US Navy Aircraft Carriers

The age of aircraft carriers could be coming to an end

Since World War II, flat-topped aircraft carriers have been the backbone of US power projection and military might at sea, but a new generation of long-range missiles being developed by the US's adversaries could push these mechanical marvels off the front lines.

The US's massive aircraft carriers have a problem. The F-18s aboard US aircraft carriers have a range of about 500 nautical miles, as Ben Ho Wan Beng notes at the US Naval Institute.

The incoming F-35Cs are expected to have a marginally better range of about 550 nautical miles.

Meanwhile, China's aptly named DF-21 "Carrier Killer" anti-ship ballistic missile is said to have a range of 810 nautical miles, and is capable of sinking an entire 1,100 foot carrier with 70 aircraft and 6,000 sailors on board.

Such long-range anti-ship missiles create anti-access/area denial areas (also established in the Baltics by Russia) wherein the US can't position it's most powerful assets, the aircraft carriers.

Thusly, aircraft carriers, which have been the star of the show since their emergence during World War II, may end up taking a back seat to smaller vessels.

The US Navy has long been working towards achieving "distributed lethality," or a strategy that entails arming even the smallest ship with long-range missiles capable of knocking out enemy defenses from far away. Engaging enemies with smaller ships also helps to keep extraordinarily valuable targets like carriers out of harm's way.

In fact, the Navy plans to have at least 40 Littoral Combat Ships with a "full suite of anti-ship and anti-submarine sensors and weapons ... Plus such improvements as a medium-range 'over the horizon' missile to sink enemy ships," as Breaking Defense notes.

So instead of putting a carrier in harm's way, the Navy would likely look to use longer ranged platforms, like cruiser-destroyers that carry the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, which have a range of about 900 nautical miles.

In the end, a Carrier Strike Group would no longer lead with the carrier.

Instead, Destroyers firing Tomahawk missiles would initiate the attacks, softening up enemy anti-access/area-denial capabilities before the big carriers moved in closer to shore

Now on her way home

After carrying out thousands of sorties against Daesh, also known as IS/Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the USS Harry S. Truman has docked in Crete.

After launching airstrikes against the terrorist group for the last seven months, the US Navy’s aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean is giving its crew a break. Arriving at the Greek island of Crete, the USS Harry S. Truman’s 5,500 crew members will relax before departing for Norfolk, Virginia. That is crucial in maintaining the 1,096-foot long ship’s two nuclear reactors and preparing munitions for the fighter jets prior to sorties. Others cook over 18,000 meals per day and maintain the unique standards of life aboard an aircraft carrier.

While the Truman’s mission was extended by one month to "keep pressure" on Daesh, it is expected to arrive in Virginia in mid-July.

Originally stationed in the Persian Gulf, the Truman’s redeployment to the Mediterranean was controversial and seen as a response to Russia’s military operations in Syria. Earlier this month, one US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the ship, one of 19 US aircraft carriers in service around the globe, "provides some needed presence in the Med to check…the Russians."

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160621/1041707170/uss-harry-truman-leaves-fight.html

The Real Problem with America’s Aircraft Carriers Is Easy to See (But Near Impossible to Fix)

Stretching back several decades, the concept of missile defense has been hotly debated. Some well reasoned scholars argue that the United States and other countries need such defenses incase deterrence breaks down or an irrational actor gets their finger on the nuclear trigger. Others argue that missile defenses are a waste of money given that they are easily defeated, and defensive technology will always stay behind the curve — never ready for primetime.

Both sides have logical arguments. For the record, I am an advocate of missile defense — under certain conditions. With various nations all over the planet purchasing or developing ballistic and cruise weapons, defenses against such weaponry are vital — especially for the American navy in the form of Aegis missile defenses. When it comes to missile defense in nuclear matters- I have some shall we say, complex views. For regimes such as Iran, North Korea and others when sometimes rationality is not their strongest suit — missile defense all the way. When it comes to nations with larger missile arsenals such as China or Russia, I am not sold — yet.

There is however one thing you can't argue against, simple math.

Case in point, take a look at a recent book chapter by Dr. Toshi Yoshihara in Chinese Aerospace Power (a really good book, China defense geeks I am talking to you — it's a classic — get your credit card out) from our friends over at the Chinese Maritime Studies Institute.

Dr. Yoshihara notes:

"ASBMs (anti-ship ballistic missiles) may not need to produce mission kills against the surface fleet to complicate U.S. plans. They only need to reach the fleet's defensive envelope for the Aegis to engage the incoming threats, thus forcing the defender to expend valuable ammunition that cannot be easily resupplied at sea under combat conditions. Even inaccurate ASBMs, then, could compel the Aegis to exhaust its weapons inventory, leaving it defenseless against further PLA actions. Used in conjunction with conventional ballistic missile strikes against U.S. bases and other land targets across Asia — strikes that would elicit more intercept attempts — ASBM raids could deprive the United States and its allies of their staying power in a sea fight."

Such a point raises a larger question. Will American commanders in the future face large missile forces aimed at their ships that can just simply overwhelm their defenses through sheer numbers?

Another example comes from a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis entitled Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats (A2/AD geeks, this is truly a must read). In sketching out a scenario for a possible Iranian A2/AD campaign between 2020-2025, the authors explain:

"Iran could deploy its land-based ASCMs (anti-ship cruise missiles) from camouflaged and hardened sites to firing positions along its coastline and on Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz while placing decoys at false firing positions to complicate U.S. counterstrikes. Hundreds of ASCMs may cover the Strait, awaiting target cueing data from coastal radars, UAVs, surface vessels, and submarines. Salvo and multiple axis attacks could enable these ASCMs to saturate U.S. defenses…salvos of less capable ASCMs might be used to exhaust U.S. defenses, paving the way for attacks by more advanced missiles."

Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?

Simply put: does math win?

Truth be told, this is a very simplistic way of looking at the classic missile vs. missile-interceptor game. Many complex scenarios could be easily envisioned. Sea-based forces on the defensive would likely employ multiple methods to secure themselves. Jamming of missile and land-based guidance systems, counterstrikes on enemy missile launchers and attacks on enemy command and control would all likely be employed on some level once offensive missiles are launched. Preemptive strikes could also be employed if a credible threat of a launch was presumed. Not to mention possible available land-based interceptors could be in the mix depending on the area of hostilities as well as cyber and UAV strikes. And this says nothing about nuclear weapons…

Yet, you have to wonder, math does have a powerful say in such a scenario. And considering the cost of missile defenses vs. offensive missiles, "math" seems to have some valid arguments.

Ford carrier delayed until November, at least a year late

• The navy now estimates Gerald R Ford may be delivered in November 2016, more than a year late
  

• Some key subsystems will still be unproven when the carrier is delivered

The US Navy's (USN's) next class of nuclear-power carriers, USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78), is to be delayed another two months and now delivered more than a year later than the original contracted delivery date.

"The current estimated delivery date is in November 2016," USN spokesperson Captain Thurraya S Kent said on 12 July. Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) signed a detailed design contract with the navy that stated a delivery date of 30 September 2015.

As of June, Gerald R Ford was 98% complete and HII has turned over 97% of compartments, Capt Kent said.

So far 89% of the overall shipboard testing has been completed, but the November delivery date may need to be revised "if additional issues arise during the remaining shipboard testing", Capt Kent noted.

The revelation drew reproach from John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a long-term critic of the programme.

"Even if everything goes according to the navy's plan, CVN 78 will be delivered with multiple systems unproven," he said. "The advanced arresting gear [AAG] cannot recover airplanes. Advanced weapons elevators cannot lift munitions. The dual-band radar cannot integrate two radar bands," the senator said.

Indeed, the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) published the redacted report on 11 July stating the navy had not proven the capability or safety of the AAG system. AAG's developmental testing, originally scheduled to end in 2009, will continue through 2018.

The DoD IG recommended the navy "perform cost-benefit analyses to determine whether the AAG is an affordable solution for navy aircraft carriers before deciding to go forward with the system on future aircraft carriers".

Navy’s $12.9 Billion Carrier Isn’t Ready for Warfare, Memo Says


The U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier isn’t ready for warfare. The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford -- the most expensive warship ever built -- may struggle to launch and recover aircraft, mount a defense and move munitions, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester. On-board systems for those tasks have poor or unknown reliability issues, according to a June 28 memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

“These four systems affect major areas of flight operations,” Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, wrote Pentagon and Navy weapons buyers Frank Kendall and Sean Stackley. “Unless these issues are resolved, which would likely require redesigning” of the aircraft launch and recovery systems “they will significantly limit the CVN-78’s ability to conduct combat operations,” Gilmore wrote, using a technical name for the carrier.
More Delays

The reliability woes mean that delivery of the Ford -- the first of three carriers ordered up in a $42 billion program -- will probably slip further behind schedule. The Navy announced last week that the ship, originally due by September 2014, wouldn’t be delivered before November this year because of continuing unspecified testing issues.

The service has operated 10 carriers since the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012. Extended deployments of the remaining ships have placed stress on crews and meant added strain meeting global commitments from the battle against Islamic State to ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, home to $5 trillion in annual trade.

A prolonged delay could also hamper the military if a new conflict arises.

“Based on current reliability estimates, the CVN-78 is unlikely to conduct high-intensity flight operations” such as a requirement for four days of 24-hour surge operations “at the outset of a war,” Gilmore wrote.

As delivery of the Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. vessel approaches, “my concerns about the reliability of these systems remain and the risk to the ship’s ability to succeed in combat grows as these reliability issues remain unresolved,” Gilmore said.
‘Unacceptable’ Delays

Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the Navy’s announcement of additional delays last week “unacceptable,” adding that it was a “case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed.”

A Navy spokeswoman, Lieutenant Kara Yingling, said the Navy was aware of the report but referred additional comment to Kendall’s office. Kendall spokesman Mark Wright said in an e-mail "we don’t feel it is appropriate to release our response to this internal memo.”

Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

Recent naval advances by China and Russia have been heralded by defense experts who contest that America’s reign of dominance over the high seas may be coming to an end, but America’s Chief of Naval Operations thinks the US Navy remains unstoppable.

In an interview with National Interest, Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia’s anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America’s Pacific Fleet.

"This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitor, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated," said Admiral Richardson. "I think there is this long-range precision-strike capability, but A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult."

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045001218/russia-china-pacific-fleet-navy.html

This guy is suppose to be there top admiral, his words not only put his competence into question, but also his sanity.
The Russian and Chinese navies have nothing to worry about with U.S officers of such "incredible" caliber.

P.S: I wasn't able to find the original NI article, mostly because there website is completely disorganized.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

Recent naval advances by China and Russia have been heralded by defense experts who contest that America’s reign of dominance over the high seas may be coming to an end, but America’s Chief of Naval Operations thinks the US Navy remains unstoppable.

In an interview with National Interest, Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia’s anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America’s Pacific Fleet.

"This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitor, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated," said Admiral Richardson. "I think there is this long-range precision-strike capability, but A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult."

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045001218/russia-china-pacific-fleet-navy.html

This guy is suppose to be there top admiral, his words not only put his competence into question, but also his sanity.
The Russian and Chinese navies have nothing to worry about with U.S officers of such "incredible" caliber.

P.S: I wasn't able to find the original NI article, mostly because there website is completely disorganized.

But the U.S. officers have to worry about the "incredible" Kalibr.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Top US Navy Admiral Says Russia, China Defenseless Against US Aircraft Carriers

Recent naval advances by China and Russia have been heralded by defense experts who contest that America’s reign of dominance over the high seas may be coming to an end, but America’s Chief of Naval Operations thinks the US Navy remains unstoppable.

In an interview with National Interest, Admiral John Richardson claimed that US aircraft carriers could operate unscathed within China and Russia’s anti-access area denial (A2/AD) zones boasting about the long standing naval superiority of America’s Pacific Fleet.

"This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitor, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated," said Admiral Richardson. "I think there is this long-range precision-strike capability, but A2/AD is sort of an aspiration. In actual execution it’s much more difficult."

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045001218/russia-china-pacific-fleet-navy.html

This guy is suppose to be there top admiral, his words not only put his competence into question, but also his sanity.
The Russian and Chinese navies have nothing to worry about with U.S officers of such "incredible" caliber.

You are right, this is yet another hubris filled windbag propaganda koolaid drinker. Note the "long-range precision strike capability"
drivel. Sure thing there, sunshine, Russia is too primitive to have such "high tech" capability. When you read wiki-crappia and its
claims about Russian ICBM CEP numbers remember this clown and his drivel. NATO idiots really believe that Russian laser gyroscopes
are less accurate than NATO laser gyroscopes. These NATO idiots never took a physics course in their lives; they are a bunch of
high school dropouts who worked their way up as interns for various politicians. Their uneducated gut feelings tell them that all Russian
missiles miss their targets by miles.

Couple of issues just been exposed but shouldn't slow things much. I like the way they can just conjure up the $39M or so to repair the generators out of 'savings'.

WASHINGTON – For over a year, the US Navy and its shipbuilders have been anxious to get the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) to sea and begin engineering trials of the first-of-class design. A number of publicly-announced target dates have come and gone, but the ship is still firmly moored at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

Now, however, a key factor in preventing the ship from casting off lines and getting underway is coming into view. A serious voltage regulator problem on the carrier’s four main turbine generators (MTGs) has prevented engineers from running the motors up to full power, and only now has the problem been identified and a fix decided upon.

The MTGs are a significant element in the ship’s power generation system – an all-new layout supporting a plant developing at least three times the electrical power of previous carriers.

The problem manifested itself June 12 when a small electrical explosion took place on the No. 2 MTG during testing. Navy sources disagree whether the term “explosion” is appropriate, but two sources familiar with the situation used the reference, one noting that “it was enough of an explosion that debris got into the turbine.” Smoke from the event reportedly was drawn into other spaces, one source reported.
...................................................
But, according to sources, the June 12 event severely damaged the No. 2 MTG, and the accident slowed further MTG testing until the problem could be identified. Then in July, a similar, less-dramatic event took place on the No. 1 MTG, according to a Pentagon source.

Eventually the root cause was found to be faulty voltage regulators, the Pentagon source said. It is not clear if the voltage regulators are part of the generators, which are made by Northrop Grumman Marine Systems, or are a sub-component from another supplier.

Engineers were also debating how to repair the generators, and for a time it was feared the entire 12-ton No. 2 MTG would have to be lifted out and replaced – a complex, time-consuming and expensive operation that would involve disrupting numerous ship systems and making major cuts in several decks.

But subsequent investigation showed the No. 2 MTG’s rotors could be removed and replaced without the major disruption of a complete replacement, and No. 1 MTG could be repaired in place. Several repair options were developed, including whether or not to completely repair the MTGs before sea trials and delivery – causing further delays -- or wait until a post-commissioning shipyard period to finish the work.
...................................................................
The ship’s Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) is more problematic, and “has had significant delays in completing its land-based test program due to the technical challenges encountered in transitioning from design” through final testing, Mabus reported. Other Navy sources report dozens of roll-through tests have been conducted with the AAG at the Navy’s test facility in Lakehurst, New Jersey, but to date no true arrested landings have been accomplished.

Much more along at http://www.defensenews.com/articles/carrier-ford-has-serious-power-problem

The Shocking Secret Why America's Aircraft Carriers Dominate the World's Oceans

Dave Majumdar
December 8, 2016



Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but over the course of more than 75 years, through robust procedures, rigorous training and continuous practice, the U.S. Navy has honed its carrier flight deck operations into a well-oiled machine. Accidents do happen, but the Navy is continually working on improving flight deck safety. Every time there is a mishap, the accident is investigated so that procedures can be refined to prevent a recurrence.

But those lessons have often come at price in lives lost, injuries and monetary costs. Hundreds of men have been killed or injured during accidents at sea onboard a carrier. As one now-retired naval aviator told me—with only slight hyperbole: “Every line in the NATOPS manual is written in blood.”

Indeed, the Navy learned many painful lessons during the Vietnam War in the 1960s during a series of fires onboard three aircraft carriers. On Oct. 26, 1966, a magnesium flare that had inadvertently gone off started a major fire onboard USS Oriskany (CVA-34) that resulted in the deaths of 44 sailors and caused 156 others to be injured. Three aircraft were destroyed and three more were damaged in the incident.

During a second incident, on July 29, 1967, a massive fire devastated USS Forrestal (CV-59) during combat launch and recovery operations in the Gulf of Tonkin killing 134 sailors and injuring 161 others. Additionally, 21 aircraft were lost in the blaze—which was traced back to a Zuni unguided rocket was accidentally fired and set off a chain reaction. The fire crippled the carrier, which spent months being repaired.

During the third incident on Jan.14, 1969 —which was also setoff by a Zuni rocket—USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was ravaged by a fire that claimed the lives of 28 sailors, injured 314 others and destroyed 15 aircraft. During the chain reaction that followed, Enterprise suffered from 18 munition explosions and eight holes were blown through the flight deck and deep into the ship. It took more than three hours to extinguish the blaze.

In the aftermath of the fires, the Navy instituted major changes to its damage control and weapons handling procedures. The Navy also modified its carriers with a so-called “wash down” system to help prevent such incidents from happening again. While the Navy took corrective action—the lessons learned came at a price—hundred of death and injures, the loss of dozens of aircraft and severe damage to three carriers.

But while the three Vietnam-era fires were some of the worst post-WWII disasters onboard a carrier that resulted in massive changes in procedures, practices and hardware, there have been more subtle changes too. The Navy is continually working on improving safety on the flight deck. Indeed some of those practices involve things as simple as avoiding the area around the air intake of an operating jet engine. Indeed, during my very first days of ground school many years ago I was shown whar was a Navy safety video of a crewman who was sucked into the jet intake of a Grumman A-6 Intruder on a carrier flightdeck. While the crewman miraculously survived, the video highlights hazards of working on the ramp (or flight deck in this case).

But nonetheless, despite the best efforts of the crew, accidents–even if they are preventable—inevitably happen in any complex environment. Recently, I spoke to an old friend who is a veteran naval aviator who describes one such accident. “We lost a [Grumman F-14] Tomcat in 2002 after the first OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] cruise when the tail-hook snapped off during recovery,” he told me.

Another senior naval aviator mentioned that the Navy has learnt to have an “abundance of caution” over the service’s more than 75 years of carrier aviation experience as he explained why service rarely sees the type of problems that the Russians have been recently experiencing onboard Kuznetsov. “We have 75 plus years of experience with carrier aviation. There are a multitude of safeguards and interlocks to minimize error and ensure a successful arrested landing,” the naval aviator said. “Definitely an abundance of caution.”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-shocking-secret-why-americas-aircraft-carriers-dominate-18678

KiloGolf wrote:

The Shocking Secret Why America's Aircraft Carriers Dominate the World's Oceans

Dave Majumdar
December 8, 2016



Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but over the course of more than 75 years, through robust procedures, rigorous training and continuous practice, the U.S. Navy has honed its carrier flight deck operations into a well-oiled machine. Accidents do happen, but the Navy is continually working on improving flight deck safety. Every time there is a mishap, the accident is investigated so that procedures can be refined to prevent a recurrence.

But those lessons have often come at price in lives lost, injuries and monetary costs. Hundreds of men have been killed or injured during accidents at sea onboard a carrier. As one now-retired naval aviator told me—with only slight hyperbole: “Every line in the NATOPS manual is written in blood.”

Indeed, the Navy learned many painful lessons during the Vietnam War in the 1960s during a series of fires onboard three aircraft carriers. On Oct. 26, 1966, a magnesium flare that had inadvertently gone off started a major fire onboard USS Oriskany (CVA-34) that resulted in the deaths of 44 sailors and caused 156 others to be injured. Three aircraft were destroyed and three more were damaged in the incident.

During a second incident, on July 29, 1967, a massive fire devastated USS Forrestal (CV-59) during combat launch and recovery operations in the Gulf of Tonkin killing 134 sailors and injuring 161 others. Additionally, 21 aircraft were lost in the blaze—which was traced back to a Zuni unguided rocket was accidentally fired and set off a chain reaction. The fire crippled the carrier, which spent months being repaired.

During the third incident on Jan.14, 1969 —which was also setoff by a Zuni rocket—USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was ravaged by a fire that claimed the lives of 28 sailors, injured 314 others and destroyed 15 aircraft. During the chain reaction that followed, Enterprise suffered from 18 munition explosions and eight holes were blown through the flight deck and deep into the ship. It took more than three hours to extinguish the blaze.

In the aftermath of the fires, the Navy instituted major changes to its damage control and weapons handling procedures. The Navy also modified its carriers with a so-called “wash down” system to help prevent such incidents from happening again. While the Navy took corrective action—the lessons learned came at a price—hundred of death and injures, the loss of dozens of aircraft and severe damage to three carriers.

But while the three Vietnam-era fires were some of the worst post-WWII disasters onboard a carrier that resulted in massive changes in procedures, practices and hardware, there have been more subtle changes too. The Navy is continually working on improving safety on the flight deck. Indeed some of those practices involve things as simple as avoiding the area around the air intake of an operating jet engine. Indeed, during my very first days of ground school many years ago I was shown whar was a Navy safety video of a crewman who was sucked into the jet intake of a Grumman A-6 Intruder on a carrier flightdeck. While the crewman miraculously survived, the video highlights hazards of working on the ramp (or flight deck in this case).

But nonetheless, despite the best efforts of the crew, accidents–even if they are preventable—inevitably happen in any complex environment. Recently, I spoke to an old friend who is a veteran naval aviator who describes one such accident. “We lost a [Grumman F-14] Tomcat in 2002 after the first OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] cruise when the tail-hook snapped off during recovery,” he told me.

Another senior naval aviator mentioned that the Navy has learnt to have an “abundance of caution” over the service’s more than 75 years of carrier aviation experience as he explained why service rarely sees the type of problems that the Russians have been recently experiencing onboard Kuznetsov. “We have 75 plus years of experience with carrier aviation. There are a multitude of safeguards and interlocks to minimize error and ensure a successful arrested landing,” the naval aviator said. “Definitely an abundance of caution.”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-shocking-secret-why-americas-aircraft-carriers-dominate-18678

Veteran friend my ass that video of hook snapping was on Youtube for years . After that incident they did inspections on all F-14s tail hooks, and some were reinforced. Due to extensive use though years tiny cracks appeared which could on long run lead to hook being torn out.

Militarov wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

The Shocking Secret Why America's Aircraft Carriers Dominate the World's Oceans

Dave Majumdar
December 8, 2016



Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but over the course of more than 75 years, through robust procedures, rigorous training and continuous practice, the U.S. Navy has honed its carrier flight deck operations into a well-oiled machine. Accidents do happen, but the Navy is continually working on improving flight deck safety. Every time there is a mishap, the accident is investigated so that procedures can be refined to prevent a recurrence.

But those lessons have often come at price in lives lost, injuries and monetary costs. Hundreds of men have been killed or injured during accidents at sea onboard a carrier. As one now-retired naval aviator told me—with only slight hyperbole: “Every line in the NATOPS manual is written in blood.”

Indeed, the Navy learned many painful lessons during the Vietnam War in the 1960s during a series of fires onboard three aircraft carriers. On Oct. 26, 1966, a magnesium flare that had inadvertently gone off started a major fire onboard USS Oriskany (CVA-34) that resulted in the deaths of 44 sailors and caused 156 others to be injured. Three aircraft were destroyed and three more were damaged in the incident.

During a second incident, on July 29, 1967, a massive fire devastated USS Forrestal (CV-59) during combat launch and recovery operations in the Gulf of Tonkin killing 134 sailors and injuring 161 others. Additionally, 21 aircraft were lost in the blaze—which was traced back to a Zuni unguided rocket was accidentally fired and set off a chain reaction. The fire crippled the carrier, which spent months being repaired.

During the third incident on Jan.14, 1969 —which was also setoff by a Zuni rocket—USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was ravaged by a fire that claimed the lives of 28 sailors, injured 314 others and destroyed 15 aircraft. During the chain reaction that followed, Enterprise suffered from 18 munition explosions and eight holes were blown through the flight deck and deep into the ship. It took more than three hours to extinguish the blaze.

In the aftermath of the fires, the Navy instituted major changes to its damage control and weapons handling procedures. The Navy also modified its carriers with a so-called “wash down” system to help prevent such incidents from happening again. While the Navy took corrective action—the lessons learned came at a price—hundred of death and injures, the loss of dozens of aircraft and severe damage to three carriers.

But while the three Vietnam-era fires were some of the worst post-WWII disasters onboard a carrier that resulted in massive changes in procedures, practices and hardware, there have been more subtle changes too. The Navy is continually working on improving safety on the flight deck. Indeed some of those practices involve things as simple as avoiding the area around the air intake of an operating jet engine. Indeed, during my very first days of ground school many years ago I was shown whar was a Navy safety video of a crewman who was sucked into the jet intake of a Grumman A-6 Intruder on a carrier flightdeck. While the crewman miraculously survived, the video highlights hazards of working on the ramp (or flight deck in this case).

But nonetheless, despite the best efforts of the crew, accidents–even if they are preventable—inevitably happen in any complex environment. Recently, I spoke to an old friend who is a veteran naval aviator who describes one such accident. “We lost a [Grumman F-14] Tomcat in 2002 after the first OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] cruise when the tail-hook snapped off during recovery,” he told me.

Another senior naval aviator mentioned that the Navy has learnt to have an “abundance of caution” over the service’s more than 75 years of carrier aviation experience as he explained why service rarely sees the type of problems that the Russians have been recently experiencing onboard Kuznetsov. “We have 75 plus years of experience with carrier aviation. There are a multitude of safeguards and interlocks to minimize error and ensure a successful arrested landing,” the naval aviator said. “Definitely an abundance of caution.”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-shocking-secret-why-americas-aircraft-carriers-dominate-18678

Veteran friend my ass that video of hook snapping was on Youtube for years . After that incident they did inspections on all F-14s tail hooks, and some were reinforced. Due to extensive use though years tiny cracks appeared which could on long run lead to hook being torn out.

Sort of the reason I take issue with the re-posting of these articles. "Good points?" Or lying, it's hard to tell, better just to avoid. Op-eds on mil equipment are generally just trash, (calm down Kilo, I meant that across the board).

OminousSpudd wrote:Sort of the reason I take issue with the re-posting of these articles. "Good points?" Or lying, it's hard to tell, better just to avoid. Op-eds on mil equipment are generally just trash, (calm down Kilo, I  meant that across the board).

We have a discussion which is the whole point. We are no authors and all sources suffer as such.

PS. you should address the ''calm down'' to those that react negatively to this information

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Sort of the reason I take issue with the re-posting of these articles. "Good points?" Or lying, it's hard to tell, better just to avoid. Op-eds on mil equipment are generally just trash, (calm down Kilo, I  meant that across the board).

We have a discussion which is the whole point. We are no authors and all sources suffer as such.

PS. you should address the ''calm down'' to those that react negatively to this information

A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive?

OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive?

On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive?

On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.

Well, limited time means I don't enjoy trawling through inane discussions about articles that are bunk. But if that's your thing, don't let me stop you.

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive?

On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.

Well, limited time means I don't enjoy trawling through inane discussions about articles that are bunk. But if that's your thing, don't let me stop you.

Same, so it's time for you and others to end the useless comments.

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:A discussion on bad journalism? Factual inaccuracy? Is it really constructive?

On the topic. The whole article wasn't just that one bit. They are good points there.
If you don't want to read it, then it's your problem.

Well, limited time means I don't enjoy trawling through inane discussions about articles that are bunk. But if that's your thing, don't let me stop you.

Same, so it's time for you and others to end the useless comments.

In academia, if there is a clear fallacy in an article, the entire thing is thrown into doubt.

GarryB wrote:Even if the plane lands safely there can still be problems...

Americans often for that reason drop unused "heavy" warload. Adriatic sea swalloved dozens of GBUs in 1999.

US Navy decommissions first nuclear aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65)

The US Navy has decommissioned its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) at the vessel’s hangar bay.

The vessel is the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and has served the navy for almost 55 years.

USS Enterprise commanding officer captain Todd Beltz said: “For all that Enterprise represents to this nation, it's the people that bring this ship to life.

“So as I stand in this ship that we all care so much about, I feel it’s appropriate to underscore the contributions of the thousands of sailors and individuals that kept this ship alive and made its reputation. We are ‘The Big E’.”

USS Enterprise is the US Navy’s eighth naval ship to carry the name and began operations in 1961, cruising more than one million nautical miles on nuclear power throughout its entire lifetime.
"USS Enterprise is the US Navy’s eighth naval ship to carry the name, and cruised more than one million nautical miles on nuclear power throughout its lifetime."

Beltz added: “As this ship retires, we know the memory will live beyond her and we the sailors, the shipbuilders, the supporters of Enterprise are that link to the next Enterprise.”

The US Navy looks forward toward the future of the namesake in the proposed development of the ninth USS Enterprise aircraft carrier CVN 80, according to a letter written by USS Enterprise’s third commanding officer admiral James Holloway III.

USS Enterprise was assigned to the scrapyard in August 2013, and engineers have since de-fuelled the vessel, in addition to removing its reactors. This first step taken to decommission the vessel ultimately marked the last significant engineering feat carried out on the ship in its lifespan.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-navy-decommissions-worlds-first-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier-enterprise-cvn-65-5732123

The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford went to sea



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2539937.html