FOG3

Nonsense, C-130s are perfectly capable of operating off carriers without using the catapaults or hooks mind you. Reverse thrusters rule.

gunnut

NO F'ING WAY!!!

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Anon

F-18's of any model would eat Forgers for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

That's like lining a P-40 Warhawk up against an F-104 Starfighter.

A total, total mismatch.

There is no way in hell a C-17 could take off from a carrier without massive JATO assist, and absolutely no way one could ever trap even with vapors in the tanks and an empty belly. It would rip the arrester gear on the deck to bits if it didn't collapse the deck when it slammed down to begin with, lol.

It would be interesting if the navy had the money to take over the USAF's F-117A fleet and modernize/navalize/upthrust them, but.....that would require money, something the USN does not have.

LOL.

Garry

Yes. I confirm. Two out of 3 already passed expenses through parliamentary committees. They want that NATO has more of those C-17... and they believe that this would serve more to their safety than their own armies.

The logic is... if Russia invades... baltic states would be occupied no mater what their armies have... but if NATO has enough strategic transport aircraft this occupation would end rather soon. They want actually more than one C-17 to be leased.... and only new!

canoe

If they Navy wanted to try and convert any fighters from the airforce I'd have to assume they'd want the F-15's given they already have F-35's coming down the pipe later.

Of course I'd have assume they'd pretty much have to rebuild the entire plane to make it carrier capable.

Garry

OK. This I can believe. But even this looks AMAZING!

I was thinking of amphibious... maybe this idea was forgotten far to early?

Russia has Be-200 which can land on water and be refueled in open see.... and it can carry 8 tons of cargo... I know that it can be expanded to 15tons if firefoam tanks are removed. For refueling it can take 12tons of fuel. Why can't it be used for refueling? of transport? and no need for carrier!

canoe

Most aircraft that are capable of pontoon water landings have pretty strict restrictions on them during the water landings and takeoffs. The sea state needs to be pretty calm or they can't lift off, also the weight has to be kept down for takeoff.

Odds are it would never get off the water if it had 15 tons of cargo in it. You’d probably rip its pontoons off or sink the plane if you attempted it. Also it would be extremely difficult to unload 8 tons of gear off it while it’s in the water. For a conventional aircraft you’d need to lower the rear ramp and you need heavy lifting equipment and gear to handle moving out the pallets. Most of that gear doesn’t operate in the water.

Garry

Hi Canoe, the Be-200 does not use pontoons... it is dedicated amphibious aircraft. Hence it can take off and land while waves are up to 2 meters high... but with high waves it has to have HIGHER LOAD to takeoff properly (some paradox for me)
http://www.beta-air.com/eng/be200/
http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html

there is one old Amphibious which is even bigger - A-40.... and it can carry 10 tons from water.
http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html

Attached Images

be200.jpg (17.8 KB, 41 views)

canoe

Its using its main body for floation with pontoons on the wings to prevent it from rolling. The argument still stands with a full load that thing will be too submerged to easily offload pallets of cargo. I'd assume if you overloaded it past the standard 8 tons it would be so low in the water it would be dangerous for takeoff.

http://www.rusarmy.com/wallpapers/av...0_1024_005.htm
Note how low it is in the water when its not moving. If you doubled the weight it would be alot lower...

Garry

OK. Now I understand what I mean! Probably it would be too low if its weight is more than 12 tons, which it takes while scooping the water.

That is why it has nose up while taking off and its wing pontons never touch water this way!

BenRoethig

Cool aircraft. Completely impractical in some cases, but cool nonetheless. Depending on the price, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of these in the Coast Guard's inventory.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Garry

$30mln for any of base versions (firefighting, passenger, cargo, cargo-passenger). $2mln additional make it a VIP toy. US Forestry is considering 4 for firefighting.

Its advantage in firefighting is that it can scoop 12 tons water for 20 seconds from any lake/river and then drop it on forest fire which is up to 100km away. If fire is just 50km from water source it can drop 360 tons of water per sortie... indeed heavy IL-76 can dump 40 tons of water on fire but ONLY ONCE per flight! Then it takes 3 hours of refueling and reloading, while this bird dumps only 12 tons but can do it 30 times per sortie!!! (assuming water source is 50km away from fire).

This year in Portugal it alone was a dramatic factor helping to stop fires... now in Indonesia... and hopefully next year in California.

Jimmy

Wow, that's definitely a plus for a firefighting plane. That's impressive.

robert

C-130 Carrier trials:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0097.shtml