F-111 bombers flying from carriers ? [Archive]

Mike

July 26th 03, 08:42 PM

Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?

I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.

So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
it.

Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?

Remember the 1986 raid on Libya ? Our F-111 bombers had to fly about
4,000 miles from their bases in Great Britain.

Or would the F-111 have been too big ? I'm not talking about storing
the planes below the carrier deck, or about having them return to the
carrier and land on it.

But would it have been possible to have a special mission and have
F-111's take off from a carrier ?

Keith Willshaw

July 26th 03, 08:58 PM

John A. Weeks III

July 26th 03, 09:09 PM

In article >, Mike
> wrote:

> Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?

....the "30 seconds over Tokyo" raid.

> I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.
>
> So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> it.
>
> Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?

Why bother when the F-111 could be ariel refueled?

> Remember the 1986 raid on Libya ? Our F-111 bombers had to fly about
> 4,000 miles from their bases in Great Britain.

Thanks to French faggots that wouldn't give us permission to
overfly their precious country. Next time, we should just bomb Paris
and get it over with. Perhaps they would have been more cooprative
if we would have let the Nazis stay there for a few more years.

> Or would the F-111 have been too big ? I'm not talking about storing
> the planes below the carrier deck, or about having them return to the
> carrier and land on it.

The F-111 was supposed to have a Navy version that was carrier ready,
but it never got off the drawing board. It was just too heavy to be
workable. The F-14 ended up doing the job.

The F-111 and C-130 are different kinds of planes. The C-130 is
a prop plane, and it has enough horsepower to do a short field
take-off. It can even be fitted with RATO bottles to help decrease
the take-off distance. The F-111, however, needs to get up to speed
in order to take off, and it takes great deal longer amount of
runway to do so as compared with the C-130. A carrier just wouldn't
be long enough.

> But would it have been possible to have a special mission and have
> F-111's take off from a carrier ?

Again, it just wouldn't be worth the effort. The only scheme that
I can see is that you would modify a number of F-111's with a beefed
up nose gear, and cat launch it with a near zero fuel load. That
might be light enough to get off of the deck. Once you get airborne,
then you would have to hit a tanker right away. But if you have to
tank anyway, why bother with the carrier?

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

Steven P. McNicoll

July 26th 03, 10:24 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?
>

They were B-25s.

>
> I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.
>
> So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> it.
>
> Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?
>
> Remember the 1986 raid on Libya ? Our F-111 bombers had to fly about
> 4,000 miles from their bases in Great Britain.
>
> Or would the F-111 have been too big ? I'm not talking about storing
> the planes below the carrier deck, or about having them return to the
> carrier and land on it.
>
> But would it have been possible to have a special mission and have
> F-111's take off from a carrier ?
>

Possible? Sure. The F-111B was intended for the Navy from the start, seven
were finished and it did make a few carrier landings and takeoffs, although
after the Navy had withdrawn from the program. But there's no advantage in
putting a high speed, long-range, air-refuelable strike aircraft on a slow
speed mobile airbase. Just fly 'em there.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 26th 03, 10:26 PM

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The F-111 was supposed to have a Navy version that was carrier ready,
> but it never got off the drawing board. It was just too heavy to be
> workable. The F-14 ended up doing the job.
>

It got a bit further than the drawing boaed. Seven F-111Bs were completed
and one did make a few carrier landings and takeoffs.

William Hughes

July 27th 03, 01:38 AM

On 26 Jul 2003 12:42:09 -0700, in rec.aviation.military
(Mike) wrote:

> Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?

B-25 Mitchells, actually. The B-24 Liberator was just a bit too large for
carrier operations.

> I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.

A Marine KC-130 aboard FORRESTAL (CV-59).

> So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> it.
>
> Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?
>
> Remember the 1986 raid on Libya ? Our F-111 bombers had to fly about
> 4,000 miles from their bases in Great Britain.
>
> Or would the F-111 have been too big ? I'm not talking about storing
> the planes below the carrier deck, or about having them return to the
> carrier and land on it.
>
> But would it have been possible to have a special mission and have
> F-111's take off from a carrier ?

