US authorities seize old private F-14 jets

[aesop081]

Jeeze, all those planes just sitting there....c'mon Canada, buy some freakin F-15s already.

So we can replace our old jets with some more old jets.......?

:

 

[Zoomie]

I concur with CDN Aviator - that would be an Eagle.

 

[Bobby Rico]

So we can replace our old jets with some more old jets.......?

:

Yep...it's the Canadian way. ;D

 

[aesop081]

Yep...it's the Canadian way. ;D

if you dont have anything of value to add......dont bother

 

[CougarKing]

Gentlemen,

Since we're on the topic of "older" jets, does anyone here know if our CF-188s/F-18s still have their tailhooks for carrier ops? Or these models never came with them?  I hope this question isn't infringing on OPSEC. If they still do, it would be not too much to assume that at one point or another our planes must have landed on a US Navy aircraft carrier on some exercise.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

from what i remember and have read, no tailhooks on our F18s,  Canadian Jets have not done carrier landings since the Bonnie was retired I believe anyways

not all F18s came with hooks or the reinforced tails for carrier landings, not every country needed that requirement so why pay for it.

 

[aesop081]

Gentlemen,

Since we're on the topic of "older" jets, does anyone here know if our CF-188s/F-18s still have their tailhooks for carrier ops? Or these models never came with them?  I hope this question isn't infringing on OPSEC. If they still do, it would be not too much to assume that at one point or another our planes must have landed on a US Navy aircraft carrier on some exercise.

No..our CF-188s have not landed on USN carriers.  Our pilots, save the few who have done exchanges in the US, do not have that training.  Furthermore, the various books on the CF-188 that i have here all indicate thet, althought they are equiped with a tail hook, it is not the same as the american one, and not designed for carrier use.  It is designed for arrester cables on runways for emergencies.

 

[aesop081]

from what i remember and have read, no tailhooks on our F18s, 

see my post above

edit : see below as well

 

[aesop081]

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/CF-18break-away.jpg

you can see the tailhook plain as day on this photo.......

as well as this one:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/CF-18HighAlpha.jpg

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/hornet6.jpg

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/cf-18-2.jpg

In reference to the use of the hook :

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip_vr/vr_tour/preflight_intro_e.asp?pID=8

 

[Donut]

Ref the first photo, was the Air Force still the RCAF when we took delivery of the CF 188's?

I thought that change had been a done deal long before we got our hands on them?

Confused,

DF

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Ref the first photo, was the Air Force still the RCAF when we took delivery of the CF 188's?

The false canopy looks too shiny, too: betcha' it was one of those 'artist impression' jobs (like the C-17 on the Maple Leaf).

 

[aesop081]

The false canopy looks too shiny, too: betcha' it was one of those 'artist impression' jobs (like the C-17 on the Maple Leaf).

Caption for the photo on the DND website states "

A CF-18 breaks away from the camera ship near Abbotsford, B.C. Canada has a fleet of 60 operational CF-18s, plus an additional 25 CF-18s in service with 410 Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Squadron to train its fighter pilots.

 

[CougarKing]

Ref the first photo, was the Air Force still the RCAF when we took delivery of the CF 188's?

To possibly answer ParaMedTech's question, I remember that Neil Mckay said this in the "HMCS Bonaventure, Post-Unification Questions" thread:

Air Command as we know it today (i.e. comprising all of the aircraft in the Forces) is a more recent arrival -- mid- to late-1970s, I believe.

Should it be also reasonable to assume the F-18s of the RAAF (Australia) and the RMAF (Malaysia) have also the same situation- that their F-18 pilots are not trained for carrier ops or have never landed on USN carriers?

It would be interesting if we kept our CF-188s long enough until HMS Queen Elizabeth (that planned new Royal Navy CVF) is actually commissioned and they could probably land on her during some joint NATO exercise...oh well... (as well as a couple of pilots trained for those landings)

 

[Bobby Rico]

I think it's one of those anniversary planes with the special paintjobs (you can see an atypical design on the tail rudder).  It's probably marked up with RCAF tags in commemoration.

 

[aesop081]

Should it be also reasonable to assume the F-18s of the RAAF (Australia) and the RMAF (Malaysia) have also the same situation- that their F-18 pilots are not trained for carrier ops or have never landed on USN carriers?

yes it would be reasonable. dont forget that Spain, Switzerland and Finland also use various version of the F/A-18...none of them operate it from aircraft carriers.

It would be interesting if we kept our CF-188s long enough until HMS Queen Elizabeth (that planned new Royal Navy CVF) is actually commissioned and they could probably land on her during some joint NATO exercise...oh well... (as well as a couple of pilots trained for those landings)

We dont have carriers, therfore we dont have carrier aviation....let it go !!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Caption for the photo on the DND website states "

In that case probably a colour bird ...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

It would be interesting if we kept our CF-188s long enough until HMS Queen Elizabeth (that planned new Royal Navy CVF) is actually commissioned and they could probably land on her during some joint NATO exercise...oh well... (as well as a couple of pilots trained for those landings)

We dont have carriers, therfore we dont have carrier aviation....let it go !!

And moreover, with their purchase of the JSF the CVF class is going to be STOVL (= no F18s)

 

[CougarKing]

So it would also be reasonable to assume that Iranian F-14s now either have no tailhooks or at least have no pilots qualified in carrier landings by training on USN carriers in the mid-70s before the Shah was overthrown?

I'm not saying that carrier-capable IRIAF F-14s are a threat, since the Iranians have no carriers.

However, I recall a similar World War II (Pacific War) incident where Japanese "Kate" Torpedo bombers tried to land on the USN carrier USS Lexington during the May 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea, before they were shot down by AA fire or by the Wildcat fighters on CAP. Apparently, these Japanese pilots had gotten seperated from the rest of the strike wave and had mistaken the Lexington for their home carrier, (either the Shokaku or the Zuikaku). I don't recall the source of this incident- it might be in Samuel Elliot Morrison's "History of the US Navy during the Pacific War" (please correct me if I'm wrong).

One of the Master Chiefs on deck, upon seeing the IJN planes about to land, was reputed to have said "All hands stand by to repel all boarders".

I'm not saying that the Iranians would do the same and be that crazy to land their F-14s on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf, but you never know with Iran these days...

 

[geo]

The USN and the RN will not permit any pilot to attempt an "at sea" landing on a flat stable (or rolling) deck if same said pilot has not been trained on carriers beforehand... regardless of how well equiped the aircraft happens to be.  This is not like one of those new Lexus that will park itself without driver assist (creepy).

 

[Zoomie]

I'm not saying that the Iranians would do the same and be that crazy to land their F-14s on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf, but you never know with Iran these days...

Any unidentified aircraft would be hard pressed to get within 200 miles of a carrier group.