Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

The USAF has operated many aircraft that have have operated by the USN and USMC. That's pretty much common knowledge. What I'd like to know if these aircraft the USAF operated were capable of landing on carriers. So, could the AF have landed certain models of F-4s, A-7s and A-1s on angled deck carriers?

F-16.net Sponsor

Salute!

I think all three could have landed on a carrier.

Only problem we had with the A-7D was we didn't have that doofer on the nose gear for a cat launch.

The Skyraider didn't need the cat, so it was prolly a done deal.

Gums sends ..

Navy Phantoms used cables when launching off carriers. Maybe USAF Phantoms had the same attachment points. I believe the USMC used arrester and catapult systems at forward airstrips in Vietnam. I wonder if a USAF F-4C/D/E ever had to land at one of those bases.

Sure, why not Shrug

Examples...

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Sure, why not Shrug

Examples...

Yeah not like Admiral Flatley had any training or skill. Any old air force pilot could do it no problem.

discofishing wrote:

Navy Phantoms used cables when launching off carriers. Maybe USAF Phantoms had the same attachment points. I believe the USMC used arrester and catapult systems at forward airstrips in Vietnam. I wonder if a USAF F-4C/D/E ever had to land at one of those bases.

The C's maybe, Ds and Es not so much. Pilots, definitely not equipped to do so.

Last edited by madrat on Mar 19, 2010 - 05:20 AM; edited 3 times in total

The USN and USAF used different front landing gear complete with slightly different door coverings, with the USN using a bulkier arm. The USN landing gear was extra extensible. So unlikely you would land or catapult a USAF version on a pitching flight deck.

The "F-4E has an antenna here" comment is for the USAF version, not the USN version. The USAF version has an extra sheet metal covering up pretty much everything on the underside except for a small outline of the antenna.

EDIT: Something has bothered me about the drawing. I labeled the F-4E as having USAF and USN versions which is wrong. I mistakenly saw the F-4E pictures with and without the ILS glide-scope unit and took it for something it was not. There was no USN F-4E version, which is the part that didn't make sense. After reviewing the original Squadron-Signal book on the F-4E and its myriad of pictures with obfuscated labels, I believe the misinterpretation is all mine. They meant the USAF version with 'its extra sheet metal covering' is made with respect to "export versions", not some fictitious USN version. It makes sense because the export versions did not have that rwr antenna in them. Mea Culpa. Smile

Interesting information, thanks madrat!!! What about the F-4C? Wasn't that pretty much a copy of an F-4B? It even had the folding wings. A long time ago, I actually thought the USAF operated F-4Cs or Ds from carriers. At some point the Navy painted some of their F-4Bs all green. I think they modified those birds for SEAD missions. It's really interesting to see camouflaged aircraft on carrier decks.

I bet the idea of USAF Phantoms operating on carriers has been thought about, long and hard. In the end, the USAF F-4s were used longer, probably cuz they weren't being slammed onto carrier decks all of the time.

All of the F-4's - not just U.S. versions - used the same folding winglets, even the slatted leading edge versions. The USAF did operate fully fledged carrier-capable F-4's - it appears after further research - in the F-4B and F-4C models. The tires of the F-4C would have been problematic; but it still retained the catapult link, long front leg, and hook. It appears the first truly land-based F-4 for the USAF that had no real carrier capability was the F-4D.