Highly unlikely. The F-111 was much too heavy for the carrier catapult gear, and
could not attain flight speed on a runout.

Thomas Schoene

July 27th 03, 04:36 AM

"IBM" > wrote in message

> William Hughes > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > Highly unlikely. The F-111 was much too heavy for the carrier
> > catapult
> > gear, and could not attain flight speed on a runout.
>
> Didn't the original F-111 concept include a naval version?

It did. The F-111B had some significant differences from the Air Force
version, though, including the landing gear and associated structural
bulkheads. Attempting to cat-shoot an Air Force F-111 without the naval
version's landing gear (but assuming the minimum mods to fit a hold-back
linkage to hook it up to the catapult at all) would probably have
unfortunate effects.

The F-111B also had extended wings and tail. These may have reduced the
required catapult end-speed, though I suspect they were mainly needed to
reduce landing speed. In any case, it's another potential problem for
launching the regular F-111 off a carrier.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

The Raven

July 27th 03, 04:44 AM

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?
>
> I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.
>
> So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> it.
>
> Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?

Presumably so as the F-111 was going to be used as a carrier aircraft. Note
that F-111's have tail hooks. Australian air aircraft still have them
although the pilots aren't trained for it.

To quote an un-named F-111 expert "Yes, you could land an (Australian) F-111
on a carrier *ONCE* as the stresses would probably ground the aircraft
forever more". Of course, until it is done we'd never know..........

> Remember the 1986 raid on Libya ? Our F-111 bombers had to fly about
> 4,000 miles from their bases in Great Britain.

Could simply do air-to-air refueling.

> Or would the F-111 have been too big ? I'm not talking about storing
> the planes below the carrier deck, or about having them return to the
> carrier and land on it.

The idea was to use them as carrier aircraft...

> But would it have been possible to have a special mission and have
> F-111's take off from a carrier ?

Probably in a "Doolittle" situation. I'm sure you could fit some JATO/RATO
equivalents if need be, remember the Doolittle raid was essentially a one
way trip.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 27th 03, 05:01 AM

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
> Presumably so as the F-111 was going to be used as a carrier aircraft.
Note
> that F-111's have tail hooks. Australian air aircraft still have them
> although the pilots aren't trained for it.
>

I'm sure Australian F-111 pilots are trained to use the tailhook, just as
their USAF counterparts were. USAF tactical aircraft have been equipped
with tailhooks for quite some time. I imagine the F-111B tailhook was a bit
more substantial than that on the F-111A/D/E/F/G though.

>
> To quote an un-named F-111 expert "Yes, you could land an (Australian)
F-111
> on a carrier *ONCE* as the stresses would probably ground the aircraft
> forever more". Of course, until it is done we'd never know..........
>

The scenario presented here doesn't include landing on the carrier, just
launching from it.

William Hughes

July 27th 03, 05:25 AM

On 27 Jul 2003 03:18:01 GMT, in rec.aviation.military IBM > wrote:

> William Hughes > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > Highly unlikely. The F-111 was much too heavy for the carrier catapult
> > gear, and could not attain flight speed on a runout.
>
> Didn't the original F-111 concept include a naval version?

It did, but it turned out to be a pig - too big, too heavy and totally unsuited
for it's intended mission.

The Raven

July 27th 03, 05:30 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Presumably so as the F-111 was going to be used as a carrier aircraft.
> Note
> > that F-111's have tail hooks. Australian air aircraft still have them
> > although the pilots aren't trained for it.
> >
>
> I'm sure Australian F-111 pilots are trained to use the tailhook, just as
> their USAF counterparts were.

I'm reliabiliy informed they never use the hooks, too much stress on the
airframe. Of course, it would not surprise me if they are trained in their
use with one or two traps.

> USAF tactical aircraft have been equipped
> with tailhooks for quite some time. I imagine the F-111B tailhook was a
bit
> more substantial than that on the F-111A/D/E/F/G though.

Probably.

> >
> > To quote an un-named F-111 expert "Yes, you could land an (Australian)
> F-111
> > on a carrier *ONCE* as the stresses would probably ground the aircraft
> > forever more". Of course, until it is done we'd never know..........
> >
>
> The scenario presented here doesn't include landing on the carrier, just
> launching from it.

