Warmaker Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 It's like my friend asked why the US Navy wouldn't simply have "navalized" F-16's, F-15's, or the new F-22. Those jets would break like flimsy twigs on their first launch and recovery Those airframes, especially towards the landing gear, have to built tough for the rigors of carrier ops. You take a look at the landing gear of an F-15, F-16 and compare them to an F-14, F/A-18, there's a huge difference in sturdiness. The pure land based ones of the -15 and -16 have pencil thin landing gear. Simply throwing stronger gear wouldn't do it.
Awacs Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 The Lightning/Spitfire dogfight was because the RAF was about to potentially get involved in an overseas operation where the opposition might be using P-51s, so they wanted to see if such dissimilar combat would cause problems. Didn't know about that. Interesting. There was a study looking into navalising the Typhoon, but I don't know how comprehensive it was. Going by how often its suggested as an alternative to JSF, I'm guessing it decided that it was feasible. I'm not sure how seriously they looked at it though. Until recently there has been - in public at least - a sense that we were committed to the JCA as the only "game in town". So I do wonder if it was anything other than a "tick the box" exercise. The Harrier did have the advantage of generally eliminating the main reason why naval aircraft have to be built like bricks... True, I guess. But you find these things often carry their own cost - in this case it was combat radius and bring-back weight (the latter being one of the issues that led to the Sea Harrier's retirement or so I had read.). Karl
F-ZeroOne Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 It's like my friend asked why the US Navy wouldn't simply have "navalized" F-16's, F-15's, or the new F-22. Those jets would break like flimsy twigs on their first launch and recovery Those airframes, especially towards the landing gear, have to built tough for the rigors of carrier ops. You take a look at the landing gear of an F-15, F-16 and compare them to an F-14, F/A-18, there's a huge difference in sturdiness. The pure land based ones of the -15 and -16 have pencil thin landing gear. Simply throwing stronger gear wouldn't do it. Well, the strange thing is that Northrop did propose a land-based Hornet with lighter landing gear etc. Only got as far as a mock-up, one sometimes displayed with Sparrows - yes, Sparrows! - on the wingtips. F/A-18L... And the F-16 was expected, having been chosen for the USAF, to be chosen by the Navy (which decided the F-18 was more suitable for naval development). So there could have been a naval F-16, but it would probably have been a very different animal to the YF-16 (just as the F-18 is a very different beast to the original YF-17). Wasn't a naval F-15 proposed once, too?
F-ZeroOne Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) Didn't know about that. Interesting. I can't remember the country involved, sorry. Other interesting facts are that the Spitfire still holds the record for highest Mach number achieved in a dive for a propeller aircraft, even if not intended (0.92 and nearly broke the aeroplane; later raised to 0.96 but unable to verify due to the fact it might have been an instrument fault). I'm not sure how seriously they looked at it though. Until recently there has been - in public at least - a sense that we were committed to the JCA as the only "game in town". So I do wonder if it was anything other than a "tick the box" exercise. Would be interesting to know for certain. Presumably potential customers do ask questions slightly harder than "Does it come in black?". True, I guess. But you find these things often carry their own cost - in this case it was combat radius and bring-back weight (the latter being one of the issues that led to the Sea Harrier's retirement or so I had read.). Karl Not insurmountable I guess. The Harrier has always been a touch short legged, but the Spanish and USMC still seem to like 'em (different models, though). BAe have also displayed a mock-up of an "advanced Harrier" once... Edited October 2, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
David Hingtgen Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 There's been a carrier version of EVERYTHING proposed. Including the DC-9 and 727... FYI, the Naval F-16 carried Sparrows on the main gear doors.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) There's been a carrier version of EVERYTHING proposed. Including the DC-9 and 727... FYI, the Naval F-16 carried Sparrows on the main gear doors. That... er... raises... questions? "Fox Two, Fox Tw - did I get him?!" "Er, negative Ghost Rider, but chalk up another set of main gear." Edited October 2, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
VF-19 Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 Well, the strange thing is that Northrop did propose a land-based Hornet with lighter landing gear etc. Only got as far as a mock-up, one sometimes displayed with Sparrows - yes, Sparrows! - on the wingtips. F/A-18L... And the F-16 was expected, having been chosen for the USAF, to be chosen by the Navy (which decided the F-18 was more suitable for naval development). So there could have been a naval F-16, but it would probably have been a very different animal to the YF-16 (just as the F-18 is a very different beast to the original YF-17). Wasn't a naval F-15 proposed once, too? I know the F-14 was preposed to the airforce. It got as far as a mockup painted up in airforce livery. All I have is one tiny picture in one of my books.
