Bager1968It would be useful to both sides if this continued – see here where the skills needed for carrier crews are discussed.
How will we maintain these skills for the future? This is as big an issue as the pilots.
The RN has already disclosed that it will maintain and expand personnel being assigned to the USN and MN for exchange duties aboard US & French carriers.
As for the idea of a swap – I would suggest lots of GR9s being traded for a few AV8Bs. I believe many AV8Bs are mothballed in Arizona. I suspect we could do it more cheaply than the current arrangements which were set up to support seventy odd GR9s.
You believe incorrectly… the only AV-8Bs “in Arizona” are those with time-expired airframes, airframe damage of various types, and other things that would make them very expensive to re-commission… if it could be done at all, since these have been heavily stripped of parts (including airframe parts) to support the AV-8Bs still flying.
The USMC received 174 AV-8Bs and 22 TAV-8Bs (not combat-rated).
Later, 61 new-build AV-8B (NA) were added, as well as 27 new-build AV-8B+ (more basic AV-8Bs were converted to both configurations).
That’s a total of 262 single-seaters.
In January 2003, the LA Times ran an article which stated the following:
The AV-8A Harrier and its successor, the AV-8B, have been in 143 major noncombat accidents, killing 45 Marines. The crashes have destroyed one-third of the Harrier fleet.
This is ~87 aircraft destroyed… but since more have been lost in the 8 years since (including one 2 months ago off Libya), we can guess at ~100 losses.
That leaves ~162 single-seat AV-8B… of which 112 are in the 7 active USMC squadrons (16 per), and more are in various facilities undergoing deep maintenance/refurbishment.
So the total of “non-destroyed” mothballed and “under maintenance” aircraft is around 50.
Bager1968I mostly do agree.
I continue to have doubts about this. I’m not overly confident on QE getting the catapults, much as “Queen Elizabeth” is the name heard on the press and in most reports.
For a whole lot of other considerations, i believe the cats will go to PoW. Why adding cats to QE, possibly delaying the whole programme (thus making costs grow massively) in order to fit the cats to her in order to have her… when? 2017? One year later than planned?
If Ocean retires in 2016, the fleet needs QE in service as LPH by then.F35 IOC would not come any earlier than 2018, and Carrier Strike is expected by 2020 only.
Prince of Wales fits the timeframe better for becoming the Strike Carrier. Also, it would allow to push the expense and catapults cost a bit further into the future, easing the pressure on the next few budgets.
If QE gets the cats, they are likely to have to be ordered during 2013 at the latest, to be handed to the shipyard in 2015 for fitting.But we’ll see next year, i guess, when the decision is announced.
Ummmmm… the SDSR stated that IOC for QE is to be delayed to 2020!
Page 22-23 (text in green background) covers the carrier info.
Note this from the second paragraph on page 23:
We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020.
As you yourself noted, QE was to see IOC in 2016, with POW a few years later… so that sentence must refer to QE.
Bager1968Since Ric Gillespie is Executive Director of TIGHAR, I’d guess the answer is YES.
Bager1968The primary reason for that is simple… the F-4, F-14, & F/A-18 are all complex aircraft with lots of avionics, etc (as well as different engines from each other and the attack aircraft).
They would have had a hard time fitting the extra support equipment and extra personnel needed to maintain two fighter types and two attack types (most of this period saw carriers with both A-7 Corsair IIs and A-6 Intruders aboard), along with the ASW & AEW aircraft.
Remember… just on engines there were multiple types:
The F-4 had the J79 (as did the RA-5C).
The F-14 had the TF30 (as did the A-7A/B, but these were being phased out of the fleet about the time the F-14 entered widespread service).
The F/A-18 had the F404.
The A-7E had the TF41.
The A-6 had the J52 (as did the EA-6B and the A-4, but the A-4 had been replaced by the A-7).
The RF-8 had J57 (as did the EA-3B).
The S-2 had the R-1820 (as did the E-1 & C-1).
The S-3 had the TF34.
The E-2 had the T-56 (as did the C-2).
The SH-3 had the T-58.
There is a limit to how many different engine types the engine shop on a carrier can support, too many and there is no more room.
Bager1968Global Hawk is bigger & much heavier than Eitan.
# Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,851 kg)
# Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,387 kg)
# payload 2,000 lb (900 kg)
That means that fully half the gross weight of the Global Hawk is fuel… no room/weight left for additional avionics, electrical generators, etc.
Bager1968You can easily see for yourself.
Go to this site http://navysite.de/carriers.htm, choose a carrier, and click on its name, then scroll down to where you find a sentence such as this:
Read about the deployments of USS ENTERPRISE
or
Click here to get a view of the deployments of USS JOHN F. KENNEDY.
This brings up a page that shows the dates of deployments, air wing number, which squadrons were aboard, what aircraft those squadrons were equipped with, tail letters used, primary deployment area, etc.
In the case of CVN-65, there are no concurrent F-14/F-4 or F-14/RF-8 deployments… although there were F-14As and RA-5Cs aboard from 1974-1978.
In the case of CV-67, there were F-14As and RF-8Gs aboard from September 1976 to February 1979.
