Best non-Skyhawk replacement for HMCS Bonaventure’s Banshees?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The TF9Js that visited us from time to time had a single 20MM. Since their nuggets were mostly headed for fighters, which at that time meant Phantoms, gunnery was somewhat de-emphasized.
Why did jet fighters into the early 1960s have quad 20 mm cannons? Modern fighters have a single 20 mm cannon. I suppose the 6,000 rpm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun isn't the same as the Cougar's 600–700 rpm Hispano-Suiza HS.404.
 
Last edited:
The USMC operated a small number of the two-seat TF-9J(F9F-8T) in the FAC role during the early part of the Viet Nam war. The standard TF-9J retained the capabilities of the standard single-seat F-9J(F9F-8) in terms of external ordnance (bombs, rockets, AIM-9 Sidewinders, DTs, etc), but they only carried 2x 20mm cannon in the nose instead of 4. Electronics were similar, except maybe no APG-30 ranging radar? Fuel load was identical.

The USMC FAC variants sometimes used 2.75" FFAR smoke rounds for target marking. I do not know how they were equipped in terms of electronics.
Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?
 
Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?

What are they shooting at? For tanks and AFV, likely not. For MiGs? If they can get into a place where they can get a shot off, they're likely enough. Of course, switching to two 30 mm Adens may be practical, as the Israelis regunned Skyhawks with the comparable DEFA.
 
Last edited:
Why did jet fighters into the early 1960s have quad 20 mm cannons? Modern fighters have a single 20 mm cannon.
Until the Vulcan was perfected and working reliably (long process), the Hispano and the M39 were the only games in town, and neither was ideal for rate of fire or reliability reasons. The Vulcan fixed (overfixed?) the RoF issue, but had its share of teething problems, and I guess, could be a temperamental bastard in the climate of SE Asia. I used to see guns come back to the factory from the test range that had literally self-destructed due to a simple jam or link failure. With the breech and barrel assemblies rotating at 1,000 RPM and the ammo coming out of the drum and down the feedpath at 100 rounds a second, doesn't take much for a sprocket to punch a hole in a cartridge case and spill explosive propellant all over hot moving parts. Not under my cockpit floorboards, thank you!
How about four Vulcans? Now that's a braking system.
Ever noticed that those rotary guns are always mounted near aircraft centerline? Do you suppose there's a reason for that? Imagine you've got a Vulcan hanging on each of your outboard pylons, you're diving on a target centered in your gunsight, you squeeze the trigger, and only one gun fires. What happens to your carefully lined up shot, not to mention aircraft control? Get the picture?
 
Last edited:
Until the Vulcan was perfected and working reliably (long process), the Hispano and the M39 were the only games in town, and neither was ideal for rate of fire or reliability reasons. The Vulcan fixed (overfixed?) the RoF issue, but had its share of teething problems, and I guess, could be a temperamental bastard in the climate of SE Asia. I used to see guns come back to the factory from the test range that had literally self-destructed due to a simple jam or link failure. With the breech and barrel assemblies rotating at 1,000 RPM and the ammo coming out of the drum and down the feedpath at 1,000 rounds a second, doesn't take much for a sprocket to punch a hole in a cartridge case and spill explosive propellant all over hot moving parts. Not under my cockpit floorboards, thank you!

Ever noticed that those rotary guns are always mounted near aircraft centerline? Do you suppose there's a reason for that? Imagine you've got a Vulcan hanging on each of your outboard pylons, you're diving on a target centered in your gunsight, you squeeze the trigger, and only one gun fires. What happens to your carefully lined up shot, not to mention aircraft control? Get the picture?
Since the F14/15/16/18/22/35 have the gun mounted in a wing root, I wonder if the aircraft's flight control trimmed the rudder to compensate when the trigger was pressed.
 
The more I look at the Cougar the more I like it for Bonaventure. Did it have similar takeoff, landing and stall speed to the RCN's Banshee? That's the sort of info missing from Wikipedia. What possible concerns should the RCN have when considering the Cougar? How many air frames are available, perhaps spare parts are a concern?
 
God no, total rubbish.

:laughing3:

How about these!

50197327556_2cd4f64fc7_b.jpg
Bruntingthorpe 20

Yes, agreed, but that makes for a short discussion. For arguments sake, the A-4 is out.

Aww, no fun [shuffling feet and staring at the ground...] The A-4 is really the only sensible answer tho, realistically speaking. The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s. Both single-seat strikers with modern nav-attack systems, head-up displays and able to be upgraded. You could sling Winders on them with a little modification.

Argentine CANA (naval air arm) bought F9F-2 Panthers and F9F-8 Cougars for its carrier ARA Independencia in 1959, but could not operate them from the carrier owing to the catapult not being powerful enough, so stuck with aging F4Us as its carrier fighter throughout the 60s, until 1969 when ARA 25 de Mayo came on line. The navy also had Trackers aboard the carrier, but the F9Fs all remained land based. The Brits tried to sell the Argentines Harriers for its new carrier, but they bought A-4s instead, which replaced the F9Fs in 1969 after ten years of service, owing to spares shortages and low serviceability. CANA F9Fs saw combat during the various military coups undertaken by the navy against the government and one was shot down.

An F9F-2 on display at the Museo Naval, Tigre, with its replacement in CANA service, an A-4Q behind.

50351210982_5eb70c5012_b.jpg
F9F-2
 
Last edited:
RAN TA-4G N13-154911, formerly RNZAF A-4K NZ6255, formerly TA-4G N13-154911, on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Nowra, NSW.

Hi Grant. I saw the same machine earlier this year at Nowra. I always regarded it as a diminutive jet but was amazed how high the nose was from the ground. Standing erect with the camera above my head I took this shot...

Nose.jpg
 
Some stats for comparison.:study:
_______________TOGW______WL______Vstall______Vmax_______ROC________SC______Guns______Ordnance
F2H-3 Banshee_ 21000______71.5_____132/114____515 35k____1900 35k_____47k_____4x20mm____3200 lbs
(all weather)____(25200)__________________________570 SL_____5150 SL______________2xAIM-9 (easy to modify to carry 4 or more?)

F3H-2 Demon__ 32000______61.6_____127/109____ 621 35k____4500 35k_____39/47k__4x20mm____4000 lbs
(all weather)____(33100)__________________________750 SL____13000 SL______________4xAIM-7, or 4xAIM-9, or 2xAIM-7 + 2xAIM-9

F9F-8 Cougar__ 20100______59.7_____132/109____ 581 35k____1830 35k_____42k_____4x20mm____3200 lbs
(day only)______(24760)__________________________646 SL_____4800 SL______________4xAIM-9

F11F-1 Tiger___ 21000______84.1_____144/122____ 727 35k____6200 35k_____42/48k__4x20mm____2260 lbs
(day only)______(23460)__________________________752 SL____11200 SL______________4xAIM-9

TOGW is for clean with full internal fuel and ammo, and max weight for catapult launch in ( ).
WL is for the clean TOGW listed.
The Vstall speeds are for no flaps power-off at the clean TOGW listed, and flaps down power-off for landing with 18%-19% fuel remaining.
ROC is with Military power for the F2H and F9F, and Afterburner for the F3H and F11F, all at the clean TOGW.
SC is with Military power for the F2H and F9F, and with Military/Afterburner for the F3H and F11f.

I believe that the Canadians required the all-weather capability of the F2H. If that were still a requirement for the follow-on aircraft the F11F would not do. I do not think the F9F was considered all-weather capable either as it had no search/fire control radar, only a simple ranging radar like the F11F.
 
Last edited:
Since the F14/15/16/18/22/35 have the gun mounted in a wing root, I wonder if the aircraft's flight control trimmed the rudder to compensate when the trigger was pressed.
Well, you're at least 50% correct in that blanket statement about M61 mounts in contemporary fighters. F14, F16, and F18 have fuselage mounted Vulcans, Tomcat and Viper carrying them offset to the port side, but within 2-3 feet of centerline. Hornet has it mounted top dead center with the firing port between the cockpit and the radome, a bad idea in my book as it seems sure to subject the pilot to flash blindness.
As for the wing root mounted F15 Vulcan, I bet Biff could tell us about rudder compensation, if it's not sensitive information. F22 and 35 are still gee-whiz territory, I guess.
 
Some stats for comparison.:study:
I guess that takes the shine off the Cougar. Not much improvement over the Banshee. I thought they were faster than that. Looks like the Demon is the only logical choice...unless... maybe, somehow, the mighty Buccaneer could be made to work.
Now there's some serious badass! Probably too much airplane for the catapults and arresting gear, but it can go like scat down in the weeds and can take care of itself air-to-air. (Embarrased our Topgun trained Phantom jocks in a big furball the Bucs weren't even supposed to be participating in!)
 
:laughing3:

How about these!

