USAF pilots

[Nikos]

Were USAF pilots ever required to be qualified to land and take off from Aircraft Carriers? 

[lordmonar]

Were USAF pilots ever required to be qualified to land and take off from Aircraft Carriers?

Some were.  Not as a general requirement.   Even in the Navy Carrier Qualification is a skill that is learned as need and re-qualed just before deployment. 

[AirAux]

If IRCC, even Army pilots were on occasion carrier qualified.

[NIN]

If IRCC, even Army pilots were on occasion carrier qualified.

Carriers, LPHs...

[SarDragon]

There used to be an exchange program where AF and USN pilots would swap squadrons for a 2 or 3 year tour flying similar platforms for the other service. It worked really well when both services were flying A-7s and F-4s.

[docsteve]

Who was flying the C-130 doing touch-&-goes and full-stop landings on the Forrestal?  USAF?  USN?  USMC? Lockheed?

[LegacyAirman]

Who was flying the C-130 doing touch-&-goes and full-stop landings on the Forrestal?  USAF?  USN?  USMC? Lockheed?

USMC I believe.

[Luis R. Ramos]

This article does not exactly state the pilot was a Navy pilot, but since the C-130 was borrowed from the Marines, has a BU NO number (I seem to remember this is a number assigned to Navy acft, not AF), and the co-pilot was Navy, it was a Navy pilot.

See http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

This video, on the comments section, states "...The pilot, LT (later RADM) James Flatley III, USN..."

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

So, it was a Navy pilot, a Lieutenant at the time, later achieving the grade of Rear Admiral...

:clap:

[AirAux]

I was, of course, referring to the brass cojonied Jimmy Doolittle and his Tokyo Raiders.  What a group of Heroes.  I wonder what the "Rules of Engagement" were in those days?  I wonder if there was any collateral damage?  I wonder if I really care.  I think I know why our Country is not as Great as it once was!!   

[Luis R. Ramos]

The Doolitle Raiders were not carrier-qualified. This did not mater however as they were to take off a carrier and land in bases in China. They had to launch early and the planes were lost...

They were a group of volunteers that once selected went to an Army airfield in Florida and trained using an airstrip which had been specially marked.

Its always refreshing that members want to bring to discussion important events like this.

Website on the raiders: http://www.doolittletokyoraiders.com/index.html

[Chappie]

The Doolitle Raiders were not carrier-qualified. This did not mater however as they were to take off a carrier and land in bases in China. They had to launch early and the planes were lost...

They were a group of volunteers that once selected went to an Army airfield in Florida and trained using an airstrip which had been specially marked.

Its always refreshing that members want to bring to discussion important events like this.

Website on the raiders: http://www.doolittletokyoraiders.com/index.html

Their primary concern was just to be able to take off the deck of the carrier --- it was not part of the plan to return and land on the carrier deck.   Amazing feat...courageous men.   The "Final Toast" was such a moving event to watch via "livestream":  http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467482/doolittle-raiders-honored-with-final-toast.aspx  There is a video embedded in the link so you can see the event.

[Nikos]

The Doolitle guys had a lot of courage for that mission!

[PHall]

The Doolitle guys had a lot of courage for that mission!

The pure hatred of the Japanese after the Pearl Harbor attack probably helped.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Were USAF pilots ever required to be qualified to land and take off from Aircraft Carriers?

Those who were on exchange with USN/USMC units, definitely (not to mention Royal Navy, when learning to fly the Sea Harrier came into play).  I remember reading in Air Force magazine a few years ago about a USAF pilot (F-15) who went on exchange with a USMC F/A-18 unit and one of the first things he had to do was get carrier qualifications as the USMC unit was about to prepare for a carrier deployment.  In fact, the interview took place aboard the carrier.  He went into detail about what things were different (air-to-air v. multirole, learning to catch the wire, command structure, and the overall differences in culture between the AF and Marines).

The movie Pearl Harbor has a nice visual sequence about Doolittle's mission...inaccurate as all get out, but it still looks cool (though not so much so as Kate Beckinsale).

The pure hatred of the Japanese after the Pearl Harbor attack probably helped.

I'd say that fuelled a lot of the "drive" of those who fought in the Pacific for the entire war: you kicked us in a place where it hurt, when we'd done nothing to you, and now we're going to make sure you REALLY hurt.

[PHall]

Many fighter aircraft in the Pacific were moved from the US to the South Pacific on small escort carriers.
They were loaded by crane at the dock and depending on where they were going were either unloaded by crane or flown off for the short flight to their new home.
Most got off via the crane.

[SarDragon]

I'd say that fuelled a lot of the "drive" of those who fought in the Pacific for the entire war: you kicked us in a place where it hurt, when we'd done nothing to you, and now we're going to make sure you REALLY hurt.

I think you need to do some deeper reading on the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. The US did much to piss off the Japanese government, and their retaliation was not totally unwarranted. The US intelligence community botched things, too.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'd say that fuelled a lot of the "drive" of those who fought in the Pacific for the entire war: you kicked us in a place where it hurt, when we'd done nothing to you, and now we're going to make sure you REALLY hurt.

I think you need to do some deeper reading on the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. The US did much to piss off the Japanese government, and their retaliation was not totally unwarranted. The US intelligence community botched things, too.

I stand corrected.

[AirAux]

I'm sorry are we being politically correct today?  It was a sneak attack and unwarranted.  I suggest you read some of the treatment the Japanese did to the Chinese during the war.  The Germans had noting on the Japanese when it came to torture or out and out horror.  I believe Dec. 7, 1941 was called "a day of infamy" for a purpose.       

[Garibaldi]

Speaking as a Japanese-American, whose mother was born shortly after the war ended, and whose grandfather was a spy for the Japanese during WW2, I have done a lot of reading on why all my peers in elementary school hated my guts when they found out I was a "dirty Jap". One of my few friends growing up, his father was aboard one of the ships blown up in Pearl Harbor and harbored great disgust towards me and my mother. I stayed away from their house when he was home. His father never really prohibited my friend from playing but he really did not want me in his home.

Reading along many years later, a combination of facts and theories as to why the Japanese finally snapped on us opened my eyes some. It wasn't a "dirty sneak attack", but a planned attack based on years of sanctions by us and other countries. Denying them oil and raw materials they needed was the final straw. They simply "had no choice" but to bite the hand that no longer fed them. Diplomatic ties were severed, threats were made and ignored, and finally on one sunny morning in PACWEST, in December, we paid the price "for our arrogance."

I don't claim to be an historian, but when it hits close to home and people start judging you because you have black hair and slightly slanted eyes, you kind of want to find out why. I was born towards the end of the Viet Nam war, so everything with Asian features was highly suspect. A lot of my peers had grandfathers, uncles, even fathers, who fought against Asians at one time or another.

I also don't claim that the Japanese were total innocents. They have a long history of genocide and racial hatred against other Asians. I felt this too when a Korean kid kept picking on me on the bus. I didn't quite get it; he looked like me, had the same hair and similar eyes, why the **** was he picking on ME? Same team, yo. Not so. I found out years later that the Japanese held many Koreans as slaves and tried to wipe them out at one time. Same with the Chinese. And the Russians. The quickest way to get your butt killed in some places is to call a Korean a Jap.

I guess you could say the sanctions and such were just an excuse, pretty much like North Korea is claiming now.

But don't claim that the US was an innocent victim either.

[AirAux]

Wait, let me get this straight, "Denying them oil and raw materials they needed was the final straw. They simply "had no choice" but to bite the hand that no longer fed them."  So we were denying them the materials they needed as they ravaged China?  I had no idea that was an honorable reason to attack us, much like the Twin Towers.  Very strange.  I had no idea we had an obligation to provide anything to anybody, especially those terrorizing other countries.  My Bad, I guess...  Wait, what?  There is no justification for the attack at Pearl Harbor, I don't care what your nationality is.   

[Garibaldi]

Wait, let me get this straight, "Denying them oil and raw materials they needed was the final straw. They simply "had no choice" but to bite the hand that no longer fed them."  So we were denying them the materials they needed as they ravaged China?  I had no idea that was an honorable reason to attack us, much like the Twin Towers.  Very strange.  I had no idea we had an obligation to provide anything to anybody, especially those terrorizing other countries.  My Bad, I guess...  Wait, what?  There is no justification for the attack at Pearl Harbor, I don't care what your nationality is.

We had trade agreements with Japan and they were using those materials for their war. So we stopped them. The quotes around "had no choice" were meant as a slight against their perceived choice. They could have sucked it up and dealt with it, or could have attacked us. That was their view...THEIR VIEW that they "had no choice".  No rational choice, no rational reason. To them it was a big deal, to us it was a case of "screw them. They're just going to use this for their war machine". Kinda like a bunch of people flying jets into the WTC because their ideology and the promise of 72 virgins compelled them to, since the US meddles in the Middle East.

Done with this thread drift. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

Somewhere along the line, I recall seeing an article about the C-130/aircraft carrier program. It may have been here or in another group, but I'll check.

[THRAWN]

Wait, let me get this straight, "Denying them oil and raw materials they needed was the final straw. They simply "had no choice" but to bite the hand that no longer fed them."  So we were denying them the materials they needed as they ravaged China?  I had no idea that was an honorable reason to attack us, much like the Twin Towers.  Very strange.  I had no idea we had an obligation to provide anything to anybody, especially those terrorizing other countries.  My Bad, I guess...  Wait, what?  There is no justification for the attack at Pearl Harbor, I don't care what your nationality is.

From the US point of view, you're correct. From the Japanese point of view? Not so much. Despite the "surprise" element of the 2 attacks, PH and 9/11 were not at all similar. PH was in response to a series of actions by the US, political, economic and military. The Pacific Fleet was a threat to the expansion of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and from the Japanese point of view, it needed to be eliminated. Seizing the initiative, the Japanese took PACFLT out of the game for a while. Take a look at Toland's "Rising Sun" books for an indepth discussion on the attack from the Japanese standpoint, and not the US "dirty sneak attack" rhetoric.

[Garibaldi]

OK, found some information about the C-130 test on the USS Forrestal. One of our former Sandy Springs members was a test pilot for this program. He made something like 29 touch and goes and 21 full-stop takeoffs and landings. All unassisted, meaning no catapult or arresting hook. Apparently, the distance between the island and the wings was very close so much attention had to be paid. Here is a link to a video of a  takeoff and landing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk

Anyway, tried to get this back on topic somewhat. Have a good day!

*information credited to a GAWG CAP veterans site, administered by my unit historian.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Garibaldi, that was on a different thread. This was on the Doolitle thread! Some members may think you did not went away from the Pearl Harbor posts too much...



...but good try anyway!



Good way to save the day!

It is always good to see another post with a link to a different video on the same topic I did about ten messages back...

Thank you.

:clap:

[Garibaldi]

Garibaldi, that was on a different thread. This was on the Doolitle thread! Some members may think you did not went away from the Pearl Harbor posts too much...



...but good try anyway!



Good way to save the day!

It is always good to see another post with a link to a different video on the same topic I did about ten messages back...

Thank you.

:clap:

...thank you?

[AirAux]

THRAWN, Despite the "surprise" element of the 2 attacks, PH and 9/11 were not at all similar.  You might want to ask the families of the approximately 3000 dead in each attack about that.

[THRAWN]

THRAWN, Despite the "surprise" element of the 2 attacks, PH and 9/11 were not at all similar.  You might want to ask the families of the approximately 3000 dead in each attack about that.

That's one of the most asinine statements I've read in a while, and on CAPTALK that's saying something.

[AirAux]

Yes, very asinine.  Other than both were totally unprovoked.  Both killed anyone in the area, not just military.  Both started a war.  Both were attacks on the United states of America.  Both were totally unjustified.  Both were without honor.  And both have tried to play political correctness to warp the history of it all.  Try reading the Air Force Magazine regarding the Smithsonian attempting to place a sign on Enola Gay that made it sound like Americans were the war mongers.  This was at the demand of the Japanese and politically correct liberals in this country.  No, we won't forget, nor should we.   

[THRAWN]

There is no "political correctness" about it. Both attacks have 2 sides to the issues. Ignoring the point of view of the attacker does little other than demonstrate a lack of critical thinking. The IJN was instrumental in the expansion of the Japanese Empire. They viewed PACFLT as a threat to that expansion. They attempted to eliminate that threat. They targeted military facilities, ships and aircraft. AQ hates the west. Period. We do not fit into their world view. They attacked and appropriated civilian assets to attack, primarily, civilian targets. Some similarities between the two, many differences.

[AirAux]

Demonstrate critical thinking?  Equating the point of the attacker to the point of the attacked?  Very strange.  So bullies are justified because they have a "point of view"?  There is right, there is wrong.  To attack another nation that is not attacking you is wrong.  It doesn't matter what their point of view is. 

[Nikos]

I am sorry if my question created hard feelings, I will be more careful what I write in the future.  I was only wondering if the USAF ever operated on aircraft carriers.  Sorry.

[lordmonar]

I am sorry if my question created hard feelings, I will be more careful what I write in the future.  I was only wondering if the USAF ever operated on aircraft carriers.  Sorry.

Not your problem.   

[jeders]

I am sorry if my question created hard feelings, I will be more careful what I write in the future.  I was only wondering if the USAF ever operated on aircraft carriers.  Sorry.

Not your problem.   

Unfortunately some people around here are just wound a little too tight. Seriously guys, can we get back to the much cooler story of landing a great big cargo plane not designed to be used on an aircraft carrier on an aircraft carrier?

[THRAWN]

I am sorry if my question created hard feelings, I will be more careful what I write in the future.  I was only wondering if the USAF ever operated on aircraft carriers.  Sorry.

No hard feelings here. Debate and discussion doesnt create hard feelings. Rhetorical regurgitation often does.

Now back to the thread.

[THRAWN]

Demonstrate critical thinking?  Equating the point of the attacker to the point of the attacked?  Very strange.  So bullies are justified because they have a "point of view"?  There is right, there is wrong.  To attack another nation that is not attacking you is wrong.  It doesn't matter what their point of view is.

So by that logic, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were wrong. As well as Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Central America in the early 1900s....shall I go on?


Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Holding Pattern]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Does this mean you are finally looking at defecting to the Republic?

[THRAWN]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Does this mean you are finally looking at defecting to the Republic?

Its the choice between Mt Dew and crabjuice....

[docsteve]

OK, found some information about the C-130 test on the USS Forrestal. One of our former Sandy Springs members was a test pilot for this program. He made something like 29 touch and goes and 21 full-stop takeoffs and landings. All unassisted, meaning no catapult or arresting hook. Apparently, the distance between the island and the wings was very close so much attention had to be paid. Here is a link to a video of a  takeoff and landing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk

Anyway, tried to get this back on topic somewhat. Have a good day!

*information credited to a GAWG CAP veterans site, administered by my unit historian.

Thanks to all for these C-130 posts.  I remember hearing strange stories about this, then hearing enough to realize it actually happened, but this is really good stuff.  Strange, but I always had thought it was an Air Force crew.  Anyway, amazing what can be done with an airplane in the right hands.

[THRAWN]

There was a JAG episode that featured a Herc trapping on the SEAHAWK. At the end they did a "tribute" to the crew that actually made a landing. Serious brass. I have 130s flying over my head daily and I cant imagine one of them making a carrier landing.

[LSThiker]

There was a JAG episode that featured a Herc trapping on the SEAHAWK.

I learned about Pardo's Push in 1967 after randomly watching a JAG episode.

[THRAWN]

There was a JAG episode that featured a Herc trapping on the SEAHAWK.

I learned about Pardo's Push in 1967 after randomly watching a JAG episode.

I watched the series soup to nuts. A lot of it was fluff but Catherine Bell made it watchable.

[SarDragon]

A guy I worked for at my first duty station was in the squadron that was involved in that C-130 project. He said the only mod to the plane was beefed up brakes. Everything else was as manufactured.

[RRLE]

It was a sneak attack ...

It was in effect but it wasn't planned that way. The ultimatum was supposed to be delivered 20 minutes or so before the attack started. The Japanese miscalculated how long the deciphering and translation would take. On the other hand, credible US sources have us decoding and translating faster than the Japanese were. Do you think anyone would have felt any different toward the Japanese if the ultimatum was delivered on time?

I believe Dec. 7, 1941 was called "a day of infamy" for a purpose.

It is called propaganda. The US was caught with its pants down and the powers-that-be needed to direct the rage of the American people at someone other themselves.

Genocide is bad but before going off on a rampage about Japanese or Germans, I suggest you look into the centuries long effort to exterminate the American Indian by the US government. No country has clean hands when it comes to genocide against another people.

[Garibaldi]

Did I mention that one of the C-130 pilots who landed on the Forrestal was a former CAP member, from my unit?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Garibaldi, your efforts are not succeeding. Turn on the heat!

Anyway, how do you know the pilot was a former member?

Give us more info! Spaatz, Mitchell? When did he join, left? Etc...

[THRAWN]

Garibaldi, your efforts are not succeeding. Turn on the heat!

Anyway, how do you know the pilot was a former member?

Give us more info! Spaatz, Mitchell? When did he join, left? Etc...

Seconded. And why is he a "former member"? Get him back!

[Garibaldi]

Well, he died a while back. He is known to several members of my unit, and 2 of his sons were in the program. He actually was GAWG CC in 1968. Ted Limmer, his name was.

Here is a link to an article, complete with pictures, of the actual test: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/025982d.pdf

[THRAWN]

Well, he died a while back. He is known to several members of my unit, and 2 of his sons were in the program. He actually was GAWG CC in 1968. Ted Limmer, his name was.

Here is a link to an article, complete with pictures, of the actual test: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/025982d.pdf

Yeah, kind of hard for him to be safety current at this point.

Thanks for the link!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Does anyone know whether the C-130 could use RATO at this time? Was use of the RATO ever contemplated for this type of event? If so, use at the carrier would have been dangerous?

[Garibaldi]

I don't think at the time they used JATO or RATO, but it was a tech used in the B-47 if memory serves. The only JATO C-130 I know of is Fat Albert of Blue Angels fame.

[Spam]

Many of you are familiar with the Blue's Fat Albert (I saw their final show with the bottles party trick in NOV 2011 I think at P'Cola... it was nice).

For an interesting look at the more extreme examples of enhanced C-130s, search the YMC-130H and "Iran Hostage Rescue". One video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q, and the surviving aircraft is (I believe) still at the Museum of Aviation here in sunny Georgia https://www.museumofaviation.org/attractions.php, although I don't believe it is on display currently (we took our unit and a sister unit down there last month, and it was off display, possibly for restoration).  One of a kind example of rapid RDT&E to solve a critical niche.

(In that video link above, my favorite is the deployment shot right at 2 minutes).  "FANGS OUT"...

As far as original thread content (USAF pilots) I have worked with a couple of Naval Aviators and even a USMC guy assigned to fly the F-22, and in return I've worked with a number of USAF guys who flew with USN units (and were CQ'd). Examples include a few USAF guys who went through Whidbey and have been flying AEA missions, to retain USAF core proficiency in that mission set.  They had to get fully CQd. Rhinos and Growlers can do some things that Raptors can't, and of course vice versa, so some cross-pollination is a Very Good Thing.


V/R
Spam


Updated:
The U-2 has even done traps and cats - see the USS Ranger mission to launch and recover a U-2G to recon the French nuclear test site in the Pacific in May of 1964, at http://www.spyflight.co.uk/u-2s.htm.

[SarDragon]

Does anyone know whether the C-130 could use RATO at this time?

Yes, someone knows. 

use of the RATO ever contemplated for this type of event?

To the best of my knowledge, no. It was engines only, or nothing.

If so, use at the carrier would have been dangerous?

Maybe, but no more than launching a V-2 from the flight deck (1947, Operation Sandy).

[Luis R. Ramos]

I would argue that having a C-130 use RATO on the Forrestal would be more dangerous than launching the V-2 from a carrier. After all, the V-2 only goes up under thrust. On the C-130 had the RATOs on the right side misfired, the C-130 could have slammed into the island due to asymmetrical thrust...

[PHall]

I don't think at the time they used JATO or RATO, but it was a tech used in the B-47 if memory serves. The only JATO C-130 I know of is Fat Albert of Blue Angels fame.

The LC-130 Ski Birds use JATO to take off from Snow and Ice runways.

[Luis R. Ramos]

The question I made was whether at the time of the C-130 landing and taking off from the USS Forrestal there were C-130s using RATOs. This happened in 1963...

[PHall]

The question I made was whether at the time of the C-130 landing and taking off from the USS Forrestal there were C-130s using RATOs. This happened in 1963...

The Germans were using RATO way back in 1939.

[Luis R. Ramos]

On their C-130's? This is a 1950's aircraft! So are you telling me the Germans created and designed the Hercules?

Wow! I knew the United States used a lot of technology that Germany came up with, but this is a first for me!

I am astounded!

[Garibaldi]

I had quite a discussion with my unit historian on the way to a joint SAREX, at about 0615 this morning. Turns out that there were several tests done with RATO on C-130s during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980. Not sure how classified the info is, but apparently, one other option besides the Desert One fiasco was to outfit a Hercules with some rockets, to facilitate a very short landing and takeoff in a soccer field. Lockheed did some testing, and due to the nature of the rockets, culled from various sources, had several arranged for landing, some for vertical, and some rear facing. The test was less than successful, but the idea carried over somewhat. Some of the older model Hercules still have the wiring but not the hardpoints for the rockets, apparently.

[PHall]

On their C-130's? This is a 1950's aircraft! So are you telling me the Germans created and designed the Hercules?

Wow! I knew the United States used a lot of technology that Germany came up with, but this is a first for me!

I am astounded!

No smart guy. They were using it on the Ar234 Jet Bomber. Also used them on Me 323 Glider.

[PHall]

I had quite a discussion with my unit historian on the way to a joint SAREX, at about 0615 this morning. Turns out that there were several tests done with RATO on C-130s during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980. Not sure how classified the info is, but apparently, one other option besides the Desert One fiasco was to outfit a Hercules with some rockets, to facilitate a very short landing and takeoff in a soccer field. Lockheed did some testing, and due to the nature of the rockets, culled from various sources, had several arranged for landing, some for vertical, and some rear facing. The test was less than successful, but the idea carried over somewhat. Some of the older model Hercules still have the wiring but not the hardpoints for the rockets, apparently.

There's a video of that on You Tube. Search C-130 and should find it.

[Garibaldi]

I had quite a discussion with my unit historian on the way to a joint SAREX, at about 0615 this morning. Turns out that there were several tests done with RATO on C-130s during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980. Not sure how classified the info is, but apparently, one other option besides the Desert One fiasco was to outfit a Hercules with some rockets, to facilitate a very short landing and takeoff in a soccer field. Lockheed did some testing, and due to the nature of the rockets, culled from various sources, had several arranged for landing, some for vertical, and some rear facing. The test was less than successful, but the idea carried over somewhat. Some of the older model Hercules still have the wiring but not the hardpoints for the rockets, apparently.

There's a video of that on You Tube. Search C-130 and should find it.

Sweet.

[Spam]

Wow, you guys really do ignore my posts, don't you. See number 50, above...

V/R
Spam

[Luis R. Ramos]

I know. 

Could not resist when reading your post. Coming after my question I took it to mean it was an answer to my question about the use by the C-130 of RATOs in 1963. 

When I visited Washington with a friend in 1990 or so we went to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum...

Among other exhibits, there was an Arado 234 with RATO bottles. One under each wing.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Your post did not answer my question.

It answers the question of a previous poster, about USAF pilots being CQ. But from my point of view it is a recent decision.

The military was not that cooperative until recently. For a long time it was "I will guard my turf as closely as I can."

Navy and USMC did not freely do what Army and/or USAF was doing. And all returned the favors...

And I had already seen the Youtube on the other attempt to liberate the American captives in Iran. The use of the C-130 with the RATOs firing on all directions. This was in the 1980's. That crew was lucky to survive that accident.

[Garibaldi]

Wow, you guys really do ignore my posts, don't you. See number 50, above...

V/R
Spam

D'oh!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Spam-

I apologize if my reply to you was terse.

It was a good attempt at continuing a discussion of the C-130 capabilities. Let me bring the question.

As most of you remember, and some of you who served may have been involved in the rescue planning.

In the 1980's, the Iran revolution hit the US having the revolutionaries seize some students I seem to remember as hostages, and holding them for very long.

The US military tried two rescues, both failed.

The first one involved some C-130s, I believe 2 and 5 Sea King helos. At night, one of the C-130s turned into one of the helos, or viceversa, causing the loss of both aircraft in the desert and deaths of their crews. The operation was aborted.

The other effort also involved a C-130, the Youtube link that Spam posted. A C-130 was fitted with RATOs firing to the front, above, below, and the normal way. The concept was this C-130 was going to land inside a stadium grounds where the prisoners were held. To help it brake there were RATOs firing to the front and up. Then with the hostages inside it was to take off with the help of other RATOs.

During the trial, apparently an engineer in the test airplane fired the braking RATOs too soon, causing the aircraft to slam into the ground and it was destroyed. No loss of life.

Does someone want to post if in your opinion the operation of the C-130 as envisaged could have been successful?

Does anyone want to post a little more on what happened between the C-130s and the Sea Kings?

[Spam]

Does anyone know whether the C-130 could use RATO at this time? Was use of the RATO ever contemplated for this type of event? If so, use at the carrier would have been dangerous?

Well, to answer your original question (above),

Yes, by the early 1960s, a range of US aircraft - Navy and USAF, with significant exchange pilot programs! - were operating with RATO/JATO bottles, including the C-130 (B and LC-130 variants). Admiral Byrd led the first bottle and ski equipped R4Ds (USN designator for the Douglas C-47) to the Antarctic in High Jump I during 1946/7, boosting off the deck of the USS Philippine Sea (CVA-47). Subsequent annual missions included bottle/ski equipped aircraft such as the Lockheed P2V-7P Neptune (which has a number of pics out there showing their bottle-augmented launches), the C-130B models, and finally the LC-130F/R models, also operated by VX-6.  After mid 60s testing, their aircraft were delivered in November 1968, and a few actually are still in service today with ANG units.

Here's a good pic of VX-6 tail 321, doing a JATO assisted takeoff from McMurdo in 1961:  http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/medevac/kuperov.html.

The thing about using them on the boat is, there was just no demonstrated need, as the COD experiment showed. On one hop, they landed with reversers halfway down the deck, then took off fully loaded from the same deck spot, lifting off with a hundred or more feet to spare. No bottles needed.

Let me segregate my answer to your Desert One question in a separate reply, though, since that mishap had different causal factors than most bottle related mishaps.

V/R
Spam

[Spam]

My opinions on the Operation Eagle Claw mission:

It arguably failed due to a confluence of a number of factors: systematically poor maintenance of the RH-53 minesweeper variants used (multiple aircraft aborts), overly complex planning and unclear chains of command among multiple participating services (dithering at the FARP, Desert One, after maintenance failures had reduced the number of helos below the plan minimum of six), selection of the wrong H-53 variant (the RH version instead of the USMCs air-refuelable CH-53s, which would haven't required a desert refuel)... etc. etc. A brand new Delta Force (founded 1977), unrealistic training for the op (daylight, good wx only?!?), the list goes on.

The meta-level contributors to that Iranian mishap included the Carter administrations directive to avoid shooting Iranians, which tied the hands of the operators, and the general budgetary hamstringing of the military by the President and Congress in those post-Vietnam days of the hollow military. Thus, when they realized they were marginal, they had to wait (with engines burning fuel) for over two hours for Carter to make a remote control decision from the other side of the planet. From my POV, whenever you see this sort of environment from the top, expect to see these sort of catastrophes result. For example, first hand comments I get tell me that with almost no pressure being put on the bad guys after our pull out in the Rockpile, and our hands tied with stupid ROEs in the Levant, Bad Things are starting to happen again, with a resultant increased risk to our remaining operators there due to lack of support.  Post Eagle Claw, the country saw an AAR which led to specifics such as the standup of better organized, trained, and equipped SOF aviation assets and doctrine aimed at a broader range of well conceived, planned, rehearsed, and audacious capabilities (along with a commitment to better funding, at least for those assets). It concerns me that we've forgotten so many lessons, apparently, as a nation.


For CAP, I've considered using this as a good teaching lesson on ops planning and the use of the KISS principle, especially when we do SAR/DR with other agencies. Today, Garibaldi, LTC Berry, 3 cadets and I took part in a multi service SAREX here in Georgia with two other agencies where the overall IC/battle staff had completely overthought the rather simple target laydown, had imposed a rigid comm doctrine and ROE on their troops, etc. Good experience, and worth building on, and as I'm putting together my contributory AAR for them, this discussion is probably helping me frame my thoughts.


Backing away from opinions and sticking to the empirical:
The specific operational level problems which led to the mishap at D1 were related to what we call DVE (Degraded Visual Environment) disorientation and poor cueing, when after finally receiving a cancel order, one of the helos hover translated in the dust right into the tail of one of the tanker C-130s, killing and injuring a bunch of men. That we still, today, lose expensive aircraft and irreplaceable men due to DVE related mishaps has led to programs such as DVEPS, "DVE Pilotage System" for the 160th SOAR(A) which is aimed at fielding a combo of mmw radar and lidar sensors coupled to innovative pilot vehicle interface (PVI) design (that's my end of it) to enable our aircrew to not just "Own the Night", but also own the brownout dust clouds and whiteout snow/ice environment as well. I take it as a personal challenge as an engineer to attack this problem to not let our guys down by letting them have mishaps like Desert One, which was fresh in our minds when I was a cadet.

See:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/army-commandos-first-to-get-bad-weather-vision-for-u-s-copters

Circling back to the original thread (grin) - the 160th also has a number of exchange officers, including one guy who resigned his USMC commission to fly with them as a CW4, and they can operate off of all types of USN assets.


V/R
Spam

[skymaster]

Well, he died a while back. He is known to several members of my unit, and 2 of his sons were in the program. He actually was GAWG CC in 1968. Ted Limmer, his name was.

Here is a link to an article, complete with pictures, of the actual test: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/025982d.pdf

Here is a photo of Colonel Limmer (who had been an active CAP member since 1954) when serving as Georgia Wing Commander from 1965 to 1968:


Here is an image of Colonel Limmer when he was the Southeast Region Commander. He served in that position from 1968 to 1971:

[Spam]

Now, just watch... Kevin wont bother to read my long posts, again. 


Heh heh
Spam

[SarDragon]

More on Col. Timmer and C-130s, from a FB post [ETA - why do I think this might be yours, skymaster?]:

Georgia Wing has had many outstanding members over the years, but did any of you know that one of our former Georgia Wing Commanders was also a Lockheed-Georgia test pilot who was a pilot on a on a record setting test flight of a C-130 onto and off of an AIRCRAFT CARRIER? Col Theodore Limmer, a CAP member since 1954, and test pilot of Lockheed's P-80, T-33, F-94, F-104, U-2, C-130, C-140, C-141 and C-5A, served as Georgia Wing Commander from 3 March 1965 to 18 October 1968, and as Southeast Region Commander from 1968 to 1971. In 1963, he was the Lockheed check pilot and safety pilot during the famous C-130 Aircraft Carrier evaluation possiblility tests aboard the U.S.S. Forrestal. 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 Carrier Onboard Delivery" aircraft. The airplane then used for such tasks at the time was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine craft with a small 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 larger payloads.

The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport, on loan from the U.S. Marines, was delivered on 8 October. Lockheed's only modifications to this production aircraft included installing a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the 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 suprised to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin.

In addition to Col Ted H. Limmer, Jr. and PIC Lt Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; and ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer. 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.

It was a very interesting test to say the least! In Col Limmer's own words: "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."

Even though the test was successful, the Navy still had some concerns about flight deck space, as the C-130 would not fit belowdecks, and might make the upper deck a bit too crowded for safe operations with a full complement of carrier-based fighters. Still, the test did prove, that if an emergency situation required delivery of urgent cargo in wartime, that a Lockheed C-130 could do the job.

[RRLE]

The other effort also involved a C-130, the Youtube link that Spam posted.

According to Wikipedia, that was Operation Credible Sport. The article gives the history of what happened to the aircraft.

Wikipedia's main article on the subject can be found under JATO. It states that the JATO/RATO assisted car is an urban legend.

[PHall]

The other effort also involved a C-130, the Youtube link that Spam posted.

According to Wikipedia, that was Operation Credible Sport. The article gives the history of what happened to the aircraft.

Wikipedia's main article on the subject can be found under JATO. It states that the JATO/RATO assisted car is an urban legend.

As proven by the Mythbusters!

[Mitchell 1969]

My opinions on the Operation Eagle Claw mission:

It arguably failed due to a confluence of a number of factors: systematically poor maintenance of the RH-53 minesweeper variants used (multiple aircraft aborts), overly complex planning and unclear chains of command among multiple participating services (dithering at the FARP, Desert One, after maintenance failures had reduced the number of helos below the plan minimum of six), selection of the wrong H-53 variant (the RH version instead of the USMCs air-refuelable CH-53s, which would haven't required a desert refuel)... etc. etc. A brand new Delta Force (founded 1977), unrealistic training for the op (daylight, good wx only?!?), the list goes on.

The meta-level contributors to that Iranian mishap included the Carter administrations directive to avoid shooting Iranians, which tied the hands of the operators, and the general budgetary hamstringing of the military by the President and Congress in those post-Vietnam days of the hollow military. Thus, when they realized they were marginal, they had to wait (with engines burning fuel) for over two hours for Carter to make a remote control decision from the other side of the planet. From my POV, whenever you see this sort of environment from the top, expect to see these sort of catastrophes result. For example, first hand comments I get tell me that with almost no pressure being put on the bad guys after our pull out in the Rockpile, and our hands tied with stupid ROEs in the Levant, Bad Things are starting to happen again, with a resultant increased risk to our remaining operators there due to lack of support.  Post Eagle Claw, the country saw an AAR which led to specifics such as the standup of better organized, trained, and equipped SOF aviation assets and doctrine aimed at a broader range of well conceived, planned, rehearsed, and audacious capabilities (along with a commitment to better funding, at least for those assets). It concerns me that we've forgotten so many lessons, apparently, as a nation.


For CAP, I've considered using this as a good teaching lesson on ops planning and the use of the KISS principle, especially when we do SAR/DR with other agencies. Today, Garibaldi, LTC Berry, 3 cadets and I took part in a multi service SAREX here in Georgia with two other agencies where the overall IC/battle staff had completely overthought the rather simple target laydown, had imposed a rigid comm doctrine and ROE on their troops, etc. Good experience, and worth building on, and as I'm putting together my contributory AAR for them, this discussion is probably helping me frame my thoughts.


Backing away from opinions and sticking to the empirical:
The specific operational level problems which led to the mishap at D1 were related to what we call DVE (Degraded Visual Environment) disorientation and poor cueing, when after finally receiving a cancel order, one of the helos hover translated in the dust right into the tail of one of the tanker C-130s, killing and injuring a bunch of men. That we still, today, lose expensive aircraft and irreplaceable men due to DVE related mishaps has led to programs such as DVEPS, "DVE Pilotage System" for the 160th SOAR(A) which is aimed at fielding a combo of mmw radar and lidar sensors coupled to innovative pilot vehicle interface (PVI) design (that's my end of it) to enable our aircrew to not just "Own the Night", but also own the brownout dust clouds and whiteout snow/ice environment as well. I take it as a personal challenge as an engineer to attack this problem to not let our guys down by letting them have mishaps like Desert One, which was fresh in our minds when I was a cadet.

See:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/army-commandos-first-to-get-bad-weather-vision-for-u-s-copters

Circling back to the original thread (grin) - the 160th also has a number of exchange officers, including one guy who resigned his USMC commission to fly with them as a CW4, and they can operate off of all types of USN assets.


V/R
Spam

I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Col. Charlie Beckwith, commander of that operation, and his intelligence officer, Wade Ishimoto in 1984. They were both quite open about the problems. Beckwith flat out blamed Jimmy Carter and his White House people most of all. The Marines were added to the mix for no other reason than to make it look like a joint operation. Equipment was insufficient. Worst of all, Carter insisted on running the operation from the White House, with advice provided by a chorus of eunuchs who's guesses and opinions outranked Beckwith's judgement in the field.

Beckwith had spent time attached to the SAS. He was quick to heap praise in the fact that the British had a system that basically said "Don't attend the drills and get critiqued, then don't expect a seat during the real thing." He was particularly complimentary of Margaret Thatcher.

[AirAux]

Let me just say, that I salute anyone that takes off and/or lands on a carrier.  I think anyone that does so with a B-25 or a C-130 is not only a superb pilot, but a brave soul on top of it! 

[Spam]

All my traps and cats were manual/back seat... I understand ACLS helps, these days! 

V/R
Spam

[LegacyAirman]

Let me just say, that I salute anyone that takes off and/or lands on a carrier.  I think anyone that does so with a B-25 or a C-130 is not only a superb pilot, but a brave soul on top of it!

For some reason, that reminded me of this: http://vetshome.com/C-130.html

[stillamarine]

All my traps and cats were manual/back seat... I understand ACLS helps, these days! 

V/R
Spam

Prior to going ashore for the Kosovo invasion I had the "pleasure" of going aboard the big deck on the COD. Yeah. I'm just glad I couldn't see outside. I may have peed myself a little.

[AirAux]

LegacyAirman, Thanks for the post.  I love it!!!

[Spam]

All my traps and cats were manual/back seat... I understand ACLS helps, these days! 

V/R
Spam

Prior to going ashore for the Kosovo invasion I had the "pleasure" of going aboard the big deck on the COD. Yeah. I'm just glad I couldn't see outside. I may have peed myself a little.

Ah, trapping on the COD: sitting backwards on the roller coaster wearing a cranial in the dark, with everyones heads going "donk/dink" left/right together as you fly the pattern. The last time I trapped in a C-2 (USS Stennis, mid Atlantic, marginal weather and high sea state) the guy boltered (he missed the wire, so we rumbled off the deck and went round) and the FNG sitting across from me started to unbuckle his five point harness and get up. "STAY DOWN, WE'RE STILL FLYING, WE MISSED THE WIRE" his buddy told him over the noise, and he went white as a sheet (because, how can you miss the wire in something that slow, right? Well, it was a poor weather day). His buddy and I winked at each other and played the "HEY, IF WE CRASH AND YOU DIE, CAN I HAVE YOUR LAPTOP? YEAH SURE, CAN I HAVE YOUR ____?" drill, which really sent the poor guy into spasms. We had to help him up when we finally rolled out of the wires and deplaned, and we spent some time at the mess, feeding him ice cream from the autodoc to calm his stomach.  "Welcome aboard, shipmate"!

(Naw, that's not hazing. That's Navy(TM)!

V/R
Spam

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ya mean to tell me they do not serve ice cream aboard the COD when flying in it?

[PHall]

Ya mean to tell me they do not serve ice cream aboard the COD when flying in it?

Do you know how big the COD is?  I don't think you do.

[stillamarine]

Ya mean to tell me they do not serve ice cream aboard the COD when flying in it?

Do you know how big the COD is?  I don't think you do.

I've seen sardine cans bigger.

[PHall]

Ya mean to tell me they do not serve ice cream aboard the COD when flying in it?

Do you know how big the COD is?  I don't think you do.

I've seen sardine cans bigger.

Shoulder to shoulder, cheek to cheek. And temperature control is non-existent!

[Luis R. Ramos]

So, not even M&Ms are delivered when in the COD?













Guys, I was just pullin' your legs... Although never served, I can just guess how small a COD is. By watchin' an episode of JAG where the two primary investigators are in a COD, the space inside was not bigger than a bathtub...

Another episode involved a suspect standing in a COD menacing Harm with a gun. His cover has been blown and neither the pilot nor the carrier skipper (or Cdr Air Group) wants to allow the COD to take off. Harm requests the COD take off, suspect is thrown off balance... But I guess that would not have been possible, right? Not enough space to stand...

I type this as I duck behind desk as protection.

[stillamarine]

Ya mean to tell me they do not serve ice cream aboard the COD when flying in it?

Do you know how big the COD is?  I don't think you do.

I've seen sardine cans bigger.

Shoulder to shoulder, cheek to cheek. And temperature control is non-existent!

I've heard some of the Navy's best couples met aboard the COD. 

[Spam]

Not a dumb question.

I think its psychosomatic (the sensation of being cramped). Only two small windows, open frame members all above you, etc. The seating is 2x2 with an aisle, and of course you can stand up to egress/ingress (which you'll get instructions on from the loadmaster). The seats are good standard 16g crashworthy seats, normal except in the sense that they're mounted the correct way - backwards. Plus, you're all wearing cranials, the height of Naval fashion this season.



V/R
Spam

[SarDragon]

Seats 26, plus 4 aircrew.

[PHall]

Seats 26, plus 4 aircrew.

If you're in the All Pax configuration.  Otherwise you lose about a dozen seats and gain a couple of pallet positions for "important" stuff like mail and coffee filters!

[Spam]

Y'all begin to get how I earned the "Spam" nickname from one of my instructors who marveled at my bulk stuffed into a cramped forward cockpit... at 6 foot 4 tall with big shoulders, I fit in small ejection seats "like spam in a can" per his words, which stuck. (You never get to earn your own handle).

Cheers,
"Jeff"