True. I thought it work mentioning in reference to carrier ops and tailhooks

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

The Raven

July 27th 03, 05:58 AM

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> | thlink.net...
> | >
> | > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> |
> | I'm reliabiliy informed they never use the hooks, too much stress on the
> | airframe. Of course, it would not surprise me if they are trained in
their
> | use with one or two traps.
> |
> | > USAF tactical aircraft have been equipped
> | > with tailhooks for quite some time. I imagine the F-111B tailhook was
a
> | bit
> | > more substantial than that on the F-111A/D/E/F/G though.
> |
> | Probably.
> |
> | --
> | The Raven
> | http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> | ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> | ** since August 15th 2000.
>
>
>
> The Aussie pigs can and _do_ use the hooks on land. I have a couple
> of pics of a 'C' model taking the wire at Amberley.

Fair enough.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

Guy Alcala

July 27th 03, 09:29 AM

Dave Kearton wrote:

> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> | thlink.net...
> | >
> | > "The Raven" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> |
> | I'm reliabiliy informed they never use the hooks, too much stress on the
> | airframe. Of course, it would not surprise me if they are trained in their
> | use with one or two traps.
> |
> | > USAF tactical aircraft have been equipped
> | > with tailhooks for quite some time. I imagine the F-111B tailhook was a
> | bit
> | > more substantial than that on the F-111A/D/E/F/G though.
> |
> | Probably.
> |
> | --
> | The Raven
> | http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> | ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> | ** since August 15th 2000.
>
> The Aussie pigs can and _do_ use the hooks on land. I have a couple
> of pics of a 'C' model taking the wire at Amberley.

Certainly. But the runout is far greater, which is to say the deceleration rate
is much less. That's why the tailhooks (and the aft fuselage structure) on
naval a/c are far more substantial -- the deceleration has to be much more
rapid.

On a runway there's always the emergency chain arrester gear as a last resort,
if you either lack or miss the approach end and midfield barriers. That's just
a wire stretched across the runway a few hundred feet from the departure end and
held up a few inches above the surface. It's attached to anchor chain (links
generally weigh 100-200 lb. each) at each end. The anchor chain is laid out
parallel to the runway along each side, running from where the wire attaches
towards the departure end of the runway. When the hook picks up the wire, it
starts to drag the anchor chain along with it, dragging more and more of the
chain as it proceeds down the runway, and thus applying an increasing hold-back
force on the a/c, until it stops. The only problem with that is that it takes
far more time to reposition the chain than it does to reset the MOREST gear, so
generally only a single a/c can use it in a substantial block of time. But it's
better than nothing, and a lot cheaper and easier to install than MOREST gear.
Argentina seems to have used a chain barrier at Port Stanley in the Falklands.
At least, photos taken of the airfield at ground level near one end clearly show
what appears to be anchor chain laid out along the side of the runway.

Guy

Steven P. McNicoll

July 27th 03, 11:54 AM

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm reliabiliy informed they never use the hooks, too much stress on the
> airframe. Of course, it would not surprise me if they are trained in their
> use with one or two traps.
>

Reliably informed by whom? The hooks are for emergency use.

The Raven

July 27th 03, 01:34 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm reliabiliy informed they never use the hooks, too much stress on the
> > airframe. Of course, it would not surprise me if they are trained in
their
> > use with one or two traps.
> >
>
> Reliably informed by whom?

You can't expect much of an answer beyond, someone who works with them.

>The hooks are for emergency use.

Of course in an emergency situation you'd use them if you could.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 27th 03, 01:58 PM

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can't expect much of an answer beyond, someone who works with them.
>

I worked with them, your source doesn't sound very reliable.

