cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Fri May 12, 2006 7:15 am

is the F-16C/D carrier capable? i remember a few years back (more than i'd like) when i was a kid i used to build airplane models. i built one of the F-16A which actually had a tailhook on it. was the A/B model carrier capable too?

what would limit it's ability to operate off of a carrier? is it the single engine thing?
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Fri May 12, 2006 7:27 am

Cancidas,

The tail hooks on F-16s and F-15s are for emergency use only. They don't even have the capability to retract inthe air. Airframes and landing gear are incapable of surviving the decent rates required for carrier landings with out damage. Finally there are no launch bar provisions on the nose gear to permit a catapult launch. Single engine is no issue. The A-4 Skyhawk was a very sucessful single engine carrier aircraft.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Fri May 12, 2006 7:31 am

No, the F-16 is not carrier capable. The F-16 has a tailhook for field arrestment in case there are issues with the brakes. Once dropped, the tailhook on the F-16 cannot be raised and has to be put back in place by maintenance.

A Navy version of the F-16 was looked at but was passed on due to the added structural weight needed to make it carrier capable. One only need to look at the issues the T-45 had to see that converting a land bassed aircraft for carrier use is easier said than done. Also the single engine was an issue at the time.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Fri May 12, 2006 9:10 am

Great single engined naval fighter, F-8 Crusader.
UH-60's suck!!!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Fri May 12, 2006 11:35 am

Quoting MigFan (Reply 3):
Great single engined naval fighter, F-8 Crusader.

Probably not a good one to bring up considering it's safety record.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
f4wso
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sat May 13, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting CTR (Reply 1):
The A-4 Skyhawk was a very sucessful single engine carrier aircraft.

As was the A-7.

The Navy did use F-16s for the aggressor role but they were always shore based. On a tour I took through the McDonnell Douglas plant in the early 1980's, the guide was fond of showing the nose gear of an F/A-18 was beefier than an F-15 main gear strut.

The hook is used for situations such as hydraulic failures where nosewheel steering will be inoperative and icy runways where braking action is severly reduced.

I sat through almost a dozen engagements in Air Force F-4s. The rollout on the cable was much longer than on a carrier so it wasn't the sudden deceleration the Navy experienced. I believe the F-4 hook could be raised because I seem to recall doing some airshow flybys with the gear, flaps, and hook down. It was probably the same system on the Navy F-4s.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sat May 13, 2006 2:11 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 4):
Probably not a good one to bring up considering it's safety record.

Sure, if you are comparing it today's standards. Back then, a single-engined turbojet was the thing. Compare the crusader to it's single-engined contemporaries (F-104, F-100, Mig-17, Hunter), it was a kick-assed fighter.

Mean looking, perhaps the meanest looking of all...

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sat May 13, 2006 4:17 am

I think they would easily made F-16 carrier capable.
F-22 could also be deployed on carriers.
And so will F-35 be.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sat May 13, 2006 6:00 am

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 7):
I think they would easily made F-16 carrier capable.
F-22 could also be deployed on carriers.

Easier said than done. The Navy thought they could adapt the Hawk relatively easily for carrier use. It turned out to be much more difficult than they thought.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sat May 13, 2006 1:21 pm

You don't need carrier launch birds anymore. STOVLs, UAV's and Cruise Missles. Freakin' waste of time building a carrier launch JSF, and an even greater waste adding all that extra weight to the Raptor to make it capable.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sat May 13, 2006 4:26 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 2):
A Navy version of the F-16 was looked at but was passed on due to the added structural weight needed to make it carrier capable

That and you look at where the air intake is on the F-16 and you just know that it surpass the A-7's reputation as a people eater.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sun May 14, 2006 1:17 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
That and you look at where the air intake is on the F-16 and you just know that it surpass the A-7's reputation as a people eater.

Not much of an issue for the Air Force. As long as you don't have your head up your ... you have nothing to worry about.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sun May 14, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 7):
I think they would easily made F-16 carrier capable.
F-22 could also be deployed on carriers.
And so will F-35 be.

I think you are under estimating the structural loads imposed on an aircraft during carrier launches and arrestment.

Carrier aircraft typically have what is called a keel beam (no Navy pun) running from the nose gear to the tail hook. This heavy structure is best designed in from the start. The only reason it was possible to accomplish this in the T-45 was that as a carrier trainer, the aircraft carries next to zero payload. This required added structure is also easier to integrate into twin engine aircraft like the F-18 that have a center line keel beam between the engines already.

