The Great Cats and Dogs on Aircraft Carriers Thread . . . with F-16 insanity!

[HeyJoe]

More on U-2 CV OPS as requested

Given the U-2's large wingspan and slow liftoff speed, takeoff was accomplished relatively easily. Even fully loaded, the U-2 managed to takeoff in only 321 ft (98 m) without use of the ship's catapults. Schumacher also successfully completed several landing approaches proving that the U-2's slow approach speed and high excess power provided plenty of margin for error in case of a waveoff. Unfortunately, actually landing proved more difficult when one wingtip struck the deck and the aircraft just barely managed to become airborne again before falling over the side.

Since this initial testing looked promising, Lockheed and the Navy modified three U-2A airframes with stronger landing gear, an arresting hook, and wing spoilers to decrease the lift during landing. These new aircraft became known as the U-2G. Schumacher and several CIA pilots also became carrier-qualified by flying the T-2 Buckeye trainer and making practice landings aboard the USS Lexington. All was ready on 2 March 1964 when Schumacher made the first landing of a U-2G aboard the USS Ranger off the California coast. Although a series of touch-and-go approaches had gone well, the first landing was slightly less than successful when the arrestor hook engaged and forced the nose of the plane to dig into the deck. Despite breaking off the pitot tube, quick repairs allowed the aircraft to takeoff again. Successful takeoffs and landings continued a few days later, and the Navy considered five CIA pilots to be qualified to operate the U-2 aboard ship.

 

[Tex_Hill]

If any of you are interested in learning more about the U-2 carrier program then I suggest reading Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works by Jay Miller. The book discusses the subject of the U-2 carrier project in detail. One thing I found interesting is they also considered developing a carrier capability for the A-12, the predecessor to the SR-71.

Here's a picture from the book of the hook assembly that was used on the U-2 for the carrier trials.

 

[Brett327]

Actually not, remember it has a huge straight high aspect ratio wing like a glider. Saw one do a takeoff and fly by at NAS Miramar airshow. I thought it was going to stall on climb out it was so slow and climbing so steeply.

Yeah, if you've ever operated w/ those guys, they have a pretty unbelievable takeoff/climbout. Plus, their det comes complete w/ a set of b!tchin' souped up Cameros to retrieve their wing gear stilts from the RWY. If you're nice, they'll let you ride around with them - good times.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

I didn't think so. I would be nervous launching a Piper Cub on a 320 foot deck, let alone a freaking U-2. They must have used some serious JATO or something similar.

Those big ole wings don't need JATO.

And a carrier deck is really about 1000 feet if you want to use it all

 

[Fly Navy]

I was kinda joking about the Piper, but I would think the rotation velocity for a U-2 was fairly high. After all, it was designed for high speed, high altitude flight.

No it wasn't... you don't get high speed with those wings.... it'll have a decent TAS, but that's due to the altitude. It's not the SR-71, THAT was made for high speed flight

 

[Brett327]

No it wasn't... you don't get high speed with those wings.... it'll have a decent TAS, but that's due to the altitude. It's not the SR-71, THAT was made for high speed flight

As an interesting note, takling to some of the U-2 drivers in "theater," when they're up at their operating altitude, there's about a 10 knot delta between their Vne and their stall speed.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

As an interesting note, takling to some of the U-2 drivers in "theater," when they're up at their operating altitude, there's about a 10 knot delta between their Vne and their stall speed.

Brett

Yikes!

I think A4s mentioned something about that with the 747 too. Be smooooooth.

 

[Tex_Hill]

I always thought of the U-2 as a glider wrapped around a jet engine.

 

[Pugs]

As an interesting note, takling to some of the U-2 drivers in "theater," when they're up at their operating altitude, there's about a 10 knot delta between their Vne and their stall speed.

Brett

Yep, took a tour of the det last time I was in PSAB. The widest margin they have is 25 kts and that's on approach. A whole lot of the U-2 stuff came from the F-104 and it's still the same ejection seat as the 104. I was also surprised that there's no spar, the wings are just bolted to the side of the fuselage.

They have a huge manning problem due to optempo and the pilot who gave us the tour was a prior Coast Guard Aviator that was recruited out of Whiting when he was an instructor.

 

[Fly Navy]

They have a huge manning problem due to optempo and the pilot who gave us the tour was a prior Coast Guard Aviator that was recruited out of Whiting when he was an instructor.

Yeah, one of the IPs in VT-7 was recruited to fly the U-2.

 

[HeyJoe]

their det comes complete w/ a set of b!tchin' souped up Cameros to retrieve their wing gear stilts from the RWY. If you're nice, they'll let you ride around with them - good times.

Brett

Camaro(s) in action: http://www.black-jets.com/images/mobile%20chase%201.mpg

(caution - large file size)

 

[Tex_Hill]

I read in an article where the Air Force is planning to retire the U-2 fleet by 2011, and replace it with the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. Anybody have any info on this?


