| Author |
Message |
|
johnwill
|
Posted: Jul 07, 2012 - 05:13 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Mar 24, 2007 - 09:06 PM
Posts: 1364
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Status: Offline
|
|
neurotech wrote:
F-111B was considered too heavy for the smaller carriers in service in the 60s but performed better with engine upgrades in later variants, and on bigger carriers. This aircraft didn't become operation, except with the USAF & RAAF.
Time to brush up on ancient history. The F-111B was never flown off of a "bigger carrier" nor did it ever serve with the USAF or RAAF. The only carrier operations for the -111B was one day on the USS Coral Sea in 1968. They made ten arrested landings and ten cat takeoffs, plus all the normal deck handling exercises. That day on the Coral Sea occurred after the -111B program had been cancelled.
USAF used F-111A, D, E, and F plus FB-111A. RAAF used F-111C plus some surplus FB-111A renamed F-111G. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 24, 2013 - 4:38 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
awsome
|
Posted: Jul 07, 2012 - 05:47 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Dec 17, 2008 - 03:11 AM
Posts: 63
Location: vancouver
Status: Offline
|
| How about submarine launched F-35bs... like those japanese submarine fighters from ww2. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
count_to_10
|
Posted: Jul 07, 2012 - 08:58 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Mar 10, 2012 - 03:38 PM
Posts: 1329
Status: Offline
|
|
awsome wrote:
How about submarine launched F-35bs... like those japanese submarine fighters from ww2.
They are working of sub launched UCAVs from vertical launch tubes, but you would really need to purpose design a carrier sub to launch F-35's, B's or C's. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
awsome
|
Posted: Jul 07, 2012 - 09:16 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Dec 17, 2008 - 03:11 AM
Posts: 63
Location: vancouver
Status: Offline
|
| yes they are going to test it at rimpac 2012. As for F-35s and subs.. yes they would have to purpose build a new sub. It would only be able to hold a couple of planes so would not be of much strategic value... but it would be totally cool. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
firstimpulse
|
Posted: Jul 09, 2012 - 10:59 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
count_to_10 wrote:
awsome wrote:
How about submarine launched F-35bs... like those japanese submarine fighters from ww2.
They are working of sub launched UCAVs from vertical launch tubes, but you would really need to purpose design a carrier sub to launch F-35's, B's or C's.
I have something much cooler in mind for late in the story. And it flies. Both above and under the water. It uses current tech, and the Chinese would use it, kinda like the Death Star appeared at the end of Star Wars. Not sure if I should spoil it or not.
exorcet wrote:
firstimpulse wrote:
And if they still can't pull that off, maybe they could pull a hail-mary Cobra just as they cross the back of the ship, and then level out just before they hit the deck.
Once you leveled off, the plane would have a shallow angle of attack and stall, so you effectively be dropping it from a crane onto it's landing gear.
You might be able to get a F-22 on and off a carrier under really good conditions if you absolutely had to, but operating from a carrier for any period of time is not realistic.
If you wanted to have the F-22's land/takeoff from the carrier in your book, they would probably have to be at a very low fuel state, and with all stores jettisoned. Maybe they would come to the carrier, which would have the deck as clear as possible, and burn fuel doing touch and goes to determine the feasibility of landing (more likely, they would have gone somewhere on land, or ditched).
In your book, is there anyway to get a tanker to the F-22's, or were they all destroyed/grounded early on?
All carrier landings would be without any ammo except for two or three cannon rounds, and fumes in the tanks. Practically at empty weight.
All the tankers were taken out in the first five pages of the book, except for one that ditches in the ocean later on, while the first dogfight is taking place. Also, all Sat communications are down almost throughout the book, so the JFK can't call in sizeable backup (or even support) until the latter half of the story.
Pretty much the same senario the Enterprise was in during the early months of WW2, although a bit worse.
All these "no way in heck can an F-22 do that" comments are good for inspiration. I'll make it look impossible in the book.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
firstimpulse
|
Posted: Jul 09, 2012 - 11:02 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
awsome wrote:
yes they would have to purpose build a new sub. It would only be able to hold a couple of planes so would not be of much strategic value... but it would be totally cool.
It would be a spec-ops platform. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sketch22
|
Posted: Jul 10, 2012 - 12:46 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Jun 17, 2012 - 12:08 PM
Posts: 50
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
|
delvo wrote:
An F-22 is not able to fly slow enough. Aircraft carrier launches & landings are done at speeds below the minimum it takes to keep an F-22 flying. This causes a couple of different problems, one for landing and one for launching.
Um... I'm sorry but your incorrect regarding landings. The F-22 is perfectly capable of flying the approach speeds at the proper AOA on the glide slope for a trap, and it definitely has the surface area to give it the necessary lift. It would never survive the landing intact, but it can definitely do it.
@firstimpulse I like your scenario but a quick note for you, its highly unlikely that a combat coded fighter squadron like the 90th would have 2 patch wearing weapons officers who were both former USAFTPS grads. Its very rare for a fighter pilot to go to the weapons school, graduate, go back to the CAF, get selected and graduate TPS, spend 4-6 years in the test world, then return again to the CAF.
Just saying if you want your scenario to be realistic I would take that out. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
firstimpulse
|
Posted: Jul 10, 2012 - 03:50 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
sketch22 wrote:
@firstimpulse I like your scenario but a quick note for you, its highly unlikely that a combat coded fighter squadron like the 90th would have 2 patch wearing weapons officers who were both former USAFTPS grads. Its very rare for a fighter pilot to go to the weapons school, graduate, go back to the CAF, get selected and graduate TPS, spend 4-6 years in the test world, then return again to the CAF.
Just saying if you want your scenario to be realistic I would take that out.
Copy that, I'll do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
batu731
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2012 - 01:27 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jun 24, 2010 - 12:26 AM
Posts: 108
Status: Offline
|
| The airframes and landing gears of the airforce aircraft are not hardened, they can't operate on the carriers |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sufaviper
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2012 - 04:13 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Nov 01, 2011 - 04:30 PM
Posts: 131
Status: Offline
|
Not sure of the duration of the book, but rust is going to be a significant issue on an F-22 deployed to a carrier.
Sufa Viper |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
firstimpulse
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 01:58 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
sufaviper wrote:
Not sure of the duration of the book, but rust is going to be a significant issue on an F-22 deployed to a carrier.
Sufa Viper
The F-22s would only be on the carriers for a week. The lack of sea-proofing is certainly something which makes the Raptor land-based within practical reason. My senario is an emergency though. |
Last edited by firstimpulse on Jul 17, 2012 - 02:39 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Siesta
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 02:37 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: May 02, 2004 - 07:18 AM
Posts: 311
Status: Offline
|
time for me to chime in.. first of all i'd scrap this obsession with F-22s going on a carrier.. not going to happen - Navy carrier pilots have to do quals in order for them to even begin a deployment let alone having a land based F-22 even remotely land.
Go back to the Vietnam War when both the Navy and the Air Force had F-4s and the Air Force F-4s maintained the same landing gears and arresting mechanisms - Air Force pilots had emergencies over the Gulf of Tonkin and they didnt land on a carrier no matter what the emergency.
During Desert Storm an F-16 pilot ejected in the Persian Gulf near a carrier battlegroup - no carrier landing.
Salt spray - you have it all the time at Kadena Airbase - F-15s and deployed F-22s use the wash rack all the time.
And even if you were able to put the F-22 on a carrier whos going to do the maintenance????
If your writing something like the Wingman series then go for it but if your going to try and be "realistic" its not going to happen. And by the way - any hint of trouble in the pacific which is where we are shifting our forces from 60% to 40% Pacific to Atlantic ratio - your going to have more than one carrier battlegroup out there. You might want to read Tom Clancy's the Dragon and the Bear...
Just my two cents  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
firstimpulse
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 02:47 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
Siesta wrote:
time for me to chime in.. first of all i'd scrap this obsession with F-22s going on a carrier.. not going to happen - Navy carrier pilots have to do quals in order for them to even begin a deployment let alone having a land based F-22 even remotely land.
Go back to the Vietnam War when both the Navy and the Air Force had F-4s and the Air Force F-4s maintained the same landing gears and arresting mechanisms - Air Force pilots had emergencies over the Gulf of Tonkin and they didnt land on a carrier no matter what the emergency.
During Desert Storm an F-16 pilot ejected in the Persian Gulf near a carrier battlegroup - no carrier landing.
Salt spray - you have it all the time at Kadena Airbase - F-15s and deployed F-22s use the wash rack all the time.
And even if you were able to put the F-22 on a carrier whos going to do the maintenance????
If your writing something like the Wingman series then go for it but if your going to try and be "realistic" its not going to happen. And by the way - any hint of trouble in the pacific which is where we are shifting our forces from 60% to 40% Pacific to Atlantic ratio - your going to have more than one carrier battlegroup out there. You might want to read Tom Clancy's the Dragon and the Bear...