Aside from ingestion of unwary flight deck crew, the F-16 low engine inlet would also be a concern from catapult steam ingestion. This problem was some times a problem on A-7s resulting in loss of engine thrust during launch.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sun May 14, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 9):
You don't need carrier launch birds anymore. STOVLs, UAV's and Cruise Missles. Freakin' waste of time building a carrier launch JSF, and an even greater waste adding all that extra weight to the Raptor to make it capable.

Since you seem to think that STOVL is the wave of the future then I guess the USAF is wasting their time with the F-35A. If that's the case then I guess they would be better served going with an all F-35B fleet. You were aware of the fact that the F-35C can carry a heavier payload than the F-35B and take it further right? Guess not.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sun May 14, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
That and you look at where the air intake is on the F-16 and you just know that it surpass the A-7's reputation as a people eater.

The 16's is alot skinner than the SLUF's, plus there's no reason for anyone to be that close to it, the nose is a good 10 feet fwd of the intake. They aren't on the boat, so they don't have personell under it hooking the nose gear up, etc etc..besides, us AF folks stand like 30 feet away with those cute mickey mouse headsets you see  Wink.

The SLUF was mean in it's day...that intake was massive, and was right frikkin there...one careless stroll by, you were gone. The nose gear was only 3-4 feet aft, and you had 1-2 people there hooking up the launchbar/holdback fittings, plus whoever happened to be around, yellow shirts, etc. I used to watch it on the boat (way back when), that thing used to try to suck up every last bit of the steam from the cats...it'd literally get 2-3 ft past the intake, then get snaked up forward then aft into the intake, like a giant hose. Beautiful machines IMHO (this coming from the son of a former SLUF driver), sure do miss em.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Sun May 14, 2006 10:26 am

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 14):
the nose is a good 10 feet fwd of the intake

The nose is but look where the nosewheel is.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



I don't think the navy is going back to a Bridle Catapult system anytime soon, so some poor smuck is going have to go hook the bar on the nose strut to the catapult.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 13):
Since you seem to think that STOVL is the wave of the future then I guess the USAF is wasting their time with the F-35A. If that's the case then I guess they would be better served going with an all F-35B fleet. You were aware of the fact that the F-35C can carry a heavier payload than the F-35B and take it further right? Guess not.

You're aware of the fact the Air Force is considering STOVL versions of the F-35 in lieu of the "A" version to replace the A-10's right? As for the F-35C... Useless payload. I'd imagine the benefits of jump jets on an aircraft carrier or at a small remote field in terms of space and operational flexibility would be tremendous. The Marines obviously get it.


"The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added."

This came at what cost to the program? Navy aquisition: Prime Rib dinners on a beans and franks budget.

[Edited 2006-05-15 19:30:11]
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 5:25 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16):
You're aware of the fact the Air Force is considering STOVL versions of the F-35 in lieu of the "A" version to replace the A-10's right? As for the F-35C... Useless payload. I'd imagine the benefits of jump jets on an aircraft carrier or at a small remote field in terms of space and operational flexibility would be tremendous. The Marines obviously get it.

Yes I was aware of that. Now could you please tell me why the USAF decided to go with an all F-35A fleet. After all imagine all the benefits from having an aircraft that doesn't need long runways from which to deploy.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16):
This came at what cost to the program? Navy acquisition: Prime Rib dinners on a beans and franks budget.

What about of the cost of the F-35B development? You think developing that lift fan was cheap? That fans a lot more complex than heavier structure and landing gear.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 5:41 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 17):
Now could you please tell me why the USAF decided to go with an all F-35A fleet.

You see any aircraft carriers in the Air Force? You see any short airfields? Futhermore, it's about air superiority with the Air Force not just something to toss money at.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 17):
What about of the cost of the F-35B development? You think developing that lift fan was cheap? That fans a lot more complex than heavier structure and landing gear.

The cost is in the airframe.

[Edited 2006-05-15 22:50:04]
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 6:11 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 18):
You see any aircraft carriers in the Air Force? You see any short airfields? Futhermore, it's about air superiority with the Air Force not just something to toss money at.

So bascially what you are saying is that the USAF has it's own particular needs. HHHHHMMMMM imagine that.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 18):
The cost is in the airframe.

You did'nt answer the question.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 6:33 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 19):
So bascially what you are saying is that the USAF has it's own particular needs. HHHHHMMMMM imagine that.

There is a need for a conventional and a STOVL. Not a carrier launch need. Not in todays military.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 19):
You did'nt answer the question.

