What if the F8U-3 had won

[tigercat2]

This is a topic that has been discussed a bit before, but what if in Dec 1958 the Navy had chosen the Vought F8U-3 Crusader III instead of the McDonnell F4H-1.  In this world, except for this one decision, everything else from 1958 on was the same as our present reality, especially the Vietnam War.

If so, what would the USAF had done for air-to-air in NVN?  Purchased F-8s or Super Crusaders?  How about an F-8 with an A-7 wing for a multi-role fighter?  Also the USAF would have purchased 1500 F-105s and probably more F-106s.



Wes W.  

[retro_seventies]

more f-106's?

the lockheed lancer might have got a break?

maybe the air force would have bought the phantom anyway?

that being said, i am ALWAYS in favour of crusaders getting all they can get!  

[Matt Wiser]

The AF would've bought lots more F-105s, and the proposed RF-105 would have gone ahead. Then there's the export market for the Thud....
Air-to-air in NVN is a good question. I would expect MacNamara and his Whiz Kids to tell the AF to buy the F-8, whether or not the AF wanted it or not.
I'm still glad McAir won out, though.  

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

French Super Crusader!!      

[elmayerle]

The AF would've bought lots more F-105s, and the proposed RF-105 would have gone ahead. Then there's the export market for the Thud....
Air-to-air in NVN is a good question. I would expect MacNamara and his Whiz Kids to tell the AF to buy the F-8, whether or not the AF wanted it or not.
I'm still glad McAir won out, though.

Care to bet that a F-8 derivative for the USAF would end up with a Gatling and the addition of flying boom refueling?  Thing is, the second could easily be accomodated without removing the probe and drogue hardware.  The first would be, for modellers, a direct 'transplant" from the A-7D.

[Sentinel Chicken]

If I'm not mistaken, the F-105 was the only USAF combat aircraft equipped for both probe/drogue and flying boom refuelling. Were there any others?

[elmayerle]

If I'm not mistaken, the F-105 was the only USAF combat aircraft equipped for both probe/drogue and flying boom refuelling. Were there any others?

I don't believe you're mistaken.  Really, though, unless there's a very good reason not to, IMHO they all should be dual-system capable.  I'm thinking of building my Phantom upgrade with both.

[Archibald]

Very good pollux delta seven!!!
I try to imagine a Super Crusader on french aeronavale marking...
dark blue, 11F on the nose, serial number on the fin (for exemple, 46), aeronacale cocarde on wings and side...
That's really a brilliant  idea because the Aeronavale was always a good client of Vought
- F4U Corsairs in the 45-60 era
-F8U-2 Crusaders from 1965 to 2000 (!!!!!)
-A7 corsair II proposal in 1972, instead of SE (would have been built by Aerospatiale, french "public "aircraft maker, part of airbus and EADS since 2000, with DASA and CASA)
A (near) Mach3 fighter landing on the Foch and Clemenceau....     Ijust love this!!!!

[Archibald]

I modified the well known photo of the F8U-3 to make a super Crusader in aeronavale markings... enjoy it!!!
http://myparalelworld.populus.ch/rub/15

[Archibald]

F9U Super Crusader in Aeronavale markings

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Woww! That's cool!!

I always thought the Super Crusader could have been a very capable plane, especially in a retrofit version!

I mean: imagine a MLU F-8S Super Crusader in German and Israeli camo with a bigger nose, a new FLIR system, 4 AMRAAM under the fuselage and 4 IRIS-T or Python IV IR missiles on some side fuselages pylons (those one on the real F-8 that carried the Sidewinder missiles)

Maybe better (for me   ): a Marine Nationale F-8SF with 4 MICA-EM under the fuselage, 4 MICA-IR on the sides and 2 external tanks 2000L under the wings...      

[Orne M]

USAF F-8 Crusader Mk V (January 1968, Pueblo Interdiction): just a busted up Lindberg Crusader kit when it was started.

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/infini...ies.msnw?Page=9
(photo at top of page, some more at bottom)

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/infini...oto&PhotoID=829

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/infini...oto&PhotoID=830


http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/infini...oto&PhotoID=831

[Archibald]

Hello PD7!! Just look at that : I tried to make a profile of a Super Crusader in Aeronavale markings. That's not very good, but this gave an idea of how it would have looked

[Archibald]

This is my upgraded Crusader of the 70's, the Vought F8 Crusader IV
- FBW (NASA tested a FBW Crusader between 1972 and 1985...)
- TF-41 turbofan
- Two M61-A1 guns
- AWG 10 radar
- AIM-7 Sparrows

[KJ_Lesnick]

tigercat2

This is a topic that has been discussed a bit before, but what if in Dec 1958 the Navy had chosen the Vought F8U-3 Crusader III instead of the McDonnell F4H-1.

I assume more F-105's would have been procured, possibly more F-106's as well.

I could imagine the USN would have made more use of automation due to the following

• The XF8U-3 used a APQ-50 with a radar and fire-control system that effectively used radar data, and a computer to display intercept vectors on the HUD (first plane to use one far as I know).
  
• The F8U-3 used an APQ-72 (32" radome) APQ-74 (34" radome), with a revised fire control system that may, or may not have featured more automation (possibly more like the F-106); the radar antenna was moved further back in the nose, with electronics moved into various parts of the plane
  
• The F8U-3 and F4H-1 were to use the USC-2 datalink: The datalink allows for the ability to automatically steer a plane to target, a two-way datalink for radar data, coordination for intercept and automatic weapons release; it also included auto-land capabilities and auto-throttle only.  The F4H-1/F-4B rarely used them in combat, and seemed to only use the data-link for limited auto-landing capability (mostly auto-throttle); the fact that the F8U-3 had only one crew and a higher work-load might have lead to the perceived necessity of automation, and greater use of said system
  

Said automation would likely have spread into the USAF as well, and greater funding could have possibly lead to more R&D, and as a result we'd have seen a possible earlier shift to UCAV's.  Considering that LTV by the early 1960's had already done work on the Regulus I & II, and the SLAM, and by the late 1960's to early 1970's, had proposed some fighter designs that included fully-autonomous fighters , we might have even seen some of these in service by 1975.  Considering that fighter planes were expected to carry both conventional and nuclear ordinance, this could have lead tot a greater reliance of automation for the delivery of nuclear weapons, and some kind of hyper-agile attack-plane that could fly as fast or faster than the F-105 (maybe even a conventional/nuclear SLAM with thrust vectoring) barring a concern of A.I. on warfare, or more John Boyd and Pierre Sprey types getting sick and tired of the complexity of weaponry.

As for the RF-105, I know little about it, so I'll defer to Matt Wiser on that one.  As for other F-105 developments, I do remember a Super-Thud proposal with a bigger-wing, bicycle landing-gears, and a larger payload: I'm not sure what would have come of that, though McNamara might very well have pursued something like the F-111 as is.

If so, what would the USAF had done for air-to-air in NVN?

Well, provided the F8U-3 wasn't imposed upon the USAF, the F-105's would be used as fighter-bombers: The F-105 drivers were generally better at flying than the F-4's were as they had a gun, and were expected to know how to dogfight.  While the overall training was quite considerably poor from the late 1950's to the 1960's, the training declined even more with the F-4's because of the adverse yaw problems (you needed firm rudder input at lower alpha, as you went up, you'd have a poor roll-rate, which would then progress until basically the plane would roll on adverse yaw more than on the normal aileron effect, and you'd basically have to roll-on-rudder most of the time or you'd risk departure from controlled flight -- the F-4 would basically yaw and roll an gyrate all over the place; then cut into a flat spin) and the lack of need for air-to-air combat since it had no gun.  The F-106's might very well have been fitted with a gun-pack and fielded in Vietnam (it couldn't sustain as many g's as the F-4, but it could maneuver better at high altitude).

The USN would be better off with the F8U-3 because of many of it's pilots being F8U-1/-2 pilots; though it's possible that combat skill would have deteriorated with the lack of a gun provided the F8U-3 pilots didn't retain their close in combat skill on the belief it was unnecessary.

I do remember a provision for an RAF concept that would use a RR Conway and had a conformal store for the following

• A nuclear bomb
  
• A drop-tank
  
• A gun-pack
  

Not sure how easily this could have been fitted to our F8U-3's, or if the will existed, but it would have given us the ability to shoot it out if we carried the gunpack.  Since it was flush, it wouldn't wobble when fired and produce an accurate stream of fire.