F3H-G = twin-engine F3H proposal with four 20mm Colt cannon and four AIM-7; probably should have been proposed with a pair of J57's like the F-101 (rather than J65) but hindsight is always 20-20
F-4A = not far from original XF4H prototype; removed 20mm Colt from original XF4H proposals
F-4B = first large-scale production version; again with no internal gun, included an under-nose infrared sensor; used by USN first and adopted as-is by USAF
RF-4B = first version that used camera bays in the nose
F-4C = F-110A; first purpose-built USAF version using their own radar, a bomb computer, softer and wider tires, boom receptacle, engines that supported black powder cartridge starting, still no internal gun, and duplicate flight controls (for WSO, not a RIO)
RF-4C = first HIAC camera; unarmed
F-4D = USAF version with new radar that required the big nose and a purpose-built intercept computer, a better bomb computer, a gunsight for use with external-pod cannons, and were wired for nukes; also included the liquid nitrogen rig for Falcon on the inside rails
F-4E = USAF version with new Fowler flaps on the stabilizers, slatted wings, more power from the engines, yet another new radar, five foot nose extension, internal 20mm Vulcan gun, self-sealing tanks rather than bladders, more fuel, and the F-4's first zero-zero ejection seats - and it would soon after production started get pave tack, and even later pave spike (did I miss anything?)
RF-4E = reconnaissance-optimized version of the F-4E
F-4EJ = Japanese F-4E; mostly license-built
F-4F = German F-4E w/o AIM-7 capability
F-4G = USAF rebuilt F-4E; ultimate USAF version dedicated to SEAD
F-4J = USN version, still no gun; formed basis of RN F-4K and RAF F-4M
F-4K = RN Spey-powered F-4J variant
F-4M = RAF Spey-powered F-4J variant
F-4N = USN rebuilt F-4B
F-4S = USN rebuilt F-4J

The F-4S was a slatted "J" with higher thrust & reduced smoke engines and the pulse-doppler radar.

In the 80's, the Navy Reserves flew them out of Miramar and the Marine Reserves flew them out of the old NAS Dallas.

One well-flown "S" against two "D's" was nearly a fair fight.

Shocked

OL

(I wouldn't land a "D" on a boat. No "O-Club".)

madrat wrote:

The USN and USAF used different front landing gear complete with slightly different door coverings, with the USN using a bulkier arm. The USN landing gear was extra extensible. So unlikely you would land or catapult a USAF version on a pitching flight deck.

The extra extensible front gear was unique to the Royal Navy's F-4K. It was completely unnecessary though. F-4Js were able to operate from Ark Royal with the same loads as the Ks without any difficultly.

discofishing wrote:

Interesting information, thanks madrat!!! What about the F-4C? Wasn't that pretty much a copy of an F-4B? It even had the folding wings. A long time ago, I actually thought the USAF operated F-4Cs or Ds from carriers. At some point the Navy painted some of their F-4Bs all green. I think they modified those birds for SEAD missions. It's really interesting to see camouflaged aircraft on carrier decks.

No they didn't. The F-4B were modernized into F-4Ns. The Air Force converted C, D, and E models for SEAD. The C/D models were designated EF-4C/D. The E models were designated F-4G. There was some confusion because F-4G was reused. A number of F-4Bs were fitted with a special data link and briefly designated F-4G before reverting back to F-4B. F-4G was then used to designate F-4E based Wild Wiesel V aircraft.

Also the Navy/Marine corps does not do the Wild Wiesel mission, at least not the same way the air force does.

Quote:

I bet the idea of USAF Phantoms operating on carriers has been thought about, long and hard. In the end, the USAF F-4s were used longer, probably cuz they weren't being slammed onto carrier decks all of the time.

No, no no no no no no. The silver wings wanted nothing do with carrier decks and the gold wings didn't want them there. In fact, the Air Force had to be coerced into buying Navy F-4s and A-7s and quickly did whatever they could to make sure they could not physically operate from ships.

Also, they left NAVAIR service 2 years after the ANG retired their last phantoms. VMFA-112 converted to from F-4S to F/A-18A in 1992.

Quote:

Also, they left NAVAIR service 2 years after the ANG retired their last phantoms. VMFA-112 converted to from F-4S to F/A-18A in 1992.

The ANG retired their last Phantoms in 1996.

OL

bjr1028 wrote:

The extra extensible front gear was unique to the Royal Navy's F-4K. It was completely unnecessary though. F-4Js were able to operate from Ark Royal with the same loads as the Ks without any difficultly.

