F-8 Crusader

On 9/8/2021 at 2:19 AM, Andrew8604 said:

 

Yep, there they are, F-4S Phantom II's.  I'm pretty sure that's a "68" on the forward deck and not a "66", so yes, Nimitz.  Yes, I would say some RF-8's probably operated from it, too.  Must have been a short time where the ship was ready but the F/A-18A's were not, and maybe not enough F-14A's?  And still some F-4S squadrons existing, waiting for Hornets.  I think the F-4N's (reworked F-4B's) still operated from Coral Sea and/or Midway, too, into the early 80's.  Ha... I remember watching an F-18L (I think it was...Navy's prototype from the YF-17) perform at an airshow about that time.  And an RF-8G would open the show by performing an afterburner vertical loop over NAS Miramar, popping out photoflash canisters in the clear, blue sky.  They made quite a bang and a flash and puff of smoke...about 16 to 20 of them.  Of course the afterburner made a crackling thunderous roar, too.  I can't find any videos of that.  They must have been mostly like fireworks, I don't remember it 'raining' any debris from them.  At the time, I had no idea that they were the 'flashbulbs' for aerial cameras...actually, I'm not 100% sure they were...I think they were.     I wonder if there were some places they photographed at night where exploding AAA shells fulfilled the roll of photoflash canisters.   

RF-8's did operate from the Nimitz as well as Phantoms. If you watch the movie The Final Countdown which was filmed aboard the Nimitz in 1979-80 there are scenes with F-8's. You can even see a F-4 on the fantail in one scene.

In accordance with my unabashed love for "The Last Gunfighter", I present this link for those of us who share the same giddy excitement at the prospect of learning more about this legendary airplane.  I can hardly wait to use it to duel with RAZBAM's MiG-19 and the upcoming MiG-17.

http://www.vfp62.com/Thunderbird_F8.html

7 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

In accordance with my unabashed love for "The Last Gunfighter", I present this link for those of us who share the same giddy excitement at the prospect of learning more about this legendary airplane.  I can hardly wait to use it to duel with RAZBAM's MiG-19 and the upcoming MiG-17.

 

http://www.vfp62.com/Thunderbird_F8.html

 

Not the Mig-21, too?

On 9/8/2021 at 3:41 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

- Magnitude 3 working on a Essex Long Hull to the F4-U Corsair

Some correction: The Essex variant under construction will be a Short Haul, with late-war modifications.  May 1944-1945 SK-2 long range air search antenna (pending) Mk 12 and 22 Fire Control Antennas on Mk 37 Directors Extended flag bridge (one 40mm Bofors quad mount removed) Dazzle paint scheme

Qoute from -Rudel- answer in topic: WW2 assets for F4U-1D - Essex Class carrier

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/260715-ww2-assets-for-f4u-1d-essex-class-carrier/?do=findComment&comment=4570772

3 hours ago, Spuks said:

Some correction: The Essex variant under construction will be a Short Haul, with late-war modifications.  May 1944-1945 SK-2 long range air search antenna (pending) Mk 12 and 22 Fire Control Antennas on Mk 37 Directors Extended flag bridge (one 40mm Bofors quad mount removed) Dazzle paint scheme

 

Qoute from -Rudel- answer in topic: WW2 assets for F4U-1D - Essex Class carrier

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/260715-ww2-assets-for-f4u-1d-essex-class-carrier/?do=findComment&comment=4570772

 

 

That change everithing.... Or not. Has none "displacements" diferences into "Short" and "Long" Hulls.

Did the Crusader “the last gun fighter” get any actual gun kills? I know it had lots of issues with its guns jamming when fired under G loads. The irony…

3 hours ago, Bozon said:

Did the Crusader “the last gun fighter” get any actual gun kills? I know it had lots of issues with its guns jamming when fired under G loads. The irony…

 

According to this article only two were made solely with guns.

Have Gun, Will Dogfight | History | Air & Space Magazine (airspacemag.com) 

7 hours ago, Bozon said:

Did the Crusader “the last gun fighter” get any actual gun kills? I know it had lots of issues with its guns jamming when fired under G loads. The irony…

 

Commander John B. Nichols, 9 Jul 1968 finished off a Mig-17 with guns after the Aim-9 hit it.  Read his book On Yankee Station as a kid.  Here's the complete list from http://f8crusader.org/migmstrs.html

