More A2D Skyshark

Indeed… “Sandy” was a beautiful sight to many a downed airman.

Yes, apparently AT&T dropped support for individual websites, and he had to relocate.

Interestingly, I was actually with extra time today, and wandered back over here.

I just looked back on that squadron list for Ranger in late 1962-early 1963, and it has been altered!

Apparently, someone mixed things up earlier, as I cannot find anything to match it in Ranger’s deployment list now.

The corrected entry reads:
VF-91 (F-8C)
VF-93 (A-4C)
VA-94 (A-4C)
VA-95 (A-1H/J)
VA-96 (F-4B)
VAH-6 (A-3B)
VAW-11 (E-1B)
VFP-63 Det.M (RF-8A)
HU-1 (UH-25C)
So yes, that does match with Hermes’ visit to the Philippines after Christmas of 1962!

However…
As for that photo – in the PDF linked below which describes the post-Christmas 1962/Jan. 1963 operations, note the comment “practice roller-landings“… known in the USN as a “touch & go”, the aircraft does not lower its arresting hook, and never actually stops on the flight deck – it just touches down, then lifts right back off.

So the photo of a Phantom and Hermes shows not a full landing, but a T&G – a nice photo op, but Hermes’ arresting gear & catapults were never used with Ranger’s Phantoms.

http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/hermes14.pdf

USAF to return mothballed B-52 bomber to active service

That’s what Davis-Monthan is for.

By late 1944 even single-seat USN radar-equipped fighters had an AIA 3 cm or AN/APS-6 3 cm radar in a closed dome.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/NightFighterRadars/USNFRadar2.html

AIA radar:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235386[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235387[/ATTACH]

AN/APS-6 radar:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235388[/ATTACH]

The F-14 could most certainly have been used instead of the F-15 by the USAF. There was alot of pressure from the US Navy at one stage for the USAF to accept the F-14 over the F-15 but as you say the Air Force was opposed to the idea of another Navy fighter at all costs no matter what the capability. Yes the F-14 was an interceptor but was also designed as an air superiority fighter. Maintenance was not much different from the F-15A which was also a maintenance pig. With Air Force support an F-14D type variant would have been in service much sooner. Remember the F-14D and the F-14A has shown that it is no slouch in the WVR arena against Eagles and Falcons. What’s more the savings from developing one aircraft program instead of both the Eagle and Tomcat would of left plenty of dollars for further development of both the F-14 and F-16. ACEVAL/AIMVAL proved the F-14 had an almost 50% better kill ratio than the F-15. Also note it was not until the USAF got AMRAAM missiles that their F-15’s got a multi-shot BVR capability something that the F-14 had with Phoenix from the 70’s. If the F-14 were in place of the F-15 in every single campaign the USAF has been in since it entered service would the outcome and results have been any different? I think not. The mock-up you have pictured is for the F-106 replacement which General Daniel James recommended the USAF purchase. An F-14 in the F-15 type role would not have had those conformal tanks under the belly that were proposed for the IMI program. In the end the opposition to any Navy fighter from the Air Force won out over everything else.

That better kill ratio was only if the F-14 was allowed to use the AIM-54 at ranges greater than the Sparrow was capable of.

In a pure Sparrow/Sidewinder/gun fight the Eagle won most of the time – as did the F-16 & F/A-18.

The F-14 had the same multi-shot Sparrow capability as the F-15.

Everything I’ve read was that V would still have been operating Sea Vixens upon replacement in 1972, as she simply would not have been able to be sufficiently modified for Phantoms (insufficient room for catapults of sufficient length, etc).