Aircraft Carrier Question

[kalos72]

So do ALL planes need the catapult/arrestor system to takeoff/land on an aircraft carrier?

Say the Lexington?

What type of cargo craft can land on her?

Maybe adding ski ramps?

Even thinking about WW 1/2 type of aircraft...

[Olefin]

The only jet plane that could take off and land on a carrier without either aresting wires/gear or a catapult would be the Harrier - either the USMC version or the RAF version. During the Falklands the British used a container ship to bring Harriers to the Falklands and they took from there.

Never considered if a WWII airplane could land successfully on a modern carrier without having to have her arresting wires in order. They took off without catapults but landing could still be hairy unless they came in almost at stall speed. The RAF landed aircraft during the Norway evacuation on carriers that didnt have aresting gear successfully.

However all depends how operational you want them to be - i.e. how much load they can carry and still get off the carrier or land successfully. If I remember right the RAF planes that landed on that carrier came in about as light as they could make them.

[Rainbow Six]

As far as I know the Harrier still needs a ski ramp to enable it to take off from a carrier with a full load of fuel / weapons (I think it can take off vertically if neccessary but its maximum take off weight is so reduced that it can only do so when very lightly loaded). As Olefin has stated Harriers were taken to the Falklands aboard merchant ships (SS Atlantic Conveyor and Atlantic Causeway) but it wasn't planned to fly combat missions off the ships - the intention was to use them to carry "spare" to replace anticipated losses to enemy action, which would then operate off the two RN carriers if required. However as Olefin said, Harriers did land and take off from both vessels, but not to go directly into combat (there's a lot more info on this link, including a couple of photos)

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/

As for your other questions, a C130 Hercules made multiple landings / take offs on the USS Forrestal in 1963 without a tail hook or catapult so it's obviously possible on some carriers (I have no idea how the Lexington compares to the Forrestal). More info here

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

[Olefin]

good info there

and never even thought about the Doolittle raid bombers - although if I remember right those bombers may have been winched aboard - but they were able to take off fully loaded -

[kato13]

Takeoff would be more likely to be possible but still probably very difficult.

I found some stats and an A-4 with minimal stores, on a carrier going full speed into a 30 knot head wind would only need to accelerate to about 70 knots relative to the ship. I think that would be possible with the full run of the deck.

The problem with landing is that minimum speeds are generally at least 20% faster than takeoff, and I believe that breaking is not going to give you the same deceleration rate as the engines would for acceleration.

[Olefin]

plus keep in mind the fun it is to land on a carrier deck unless you have a trained spotter and operational landing lights and other aids - especially if you are talking an untrained pilot

its a great way to take a very rare operational aircraft and carrier and turn them both into flaiming wrecks depending on the ordinance and fuel level on the plane

[Adm.Lee]

WW2 carriers had a crash barrier (steel cables) that could be erected to stop tailhook-less planes. It usually did some damage to the propeller, pilot, and plane, but it was better than nothing. No idea if those survived the addition of the angled-deck for landings.

[dragoon500ly]

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/

As for your other questions, a C130 Hercules made multiple landings / take offs on the USS Forrestal in 1963 without a tail hook or catapult so it's obviously possible on some carriers (I have no idea how the Lexington compares to the Forrestal). More info here

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

USS Lexington AVT-16 is one of the survivors of the World War II Essex-class carriers, she was laid doen 15 July 1941 and commissioned 17 Feb 1943. She has a full load displacement of 42,500 tons and measures 820ft (250.0m) at the waterline; 894.5 ft (272.8m) overall. She has a hull beam of 103ft (31.4m) and her flight deck has a beam of 185ft (56.4m). Draft is 31ft (9.5m). SHe has a crew of 74 officers and 1,382 enlisted (1,456 total).

She has been assigned as a training carrier since December 1962 and was scheduled for replacement in 1992. She cannot maintain or support tactical aircraft and her deck edge elevator has been welded in place. She is unarmed and mounts SPS-10 surface search, SPS-49 air search and SPS-64 navigation radars.

Lexington serves basically as a sea-based runway for touch-and-go landings in support of the training schools.