Mark

July 27th 03, 05:31 PM

Here is a url or two for everyone wrt F-111B

http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF41.htm

http://f-111.net/t_no_B.htm

Mark

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike
> > wrote:
>
> > Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> > placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?
>
> ...the "30 seconds over Tokyo" raid.
>
> > I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> > Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.
> >
> > So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> > question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> > it.
> >
> > Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> > cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> > on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> > from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?
>
> Why bother when the F-111 could be ariel refueled?
>
> > Remember the 1986 raid on Libya ? Our F-111 bombers had to fly about
> > 4,000 miles from their bases in Great Britain.
>
> Thanks to French faggots that wouldn't give us permission to
> overfly their precious country. Next time, we should just bomb Paris
> and get it over with. Perhaps they would have been more cooprative
> if we would have let the Nazis stay there for a few more years.
>
> > Or would the F-111 have been too big ? I'm not talking about storing
> > the planes below the carrier deck, or about having them return to the
> > carrier and land on it.
>
> The F-111 was supposed to have a Navy version that was carrier ready,
> but it never got off the drawing board. It was just too heavy to be
> workable. The F-14 ended up doing the job.
>
> The F-111 and C-130 are different kinds of planes. The C-130 is
> a prop plane, and it has enough horsepower to do a short field
> take-off. It can even be fitted with RATO bottles to help decrease
> the take-off distance. The F-111, however, needs to get up to speed
> in order to take off, and it takes great deal longer amount of
> runway to do so as compared with the C-130. A carrier just wouldn't
> be long enough.
>
> > But would it have been possible to have a special mission and have
> > F-111's take off from a carrier ?
>
> Again, it just wouldn't be worth the effort. The only scheme that
> I can see is that you would modify a number of F-111's with a beefed
> up nose gear, and cat launch it with a near zero fuel load. That
> might be light enough to get off of the deck. Once you get airborne,
> then you would have to hit a tanker right away. But if you have to
> tank anyway, why bother with the carrier?
>
> -john-
>
> --
> ================================================== ==================
> John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ================================================== ==================

The Raven

July 28th 03, 01:48 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You can't expect much of an answer beyond, someone who works with them.
> >
>
> I worked with them, your source doesn't sound very reliable.

Hmmm, he also works with them on a daily basis. Perhaps I misinterpretted
his response to my question.

The Raven

Steven P. McNicoll

July 28th 03, 04:11 AM

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm, he also works with them on a daily basis. Perhaps I misinterpretted
> his response to my question.
>

That seems more likely.

Nick Pedley

July 28th 03, 08:59 AM

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:44:48 +1000, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
> > Presumably so as the F-111 was going to be used as a carrier aircraft.
Note
> > that F-111's have tail hooks. Australian air aircraft still have them
> > although the pilots aren't trained for it.
>
> All USAF fighters have tail hooks. They can't be used to land on
> carriers, though (although the F-4 and A-7 hooks might have been).
>
Thinking about it, a Tornado and the new Typhoon have tailhooks but I
wouldn't expect to see one doing a carrier landing!

Nick

alf blume

July 28th 03, 12:37 PM

>Next time, we should just bomb Paris and get it over with.<

Indeed, why not bomb the all rest of the world and make the only surviving
continent (the northern part of course..) the Americas a true paradise on
earth?

(perhaps you should do something about those half-french north of the border
also, and while you're at it: get rid of the jews, ******s, homos,
criminals, disabled, atheist, and all people of mixed races too - that would
leave a couple of hundred people on earth - that would keep the peace for a
week or two, one should think)

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> >cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> >on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> >from a giant Nimitz class carrier.
>
> We actually did stage such a raid, on Libya, but the 111s flew from
> Britain--west into the Atlantic, down the Bay of Biscay, hang a left
> at Gibraltar, and east into the Med.
>
> The 111s were tucked into the radar shadow of the tankers, one under
> each wing, in hopes that French and Spanish radar operators wouldn't
> see them for the big birds.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

grinder01

July 29th 03, 01:09 AM

Of course it could be argued that the Libyian raid F-111s did take off from
an aircraft carrier, the largest one in the fleet, the U.S.S. Great Britain
(CV-UK)..... :-)

Cold War (and WWII) doctrine was always to treat the UK as a unsinkable
aircraft carrier. In his book "1984" George Orwell refered to Great Britain
as Airstrip One.

I want to petition the captian for a far eastern cruise, any support?

