User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:24:35 AM EDT
[#1]
The F-16 has an arrestor hook, but as others have said, the aircraft was not designed for carrier landings. It's part of an emergency landing system the AF uses (name/acronym escapes me).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:26:42 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help.  Type-Model-Series DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. F-4 was a Navy jet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:28:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the powers that be think the "F" designation is sexier. The F-117 was our 1st Gen stealth, but has no air-to-air capability that I'm aware of. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why were the F-111 and F-117 given "F" designations and not "As?" Because the powers that be think the "F" designation is sexier. The F-117 was our 1st Gen stealth, but has no air-to-air capability that I'm aware of. USAF isnt fond of the "A" nomenclature for whatever reason. Probably has something to do with protecting the bomber force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:30:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-4 was a Navy jet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. Type-Model-Series DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. F-4 was a Navy jet. F-4C/D/E were the USAF models. So, Brohawk is still correct with his MDS example
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:34:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-16 has an arrestor hook, but as others have said, the aircraft was not designed for carrier landings. It's part of an emergency landing system the AF uses (name/acronym escapes me). We always just called it the arrestor system. Don't ever volunteer to go inspect arrestor gear. Edit: BAK-12 Barrier Arrestment Kit-12 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:40:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were the F-111 and F-117 given "F" designations and not "As?" The F-111 was called such as it was origionally designed as a fighter. When SAC picked it up as a light bomber it gained the secondary bomber mission making it the FB-111 (technically that is backwards as the secondary mission goes before the primary one like in the EF-111). The F-117 wan't called a bomber because the AF already had a stealth bomber project and didn't want to risk funding on either by confusing Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:41:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Ahh, thanks.
I knew the F-15 has a hook for emergencies...just wasn't sure about the F-16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:43:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USAF uses MDS DoN uses TMS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. Type-Model-Series DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. USAF uses MDS DoN uses TMS Then the Navy is wrong since DoD 4120.15 scopes that "this List shall provide a single DoD-wide source document containing approved Mission Design Series (MDS) designators and popular names for all aerospace vehicles."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 9:00:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We always just called it the arrestor system. Don't ever volunteer to go inspect arrestor gear. Edit: BAK-12 Barrier Arrestment Kit-12 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The F-16 has an arrestor hook, but as others have said, the aircraft was not designed for carrier landings. It's part of an emergency landing system the AF uses (name/acronym escapes me). We always just called it the arrestor system. Don't ever volunteer to go inspect arrestor gear. Edit: BAK-12 Barrier Arrestment Kit-12 I just knew to stay the fuck away from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 9:02:30 AM EDT
[#10]
What can the f-35 do that the f-18, f-16 and f-15 can't do? I dont pay too much attention to the f-35 because its yucky!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 9:05:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What can the f-35 do that the f-18, f-16 and f-15 can't do? I dont pay too much attention to the f-35 because its yucky! It's a better colossal fuck up. Other then that, I'm just like you, I don't pay attention to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 9:11:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What can the f-35 do that the f-18, f-16 and f-15 can't do? I dont pay too much attention to the f-35 because its yucky! It has canted verticals and special inlets that don't require intake ramps or boundary layer diverters. It was designed with internal weapons carriage. Because of these design features it has a smaller RCS. It was designed as 'standard' with all the new tech that the F-18, F-16, and F-15 have had 'retrofitted' to them (HMDS, AESA Radar, IRST, some comms, etc). Not to mention the whole F-35B STOVL deal...so throw AV-8 (even though it's not an 'F') in the list for good measure and all it has is the LO and new tech integration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 1:45:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then the Navy is wrong since DoD 4120.15 scopes that "this List shall provide a single DoD-wide source document containing approved Mission Design Series (MDS) designators and popular names for all aerospace vehicles." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. Type-Model-Series DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. USAF uses MDS DoN uses TMS Then the Navy is wrong since DoD 4120.15 scopes that "this List shall provide a single DoD-wide source document containing approved Mission Design Series (MDS) designators and popular names for all aerospace vehicles." Don't doubt it but even DoD acquisition guides still recognize type/model/series in usage, so I would assume SECNAV has waived the requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 1:53:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/6/1163648.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/6/1163648.jpg Does the F16 ever win? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:54:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/6/1163648.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/6/1163648.jpg NAS Fallon has no aircraft carriers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:56:17 PM EDT
[#16]
How about an AIR-2 Genie rocket?
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:21:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NAS Fallon has no aircraft carriers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/6/1163648.jpg NAS Fallon has no aircraft carriers. I know the Navy had a F-16N some years back, but retired them all due to wing cracking due to them flying the hell out of them. Is this an old photo, or did they buy some AF birds, or was another run of Navy versions made? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:24:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know the Navy had a F-16N some years back, but retired them all due to wing cracking due to them flying the hell out of them. Is this an old photo, or did they buy some AF birds, or was another run of Navy versions made? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/4/6/1163648.jpg NAS Fallon has no aircraft carriers. I know the Navy had a F-16N some years back, but retired them all due to wing cracking due to them flying the hell out of them. Is this an old photo, or did they buy some AF birds, or was another run of Navy versions made? I think the Navy got some F-16As when we had an embargo on Pakistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:31:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Needs a pic
 Fuck with me and I will hunt you down and kill you!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:33:06 PM EDT
[#20]
without looking it up, what was the F9F and where was it built?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:34:26 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
without looking it up, what was the F9F and where was it built? Panther. Um...The Ironworks? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:34:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
without looking it up, what was the F9F and where was it built? Panther. Long Island. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:35:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Panther. Um...The Ironworks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
without looking it up, what was the F9F and where was it built? Panther. Um...The Ironworks? Unless it was the swept-wing version. Then it was a Cougar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:38:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Beth Page , LI to be exact
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 4:56:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. http://i.imgur.com/86hfXLv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFBjJ.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap. Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting? They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. http://i.imgur.com/86hfXLv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFBjJ.jpg You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 5:00:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap. Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting? They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. http://i.imgur.com/86hfXLv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFBjJ.jpg You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? I'm sure the brakes are also set.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 5:05:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg I loaded many of those on the F-16 way back in the day
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 5:58:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure the brakes are also set. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap. Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting? They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. http://i.imgur.com/86hfXLv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFBjJ.jpg You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? I'm sure the brakes are also set. The holdback tool is a big steel linkage that connects to a shackle that's anchored to the concrete. And brakes are set as well. In the case of the jet at Lakenheath, the hush houses doors retains the jet as well 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:00:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg B-61....I remember those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:08:55 PM EDT
[#30]
These threads are awesome, keep the questions coming
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:22:47 PM EDT
[#31]
If I ever win the lottery (the big $500M jackpot kind), I'm buying one of these.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:23:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please describe what it's like being the pilot breaking the sound barrier. What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? 
B-61 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:24:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg damn! you beat me to it!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:25:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Why were there so many different F designated planes in the 60's? F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, F4, Etc. I am sure I am missing some.
And just for the record the coolest looking F designated plane is the F-104. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:30:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Can the F-15C do air-to-ground gunnery?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:33:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were there so many different F designated planes in the 60's? F-100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, F4, Etc. I am sure I am missing some. And just for the record the coolest looking F designated plane is the F-104. It's definitely the coolest looking single-engine fighter as well as best looking century fighter. I think the F-15, F-14, F-22 and F-104 are probably the 4 best looking fighters of all time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:33:15 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I ever win the lottery (the big $500M jackpot kind), I'm buying one of these. <a href="http://s104.photobucket.com/user/aramp1/media/800px-F-104_right_side_view_zps991bc0d9.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/aramp1/800px-F-104_right_side_view_zps991bc0d9.jpg</a> Are retired fighters that are for sale to the public still able to break the sound barrier? Or are they some how limited? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:35:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can the F-15C do air-to-ground gunnery? Yes and no. It isn't equipped to do it. But I do know of pilots out of Mountain Home doing strafing runs with the a2a pipper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:37:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are retired fighters that are for sale to the public still able to break the sound barrier? Or are they some how limited? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I ever win the lottery (the big $500M jackpot kind), I'm buying one of these. <a href="http://s104.photobucket.com/user/aramp1/media/800px-F-104_right_side_view_zps991bc0d9.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/aramp1/800px-F-104_right_side_view_zps991bc0d9.jpg</a> Are retired fighters that are for sale to the public still able to break the sound barrier? Or are they some how limited? Yes they can. There are Mig-21s, 27s. 29s, and some sukhoi's in civilian hands. I also believe there are two F-16As floating around somewhere. At least 4 F-104s, a few F-4 phantoms, Sabers and a number of other jets. NASA is also considered civilian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:37:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are retired fighters that are for sale to the public still able to break the sound barrier? Or are they some how limited? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I ever win the lottery (the big $500M jackpot kind), I'm buying one of these. <a href="http://s104.photobucket.com/user/aramp1/media/800px-F-104_right_side_view_zps991bc0d9.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/aramp1/800px-F-104_right_side_view_zps991bc0d9.jpg</a> Are retired fighters that are for sale to the public still able to break the sound barrier? Or are they some how limited? Merely a regulatory limit, nothing physically prohibiting them from going mach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:39:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Post a photo of the F-103, F-107, F-108, F-109, and F-110 fighters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:40:48 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:41:21 PM EDT
[#43]
The F-5 was always my favorite "F" jet. Totally asthetic to me since I really know nothing about them.
If I won a huge powerball lottery I'd probably go buy one and end up killing myself after a multi-night binge on hookers and blow. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:41:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap. Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting? They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. http://i.imgur.com/86hfXLv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFBjJ.jpg You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? The load isn't that big! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:46:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-5 was always my favorite "F" jet. Totally asthetic to me since I really know nothing about them. If I won a huge powerball lottery I'd probably go buy one and end up killing myself after a multi-night binge on hookers and blow. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061006-F-1234S-072.jpg You mean MiG28s. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:48:06 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:48:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Post a photo of the F-103, F-107, F-108, F-109, and F-110 fighters. I love the F-108, looks like a XB-70 and A-5 had a baby 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:49:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The load isn't that big! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap. Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting? They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. http://i.imgur.com/86hfXLv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFBjJ.jpg You've got to be fucking kidding me. All that's holding back that plane at full afterburner is the tailhook and a couple of cables? The load isn't that big! Well, I'll defer to you since you obviously would know. Still, it is quite shocking to layman. In reference to your other post about the rest of the century series fighters, it's amazing what this country did in the 1960s. I realize planes today are far more complex, and expected to last much longer so things like corrosion are taken into account more, but even still, we were churning out new designs and whole planes so fast it was incredible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 6:54:34 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The holdback tool is a big steel linkage that connects to a shackle that's anchored to the concrete. And brakes are set as well. In the case of the jet at Lakenheath, the hush houses doors retains the jet as well Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure the brakes are also set. The holdback tool is a big steel linkage that connects to a shackle that's anchored to the concrete. And brakes are set as well. In the case of the jet at Lakenheath, the hush houses doors retains the jet as well Damn, I fail. I'm mixing my jets up. C models don't have parking brake. It's all up to how much the run guy can leg press those pedals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:01:09 PM EDT
[#50]
I agree with what was previously posted, I'd have to say the Blackbird was one of the more impressive birds ever built...but my favorite is still the Delta Dart.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