USS Forrestal, CV-59 is the first aircraft carrier to be built from the keel up after World War II and is the first true 'super carrier'. She was laid down 14 July 1952 and commissioned 1 October 1955. She has a full-load displacement of 78,200 tons. She measures 990ft (301.8m) at the waterline and 1,039ft (316.7m) overall. Her hull has a beam of 130ft (39.6m) and her flight deck has a beam of 250.25ft (76.3m). Draft is 37ft (11.3m). Crew consists of 148 officers and 2,810 enlisted (2,958 total) with an air group of 300 officers and 3,100 enlisted (total of 3,400), a Marine detachment of 2 officers and 70 enlisted (72 total) is also carried.

She can maintain an air group of a maximum of 85 aircraft. Her armament consists of two 8-cell NATO Sea Sparrow SAM launchers (scheduled to be increased to three during her next refit) and three Phalanx CIWS mounts.

Her Radar suite includes a Furuno 900 series nav, a SPS-64(V)9 nav, a SPS-67 surface search, a Mk23 TAS target acquisition, a SPS-49(V)5 air search, a SPS-48C 3D air search, a SPN-41 microwave landing aid, a SPN-43A marshaling, a SPN-44 microwave landing aid, 2 SPN-42 CCA and 4 Mk95 missile fire control (to be upgraded to 6).

EW/ECM suite consists of SLQ-32(V)4, WLR-1H, WLR-8, WLR-11, SLQ-17, four 6-tube Mk36 SRBOC decoy rocket launchers and a SLQ-25A Nixie towed torpedo decoy.

During the Cold War, the air group was 20 F-14A, 24 F/A-18, 10 A-6E, 4
KA-6D, 4 EA-6B, 4 E-2C, 10 S-3A and 6 SH-3H or SH-60F.

[kalos72]

I am thinking like Morrow and the KFS here...

P51/p38 piston aircraft...civilian Cessna's...C2 Greyhounds...ultralight aircraft.

And of course any helicopter and such...

Plus some deck mounted artillery would be nice... :P

[Olefin]

you could even add in a couple of Harriers - given a long deck for take off they could probably carry a decent load - not fully loaded but better than just minimum load

[kalos72]

My assumption here is two fold:
1. The arrestor/catapult system is removed from the Lexington when it becomes a museum ship
2. Its a rather complicated system that will have minimal spare parts or knowledgeable staff for operation and repair.

I might be wrong but thats why I was thinking of aircraft that could land/takeoff without it...

[Olefin]

or you could make the assumption that with the loss of so many carriers in 1996 they tried to get her back and operational but either they didnt manage to do so or they only got one cat back to operational status - or its lacking some final parts (and thus possibly being the focus of player character adventure to get those parts a la Last Submarine type game)

[rcaf_777]

What about the

DHC-5 Buffalo
DHC-4 Caribou
Short C-23 Sherpa
Short 330
Short 360
Short SC7 Skyvan

[Olefin]

Or how about an Avenger torpedo bomber - there are a decent number still airworthy in the US - and they would be good for patrol, ASW and attack

[kalos72]

Great feedback team. Thanks!!!

I guess I wasnt so far off any how... :)

I was working out the details but something along the lines of trying to bring the "Lady Lex" back online and needing to use cadets from the Galveston Sea Aggies as crew...

[rcaf_777]

This just came to me

North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco

"With the second seat removed, it can carry 3,200 pounds of cargo, five paratroopers or two litter patients and an attendant"

[Gelrir]

Lots of STOL aircraft would be able to land on a modern carrier deck without needing arrester cables.

http://youtu.be/pUdzVnZBaoY

http://youtu.be/kEb74IquE1A

The sort of planes that can land on Alaskan rivers (Super Cub, Pilatus Porter for example) would find even a WW2 escort carrier not too hard to operate from.

--
Michael B.

[stormlion1]

Another option is to carry helicopters instead. I wonder how many Black Hawks or Ospreys a Essex could handle?

[Matt Wiser]

Okay....my cousin Jacqui is a USN carrier aviator (she flies F/A-18Es). I've relayed the question to her, and should have a reply in a day or two.