Tom Rimington-Hall

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> >cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> >on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> >from a giant Nimitz class carrier.
>
> We actually did stage such a raid, on Libya, but the 111s flew from
> Britain--west into the Atlantic, down the Bay of Biscay, hang a left
> at Gibraltar, and east into the Med.
>
> The 111s were tucked into the radar shadow of the tankers, one under
> each wing, in hopes that French and Spanish radar operators wouldn't
> see them for the big birds.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Walter Luffman

July 29th 03, 03:45 AM

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:01:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Presumably so as the F-111 was going to be used as a carrier aircraft.
>Note
>> that F-111's have tail hooks. Australian air aircraft still have them
>> although the pilots aren't trained for it.
>>
>
>I'm sure Australian F-111 pilots are trained to use the tailhook, just as
>their USAF counterparts were. USAF tactical aircraft have been equipped
>with tailhooks for quite some time. I imagine the F-111B tailhook was a bit
>more substantial than that on the F-111A/D/E/F/G though.

I remember USAF F-4s occasionally used their tailhooks in emergency
situations, but the deployable arresting barrier (imagine a big tennis
net with vertical fabric strips, with the aircraft running into it)
quickly became the preferred method of stopping a brakeless Air Force
bird; far less damage to the airframe, and the landing gear were less
likely to collapse (meaning you could probably tow the bird away in
one big piece instead of sweeping it off the runway).

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

Steven P. McNicoll

July 29th 03, 04:05 AM

"Walter Luffman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I remember USAF F-4s occasionally used their tailhooks in emergency
> situations, but the deployable arresting barrier (imagine a big tennis
> net with vertical fabric strips, with the aircraft running into it)
> quickly became the preferred method of stopping a brakeless Air Force
> bird; far less damage to the airframe, and the landing gear were less
> likely to collapse (meaning you could probably tow the bird away in
> one big piece instead of sweeping it off the runway).
>

Quickly became the preferred method? Do you mean not long after the F-4
entered USAF service? I was an F-4 crew chief in the 70's, saw several
recoveries where the hook was used, never saw the barrier you describe.
What you describe sounds like the barrier straight-deck carriers used.

Howard Berkowitz

July 29th 03, 05:19 AM

In article >, "grinder01"
> wrote:

> Of course it could be argued that the Libyian raid F-111s did take off
> from
> an aircraft carrier, the largest one in the fleet, the U.S.S. Great
> Britain
> (CV-UK)..... :-)
>
> Cold War (and WWII) doctrine was always to treat the UK as a unsinkable
> aircraft carrier. In his book "1984" George Orwell refered to Great
> Britain
> as Airstrip One.
>
> I want to petition the captian for a far eastern cruise, any support?
>
> Tom Rimington-Hall

You missed that opportunity when the Foreign Ministry failed to say to
the PRC, "OK. You get Hong Kong, as long as you take Northern Ireland
with it."

Nick Pedley

August 3rd 03, 10:59 AM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm late to this discussion. Why do USAF planes have tail hooks if
> they're not meant to land on carriers?
>
So they can do emergency landings on airfields. IIRC there's a cable at the
runway end attached to a couple of weights (concrete blocks or tires?), the
hook catches this and the weights drag the aircraft to a slow halt. Used
mainly when the aircraft brakes or tailchute are thought to be out of
action.

Nick

Frank May

August 3rd 03, 11:29 AM

Also, the cable(s) are at the end(s) of the runway, where the a/c would
be on rollout, not used during the touchdown. Usually in the over-run
sections, IIRC. The a/c would have slowed probably quite a bit from
approach speed by that point & the stresses on the airframe are nothing
like those on a carrier trap.

[email protected]

August 3rd 03, 03:55 PM

>Cub Driver > wrote:

>I'm late to this discussion. Why do USAF planes have tail hooks if
>they're not meant to land on carriers?

Hot landings, brake and/or drogue chute probs, etc. In addition to
being used at the runway over-runs, sometimes the hooks are
dropped in the sound suppressor area after routine engine changes
to secure the jet to the concrete pad while trimming the engine.

