Twenty Four Hour Spad Missions

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Just curious.

In 1958 a friend of mine in Airgroup Nineteen said that some of his VA-195
AD squadron mates had SIOP missions as long as twenty four hours during our
WestPac deployment. He claimed to have flown a fifteen hour SIOP training
mission. He also said they carried four different types of pills to keep
them awake and alert, especially during carrier landing on return.

Fortunately I was in VA-192 flying the FJ-4B which had SIOP missions of
three hours max.

Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?


Bill Allen


end

[José Herculano]

> Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?

Hope I don't put my foot in my mouth, but IIRC Spad's could be up 6-7 hours
max conserve. Remeber that they did not have air-refuel capability (well,
not exactly, they gave using D-704s, but couldn't get), and more than that
they used so much engine oil that I believe the engine would seize before
they pushed 10!
_____________
José Herculano

[Bob]

I know of 12 hour flights but 24 seems a stretch. In order to stay
airborne that long your gas load would just about take up any chance of
carrying a weapon heavier than a hand gernade. I'd mostly worry about
oil in a hop that long. As I recall we had no oil quantity gauge and
when the pressure started to drop you had to be pretty close to a
suitable landing spot. Only heard of one "stay awake" pill, think it
was a bennie. Handy for liberty but really whacked you out after. Got
to wonder about the 3 hour FJ-4B hops. Must have been refueled?
FJ-4Bs I saw all leaked so much fluid just sitting on the line, I'd
think it'd be out of everything by 3 hours. My F-8 might make a 3.0
hop but I guarantee it'd end with an flame out approach. Happiness was
1.5 hour cycles. I had a 1.501 hour ass.

[C.D.Damron]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
> > Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?
>
> Hope I don't put my foot in my mouth, but IIRC Spad's could be up 6-7
hours
> max conserve.

I recall my father talking about 8-10 hour flights in which go-pills were
mandatory, at least for the pilot and lead nav.

My father related a training video of a Spad driver coming back after a long
mission without his go-pills and the approach to the boat was not pretty,
although the pilot was thought it was a nice approach in an interview after
the flight. In his squadron, there was a theat of discipline if you didn't
take your pills.

[[email protected]]

This was a pretty typical SIOP mission:
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/reid.htm

I'll bet some folks would like to see this kind of endurance on today's
flight deck...


Bob wrote:
> I know of 12 hour flights but 24 seems a stretch. In order to stay
> airborne that long your gas load would just about take up any chance
of
> carrying a weapon heavier than a hand gernade. I'd mostly worry
about
> oil in a hop that long. As I recall we had no oil quantity gauge and
> when the pressure started to drop you had to be pretty close to a
> suitable landing spot. Only heard of one "stay awake" pill, think it
> was a bennie. Handy for liberty but really whacked you out after.
Got
> to wonder about the 3 hour FJ-4B hops. Must have been refueled?
> FJ-4Bs I saw all leaked so much fluid just sitting on the line, I'd
> think it'd be out of everything by 3 hours. My F-8 might make a 3.0
> hop but I guarantee it'd end with an flame out approach. Happiness
was
> 1.5 hour cycles. I had a 1.501 hour ass.

[Charlie Wolf]

On 1 Feb 2005 05:45:27 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>This was a pretty typical SIOP mission:
>http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/reid.htm
>
>I'll bet some folks would like to see this kind of endurance on today's
>flight deck...
Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs...

With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That might be to
low fuel warning lights though....

BTW, That's without re-fueling. The S-3 that brought the terrorist
back form the east Med in the 80's flew over 11.0, I think.

Regards,

>
>
>Bob wrote:
>> I know of 12 hour flights but 24 seems a stretch. In order to stay
>> airborne that long your gas load would just about take up any chance
>of
>> carrying a weapon heavier than a hand gernade. I'd mostly worry
>about
>> oil in a hop that long. As I recall we had no oil quantity gauge and
>> when the pressure started to drop you had to be pretty close to a
>> suitable landing spot. Only heard of one "stay awake" pill, think it
>> was a bennie. Handy for liberty but really whacked you out after.
>Got
>> to wonder about the 3 hour FJ-4B hops. Must have been refueled?
>> FJ-4Bs I saw all leaked so much fluid just sitting on the line, I'd
>> think it'd be out of everything by 3 hours. My F-8 might make a 3.0
>> hop but I guarantee it'd end with an flame out approach. Happiness
>was
>> 1.5 hour cycles. I had a 1.501 hour ass.

[Jim Carriere]

Charlie Wolf wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2005 05:45:27 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>This was a pretty typical SIOP mission:
>>http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/reid.htm
>>
>>I'll bet some folks would like to see this kind of endurance on today's
>>flight deck...
>
> Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs...
>
> With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That might be to
> low fuel warning lights though....
>
> BTW, That's without re-fueling. The S-3 that brought the terrorist
> back form the east Med in the 80's flew over 11.0, I think.

I've got one hop over 10 hours in the H-60. That includes three or
four hot fuel stops (which is far more than necessary- between 3 and
3.5 hour flight is normal, I even got a 4.3 out of one tank in that
particular aircraft a week prior to the long flight- but it's better
to have too much than too little fuel) and admittedly one getting out
for a pitstop (no relief tubes in the model I flew). Actual strapped
in the seat time was over 12 hours, luckily no dry suit. Having a
flight crew for conversation helps make the time go by too.

Why such a long flight? My ship was on a hot range most of the
day... nothing special, no war or anything like that going on. Oh,
and to be clear, it was an experience I never care to repeat :)

[[email protected]]

>Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs..
True, but they are all on the their way to some quiet retirement spots
in the desert.

>With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That m=ADight be
to
>low fuel warning lights though....

Its arguable that an aircraft in the vein of a Spad would have been a
much more suitable platform to have orbiting over Fallujah than what is
now available. While youir point about the Hoovers' long legs is a good
one, how many War Hoovers were waiting overhead to drop when the
Marines called? How dependent is carrier air on land based assets such
as tanker and ELINT today? Answer is: pretty much completely.
That's a particularly awkward issue in these tight budget times
considering that the traditional big selling point of carriers has
always been their ability to function *without* (the now absolutely
essential) land based support.
In 1961 the typical airgroup could boast an effective *unrefueled*
radius of 2000nm carrying a 12000 lb weapon(and that internally to
boot). Can a 2005 vintage CVG even match half of that 1961 era
unrefueled combat radius and deliver ordinace the size of a ~5000 lb.
GBU-37?

[Charlie Wolf]

On 2 Feb 2005 14:20:26 -0800, wrote:

>>Well - an S-3 has pretty good legs..
>True, but they are all on the their way to some quiet retirement spots
>in the desert.
>
>>With 2 drops they can fly about 7.5 on max conserve. That m*ight be
>to
>>low fuel warning lights though....
>
>Its arguable that an aircraft in the vein of a Spad would have been a
>much more suitable platform to have orbiting over Fallujah than what is
>now available. While youir point about the Hoovers' long legs is a good
>one, how many War Hoovers were waiting overhead to drop when the
>Marines called?
Point conceded. I was only commenting on the original point
regarding ability to stay aloft - not necessarily on the ability to
drop bombs --- which, BTW, the S-3 is capable of doing, but I don't
believe anyone in their right mind would task them to do so....
Regards,



>How dependent is carrier air on land based assets such
>as tanker and ELINT today? Answer is: pretty much completely.
>That's a particularly awkward issue in these tight budget times
>considering that the traditional big selling point of carriers has
>always been their ability to function *without* (the now absolutely
>essential) land based support.
>In 1961 the typical airgroup could boast an effective *unrefueled*
>radius of 2000nm carrying a 12000 lb weapon(and that internally to
>boot). Can a 2005 vintage CVG even match half of that 1961 era
>unrefueled combat radius and deliver ordinace the size of a ~5000 lb.
>GBU-37?

[Bob]

Very interesting post, sidis, think we must first decide on just what
the primary mission of our CVG's is or are. The 1961 whale could
indeed go out 2000 miles, drop an internally carried payload of 12000
lbs and have enough fuel to return. This hop would have to be
unescorted by fighters or ECM birds. Maybe an okay mission for SIOP
but not so good for over the beach stuff like, Vietnam, or IRAQ. I
think the major change is that our CVG isn't tasked to seek out and
destroy the Soviet fleet. Now the most likely scenarios include
missions over land defended by AAA and SAMs. Whales would not survive
there just as the Spads couldn't survive the North Vietnam defenses. I
think we have a brand new ball game to equip for. It wouldn't bother
me a bit to tank from a land based asset since we can get these tankers
to wherever. The CVG still needs an integral tanking capability and I
believe it has one, not like the old days but adequate to cover night
OPs, etc. If I need ECM jammers, I don't care where they come from,
overhead assets, EA-6's, or the girl scouts as long as they get it done
when I need it.

I completely agree that Marines could use some Spads overhead for some
realistic CAS but as long as we have a ROE which prohibits airplanes
from descending below 20 grand, well the Spad will have to remain a
relic of older days. I also agree we probably would be hard pressed to
make a 1000 mile, unrefueled strike with anything we have today. I'm
just not sure we need to anymore.

[[email protected]]

Interesting article in this month's Proceedings has this to say:
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/articles05/Pro02Stone-2.htm
The Navy's senior leaders proudly assert that "naval aviation allows us
to take credible combat power across the globe without a permission
slip."23 This may once have been true, but the all-Hornet air wing is
sorely taxed to take its combat power further than 150 miles from the
nearest blue water. Except for small strikes, this capability, once
available to a carrier air wing with organic, dedicated tankers, now
exists only when the Navy has Air Force tanker support, which requires
permission from a host country.

[Bob]

I don't understand what you mean by " but the all-Hornet air wing is
sorely taxed to take its combat power further than 150 miles from the
nearest blue water.". Do you mean 150 miles from an overland target
area? I'm no fan of the short legged Hornet but I think it could make
a 500, maybe 600 mile strike and return? USAF and NATO tanker support
can be based a long ways from the target area, how far I don't know.
Probably far enough not to need a permission slip from any non-friendly
country. I would love to see an F-14/A-6 CVG but the chance of this is
about like getting Spad CAS for the Marines.

[Nice Guy]

How could an AD fly a 24 hr mission?

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> Just curious.
>
> In 1958 a friend of mine in Airgroup Nineteen said that some of his VA-195
> AD squadron mates had SIOP missions as long as twenty four hours during
> our WestPac deployment. He claimed to have flown a fifteen hour SIOP
> training mission. He also said they carried four different types of pills
> to keep them awake and alert, especially during carrier landing on return.
>
> Fortunately I was in VA-192 flying the FJ-4B which had SIOP missions of
> three hours max.
>
> Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?
>
>
> Bill Allen
>
>
> end
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

That's a quote from the Proceeding article written by Lt Stone an
F/A-18 driver. I see you have to register to read it...USNI
registration is free so log on and check out the whole article.
He also notes:

-Even a 2,000-pound bomb (the largest available to carrier-based
aircraft) can cause only limited damage. The idea of destroying a large
building or hardened bunker with one conventional bomb and 100%
reliability in wartime is laughable. Even in benign environments,
strike planners expect only 70% effectiveness. In Afghanistan, where
93% of the ordnance employed was precision-guided, only 84% of all
sorties (and fewer bombs) hit their targets.13 If the enemy had the
ability to jam GPS signals, the weapons' reliability would be reduced
significantly.

-The Hornet's ability to carry four 2,000-pound bombs is dependent on a
short-range strike that does not require external fuel tanks to be
carried on wing pylons. Virtually all current areas of concern require
long-range drop tanks, however, and the Hornet's maximum bomb load is
reduced accordingly. The two extra wing pylons on the Super Hornet,
widely touted as improvements over the "baby" Hornet, will be occupied
by fuel tanks to support other aircraft on all but the shortest
strikes.

-During any major operation, the ability to sustain a high combat tempo
is directly related to the ability of an air wing to keep jets
airborne. Reducing complements by 16% may not appreciably affect the
ability to conduct occasional low-intensity strikes, but it severely
diminishes the number of sorties sustainable in wartime.

[Elmshoot]

>but the all-Hornet air wing is
>sorely taxed to take its combat power further than 150 miles from the
>nearest blue water.". Do you mean 150 miles from an overland target
>area? I'm no fan of the short legged Hornet but I think it could make
>a 500, maybe 600 mile strike and return?

I have seen the Hornets in action as a A-6 Driver. The 150 mile range is
realistic, any more range would require non indiginious tanking. In the late
80's we practiced long range strikes of over 1000 miles from the carrier
(Enterprise) with our own tanking. It was a pretty wild scenario but suffice it
to say it would have been a strike against terrorist and terrorism before those
*******s did their deed on Sep11.
In the early 90's when the sun was setting on the last of the long range
carrier strike aircraft the Navy came up with a new warfare slogan called "From
the Sea" this was litorial warfare policy designed to match the carriers
reduced capibility to that of the Aircraft on board. An interesting 180 degree
change of thinking from what the carrier was designed to do.
Given the scenario that we have faced for the last 12 years its no wonder that
Rumsfeld wanted to know were the A-6's were when he became SecDef. The A-6
would have been the perfect delivery platform for the Iraq ops. 20-28 MK-82 GPS
bombs overhead at 25K for 3-4 hours.
Rant Over.
Sparky

[[email protected]]

I can't think of a more perfect example of a "Stretch-To-Fit"
operational doctrine than "From The Sea" Elm.
Here is the specious argument:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0193watch_print.html

At a recent session with defense reporters, Secretary of the Navy Sean
O'Keefe claimed that the Navy does not require the A/F-X to be "a
long-range interdiction aircraft" because deep interdiction missions
"are not the highest probability [for the service] in the years ahead."
Thus, he said, it makes sense that the A/F-X "evolved" from its A-X
beginnings as a straightforward replacement for the A-6E bomber to
become "an attack fighter aircraft, with primary focus on attack."
"We just don't need . . . this extraordinary 750-mile range" once
earmarked for the A-X, said Secretary O'Keefe, "because nobody's going
to be out there" for the plane to attack.

Subsequent events have proven the Honorable Mr. O'Keefe Absolutely
Wrong...

And as a postscript...ain't it interesting that it's an Air Force
publication that saw fit to preserve this...

[[email protected]]

>The 1961 whale could indeed go out 2000 miles, drop an internally
carried payload of 12000 lbs and have enough fuel to return. This hop
would >have to be unescorted by fighters or ECM birds.

This is a mission the navy gave up when they didn't continue
"first-day-of-war" stealth after the demise of the A-12. This kind of
mission now belongs soley to the Air Force.

>I think the major change is that our CVG isn't tasked to seek out and
destroy the Soviet fleet.

Actually, Heavy Attack died with the end of the carriers' primary SIOP
mission in the '60s and the retirement of the A-3s. Although the
ostensibly heavy RA-5's retained the capability to drop nukes, the
problems with the linear bomb bay meant that they could only carry much
smaller weapons underwing.
And it was the shift of the carriers' mission from Power Of Projection
Ashore to Sea Control (to use the parlance of the day) in 1971 and CVAs
became CVs that started the gradual deemphasis on range. The 80's saw
the rise of the Hornet and by the early '90s the From The Sea doctrine
was written for it's short legs. Whats ironic is that the carriers have
only Power Of Projection Ashore missions in anger since WWII.