Just my two cents
The F-22 on-a-carrier is an emergency thing- and a massive show of bravado on the part of the pilots in the story. There are (IIRC, going off the top of my head) eight carrier strike groups in the Pacific in the beginning of the story, but the only one that survives past the five minute mark is the JFK, because it was the only one not being tracked and trailed by PRC SSGNs.
The reason I'm so amped about the concept is that is seems so danged daft. Plus, isn't it an interesting problem and discussion?
And I have read The Bear and the Dragon, I loved how large of a role air combat played, especially with the use of the JSOWs. "We don't even need the Army anymore!"  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
firstimpulse
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 04:05 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
Here's my reasoning for (emergency/short-term/wartime) Raptor carrier ops. I've done a bit more research. I'm sure many of you have grown tired of my dreaming, so I'll try to be brief.
1. Landings.
The first hurtle. This required a paradigm shift for me, upon being reminded that Navy pilots fly into the trap like they intend to touch n' go, and not land. They come in significantly faster than USAF landings, and do not flare before touchdown. "Touchdown" is more like Smackdown in the USN style of landing, because of high speed and descent rate. It really is a controlled crash, because the priority is to get back into the air if something goes wrong- not land. The arresting wires do all the work of slowing the 40 ton contraption down, and the landing gear must be extremely strong to resist hundreds (heck, maybe thousands?) of these "landings". In fact, the entire airframe has to be stronger. Which means that if a USAF fighter (F-22, for example) attempted just one USN-style landing, it would never fly again, if it didn't just fireball when the gear collapsed. As many knowledgable people have said above.
My excuse is to land in a normal fashion, like sane people would. Come in at much slower speed, with a lighter craft (all landings in the book would be only a thousand pounds or so above empty weight), at a much more benign descent rate.
The F-22 in question would touch down on the tail end of the carrier, and use all of it's 1092ft flight deck to stop. It'll be interesting.
2. On-board.
The brick wall. Maintenance and even re-arming of F-22s is not going to happen with only USN personel and equipment. I'll have to invent some realistic (although extremely lucky/convient for the characters) means of getting basic maintenance stuff for the jets onboard. This is something I'll probably return to the forums about later, because of all the tiny details (how to tie-down a Raptor? do the USN use the same ground-based refueling techniques? etc, etc...).
3. Takeoffs.
The easy part. Raptors take off in less than 1000ft with normal A2A weapons loads and full internal fuel.
I'll attempt to be quiet and not start any more fantastic/fringe threads for awhile.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Siesta
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 04:27 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: May 02, 2004 - 07:18 AM
Posts: 311
Status: Offline
|
|
firstimpulse wrote:
Siesta wrote:
time for me to chime in.. first of all i'd scrap this obsession with F-22s going on a carrier.. not going to happen - Navy carrier pilots have to do quals in order for them to even begin a deployment let alone having a land based F-22 even remotely land.
Go back to the Vietnam War when both the Navy and the Air Force had F-4s and the Air Force F-4s maintained the same landing gears and arresting mechanisms - Air Force pilots had emergencies over the Gulf of Tonkin and they didnt land on a carrier no matter what the emergency.
During Desert Storm an F-16 pilot ejected in the Persian Gulf near a carrier battlegroup - no carrier landing.
Salt spray - you have it all the time at Kadena Airbase - F-15s and deployed F-22s use the wash rack all the time.
And even if you were able to put the F-22 on a carrier whos going to do the maintenance????
If your writing something like the Wingman series then go for it but if your going to try and be "realistic" its not going to happen. And by the way - any hint of trouble in the pacific which is where we are shifting our forces from 60% to 40% Pacific to Atlantic ratio - your going to have more than one carrier battlegroup out there. You might want to read Tom Clancy's the Dragon and the Bear...
Just my two cents
The F-22 on-a-carrier is an emergency thing- and a massive show of bravado on the part of the pilots in the story. There are (IIRC, going off the top of my head) eight carrier strike groups in the Pacific in the beginning of the story, but the only one that survives past the five minute mark is the JFK, because it was the only one not being tracked and trailed by PRC SSGNs.
The reason I'm so amped about the concept is that is seems so danged daft. Plus, isn't it an interesting problem and discussion?
And I have read The Bear and the Dragon, I loved how large of a role air combat played, especially with the use of the JSOWs. "We don't even need the Army anymore!"
seven of eight carrier strike groups destroyed in the first five minutes of your book??? thats close to 40,000 men and women per carrier and additional thousands in escort ships... sorry but with those numbers the US is not going to retaliate conventionally. Perhaps you forget that US attack submarines are part of carrier groups? You might want to rethink your scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|