-Mike Marron

Kirk Stant

August 3rd 03, 04:41 PM

(Frank May) wrote in message >...
> Also, the cable(s) are at the end(s) of the runway, where the a/c would
> be on rollout, not used during the touchdown. Usually in the over-run
> sections, IIRC. The a/c would have slowed probably quite a bit from
> approach speed by that point & the stresses on the airframe are nothing
> like those on a carrier trap.

Well, this is partially correct. The Air Force (and also Navy and
Marines at their land bases) use several kinds of cable arrestment
systems, both approach end and departure end. A typical USAF base will
have 4 cables on each runway: MA-1As (I think) in the overrun on each
end, and BAK-12s (or similar) about 1500 feet from each end. The
MA-1As are cables attached to anchor chains, and are for one shot last
resort use, since they take a while to reset and close the runway when
they are being reset. They can only be used in one direction (at the
departure end) since they work by picking up progressive numbers of
chain links to provide gradual decceleration - if they are taken the
wrong way you pick up the weight of all of both chains all at once!
Because of this, the approach end MA-1A is usually disconnected. I
did see an AF F-4E (utility hydraulic failure after takeoff, loaded
with 6 inert MK-82s) take one by accident at Myrtle Beach - and it
stopped really quick - but surprisingly the Rhino wasn't damaged
(although the MA-1A was!). The crew was REALLY surprised, since they
were looking at the BAK-12 cable they were supposed to engage and
suddenly STOPPED! The other cables are bi-directional, and can be
used for either approach end arrestments, where the plane tries to
land 500 to 1000 feet in front and immediatly engage the cable at high
speed; or for departure end arrestment, which can be at any speed
(high speed abort, or loss of brakes on landing, etc). Finally, due
to the low clearance under F-16s, their bases use a recessed cable
(BAK-14 or 16 I think - someone out there in barrier maintenance
correct me please) that is set in a groove in the runway and has to be
raised by the tower when needed (the call for it on the radio is
"CABLE CABLE CABLE").

AF F-4s had bigger (lower pressure) main tires (Marine F-4s too?) and
probably slightly different landing gear (no extendable nose strut,
for example) but I doubt the arresting hook was different - there was
absolutely no speed or weight limit on it's use. Compared to the
hooks on F-15s and -16s, the F-4 hook is HUGE. And it got used often,
usually for some sort of hydraulic failure. Usually an approch end
arrestment, by the way.

Other air forces have started using emergency hooks, too - Mirage
2000, Rafale, Typhoon all have them, I believe, and all NATO fighter
bases have cables.

Kirk
F-4 WSO (ret)

Mark

August 3rd 03, 05:59 PM

Foggy memory on 'recessed' cable, but....

I seem to recollect it was not F-16 specific. Couple things I recall --
didn't want cable 'up' all the time for joint use airfields (commercial
traffic). This was where I first saw recessed cable system. Also recall
concerns about formation line up past cable to reduce possible cable
'stretch'/slap on subsequent aircraft. Also reduced need for cable guys to
disconnect/connect cables following runway changes or, if needed, quickly
reconfigure for an approach end arrestment. And yes... recall need to land
'past' any approach end barrier due to possible a/c damage from loose cable.

Would suspect most (but not all) engagements now-a-days (post F-4) are
departure end (high speed aborts, F-16 SFO landings, etc)

FWIW

Mark

ps Where were you during your WSO days???

----- Original Message -----
From: Kirk Stant
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: F-111 bombers flying from carriers ? attn: Mary

(Frank May) wrote in message
>...
> Also, the cable(s) are at the end(s) of the runway, where the a/c would
> be on rollout, not used during the touchdown. Usually in the over-run
> sections, IIRC. The a/c would have slowed probably quite a bit from
> approach speed by that point & the stresses on the airframe are nothing
> like those on a carrier trap.

Well, this is partially correct. The Air Force (and also Navy and
Marines at their land bases) use several kinds of cable arrestment
systems, both approach end and departure end. A typical USAF base will
have 4 cables on each runway: MA-1As (I think) in the overrun on each
end, and BAK-12s (or similar) about 1500 feet from each end. The
MA-1As are cables attached to anchor chains, and are for one shot last
resort use, since they take a while to reset and close the runway when
they are being reset. They can only be used in one direction (at the
departure end) since they work by picking up progressive numbers of
chain links to provide gradual decceleration - if they are taken the
wrong way you pick up the weight of all of both chains all at once!
Because of this, the approach end MA-1A is usually disconnected. I
did see an AF F-4E (utility hydraulic failure after takeoff, loaded
with 6 inert MK-82s) take one by accident at Myrtle Beach - and it
stopped really quick - but surprisingly the Rhino wasn't damaged
(although the MA-1A was!). The crew was REALLY surprised, since they
were looking at the BAK-12 cable they were supposed to engage and
suddenly STOPPED! The other cables are bi-directional, and can be
used for either approach end arrestments, where the plane tries to
land 500 to 1000 feet in front and immediatly engage the cable at high
speed; or for departure end arrestment, which can be at any speed
(high speed abort, or loss of brakes on landing, etc). Finally, due
to the low clearance under F-16s, their bases use a recessed cable
(BAK-14 or 16 I think - someone out there in barrier maintenance
correct me please) that is set in a groove in the runway and has to be
raised by the tower when needed (the call for it on the radio is
"CABLE CABLE CABLE").

AF F-4s had bigger (lower pressure) main tires (Marine F-4s too?) and
probably slightly different landing gear (no extendable nose strut,
for example) but I doubt the arresting hook was different - there was
absolutely no speed or weight limit on it's use. Compared to the
hooks on F-15s and -16s, the F-4 hook is HUGE. And it got used often,
usually for some sort of hydraulic failure. Usually an approch end
arrestment, by the way.

Other air forces have started using emergency hooks, too - Mirage
2000, Rafale, Typhoon all have them, I believe, and all NATO fighter
bases have cables.

Kirk
F-4 WSO (ret)

Cub Driver

August 3rd 03, 08:24 PM

>> I'm late to this discussion. Why do USAF planes have tail hooks if
>> they're not meant to land on carriers?
>>
>So they can do emergency landings on airfields. IIRC there's a cable at the

And is the tailhook deployed on all landings? Must be a lot of wear on
that sucker! Or must the pilot make the decision at the high-stress
moment of running out of runway?

Fascinating stuff. I love this newsgroup.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Jim H

August 4th 03, 05:12 AM

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?
>
> I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.
>
> So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> it.
>
> Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?

The F-111A had a lot in common with the Carrier capable F-111B Navy model
and might have survived a carrier landing, but it would not have been a good
idea.

The F-111B had a much shorter nose than on the landbased F-111s to allow a
better view of the boat. The F-111B also had some small flaps located on
the wing roots that were present but locked up in the F-111A. These were
required to lower the approach speed a couple of knots to meet the Navy
spec.

The landbased F-111s had less robust tailhooks, and the hooks could not be
raised in flight once released.

I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.

Jim Howard (former EF-111 EWO)
jim [at] grayraven [dot] com

Mike Dennis

August 4th 03, 10:32 PM

IIRC, the F-111B also had longer wings to reduce the landing speed.

"Jim H" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Remember the famous World War 2 raid when those B-24 bombers were
> > placed on the USS Hornet and sent to bomb Japan ?
> >
> > I just got done reading that in 1965 the United States landed C-130
> > Herculees planes on a US aircraft carrier.
> >
> > So that got me thinking. I'm not a Navy man or Air Force man, so this
> > question may sound crazy to some of you, but please at least address
> > it.
> >
> > Let's talk hypothetically here. What if, at some point late in the
> > cold war the United States decided to stage a " Doolittle " type raid
> > on some country by having a small number of F-111 bombers take off
> > from a giant Nimitz class carrier. Could it have been done ?
>
> The F-111A had a lot in common with the Carrier capable F-111B Navy model
> and might have survived a carrier landing, but it would not have been a
good
> idea.
>
> The F-111B had a much shorter nose than on the landbased F-111s to allow a
> better view of the boat. The F-111B also had some small flaps located on
> the wing roots that were present but locked up in the F-111A. These were
> required to lower the approach speed a couple of knots to meet the Navy
> spec.
>
> The landbased F-111s had less robust tailhooks, and the hooks could not be
> raised in flight once released.
>
> I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.
>
> Jim Howard (former EF-111 EWO)
> jim [at] grayraven [dot] com
>
>

Thomas Schoene

August 5th 03, 02:48 AM

"Jim H" > wrote in message

> I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.