Bager1968http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6913462&c=AME&s=SEA
U.S. Navy Resumes EMALS Tests
After a 5-month pause to modify the catapult motor control software to provide a smother launch stroke, the USN has conducted 14 launches with a F/A-18E Super Hornet, 12 with a T-45C Goshawk (both from VX-23), and 12 with a C-2A Greyhound (from VX-20).
Further Super Hornet launches are scheduled for July, with E-2D Hawkeye launches following later in the summer.
Bager1968Lots of discussion, speculation, argument, etc here:
Bager1968Six Ex RAF Dominies arrived at Kemble the week before the show for temporary storage, all with US-civil registrations. They were all there during the air show. Stories vary, but one said that three will go to the US for pilot training and three will remain in store for spares. Quite why anyone would want these 40-year old crew trainers with thirsty Viper engines is beyond me?
There are still quite a number of HS/BAe 125 in service world-wide. I’m sure there is demand for type-certification training for them.
The BAe 125 Series 700 aircraft and later came from the factory with the Garrett/Honeywell TFE731-3RH turbofan engines (or improved variants of this engine).
The BAe 125 series 1000 had Pratt & Whitney Canada PW-305 turbofans.
Perhaps the buyer intends to re-engine them?
XS712 HS125 Dominie T1 [A] Sold as N19CQ, 11 May 2011
XS728 HS125 Dominie T1 [E] Sold as N19CU, 11 May 2011
XS730 HS125 Dominie T1 [H] Sold as N19UG, 11 May 2011
XS731 HS125 Dominie T1 [J] Sold as N19XY, 11 May 2011
XS737 HS125 Dominie T1 [K] Sold as N19EK, 11 May 2011
XS739 HS125 Dominie T1 [F] Sold as N19UK, 11 May 2011
Owner Name: 19TH HOLE INC DBA
– EXECUTIVE JET SUPPORT LTD
Registrant Type: Corporation
Last Action Date: 11 May 2011
Owner Address: 15 THE GLENMORE CENTER
CHIPPENHAM, SN146-BB
GB
Bager196844-68105/68254 – Martin B-26G-25-MA Marauder
It is painted as a B-26B… 41-31576
41-31573/31672 – Martin B-26B-15-MA Marauder
In order to reduce the alarming rate of Stateside training accidents, a decision was made to increase the wing area in order to lower the wing loading, reducing the takeoff and landing speeds.
The new wing was first introduced on the B-26C production block at Omaha, and did not appear on the B-26B line at Baltimore until the introduction of the B-26B-10-MA production block, which first appeared in January of 1943.
The wing span increased from 65 to 71 feet and area increased from 602 to 658 square feet. A taller fin and rudder was introduced to maintain stability with the larger wing, increasing overall height from 19 feet 10 inches to 21 feet 6 inches.
The B-26B was the designation given to the Marauders manufactured at the Martin plant in Baltimore, Maryland.
The B-26C was the designation given to a version of the B-26B manufactured at a new factory built by the government for Martin at Omaha, Nebraska.
Bager1968Perhaps the info simply no longer exists in the public domain… maybe in some dusty private archive someone has something, but it seems the info may have disappeared in the many years (and wars) since then.
Bager1968More accurately, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved its version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill, removing funding for those programs.
However, the process of passing a defense budget involves making it through no fewer than four committees and two floor votes (and often many more*), so it’s not like these programs are automatically dead… many items have been cut from budgets by committees over the years, but still found their ways into the final versions of the bills, and then into law.
However, the USN will have to work hard to get funding for these re-inserted into the bill… especially with both parties pushing for cuts in overall spending.
* funding for these programs could be restored by the Appropriations or Commerce, Science, and Transportation committees… or possibly others, or it could be restored by an amendment after the bill goes in front of the whole Senate. Then there is the reconciliation process if the House version includes the funding… it could be in the final “compromise” bill.
Bager1968If you read the whole thread before posting, you would find that I had determined my error and posted it long ago… along with the identification of the aircraft being from Saratoga during Strikeback.
But thanks for the article anyway.
Bager1968Clipping the wings might reduce drag, thus allowing the aircraft to accelerate faster… but it would also reduce lift, thus raising the required take-off/landing speed.
You always lose more in lift than you gain in acceleration when you shorten the wings (without changing other things to compensate), so that is a bizarre statement.
Bager1968Well said David!
I remember reading an article last year about the furture of the Navy etc and it was said it would prefer to keep the more than capable Harrier over getting the F35. It mentioned that the ideal procurement would be to buy off the shelf F18’s and keep a limited Harrier force thus having a very broad capability! The Navy did not like the idea of the F35 being so heavy and not being able to carry as much payload as the Harrier which was stated as a much more needed capability over stealth.
Sigh.
Even the F-35B can carry more than the Harrier… and take off with it too.
The F-35C carries bigger weapons internally than the F-35B (and thus a higher total warload), but both can carry the same weapons externally.
This is the standard tactic of F-35 detractors… comparing max warloads of other aircraft to internal-only warloads of the F-35.
The F-35 with external load is every bit as capable as the F/A-18, F-16, etc… and has the option of carrying a smaller warload stealthily… something none of the other aircraft can do.
No… the RN didn’t want to keep Harrier… it wanted F-35… and will get it (although the “cat&trap” F-35C rather than the STOVL F-35B).
There have been lots of “talking heads” claiming this or that… and most of them have been “speaking from their derriere”!
Sign In
