Crusaders not Phantoms

[Peg Leg Pom]

Length shouldn't be a problem as all the British carriers operated the Supermarine Scimitar at one point, which had a length of 55ft 3 inches.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It did, the radar had to be modified to allow for it.

Great photo.

Which brings me onto the follow-up point which was that the hangars of the RN aircraft carriers in service in the 1960s had a widths of 62 to 67 feet. Therefore the British aircraft carriers aren't going to accommodate any more Crusaders than Phantoms.

As an aside the folding of the nose and air brakes reduced the length of the Buccaneer from 63ft 5in to 51ft 10in. Folding reduced its wingspan from 42ft 4in to 19ft 11in. The full-size area of a Buccaneer was 2,684ft 8in, but with wings, nose and tail folded its area was reduced to 1,032ft 4in.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Length shouldn't be a problem as all the British carriers operated the Supermarine Scimitar at one point, which had a length of 55ft 3 inches.

As I still have the spreadsheet open these are the dimensions of the Scimitar.

37ft 2in (11.33m) wingspan (extended)
20ft 6in (6.25m) wingspan (folded)
55ft 4in (16.67m) length
2,056ft 7in area (maximum)
1,134ft 4in area (folded)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Increasing the numbers of fighters on board isn't really the point, it's getting a supersonic fighter that can be flown from all British carriers. The Phantom can't do that, and had to be modified to fly from the largest British ships. As did the Ark Royal herself. The Crusader on the other hand could fly from smaller carriers as proven by the French who use them until 1999 on their carriers. Are the Crusaders as formidable as the Phantoms? No, but are they good enough to do the job required? I would say yes if you take into consideration the limitations of the ships Britain actually has rather than looking to ships that only exist on paper that they hope to have 10 years from now.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It might be worth noting the following:

The catapults fitted to Clemenceau and Foch were 170ft 7in long.

Ark Royal after Phantomisation had one catapult 199ft long and one 151 feet long. So did Eagle after her 1959-64 refit. The catapults fitted to Hermes on completion were 151ft long, the steam catapults fitted to Victorious in her 1950-58 refit were 145ft long, and the steam catapults fitted to Centaur were 139ft long.

Therefore it could be that Centaur, Hermes and Victorious would not be able to operate the Spey-Crusader any more effectively than they could the Spey-Phantom.

My guess is that the British would be better off going for the Mirage G, the Spey powered Breguet Br.120 or a new aircraft as an alternative to the F-8.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The thing is that Hermes and Victorious operated the Buccaneer which was much heavier than the Crusader so if their catapults could launch them then the Crusader which had a loaded weight of 29,000lb and a max take off weight of 34,000lb compared to the Buccaneer's empty weight of 30,000lb should be no problem. The arrester gear should have no problem with the weight either. Comparing the landing area of Hermes to that of a Clemeceau class they appear to be about the same length so there should be room for the arrester gear to stop a Crusader before it went over the side as well.

Looking again at the Length of the Crusader I haven't seen how the radome opens, but it must to allow the radar transmitter to be serviced so the aircraft should be able to be shortened to fit on a carriers lift if needed.

 

[jsb]

but are they good enough to do the job required? I would say yes

I think that depends on the Job, a regiment of Soviet bombers firing potentially nuclear tipped missiles or a Junta with A4s, realistically only F4s stand a chance v the first?

The thing is that Hermes and Victorious operated the Buccaneer which was much heavier than the Crusader so if their catapults could launch them then the Crusader which had a loaded weight of 29,000lb and a max take off weight of 34,000lb compared to the Buccaneer's empty weight of 30,000lb should be no problem. The arrester gear should have no problem with the weight either.

Does anybody know the take off, approach and stall speed of them as the speed would make a huge difference to the energy involved with the weights? Would it not make a big difference if the Buccaneer is slower with its big blown wing?

