Bager1968The USN still had bridle-launch gear on their CV (& CVN) through the late 1980s, because they operated EA-3B Skywarriors from them, and the “Whales” only used the bridle, so no problem launching RN Phantoms.
The A-7 & A-6 were first designed before the development of the nose-gear launch (and later modified to use it) so they still had the fuselage bridle attachment points, so no problem operating off the Ark.
The F-14 was not designed for bridles, so there is NO place to attach them, and the airframe isn’t strengthened for them, so no possibility of launching from the Ark with bridles!
To modify a bridle-only cat to allow nose-gear launches, the entire catapult shuttle must be replaced, which requires opening up the catapult track! The USN had a special end on its bridles that fitted into the new shuttles for launching the older planes, so Ark would need to mod its cat just for the one operation, then change them back. NOT bloody likely!
But if, for some bizzare reason they did, the F-14A required the C-13 catapult AND at least 10 knots wind over the deck to launch at light weight (30 kn. with a warload), the cats on the Ark were much weaker, very comparable to the older US C-11s. The Ark would need to steam at 25+ kn. into a 15+ kn. wind to have a prayer of launching a light-load Tomcat. Highly improbable!
Two very small chances, both of which must happen, make a near impossibility.
So, we are left with the phrase “shoot a landing”. This is an Nav-Air (Naval Air) (maybe others too) term describing the process of simulating a landing, touching the surface without stopping (also called a “touch & go” in the USAF…. silly pampered flyboys). A related term is “shooting an approach”, the process of simulating a landing without actually touching the surface. Neither includes stopping. I have personally watched (in the 8 years in the 1980s that I was in the USMC repairing A-6E Intruder avionics systems) many aircraft making a landing approach that ends with the plane raising its nose in a “flare”, then dropping it as if the main gear had hit, then upping the throttle to re-gain altitude…. all at least 100 feet above the runway or flight deck.
If they had actually stopped on the Ark, he would have said “made a landing”, “trapped”, “caught a wire”, or another phrase with the same clear meaning.
One of the earlier posts referred to the Clemenceau operating with USN CV(N)s. In 1987, in the Arabian sea, an F-8 from the “C”, flown by their ship’s Captain, landed on the CV-61 Ranger, to pay his respects. I watched him land and take off an hour later.
Bager1968In “Operation Just Cause” (Panama 1989) several M-155 Sheradin Air-transportable Light Tanks were parachute-dropped. One parachute failed to deploy and the tank looked real cute….. the side, front, & back panels popped out and the top pancaked down into the engine, etc. The intended crew were real glad that they don’t drop inside them!
Bager1968Sounds like a hybrid Gas Turbine / diesel-fired boiler system. I hope the complexity is manageable for the manufacturers. The establishment of a training program using the extra boiler is a very good move for both the IN and the manufacturer, as they will be able to fully test both the equipment and the training & repair programs.
Bager1968Hmmmm, sailors getting out of control on shore leave, sounds like every navy throughout the world, throughout history. Nothing special there. French ship rams moored Pakistani ship. That is the French’s fault.
If your purpose is to embarrass the PN, it didn’t work! Please keep national rivalries on a friendly basis.
Bager1968If they are turning it into a theme park, they still have to remove the rust before painting it! Can’t have those fun-seekers getting infections from rusty metal, now can we? There is very little likelihood of the PLAN trying to finish her as any form of working warship, they would spend less money and time building something to fit their needs and capabilities.
The model posted earlier is definitely a US CV, and it appears, from what I can see of the superstructure (island), to be the USS Enterprise CVN 65. You can tell because she is the only carrier in the world with all 4 sides of the island flat and featureless.
Bager1968The main reason the US military wants the C-27J is very simple…. money. The C-27J uses the same engines and avionics as the C-130J. This saves large amounts of money on parts, repair facilities and equipment, and training for the maintenence personnel.
