[DesertFox]

I think we may have discussed this before but cannot remember what the response was.....

Could the FA-18 have theoretically operated off of the Essex class carrier?

Also, why could the Ark Royal operate the F-4 while the Essex class could not?

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I see no reason why a Hornet could not have operated off an Essex-class carrier. I'm not sure about the Phantom and the Ark Royal, except to note that the Royal Navy's Phantoms were substantially different than the US Navy's aircraft.

[DesertFox]

Also, could the Clemenceau class have operated the FA-18A/B?

[Special-K]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Mon 25 May 2009 2129, said:

I see no reason why a Hornet could not have operated off an Essex-class carrier. I'm not sure about the Phantom and the Ark Royal, except to note that the Royal Navy's Phantoms were substantially different than the US Navy's aircraft.

Sorry for the derailing, but how were they different in a way that would effect their carrier operation? I had always figured they were pretty similar except for radars and the like.





-K

[shootER5]

Special-K, on Mon 25 May 2009 2219, said:

Sorry for the derailing, but how were they different in a way that would effect their carrier operation? I had always figured they were pretty similar except for radars and the like.
-K

I don't know how or if it would affect their carrier operation, but British Phantoms used Rolls Royce engines instead of General Electric ones.

[DougRichards]

shootER5, on Tue 26 May 2009 0342, said:

I don't know how or if it would affect their carrier operation, but British Phantoms used Rolls Royce engines instead of General Electric ones.

British navalised Phantoms used Spey turbofans - the same engines as in the Buccaneer, probably because there were fewer aircraft in the airgroup, and therefore had a greater need for standardisation. I also understand that whilst the Spey offered greater thrust than the J79, it didn't offer greater high speed performance due to the increased frontal area of the aircraft. A variant of that same engine powered the Corsair II.

[Luke Y]

DougRichards, on Tue 26 May 2009 1342, said:

British navalised Phantoms used Spey turbofans - the same engines as in the Buccaneer, probably because there were fewer aircraft in the airgroup, and therefore had a greater need for standardisation. I also understand that whilst the Spey offered greater thrust than the J79, it didn't offer greater high speed performance due to the increased frontal area of the aircraft. A variant of that same engine powered the Corsair II.

It thought it had to be longer and that screwed up the 'waist' area-ruling on the fuselage or something similar?
Plus it was heavier.

Didn't the RN Phantoms also have the longer front oleo to give greater AoA on take-off?

Given the low speed performance of the hornet is considered quite good I would imagine it would be able to operate of of an Essex, but I'll leave the definitive answers to our aircraft techies...

[JOE BRENNAN]

shootER5, on Tue 26 May 2009 0342, said:

I don't know how or if it would affect their carrier operation, but British Phantoms used Rolls Royce engines instead of General Electric ones.

It had some effect on carrier landing capability because the Spey engines had more bleed air available for the boundary layer control system, and some advantage on launch because the engines produced more thrust, at least at low speed at sea level. Otherwise the F-4K was based on the F-4J which incorporated an approach speed reduction of around 10kts compared to the F-4B (the a/c found marginal for the Essex class, a decision not revisited with the F-4J). The F-4K also featured a longer nose landing gear to increase angle of attack on launch.

Various versions of F-18 have approach speeds and maximum landing weights either more favorable than various F-4 versions or not, so it doesn't seem clear what the operating ability or restrictions would be on Essex class ships. It's not that the F-4 absolutely couldn't land on an Essex class, especially later F-4's.

Joe

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 25 May 2009 - 2344 PM

[FITZ]

DesertFox, on Tue 26 May 2009 0053, said:

I think we may have discussed this before but cannot remember what the response was.....

Could the FA-18 have theoretically operated off of the Essex class carrier?

Also, why could the Ark Royal operate the F-4 while the Essex class could not?

When the Reagan administration was making noise about reactivating some of the Essex class carriers in the 80's the planned air group was to consist of refurbished A-4 Skyhawk's.

This makes me think the F/A-18 wouldn't have worked.

The F-4K Phantom worked on the small British carriers due to major modifications to increase attitude on launch (longer oleo), slower approach speed (new ailerons and flaps, increased bleed air for BLC from the Spey), more take-off power (Spey) and smaller dimensions to fit British carrier lifts (folding radar dome) as well as other improvements such as stronger landing gear and arrester hook. It seems unlikely a U.S. spec Phantom could have operated from a British carrier.

[Chris Werb]

Good to see you posting here again FITZ.

[shep854]

Didn't the Ark Royal and her sisters have a stronger roof than the Essex class? This would allow for heavier landing weights.

[DesertFox]

From what I understand, at least part of Lexington's flight deck was wood still.
I think I could look that at least that up....

[Garth]

FITZ, on Tue 26 May 2009 0831, said:

This makes me think the F/A-18 wouldn't have worked.

That was 1981. The Hornet was still a few years away from entering operational service and Lehman wasn't going to make the case to recommission a ship and then have to wait a while to have the "right" aircraft to put aboard. In any regard, I've read that Lehman broached the recommissioning of Bonnie Dick/Oriskany as a throw-away bargaining chip to get the money for the New Jersey recommissioning and advance items for Lincoln and Washington.

IIRC there was an offer to sell or lease the French F/A-18s (not sure if Cs or E/Fs) as an interim capability to fly off of Foch and CdG so they could replace the F-8s.

Lexington was able to handle both A-7s and A-6s. Intrepid was the quals ship for the F4H/F-4A. It's possible that the reason why Lex never handled Hornets was because of it's older JBDs. This was identified as a big problem whenever the RN cross-decked their Phantoms onto US CVs (Forrestal and Saratoga, iirc). The RN Phantom's higher launch AoA (double oleo nose gear) would cause damage to the US CV's JBDs and deck.

[Garth]

DesertFox, on Tue 26 May 2009 1651, said:

From what I understand, at least part of Lexington's flight deck was wood still.
I think I could look that at least that up....

Yes. The landing area was steel-reinforced (steel plates, iirc).

I don't think weight was an issue. Recall that Essexes operated various versions of A-3 ...

--Garth

[Garth]

FITZ, on Tue 26 May 2009 0831, said:

It seems unlikely a U.S. spec Phantom could have operated from a British carrier.

http://www.phantomf4k.org/resources/4271/imageGallery/USMalta2.jpg

See: http://www.phantomf4...irectoryId=4154

The USN zaps of RN Phantoms (changing the Brit roundel to pre-WWII US "meatball" insignia, replacing "Royal Navy" with "Colonial Navy" on the spines) were much funnier than what the Brits did in return.

[FITZ]

http://208.84.116.223/forums/public/style_images/Tanknet_OD4/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Garth, on Wed 27 May 2009 0029, said:

See: http://www.phantomf4...irectoryId=4154

The USN zaps of RN Phantoms (changing the Brit roundel to pre-WWII US "meatball" insignia, replacing "Royal Navy" with "Colonial Navy" on the spines) were much funnier than what the Brits did in return.

So the American-spec Phantoms could take-off and land with external loads (both being an RN requirment as they didn't want to dumb unused ordnance in the ocean) and could be struck below on Ark's lifts?

[Luke Y]

Quote

IIRC there was an offer to sell or lease the French F/A-18s (not sure if Cs or E/Fs) as an interim capability to fly off of Foch and CdG so they could replace the F-8s.

IIRC it was a consideration before the Rafale and again when they started experiencing lengthy delays in the 90's to simply buy F/A-18 A then C models as the carrier aircraft.

[JOE BRENNAN]

FITZ, on Wed 27 May 2009 0238, said:

So the American-spec Phantoms could take-off and land with external loads (both being an RN requirment as they didn't want to dumb unused ordnance in the ocean) and could be struck below on Ark's lifts?

See my post above; the F-4K had basically the same improved lift device arrangements as the F-4J on which it was generally based. The engines provided more bleed air to the BLCS, but OTOH the plane was heavier, and some sources quote an actually higher approach speed than the F-4J, though ~10kts lower than the F-4B. So an F-4J wouldn't necessarily be less capable in landing aboard Ark Royal than an F-4K, and an F-4B obviously could do it too in some circumstances as the picture shows. They'd need the folding nose to operate from the ship permanently, and launch payload would be a question, but in a joint operation they could divert to Ark Royal then launch back off to recover on their own ship, as was demonstrated.

For an idea of launch limitations of the Ark Royal, the most thoroughly modernized Essex class ships were refitted with C-11 catapults, roughly equal to the BS6 type fitted to Ark Royal in the late 60's, rated to move a 70,000# a/c to 106kts and 100kts respectively (60k F-4 to 120kts in latter case). The C-13's on the large US carriers were rated 70,000# a/c to 136kts even in the early versions.

Joe

[RETAC21]

DesertFox, on Tue 26 May 2009 0306, said:

Also, could the Clemenceau class have operated the FA-18A/B?

Yes, the French Navy toyed with the idea in the early 90s, when the Crouzés (F-8s) were falling apart, to lease a squadron or 2 of F/A-18s off the US Navy (the number 36 rings a bell, but don't trust it).

Dassault in the form of the French Government soon dashed the idea as it was a reduced the chances of Rafale M coming to fruition considerably.

[DougRichards]

RETAC21, on Wed 27 May 2009 1206, said:

Yes, the French Navy toyed with the idea in the early 90s, when the Crouzés (F-8s) were falling apart, to lease a squadron or 2 of F/A-18s off the US Navy (the number 36 rings a bell, but don't trust it).

Dassault in the form of the French Government soon dashed the idea as it was a reduced the chances of Rafale M coming to fruition considerably.

If the USN had really wanted to get a more modern aircraft than the A-4 onto the Essex they could have approached Britain / France regarding the navalised Jaguar. The design work had been done, and it was only Dassault pushing for a French only aircraft that lead to the Super Etendard being developed. Performance was better than the A-4. The Agave radar available as an option for the Jaguar was the same as that used in the Super Etendard, which, while not being a great performer, was a better radar than that carried by the A-4.....