Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!llenroc!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier Aircraft
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.041118.28758@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Mar 91 04:11:18 GMT
References: <1991Mar8.021800.7056@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar13.003648.7991@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: igor!yoda!wab@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Baker)
>... I've always assumed that the
>reason the F-4 converted so easily to carrier flight was that it was
>built like a tank anyway.

You have it backwards; the F-4 was a carrier aircraft from the start.
It was built for the Navy, and then adopted (under protest) by the USAF.
Changes for USAF service were pretty minimal:  fatter tires, bulged
wheel-well doors to accommodate the tires, USAF radios, and the slightly
different USAF oxygen system were about it.

Adopting originally-land-based aircraft for carrier service is, uh, more
challenging.  All the more so if you're also fighting a Navy establishment
that prefers developing its own aircraft.

On reflecting on this, it occurs to me that there has actually been quite
a bit of USN->USAF traffic and almost nothing in the other direction.
Sidewinder was a Navy missile, and I think Sparrow was too.  In aircraft,
apart from the Phantom there is the A-7, the Skyhawk (yes, it did see some
USAF service), and the revamped Skywarrior that became the B-66.  I can't
immediately think of anything since the Sabre that has gone from the USAF
to the USN.
-- 
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry