10

"How do jet fighters get to war?" made me wonder if aircraft used by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps for carrier operations retain their carrier equipment when sold to foreign powers who do not operate carriers?

Pros would be the reduction in weight, repair/maintenance complexity, and cost (why bother paying for equipment you don't use?).

Cons would be engineering complexity (if they're not designed as optional components) or airworthiness (if the components have secondary functions beyond carrier operations).

The initial thought was prompted by a CATOBAR aircraft, but if something like the Harrier has different equipment, that would be relevant, too. What's the reality?

T.J.L.
  • 617
  • 1
  • 10
  • 27

2 Answers2

16

Taking the RAAF F/A-18's for example:

The Australian Hornets were very similar to the standard US Navy variants, but incorporated a number of minor modifications [including] the deletion of all equipment used to launch the aircraft using catapults.

Even though they retain the tailhook, if they landed on a carrier, they won't be able to takeoff.

The tailhook serves the same function as on the land-based F-15 and F-16, provide arrested landing capability for emergency situations.

enter image description here
(Source) F-16 arrested landing.

As for the Harrier, all the foreign operators were navies. So, export Harriers were used on carriers. (Rhyming unintentional.)

The carrier-borne Rafale fighter jet will retain its carrier capability when sold to the Indian Navy.

  • 6
    I was unaware the F-15 and F-16 even had arrestor hooks! – T.J.L. May 17 '17 at 15:48
  • @T.J.L. - Liar!! :P –  May 17 '17 at 15:49
  • 1
    Hey! I'm just recreating the thought over here. I'm not the liar, the timestamp is the liar. I was unaware of it at one point. :) – T.J.L. May 17 '17 at 15:51
  • 1
    @T.J.L. - I know :D I actually smiled at the comment :) –  May 17 '17 at 15:52
  • Thanks for moving the answer over, though. That's a great picture you found. – T.J.L. May 17 '17 at 15:53
  • @KorvinStarmast having different configurations for different customers is pretty much the standard for aircraft. Usually it's minor (like a different nosegear strut for carrier operations or a few different avionics boxes), sometimes it may be larger (like the conformal fuel tanks on Israeli F-16s, which were developed for them and never ordered by any other customer). – jwenting May 18 '17 at 05:59
  • @jwenting - I think UAE bought those tanks as well. –  May 18 '17 at 12:27
  • @KorvinStarmast - agreed and I revised the answer, you sent me mixed signals in the first comment though :D –  May 18 '17 at 12:47
  • Ooops, forgot the up vote yesterday. Like this answer. Thanks for the comment that ended up as a reminder. – KorvinStarmast May 18 '17 at 12:49
  • @ymb1 maybe they did, but not at the time Israel ordered them. They were the first, the tanks were created specifically for them and later offered to other customers as well. – jwenting May 18 '17 at 13:07
  • U Marine Corps flies the Harrier, but not the Navy. Still use them on carriers thought. The F35 actually has 3 different versions, with only the_C_ variant being hardened for carrier use. – Mad Myche May 18 '17 at 14:05
  • Technically, the USMC uses Harriers on amphibs (aka straight-decks), not on carriers. I'm guessing it's possible (even likely) that one has landed on a carrier for some reason, but I cannot recall ever hearing of any Harrier squadrons deploying on a carrier (for many reasons). – r2evans Jul 07 '17 at 00:03
  • @ymb1 Sorry for the super-delayed-reaction on the acceptance. I meant to do it many, many months ago. :) – T.J.L. Apr 23 '18 at 18:13
10

The most common case is that the aircraft sold to non CATOBAR navies/air forces is built to a different configuration.

For example, the Canadian, Spanish, and Swiss F-18's were each sold under a different configuration. Some of the weight penalties, maintenance and upkeep costs, and the substantial training costs to maintain CATOBAR currency and proficiency were not a concern and not needed. This makes sense: since those flying services didn't have a carrier operations requirement, but they liked a variety of features that the Hornet provided (such as two engines).

Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, while being considerably more affordable than the F-14 and the F-15. The CF-18 was procured from 1982 to 1988, at a total capital cost of $4 billion in 1982 dollars.

Interestingly, that early Canadian buy retained most of the CV features, and IIRC they were the first non US buyer of the aircraft. (Memory foggy on that one).

Export Hornets are typically similar to U.S. models of a similar manufacture date. Since none of the customers operate aircraft carriers, all export models have been sold without the automatic carrier landing system, and Royal Australian Air Force further removed the catapult attachment on the nose gear.[24]

For the non CATOBAR case, the current plan to deploy Marine F-35B's on Royal Navy carriers answers the rest of your question.

LONDON — The U.S. Marine Corps will deploy its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II strike fighters on combat sorties from Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, a senior U.K. Royal Navy officer has confirmed.

KorvinStarmast
  • 4,201
  • 28
  • 39
  • @T.J.L. Oops, thanks, got it. – KorvinStarmast May 17 '17 at 15:51
  • Tthe QEs are STOVL carriers, and the F-35B is a STOVL fighter. So this is actually its intended use case. A dozen or two will also be sold to the Italian air force to operate from short runways, rather than STOVL carriers. I don't think they're changing any equipment though. – Hephaestus Aetnaean Jun 10 '17 at 10:26
  • @HephaestusAetnaean What I have found in FMS is a variety of configuration differences that are subtle (Perhaps certain mission systems) and not a carbon copy. As I don't have detailed info on the differences in F-35B (USMC) and F-35B (UK) I can't go any further. (I first encountered this with the USN Seahawk vs Australian Seahawk/S-70) and later in F-18 and F-16 configuration differences. – KorvinStarmast Jun 10 '17 at 12:24