Edit: Here's the article in question from defenseindustrydaily.com:


US Plans to Retire B-52s, C-21s, F-117 & U-2 for more F-22s
Posted 12-Jan-2006 14:53

DefenseTech notes that a draft plan from the US Air Force plan ("program budget decision 720") intends to retire the USA's 33 U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, its 55 F-117 stealth fighters, 38 of its 76 C-21 Learjets, and about 40% of its B-52 bomber fleet between FY 2007-2011, in order to free up around $2.6 billion for the purchase of more F-22 Raptor fighters. The EB-52 SOJ [stand-off jammer] aircraft project would also be cancelled.

Some of these measures will be more controversial than others...

The most controversial aspect to this aircraft retirement plan is likely to be the cut of 38 B-52H Stratofortress bombers. Program Budget Decision 720 would apparently reduce the B-52 fleet from 94 to 56 aircraft, and kill the EB-52 SOJ [stand-off jammer] derivative that would have added long-range, persistent jamming capability to US forces.

Flight International reports that a Congressional Electronic Warfare Working Group, led by Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA] is gathering to oppose the EB-52 cuts, citing improvements in integrated air defense systems around the world and drawing comparisons to the USAF's 1990s retirement of the EF-11 Raven.

The C-21 Learjets are unlikely to be hugely missed, though some have been performing light resupply runs and medical missions to front line bases. It will be interesting to see whether these missions stop if and when the fleet is cut, or VIP transport billets become more scarce instead.

The USA's 55 F-117A Nighthawks, aka. "Wobblin' Goblin" stealth attack planes, would be withdrawn from service before their original date of 2018. They would be replaced by far more capable F-22 stealth aircraft currently in inventory, which would combine attack (via the Small Diameter Bomb) and self-escort capability.

Candidly, the F-117 was a wonder weapon in its day, but the F-22/SDB combination more than replaces it. Meanwhile, the J-UCAS UAV program (UPDATE: if it isn't cancelled, too) offers an unmaned alternative that could closely approximate the Nighthawk's capabilities for less money by 2011. Even so, this proposed move to cut the F-117 already faces some opposition from Congress.

The famous U-2 Dragon Lady ultra-high altitude reconnaissance plane is increasingly being supplanted by unmanned platforms like the RQ-4B Global Hawk UAV, which recently flew with new SIGINT/ELINT sensors and continues to upgrade its capabilities. Meanwhile, the F-22 brings formidable intelligence and data-sharing capabilities of its own to the table.

Intense nostalgia is a more likely reaction to the U-2's demise than ferocious opposition, though Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute disagrees. UPI provides more details re: PBD 720's U-2 retirement plans, and also points out that the US Congress has killed attempts to shelve the U-2 before.


Nevertheless, Congress has historically been extremely resistant to retire weapons systems, and has denied past Pentagon requests to reduce some of these same systems before. In addition to any military considerations that may motivate Congressional action, it's also worth noting that retired weapons systems tend to mean personnel cuts in the modern era. This means fewer jobs on local bases, of course, and increased likelihood of base closure in US BRAC rounds.

Note that according to this detailed InsideDefense.com report, most of the savings in Program Budget Decision 720 would come via personnel cost reductions.

 

[Brett327]

Yep, took a tour of the det last time I was in PSAB. The widest margin they have is 25 kts and that's on approach. A whole lot of the U-2 stuff came from the F-104 and it's still the same ejection seat as the 104. I was also surprised that there's no spar, the wings are just bolted to the side of the fuselage.

They have a huge manning problem due to optempo and the pilot who gave us the tour was a prior Coast Guard Aviator that was recruited out of Whiting when he was an instructor.

Yeah, I think they can unbolt the wings and crate the whole thing up to load it onto a transport plane.

Brett

 

[Tex_Hill]

If this big boy can operate from a carrier then a U-2 should have no problem:

C-130 Hercules Lands on U.S.S. Forrestal

When one reviews the encyclopedic range of accomplishments by the C-130 Hercules and its valiant aircrews over the years, surely one of the most astounding took place in October 1963 when the U.S. Navy decided to try to land a Hercules on an aircraft carrier. Was it possible? Who would believe that the big, four-engine C-130 with its bulky fuselage and 132-foot wing span could land on the deck of a carrier?

Not only was it possible, it was done in moderately rough seas 500 miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing, the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.

When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg. "Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody's got to be kidding," he said. But they weren't kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the Norfolk-based U.S.S. Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find out whether they could use the Hercules as a "Super COD" - a "Carrier Onboard Delivery" aircraft. The airplane then used for such tasks was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine bird with a limited payload capacity and 300-mile range. If an aircraft carrier is operating in mid-ocean, it has no "onboard delivery" system to fall back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable, with a long cruising range and capable of carrying large payloads.


The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines, was delivered on 8 October. Lockheed's only modifications to the original plane included installing a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the underwing refueling pods. "The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second," Flatley said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin.

In addition to Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. The initial sea-born landings on 30 October 1963 were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier's landing signal officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine "chop" while still three or four feet off the deck.


Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted."

The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island" control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. Lockheed's chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard to observe the testing. "The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain's bridge. I watched a man on the ship's bow as that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet." The speed of the shop was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 knot wind on the nose. "That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge," recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO HOOK."

From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the C-130 Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

 

[Brett327]

^^ Clearly a Photoshop job.

Brett