No, they did not. The F-111B had different gear and different bulkheads in
the gear wells (which implies different structural attachements to the
airframe, I think).

http://f-111.net/t_no_B.htm

Note the drawing at the bottom, which marks landing gear as "peculiar for
F-111B", along with quite a few other bits, including the wing pivots.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Drewe Manton

August 5th 03, 11:31 AM

"Thomas Schoene" > waxed lyrical
nk.net:

> "Jim H" > wrote in message
>
>> I'm pretty sure all F-111s had the same landing gear.
>
> No, they did not. The F-111B had different gear and different
> bulkheads in the gear wells (which implies different structural
> attachements to the airframe, I think).
>
> http://f-111.net/t_no_B.htm
>
> Note the drawing at the bottom, which marks landing gear as "peculiar
> for F-111B", along with quite a few other bits, including the wing
> pivots. --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

--

Didn't the FB-111A and F-111C also have stronger U/C than the A/D/E/F?
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

[email protected]

August 6th 03, 04:22 AM

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 10:59:45 +0100, "Nick Pedley"
> wrote:

>
>So they can do emergency landings on airfields. IIRC there's a cable at the
>runway end attached to a couple of weights (concrete blocks or tires?), the
>hook catches this and the weights drag the aircraft to a slow halt.

It's much more sophisticated than that. Two of the main barrier types
used to be the BAK-9 and BAK-12, and Bondo had the opportunity to
partake of their function one day at MUO circa 1970 when the Utility
went Tango Uniform on our Romeo Fox Four. After punching off our
centerline ( so in case the gear folded, we would'nt cut the cable and
possibly go inverted, as the front seater had witnessed in SEA) we
took the approach end cable and came to a stop in about 800 feet. The
spooky part was how we were dragged slightly backwards by the cable's
tension. In SEA during heavy rains at Danang, it was SOP for returning
jets to take the barrier because of the hydroplaning.

Bondo Phil
TAC puke (Ret.)

Guy Alcala

August 6th 03, 06:48 AM

Kirk Stant wrote:

> More cable trivia:
>
> - I believe the original "reusable" cables used B-52 wheel brakes to
> slow the cable.
>
> - Rubber "doughnuts" hold the cable about 4 inches above the runway;
> running over it just makes a "thump" in an F-4 or Brasilia commuter
> liner. However DO NOT try to taxi over a raised cable in a Cessna 172
> or equivalent spam can - it WILL mess up your gear! The next time
> you fly into a dual use airport look for the big yellow "discs" on
> each side of the runway about 1500ft down - thats where the cable is
> located.
>
> - The Marines have (had?) a deployable cable and catapult system that
> was installed at Danang (?) to recover and launch A-4s during the
> Vietnam War.

<snip>

Chu Lai had the cable and field catapult. The latter was less than
successful (IIRR it blew up while it was being tested, and they had a long
wait for repair parts), but by the time they got it installed the AM-2
runway had already been extended to 8,000 feet and they were building a
paved runway alongside, so it wasn't critical. DaNang presumably had the
cable alone. Prior to the extension to 8,000 feet, the Chu Lai runway was
4,000 feet long*, and they'd use RATOG and/or keep a KC-130 overhead so
they could take off light and immediately tank.

*I'm somewhat simplifying here. They actually relayed the runway several
times, while they experimented trying to find a binder that would keep the
sand in place. Typically, 1/2 the length of the runway (4,000 feet) would
be relaid while they operated from the other 4,000 foot-long half.
Details of the Chu Lai airfield construction can be found in an reprint
article from the Naval Review (IIRR) on Marine Aviation in Vietnam, in
Frank Uhlig, Jr., ed., "Vietnam: The Naval Story." Annapolis: Naval
Institute Press, 1986, upon which my comments are based (the usual
cautions apply on my possibly fallible memory for some details of the
article, but Chu Lai definitely was the base with the field catapult).

Guy