Awacs Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 There's been a carrier version of EVERYTHING proposed. Including the DC-9 and 727... The idea of the latter is a little bit of a mind-bender I have to say. I'd never like to write anything off as flatly impossible, but that feels at first glance somewhat improbable at the least. FYI, the Naval F-16 carried Sparrows on the main gear doors. well, that's.... different. Karl
Vifam7 Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 FYI, the Naval F-16 carried Sparrows on the main gear doors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- well, that's.... different. Karl But not as weird as those Brits who put Sidewinder missiles (Jaguar) or fuel tanks (Lightning) on top of the wings.
Awacs Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 But not as weird as those Brits who put Sidewinder missiles (Jaguar) or fuel tanks (Lightning) on top of the wings. What can I say, we were running out of space under the wings - and Heath Robinson is still a part of the national psyche in some quarters..... :-) Karl
Graham Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 Would love to see a navalised Typhoon in RN service, rather than the chubby (jack of all trades, master of none) JSF. I'm in love with the Typhoon. Sexiest aircraft ever IMO. Graham
F-ZeroOne Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) Hey, the French did overwing AAMs too - and look where you guys stuck 'winders on the F-8...! Edited October 3, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 Forgot where I saw it, bu the USAF is grounding A-10's due to reports of stress fractures on the wings.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Thats sort of funny in an odd way - you can't shoot the thing down a naval cannon, but the wings start making creaking noises and suddenly you can start massing tanks on the border again...
myk Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Forgot where I saw it, bu the USAF is grounding A-10's due to reports of stress fractures on the wings. That's too bad. Also, didn't they have a similar problem with F-15's a few months ago? On another note, the gf and I were sitting on a dock with our feet in the water, watching some ducks, when the oddest trio of planes I've ever seen flew over us: an F-16, P-51 and F-22, flying so close together, tip to tip it was like a dream; I didn't even know the '22 was in active service yet. Since the Miramar air show is on this weekend we saw a bunch of other planes fly over us as we sunbathed at Miramar Lake. After babbling about how great flying must be and how awesome those planes were I took this opportunity to re-create the scene in 'Plus where Isamu runs up and down the dock, makes a plane with his hand and lands it on Lucy; let me tell you guys, alot of times life sucks but yesterday it was absolutely PERFECT...
Vifam7 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Forgot where I saw it, bu the USAF is grounding A-10's due to reports of stress fractures on the wings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's too bad. Also, didn't they have a similar problem with F-15's a few months ago? The entire air force is getting old fast due to high usage. Earlier this year, there was a news report about how the USAF is now a "geriatric air force".
the white drew carey Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 The entire air force is getting old fast due to high usage. Earlier this year, there was a news report about how the USAF is now a "geriatric air force". Heh... USGAF.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...-x-contest.html Intriguing idea: If Japan can't get F-22s, might opt for F-35, delays affect F-35, Japan buys Typhoons as interim measure, both UK and Japan operate JSF [1]and Typhoon. Would make for some interesting joint exercises, what? "I say, old chap, this green stuff is a touch warm, wouldn't you say?" <as flames burst from RAF exchange pilots ears>. "Wasabi, Flight Lieutenant Ginger-san. Now, please, explain laws of this game you call... cric-ket?" [1] In the RAFs case, all one of them, shared between the carriers on alternate Thursdays. Rest of the week spent trying to find a Tescos garage that does jet fuel. Edited October 7, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 [1] In the RAFs case, all one of them, shared between the carriers on alternate Thursdays. Rest of the week spent trying to find a Tescos garage that does jet fuel. But they wouldn't have money for the airspace congestion charge after that, especially since they are in Band ZZZ of the CO emission range.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 (edited) How much CO2 do you think an exploding Storm Shadow would generate in the congestion charge office? Edited October 8, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
Awacs Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 How much CO2 do you think an exploding Storm Shadow would generate in the congestion charge office? Steady on. That's the sort of thing that can see you slapped with an Anti-social Behaviour Order there, old chap. Karl
F-ZeroOne Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Ah, that just wouldn't be cricket now would it, old boy? Given the way the economy is going, I imagine its going to be interesting times for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales...
CoryHolmes Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Okay, stupid question from the overly-ignorant grounder here, but what's the difference between the single seat and dual-seat Hornet/Super Hornet? Other than having a second chair and person sitting in it, that is!
the white drew carey Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Okay, stupid question from the overly-ignorant grounder here, but what's the difference between the single seat and dual-seat Hornet/Super Hornet? Other than having a second chair and person sitting in it, that is! The cockpit is bigger.