Yeah, I did. The cost is in the airframe modifications sending designers back to the drawing boards to make the airframe work with different flying surfaces. There's no airframe design or weight difference between the conventional and STOVL. These were built into the program early.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting F4wso (Reply 5):
I believe the F-4 hook could be raised because I seem to recall doing some airshow flybys with the gear, flaps, and hook down. It was probably the same system on the Navy F-4s.

I have seen a report of German F-4F which also were able to retract the hook, so I would guess the system was the same...

Could USAF F-4s theoretically land and take off on carriers?
 
LongbowPilot
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:16 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 8:00 am

Quoting F4wso (Reply 5):
I sat through almost a dozen engagements in Air Force F-4s. The rollout on the cable was much longer than on a carrier so it wasn't the sudden deceleration the Navy experienced. I believe the F-4 hook could be raised because I seem to recall doing some airshow flybys with the gear, flaps, and hook down. It was probably the same system on the Navy F-4s.

F-4's were originally built for the Navy, so they were spec'ed as such. The Air Force bought into the design later on and got what the Navy Spec'ed, so it was capable of doing it all except carrier launching.
 
f4wso
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 9:44 am

There was initially a difference in the tires on the USAF and Navy F-4s. The Navy version was a thin high pressure tire. The USAF version was a wider lower pressure version necessitating a bulge in the upper wing skin. The larger tires were better longer landing rolls; the high pressure versions better able to absorb the carrier landings. Another difference I am appreciative of is the USAF versions had throttles and a stick in the back due to the Air Force initially putting a pilot back there.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 10:36 am

Since we are getting down to the minutia. The USAF kept the F-4 wing fold capability but converted them to manual to save weight.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
visakow
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 9:20 am

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 11:47 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
That and you look at where the air intake is on the F-16 and you just know that it surpass the A-7's reputation as a people eater.

My understanding from the 'Old Timers' during my first tour in the Navy was the A-7 was much more notorious for sucking up people on a bustling flightdeck.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
There is a need for a conventional and a STOVL. Not a carrier launch need. Not in todays military.

And this opinion of yours is based on what? Your years of experince with Naval Aviation? Please make the case for the F-35A. After reading what you have said it should be be obvious that it's not needed.

Here's a simple fact about carrier launched and STVOL aircraft. The carrier capable aircraft can take off with a heavier payload and take it further than a STVOL aircraft. That means the carrier can sit further off the coast. Which decreases the risk for the CBG.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
Yeah, I did. The cost is in the airframe modifications sending designers back to the drawing boards to make the airframe work with different flying surfaces. There's no airframe design or weight difference between the conventional and STOVL. These were built into the program early.

Really?

< http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ges/f35_technology_commonality.jpg >
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Tue May 16, 2006 11:30 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 26):
Here's a simple fact about carrier launched and STVOL aircraft. The carrier capable aircraft can take off with a heavier payload and take it further than a STVOL aircraft. That means the carrier can sit further off the coast. Which decreases the risk for the CBG.

With all of todays technology, you're actually concerned about inferior technology sneeking up on you? Please.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 27):
With all of todays technology, you're actually concerned about inferior technology sneeking up on you? Please.

Just because the US military has a technological edge does not mean it's invincible. To say that it does is foolishness. During the first gulf war the Aegis cruiser USS Princeton hit a mine. A ship with the most advanced air defense system ever put to sea put out of action by something as simple as a mine.

I take it you don't have a case for the F-35A.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Wed May 17, 2006 12:48 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 28):
I take it you don't have a case for the F-35A.

I take it you still don't have a case for the Super Hornet. Think military wide fleet simplification and cost savings. Nothing like the same $5 Air Force hammer costing the Navy $10. Is there something special about it, or do you guys just get off on paying twice as much for everything?

I don't need to make a case. The Air Force case was made long ago. The Navy is the department bogged down in monetary waste.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-16C/D Carrier Capability

Wed May 17, 2006 3:41 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 29):
I don't need to make a case. The Air Force case was made long ago. The Navy is the department bogged down in monetary waste.

You certainely have made a habit of making false statements or telling half truths. If the Dept of the Air Force is the paragon of virtue and efficency then please explain to me the tanker scandal along with the cost overruns with the C-17, F-22 and B-2.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
There is a need for a conventional and a STOVL. Not a carrier launch need. Not in todays military.

Just as there is no need for CVTOL aircraft. By the way please explain to me how the Navy is going to launch and recover it's fleet of F/A-18E/F/G, E-2's and C-2's if it gets rid of catapults and arresting gear like you think they should.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos