Could a RAAF F/A-18 pilot land aboard a US carrier?
Patrick C Hew
Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
the carrier landing theme.
For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
be willing to share their experiences in this?
[For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
Canadian for Australian]
Patrick
Patrick Hew ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
The University of Western Australia
Dave Riddel
Patrick C Hew wrote:
>
> Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
> the carrier landing theme.
>
> For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
> operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
> and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
> emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
> during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
> RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
> thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
>From an F-111 guy who has looked at a carrier from circuit height during
a Rimpac -
I think it takes a bit a work to be ready even to try!!! Bags I NOT be
a carrier-landing instructor!!!! And doing it at night!! Give me TFR
through a thunderstorm any day compared to a night landing!!
P.S. also been in the back of a COD landing on a carrier - SPAM IN A
CAN!!
--
Dave Riddel
rid...@gil.com.au
Unofficial F-111 HomePage
http://www.gil.com.au/~riddel/f111g.html
Peter & Carol Meehan
Patrick C Hew wrote:
>
> Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
> the carrier landing theme.
>
> For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
> operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
> and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
> emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
> during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
> RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
> thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
> be willing to share their experiences in this?
>
> [For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
> Canadian for Australian]
>
> Patrick
>
> Patrick Hew ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
Happy to share my knowledge, I am not a RAAF knucklehead (sorry guys)
but am a RAAF electronics engineer. One of my postings put me in charge of
the F-18 flight simulators we have and I had the opportunity to get to know
many of our pilots.
In regards to your question I obviously cannot answer definitively
but I do know that the basic conversion cirriculum does include arrested
landings on the Williamtown runway (no comparison to a carrier I am sure!).
Also I know that we have regular exchanges set up for our 18 drivers with the
USN and USMC. Don't quote me but I am sure that the guys on these exchanges
get the opportunity to get carrier qualified.
In fact I am sure I recall a RAAF SQNLDR (then FLTLT) who received a
medal off the USMC for doing such an excellent job of teaching USMC pilots
how to land on carriers.
If one of our planes did happen to land on a US carrier he would have
some difficulty getting off again as our F-18s are not fitted with the
required launch bar!
As for trying it in the simulator, unfortunately it does not contain
a model for an aircraft carrier (it almost did but that's another story).
When I was running them I looked at putting one in just as a personal project
but never found the time.
Flight Lieutenant Pete Meehan
Royal Australian Air Force
C-130J Project Team
Lockheed, Atlanta
(ex OIC Hornet Simulators)
Peter & Carol Meehan
Mike Aitchison
ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Patrick C Hew) wrote:
>Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
>the carrier landing theme.
>For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
>operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
>and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
>emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
>during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
>RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
>thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
>Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
>be willing to share their experiences in this?
>[For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
>Canadian for Australian]
>Patrick
>Patrick Hew ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
>The University of Western Australia
NO they just don' t have what it takes! The RAAF have no idea what
REAL AIRCRAFT OPS are like on a carrier (except those transferred from
the RAN) It takes a big work up programme before you can land on a
deck, and quite a different approach pattern.
Mike
Peter & Carol Meehan
Patrick C Hew wrote:
>
> Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
> the carrier landing theme.
>
> For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
> operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
> and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
> emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
> during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
> RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
> thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
> Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
> be willing to share their experiences in this?
>
> [For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
> Canadian for Australian]
>
> Patrick
>
> Patrick Hew ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
Peter & Carol Meehan
Dominique Durocher
In article <4pj9g0$1...@styx.uwa.edu.au>, ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Patrick
C Hew) wrote:
> Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
> the carrier landing theme.
>
> For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
> operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
> and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
> emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
> during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
> RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
> thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
> Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
> be willing to share their experiences in this?
>
> [For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
> Canadian for Australian]
I understand that CAF pilots do get a little training in carrier landings,
but few get to actually try it. Basically only those on exchange to the US
Navy get to actually trap.
Dom
--
Dominique Durocher | "Vir, since when does intelligence have
dra...@odyssee.net | have anything to do with politics?"
SF Model Builders | Amb. Londo Mollari
Association | Babylon 5
Montreal, Canada |
Peter & Carol Meehan
Patrick C Hew wrote:
>
> Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
> the carrier landing theme.
>
> For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
> operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
> and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
> emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
> during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
> RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
> thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
> Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
> be willing to share their experiences in this?
>
> [For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
> Canadian for Australian]
>
Peter & Carol Meehan
Scott Hemsley
Mike Aitchison wrote:
>
> ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Patrick C Hew) wrote:
>
> >Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
> >the carrier landing theme.
>
> >For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
> >operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
> >and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
> >emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
> >during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
> >RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
> >thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> >Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
> >Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
> >be willing to share their experiences in this?
>
> >[For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
> >Canadian for Australian]
>
> >Patrick
>
> >Patrick Hew ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
> >The University of Western Australia
>
> REAL AIRCRAFT OPS are like on a carrier (except those transferred from
> the RAN) It takes a big work up programme before you can land on a
> deck, and quite a different approach pattern.
I don't know about RAAF crews, but CAF aircrew on the CF-18 don't do
carrier cross training, with the following exceptions....
There have been cases of Canadian exchange (CF-18) pilots serving as
instructors for USN/USMC F-/A-18 courses, which included carrier
deployment. As an instructor, they would not only teach land-based
operations, but carrier based as well.
I do recall such an article about one CAF exchange pilot. When it came
time to instruct the latter half of the course (carrier deployment), it
was nesseccary for him to become fully carrier-qualed. As I understand
it, his performance made quite an impression with his US counterparts.
Scott
Darrell A. Larose
Scott Hemsley (has...@globalserve.on.ca) writes:
> Mike Aitchison wrote:
>>
>>
>> >[For the Canadians amongst us, could also substitute
>> >Canadian for Australian]
>>
> There have been cases of Canadian exchange (CF-18) pilots serving as
> instructors for USN/USMC F-/A-18 courses, which included carrier
> deployment. As an instructor, they would not only teach land-based
> operations, but carrier based as well.
>
> I do recall such an article about one CAF exchange pilot. When it came
> time to instruct the latter half of the course (carrier deployment), it
> was nesseccary for him to become fully carrier-qualed. As I understand
> it, his performance made quite an impression with his US counterparts.
>
I seem to recall that Maj. Chris Hadfield (CAF) now a Canadian Astronaut
has done carrier traps on exchange programs. But I think he is the exception.
Chris is probably the most qualified Military Aviator that Canada has
produced. In fact he is the only person in Canada to have Astronaut wings.
Check 6
--
Darrell Larose
ad...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ad607
dar...@cesani.newforce.ca http://www.newforce.ca/~darrell/
John Bartels
Patrick C Hew wrote:
"What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
> Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
> be willing to share their experiences in this?
As an ex Royal Australian Navy pilot - sure the RAAF guys could - if
they were given the training first. As an out of the blue event - I
doubt it - they would probably end up in the spud locker. Additionally
if I were the ship's Captain I would not even allow the attempt.
John Bartels
Terry Martin
In article <4pn6a7$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
In article <4pn6a7$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
>
>Scott Hemsley (has...@globalserve.on.ca) writes:
>> Mike Aitchison wrote:
>> I do recall such an article about one CAF exchange pilot. When it came
>> time to instruct the latter half of the course (carrier deployment), it
>> was nesseccary for him to become fully carrier-qualed. As I understand
>> it, his performance made quite an impression with his US counterparts.
>>
>I seem to recall that Maj. Chris Hadfield (CAF) now a Canadian Astronaut
>has done carrier traps on exchange programs. But I think he is the exception.
Exchange tours are not unusual, and I don't think Maj Hadfield is an exception
in that he is an outstanding pilot. He did do an exchange tour with the US
Navy, and received an award for being the best test pilot in the Navy. He also
was awarded top graduate of the USAF Test Pilot school at Edwards. *That* you
could call exceptional...
Check out his bio at: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/hadfield.html
BTW can the gear and hook on Canadian Hornets take the type of stress
associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
same as on USN F-18's.
Terry
James Linn
>
> BTW can the gear and hook on Canadian Hornets take the type of stress
> associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
> same as on USN F-18's.
>
The Canadian Government decided that the durability provided by the
standard F/A 18 landing gear was not unwanted, even though it was probably
overkill for a land based aircraft. Our CAF18s are stock F/A18s, with no
mods (A&Bs, no Cs or Ds). I'm not sure how many updates have been made to
basic systems along the way.
Canada tends to keep its aircraft flying a long long time, so the trade
off of durability versus a slight weight saving made sense.
James Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Cole Pierce
.. would probably take more training than you imagine .. isn't everything
upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
gun one
L. Katchur
In article <4ppalv$a...@nntp.igs.net>, tma...@igs.net says...
>BTW can the gear and hook on Canadian Hornets take the type of stress
>associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
>same as on USN F-18's.
>
The Canadian CF-18 is almost exactly the same as a standard USN F-18.
CF-18's have all the components to do carrier landings and take-offs.
The reason why the components were left on, was because removal of
these items would have made the aircraft much more expensive. It was
simply more cost effective to just build the plane the same way all
the others were built, but just paint them differently. There are,
however, some other small differences in the a/c's. But for the main
parts their the same plane.
--
*************************************************
Lyle W. Katchur - lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca
*************************************************
Graham Mansell
> BTW can the gear and hook on Canadian Hornets take the type of stress
> associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
> same as on USN F-18's.
Yes they can they have to for arrested landings should the
aircraft have a problem that will not allow adequate control after
landing. We had one bird at Cold Lake once that took the gear and it had
been tensioned wrong once the forward movement stopped the a/c started
rolling backwards. It danced on the hook for a second and the crew almost
punched out. Hook was really bent out of shape.
Scott Hemsley
Terry Martin wrote:
> BTW can the gear and hook on Canadian Hornets take the type of stress
> associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
> same as on USN F-18's.
I may be technically proved incorrect, but I recall seeing some info re the CF-18's as
accepted by the CAF that stated that as far as the landing gear/arrestor hook, etc, NOTHING was
changed from the USN aircraft.
Scott
Andrew Juniper
Cole Pierce wrote:
> .. would probably take more training than you imagine .. isn't everything
> upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
>
--
Andrew Juniper Email: jun...@octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au
"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in you
life."
Confuscious
Home page URL: http://www.cs.adfa.oz.au/~junap95/
Aviation page URL: http://www.cs.adfa.oz.au/~junap95/pointer.html
STEFAN JANSSON
lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca (L. Katchur) wrote:
>In article <4ppalv$a...@nntp.igs.net>, tma...@igs.net says...
>>associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
>>same as on USN F-18's.
>>
>
>
>The Canadian CF-18 is almost exactly the same as a standard USN F-18.
>CF-18's have all the components to do carrier landings and take-offs.
>The reason why the components were left on, was because removal of
>these items would have made the aircraft much more expensive. It was
>simply more cost effective to just build the plane the same way all
>the others were built, but just paint them differently. There are,
>however, some other small differences in the a/c's. But for the main
>parts their the same plane.
>
>--
>*************************************************
> Lyle W. Katchur - lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca
>*************************************************
STEFAN JANSSON
STEFAN JANSSON
pie...@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) wrote:
>In article <31BF51...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au>, John Bartels <bar...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au> writes:
>|> Patrick C Hew wrote:
>|> "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
>|> > Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>|> > Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
>|> > be willing to share their experiences in this?
>|>
>|>
>|> As an ex Royal Australian Navy pilot - sure the RAAF guys could - if
>|> they were given the training first. As an out of the blue event - I
>|> doubt it - they would probably end up in the spud locker. Additionally
>|> if I were the ship's Captain I would not even allow the attempt.
>|>
>|> John Bartels
>
>upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
>
>gun one
>In article <31BF51...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au>, John Bartels <bar...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au> writes:
>|> Patrick C Hew wrote:
>|> "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
>|> > Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>|> > Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
>|> > be willing to share their experiences in this?
>|>
>|>
>|> As an ex Royal Australian Navy pilot - sure the RAAF guys could - if
>|> they were given the training first. As an out of the blue event - I
>|> doubt it - they would probably end up in the spud locker. Additionally
>|> if I were the ship's Captain I would not even allow the attempt.
>|>
>|> John Bartels
>
STEFAN JANSSON
STEFAN JANSSON
Brian Grinter
John Bartels <bar...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>Patrick C Hew wrote:
> "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
>> Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>> Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
>> be willing to share their experiences in this?
>As an ex Royal Australian Navy pilot - sure the RAAF guys could - if
>they were given the training first. As an out of the blue event - I
>doubt it - they would probably end up in the spud locker. Additionally
>if I were the ship's Captain I would not even allow the attempt.
Hi John, what did you fly for the RAN, Sky Hawks? When I was a little
kid flying A4s was my dream, I was so upset when the HMAS Melbourne
was sold off (as was Fleet Air Arm, I suppose...)
The RAAF might land a Hornet on a carrier, but they wouldn't get back
off again, as they don't have a catapult bar on the nose wheel (check
out models and paintings of RAAF Hornets, they always stick this back
on through ignorance)
Apparently, USN Tomcat pilots found the Melbourne a little on the
small side, I heard an unconfirmed story that a USN pilot landed a
Tomcat on the Meblbourne and had this feat painted on the side of his
aircraft.
Do you still fly today?
Regards
BRIAN
Brian Grinter
Sydney, Australia
bri...@ozonline.com.au
ph 61 2 6228970
Dan Ford
On 13 Jun 1996, Cole Pierce wrote:
> .. would probably take more training than you imagine .. isn't everything
> upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
No, no, no! This is not the problem. (The carrier of course is also
upside-down.)
The problem is that Australians keep to the left, vehicularly speaking.
He would be driving on the *wrong side* of the carrier.
-- Dan
L. Katchur
In article <4ptp4i$9...@d1o1.telia.com>,
stefan....@stockholm.mail.telia.com says...
>What about an Super Etendard pilot on a US carrier
What is a "Super Etendard" pilot?
John Weiss
On 06/15/96 09:06PM, in message <4pun33$10...@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>, L.
Katchur <lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca> wrote:
A French Navy pilot that flies Super Etendards off French carriers.
--
John Weiss
Bare Bones BBS, Seattle, WA
206-368-7672
Joe Claffey Jr.
In article <4ptpit$9...@d1o1.telia.com>, STEFAN JANSSON
<stefan....@stockholm.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca (L. Katchur) wrote:
>>In article <4ppalv$a...@nntp.igs.net>, tma...@igs.net says...
>>>BTW can the gear and hook on Canadian Hornets take the type of stress
>>>associated with a carrier landing? I have heard those components are not the
>>>same as on USN F-18's.
>>>
>>>Terry
>>
>>
>>The Canadian CF-18 is almost exactly the same as a standard USN F-18.
>>CF-18's have all the components to do carrier landings and take-offs.
>>The reason why the components were left on, was because removal of
>>these items would have made the aircraft much more expensive. It was
>>simply more cost effective to just build the plane the same way all
>>the others were built, but just paint them differently. There are,
>>however, some other small differences in the a/c's. But for the main
>>parts their the same plane.
>>
>>--
>>*************************************************
>> Lyle W. Katchur - lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca
>>*************************************************
>>What about an Super Etendard pilot on a US carrier
I recall at least one time when a French jet landed on a US carrier off
of Bosnia. I don't know what model it was, though.
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
j...@nai.net | - Charlie Chaplin
L. Katchur
In article <4prgsl$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, cv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...
> Yes they can they have to for arrested landings should the
>aircraft have a problem that will not allow adequate control after
>landing. We had one bird at Cold Lake once that took the gear and it had
>been tensioned wrong once the forward movement stopped the a/c started
>rolling backwards. It danced on the hook for a second and the crew almost
>punched out. Hook was really bent out of shape.
