There's just something about Navy/Marine jets

[OBIO]

I am not a big fan of jet aircraft. I think that planes should have propellers, and ideally radial internal combustion engines....not turboprops. That's me...I like vintage aircraft....simple as that.

But, when I do get the hankering for some go fast flame throwers, I almost always turn to the US Navy and Marine Corps and the wonder array of jet aircraft those branches have had over the years. A-4, F9F, A-7, F-8, F-4, E-3, A-6, RA-5C, F3D, T-2, Harrier.

I know the USAF has had some very nice jets....just not into them, unless they were also used by the Navy or Marines (as in the case of the F-4). There are a few (very few) USAF flame throwers that I am partial to (B-58, B-57, F-5, F-84, F-86). The odd thing about my preferences for USAF modern planes is that I like the cargo planes...C-130, C-133, C-141, C-5, C-17....more than I like the fighters and bombers. Go figure.

Must be the tail hooks on the carrier based jets that draws me to them. Or maybe it the residual effects of the teenage hots I had for Kelly McGillis when she was in Top Gun. But then again, I had the same teenage hots for her when she was in "The Witness", but I don't have any urges to become Amish...though I do love their cheese and farm fresh eggs.

OBIO

[TARPSBird]

There is indeed something about Navy jets, hard to pinpoint what it is though. :) I think the Navy retained more of the propeller-era flamboyance and attitude when it moved into the jet age than the Air Force did, so the Navy jets just have a higher "coolness" factor than their USAF counterparts. Probably due more to their pilots than to the attributes of the aircraft. I've known Navy pilots and NFO's with experience from Guadalcanal to Operation Iraqi Freedom and even though the planes change the guys all have the same aggressive attitude. I'm sure Navy Chief and the other "airdales" here will agree. I loved the time I spent in NavAir. One of my old shipmates, Col. Jim "Mugs" Morgan, did an exchange tour in my squadron in 1970-71. Went back to flying F-4's in the AF but he will tell you that his best tour of duty was flying Navy RF-8 Crusaders.

[Aviator273]

It's good to see that I'm not the only one who thinks like this... When flying a jet, I also stick to the Navy. But there's nothing better than a good prop with a low "barking" sound. I like especially the old Republicans (mostly the P-47) but also some old Douglas'. When flying a cargo-aircraft, I prefer the Hercules, too, but there are also some Antonovs I really like. There are no limits as long as they have propellers ;)

[TARPSBird]

Speaking of propellers... I grew up next door to Naval Air Station Glenview near Chicago. Up into the early 1960's A-1 Skyraiders operated from Glenview with the Reserve units there. Then they all disappeared when Vietnam started to heat up. Most of them were probably given to South Vietnam or went back to the fleet as replacements for combat losses. The old "Spads" were impressive airplanes and the Navy got their money's worth out of every one they flew.

[Panther_99FS]

50's & early 60's jet fighters are my favorites...(all nationalities) :wiggle:

[aeromed202]

Trapping on the crude FS4 carrier was what got me into carrier aircraft. Then later when FS2002 actually made real-looking things, just cruising in at 5000ft and looking down at the tiny deck, where the food is, the TV is, your bunk is, and knowing you aren't there yet. There is this little matter of a landing to get under your visor. That and I can always imagine the smells of ocean brine and jet fuel. Ahh!

[Willy]

I prefer piston engined props, but when it comes to jets the ones from the 40s and 50s are what I like. Preferably with straight wings. The P-80, T-33, F9F Panther and DH 106 Comet are prime examples of my usual tastes in jets. Although I will admit having developed a liking for the Vistaliner/HJG Boeing 727 in the past few weeks. Even if I do rip wheels off on landing it all too often.

[shameless blurb]We're getting a race started in the Multiplayer forum for a 50's subsonic military jets if anyone's interested. Flying online will not be a requirement for it. We hope to have the final rules out within a week. [/shameless blurb]

[Navy Chief]

Have to agree about Naval Aviator's aggressive attitudes. I was always impressed with their abilities. Back when the Russian ships used to follow close behind the ship, we had a pilot (LCDR "Hoggy" Monroe). It really pissed him off that the Russkies were so close. He was coming in for a trap onboard the USS Independence in an A-7E (VA-15), and he "accidentally" dropped a practice bomb in the wake of a Krivak class Russian destroyer. That darn near set off an international incident.
NC

[6297J]

These used to fly over my childhood home all the time on the way to RNAS Culdrose. I grew up just over the river from Devonport - my Dad's base.

