market potential in Europe and the rest of the world.
Short field landings are not in the same category as carrier landings You usually need to use different high pressure tires and sturdier struts with longer travel. You also need strengthening for catapult connections. Folding wings demand changes to basic wing structure and internal cable, tankage, and pneudraulic systems. It is easier to convert an aircraft designed for carrier ops to a land based design than the other way around.
Politics and foreign exchange reserves say no.
Besides, at this time the UK still had a significant aerospace industry that would not take it well that they didn’t get the contract.
The Phantoms were bought because they were ‘cheap’ and the carriers were supposed to be gone within 10 years.
All the main RAF types even now were either UK designed or had significant UK content. Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar, Eurofighter etc. The Phantom was an outlier. I mean, even the F-35 has significant UK content and something like 10% of the development cost was paid for by the UK.
Last edited:
Licence-build the Grumman F-11F Tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger.
Handicapped by its weak Wright J-65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_J65 in version bought by the US Navy, Britain has the advantage of the vastly superior original version of the end the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Sapphire.
You then trade in 10500 lbs thrust for 12390 lbs thrust and likely Mach 2 performance.
Compact enough to fit on British carriers(might sell some to the French too) and useful to the RAF as well.
Handicapped by its weak Wright J-65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_J65 in version bought by the US Navy, Britain has the advantage of the vastly superior original version of the end the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Sapphire.
You then trade in 10500 lbs thrust for 12390 lbs thrust and likely Mach 2 performance.
Compact enough to fit on British carriers(might sell some to the French too) and useful to the RAF as well.
Riain
Banned
That's interesting but not surprising, RAAF Mirages were built for the Avon and when they reverted to Atar nothing lined up leading to a lot of skinned knuckles. What about the wings, forward fuselage etc?
In any event the Phantom was a widely used aircraft with a huge global support network. The Spey Twosader would have been able to tap into the big US and small French Crusader support systems. The Crusader III would be a British only plane made in the USA, not ideal from the fleet ownership perspective.