 

[Riain]

The devil is in the details, particularly with catapult lengths, aircraft flying speeds and the like. Just because a Buccaneer or A3 can operate from a certain carrier doesn't mean an F4 or F8 xan

A key number is the size of the Audacious class lifts: fwd 54' x 44' aft 54' x 33'. Can a Crusader fit on both lifts?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I found this photograph of a Crusader that is labeled as being on Victorious. The deck markings appear to confirm that.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I think that depends on the Job, a regiment of Soviet bombers firing potentially nuclear tipped missiles or a Junta with A4s, realistically only F4s stand a chance v the first?

Britain in 1963 has plenty of commitments all over the world where the chances of facing Mr Tupelev's aircraft are pretty remote. The smaller carriers have a role, and would continue to have a role even after the so-called withdrawal from East of Suez. Even in the North Atlantic the smaller ships would primarily escorting convoys with their fighters being for local defence. To get at them the Russians have to get past the larger carriers, including US ships and through the UK Iceland gap. Would the convoys be safer with the smaller ships as escorts or just destroyers and frigates because that's the choice facing Britain. Potentially 3 small and 2 medium carriers with Crusaders or at most 2 Medium carriers with Phantoms. Even if the proposed new carrier gets built it's going to be at least 10 years before it enters service and they haven't even finished the design yet so it could be longer.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

In 1964 the re-entry into service of HMS Eagle and Hermes is delayed while their catapults are extended by adding Bridle catchers on the advice of the Americans. At the same time they also take the opportunity to add a cooling mechanism to the jet blast deflectors.

While visiting Subic Bay in the Philippines HMS Victorious plays host to a flight of 5 F8E Crusaders to confirm the suitability of the type on Britain's small Carriers. This goes reasonably well, though concerns are raised about the F8s high landing speed. It is not recommended that they land on with any unexpended bombs on board, or a heavy load of fuel.

Britain agrees to the design proposed by LTV for their Crusader. This is a two seat version with the ability to carry Red Top Missiles, Sidewinders and/or 3 AIM 7 Sparrows. Its radar and nose cone are taken from the discontinued Crusader III, and though performance is not quite that of the Phantoms radar is considered good enough. To facilitate the use of Britain's carriers aircraft lifts and access to the transmitter/receiver the front nose cone of the aircraft opens so the nose cone lies alongside the aircraft fuselage. The same lift enhancing measures as are on the French Crusaders are also included on the F8F (Br). To simplify the supply of spares for the carriers the F8F (BR) will have the same Rolls Royce Spey engine as the new Buccaneer S2. Delivery of the first aircraft is expected towards the end of 1965. In fact due to Americas increasing involvement in the Vietnam war 20 of the F8U-2N all weather version will be lent to Britain following the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 so that the British carriers can gain experience with the type and free up US carriers for service in the Far East. As the F8U-2N is a single seat aircraft the experience gained is not as useful as it could be and the Carriers still keep 4 Sea Vixens alongside the Crusader in their fighter squadrons so the observers keep in practice . The Sea Vixens are mostly used for night flying so the pilot doesn't get overloaded both flying the aircraft and monitoring the radar and weapons.

 

[Just Leo]

Some people.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Following the completion of her commission HMS Centaur returns to the UK and pays off the majority of her crew. She then proceeds to Norfolk Virginia for an 18 month long refit paid for but the US military assistance program. During this refit she will be brought up to as close to the standard of HMS Hermes as is possible without a major rebuild. The British government gets some criticism from the shipbuilding unions for this but as the US is paying for it they get to decide where the work is done.

Work continues on the CVA 01 carrier design but conflicting requirements are resulting in a ship that the designers are increasingly dissatisfied with. This is not helped by the admiralty fiddling around with the specification as new technology is offered as a solution to their needs. Some of it is, but too many are ideas that are still in development and push current technology to its limit, and beyond.