4380

Except for the Vulcan (which also used to fly over) it was the loudest airplane I ever heard :icon_eek:

[TARPSBird]

The RAF Buccaneer community was where our Brit exchange aviators came from when I was in VA-128 (the A-6 Intruder training squadron) at Whidbey Island. I've never seen a Buc (either RAF or RN) up close in person.

[6297J]

Ahh, those were the days!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4vkBWLmnZA&feature=fvw

(Blimey - that's a whole documentary film! - this is the sort of training excercise my Dad used to be involved in - he was responsible for the Ship to Air missiles).

[Bjoern]

The best aircraft have a jet engine with a prop attached.

Piston props are just cool if they're of later origin, attached to a good-looking airframe and the whole package is capable of 700kph+ (fighters) or 500kph+ (bombers, prop liners) respectively.

[Ken Stallings]

There's way too much squid love in this thread for me! :icon_lol:

Exhibit A in the countering Air Force argument!

[tigisfat]

There's way too much squid love in this thread for me! :icon_lol:

Exhibit A in the countering Air Force argument!


watch out,

there's a navy version of that jet......

[Ken Stallings]

watch out,

there's a navy version of that jet......

Came later!

Ken

[Z-claudius24]

Hi,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAMT3NL5Z4w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0M6Ts_2Ei4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP_ds2bg6Y

http://www.getsmile.com/emoticons/smileys-91853/y/loveya.gif

[tigisfat]

Have to agree about Naval Aviator's aggressive attitudes. I was always impressed with their abilities. Back when the Russian ships used to follow close behind the ship, we had a pilot (LCDR "Hoggy" Monroe). It really pissed him off that the Russkies were so close. He was coming in for a trap onboard the USS Independence in an A-7E (VA-15), and he "accidentally" dropped a practice bomb in the wake of a Krivak class Russian destroyer. That darn near set off an international incident.
NC


I didn't know that. This was in the early 80's? How close behind did they follow? Do you have any old pics?

[Willy]

Came later!

Ken

Actually the straight wing FJ-1 Fury came first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FJ-1_Fury

[tigisfat]

Actually the straight wing FJ-1 Fury came first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FJ-1_Fury

OH NO!! gross. You win, hands down.

[TARPSBird]

The actions of the Russian "tattle-tail" ships ranged from prudent seamanship to downright reckless and dangerous maneuvers. Usually they'd tag along about a mile or two astern or either side of the carrier, observing flight ops and monitoring communications. If their mission changed from surveilance to harrassment they would sometimes go so far as to cut in front of the carrier during launch/recovery of aircraft, forcing the carrier to maneuver to avoid a collision, or intentionally put their ship between the carrier and an auxiliary ship to delay refueling or resupply. They've even "traded paint" NASCAR style with our ships (called shouldering) during some operations. There's been an Incidents At Sea Agreement in place since the 1970's to keep stuff like that from happening (also air intercept incidents) but yeah, it still happens.

[crashaz]

There's way too much squid love in this thread for me! :icon_lol:




Hey everyone just likes hanging out with the cool people.. this thread is a great example. :icon_lol:

[crashaz]

The actions of the Russian "tattle-tail" ships ranged from prudent seamanship to downright reckless and dangerous maneuvers. Usually they'd tag along about a mile or two astern or either side of the carrier, observing flight ops and monitoring communications. If their mission changed from surveilance to harrassment they would sometimes go so far as to cut in front of the carrier during launch/recovery of aircraft, forcing the carrier to maneuver to avoid a collision, or intentionally put their ship between the carrier and an auxiliary ship to delay refueling or resupply. They've even "traded paint" NASCAR style with our ships (called shouldering) during some operations. There's been an Incidents At Sea Agreement in place since the 1970's to keep stuff like that from happening (also air intercept incidents) but yeah, it still happens.


Yep remember reading about these incident in Sea Classics as a kid in high school. Yep I was that geeky.