Pretty much every year at the Red Deer International Air Show, the CF-18
does an arrested landing. It not only shows the safety measures in place
in case of an emergency, but it also shows the abilty to do short runway
landings. I've seen this done live a couple of times now, and it's quite
impressive.
--
Darrell A. Larose
John Weiss (jrw...@seanet.com) writes:
> On 06/15/96 09:06PM, in message <4pun33$10...@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>, L.
> Katchur <lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <4ptp4i$9...@d1o1.telia.com>,
> > stefan....@stockholm.mail.telia.com says...
> >
> > >What about an Super Etendard pilot on a US carrier
> >
> > What is a "Super Etendard" pilot?
> >
> > --
> > *************************************************
> > Lyle W. Katchur - lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca
> > *************************************************
> >
> A French Navy pilot that flies Super Etendards off French carriers.
An episode of Wings (Sea Wings) had some footage of an Argentine Navy
Super Entendards, doing joint exercises, with full landings and cat
shots off of an USN Carrier. You remember Argentina has those a/c...
It was an Exocet armed Super Etendard that attacked the HMS Sheffield
during the Falklands War
check 6.
--
Darrell Larose | dar...@shoepub.com
ad...@freenet.carleton.ca | http://www.newforce.ca/~darrell/cco_home.htm
dar...@cesani.newforce.ca| http://www.newforce.ca/~darrell/
Stefano Pagiola
L. Katchur wrote:
>
> In article <4ptp4i$9...@d1o1.telia.com>,
> stefan....@stockholm.mail.telia.com says...
> >What about an Super Etendard pilot on a US carrier
>
> What is a "Super Etendard" pilot?
Why, the pilot of a Super Etendard, of course.
For the unitiated: the Super Etendard is a French Navy attack plane.
The British met a few down in the Falklands, and lost a few ships as
a consequence. It is a much improved (hence "super") version of the
earlier Etendard ("banner")
Stefano
RONALD LEWIS
jrw...@seanet.com (John Weiss) wrote:
>On 06/15/96 09:06PM, in message <4pun33$10...@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>, L.
>
> > In article <4ptp4i$9...@d1o1.telia.com>,
> > stefan....@stockholm.mail.telia.com says...
> >
> > >What about an Super Etendard pilot on a US carrier
> >
> > What is a "Super Etendard" pilot?
> >
> > *************************************************
> > Lyle W. Katchur - lkat...@ccinet.ab.ca
> > *************************************************
> >
>A French Navy pilot that flies Super Etendards off French carriers.
Etendards struck a British guided missile destroyer (DDG), a Type
42-class Air Defence ship, the HMS Sheffield, with an AM.39 Exocet
missile, mortally wounding the ship. This action involved two Super
Etendards and two Exocets, one of which is said to have been led astray
by electronic countermeasures, but I have heard at least one report that
both missiles actually hit the Sheffield. No confirmation on that point.
The other ship destroyed by a Super Etendard/Exocet combination was the
container vessel ATLANTIC CONVEYOR. More importantly, the British lost
several Chinooks and Harriers on board that ship.
For those who are wondering, the Iraqi Exocet that nearly sunk the US
frigate USS STARK in the Persian Gulf some years ago was fired by a
French-built Iraqi Mirage F.1, not a Super Etendard.
RONALD LEWIS
To answer the title question:
There should be no reason why an Australian Hornet could not land on an
aircraft carrier, as long as the tailhook is installed, and there would
be no reason to remove the hook since it comes in handy during emergency
landings on land as well (one reason US Air Force aircraft such as
the F-15, F-16 and others have them, too). However, as a minor point of
clarification, the F/A-18 is actually known as an AF-18A or AF-18B in the
Royal Australian Air Force.
Ron Lewis
RONALD LEWIS
RONALD LEWIS
As long as he has a tailhook, the Super Etendard aircraft could land on a
US carrier. However....unless that aircraft carrier is equipped with the
old-fashioned bridle harness for the catapult, he could not catapult off
the carrier.
Anybody ever notice those long projections off the bows of all older
classes of carriers? Some of the modern ships have only one, some none
at all. It turns out, those were the extensions that the old-fashioned
bridle for aircraft like the A-4, F-4 and some other 1950s/60s-era
aircraft needed. When the aircraft was catapulted off, the bridle would
drop free on the down-angled extension ramp. Today, the aircraft have a
tow bar that slides into and is locked inside a "shoe" that pulls them
along the cat. The tow bar breaks free at the end and the aircraft is
flung off the deck. Any aircraft, such as the 1960s-era Super Etendard,
would need a carrier suitably equipped in order to take off again.
However, considering that the alternative is a one-time, lifetime bath in
the drink, a short vacation on a US carrier doesn't seem like such a bad
thing after all.
Ron Lewis
RONALD LEWIS
pie...@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) wrote:
>In article <31BF51...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au>, John Bartels <bar...@bowral-mail.tpgi.com.au> writes:
>|> "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
>|> > Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>|> > Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
>|> > be willing to share their experiences in this?
>|>
>|>
>|> As an ex Royal Australian Navy pilot - sure the RAAF guys could - if
>|> they were given the training first. As an out of the blue event - I
>|> doubt it - they would probably end up in the spud locker. Additionally
>|> if I were the ship's Captain I would not even allow the attempt.
>|>
>
>.. would probably take more training than you imagine .. isn't everything
>upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
>
All very good points. Everything I mentioned about this in following
messages was geared toward whether or not the aircraft could physically
perform the act. As for the pilot, the above points are all extremely
valid. Australia has not had an aircraft carrier for many, many years
and landing on a carrier deck, even in the best of conditions, is not a
walk in the park.
