F-111 bombers flying from carriers ?

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

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

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

"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.

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."

"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

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.

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

(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)

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: 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)