Posted on 07/02/2004 5:27:53 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
Thanks for the PING LC!!!
Just got in from work....
Ms.B
It seems to me that the lack of carrier based aircraft capable or better than the F14 diminishes the Navy's ability to project force. In the past whenever a situation arose it was always up to the Navy to be there, and be that projected force of our foreign policy. How much is this diminished not having Naval assets with the above mentioned capabilities?
As far as the YF23, could a carrier accomodate that plane as "easily" as the F14; what modifications would have to be made in order to make it carrrier friendly. I know it is a super aircraft, but it was originally designed for the AF, so I'm sure there would be much to do.
See, the AF uses nice, LOOOOOoooong concrete runways with nice big hangars and tons of facilities to park their birds on. The Navy uses SHORT steel strips that bob and sway in the ocean, as well as move. These also have VERY limited space to store and maintain the birds in.
Whilst the AF can take off and land their birds nice and softly, over a long distance, the Navy must smash theirs down at 120+ MPH on a pitching deck, and launch them by means of a steam catapult. It also must contend with constant exposure to salt water.
The Navy must also contend with fueling needs...our birds can wind up quite a distance from land, and extra gas is a BIG deal. One cannot always count on refueling in the air, due to weather and such.
Okay, with that in mind, an Air Force plane made into a Naval aircraft must necessarily:
1. Have a much stronger, and therefore HEAVIER, landing gear system;
2. Must be strengthened throughout its entire frame (more weight) as well;
3. Feature a huge, steel tailhook and strengthened tail to attach it to;
4. Be constructed of materials which are resistant to salt water and corrosion (more weight);
5. Carry bigger, more powerful engines to lift all that iron and move it through the air;
6. Carry enough gas to power said engines for a reasonable amount of time;
7. Use different navigation equipment...finding your way over the ocean is a touch different from doing so over land;
8. Have parts that can FOLD, like wings and tails, so it can fit in a carrier's hangar bay;
9. After all this, it STILL must outfly and outfight all comers.
Frankly, the difficulty in modifying an AF bird to Navy requirements is often so great as to make it impossible. The differences begin at the most fundamental levels; it is NO "quick fix". Actually, the best way to go is to let the Navy design the bird to ITS requirements, and then let the AF remove stuff or change it for theirs. That is far easier, and results in an aircraft that both can use well, which is somewhat tougher and more capable for both. As an example, I give you the F-4 Phantom.
However, that is probably never going to happen again, simply because the AF is loathe to adopt a Navy-designed bird, no matter how good it is.
You did forget to mention, however, that this end-all, be-all aircraft was also supposed to be a strategic bomber.
Now, try making a strategic bomber fit on a carrier...which the F-111B did a few times. Scary.
Yep, the EA-18G. Here's a link to the press release.
US Navy’s Next-Generation Electronic Attack Aircraft Begins Assembly
Army guy here. The difference between Air Force living standards and Army living standards was breath taking. Those kids are simply pampered.
** VFA-203 was a reserve squadron that had been in Jacksonville Fla before Cecil Field closed, they flew really old Hornets. **
I do remember reading that the B.Dolphins' aircraft were 20 yrs old , so that explains that .
This is great info ! Never having served , I am not aware of such details involved in building these aircraft . I have learned alot about our military hardware from FR threads . Are there any good ping lists for such threads ?
Let's say you're building a fighter. You decided that its maximum takeoff weight will be 40,000 pounds. That includes fuel and weapons loads. So, we build and stress it for that and send it off, right? Wrong.
In actuality, we must build and stress it for NINE TIMES that weight, due to the 7+ "G" forces encountered in air combat nowadays. That means ALL of it...engine mounts, weapons pylons, all of it must be able to handle at least 9 "G"'s (one "G" is equal to the weight of the bird just sitting there, one x the force of gravity). Oh, and then there's the pilot, who in a 9 "G" manuever (let's say he weighs 200#) will weigh 1800 pounds.
All this, and we STILL want it to be able to survive a few hits, at least, in combat.
As for ping lists, just read a few of these threads and click on a few people's homepages...you'll shortly see who knows what they are talking about and who does not. Those with experience, knowledge, and bona fides are all about, and stand out quite well from the posers.
Why? These days they would only allow some PC or lame crap that isn't even worth painting as nose art.
I remember reading that Congress ordered the spare parts molds for the F-14's destroyed about a year or two ago.
Thanks!! Guess I have some more reading for this rainy weekend !
I'm talking about REAL nose art. That excludes all the PC crap right off.
True, but the Tomcat had the same great speed advantage down low, due to the quirkiness of the TF30-P-412 turbofan, which created another 8K pounds of thrust at sea level. The Tomcat is the second fastest aircraft in the world at sea level, after the B-1B.
The original F-111 had to quickly upgrade the TFR because it could not keep up under 300ft, and a few good men ran directly into the side of some mountains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.