Knight26 Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 The short answer, different electronics suites and the ability to carry different weapons/stores depending on mission type
the white drew carey Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) OK- I know this is NEVER the best source for info, but I do believe that Wikipedia CAN be a good starting point for further info. Here's what it says: A/B The F/A-18A is the single-seat variant and the F/A-18B is the two seat variant. The space for the two seat cockpit is provided by a relocation of avionic equipment and a 6% reduction in internal fuel; two-seat Hornets are otherwise fully combat-capable. The B model is used primarily for training. In 1992, the original Hughes AN/APG-65 radar was replaced with the Hughes (now Raytheon) AN/APG-73, a faster and more capable radar. A model Hornets that have been upgraded to the AN/APG-73 are designated F/A-18A+. C/D The F/A-18C is the single-seat variant and the F/A-18D is the two seat variant. The D model can be configured for training or as an all-weather strike craft. The "missionized" D's rear seat is configured for a Weapons and Sensors Officer to assist in operating the weapons systems. The D model is primarily operated by the U.S. Marine Corps in the night attack and FAC(A) (Forward Air Controller (Airborne)) roles.[29][30] The F/A-18C and D models are the result of a block upgrade in 1987[10] incorporating upgraded radar, avionics, and the capacity to carry new missiles such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile and AGM-65 Maverick[1] and AGM-84 Harpoon air-to-surface missiles. Other upgrades include the Martin-Baker NACES (Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seat), and a self-protection jammer. A synthetic aperture ground mapping radar enables the pilot to locate targets in poor visibility conditions. C and D models delivered since 1989 also include an improved night attack capability, consisting of the Hughes AN/AAR-50 thermal navigation pod, the Loral AN/AAS-38 NITE Hawk FLIR (forward looking infrared array) targeting pod, night vision goggles, and two full-color (previously monochrome) MFDs and a color moving map.[1] In addition, 60 D model Hornets are configured as the night attack F/A-18D (RC) with ability for reconnaissance.[29] These could be outfitted with the ATARS electro-optical sensor package that includes a sensor pod and equipment mounted in the place of the M61 cannon.[31] Beginning in 1992, the F404-GE-402 enhanced performance engine, providing approximately 10% more maximum static thrust became the standard Hornet engine.[32] Since 1993, the AAS-38A NITE Hawk added a designator/ranger laser, allowing it to self-mark targets. The later AAS-38B added the ability to strike targets designated by lasers from other aircraft.[33] Production of the F/A-18C ended in 1999. In 2000, the last F/A-18D was delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps.[10] E/F Super Hornet The single seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets carry over the name and design concept of the original F/A-18, but have been extensively redesigned. The Super Hornet has a new, 25% larger airframe, larger rectangular air intakes, more powerful GE F414 engines based on F/A-18's F404, and upgraded avionics suite. The aircraft is currently in production and will eventually equip 22 squadrons. The EA-18G Growler is an electronic warfare version of the two-seat F/A-18F, which entered production in 2007. The Growler will replace the Navy's EA-6B Prowler. Edited October 9, 2008 by the white drew carey
Coota0 Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Heard on the news this morning that the Blue Angels will be finishing the season a pilot short.... Story on CNN
kalvasflam Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Interesting: Red Flag exercise: -15 vs Flanker and Rafale http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...rty-tricks.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIr2ak2IM0 There is a second part on the video too.
Warmaker Posted November 9, 2008 Posted November 9, 2008 Interesting: Red Flag exercise: -15 vs Flanker and Rafale http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...rty-tricks.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIr2ak2IM0 There is a second part on the video too. Nice little read. Too bad the video's gone. As great as the -15 is, it of course was only a matter of time.
Knight26 Posted November 9, 2008 Posted November 9, 2008 He he He he, you guys would probably have given your left sack to go where I got to go on friday and manhandle what I got to manhandle. Let's just say that a certain facility in east palmdale had a fair number of folks from my squadron get a tour, and well some very pretty very high tech, very expensive toys got a lot of attention and petting.
Nied Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Any Bay area MWers have any idea why an F/A-18 would have been buzzing around over Alcatraz last Thursday?
Akilae Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 Any Bay area MWers have any idea why an F/A-18 would have been buzzing around over Alcatraz last Thursday? A group of ex-Marines have taken over the island and the gov't has sent a chemist and a geriatric to save the day. The F/A-18s are there just in case they screw up!
Nied Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 A group of ex-Marines have taken over the island and the gov't has sent a chemist and a geriatric to save the day. The F/A-18s are there just in case they screw up! I really should have known I'd get that answer...
Noyhauser Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 A group of ex-Marines have taken over the island and the gov't has sent a chemist and a geriatric to save the day. The F/A-18s are there just in case they screw up! HA!
Recommended Posts