Let's ask, for a moment, why an Australian AF-18 pilot would even want to
try this, to begin with. Lack of fuel? Simply send a KA-6D tanker or a
KC-10, KC-135, or other NATO-standard tanker up to tank him up and send
him on his merry way.
What about battle damage? Pilot too injured to eject? Well, as callous
as it sounds, life can be rough, but then you die. The likelihood that a
wounded RAAF AF-18 pilot would be allowed to jeopardize a carrier is
extremely remote. He would simply be advised to approach as near to the
carrier as possible, within limits, told to ditch/eject, and be rescued
as quickly as possible by a plane-guard helicopter launched specifically
for his rescue. If he made it, great. If not, that's one of the risks
of naval aviation, folks. It is not too likely that an RAAF AF-18 would
be damaged in a battle that the US was not taking some part in and the
carrier would not be put at risk in a combat zone for one pilot,
Australian or American.
Ron Lewis
RONALD LEWIS
ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Patrick C Hew) wrote:
>Here's what I thought would be an interesting variant on
>the carrier landing theme.
>
>For those who don't know, the Royal Australian Air Force
>operates three squadrons of F/A-18s (75 or so F/A-18A
>and 12 or so F/A-18B). Now whilst I expect that training
>emphasizes RAAF mission roles, I just get a feeling that
>during a PacRim or Kangaroo exercise (say), more than one
>RAAF pilot would have looked down idly at a carrier and
>thought "What a tiny boat... I wonder if I can land on it?"
>Or gave it shot in the simulator? Or something?
>
>Are there any Knuckle drivers (if I may use the term) who'd
>be willing to share their experiences in this?
>
>Canadian for Australian]
>
>Patrick
>
>
>Patrick Hew ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
>The University of Western Australia
Patrick, if interested, you'll note a variety of comments I made
about this scenario, but I just found your original message and wanted to
pass on some trivia/corrections.
According to FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL VOL 148 no. 4479, cover-dated 5-11 JULY
1995, their AIR FORCES OF THE WORLD index lists 71 F-18s.
In the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD MILITARY AIRCRAFT, VOL. 2, by WORLD
AIRPOWER JOURNAL, published in late 1994, the listing for the F-18 states
that the RAAF acquired 57 AF-18A (sic) and 18 AF-18B aircraft from
1985-90, for the total of 75 you mentioned. I would suspect that the
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL magazine listing of 71 aircraft is more current and
accurate, possibly due to accidents and so on.
It clearly states that the designation is AF-18A and -B. If you find
that is not correct, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know so that I can
correct my database. Thanks.
Ron Lewis
Dave Riddel
RONALD LEWIS wrote:
> clarification, the F/A-18 is actually known as an AF-18A or AF-18B in the
> Royal Australian Air Force.
>
> Ron Lewis
-Actually, it's known as the F/A-18A or F/A-18B!
Steve Thomas
--
Dave Riddel
rid...@gil.com.au
Unofficial F-111 HomePage
http://www.gil.com.au/~riddel/f111g.html
John Weiss
On 06/15/96 03:46PM, in message
<Pine.OSF.3.91a.96061...@christa.unh.edu>, Dan Ford
<d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
> On 13 Jun 1996, Cole Pierce wrote:
>
> > .. would probably take more training than you imagine .. isn't
> > everything upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
>
> No, no, no! This is not the problem. (The carrier of course is also
> upside-down.)
>
> The problem is that Australians keep to the left, vehicularly speaking.
> He would be driving on the *wrong side* of the carrier.
>
>
Two easy fixes, then:
Flat-bottomed boats
Put the island on the left side.
P.S. Watch out for the screws if you're low!
Mary Shafer
On Thu, 13 Jun 96 15:00:57 GMT, tma...@igs.net (Terry Martin) said:
T> Exchange tours are not unusual, and I don't think Maj Hadfield is
T> an exception in that he is an outstanding pilot.
I know a CAF pilot, Ricardo Traven, who is on exchange to the US Navy
at Pax; he was a test pilot in Strike (which has a new name now) and
is currently an instructor at the USN TPS. We here at Dryden will
agree with the Navy that he's an outstanding pilot. We were very
pleased when he came and flew our F-18 HARV.
I should mention that we're spring-loaded to find Canadian pilots to
be outstanding, since our Chief Pilot, who has dual citizenship by
descent, was in the RCAF before he came to the States.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Cole Pierce
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91a.96061...@christa.unh.edu>, Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
|>
|> On 13 Jun 1996, Cole Pierce wrote:
|>
|> > .. would probably take more training than you imagine .. isn't everything
|> > upside down down under ??? Just wondering ....
|>
|> No, no, no! This is not the problem. (The carrier of course is also
|> upside-down.)
|>
|> The problem is that Australians keep to the left, vehicularly speaking.
|> He would be driving on the *wrong side* of the carrier.
|>
|>
So then it's sort of like one of our Marine counterparts (F-4 driver) who
came into the break at the USS America on the downwind side and tried to
shoot his approach to the bow??
Ah ha. Now I've got it.
gun one
James Linn
In article <SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 96 15:00:57 GMT, tma...@igs.net (Terry Martin) said:
>
> T> Exchange tours are not unusual, and I don't think Maj Hadfield is
> T> an exception in that he is an outstanding pilot.
