Navy F-5 and T-38 and Aircraft Carriers

[uniform7]

I know the Navy used the F-5 but were they carrier ready? Were they capable of landing on an Aircraft Carrier?
Mike G

 

[Navy Chief]

I know the Navy used the F-5 but were they carrier ready? Were they capable of landing on an Aircraft Carrier?
Mike G

Best as I can tell, the T-38 did NOT have a tailhook, but the F-5 did (for emergency field arrestments).

Neither aircraft were used by the USN for carrier ops, as they were not designed for it. Landing gear would not have withstood the stress, as far as I know. NC

 

[JensOle]

I know the Navy used the F-5 but were they carrier ready? Were they capable of landing on an Aircraft Carrier?
Mike G

The F-5 series was never designed for carrier ops. The USN never used the F-5 as an operational fighter to my knowledge. The F-5/T-38 were/are used as aggressor and general test aircraft. I think I have read that NFWS borrowed T-38 for aggressor work at Miramar before they got dedicated F-5's. I also think the Naval Test pilot school has used the T-38.

Not sure if any of the original F-5E are still in use by the aggressor squadrons, but the USN has bough a batch of second hand former Swiss F-5E's which continue to be used by both the USN and MC if I remember correctly.

 

[falcon409]

The F-5 series was never designed for carrier ops. The USN never used the F-5 as an operational fighter to my knowledge. The F-5/T-38 were/are used as aggressor and general test aircraft. I think I have read that NFWS borrowed T-38 for aggressor work at Miramar before they got dedicated F-5's. I also think the Naval Test pilot school has used the T-38.

Not sure if any of the original F-5E are still in use by the aggressor squadrons, but the USN has bough a batch of second hand former Swiss F-5E's which continue to be used by both the USN and MC if I remember correctly.

Same thing I found Jens and it appears that the Navy uses the "N" model which contains additional Avionics packages, and is heavier than the "E" model. I'm sure there are other differences but those seemed to be the main ones.

 

[uniform7]

Same thing I found Jens and it appears that the Navy uses the "N" model which contains additional Avionics packages, and is heavier than the "E" model. I'm sure there are other differences but those seemed to be the main ones.

Very informative, thanks. I was going through my aircraft library and came across the Iris F-5 saw it did have a tail hook in a few models. Of course I couldn't resist trying to land on a carrier. Did ok to but almost ran out of deck on the Nimitz!

 

[fallenphoenix1986]

The T-38/F-5 as others have said were never operated at sea, an interesting side note however is that the original design that spawned the T-38 was actually a naval fighter concept. The N156NN was designed to operate as a light fighter/interceptor from CVE/CVL's left over from WWII, when it was decided to withdraw these from service however the N1656NN faded away, eventually being resurrected and developed into the T-38 which itself was developed into the F-5.

 

[JensOle]

The N-156 program was extremely modular for its time, the basic design could be turned into almost everything. It was extremely successful in both trainer and fighter models. The fighter lineage also evolved over two generations. Sort of like the car platforms of today.

You might say that the USAF should have got a more modern advanced trainer for a long time ago, but it is rather impressive that the T-38 is still in the game. Not many other 1950s fighter designs still around today..

 

[clmooring]

for some reason, I believe there is a relationship between the f5 and the f18.

 

[Sundog]

for some reason, I believe there is a relationship between the f5 and the f18.

There is; if you look at all of the developments of the F-5 throughout the 60's, you can see them lead to the YF-17, from which the F/A-18 was derived. In fact, a competing development to the F-5G (F-20A) was the F-5S, which had a slighly shortened fuselage, a shoulder mounted wing, and larger LERXs, looking like a mini-YF-17. You can see a lot of the developments in Flying Wings and Radical Things.

 

[Mike71]

No way; neither would have passed rigorous handling qualities tests for Carrier approaches let alone structural strength.

Navy TPS at Pax River had T-38s when I went through the course in the mid-70's, used for supersonic flying qualities evaluation. It is a good solid design for its basic purpose but I would turn in my wings before trying to make a habit of making Carrier passes in one.

 

[mgr]

Yes i know...

 

[uniform7]

Yes i know...

It appears they have had to launch and gather did land on an aircraft carrier if just for testing purposes.

 

[JensOle]

The f-5 never landed or took of from a carrier, the pics are just from transport. Crained on and off the carrier in port

 

[JensOle]

The hook or internal mount is not made to withstand the forces of a carrier trap. It is to stop the aircraft at slow speed at the end of the runway if the brakes does not work.

 

[delta_lima]

The F-5s pictured have zero to do with naval ops.

Look what else is on deck. AT-37s and O-1s. Those are almost assuredly pics of SEA VNAF destined aircraft being delivered.

Carriers were used during and since WWII to ferry smaller land-based a/c to and from combat theatres. Craned on/off, not launched or recovered.

 

[Bjoern]

I'm 102.573% sure that MGR's post was tongue-in-cheek.


As for carrier compatibility, just take a look at a F-5. Would you want to land this thing on a deck with its postage stamp-sized wings and a nose half as long as the airplane itself?

 

[PhantomTweak]

Well, I can't speak for the entire Corps, but I know for a fact, as told to me by a USMC Major, that the F-5 never flew on or off a carrier. AND, I know for a certainty, that the Corps transitioned at least one agressor squadron, VMFAT-401, which I am a plank holder in, from the Kfir to the F-5 in '88. Just which model, I am not sure. I worked for them. Israeli management, USMC pilots, American maintenance personell. That situation didn't last long, as the Israeli management personnel had too different a culture from American methods. There was quite a bit of friction, shall we say. In Israel, a discussion means as many as can gather around, yell and scream at each other until a consensus is reached, the break up, everyone happy. We Americans took a lot of that too personally. I left just before they transitioned, having come very close to beating up an Israeli for pushing me off a cockpit ladder in his hurry.
Anyway, that's all I can speak to from personal experience.
Pat☺

 

[Sundog]

The naval variants of the T-38 developed by Northrop never left the drawing board. They, obviously, had much larger wings. See the book I linked to up thread if you're really interested in finding out how they looked.

 

[Navy Chief]

No way; neither would have passed rigorous handling qualities tests for Carrier approaches let alone structural strength.

Navy TPS at Pax River had T-38s when I went through the course in the mid-70's, used for supersonic flying qualities evaluation. It is a good solid design for its basic purpose but I would turn in my wings before trying to make a habit of making Carrier passes in one.

Can't remember what you had told me, but when did you go through TPS, Mike? LOVED backseat rides in the T-38s there. To me, riding in one was like being in a sports car with wings. Pete

 

[mgr]

Hi,

I'm 102.573% sure that MGR's post was tongue-in-cheek.

Of course, was just curious and googled and came across these images. They are indeed images of a transport of planes to South-Vietnam.
No harm intended.

Regards,

Marcel