[mpipes]

She could carry the Harrier II, A-4s and F-8s for certain, since she had the SCB-27C conversion same as Oriskany. Also AH-1Ws and any other helicopter. Maybe A-10s. She also had the storage and handling facilities for nukes.

[kalos72]

What about older civilian types like a Cessna 306 or something...170?

[dragoon500ly]

Okay....my cousin Jacqui is a USN carrier aviator (she flies F/A-18Es). I've relayed the question to her, and should have a reply in a day or two.

At its heyday, the Lady Lex had an air group of roughly 80 aircraft (Korea). Her last air group before conversion into a training carrier consisted of two squadrons of S-2 Tracker ASW fixed-wing aircraft and a squadronof SH-3 Sea King ASW helos, all told about 45 aircraft.

[Sanjuro]

Any of the Cessna 150-172 series would have no problem size-wise landing on even an Invincible-size deck; my personal best in a 152 was 64 paces (my stride probably wasn't quite a metre) with about a 10-15 knot wind. Most light singles would be ok, non-STOL twins would need the carrier to be augmenting the headwind.
The big difficulty would be training non-carrier pilots to get used to a moving runway.

[Gelrir]

The Doolittle Raid used 16 B-25 aircraft; the first aircraft (Doolittle's own) had only 142 meters of deck to use.

--
Michael B.

[Matt Wiser]

Okay....got a reply from my cousin the Super Bug driver. She says that if you had an Essex, then any aircraft landing will need a tailhook. Period. A Forrestal-class or larger, a WW II warbird, or a light aircraft like a Cessna 182 or a Beech Bonanza, would be able to land, but you'd need to be precise on the approach, because you'd need pretty much all the angled deck to land. To launch, you need 25 knots of wind over the deck, and they did that when the WW II warbirds launched off of Carl Vinson for the 1995 VJ-Day anniversary, or the two B-25s off of Ranger for the 1992 anniversary of the Doolittle Raid.

WW II arrestor hooks are too narrow for today's ships, though.

[stormlion1]

I wonder how much of a refit it would take to install the proper gear. Or would it be better to try to dig up older Cold War era planes the carrier was refitted to carry back in the 60's. Texas isn't all that far from Davis-Monthan they might have some older Naval Birds that could be salvaged for use.

[mpipes]

In the 90s, there were still lots of F-8s at Davis-Monthan and there are likely still dozens of A-4s there.

As I see things developing, A/C loses would be critical by April at least for everyone. The boneyards would have been refurbishing and returning airframes to service as fast as possible. by May at the latest. Lexington would most likely been operating F-8s, A-4, Harriers, and maybe S-2s as well as any helicopters still able to fly. I have her with an airwing of 8xF-8H, 10xA-4G, 6xHarrier II, 5xUH-60 LAMPs III, 3xS-2s, and 12xAH-1W in the Gulf of Mexico in early 1998.

[Gelrir]

Here's the video of C130 landings on the Forrestal:

http://youtu.be/ar-poc38C84

Needs a lot more distance for the takeoff than for the landing, in fact.

An important function of arrested landings: you get to use a lot more of the deck for other stuff (marshalling aircraft, takeoffs, etc.). If you don't have arresting equipment, you probably don't want to spot planes on deck during landings, even with the angled flight deck.

--
Michael B.

[Olefin]

I definitely agree on the boneyard aircraft being available by later in the war - at least until the Mexicans overran Davis Monthan - so the question is how much of a priority would the carrier planes have been with the need to get things like stored Phantoms, B-52's, etc.. back up to speed to replace air losses in Europe, Iran and Korea?

I can see at least some F-8's and A-4's for sure but would any have been left in the US for the Lex or would they have been sent overseas immediately?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I would imagine by late in the war (1998) before things went completely to shit you'd see A1 Skyraiders pulled out of stocks and refurbed for carrier duty, if not land duty. The OV-10 Bronco flew as late as DS; could the A37 Dragonfly do carrier ops?