Cdr. HAL MARR, VF-211. 12 June 1966. MiG-17; Sidewinder/gun attack. Damage to second MiG-17; gun attack.
 Lt. GENE CHANCY, VF-211. 21 June 1966. MiG-17; gun attack.
 Ltjg. PHIL VAMPATELLA, VF-211. 21 June 1966. MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 Cdr. DICK BELLINGER, VF-162. 9 October 1966. MiG-21; Sidewinder.
 Cdr. MO WRIGHT, VF-211. 1 May 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 Cdr. PAUL SPEER, VF-211. 19 May 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 Ltjg. JOE SHEA, VF-211. 19 May 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder kill, guns used also. LCdr. Kay Russell was hit by a SAM on this mission, ejected, became a POW.
 Cdr. BOBBY LEE, VF-24. 19 May 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 Lt. PHIL WOOD, VF-24. 19 May 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder. Wood's wingman, Ltjg. Bill Metzger, was hit by AAA during this engagement; Metzger ejected, spent 5 1/2 years as a POW.
 LCdr. RED ISAACKS, VF-24. 21 July 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 LCdr BOB KIRKWOOD, VF-24. 21 July 1967. MiG-17; Guns.
 LCdr. TIM HUBBARD, VF-211. 21 July 1967. MiG-17; Guns; Zuni (!) assist. MiG-17 probable, guns (same date), MiG-17 probable, guns, ? date.
 Ltjg. PHIL DEMPEWOLF, VF-24. 21 June 1966. Probable MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 LCdr. DICK WYMAN, VF-162. 14 December 1967. MiG-17; Sidewinder. 
 Cdr. MOOSE MYERS, VF-51. 26 June 1968. MiG-21; Gun attack, Sidewinder kill.
 LCdr. JOHN NICHOLS, VF-191. 9 July 1968. MiG-17; Sidewinder disable, gun kill.
 Cdr. GUY CANE, VF-53. 29 July 1968. MiG-17; Sidewinder.
 Lt. NORM MCCOY, VF-51. 1 August 1968. MiG-21; Sidewinder.
 Lt. TONY NARGI, VF-111. 19 September 1968. MiG-21; Sidewinder.

On 9/7/2021 at 8:49 AM, AG-51_Razor said:

No doubt Andrew has done his homework and come up with some very interesting facts about the angled deck Essex class carriers I was not aware of. I find it hard to understand though, the statement that the reason for the Phantom and Intruders not being operated from them was their weight while the A-3 Skywarrior was routinely embarked on them. That just doesn't compute. I am not doubting the accuracy of Andrew's statement that Phantoms and Intruders weren't operated from them, just can't accept that their weight was the reason. The KA-3 had to weigh far more than either of the Phantom or Intruder when launched with its full load of fuel, the fuel alone could weigh as much as 34,000 lbs! I am just thinking that there must have been a better explanation for why the F-4 and A-6 weren't flown from the Essex class carriers.

When they say weight, I think it has more to do with heavier fighter aircraft requiring higher landing speeds and cat shots, where as the heavier, but also larger aircraft with slower flying speeds were not as big an issue.

1 hour ago, PetRock said:

When they say weight, I think it has more to do with heavier fighter aircraft requiring higher landing speeds and cat shots, where as the heavier, but also larger aircraft with slower flying speeds were not as big an issue.

Consider, the angled Essex's, Midways, Forrestal and Saratoga all used the same C-11 catapult; 225 ft. long, 221 ft. stoke, 39,000 lb. to 136 kt. or 70,000 lb. to 108 kt.  All of the others on the list operated Phantoms and Intruders, so the catapult isn't the reason.  The wooden deck, uncooled JBD's and shorter distance from the 4 wire to end of the angled deck are the big contributors to no F-4 or A-6.  The Phantom had to use burner for launch, so wood and uncooled was kind of a problem.  Looking at the Intruder NATOPS, normal approaches don't look like a big deal ranging from 120-126 kt. at 36,000 lb.  The no flaps, no slats is 152 kt. at that weight, speculating here, but that might be a bit too much for the Essex 4 wire or barrier.

On 9/8/2021 at 11:54 AM, BeoWolf_57 said:

 

In the mid to late 70's the F-8 was used as a photo recon plane, we had a det from VFP-63 on board, my bunk was directly under Cat 2, (O2-50-0Q)when an F-8 went into afterburner for a cat shot it sounded like a bomb went off on deck,it just went boom... so you knew it was an F-8 on the cat.  For the old Oriskany, Forrestal era, don't forget the A-5 Vigilante, that will be a hoot to get on deck... for French Carriers the Foch, had A-4 Skyhawks on it too, as late as the mid 80's. 

