The original UK Battle-class destroyers not were equipped with long-range Radar Type 965 (AKE-1 Single Bedstead), I think it's is a confussion induced by the "White Ensign" supplement (in where is included also in the radar outfit erroneously the for the period advanced HF/3D Radar 278 (1950), employed in the Battle-class DDR conversion and in the Country-class DDG).

It's a big and characteristic radar (only from 1962 the picket-radar Battle-class DDR were equipped with the Type 965M AKE-2 (1960) Double Bedstead), the Type 965 AKE-1 (1955) was carried by the Weapon-class converted DDR:

Weapon-class Battleaxe DDR with Radar 965 AKE-1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Battleaxe_(D18)

Battle-class Barrosa DDR with Radar 965 AKE-2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barrosa_(D68)

Original Battle-class Saintes (1946) without Radar 965:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Saintes_(D84)

 

The radar outfit for the not-DDR Battle-class destroyers should be only Radar 293Q (the complementary Radar 291 was retired from the UK destroyers near 1952, as states Norman Polmar in "Naval Radar", page 197, by Norman Friedman, Conway 1981), and some Fire Control Radar 282/262 for the twin 40mm mounts).

 

The same for the entry 3098 the Pakistani "Khaibar (Battle)", should be equipped only wwith a Radar 293, a navigation generic SS radar ("Marconi set") and a Radar 275 Fire Control Radar, as stated and by photographic evidence in the Jane's Fighting Ships 1981-1982, page 356).

CVB-41 USS Midway and CVB-42 USS F.D. Roosevelt.

North American FJ Fury variants:

 

FJ-1 Fury (1948-1953): straight-wing, only 30 build.

 

FJ-2 Fury (1952-1957): as a navalized F-86E Sabre, 200 build.

 

FJ-3/F-1C Fury (1954-1963): 344 build.

 

FJ-3M/MF-1C (1956-1963): 194 build and some 80 more converted from FJ-3. In service in the 1956 Suez Crisis (USS Randolph), also provides air support in the 1958 Lebanon intervention.

 

FJ-4/F-1E Fury (1956-1964): 150 build.

 

FJ-4B/AF-1E Fury (1957-1965): 222 build.

 

 

North American AJ Savage variants:

 

AJ-1/A-2A Savage (1949-1953): Detachments of 4 planes in the CV Midway-class and of 3 planes in the CV-Essex class. Theorical maximum number of Savages in CV Essex carriers is 22. Total AJ-1 build 55 (42 later converted to AJ-2).

 

AJ-2/A-2B Savage (1951-1957): The AJ-2 was an improved AJ-1 derived from the previous AJ-2P, with more powerful engines, more internal fuel and cockpit and other internal changes. From 1953 used also como aerial refuelling tanker. Total AJ-2 build 55 (and 42 more converted from AJ-1).

 

AJ-2P Savage (1950-1960): The AJ-2P was a predecessor variant of the later improved AJ-2 for photographic reconnaissance, without search radar. Total AJ-2P build 30.

McDonnell F2H Banshee variants (at this momento only present in the Cold War DB a Canadian variant, whoemployed 2xAIM-9B SideWinder from 1958, and this weapon can be implemented):

 

F2H-2 Banshee (1949-1956): USN, 364 build, no radar.

 

F2H-2B Banshee (1951-1956): USN, only 27 build, no radar, for nuclear strike with Mk7 or Mk8 atomic bombs.

 

F2H-2N Banshee (1950-1956): USN, only 14 build, APS-19 radar. The F2H-2N Banshee was the first single seat carrier-based jet night fighter of the US Navy, forerunner of the ulterior all-weather fighters. 25 inches nose extension. 12 units in service in the VC-4 squadron. Not a must.

 

F2H-2P Banshee (1950-1960): USN. 89 build. The F2H-2P Banshee was the photographic reconnaissance derivative, with 6 cameras in a three feet heated nose extension. Very successful because his high flying performances (but near ten per cent slower than standard F2H-2), extensively used in the Korean War.

 

F2H-3/F-2C Banshee (1952-1958): USN, 250 build (including 39 exported to Canada), in-flight refuelling added (not in the Canadian ones), APQ-41 radar. The F2H-3/F-2C Banshee was an all-weather variant with APQ-41 radar, 4x20mm M3 guns changed to 4x20mm Mk12 guns, 8 feet longer fuselage and more fuel capability. Some with a upper gun deleted and replaced by a in-flight refuelling probe. Some equipped for nuclear strike role. Later (1956?) many equipped with 2xAIM-9B Sidewinder.

 

F2H-4/F-2D Banshee (1953-1959): USN, 150 build, in-flight refuelling added, APQ-37 radar. The F2H-4/F-2D Banshee was an all-weather variant with APQ-37 radar, 4x20mm M3 guns changed to 4x20mm Mk12 guns, 8 feet longer fuselage, more fuel capability, and new jet engines with improved performances and range. Some with a upper gun deleted and replaced by a in-flight refuelling probe. Some equipped for nuclear strike role. Later (1956?) many equipped with 2xAIM-9B Sidewinder. From 1959 to 1961 only in Reserve squadrons.

Against as is usually reported, the Essex-class carriers converted in LPH, USS Boxer LPH-4, USS Valley Forge LPH-8 and USS Princeton LPH-5, get only a máximum speed of 25 knots (not 33 knots), as four of the eight boilers were removed, and the power falled from 150000 shp to 75000 shp, as stated in Norman Friedman's "US Aircraft Carriers, an Illustrated Design History", USNI 1983, page 369, or here:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/11/1104.htm

(the navysource page reports 33 knots speed, BUT cites only 75000 shp, and that motivated me to research about the issue).

French aircraft carriers: Clemenceau, Foch, Arromanches, Dixmude, Bois Belleau,La Fayette (but most of the carried aircraft types are present on the DB!).

Arromanches and internal links: http://www.netmarine.net/bat/porteavi/arromanc/index.htm

The 2D AS air defence Long Track (P-40/1S12)(1963+) radar range should be 202 nm, not 81: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40_radar

The ship entry 2604 Leander 1A (1973-1987) has the Helicopter pad aft, but lacks Runway and Plane cap=0.

I see the F-84F Thunderstreak needs greater range. Historically the French F-84F (very probably powered by W-7 engines) based in Lod/Ben Gurion/Tel Aviv were capable to reach and strike the Luxor Air Base (and his resident Il-28 Beagle) and of deep escort missions on Egypt : http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_256.shtml

That distance Lod/Luxor is some 398 nm, at least 800 nm for a round trip. And the F-84F presente in the DB have a ground attack range limited to 501 nm.

I note my omission of the 2x 450 USG or 2x 230 USG fuel tank options from the current loadouts (which can be readily fixed). Also, the attacks on Luxor were apparently limited to rockets and strafing - while carrying the 450 USG tanks - so that might account for the extra reach.

 

Also we can count with the Standard Aircraft Characteristics official data of most American types present in http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-84F_Thunderstreak_(W-3_Engine)_SAC_-_7_March_1957.pdf

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-84F_Thunderstreak_(W-7_Engine)_SAC_-_2_September_1958.pdf

 

Some ranges from the SAC charts (without inflight refuelling):

F-84F (W-3 engine):

Basic mission 1666 nm (3,56 hours at 468 knots) + some 156 nm from 20 minutes reserve = 1822 nm (with gun ammo and 2x450 USG drop tanks)

Ground attack 878 nm (2 hours at 439 knots) + some 219 nm from 10 minutes loiter and 20 minutes reserve = 1097 nm (with gun ammo, 2x1000 lb bombs, 4x5" rockets and 2x450 USG drop tanks)

 

F-84F (W-7 engine):

Basic mission 1656 nm (3,54 hours at 468 knots) + some 156 nm from 20 minutes reserve = 1812 nm (with gun ammo and 2x450 USG drop tanks)

Ground attack 846 nm (1.94 hours at 436 knots) + some 218 nm from 10 minutes loiter and 20 minutes reserve = 1064 nm (with gun ammo, 2x1000 lb bombs, 4x5" rockets and 2x450 USG drop tanks)

 

And the range with a 1660 lb weight Mk 7 Thor nuke should be also increased, probably to near 1012 nm (with 1xMk7 and 3x230 USG drop tanks).

These numbers clash in a big way with that available from Harpoon's Command at Sea annexes, which I am using mainly for aircraft of this era. Using those numbers, for example, I get 946 nm of range for an F-84F carrying only 2x 450 USG tanks and the gun ammo. Also, some of the SAC loadouts seem to suggest that the F-84F had more than four underwing pylons??

I think many times the Command at Sea tables can be wrong, a lot of cases perhaps confusing radius of action with total airborne range (because that the SAC tables are very informative, and detailing the fuel use as "5 minutes taxi" or "20 minutes at máximum efficiency cruise", or similar descriptions).
But also we must remember that's in ideal cases, but I think they are more close to the reality than ththe other tables (as detail the F-84F case, if not, the Thunderstreak never can hit Luxor, the same in other cases, yesterday I saw the Skywarrior ranges are the half of the reflected in the SAC tables, because that my idea sometimes can be confuse radius of action with total mission range).
About the less-than-ideal cases, this can be a counter-example, also reflected in the gold data mine of Alternate Wars: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/Letter_From_GA_ANG_on_Performance_of_F-105G,_3_September_1981.pdf

About the F-84F number of underwing pylons, I think they must be some zero-lenght rocket-launchers, I will look for some photos.

Edited:

Many images here: https://www.google.com/search?q=f-84f+with+rockets&safe=off&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=2qzNUsaTJIjw0gWZ2YGwBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1093&bih=474

And more clearly here (but beware, perhaps a development plane, but the other photos of the link are moslty of operative planes) : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-84F_with_24_HVAR_rockets_1951.jpg

 

Also here mention of

a typical load being two 2000-lb. bombs and eight 5-inch HVARs or four 1000-pound bombs and 24 3-inch rockets.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p84_10.html

Looking for data for the answer I see this thread is number five in the Google hits about this topic!!!

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=acig.org+f-84f+luxor+attacks&rlz=

About the strike at Luxor, yes, in this first hand account only straffing attacks are mentioned. But also is mentioned the planes were with enough fuel for many attacks:
http://aviateurs.e-monsite.com/pages/1946-et-annees-suivantes/suez-1956.html

Après cette 2e passe, ayant interrogé mes équipiers, je réalisai que nous étions très larges en pétrole, et que nos munitions pouvaient nous permettre de détruire encore quelques bombardiers égyptiens, en gardant le nécessaire pour le cas où des Mig-5 (sic) seraient rencontrés. La dernière passe venant du Sud-ouest nous permis d'améliorer notre score et d'entendre le Cne Vaujour demander qu'on veuille bien "lui en laisser" pour lui et ses gars...

I think many times the Command at Sea tables can be wrong, a lot of cases perhaps confusing radius of action with total airborne range (because that the SAC tables are very informative, and detailing the fuel use as "5 minutes taxi" or "20 minutes at máximum efficiency cruise", or similar descriptions). But also we must remember that's in ideal cases, but I think they are more close to the reality than ththe other tables (as detail the F-84F case, if not, the Thunderstreak never can hit Luxor, the same in other cases, yesterday I saw the Skywarrior ranges are the half of the reflected in the SAC tables, because that my idea sometimes can be confuse radius of action with total mission range). About the less-than-ideal cases, this can be a counter-example, also reflected in the gold data mine of Alternate Wars: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/Letter_From_GA_ANG_on_Performance_of_F-105G,_3_September_1981.pdf

It is more a reflection of the wide variability among descriptions of combat radius and range (because of the myriad factors that impact it) than the accuracy of the CaS (or any other source) annexes.

 

About the F-84F number of underwing pylons, I think they must be some zero-lenght rocket-launchers, I will look for some photos.

It was the SAC sourced examples that said gun ammo AND bombs AND rockets AND fuel tanks that were causing me concern. Those still don't seem right.

 

Also here mention of

a typical load being two 2000-lb. bombs and eight 5-inch HVARs or four 1000-pound bombs and 24 3-inch rockets.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p84_10.html

 

Joe Baugher is a source I will often turn to when H4 info is lacking. So, without other suggestions, I will probably use what Joe offers.

Thanks by the new update.

Just received "Wings over Suez", but mínimum mention to the Lod-based F-84F attack to Luxor, but the Akrotiri-based F-84F do attacks only with rockets and MGs, probably the same in the launched from Israel (perhaps only 4x5" rockets, but it's a informed guess based in the rare and few photos in the book of French F-84F).

http://www.naval-military-press.com/wings-over-suez.html