F16 for Carrier Ops ?

[timetraveller]

How good would it be just to see F16's operate on Carriers instead of Hornets Galore ..

There is very little variety of Aircraft operatin from Carriers like in the past ! And with the F18G taking over the role of the Prowler ..

May as well Call the carriers Hornets nest 1,2,3,4,5

Whats your views .

[Deftoner]

impossible, landing gear are too weak and the Navy prefer twin engine aircraft.

[flanker7]

p-) Actually there was a proposal for a navalized F-16 but it lost to the FA-18

[Sand Man]

impossible, landing gear are too weak and the Navy prefer twin engine aircraft.

Is there a difference for twin and single engine planes for carrier use? They'd still be catapulted, right? so they'd probably fly off the carrier at the same speed...

I read of F-14s having to fly with 1 engine because the other failed and the pilot still landed safely so that could be an obvious advantage over single-engined planes.

Just curious, though.

[DeltaWhisky58]

It's never going to happen.

1. It would need a total re-design of the airframe.
2. It's an old aircraft - there are more modern options available
3. Unless a major navy were to show interest it would not be financially viable
4. Why re-invent the wheel?

[Deftoner]

Is there a difference for twin and single engine planes for carrier use? They'd still be catapulted, right? so they'd probably fly off the carrier at the same speed...

I read of F-14s having to fly with 1 engine because the other failed and the pilot still landed safely so that could be an obvious advantage over single-engined planes.

Just curious, though.

What happens if that one engine fails while your out at sea? If you have 2 you can at least make it back to mother. That (I guess?) is the main reason.

They don't actually use the engine to take off, the catapult does that. The engine just propels them once clear of the deck.

[Sand Man]

What happens if that one engine fails while your out at sea?

Eject!! Eject!! Eject!!

But that would be a total waste of a good plane. I guess they're not meant to be for carriers, then.

[flanker7]

Well, in paper there was a carrier borne F-16. :)

[DeltaWhisky58]

Well, in paper there was a carrier borne F-16. :)

Yes, on paper there was - this was presumably back in the days before the USAF adopted the YF-16 and it was still competing with the YF-17 - the YF-17 later became the FA-18 which was adopted by the USN/USMC. One of the mane factors was its twin engines.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

There was also more money available back then to. Cold War in full swing. The various services could get away with having different aircraft doing the same job. (F16-F/A-18) (f-15-F14) ect ect.

Huge wast of resources.

Imagine how much better the aircraft would of been if they pooled all this development money into a single Multi-Role Fighter and a single CAP Fighter?

[mi35d]

Not necessarily a good thing to have "one size fits all" fighter aircraft.

A carrier borne aircraft must be built from the ground up to accept heavier landing gear, have wings that can fold for storage and arresting gear.

A land based aircraft needs none of these things and therefore to design them and then just drop them from production would be a waste of time and effort.

Different missions and different operating requirements will require different systems. (Far greater use of materials less likely to rust on Navy aircraft - leads to greater cost for example.)

[signatory]

What happens if that one engine fails while your out at sea? If you have 2 you can at least make it back to mother. That (I guess?) is the main reason.



Remember the JSF is a one engine jet and the Marine/US Navy will buy about 960 of them. That is a clear indication of how good new technology is. The Swedish airforce also fly mainly above waters with single-engine jets and after 75,000 hours no JAS 39 jet has been lost due to a engine failure. I am pretty confident that a jet with two engines of the old generation is more dangerous than single-engine of today.

+ The French fly (still?) the Super Etendard single-engine from their carrier.

(btw Saab designed a carrier borne Gripen but the adaptation is easy (unlike a F-16), since the airframe is already designed for short take-offs & short/hard landings)

[Deftoner]

Remember the JSF is a one engine jet and the Marine/US Navy will buy about 960 of them. That is a clear indication of how good new technology is. The Swedish airforce also fly mainly above waters with single-engine jets and after 75,000 hours no JAS 39 jet has been lost due to a engine failure. I am pretty confident that a jet with two engines of the old generation is more dangerous than single-engine of today.