>
> I know a CAF pilot, Ricardo Traven, who is on exchange to the US Navy
> at Pax; he was a test pilot in Strike (which has a new name now) and
> is currently an instructor at the USN TPS. We here at Dryden will
> agree with the Navy that he's an outstanding pilot. We were very
> pleased when he came and flew our F-18 HARV.
>
> I should mention that we're spring-loaded to find Canadian pilots to
> be outstanding, since our Chief Pilot, who has dual citizenship by
> descent, was in the RCAF before he came to the States.
> --
Is he that old Mary? I seem to put the unification of the RCAF into the
CAF at 1968. I got alot of old badges and pins from my uncle back then.
Too bad I can't find them anymore.
About exchange pilots, wouldn't they tend to be top 10% (other than
instructors and others too valuable to be on exchange) anyway? So its not
suprising you've seen alot of excellent Canadian pilots.
And I'm suprised about the dual citizenship. I understood that one of the
ways an American could loose dual citizenship is to join a foreign armed
forces, as it meant swearing allegiance to that country above all others.
This has been a debate on alt.folklore.urban for a while. While I'd
understand that exceptions were made for WWII, I always thought America
made it tough. The few Canadians who signed up with the US for Vietnam had
no citizenship issues once they came back to Canada.
James Linn
Cole Pierce
In article <4q2r4t$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, RONALD LEWIS <INTEL...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|> To answer the title question:
|>
|> There should be no reason why an Australian Hornet could not land on an
|> aircraft carrier, as long as the tailhook is installed, and there would
|> be no reason to remove the hook since it comes in handy during emergency
|> landings on land as well (one reason US Air Force aircraft such as
|> the F-15, F-16 and others have them, too).
Here we go again.
gun one
Mary Shafer
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:54:00 -0400, James...@nortel.com (James Linn) said:
J> In article <SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
J> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
J> Is he that old Mary?
He turned 60 in April. I don't know how long he was in the RCAF, but
he flew for Langley for a year and then spent a long time at Calspan
before coming to Dryden in about 1983.
If it's any help, he flew F-86s in the RCAF and got to Calspan when
the NYANG was flying F-101s.
J> And I'm suprised about the dual citizenship.
He was born with it, having an American mother and a Canadian father
and having spent the requisite time in the States although he was born
in Canada. This is all I know about the situation; I think there was
some sort of special deal for such people. Remember that this would
have been back in the '30s, so modern citizenship law has very little
to do with this.
Matt Clonfero
In message <4q2n22$k...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> RONALD LEWIS wrote:
> Also flown by Argentina. During the Falklands War, one of two Super
> Etendards struck a British guided missile destroyer (DDG), a Type
> 42-class Air Defence ship, the HMS Sheffield, with an AM.39 Exocet
> missile, mortally wounding the ship. This action involved two Super
> Etendards and two Exocets, one of which is said to have been led astray
> by electronic countermeasures, but I have heard at least one report that
> both missiles actually hit the Sheffield. No confirmation on that point.
Minor nit: it's not `the HMS Sheffield' - expand HMS and you'll see it
doesn't make sense. Either `HMS Sheffield' or `the Sheffield.'
The second missile didn't hit the Sheffield - you can clearly see the impact
point on the pictures taken after the event.
> The other ship destroyed by a Super Etendard/Exocet combination was the
> container vessel ATLANTIC CONVEYOR. More importantly, the British lost
> several Chinooks and Harriers on board that ship.
3 Chinooks, Zero harriers. The big losses were:
A few tons of cluster bombs. These would have made the Argentine infantry's
life even more of a misery.
The gear for HMS Sheathbill (The Harrier landing strip). This had to
be replaced, slowing down the basing of Harriers on land.
The three chinooks. This led to the `yomp' of the Commandos and Paras.
One Chinook, Bravo November, was already off the Conveyor.
Note that this strike was aimed at the Type 21 frigate, HMS Ambuscade. She
managed to decoy the missiles off herself after HMS Exeter got an early
detection of the Argave radar on her UAA1 (ESM).
There was a third attack, using the fifth and final AM.39 followed up by
a flight of A-4s with iron bombs. This attack was intended to target
HMS Invincible, but the exocet missed (or was decoyed) and the bombers
didn't hit anything.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Patrick C Hew
pie...@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) writes:
>In article <4q2r4t$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, RONALD LEWIS <INTEL...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>|> To answer the title question:
>|>
>|> landings on land as well (one reason US Air Force aircraft such as
>|> the F-15, F-16 and others have them, too).
>Here we go again.
Sorry. I was worried that this would happen when I started, but
I figured that since the F/A-18 is a naval aircraft, that I would
have a decent leeway. :) So let me try and summarize.
1) The aircraft itself is able to land. It still has all the nice
beefy landing gear, arrestor, structure of the Hornet we're
coming to know and love. However, once on deck it's stuck there
until it can be carried of by crane, COD or chopper, since the
tow bar launch gear isn't in place. Can anyone say "hangar queen"?
2) RAAF (and CAF) pilots can and have become "aviators", but only
when on exchange to the USN or USMC . So in terms of the flyer,
it can be done, but only after a hell of a lot of training.
3) As much as it would be fun to all, no carrier captain worth
their salt is going to risk their billion dollar carpark just
to see whether it could be done. The simulator doesn't run
this scenario (too bad :), so I guess RAAF pilots who want
to give it a shot have to "do it with the Marines".
