Navy aircraft for USAF

[tigercat2]

Here is a question I have thought about for a while:  What Navy aircraft would have been very useful to the Air Force during and after WWII (besides the F-4 and A-7).

How about these:

P-65: (Grumman F7F) as a heavy fighter, able to carry the bombload of a B-26 but having only one (in some cases two) crew.  It was also quite a bit faster than the bombers of the day.

F4U: In Korea the F-51 was quite vulnerable to groundfire due to the liquid cooled engine.  The F-47 was not around in quantity; perhaps the USAF should have purchased F4Us right off the production line (it was open until Dec 52) and used the Corsair for ground attack.  USAF designation would probably have been F-90something, or they could have re-started the "Attack" designation


A4D:  For a light bomber, much more effective than the F-100

F8U:  For a fighter, better than the F-100

F8U-3:  Superb aircraft, perhaps with the SAGE system it could have beat the F-106 at its own game

A3J:  The bomber version instead of the B-58, and the recce version instead of the RF-4C

A2F:  The USAF really needed a long range all weahter attack aircraft in Vietnam; the few F-105Fs that were modified in the Ryan's Raiders program were not enough


Other thoughts?


Wes W.

[ysi_maniac]

Intruder
Vigilante
Bearcat
Corsair

[Mossie]

F11F-2 Super Tiger, with J-79 or licence built Avon for the deal of the century over the F-104.

AV-8A bought earlier for Vietnam, it's ability to operate from rough forward airbases might have been useful, although the hot & high conditions might not have been to it's advantage.

F4D because it's pretty, not necessarily because it was any good!

[tigercat2]

From what I have read, the F11F-2 was a real contender for the "deal of the century" in 1958, Lockheed had better marketing.

How about the F2H Banshee or F9F Panther instead of the straight wing F-84, and perhaps the F9F Cougar instead of the F-84F.  Grumman Iron Works instead of Republic.  Also, the AJ Savage was considered for the mission that the B-57 got.  A Savage in USAF markings would be a great What If.


Wes W.

[philp]

A Savage in USAF markings would be a great What If.

Wes W.

Like this:


Mav has done a few.












 

[upnorth]

The Vought Cutlass and Mcdonnell Demon might have been interesting to see in USAF service.

Had the idea of commonality between the services come about earlier, we might have seen both aircraft with better engine options as I believe both aircraft (the Cutlass at the very least) had their potential performance severely curtailed by the inferiority of Westinghouse engines that the Navy seemed to have a liking for in the 50s.

Of course, if you want to take it beyond American built aircraft, the idea of the Blackburn Buccaneer is always interesting to entertain in American markings of any sort. As it was a serious competitior against the Intruder for the US Navy's heavy strike aircraft, it's not too hard to imagine it in USAF guise as well.

Another thing I could see, getting away from carrier aircraft, is USAF taking on P-3 Orions for some fo their special mission work that you see C-130s being modified for. Sure the Herc is a versatile plane, but did you ever wonder if sometimes they thought, "I wish we had a different airframe to mod for this particular job." ?

[B777LR]

The USAF could do with some F/A-18Es instead of the F-35

[tigercat2]

Great Profiles!!  The F-14 would have been a great USAF interceptor, since it was designed for that role.  A friend who was in the Air National Guard said that when they converted to F-16s from F-4s for the Air Defense Role, the aircraft they really wanted was the F-14, equipped with the Phoenix missile.  The F-14 would have looked great in ADC grey, and with better engines (as in the F-14A+, B or D) it would have been a superb aircraft.



Wes W.

[Mossie]

From what I have read, the F11F-2 was a real contender for the "deal of the century" in 1958, Lockheed had better marketing.

It seems to have been a better performer in some respects than the F-104 & Lockheeds "marketing" was definately a factor.  Bribery of Government officials by Lockheed has been revealed since.

[tigercat2]

As they say, money talks!!





Wes W.

[tigercat2]

The Vought Cutlass and Mcdonnell Demon might have been interesting to see in USAF service.

Had the idea of commonality between the services come about earlier, we might have seen both aircraft with better engine options as I believe both aircraft (the Cutlass at the very least) had their potential performance severely curtailed by the inferiority of Westinghouse engines that the Navy seemed to have a liking for in the 50s.

Of course, if you want to take it beyond American built aircraft, the idea of the Blackburn Buccaneer is always interesting to entertain in American markings of any sort. As it was a serious competitior against the Intruder for the US Navy's heavy strike aircraft, it's not too hard to imagine it in USAF guise as well.

Another thing I could see, getting away from carrier aircraft, is USAF taking on P-3 Orions for some fo their special mission work that you see C-130s being modified for. Sure the Herc is a versatile plane, but did you ever wonder if sometimes they thought, "I wish we had a different airframe to mod for this particular job." ?

I did not realize the the Buc was considered by the Navy.  From all I have read, it was a fine aircraft and much loved by its crews.  I did one as a USAF bird a few years ago.


Wes W.

[gunfighter]

How about the E-2 Hawkeye? I agree I would like to see more Super Hornets around 

[upnorth]

I did not realize the the Buc was considered by the Navy.  From all I have read, it was a fine aircraft and much loved by its crews.  I did one as a USAF bird a few years ago.


Wes W.

From all I understand the Bucc did give the Intruder a serious run for it's money in a fly off.

I've never heard anything really negative said about the Bucc except maybe that the back seat was definitely not the place you wanted to be for a long mission; I've always heard it was incredibly cramped back there in a Bucc.

[Mossie]

I read recentley in Phoenix Squadron that high level transits were 'wobbly' & that inflight refueling was difficult because the Bucc was very much suited to low level.  I remember an Air Forces Monthly article some years back comparing the Bucc & A-6, I can't remember with any clarity but IIRC they basically said the two were roughly matched.

If we're going outside the USN then a Nimrod might look good in USAF colours.  The idea of Sea Vixens in SEA is giving good vibes too.  Can't particularly think of any reason that either would be adopted, especially the Sea Vixen, other than they might look good.

The Saro SR.177 & Hawker P.1154 would both almost certainly have been evaluated by the US had they entered service, both had Naval variants.  I imagine both in British clours with USAF markings & orange test patches.  Who knows what might have happened had the authorities been impressed enough?  Bonus is that Colin at Freightdog does both in 1/72!

[van883]

I did not realize the the Buc was considered by the Navy.  From all I have read, it was a fine aircraft and much loved by its crews.  I did one as a USAF bird a few years ago.


Wes W.

From all I understand the Bucc did give the Intruder a serious run for it's money in a fly off.

I've never heard anything really negative said about the Bucc except maybe that the back seat was definitely not the place you wanted to be for a long mission; I've always heard it was incredibly cramped back there in a Bucc.

Having sat in one at the weekend I can confirm they are very cramped indeed-even for my 5'8" stockily built self!

Van