I wonder about that because in USN Phantoms seem to stick their front wheels down lower on approach than the land-oriented USAF cousins from the -C model on. Nothing specific is noted in the books I read that covered the Phantom. I did find mention of the F-4K online having 40 inches of travel - versus 20 inches for non-RN Phantoms - in their nose gear because the RN carriers were relatively short decks and this helped get the birds in the air with more AoA. Apparently the USN regulated the pressure in the naval Phantoms front strut to keep them pitched up on takeoff. There are photos of all kinds of Phantoms and their front struts which lost their pressure when they parked them for long periods. Does anyone know if these struts were pressurized by an external pump or was one built into the Phantom?

Quote:

No they didn't. The F-4B were modernized into F-4Ns. The Air Force converted C, D, and E models for SEAD. The C/D models were designated EF-4C/D. The E models were designated F-4G. There was some confusion because F-4G was reused. A number of F-4Bs were fitted with a special data link and briefly designated F-4G before reverting back to F-4B. F-4G was then used to designate F-4E based Wild Wiesel V aircraft.

I know about the modernization evolution of US Phantoms, I knew it when i was 10 years old. I'm saying I've seen various photographs that show "green" Phantoms (and other aircraft) on board aircraft carriers and never really got the full story as to why they were painted green and what made them different. I did read that the Navy called them F-4Gs for a little while. The data link thing sounds familiar. But what was the data link pod for? What kind of missions were they flying?

Quote:

No, no no no no no no. The silver wings wanted nothing do with carrier decks and the gold wings didn't want them there. In fact, the Air Force had to be coerced into buying Navy F-4s and A-7s and quickly did whatever they could to make sure they could not physically operate from ships.

Obviously "someone" (engineers?) was thinking long and hard about it or else the USAF birds wouldn't have been made unsuitable for carriers.

Quote:

Also, they left NAVAIR service 2 years after the ANG retired their last phantoms. VMFA-112 converted to from F-4S to F/A-18A in 1992.

I believe that is incorrect. My sources indicate the Navy retired their F-4S Phantoms in '86/87. The last two units to operate them were VF-201 "Red Raiders" (or Superheats?) and VF-202 "Hunters". Both units were at Navy Dallas. Your timeline on VMFA-112's (Cowboys) transition to Hornets is correct. That was the last USMC unit to operate Phantoms. They were also at NAS Dallas. Being from Dallas, I remember the skies being pretty thick with Phantoms in the '80s. In 1996 the Idaho ANG retired the LAST Phantoms (F-4Gs). That was April 1996 if I'm not mistaken. The same month the first Phantom took to the air back in 1958. If you want to get technical, the Phantom is still in active duty service with the USAF today as target drones. But I'm sure you know this.

Here's a cool pic: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... s%3Disch:1

discofishing wrote:

I know about the modernization evolution of US Phantoms, I knew it when i was 10 years old. I'm saying I've seen various photographs that show "green" Phantoms (and other aircraft) on board aircraft carriers and never really got the full story as to why they were painted green and what made them different. I did read that the Navy called them F-4Gs for a little while. The data link thing sounds familiar. But what was the data link pod for? What kind of missions were they flying?

Fleet Defense and attack the same as all other F-4s.

Quote:

Obviously "someone" (engineers?) was thinking long and hard about it or else the USAF birds wouldn't have been made unsuitable for carriers.

The only one thinking about putting them to sea are those who don't have a clear picture of available resources and how difficult it actually is to land a plane on a ship.

1) F-4s could only operate from Midway-class and larger carriers. The smaller wooden deck Essex class ships could not handle the Phantom, not even for emergencies

2) the Navy and Marine Corps had more than enough pilots and Aircraft and they, unlike the Air Force, were actually trained for carrier operation.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Could the USAF have gone to sea?