4) Even if we ignore (3), there are still problems. In Australia
we drive on the left hand side of the road, so to make everything
okay, the pilot would have to approach the carrier over the bows.
[This is humour]
Wave Off!
Patrick
Patrick Hew
ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
propwash
If he does, I hope he has a visa otherwise arrest him. How about could the
carrier land on the F-18? Yeah, but how about if it is raining really hard -
no snowing. Could the carrier land on the F-18 while it was snowing?
Does the carrier have an arresting hook? Could be good in an emergency
aircraft landing as anchors are probably a little tricky to manipulate on such
a small target as an F-18 for the carrier crew.
Mary Shafer
On 18 Jun 1996 00:14:28 GMT, ph...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Patrick C Hew) said:
P> 2) RAAF (and CAF) pilots can and have become "aviators", but only
P> when on exchange to the USN or USMC . So in terms of the flyer, it
P> can be done, but only after a hell of a lot of training.
RAAF and CAF pilots are already aviators and extremely good ones.
Pilot and aviator mean the same thing except to the USN, which fears
that people flying aircraft might be confused with the local people
that guide ships in and out of harbors.
I think you meant to write "carrier qualified" above.
Fubar2X
RONALD LEWIS <INTEL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The other ship destroyed by a Super Etendard/Exocet combination was the
> container vessel ATLANTIC CONVEYOR. More importantly, the British lost
> several Chinooks and Harriers on board that ship.
The ATLANTIC CONVEYOR apparently arrived in the South Atlantic carrying 8
Sea Harriers, 4 RAF Harrier GR.Mk 3's, 4 Chinooks, and 10 Wessex
helicopters. The 12 Harriers had all flown off to the British carriers on
May 18, and one of the Chinooks (Bravo November) was luckily in the air
when the ATLANTIC CONVEYOR was destroyed by an Exocet on May 25. So, the
British lost 3 Chinooks and 10 Wessex helicopters, along with the tentage
for the entire ground force, but no Harriers, when the ATLANTIC CONVEYOR
went down.
Fubar2X
Travfarley
could an Aussie land a hornet on a CV? If he can hold the velocity vector
on the crotch he would be an average US hornet driver.
travis.
Chad Miller
>
> I know a CAF pilot, Ricardo Traven, who is on exchange to the US Navy
> at Pax; he was a test pilot in Strike (which has a new name now) and
> is currently an instructor at the USN TPS. We here at Dryden will
> agree with the Navy that he's an outstanding pilot. We were very
> pleased when he came and flew our F-18 HARV.
<snip>
>
> --
> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
Ricardo is one of the best pilots that has ever come through Pax. He
flew the quasi-hairy Departure Demonstration flights when we were looking
at updating the departure recovery techniques, and also flew the PID data
gathering flights with a heavily instrumented F-18, which requires some
precison.
Also, a helluva nice fellow. Never beat up on the poor 'sim weenies' more
than he had to. :)
'The skipper's say I'm Crazy, but I can prove them wrong
For I am charge of the lower deck, with all that doth belong
Which they would not give to a Lunatic, and the competition so
strong!' _Muholland's Contract_ Kipling
Chad Miller
Team Leader, Manned Flight Simulator Facility
Atlantic Ranges and Facilities
Peter & Carol Meehan
Mary Shafer wrote:
> RAAF and CAF pilots are already aviators and extremely good ones.
> Pilot and aviator mean the same thing except to the USN, which fears
> that people flying aircraft might be confused with the local people
> that guide ships in and out of harbors.
>
> I think you meant to write "carrier qualified" above.
> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
Here, Here Mary!!!
(Could give some eye opening statistics and stories from joint fighter
exercise with Australia ;-) )
Flight Lieutenant Pete Meehan
Royal Australian Air Force
C-130J Project Team
Lockheed, Atlanta
Brian Grinter
ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk (Matt Clonfero) wrote:
>There was a third attack, using the fifth and final AM.39 followed up by
>a flight of A-4s with iron bombs. This attack was intended to target
>HMS Invincible, but the exocet missed (or was decoyed) and the bombers
>didn't hit anything.
Heard a joke recently, its pretty old I think, but I'll repeat it
anyway ;-)
Margaret Thatcher was walking down the street and she saw an
unemployed man sitting with a coin bowl at his feet.
"Go and get a job, you miserable man" she exclaimed, giving him a kick
for good measure.
A bit further down the street she sees a similar man, but this one has
a sign saying "FALKLAND ISLANDS VETERAN".
"Oh you courageous man", she says, as she throws a couple of fifty
pound notes in bowl. The man looks up and says,
"Gracious, senoreta!"
(The ends spelt wrong, but you get the idea...)
Brian Grinter
Sydney, Australia
bri...@ozonline.com.au
ph 61 2 6228970
Brian Grinter
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
>An episode of Wings (Sea Wings) had some footage of an Argentine Navy
>Super Entendards, doing joint exercises, with full landings and cat
>shots off of an USN Carrier. You remember Argentina has those a/c...
>It was an Exocet armed Super Etendard that attacked the HMS Sheffield
>during the Falklands War
I thought they were doing touch n goes. May be wrong, however...
Brian Grinter
RONALD LEWIS <INTEL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>What about battle damage? Pilot too injured to eject? Well, as callous
>as it sounds, life can be rough, but then you die. The likelihood that a
>wounded RAAF AF-18 pilot would be allowed to jeopardize a carrier is
>extremely remote. He would simply be advised to approach as near to the
>carrier as possible, within limits, told to ditch/eject, and be rescued
>as quickly as possible by a plane-guard helicopter launched specifically
>for his rescue. If he made it, great. If not, that's one of the risks
>of naval aviation, folks. It is not too likely that an RAAF AF-18 would
>be damaged in a battle that the US was not taking some part in and the
>carrier would not be put at risk in a combat zone for one pilot,
>Australian or American.
Read a story in a magazine called Australian Aviation, about a British
Shackelton crew who were patrolling the Atlantic and bored. They
stopped a US carrier so powered back to two engines, lowered gear and
started to do an approach.
The men on the carrier, thinking the Shackelton had experienced some
catastrophic emergency, started pushing aircraft off the side of the
ship to make way for the approaching four engined plane (for those
unsure, the Shackelton is based on the Avro Lancaster). Imagine their
surprise, and annoyance, when the Shackelton executed a go around and
flew off into the distance.
Apparently, the Shackelton pilots never flew again...
Brian Grinter
>Mary Shafer wrote:
>> RAAF and CAF pilots are already aviators and extremely good ones.
>> Pilot and aviator mean the same thing except to the USN, which fears
>> that people flying aircraft might be confused with the local people
>> that guide ships in and out of harbors.
>>
>> I think you meant to write "carrier qualified" above.
>> --
>> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
>Here, Here Mary!!!
>(Could give some eye opening statistics and stories from joint fighter
>exercise with Australia ;-) )
Seen some stills from Mirages kicking F-14 & F-15 butt!
David John Esson Christie
The HMS Glamorgan was hit in the rear end by an Exocet. It took out the
helocopter hangar but I'm not sure if there was a helo in it at the time.
Although damaged, the ship did not sink.
Paul J. Adam
Christie <d...@zoo.bt.co.uk> writes
>
>The HMS Glamorgan was hit in the rear end by an Exocet. It took out the
>helocopter hangar but I'm not sure if there was a helo in it at the time.
>Although damaged, the ship did not sink.
She wasn't even prevented from completing her mission (naval gunfire
support).
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Matt Clonfero
In message <djc-270696...@unicorn.zoo.bt.co.uk> David John Esson Christie wrote:
> The HMS Glamorgan was hit in the rear end by an Exocet. It took out the
> helocopter hangar but I'm not sure if there was a helo in it at the time.
> Although damaged, the ship did not sink.
That wasn't an air-launched exocet. It was an MM.38, taken from the deck of
an Argentine warship and fired from an impromptu rig-up near Stanley airfield.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
rfost...@gmail.com
dump...@hotmail.com
"Capt. Juha “Stallion” Jarvinen’s landing was the first landing on an aircraft
carrier by a Finnish air force pilot in history, according to the U.S. Navy.
Jarvinen was flying a U.S. Marine F/A-18C Hornet with Marine Fighter Attack
Training Squadron 101 as part of a pilot exchange program — also a first between
the U.S. Marines and the Finnish air force."
See:
https://warisboring.com/in-a-first-a-finnish-pilot-lands-on-a-u-s-aircraft-carrier/
sal.a....@lab347.com
Keith Willshaw
> FA18 doing a low level flypast at the Australian F1 GP deployed an arrestor hook! I did not notice a nose steam catapult fitment, ill keep looking.
>
short field landings including the F-16 as I recall.
Juergen Nieveler
brakes fail and they run out of runway before running out of speed.
For example the Starfighter had one, and it was among other things used
when losing thrust in the middle of the takeoff run.
--
Juergen Nieveler
Grantland
Jeff Crowell
> Brutal on the runway.
Not really that rough on the concrete. But rough as hell on planes
not stressed for arrested landings--as non-carrier planes most decidedly
are not. Class 'A' damage is almost a certainty at engagement speeds
much above 50 or 60 knots. Far as that goes, damage sustained is also
dependent on the type of a-gear engaged as well. Back in my day (early
80s), overrrun gear was quite commonly a couple of lengths of anchor
chain laid out in such a way that as the aircraft proceeded past the
engagement point, a ever-greater amount of chain was pulled along, this
to provide some attempt at progressively increasing resistance. These
days, I'm sure it's all bi-di arresting engines, whether short-field,
mid-field, long (the short-field gear if going the other way), or
overrun.
And the USAF-style (i.e. non-carrier) hooks are nowhere near as beefy
as Navy hooks, thus improving your chances of tearing the darn thing
out.
Jeff
Grantland
Grant
a425couple
stationed at, the runways had arresting cables deployed
at all times?
Jeff Crowell
> Are you saying that on all runways the Starfighter was
> stationed at, the runways had arresting cables deployed
> at all times?
but rarely, if ever, anything else (e.g. short field arresting gear)
unless an aircraft specifically requested it, and it was not immediately
available, the guys had to drive out there and rig it for you.
It was usually a pretty traumatic event for a Navy plane to need the
gear at an Air Force base, they just didn't use 'em that much. I recall
one time in early 80s when an entire CAW (Carrier Air Wing) was XC-ing
and had to RON at Cannon AFB due to weather. The runway was wet, and
every aircraft had to arrest (Navy planes don't do so well on wet
concrete). The Air Force basically never got over it--when the dust had
settled they closed the field to Navy aircraft not actually declaring
an emergency.
Jeff