 

Hoss

I was with VFP-62 Det-38 1966-67.  Our sleeping location was under the No 3 wire, and just in front of the cable machines.  Would you believe we learned to sleep through the noise?  We also built a system of troughs that kept water off our bunks when it rained.

I was on the O2, right under the Port JBD motor room, so I got that, and the Jet engine right over my rack...........  I remember when we pulled into port and it was so quiet we found it hard to go to sleep, anyone talking in the berthing lounge was a distraction. yell at them to shut up... LOL  the arresting wire sounded like King Kong scratching his finger nails on a chalk board. 

Hoss

USN 77-97

CV-64, CVN-65 (VA-94), CVN-72

On 9/8/2021 at 4:02 AM, Andrew8604 said:

I'm all for that!  French carriers and British carriers.  We already have the Russian carriers.  Other countries used carriers they bought from France or UK, right?  Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and India...I might be missing some...Italy, maybe.  of course, Japan, South Korea and China have built new carriers.

I'd like to see the British Illustrious-class Victorious, the Audacious class Eagle and Ark Royal... or at least Ark Royal.  As well the "Harrier" carriers.  And also the French Clemenceau class (one of which was used by Brazil) and the Charles De Gaulle.  And India's modified Kiev-class carrier and their new Vikrant.  But there are so many ships and planes and helos we all want.  There just aren't enough available programmers, 3D artists and researchers to make them fast enough.  Progress is very slow, unfortunately.  What we do have is incredibly detailed!

But nobody had more carriers or used them to greater effect and extent than the US...by a wide margin...nor had so many types of naval aircraft.  Imperial Japan, during WWII was 2nd.  That's the fact.  So there should be a lot of US carriers.  All I see in DCS is the Nimitz-class carriers.  Only 5 of the 10 (in 3 subclasses) are covered...and I'm not saying they all should be.  And I see the Tarawa class LHA amphibious assault 'carriers'.  That's two classes.  I think they just put different numbers on the same 3D model and call it a different carrier.  I hear that someone is making, or has made, a Forrestal class.  Also being made is an Essex class in WWII configuration, for the F4U-1D Corsair.  I'd like to see an Essex class carrier as modified with angled flight deck and used in the 60's and early 70's...because the F-8 Crusader and A-4 Skyhawk operated extensively from them.

 

What is also missing are the proper escort ships: cruisers, destroyers and frigates.  We have a good set of modern US ships and Russian ships, but not the US WWII ships, nor the IJN ships of WWII.  And I don't know how or when we'll ever get them.

I believe Razbam is making a British and probably an Argentinian Carrier for the Falklands conflict and map that they're working on.

For the Supercarriers, you'd have to be observant but they're not the same model, they're all individually different, they have their own islands/towers and radar towers which differ from one another. Now Heatblur is making the Forrestal class, and they're making 4 different ships like the Forrestal itself and the Ranger and a couple others.

Leatherneck on the other hand I've heard are making the Essex class carriers for the Corsair. Now one thing the Essex and especially the Forrestal class ships need are other escort ships of their respective eras that were with them in the fleet. I hope to god someone makes those ships too cause it would be unrealistic to have Forrestals from the 60s and 70s with state of the art Arleigh Burkes and Perry class ships with them

On 9/8/2021 at 7:41 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

That has outside of F-8..... but, some need remember:

- DCS World has only CVN-70 and Kutnesov old 3D models, some rumors about WW2 carriers and other ships can coming to WW2 assets pack. More assets can coming to the core.

- Supercarrier module get the CVN-71 to 75 and a new Kutnesov 3D models.

- Heatblur working on Forrestal class four carriers and some AI aircrafts.

- Magnitude 3 working on a Essex Long Hull to the F4-U Corsair with some pacific WW2 assets has none confirmed about exclusive assets to the F-8J Crusader

- RAZBAM get the LHA-1 with the AV-8B module, and the incoming South Atlantic maps coming with some air, land and ships assets as HMS illustrious, RN and ARA Frigates, Destroyers, Submarines and others. HMS Hermes, ARA 25 de mayo and other ships has plausible meanwhile advance develop.

- Deka Ironwork Simulations has none confirmed a carrier, but more ships can coming to chinnese assets pack.

- Some rumors to german assets pack by MilTech 5 / PD, unkonow if some ship planned.

- Aerges, FlyingIrons Simulations, IndiaFoxtEcho, Octopus-G, Polychop, Truegrit Simulations or Ugra Media has none confirmed assets packs.

 

Side note:

Some monts ago, was rumors about a official French pack, none has confirmed. A unkonow 3rd party with plans to build a AIDS systems has none tell nothing about assets (has disapear from January 2021). Other team, Battlefield Productions, like build ground assets to DCS, but actually has none put more info.

 

Deka Ironworks did state back in early 2020 that they were making the Laoning and even did show some WIP screenshots

In the Malvinas war, the Argentines launched all their missions from the mainland and not from the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. Except for the missions of IA-58 Pucara, Aermacchi MB-339 and helicopters, that operated from the Falklands.

After the attack by the submarine Conqueror, the Argentine naval fleet retreated to the waters near the continent.

On 9/11/2021 at 5:51 AM, Spuks said:

Some correction: The Essex variant under construction will be a Short Haul, with late-war modifications.  May 1944-1945 SK-2 long range air search antenna (pending) Mk 12 and 22 Fire Control Antennas on Mk 37 Directors Extended flag bridge (one 40mm Bofors quad mount removed) Dazzle paint scheme

 

Qoute from -Rudel- answer in topic: WW2 assets for F4U-1D - Essex Class carrier

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/260715-ww2-assets-for-f4u-1d-essex-class-carrier/?do=findComment&comment=4570772

 

 

On 9/11/2021 at 6:31 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

 

That change everithing.... Or not. Has none "displacements" diferences into "Short" and "Long" Hulls.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the "long hull" and "short hull" Essex class carriers had the same size hull below the waterline.  Long hull vs short hull is really a misnomer.  A more correct name would be "long bow" and "short bow".  The original short bow carried only a single quad-mount 40mm AA battery that was limited in upward vision due to the overhanging flight deck.  It had more of a 'cargo ship' bow.  The long bow carriers had a widened and extended bow that formed more of a clipper bow and provided room for two quad-mount 40mm guns.  The flight deck was actually shortened a bit to allow the 40mm mounts and director a better view of the sky.  So your so-called "long hull" actually had a slightly shorter flight deck.  And at some point, even the "short bow" Essex, CV-9, was modified with the long bow and two quad 40mm mounts.

So will it matter if they make a "short bow" or "long bow"?  I don't think so, really.  Don't worry.  Just having an authentic Essex-class carrier in a late-WWII configuration is the main thing.  Sounds like they'll get it right.  It's going to be fine.

I think a previous post, back several pages, illustrated the original Essex armament.  Long bow ships mounted more quad 40mm mounts on the port and starboard sides, besides the extra one on the bow.  They might have had two quad-mounts on the stern, too.  As short bow ships returned for yard work, they were supplemented with additional quad 40mm mounts to improve their AA defenses like the long bow ships. 

When these Essex-class carriers (long and short bow) were modified with an angled flight deck in the 1950's, the "hurricane" bow was fitted which blended and enclosed the bow right up to the flight deck.  All the 40mm and 20mm guns were removed, but some of the open-mount 5-inch guns remained.  The islands were usually modified, too, which removed the twin-mount 5-inch turrets.  The two C-11 steam catapults were added to 7 of the ships and improved arresting gear and strengthening of the flight deck and other needed improvements for operating jets.  Most of the others received a pair of H-8 (I think) hydraulic catapults, suitable for propeller-driven aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider, S-2 Tracker, E-1 Tracer and the A-4B Skyhawk...the only time Skyhawks carried Sidewinder missiles in US Navy service, I believe.  They were the detachment of "fighters" to defend those carriers and their anti-submarine aircraft.

On 9/22/2021 at 9:03 PM, Tavo89 said:

In the Malvinas war, the Argentines launched all their missions from the mainland and not from the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. Except for the missions of IA-58 Pucara, Aermacchi MB-339 and helicopters, that operated from the Falklands.

 

After the attack by the submarine Conqueror, the Argentine naval fleet retreated to the waters near the continent.

 

 

 

I believe that's true.  But we don't necessarily have to follow history exactly in these maps.  They're good for "what if" scenarios...to a limit.  My idea of a "what if" is to have opposing carrier forces.  What if the UK still had its CATOBAR carriers with F-4K's and Buccaneers?  And what if Argentina had picked up a surplus Essex-class ship with Crusaders and Etendards and with anti-submarine and guided missile escorts of the 60's, such as the USS Boston CAG-1 and Canberra CAG-2, and Galveston CLG-3?  And what if they had land-based AJS-37's?  Well, we don't have most of those in DCS.  Wouldn't it be interesting if we did, someday?

On 9/25/2021 at 5:51 AM, Andrew8604 said:

I believe that's true.  But we don't necessarily have to follow history exactly in these maps.  They're good for "what if" scenarios...to a limit.  My idea of a "what if" is to have opposing carrier forces.  What if the UK still had its CATOBAR carriers with F-4K's and Buccaneers?  And what if Argentina had picked up a surplus Essex-class ship with Crusaders and Etendards and with anti-submarine and guided missile escorts of the 60's, such as the USS Boston CAG-1 and Canberra CAG-2, and Galveston CLG-3?  And what if they had land-based AJS-37's?  Well, we don't have most of those in DCS.  Wouldn't it be interesting if we did, someday?

Yeah ... thats will be interesting.

On 9/7/2021 at 9:49 AM, AG-51_Razor said:

No doubt Andrew has done his homework and come up with some very interesting facts about the angled deck Essex class carriers I was not aware of. I find it hard to understand though, the statement that the reason for the Phantom and Intruders not being operated from them was their weight while the A-3 Skywarrior was routinely embarked on them. That just doesn't compute. I am not doubting the accuracy of Andrew's statement that Phantoms and Intruders weren't operated from them, just can't accept that their weight was the reason. The KA-3 had to weigh far more than either of the Phantom or Intruder when launched with its full load of fuel, the fuel alone could weigh as much as 34,000 lbs! I am just thinking that there must have been a better explanation for why the F-4 and A-6 weren't flown from the Essex class carriers.

Weight vs stall speed at a guess. maybe the A-3 when loaded however it was could be launched while you'd have signficiantly reduce the launch weight of an F4/A6 to get them fast enough to actually operate. A given Steam Cat is gonna be able to generate only so much momentum/energy. 

Oh, and Crusaders...

Phil Vampatella interview by Mover:

Difference between "Long Hull" and "Short Hull" Essex-class carriers:  All 24 completed Essex-class carriers had the same 820-foot-length hull at waterline.  (That's a lot of large carriers!)  13 were built with an extended (above waterline) "clipper" bow for the purpose of mounting a 2nd quad-barrel 40mm mount, with a director and a skyward arc of fire for both mounts.  Some of the 11 "short-bow" units were modified during WWII with the "long bow" and the other enhancements that went with it, including two flight deck catapults.  Essex, CV-9, originally had no flight deck catapult!!  Only a cross-deck, hangar deck catapult.  The other "short bow" units had just one flight deck catapult, and the hangar deck catapult.  Here's an illustration of the minimal difference between "Short Hull" and "Long Hull".  As you can see, the bow was made longer and the flight deck shortened...but not by much.  So, "Long Hull"/"Long Bow" is just a way of visually identifying those Essex-class ships that had enhanced AA firepower, two flight deck catapults and better protection of the CIC.  All of the "Short Bow" ships, except Franklin and Bunker Hill (which were never modernized after their WWII battle damage), were modified with the Long Bow and then the "Hurricane Bow" along with the angled flight deck in the 1950's.  That brought the "Short Bow"/"Short Hull" distinction to an end.

7 ships received C-11 steam catapults with their angled flight deck and hurricane bow.  Those are the ones that could operate the F-8 Crusader.  While 8 of the other ships received only H-8 hydraulic catapults with their hurricane bow and angled flight deck.  They could only operate slower and/or lighter aircraft, as they had a top shuttle speed of 105 knots and less power (enough to launch a lightly loaded A-4B Skyhawk, with some wind-over-deck).  They were designated CVS (anti-submarine) carriers in the early 1960s.  The C-11 catapults had a stroke of 211 feet, 39,000 lbs at 136 kts and 70,000 lbs at 108 kts.  By the way, the waist cats on Forrestal and Saratoga were these C-11's, while the bow cats were slightly more powerful and longer stroke C-7's.  Ranger and Independence had four C-7 cats.

The remaining 7 ships never received angled decks, hurricane bows and H-8 or C-11 catapults, and their island remained in their WWII form...except one, Antietam, received the first experimental angled flight deck, in 1952, and then became a training carrier until about 1963.  All of those 7 had the "Long Bow".

Can we get a Vietnam era Essex carrier?

Excited for the F-8

On 1/26/2022 at 4:13 PM, upyr1 said:

Can we get a Vietnam era Essex carrier?

I'll be excited just to get the F-8.

Especially now that the F-4 is confirmed. Those guys are going to need someone to keep them in line. 

Personally I prefer the F-8 Crusader, the Phantom is iconic but I prefer to ride in a single seater, I'm selfish sorry XD. 

I can't wait to have the Mig Master .

It's a Friday morning and I'm sitting here drinking coffee and looking at all the exciting developments in the works for DCS. Then I remember the Crusader is probably still a long way off.

My glass is definitely half empty this morning.