+ The French fly (still?) the Super Etendard single-engine from their carrier.

(btw Saab designed a carrier borne Gripen but the adaptation is easy (unlike a F-16), since the airframe is already designed for short take-offs & short/hard landings)

I was referring to US requirements and at that specific time period. But yes you are correct, 2 engines is not the be all an end all. p-)

BTW the F16 is not newer tech.

[signatory]

I thought you were speaking generally... :)

[Nephilim]

the f-16 has a tailhook if you didnt notice.
im not too familiar with the history of the falcon
but obviously it was also designed for carrier based landings
otherwise they would have taken off the tailhook.

the f-117 is also in possesion of a tailhook, its stored inside the fuselage though

also the nighthawk has a pretty strong frame like the f-14

but thats pretty offtopic now

as for single engine planes

just to name a few
the a-4 and the f8 also were single engine navy fighters :)

[flanker7]

Lots of planes have tail-hooks and are not designed for carrier operations. The hooks are there in case of emergencie and they engage arresting cables at the ends of normal runways

[DeltaWhisky58]

the f-16 has a tailhook if you didnt notice.
im not too familiar with the history of the falcon
but obviously it was also designed for carrier based landings
otherwise they would have taken off the tailhook.

the f-117 is also in possesion of a tailhook, its stored inside the fuselage though

also the nighthawk has a pretty strong frame like the f-14

but thats pretty offtopic now

as for single engine planes

just to name a few
the a-4 and the f8 also were single engine navy fighters :)

Virtually all modern fast jet aircraft have arrestor hooks for use on conventional runways when they have breaking problems. The Rotary Hydraulic Arrester Gear (RHAG) used on military runways allows the aircraft to come to a halt slowly by paying out several hundred metres of cable.

If you used on of these hooks on a carrier landing, either the hook would shear off straight away, or it would rip of the rear end of the aircraft - when an aircraft lands on a carrier it is a controlled crash. Bear in mind that the moment the pilot touches the deck he engages full power - the arresting gear on a carrier is a very different proposition indeed! Naval aircraft are especially strengthened for carrier landings.

A tailhook doth not a naval aircraft make! :bash:

[Sand Man]

Is the tailhook of the F-16 hidden from view? There is a hi-res of the underside of an F-16 in the other thread ("Wallpapers!") and there seems to be no tailhook visible.

[Atlantic Friend]

+ The French fly (still?) the Super Etendard single-engine from their carrier.

Yep, we still do - they're attack planes only, though, not interceptors. And before the Rafale we had F-8FN Crusaders, which were single-engines as well. And in the 1970s-1980s there were plans to make a navalized Jaguar, but that got nowhere.

I suppose that, as carrier planes cost more and more, meaning they're deployed in smaller and smaller numbers, that's a good idea to increase their survivability and thus to privilege a twin-engine. Among other reasons.

[DeltaWhisky58]

No - it's in between the ventral fins and semi-recessed. You can just see it it this picture.

[Sand Man]

No - it's to one side of the ventral fin - can't remember which side.

Let me help you out.

****pic removed due to sheer size****

DW, I don't know how to turn it into a thumbnail. Might as well remove it...

[DeltaWhisky58]

Let me help you out.



As you can see, I had edited my post whilst you posted. Can you please reduce the size of your image - it's way too big for the forum page.

Thanks.

[Uncle Chô]

Imagine how much better the aircraft would of been if they pooled all this development money into a single Multi-Role Fighter and a single CAP Fighter?
It happened in 1961. The program was called Tactical Fighter Experimental with a CAS aircraft for the USAF and a CAP aircraft for the Navy (the F-111)

This turned into a trench fight between the 2 branches and it failed.