HMS Eagle emerges from her rebuild in December and will recommission in the new year. While she's working up the Admiralty will make one final effort to convince the government that they should buy the Phantom for the navy. While a film crew is on board the Eagle will play host to a flight of USN Phantoms which will be filmed landing and taking off from the ship over a two day period. This will be played up to the press and public as showing the Navy is ready and able to operate the Phantom, but not that the Phantoms were operating with light loads of fuel and weapons(dummies) carried. While a great deal is made of this in the press the Government like its predecessor refuses to change it's mind. Not least because the Crusaders will be cheap as they like Centaurs refit are being mostly funded buy the US military assistance program.

In March 1965 No 893 squadron on HMS Victorious trades in 2/3 of it's Sea Vixens for Crusaders on loan from the USN. These are an all weather interceptor version but because they are only single seat aircraft the remaining Sea Vixens are used for night flying. Victorious will remain in the Far East for the rest of 1965 due to the Borneo emergency and the increasing demands the war in Vietnam are placing on the US fleet. Victorious is able to replace a carrier for service off Vietnam that would otherwise have been needed elsewhere in South East Asian waters. During this time Victorious would operate on occasion with the smaller carrier HMAS Melbourne. Victorious would operate as a strike carrier while Melbourne provided the bulk of the ASW cover, and was done to test the concept of having an escort anti submarine cruiser working with a strike carrier. It worked but was later judged to be an expensive way of doing things, especially as it was now possible for frigates and destroyers to carry helicopters.

In the Budget on April 6th 1965 the Chancellor announces the cancellation of the TSR2 due to spiralling costs. To replace it the RAF is to receive denavalised Blackburn Buccaneers as this will be cheaper than the other option of the American F111. That this also secures the jobs of British workers plays well with the unions. A not inconsequential concern for the union funded Labour Party. This cost cutting is worrying to the armed forces as the Government is conducting a review of the nations defence policy that is almost sure to bring cuts. The one item that's not up for review is the adoption of Polaris missiles as the mainstay of the nuclear deterrent. This does not please the left wing of the Labour Party.

 

[Archibald]

The Mirage G was fantastic, Dassault as its best. They gradually reduced the landing speed, up to 110 kt only. I can see a Spey (or Allison TF-41 !) replacing the crappy TF-30, or perhaps a M53.
By 1968 Vought was very interested in the Mirage G as a testbed for their Tomcat bid.
I can see a spey Mirage G as a US - GB - French project, with Dassault, Vought and RR / Allison

In 1959 SNECMA got an alliance with Pratt& Whitney to get experience of military turbofans to replace the Atar turbojet (they eventually build the M53 but after 1970). More powerful engines were badly needed for improved Mirage III and Mirage IV.
By 1963 SNECMA got a licence for the TF-30 and actually did a better job than Pratt: French TF-306s were more reliable and it a shame the Tomcat couldn't got them. That TF-306 helped with the M53.

Now you could change the alliance to Rolls Royce and have SNECMA taking a licence to build Speys. Allison did the same, the TF-41 being a Spey, too.
Imagine a RR - Allison - SNECMA "Spey" partnership by 1963. The TF-41 powered the A-7 Corsair II, which the French Aeronavale badly wanted to replace the Etendard IVs. Public aerospace company Aérospatiale was ready to build A-7s under licence in Toulouse, but Dassault prevailed and it never happened.

Imagine CVA-01 with the following air group
- Buccaneer S2 (Spey powered)
- A-7 Corsair II (TF-41 powered, Spey)
- Mirage G (Spey powered)

Foch and Clem' would be similar minus the Bucc's, too big for them.

The Breguet 1120 Sirocco was essentially a (naval) Mirage F1 by 1959 instead of 1966. You could develop that instead of a Jaguar some year earlier.

