NAVY STAR: Was The Navy Version Of The Shooting Star Lockheed's Greatest Missed Opportunity?

For some years I've been wondering why the Navy didn’t pursue a navalised version of the P-80 Shooting Star. After all, the Shooting Star offered superior performance to all of the Navy’s first generation of fighters and wouldn’t be surpassed until later versions of Grumman Panther came on the scene in the 1950s.
Well, as it turns out, there was a carrier-capable single seat version of the Shooting Star. In this video I quickly tell its story and speculate about what could have been if Lockheed had committed to the concept and the Navy had been more amenable.
I had fun with this one. I have a soft spot for the Shooting Star and, as you know, I like an antique naval fighter! Hope you enjoy.

[@FirstDagger]

So that is how the Shooting Star in Fallout ended up on those carriers.

[@briancavanagh7048]

Kelly Johnson’s 14 rules of management also had a 15th rule that he passed on by word of mouth. According to the book "Skunk Works" the 15th rule is: "Starve before doing business with the damned Navy”. Is this the project that created the 15th rule?

[@paulwoodman5131]

I bet he'd seen enough of the Navy during the Lockheed Salmon/Pogo tail sitter fiasco.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Adapting a carrier capable to air force needs is simple compared to the other way!

[@Idahoguy10157]

Having served in both the navy and air force I saw firsthand how different the two corporate cultures were. Kelly had enough on his plate satisfying the air force. Grumman does things the navy way.

[@paulwoodman5131]

@@Idahoguy10157 #phantom

[@r2dter]

@@paulwoodman5131 #northrop

[@Manbemanbe]

Man I just love how thorough your research is. It feels like a really trusted source now.

[@michaelgowen2242]

The nearly doubled range of the F9F Panther over the P-80 at the same gross weight is also worth mentioning in the dialog. It was shown in the side by side performance summary.

[@OumuamuaOumuamua]

Would you consider doing a video on the combat history / service history of the f8 crusader

[@bobwilson758]

Yes please !

[@wirebrushofenlightenment1545]

"Neither of these scanarios was ideal ..."

[@ronaldrhatigan7652]

The Roseburg, Oregon Airport is named after the late great Marion Carl.

[@petesheppard1709]

A very interesting 'What If'. The first time I heard of the T2V was when I saw a model kit, as a kid in the late '60s.

[@jb6027]

EXCELLENT VIDEO! I hope that you eventually produce a P-80/F-80 video in USAAF/USAF and foreign service. Most other "F-80 videos" are 3 minutes on the F-80 followed by 15 minutes of the more numerous and famous T-33. The F-80 doesn't get much love, aside from some Korean War mention.

[@MikeSiemens88]

Worked on Canadair license-built CT-133's for a couple tours in the Canadian Air Force. Even with the more powerful Rolls Royce Nene engine the takeoff roll for a fully fueled T-bird with tip tanks was substantial, as were landings.... I'm surprised they even bothered to try as shown in your video. New info for me.

[@minera7595]

I have always associated Lockheed with letter V in US navy, so to learn that they used to be O for a short time surprised me as much as knowing about the FO-1 itself, Great video!

[@FirstDagger]

Every few years the US branches forget how their designation systems work, case in point the B-21 Raider.

[@minera7595]

@@FirstDagger I am actually curious about this too, do you know why they skipped from 2 to 21?

[@FirstDagger]

@@minera7595The official reasoning is "because it is a bomber for the 21st century". As she replaces B-2 and B-1 so that is probably the reason IMHO.

[@toddagard3664]

Don't forget that sometimes designs get an official designation without any physical aircraft ever existing.

[@RCAvhstape]

The SR-71 makes no sense, the F/A-18 is wrong, the F-117 is not a fighter, etc.

[@marktercsak9728]

My father was enlisted then became an NCO in Korea he was there 1952 to 1953, he would be stationed with the Airwing and he had a photograph of F80 at the base.

[@whyjnot420]

Thinking of aircraft transport via carriers made me think of a few, very small transports used for this purpose. I rarely ever think of those as their use case was always tiny. I'm talking about ones that could carry 1-2 planes and were designed for use in protected water (i.e. harbors and whatnot, as you can imagine not many of them would need such things). Images of them almost always tend to look comedic.

[@r2dter]

I think post ww2 where not only did the army lose the air force but the airforce diversified into SAC etc., and until the navy got a nuclear deterrent deployable from carriers and more so nuclear powered nuclear armed submarines, there must have been a mad scramble for funding. I'm sure having shipyards packed to the hilt with redundant vessels and airfields similarlypacked with outdated overnight prop planes must've bewildered the budgetary committees to no extent

[@paulwoodman5131]

Many nuclear delivery methods were pursued, all had issues. The MIC was thrilled 😅.

[@MrDdaland]

Ever hear of the "Revolt of the Admirals"?

[@r2dter]

🤣🤣🤣🤣@@paulwoodman5131

[@RCAvhstape]

At least the Essex class carriers stayed useful into the 1970s.

[@timb3499]

The Navy also acquired two seat TO-2/TV-2(T-33B) land based trainers for jet conversion.

[@vrendus522]

Thanks' surprising critique. Was entertaining as I never thought of that aircraft lineage.

[@jwenting]

I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of interest of the Navy in the P80 was mostly due to a serious dose of NIH syndrome. Inter-service rivalry was (and to a degree still is) rampant between the Navy and the Army Air Force (now the USAF). The Skyraider, Corsair, and Phantom were effectively oddities in being adopted by both services, and I think in both cases a good amount of political pressure from congress, combined with the battlefield necessities of the Vietnam war requiring a sped up procurement cycle, played a key role. If we look at other attempts to create a common aircraft, all others (until the F-35) were utter failures. The F-111 was tried but rejected against the F-14. The F-16 was tried but rejected against the F/A-18 (yes, there were plans for a navalised F-16 to replace the A-6 and A-7, but the Navy bought the F/A-18 instead). Other such attempts probably exist that I know little or nothing about, quite likely going back to WW2 if not earlier. And the naval version of the F-35 is so different from the land version it's almost a completely different aircraft. Commonality is AFAIK less than it was between the YF-17 and the F/A-18A.

[@project-gladiator]

What does NIH Syndrome mean?

[@KanJonathan]

⁠@@project-gladiator Not invented here. BTW, Corsair II. I was puzzling whether F4U did very obscurely used by USAAF or not for a short while.

[@Wannes_]

@@KanJonathan Not that I know, jwenting is referring to the A-7.

[@Wannes_]

Successful bi-service frontline planes, all started as Navy types It's a tough job to redesign a plane to handle carrier operations - ask McDo about the T-45 Goshawk ... The P-51 Mustang was also tried aboard a carrier Once you add reinforcements, folding wings, the advantages of the land-based fighter quickly disappear A good case in point is the F-18

[@Jack2Japan]

Your obscure topics are great. Something new rather than same old thing!

[@robertcombs55]

I always love the F-80...it was still being flown bye Kansas Air Guard in 1958.

[@IsaacKuo]

I'd love a video about the P-80 Shooting Star itself. It's just that it's shockingly similar to modern jets in configuration - intake(s) in front of the wings, mid-engine placement, and exhaust behind the tail. Only the straight wings and somewhat older fashioned Was the P-80 the first successful aircraft to feature this modern layout?

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this 👍✈️

[@jonathanhudak2059]

Fantastic episode! So interesting, I never knew there was a navalized Shooting Star prototype, so cool, thank you!

[@davidmcintyre8145]

Remember also RAF Hurricanes without navalisation were able to land on RN carriers in the Norway campaign by means of cunningly added bags of sand

[@silentone11111111]

Another great obscure subject. 🎉 ❤

[@notapound]

Thanks - glad you found it interesting. Definitely on the edge of niche!

[@NigelDeForrest-Pearce-cv6ek]

Fascinating!!!😊

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@notapound >>> Great video...👍

[@s.marcus3669]

To answer your opening question: "Because Grumman makes Navy fighter planes". Period, end of sentence.

[@RCAvhstape]

Certainly true in those days. One can fantasize about Northrop Grumman developing a rival or follow on to the F-35 and giving it a "cat" name for the Navy someday.

[@scootergeorge7089]

Grumman Aircraft "Grumman Steel Works" built some outstanding Navy fighters but in the early jet era of naval aviation, McDonnel was first with the FH Phantom. This was followed by the Banshee and Demon. All by McDonnell Aircraft company. The Navy later purchased the Vought F7U-3 Cutlass, AKA Gutless, but that's another story. I do know carrier aircraft have to be stoutly built. My first experience aboard an aircraft carrier was USS Ranger, CV-61, in 1987 with VA-305. I was in the aft section of the hanger deck when an F-14 landed above me. I actually thought for a second, it crashed.

[@s.marcus3669]

@@scootergeorge7089 Indeed, George; McDonnell & later on, MDD, DID make quite a few planes including the very first jet the navy adopted, not to mention North American Aviation with the Fury. Not to be a party-pooper but it's actually "Iron Works" and sometimes "Bethpage Iron Works" but, hey, we both know it was really aluminum that make up 90% of aircraft, especially in the early days....

[@yes_head]

I get the sense Lockheed had enough on their plate to want to open the whole can of worms that was developing planes for the Navy. Plus, I get the sense their design culture preferred a more unfettered playground rather than all the constraints Navy aviation imposed.

[@1joshjosh1]

Something bugged me once but I never did anything about it. I'm glad you did something about it NAPFATG. Interesting video.

[@burtbacarach5034]

Interesting!I really enjoy early US jet aircraft history.As you say,makes you wonder ehat could have been..

[@aidanacebo9529]

lmao, in Fallout 3, there are folding wing variants of the P-80 on Rivet City, and a few other places.

[@scootergeorge7089]

8:00 What does wing thickness have to do with wing area?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Pax River = US Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

[@bobwilson758]

It damn sure can be done right !

[@cab6273]

Great video. Would it have been called FO1 or F1O?

[@petesheppard1709]

In the 1940s, the Navy used a completely different system than the Air Force, so FO-1 would have been correct. F-10 was the later designation for the Douglas Skyknight (formerly F3D). As an airborne radar jammer, it was the EF-10 and flown by the Marine Corps in Vietnam.

[@RCAvhstape]

​@@petesheppard1709He didn't say F-10, he said F1O, which is correct for the old Navy system: F for fighter, 1 is the model number, and letter O for the manufacturer Lockheed.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@RCAvhstape Ah, 'Oscar' rather than 'Zero'. I see it now. Thanks!🙂

[@Wannes_]

​@@RCAvhstape Except the USN didn't use the "1" between the function and manufacturer's letters. The was no F1F, but an FF instead. The next design, then became the F2F

[@RCAvhstape]

@@Wannes_ Interesting. A really confusing system.

[@DABrock-author]

I had no idea that the Navy had an ELECTRIC catapult in the 1940’s. Any idea where I can find more information about that?

[@notapound]

It is a really tricky topic to find information on to be honest. This video is a bit rough and ready, but the content is pretty interesting: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jai3hqubjK5oetE

[@DABrock-author]

@@notapound Thank you for the link. I’ve been doing some other research on this, it looks like it might be a plausible solution to an upcoming problem in one of my ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ alternative history books.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

2:30 I think I see a slight flaw in the plan to use rocket assisted takeoffs off a carrier deck. I mean I guess if you don't tell the Navy what you are going to do launching the first one might be doable.🤔 But then how are you going to stop the Captain from pushing all the rest of the planes off the rear of the deck after he sees what was done to his deck by the first rocket assisted launch.😳

[@Triggatra4258]

Love this channel.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

If anything, the T2V in comparison to the T-33 seems to be a better-looking aircraft.

[@goddepersonno3782]

a quickie, but it has all the staples of comedic US development programs -interservice politics -the entire project is somewhat questionable -[lockheed enters chat]