[Raellus]

I definitely agree on the boneyard aircraft being available by later in the war - at least until the Mexicans overran Davis Monthan - so the question is how much of a priority would the carrier planes have been with the need to get things like stored Phantoms, B-52's, etc.. back up to speed to replace air losses in Europe, Iran and Korea?

I can see at least some F-8's and A-4's for sure but would any have been left in the US for the Lex or would they have been sent overseas immediately?

I live in Tucson and have driven past the DM boneyard many times. I've often wondered if/how those aircraft could be readied for combat operations. It is dry here, and that's a major reason that DM was chosen as the go-to storage place, but the constant sun can really do a number on certain materials- plastics, especially become stiff and brittle. The paint on a lot of the aircraft out there is really faded and it suggests less superficial wear is at play as well. Even microscopic cracks in airframes can cause catastrophic failures. And, so far, we're just talking about airframes. What about electronics?

Are radars and other complex avionics left in place when an aircraft is stored? I honestly don't know, although I imagine that they are not. The heat here can't possibly be good for sensitive electronics. If they're removed prior to storage, where are they? Are they canibalized for spare parts or sold to secondary markets overseas? That's what I've always thought. In either case, the aircraft stored in the boneyards are going to need serious refurbishment in order to be rendered operable. That's going to take time, money, and perhaps the manufacture of new components. How long? Certainly more than a couple of weeks.

Does anyone have any good leads to sources that can answer these questions? I don't want to cause this thread to go off on a major tangent but I'm really curious as to how long-term outdoor storage effects the readiness of modern aircraft.

[mpipes]

I worked in USAF logistics and was involved in a project to basically store wartime vehicles in airtight bags as Israel does. I did a lot of research including what Davis-Montham does. Basically, you "pickle" the vehicle/aircraft. Remove the batteries. Drain the hydraulics and fuel system, and then you run a preservative light oil of some type through the lines to protect from corrosion and purge with nitrogen. The vehicle/aircraft was also jacked up and blocked to protect the tires. On aircraft, every access is coated with a polyurethane coat, including the cockpit. On many, the whole plane is coated. The engine intakes are also sealed as is the exhaust. Most avionics are left in place.

After everything is done, the internal temperature pretty much stays within reasonable limits so you really don't have materials breaking down. B-52s and B-1s have stood alerts without any real concerns for years. All combat aircraft spend most of their time on a tarmac someplace anyway, and the plane's electronics hold up fine as long as they are unpowered. Storage warehouses for avionics get plenty warm and cold.

So how long does it take to get them back in the air? Not long really. Strip off the polyurethane. Take it off the blocks. Add hydraulic fluid. Add power and run up the electronics and hydraulic systems. See what works and what doesn't. Fuel it. Run up the engine and go through preflight. Fix anything that needs it. Taxi and test fly. If everything checks out, you've got a mission capable bird.

Israel has done some testing I know with Mirages and Nesher that had been stored for years, and if I recall correctly, they could get one checked out and service ready in about 6 hours. Again if I recall correctly, mothballed F-4s have been checked out and service ready in about 24 hours. I don't remember how many ground crew were involved, and these were wartime reserve aircraft intended to return to service in a war.

In 1996, B-52Gs would have only arrived within the last 4 years, so all of them are back easy. Same with a lot of F-111s, F-4s, and A-10. Some F-16As and quite a few F-14As were there, but I believe almost all could have been returned to service. The A-7s, F-8s, A-6s, and A-4s would have been there awhile, but a lot of them would be able to fly. The big question was the B-52Ds, Es, and Fs . Those were largely still intact until START kicked in, but a lot of them probably had not been maintained too well or had been cannibalized for parts. There were also still dozen of F-100s and F-105s there too. The biggest problem would have been cannibalized or broken parts. However, each aircraft was meticulously tracked as to what it was missing, and there would still be plenty of aircraft to get a few others back in the air. The way I've envisioned it, 100% of the B-52Gs would have been returned to service; 90% of F-16As, F-14As, F/A-18s, and A-10As; 85% F-111s, A-7s, and A-6s; 70% F-4s, A-4s, and B-52Ds; 60% F-8s, F-105s, and F-100s; and 50% B-52Es and Fs. That would be roughly 1000-1500 airframes if I've guessed right.