 

[Riain]

Britain in 1963 has plenty of commitments all over the world where the chances of facing Mr Tupelev's aircraft are pretty remote. The smaller carriers have a role, and would continue to have a role even after the so-called withdrawal from East of Suez. Even in the North Atlantic the smaller ships would primarily escorting convoys with their fighters being for local defence. To get at them the Russians have to get past the larger carriers, including US ships and through the UK Iceland gap. Would the convoys be safer with the smaller ships as escorts or just destroyers and frigates because that's the choice facing Britain. Potentially 3 small and 2 medium carriers with Crusaders or at most 2 Medium carriers with Phantoms. Even if the proposed new carrier gets built it's going to be at least 10 years before it enters service and they haven't even finished the design yet so it could be longer.

It would be poor use of the taxpayers money to develop a variant of the F8, buy a fleet of aircraft and set up the associated support infrastructure that was unable to do what the Sea Vixen could do (long-range all-weather/night interception) or take on the most important task for the FAA; tackling the Soviets in WW3.

The best way to protect convoys is to smash the Soviet bases, with the strike aircraft from a big carrier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Foch and Clem' would be similar minus the Bucc's, too big for them.

Is that statement true?

The catapults on Clemenceau and Foch were 170ft 7in long. That's longer than the 151ft catapults on Hermes and the 145ft catapults on Victorious, both of which were capable of launching Buccaneers.

The Buccaneer folded into a smaller package than the Etendard IVM. That is the length was 51ft 10in v 47ft 3in and the folded wingspan was 19ft 11in v 25ft 7in. With nose, tail and wings folded Buccaneer had an area of 1,032 square feet and 4 square inches. The folded Etendard IVM had an area of 1,208 square feet and 10 square inches.

I haven't got my reference books handy, but I think the hangars on Clemenceau and Foch were 72 to 78 feet wide, which is just that bit too narrow to fit 3 folded Etendards abreast, but is wide enough to take 3 Buccaneers abreast with their wings folded.

 

[Riain]

The catapults on Clemenceau and Foch were 170ft 7in long. That's longer than the 151ft catapults on Hermes and the 145ft catapults on Victorious, both of which were capable of launching Buccaneers.

No they weren't, they were standard 151' BS5s the same as the bow cats on the Eagle and Ark Royal. The difference is how different people measure the cat length, the 170'7" would be the 151' shuttle run plus the bits at either end.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No they weren't, they were standard 151' BS5s the same as the bow cats on the Eagle and Ark Royal. The difference is how different people measure the cat length, the 170'7" would be the 151' shuttle run plus the bits at either end.

Some of the sources that quote the 170ft 7in (about 52 metres) also quote the length of the catapults for PA58 as about 246 feet (about 75 metres). Would the shuttle run have been much shorter? My guess is that they would still have been longer than the 199ft in the waist units on Ark Royal and Eagle.

That said as the 151ft BS5 bow catapults on Ark Royal and Eagle were capable of launching a Buccaneer, would the units on Clemenceau and Foch have been powerful enough?

 

[Catsmate]

Phantom can carry 4 Sparrow missiles plus big ass radar that would still have difficulty intercepting badwather/night threats. Anything less than this is just not good enough.

Friedman NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE, shows that in most exercise up to 1/2 of the "RED" bombers got through the fighter cover to the task groups, and it was warship air defense that had to fight off these attacks , which only worked half the time. SAMID seems to have finally started to close the gap with digital command and automated response in the early 1970s with automated CHAFF/DECOYS/JAMMING/CIWS, but first gen systems were "buggy" generating double tracks so still leaking threats. The system could still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

Basically, that's going to be true until phased-array RADAR, AEGIS data processing and VLS for salvo fire.

 

[Catsmate]

Britain in 1963 has plenty of commitments all over the world where the chances of facing Mr Tupelev's aircraft are pretty remote.

Well, dealing with large numbers of bombers is pretty remote there was the possibility of Bears being sold to Soviet clients/friendlies.

The smaller carriers have a role, and would continue to have a role even after the so-called withdrawal from East of Suez.

Absolutely. If nothing else as tripwires, ASW platforms and assault ships for dealing with problems early.

Even in the North Atlantic the smaller ships would primarily escorting convoys with their fighters being for local defence.

The escort carrier sails again.