[Navy Chief]

The actions of the Russian "tattle-tail" ships ranged from prudent seamanship to downright reckless and dangerous maneuvers. Usually they'd tag along about a mile or two astern or either side of the carrier, observing flight ops and monitoring communications. If their mission changed from surveilance to harrassment they would sometimes go so far as to cut in front of the carrier during launch/recovery of aircraft, forcing the carrier to maneuver to avoid a collision, or intentionally put their ship between the carrier and an auxiliary ship to delay refueling or resupply. They've even "traded paint" NASCAR style with our ships (called shouldering) during some operations. There's been an Incidents At Sea Agreement in place since the 1970's to keep stuff like that from happening (also air intercept incidents) but yeah, it still happens.


Thanks for the explanation, Tarpsbird! I remember being on deck, looking aft, and seeing the Russian ship(s) in the distance. Often would give them the international finger sign of not-so-good-will.........

NC

[jmig]

There's way too much squid love in this thread for me! :icon_lol:

...

I AGREE Ken. I am thinking of "closing" this thread as too political. :d

Seriously, I believe the so called more aggressiveness in the Navy comes not from the pilots but from the Senior Command. Even in my day, the Air Force generals were more cautious at to what pilots could get away with and do.

I once heard, don't know if it is true, that when the Navy gets an airplane, it is mentally written off. So, if it crashes, it was already off the books. In the Air Force aircraft are everything. In the Navy, aviation is only a small part of their operations. The ships are the big deal.

A perfect example of what I am talking about (even if it is just hot air) is a comparison between the USAF Thunderbirds and the Navy Blue Angels. The pilots are not the limiting factor in which maneuvers are selected and performed. The Brass is. The ever cautious USAF will not allow the TB's to do some of the maneuvers the Blue's can do. At least, that is what I have been told.

[Ken Stallings]

Hey everyone just likes hanging out with the cool people.. this thread is a great example. :icon_lol:

Ah jeez! :icon_lol:

[Bjoern]

They've even "traded paint" NASCAR style with our ships (called shouldering) during some operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_between_Soviet_frigate_Bezzavetniy_and_U SS_Yorktown#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Caron_%28DD-970%29#Soviet_collision
...etc...

Talk about fraternization... :d

[TARPSBird]

And here's an example of the stunts the Russian bomber crews used to pull. Nice flight demo, right up until he plowed into the water. Some of their other tricks included dropping their wings and banking towards escort aircraft to force a mid-air or loss of control, and pointing gun turrets.
l3bijF2--os

[Bjoern]

And here's an example of the stunts the Russian bomber crews used to pull. Nice flight demo, right up until he plowed into the water. Some of their other tricks included dropping their wings and banking towards escort aircraft to force a mid-air or loss of control, and pointing gun turrets.

Wasn't pointing turrets considered an act of war?

I remember reading that russian bombers teasing NATO forces generally had their defense guns pointing upward to show non-aggression.

But maybe the russian marine aviation branch was on another page than their regular bomber cousins.

[tigisfat]

Wasn't pointing turrets considered an act of war?

I remember reading that russian bombers teasing NATO forces generally had their defense guns pointing upward to show non-aggression.

But maybe the russian marine aviation branch was on another page than their regular bomber cousins.

There were many acts of aggression during the cold war. Our ships were rammed many times.

[TARPSBird]

Wasn't pointing turrets considered an act of war?
It's aggressive behavior but would not necessarily by itself justify an escalation. My squadron's photo birds have taken pics of Bears and Badgers that show the guns have tracked the photo aircraft as it moved around the Russian aircraft. Fortunately it didn't happen very often, mainly because the bomber guys didn't want to risk eating a Sidewinder or Sparrow because some young fighter jock suddenly sees a gun pointing at him.
The thawing of the Cold War in recent years has reduced the chances for serious incidents, but the Russians are still very paranoid about threats to the Motherland, real or imagined.

[Bjoern]

It's aggressive behavior but would not necessarily by itself justify an escalation. My squadron's photo birds have taken pics of Bears and Badgers that show the guns have tracked the photo aircraft as it moved around the Russian aircraft. Fortunately it didn't happen very often, mainly because the bomber guys didn't want to risk eating a Sidewinder or Sparrow because some young fighter jock suddenly sees a gun pointing at him.

Interesting. I thought it was all fair game up there until now.