Their cockpits and systems are designed to be virtually identical, so much so that any pilot who qualifies in one type automatically receives certification for the other type without even flying it. This saves large amounts of money in aircrew training, and allows great flexibility in assignments and operational crewing.
The C-295 would require a completely new repair, training, and supply chain, with new training programs, maintenence equipment and personnel, and many new spare parts.
NOT a good buy in my view!
Bager1968I wonder just what is the basis for this recurring theory of an upcoming US economic collapse? Here in the US we have not heard of this, except for the small number of mostly religious (or socialist) fanatics that either A: believe that Judgement Day is coming, and God has ordained a global economic collapse before then, or B: Capitalism is doomed (because Marx said so) and therefore it MUST collapse. On second thought, Socialism is much like a religion, with its followers believing the message (and the prophets Karl Marx and Engels) regardless of what reality throws at them.
Could anyone tell me why the US economy is supposed to collapse?? This theory has appeared several times since the early 1970s, and every time we were supposed to “fall down & go boom” we just fixed the minor recession and started another growth cycle!
While I am VERY concerned about China’s military build-up, and worried about its immediate neighbors, in my view Australia has very little to worry about in terms of military attacks on their soil. They do, however, face the possibility of economic isolation if most of the East/Southeast Asian mainland (and possibly close-in island nations) are under the control of China.
The main need for Australia to have a strong military is to allow it to help its neighbors to protect themselves from attack.
There is an old story (fictional, but it has a strong basis in history) of the man who didn’t mind when they took the Jews, because he wasn’t one; didn’t mind when they took the foreigners, because they didn’t belong here; didn’t mind when they took the old and infirm, because they were a drain on society; etc.; etc; until the day they came for him, and there was no one left to help him!
The best counter to the very real threat posed by a growing Chinese military is for many countries to each buy what they can, and then USE THEM TOGETHER, to help each other! This is why Australia needs to pull its head out of its behind, sign a non-aggression treaty with its neighbors (as long as the only promise is not to attack anyone), and insist on a mutual defense clause against aggression (including defense against internal aggression). Then the Chinese will have a much harder time gaining control of the area.
This policy does, however require some longer-range capability to protect (not attack) the new allies. Does this sound like the old “forward defense” policy? Darned right it does, but it now includes co-operative defense of your neighbors as well.
As Benjamin Franklin (I think, it might be another of the founders) said at the start of the American Revolution: “We Must All Hang Together, or We Will Assuredly be Hung Separately!”.
Bager1968Some of them were used as such on a temporary basis, but the one you are thinking of was the Inchon LPH 12 (Iwo Jima class), which was converted to a Mine Warfare Command and Support Ship (MCS 12) in 1996. She was decommissioned in 2002, and sunk as a target in 2004, leaving the USN with no dedicated Mine Warfare Command ship. Various of the LHAs and LPDs are supposed to fill that need in an emergency, but you know how well “temporary fixes” work in real life!
(edit): Since she was equipped with only 2 boilers, and 1 turbine & shaft, she didn’t steam too well after that fire I would guess. I had wondered why she was decommissioned so soon after conversion, but apparently the USN didn’t want to spend the kind of money it would take to repair that kind of damage on a 32 year old ship (completed in 1970).
Bager1968For your information, the 8th Wasp class LHD, the USS Makin Island (laid down 14 Feb. 2004) DOES have 2 GE LM 2500 Gas Turbines being installed for propulsion (and NO boilers). These will give her the same top speed as the other LHDs.
The LHX/LHA(R) is also being designed for Gas Turbines, and all the other new warships and supply ships are getting Diesels or Gas Turbines, leaving no new ships being built with steam propulsion except for the Nuclear steam plants in the CVNs.
Bager1968The USMC is not a truly separate service, it IS a part of the Department of the Navy. The Commandant of the Marine Corps takes his orders from the Chief of Naval Operations and is one rank lower than him.
The USMC has no medical personnel, they are provided by the USN, even the medical Corpsmen in the combat units. All the clinics and hospitals on USMC bases are designated as Naval Medical Facilities, and are staffed by Naval personnel.
Both the USN and USMC use the same training schools, with students from both services in the same classes. Basic Training (boot camp) is the only exception, as the Navy corpsmen assigned to combat units go to the USMC Infantry Training School (ITS) before joining their units.
The USMC aviation uses the same types of aircraft (mostly) as the USN, and the logistical support is procured with the same contracts for parts, common equipment, etc. All repair manuals and test & repair equipment are purchased and maintained the same way.
When I was in the USMC, many of the repaired parts that I got from supply to install on our aircraft had just been repaired by a USN workshop, and many of those I repaired went to USN squadrons. My attack jet (A-6 Intruder) squadron was also part of a Carrier Air Wing, and deployed aboard the CV-61 (USS Ranger) to Japan, Korea, Phillippines, and the Arabian Sea from 1985-1987.
The current plans are (to my admittedly second-hand information) to fully merge the USMC and USN Aviation departments, with (I believe) USMC pilots in the same squadrons as USN pilots, doing both the classic USN roles and the USMC “ground support” missions.
The only areas the USMC is considered separate from the USN are in appropriations, internal administration, and in having its own seat along-side the other services on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Bager1968This has been discussed on another board:
http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm16.showMessage?topicID=1088.topic
with the following info being presented:
http://www.powercorea.com/aircarrier_16DDH.htm
“The crucial question, IMO (and as yet unanswered) is how big the hangar really is. They claim a capacity for only 3 SH-60 plus one MH-53. If the hangar is really just a single aisle between the elevators, its capacity will be very limited (perhaps 4 helos plus a possible deck park). OTOH, if it is full-width, it might carry 2-3 times as many aircraft, making the ship a proper helo carrier, though probably still too small for serious STOVL aircraft ops with JSF (one does wonder if the JMSDF might be interested in some surplus Sea Harrier FA.2s).”
“The contract for the new DDH was awarded to Japan’s IHI Shipyard. 2007 for completion of this 13,500 ton monster. A second ship of the class might be funded next year.”
On the Foch-mod Essex point, the USN only operated ~60 or so F-8 and A-4 aircraft from the Essex types during the latter stages of the Vietnam war, and they were 36% larger (displacement) than the Foch, so ~40 probably IS the maximum they could operate.
Bager1968ships
Several Constellations in USN:
1. Frigate, launched 1797, broken up 1853.
2. Sloop of War, launched 1856, preserved as museum.
3. Battle cruiser CC 2, scrapped on slip after 17 Aug. 1923.
4. Aircraft Carrier CV 64, launched 1960, decommissioned 2003.
May have been others, maybe not.
Constitutions in USN:
1. Frigate (44 guns), launched 1797, preserved as museum (in commission USN).
2. Battle cruiser CC 5, scrapped on slip after 27 Aug. 1923.
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/constitution.htm
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/img/constitution1.gif
The CV 62 was the USS Independence, launched 1958, decommissioned 1998.
Bager1968Yes, info is from:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_assau.htm
Decommissioned and stricken for disposal 31 July 1993. Sold 25 July 1995 and scrapped at Brownsville, TX 1/1996 to 11/1996.
Bager1968get your names straight
Flanker 101, the Constitution and the Constellation are two different names for two completely different ships!!!!
Bager1968Of the 7 Iwo Jimas, the Iwo (LPH 2) was scrapped 1996, Okinawa (3) sunk as target 2002, Guadalcanal (7) is scheduled to be sunk (IIRC she was sunk late last year, but maybe not), Guam (9) sunk 2001, Tripoli (10) is “test ship” for US Army & still in San Francisco as of 2004, New Orleans (11) is on museum hold, Inchon (12) sunk 2004.
Therefore, only 2 (3) are left, and both of those are “spoken for”. Try something else for cheap helo carriers.
Sign In