In any event, by the time Mexico invaded, there probably would not have been too many flyable planes left. Given the lethality of air defenses, after six months of combat most probably both sides would have been scrambling to get any combat airframe that could be made to fly operational, and I think DM would have been churning out about 50-75 combat airframes a week by that point. Most of them would have been gone by the invasion. That's my opinion anyway.

[Raellus]

Wow. That surprises me. Thanks a lot for the info, Mpipes. That really helps.

[pmulcahy11b]

To me, the limiting factor on flyable aircraft is not availability -- there are probably flyable aircraft sitting idle all over the world. The problem is the tremendous amount of resources required to keep them in an operational condition, and supplying them with the fuel necessary for operation (think of how much fuel an F-15 consumes in full afterburner!). Even a light aircraft like a Piper Cub needs more maintenance, parts, and fuel than most communities are capable of giving it. That's why the Baron hardly ever flies his Mi-8.

[Rainbow Six]

To me, the limiting factor on flyable aircraft is not availability -- there are probably flyable aircraft sitting idle all over the world. The problem is the tremendous amount of resources required to keep them in an operational condition, and supplying them with the fuel necessary for operation

Agreed. I'd always envisioned surviving air bases / airports still having small numbers of potentially operational aircraft but lacking the means / resources to get them airborne. Potentially it might even be possible to find a helicopter hidden away somewhere (in a barn for example) but without fuel it's as much use as a chocolate teapot (although finding said fuel can make a campaign in its own right)

[Olefin]

It really depends on if you have mechanics available - there were lots of examples in WWII of US aircraft mechanics keeping planes flying in the early days of WWII with insufficent parts - they either got them from hangar queens or they made them or improvised them

now that might mean you have six F-8's getting turned into hanger queens to keep two flying - but it can be done if you have the mechanics who have the know how

[Rainbow Six]

Yeah, but having the best mechanics in the world wont do you any good if you have no fuel...

[Olefin]

there will always be some fuel depending on what areas you are in - MilGov still has some reserves in the US (see A River Runs Thru It for an example)

and places like the UK, Iran, Saudi, Kenya will still be producing fuel - even in the US there are some refineries still working - but the amount would greatly reduce ops and what can be carried - i.e. there is a big difference between fuel to fly F-15's across the Atlantic versus fly them on limited missions for recon or air support

so you might have enough fuel for limited ops - but if you ever had to surge everything you had that was still operational fully fueled it would be exhaust your fuel for some time to come (i.e. several months to years depending on the area)

and let me be clear - I dont mean that goes everywhere - for most of Europe fuel is a thing of the past and will be for quite some time outside of the UK and France

[Rainbow Six]

I agree with you...I think the relevant point here is that from 1998 onwards in my opinion the front line air forces aren't going to be taking 1960's / 70's era aircraft out of storage sites as it's not so much the lack of aircraft that is limiting operations as the lack of fuel...remaining airbases may well still have small numbers of F16's / Mig 29's / Tornados etc which they are struggling to find fuel for as it is so probably don't need more aircraft - they need the fuel. Iirc there is a reference in the Twilight Encounters supplement to the Soviets still having operational Mig 29's used in a photo recon role - Shutterbug I think it was called.

I think the people thay may be more interested in getting old planes out of storage are more likely to be those in areas well away from the front lines where modern combat aircraft are in short supply, for example US forces in California or Texas, both of whom have access to the required fuel but might be lacking in aircraft to utilise said fuel.

The real winners are those that have the aircraft and the fuel...might be interesting to consider what might have remained in the US at places like Top Gun or the Adversary / Aggressor Squadrons (e.g. VFC 13 at Miramar, VFA 127 at Fallon or VFC 12 at Oceana, all of which I think would have operated the F18 in the T2k timeline.

[Olefin]

as for parts - that was one thing that Frank Frey mentioned was happening in Kenya - that they were using East African craftsmen to basically make parts in a very time consuming fashion for the aircraft and ships they had left operational - explaining why the US would be still having men there in addition to the refinery

by the way - where is the UK's main training facility for the RAF?

[Rainbow Six]

In the T2K timeline there wasn't a central training point; basic officer training took place at RAF Cranwell in Lincolnshire, following which nwly commissioned officers would go on to receive specialised training at another location. For pilots initial Pilot training took place at 1 Flying Training School (FTS) which was at RAF Linton on Ouse in Yorkshire flying Jet Povosts and Tucanos. I believe 1 FTS also did basic pilot training for Royal Navy pilots (the Fleet Air Arm)

Advanced training took place at 4 Flying Training School at RAF Valley in Angelesey, Wales (more famous of late for being where Prince William was stationed as a Sea King pilot). Standard fast jet trainer was the Hawk.

After Fast Jet Training a student pilot would go to an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) where he would be trained on the jet he would fly operationally. OCU's were located at various RAF stations. In time of War some OCU's would form operational Squadrons. e.g. 229 OCU, which trained students on the F3 fighter variant of the Tornado would become 65 Squadron in time of war.

(Above is more or less from memory and without checking any reference material other than Wiki as I am at work - I do have a book on the 1980's era RAF at home which goes into more detail if there's a specific aspect you're interested in. Also other forum members - I'm thinking especially Sanjuro - may be more knowledgeable than me on the subject)

[boogiedowndonovan]

Where's Matt Wiser when you need him?

guy had knowledge about carriers, aircraft and such.

[Sanjuro]

Rainbow is correct about the dispersal of RAF training in the T2k era; much of this was changed in the 1990s as the RAF began to shrink.
Initial Officer Training was at RAF Cranwell (18 weeks), after which the graduates would be given about 15 hours on the DHC1 Chipmunk to assess their potential as trainee pilots (unless they had flown Bulldogs with a University Air Squadron).
Basic Flying Training was carried out at 3 airfields; Cranwell (Jet Provost 5), Linton-on-Ouse, and Church Fenton (both of which had a mixture of JP3 and JP5). Fast jet students went on to Valley, multi-engine to Finningley and rotary to Odiham. Navigators also went to Finningley.
Instructor training was done at the Central Flying School- in the 80s this was at Scampton in Lincolnshire. (Scampton is also famous as the original home of the Dambusters).
In the late 80s the JPs were beginning to be replaced by the Shorts Tucano (licence built, designed by Embraer). All RAF aircraft, from the Chipmunk and Bulldog up, allegedly had the potential for weapons fit; AFAIK the Bulldog had the attachments in the wings to have 2 GPMGs.
Bet you're sorry you asked now!

[Rainbow Six]

Sanjuro, I had a question which I wonder if you can help with? I am sure I read somewhere that in time of War the Red Arrows would be used in an air defence role. Do you know if that is correct and if so would they form an additional Squadron based at Scampton or elsewhere flying the Hawk or would the pilots be dispersed individually or in small groups to other air defence Squadrons? Just curious...

[Sanjuro]

In 1983, BAe was given a contract to modify 88 Hawk T1s to T1A standard; these would carry two Sidewinders and a centreline cannon pod. Given the Hawk's lower speed (subsonic in level flight) they could not cover large areas; according to the RAF's website they were intended "to operate in the secondary air defence role as part of a mixed fighter force within the UK Air Defence Region."
I read this to mean they would have been dispersed, probably in small numbers, around many sites- probably including some using motorways as runways. At a lecture I was told 1000m straights would be long enough... coincidentally, many motorway service stations are near or on such straight sections. RAF Newport Pagnell perhaps? It is unlikely that the Red Arrows would be kept together: as all the display pilots are Flying Instructors they would be more useful spread through the dispersed units to give whatever training was possible.
There was also a suggestion that pilots from the Empire Test Pilot School would be used as an elite squadron; however, the RAF's history of elite squadrons is unhappy. The Dambusters concentrated many of Bomber Command's most experienced crews, then lost over a third of them in a single night- to make it worse, later that summer most of the survivors were killed attacking a variety of difficult targets, notably the Dortmund-Ems canal. Better results were generally obtained by taking a squadron off operations and training it for an individual mission.