Thing also of the SEPECAT Jaguar M (M stands for MARINE or Navy) that failed in a lot of field for carrier based operations (lack of thrust, not enough visibility from the cockpit, no folding wings, not enough range etc.

http://www.aircraftinaction.co.uk/JaTrib71.jpg
Photo source: http://www.aircraftinaction.co.uk/

[DeltaWhisky58]

Let me help you out.

****pic removed due to sheer size****

DW, I don't know how to turn it into a thumbnail. Might as well remove it...

For future reference - below the normal message window, under "Additional Options" is a button called "Manage Attachments" this allows you to upload pix onto the MP.Net server to give a thumbnail view like the one of mine I uploaded.

[Sand Man]

Thanks.....

[Nephilim]

agh! ive forgot about that.. *whoops*

[Flagg]

There was also more money available back then to. Cold War in full swing. The various services could get away with having different aircraft doing the same job. (F16-F/A-18) (f-15-F14) ect ect.

Huge wast of resources.

Imagine how much better the aircraft would of been if they pooled all this development money into a single Multi-Role Fighter and a single CAP Fighter?


They tried that...it was called the F111......that's why the US and Australia have/had an aircraft designed as a multi-role air superiority fighter bomber designed to fly off of a carrier with a fighter designation, but only served as a bomber or EW platform

[JoaMei]

It was mostly a political decision, the Fighter the F-18 is based on lost the trials against the F-16.
But to keep the competitor alive next time they gave the contract to the other company. Another reason is the navy prefers fighters with two engines.

[perdurabo]

Imagine how much better the aircraft would of been if they pooled all this development money into a single Multi-Role Fighter and a single CAP Fighter?


you don't need to imagine, there was F-4, F-111 there is Rafale and F-35...

[AOCBravo2004]

How good would it be just to see F16's operate on Carriers instead of Hornets Galore ..

There is very little variety of Aircraft operatin from Carriers like in the past ! And with the F18G taking over the role of the Prowler ..

May as well Call the carriers Hornets nest 1,2,3,4,5

Whats your views .

What is my view? I think it is a good thing that the Navy will soon be an all Hornet Navy, it boils down to money really, it is cheaper to maintain a fleet strictly based around 1-2 main airframes. It will also be easier to train Aviators in the Hornet then retrain them to fly the Rhino (Super Bug). It will also be easier to switch pilots between the Rhino and the Growler (EF-18G). Also a carrier will also be able to carry more spare parts since there are only two major airframes on the deck.

Imagine the logistical nightmare back in the day when carriers had airwings composed of:
F-14
A-6
A-7
EA-6B
E-2C
S-3B
SH-3
EA-3B

In the near future it will be just:
F/A-18C
F/A-18E/F
EF-18G
CSA
SH-60R

and eventually
F-35C
F/A-18E/F
EF-18G
CSA
SH-60R

[Ordie]

The F-35 /V-22 (ASW/AEW Platform) could be operated on the LHA acting as a "jeep carrier" agumenting the CVN's.

The V-22 could replace the C-2 Greyhound COD.

Keep in mind that the French Rafael can be launched from US type carriers since it does not require a "bridle catch".

[XShipRider]

- deleted - duplicated someone else's answers.

[AOCBravo2004]

The F-35 /V-22 (ASW/AEW Platform) could be operated on the LHA acting as a "jeep carrier" agumenting the CVN's.

The V-22 could replace the C-2 Greyhound COD.

Keep in mind that the French Rafael can be launched from US type carriers since it does not require a "bridle catch".

The Gator Navy is going to keep doing what it is doing, the way world affairs are right now you don't need the LHD's and eventually LHD(X)'s to augment the CVW's. The Gator Navy is going to stick to their role of supporting the FMF, hauling the MEU's around the globe.

This is the ACE you are gonna eventually on the amphibs

F-35B
CH-53K
AH-1Z
UH-1Y
MV-22B

I'm growing less and less happy with the Osprey as each day passes us by. Especially after exercise my best friend in the Corps was involved in with the MV-22B Osprey. It's just bad juju. I'll ask him if it's ok to post the photos he sent me.