View attachment 595290Bruntingthorpe 20



Aww, no fun [shuffling feet and staring at the ground...] The A-4 is really the only sensible answer tho, realistically speaking. The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s. Both single-seat strikers with modern nav-attack systems, head-up displays and able to be upgraded. You could sling Winders on them with a little modification.

Argentine CANA (naval air arm) bought F9F-2 Panthers and F9F-8 Cougars for its carrier ARA Independencia in 1959, but could not operate them from the carrier owing to the catapult not being powerful enough, so stuck with aging F4Us as its carrier fighter throughout the 60s, until 1969 when ARA 25 de Mayo came on line. The navy also had Trackers aboard the carrier, but the F9Fs all remained land based. The Brits tried to sell the Argentines Harriers for its new carrier, but they bought A-4s instead, which replaced the F9Fs in 1969 after ten years of service, owing to spares shortages and low serviceability. CANA F9Fs saw combat during the various military coups undertaken by the navy against the government and one was shot down.

An F9F-2 on display at the Museo Naval, Tigre, with its replacement in CANA service, an A-4Q behind.

View attachment 595291F9F-2
That would have been interesting. Harrier vs Harrier.
 
The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s.
As much as it pains me, there's zero chance HMCS Bonaventure will continue in RCN service into the mid 70s. We're looking for a replacement for the Banshee when it's retired in 1962 until Bonaventure retires in July 1970.

The only way this carrier is operating by this time is under an Indian flag... so goes the rumour.
 
In terms of cost, utilisation and upgradeability, the A-4 is the best answer for smaller navies though.
True, and Bonaventure was conducting Skyhawk trials, though Canada cried poor. That's why I think a cheaper non-Skyhawk option needs to be considered.

HMCS Bonaventure - Wikipedia

"Bonaventure then returned to Canada before sailing to Norfolk, Virginia, for trials with the A-4 Skyhawk, a possible replacement for the Banshee. However, due to financial considerations, the Skyhawk was not purchased."
 
Since they need all-weather, air-air capability and the ability to operate of a very small carrier, the Demon would seem to be their best bet. Re-engining with the J57 could be practical (the engines are about the same length, weight, and diameter) or possibly the Avon (which is lighter, with a smaller diameter), as in the EE Lightning. I'd be fairly sure that McDonnell had some plans for a J57-powered F3H.

So Canada buys up the surplus F3H's as they're retired from the USN, zero-times the airframes, and installs the J57, which increases thrust significantly. Figuring out how to install (and produce) the Orenda could make the F3H pretty spritely, but is likely far into the realm of fantasy.

A rather farther out possibility would be the F8U Crusader. The F-8E(FN) wasn't too far out of the time frame, and operated off France's rather small carriers. Of course, it wasn't exactly an easy aircraft to operate....
 
Well, don't write off the Cougar so quickly.

First, the speed - note that the RN had the subsonic Sea Vixen as its primary carrier fighter until the late 1960s.
Also note that the Cougar IS 70 knots faster than the Banshee... both at 35K and SL altitudes.

Second, Grumman had proposals that would both make the Cougar a night fighter AND increase engine reliability and power*, almost certainly increasing its speed somewhat (although still firmly subsonic), and improve its range:

A radar-equipped night fighter version of the F9F-8T was proposed by Grumman in 1955. It was to have carried an AN/APQ-50 radar and was to have been equipped with an all-missile armament. However, the performance was considered insufficient to warrant production.

In 1961, Grumman proposed a modernized version of the F9F-8T with updated systems and a Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet in place of the J48. However, the Navy selected the Douglas TA-4F instead, and the updated two-seat Cougar project was abandoned.

So, when the RCN wants to replace its Banshees in 1962, a radar-equipped 2-seat J52-powered Cougar IS POSSIBLE using historic Grumman proposals!


J48 in both the F9F-8 and TF-9F-8 produced 7,250 lb thrust dry, and 8,500lb thrust with water injection for take-off. Fuel consumption was 1.16 lb fuel per lb thrust per hour.

J52-6 in the A-4E in 1962 (certified in 1960) produced 8,500 lb thrust, and the J52-8 available from 1963 (interchangeable with little or no modification) produced 9,300 lb thrust. Fuel consumption was .82-.86 lb fuel per lb thrust per hour.
Since we are not looking for something to last into the 1970s & 80s, we won't consider the 11,200 lb thrust J52-408 available in 1968 (used for the A-4M and re-engining of A-4Fs).
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back