>It wouldn't bother me a bit to tank from a land based asset since we
can get these tankers to wherever.

We've been able to-so far. Can we continue to count on that ability? As
the Lieutenant said, carrier has always been touted for its ability to
operate *without* a permission slip, but that simply no longer true.
Also the Air Force can make the credible argument that their TACAIR
could be supported by those same tankers (and other vital support such
as ELINT)from bases that they will need regardless, carry something
bigger than a 2000 lb bomb with first day of war stealth, and perhaps
most importantly, with carriers now obligated to fight from the very
dangerous littorals that force protection no longer favors the navy.

[[email protected]]

>That's not really the case - the A-5's internal bay could handle a
>single Mk 27, B28, or B43 bomb, with all manner of problems that
>go along with blowing off a piece of your airplane and blsating part
>of its fuel system out of the back.
This is true, but after the straight A-5 was gone nobody really
considered it a viable way to deliver a weapon (at least that was true
by 1969)....And more than once an Vigi puked out those tanks on a cat
shot. Talk about some excitement for all involved!

>By the mid '60s, though, the Powers That Be had realized that the RA-5

>wa much more useful as a sensor platform. It could go places nobody
>else could, and get data that nobody else could dig up.
True again, but it did retain a secondary nuke delivery role into the
'70s. Its capabilities were sorely missed in Lebanon just a couple of
years after its retirement.

[Peter Stickney]

In article om>,
writes:
>>The 1961 whale could indeed go out 2000 miles, drop an internally
> carried payload of 12000 lbs and have enough fuel to return. This hop
> would >have to be unescorted by fighters or ECM birds.
>
> This is a mission the navy gave up when they didn't continue
> "first-day-of-war" stealth after the demise of the A-12. This kind of
> mission now belongs soley to the Air Force.
>
>>I think the major change is that our CVG isn't tasked to seek out and
> destroy the Soviet fleet.
>
> Actually, Heavy Attack died with the end of the carriers' primary SIOP
> mission in the '60s and the retirement of the A-3s. Although the
> ostensibly heavy RA-5's retained the capability to drop nukes, the
> problems with the linear bomb bay meant that they could only carry much
> smaller weapons underwing.

That's not really the case - the A-5's internal bay could handle a
single Mk 27, B28, or B43 bomb, with all manner of problems that
go along with blowing off a piece of your airplane and blsating part
of its fuel system out of the back. (The bombs were part of a
bomb/tank "train". Firing the train out of the back required severing
fuel, pressure, and instrumentation lines, as well as the usual stuff
to get the bomb aremd and ready to go.
The pylons could handle B28, B43, or B57 bombs, with much better
release behavior. And you could carry 2 of them.
The RA-5 may well have been the only nuclear bomber to have had its
ability to deliver weapons improved by the elimination of the internal
bay. (Well, the F-105, maybe, as well)

By the mid '60s, though, the Powers That Be had realized that the RA-5
wa much more useful as a sensor platform. It could go places nobody
else could, and get data that nobody else could dig up.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

[jim morris]

I don't know how long they could stay up but I thank God they dropped napalm
on former POW camps.

--
Jim Morris
"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> Just curious.
>
> In 1958 a friend of mine in Airgroup Nineteen said that some of his VA-195
> AD squadron mates had SIOP missions as long as twenty four hours during
> our WestPac deployment. He claimed to have flown a fifteen hour SIOP
> training mission. He also said they carried four different types of pills
> to keep them awake and alert, especially during carrier landing on return.
>
> Fortunately I was in VA-192 flying the FJ-4B which had SIOP missions of
> three hours max.
>
> Can anyone verify Spad SIOP missions of 24 hours?
>
>
> Bill Allen
>
>
> end
>
>
>
>
>