F-8 Crusader

[TLTeo]

It may be less an issue of weight and more of size - you can probably store a handful of Skywarriors on Essex carriers, but not entire wings of Intruders and Phantoms, so in that case you might as well just optimize logistics by operating only Skyhawks and Corsairs from them.

 

edit: obviously I meant Crusaders, not Corsairs. Wrong Vought fighter, my bad.

Edited September 7, 2021 by TLTeo

[_Hoss]

13 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

It may be less an issue of weight and more of size - you can probably store a handful of Skywarriors on Essex carriers, but not entire wings of Intruders and Phantoms, so in that case you might as well just optimize logistics by operating only Skyhawks and Corsairs from them.

LOL, lets do A1-Skyraiders, F4U's F9F's .....  maybe even FJ-2/3 Fury's .. F2-H Banshee...... Early Naval Jets, late props.... sounds like heaven to me on an Essex carrier

 

Cheers

[TLTeo]

Woops I meant Crusaders, my bad. I could get behind an F9F module though

[AG-51_Razor]

I agree, size may have been the reasoning for keeping the F-4 and A-6 on the larger carriers.

 

I would whole heartedly get behind a Skyraider or Panther module with my credit card. Korea is just dying to be done here in DCS World and in my opinion will be hugely popular as well as financially successful. Basically, all that's needed (at a minimum) is a Korean penninsula map, a slight upgrade of the F4U-1D to a -4 or -4B, an AD Skyraider and an F9F-2 Panther.

[carss]

10 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

I know this Crusader should be fine from Nimitz-class carriers, but I don't know that F-8's (or F-4 Phantoms) ever operated from them.  They operated from Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes of supercarriers (and the Midway's).  But I sure think it would be neat to operate the Crusader it from an angled-deck, Essex-class carrier.  There would two subgroups of the 7 Essex-class carriers modified with steam catapults and angled flight decks.  The first group of Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock differed mainly in having the right (starboard), deck-edge elevator quite far aft.  The second group of Lexington, Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La had the starboard elevator substantially more forward, just aft of the island.  Of course, I would be thrilled just to have the Oriskany.  But with two models, they could just put the numbers 11, 14 & 19 on the first model and 16, 31, 34, & 38 on the second model.  I'm sure there were minor differences between the individual ships of the 7, just as there were minor changes in armaments and antennas of each ship between yard periods.  I think just the two elevator differences and their nominal radars and armaments configuration during the mid-1960's would be good enough.  These 7 Essex-class carriers filled in until more supercarriers could be built, but the F-4 Phantom and A-6 Intruder were too heavy for the Essex ships, so the lighter F-8's and A-4's did the job on these ships.  The F-8J would be perfect from these ships, along with the A-4E-C Skyhawk.  Then maybe some pretty well detailed AI versions of the EKA-3B Skywarrior (tanker), E-1A Tracer (AEW) and SH-3A or D Sea King (or SH-2 Seasprite) helicopters and it should be all set!  And when the A-7E comes along, we'll be able to add that to these ships, too.  (It was actually the A-7A & B on these ships...but close enough.)

 

So, hopefully, the F4U Corsair and the WWII Essex, plus this version of the Essex-class when the F-8J comes out!  I can hope, anyway.  We'll see what happens.  Money in hand, waiting for the F-8J !   

 

Honestly we already have like 5 Carriers in the US alone, and another 4 are coming making it 9 Carriers in just the US alone, now 4 of those already apply to the Crusader, but considering the F-8 served with the French Navy why not a French Carrier instead? We could really use some assets in other countries too

 

[Silver_Dragon]

51 minutes ago, carss said:

 

Honestly we already have like 5 Carriers in the US alone, and another 4 are coming making it 9 Carriers in just the US alone, now 4 of those already apply to the Crusader, but considering the F-8 served with the French Navy why not a French Carrier instead? We could really use some assets in other countries too

 

 

Magnitude 3 has building a Vietnam F-8J Crusader, but none talk about a Carrier yet, but we can suspect they can build them if make modifications to your Essex Class Long Haul carrier, convert on a SCB-125/144 carrier version to use fast jets. To build a French carrier need first build a new ship and the expecific F-8E(FN)/P french variant to use them.

Meanwhile, the F-8J fit on Forrestal Heatblur Carriers.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[carss]

20 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

Magnitude 3 has building a Vietnam F-8J Crusader, but none talk about a Carrier yet, but we can suspect they can build them if make modifications to your Essex Class Long Haul carrier, convert on a SCB-125/144 carrier version to use fast jets. To build a French carrier need first build a new ship and the expecific F-8E(FN)/P french variant to use them.

Meanwhile, the F-8J fit on Forrestal Heatblur Carriers.

 

True but how different would the F-8E be from the F-8J as far as taking off and landing on a carrier? Do you think maybe LN may consider making the French variant in the future?

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, carss said:

True but how different would the F-8E be from the F-8J as far as taking off and landing on a carrier? Do you think maybe LN may consider making the French variant in the future?

 

M3 has no talking about other country version (french or philipine). The french variant require use on more shorted french carriers, other modifications has more angle on incidence on main wing to take off, new slats, enlarged stabilizators and the addition of Blown flaps, a new radar and other sistems and modified afterburners. Of course, french ordenance as R.530, magic 2 and other.

[carss]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

M3 has no talking about other country version (french or philipine). The french variant require use on more shorted french carriers, other modifications has more angle on incidence on main wing to take off, new slats, enlarged stabilizators and the addition of Blown flaps, a new radar and other sistems and modified afterburners. Of course, french ordenance as R.530, magic 2 and other.

Interesting, so did the French F-8 have BVR with the 530?

[Silver_Dragon]

15 minutes ago, carss said:

Interesting, so did the French F-8 have BVR with the 530?

R.530 maintain on service to 89, when retired from service.

 

Quote

Armament was enhanced by the addition of R550 Magic infra-red guided missiles in 1973, with the improved, all-aspect Magic 2 fitted from 1988. The obsolete R.530 was withdrawn from use in 1989, leaving the Crusaders without a radar-guided missile

 

[TLTeo]

Calling the R.530 a BVR missile is highly optimistic tbh. From what I've found, it doesn't even outrange the AIM-7E.

[mkellytx]

12 hours ago, 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.

ISTR it had to do in part the lack of adequate cooling for the JBD's (Phantoms).  Also, IIRC Oriskany was the only one of the Essex's that didn't have a wooden deck.  FWIW the British operated their F-4's off a smaller carrier, but had longer cat runs, ~280 ft. (waist cat on Ark Royal) vs ~250 ft. and more distance from the 4 wire to the end of the angled deck, 380 ft. (Ark) vs 305 ft.  John Lehman considered a Midway like refit for Oriskany that may have fixed some of this, but it was considered cost prohibitive for something with so little service life left.

[Andrew8604]

12 hours ago, 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.

Well, Wikipedia articles could be wrong.   Yes, I agree.  Why the Skywarrior and not Phantoms or Intruders?  Skywarrior MTOW ~ 80,000lbs.  F-4B ~ 58,000lbs.  A-6A Intruder < 60,000lbs.  But landing weights are different.  Maybe it had to do with landing speeds at landing weight and the capacity of the arrestor gear to bring them to a stop.  Maybe the size of the tires, too?  I don't think I buy those explanations, either.  And if the Phantoms couldn't operate from the Essex class, I imagine the A-5 Vigilante couldn't, either.

Here's a picture of the Oriskany with a Skywarrior, wings folded, near the starboard elevator.  Looks like Crusaders, Corsair IIs and a Grumman E-1 Tracer, on deck, also.  So must be a '68 to '72 era photo.

[Andrew8604]

15 hours ago, Cab said:

 

For what it's worth: USS Nimitz Stock Photo - Alamy

 

I think only RF-8's operated from Nimitz.

 

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.   

[Andrew8604]

12 hours ago, carss said:

 

Honestly we already have like 5 Carriers in the US alone, and another 4 are coming making it 9 Carriers in just the US alone, now 4 of those already apply to the Crusader, but considering the F-8 served with the French Navy why not a French Carrier instead? We could really use some assets in other countries too

 

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.

[Silver_Dragon]

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.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[_Hoss]

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

Edited September 8, 2021 by BeoWolf_57

[Cab]

20 minutes ago, 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 don't think the French operated A-4's, did they?

[TLTeo]

Nop, they flew the Super Etendard in that role

[_Hoss]

When we pulled into Toulon, France the Foch was in port and there were three A-4 skyhawks sitting on her deck. LOL, I was in the USN Aviation community for 20 years, (77-97) You just know what an A-4 looks like. 

 

Cheers

[TLTeo]

Those are Brazilian Navy A-4s (and an Argentinian Tracker, as the colors on the tail make abundantly clear) and that's Sao Paulo, which is what Foch was called after it was sold to Brazil:

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by TLTeo

[tugais]

10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Side note:

Some monts ago, was rumors about a official French pack, none has confirmed.

 

Just a qui k note about this one. The mod creator shared on a french forum that he will not share his work with ED to be implemented in the game ; apparently he could not find an agreement with Eagle Dynamics.

[Silver_Dragon]

17 minutes ago, tugais said:

Just a qui k note about this one. The mod creator shared on a french forum that he will not share his work with ED to be implemented in the game ; apparently he could not find an agreement with Eagle Dynamics.

 

We can erase them to the list.

[Bremspropeller]

On 9/7/2021 at 7:17 PM, AG-51_Razor said:

I agree, size may have been the reasoning for keeping the F-4 and A-6 on the larger carriers.

 

I think the Phantom didn't mix too well with the wooden carrier-deck claddings of the Essex class carriers.

I also think it was mostly due to size and getting a decent amount of aircraft onto the carrier.

[Bremspropeller]

On 9/7/2021 at 10:17 PM, carss said:

True but how different would the F-8E be from the F-8J as far as taking off and landing on a carrier? Do you think maybe LN may consider making the French variant in the future?

 

A plain-Jane E would not have BLC and hence have the flaperons only out to 20'ish dedrees, getting you a tremendously slippery aircraft with a slow-responding engine. There's a reason why the F-8 was considered dangerous around the boat.

 

The BLC on the F-8E(FN) and J did enable larger flap-angles and hence more drag in the groove. The E(FN) was a good deal lighter than the J, and the initial Js with the -20 motor kinda blew in hot temperatures with very marginal wave-off capabilities. The -420 motor fixed that for the most part.

 

The french F-8 (which one?) would be less performing than the plain-Jane E.

 

I'd prefer an F-8H with the -420 motor. That gives you pylons, but a considerably lighter airplane with the same juice up the tail with a dumber radar up the nose.

Or maybe the initial F-8C with less weight, but also less power. Supposedly this was the best handling of them all...

Edited September 9, 2021 by Bremspropeller