China has had the opportunity, means, & will to shorten its own own learning curve, by observing what others have done – and it shows. The Chinese have obviously learned a lot about deck handling, for example, from those who have gone before.

I seem to remember reports from a year or two ago of PLAN officers visiting the Brazilian carrier São Paulo a year or two ago, and of them observing flight operations while aboard.

Not to mention all those documentaries about USN carriers that show lots of footage of flight-deck operations (like the 10-episode PBS series shot aboard USS Nimitz in 2005)… and two British TV series set aboard carriers (HMS Ark Royal (IV) in the late 1970s, and HMS Ark Royal (V) in 2003/4.

Yes, this was directly related to the Hornet introduction.

The same air wing composition was deployed aboard CV-61 Ranger (CVW-2) from 1985-1989.

The extra A-6E squadron aboard Ranger was VMA(AW)-121 (USMC)… which I was assigned to for IMA avionics support from 1985-1988 (so I got 360 days “at-sea” days in an 18-month period).

The story in NavAir at the time was that when loaded with a maximum external & internal load that included a full center-line drop tank, the Hornet’s landing gear would sometimes flex enough during a catapult launch that the catapult shuttle would slice open the tank at the end of the catapult stroke.

Naturally, the resulting fuel spill and loss of range (as well as the possible in-flight fire) was not considered acceptable.

Since a redesign of the Hornet’s landing gear would require a complete redesign of the whole center fuselage (due to the tight clearances for the retracted gear), it was cheaper to actually re-position the catapult tracks a bit deeper into the flight deck.

Additionally, the Hornets needed a bunch of new support equipment… especially for the engines (the Hornet was the first USN aircraft to use the F404) and avionics (>80% of which was unique to the Hornet). This meant a complete re-arrangement of the engine & avionics workshops.

Obviously, installing all this and doing the catapult work could only be done during a major maintenance period, and the refit schedules meant that the A-7E squadrons would be transitioning to Hornets faster then the carriers would have their catapults repositioned and the support equipment installed.

If JFK and Ranger operated temporarily with the “JFK Wing” in those periods, then the “refit schedule/transition schedule” conflict could be resolved.

There was really no advantage, other than as mentioned above… there were fewer aircraft aboard, and the extra A-6Es needed more maintenance-per-flight-hour than the A-7Es (2 engines per aircraft instead of 1, more complex avionics, 2 ejection seats & life support systems instead of 1).

Thanks Hospsalot.

I still think Marines jumped the gun on VMFA-121 as a political move to make it look like the jet was further ahead then it already is (Congress and media people do not understand IOC).

And you seem to not understand the mission and role of the first operational squadron of a new aircraft type.

That squadron is tasked with developing ALL the operational procedures for the new aircraft… from how the pilots handle their checklists, to how the ground crew services it (and in what order), to how the maintainers actually remove & replace parts, to learning what tools are needed more and thus have to go in a “line bag” and which ones can go into the tool cabinets… and so on.

There are literally hundreds of details and procedures that will be different from those in the aircraft it replaces, and the “first operational squadron” is the one that learns, decides, and develops those procedures, routines, and details into the “SOP” that will be sent to all the other squadrons before they get their first aircraft.

This is not a quick thing to do, and VMFA-121 will be spending the next 2-3 years doing this… and it has to be done before the next squadron begins to receive its aircraft.

Most of this can be learned and developed without requiring the aircraft to be “cleared for the full flight envelope”.

Additionally, how the pilot and aircraft interact in an operational mode (as opposed to the test mode that is all that has been done to date) can also be learned and codified with the limited flight clearance currently in place. The basic procedures have to be solidified before advanced procedures needed for “edge-of-the-envelop” operational flying can be developed anyway.

So no, my old squadron* is NOT being “rushed into things for PR reasons”… they are simply taking the next step towards IOC in pretty much the way it has been done before.

* I deployed aboard USS Ranger CV-61 with them when they were VMA(AW)-121 {Green Knights} flying A-6E Intruders, and I was keeping the FLIR/laser systems working.

true. the US is really the only nation that has bothered to spend the money to preserve a decent amount of its 20th century capital ships as museums:

USS Hornet – Essex class Aircraft carrier
USS Intrepid – Essex class Aircraft carrier
USS Lexington – Essex class Aircraft carrier
USS Midway – Midway class Aircraft carrier
USS Yorktown – Essex class Aircraft carrier

USS Alabama – South Dakota class Battleship
USS Iowa – Iowa class Battleship
USS Massachusetts – South Dakota Class Battleship
USS Missouri – Iowa class Battleship
USS New Jersey – Iowa class Battleship
USS North Carolina – North Carolina class Battleship
USS Texas – New York class Battleship
USS Wisconsin – Iowa class Battleship

mmm, government waste.

Now actually pay attention to reality, Rii.

US law prohibits the Federal government from spending any money on preserving/displaying those ships, although the USN retains ownership.

They are paid for and run by private organizations, using private funds… unless a state or local government chooses to make a “single-instance” contribution for a specific non-recurring expense (like the State of Iowa did to get BB-61 kick-started out of mothballs and into LA harbor).

In addition, the funding plans for these ships cannot include continuing payments from any government, even state/local, unless that government receives “return value”… such as an Emergence Response agency leasing space on a museum ship to use for a communications center.

So not government waste… just individuals and corporate sponsors spending their own money how they want it spent!

(EDIT: I forgot “the great exception”… there is always one, isn’t there… and of course Texans will be involved!

BB-35 USS Texas is not owned by the USN… ownership was transferred to the State of Texas in 1948.
“The Battleship Texas” is owned and operated by the State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

She is the only ship on that list to receive regular, continued, and significant tax money for her upkeep and operation… but it is not Federal money, but Texas State funds.}

Since the “thread de-rail” is in full chat…

How about the F-106 that landed itself after the pilot banged out… and was repaired and returned to service?

On 2 Feb 1970 a 71st FIS F-106A (S/N 58-0787) entered a flat spin forcing pilot Capt Gary Faust to eject. Un-piloted, the aircraft recovered on its own and miraculously made a gentle belly landing in a snow-covered Montana field.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/April%202009/0409gary.aspx

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_PilotlessLanding_580787.htm

AN/ARC-52 – UHF Transceiver; manufactured by Collins; component of AN/ASQ-17, AN/ASQ-56, AN/ASQ-57, AN/ASQ-58; used in A-4, RA-5C, A-7A, E-2, F-111A/B, UH-1E, UH-2A, UH-34D, CH-46A, CH-53A, O-1, P-2, P-3A, S-2, T-2B, OV-1A

Not in that form, and not at that time.

Remember, they were originally to be helo-only ASW escorts for the CVA-01s… if 3 CVA-01s were built there would be no money for ASW carriers, and CVA-01 would likely carry extra Sea Kings to make up the difference (refueling & rearming from the T-42s & T-22s).

Or, more likely, Albion, Bulwark, & Hermes would be doing “double duty” as commando carriers and ASW carriers, depending on the particular situation at the time.

By the late 1970s there would be a need to replace A/B/H, and you might then see 3 reduced-capability “dual-role” versions built for completion in the mid 1980s (3-5 years after historic)… much like Ocean, but earlier and in a set of 3. You wouldn’t see Sea Dart aboard them, though… and no ski jump or Harriers.