Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Yes Jeff that's the LSO station. Here is another view. Looks cozy and out of the weather



Uploaded with

Here is another unusual bit of kit seen on the Russian carriers: A pop-up holdback system for aircraft to use as they build up thrust for launch. I wonder will the Chinese carrier use this system?



Uploaded with

bd popeye said:

Please post! Thanks!

And I doubt if it works better..the Russians can barely complete 40 sorties over a two week at sea period. By comparison the USN completes 140-160 sorties daily..'nuff said.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Russians try and control most flight operations from their Pri-Fly station in the island. This is why you see little if any interaction between the deck crew and the pilots as flight operations happen on the deck.

Primary Flight Control, or Pri-Fly is where the air officer and air officer assistant (known as the "Air Boss" and the "Mini Boss") direct all aircraft activity on the flight deck and within a 5-mile (8-km) radius. On the Russian carriers it functions like the control tower at an airport

Primary Flight Control, or Pri-Fly is where the air officer and air officer assistant (known as the "Air Boss" and the "Mini Boss") direct all aircraft activity on the flight deck and within a 5-mile (8-km) radius.

Click to expand...

No foolin? I spent 20 years serving with the USN and in that time I served on 5 carriers. Kennedy, Midway, Hancock, America & Nimitz..

I once hadda to go to Pri-fly to see the air boss.. It went like this..

Going to see the Air Boss could be like seeing Col Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. Except when the below happened that movie was 5 years away from being released.

I got called up to see the Air Boss..once. But I was not in the wrong. The man just wanted to ask me a question..in person.

Here's what happened.

On the Hanna in Jan '75 we were recovering aircraft in the daytime. I had to stand next to the air gunner and keep track of any ordnance that was expended, hung or returned to the deck. This F-8 Crusader came in and made a hard landing. So hard in fact it's nose gear collapsed. The force of the crash caused the F-8 to skid and come to an abrupt halt and caused the starboard(right) missile rack to come loose and fly through the air then smash into the port catwalk. There was a dummy Sidewinder attached to the missile rack. The Air Gunner told me told me to get the serial number off the G & C(Guidance & Control) section and toss the mess overboard. I did so. After this the crane was used to move the crashed F-8. There was no fire or injuries. The Air Gunner then told me the Air Boss wanted to talk to me. Gulp I sez..All the way up there I'm thinkin' what did I do?? All he wanted was to know who told me to do what I did and was any FOD left in the cat walk? He coulda asked the Air Gunner that or a Yellow shirt..I think he was checking up on the Air Gunner.

Click to expand...

So what do you think of the Russian system for building up thrust and launching aircraft?

BD Popeye

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-104-3125.html#post169250
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-104-3125.html#post169254

Any idea ?

NikeX said:

So what do you think of the Russian system for building up thrust and launching aircraft?

Click to expand...

For what the Russian do I guess it's ok for them. The method of using a ski ramp and their hold back system limits the payload an aircraft can take off with. The best way IMO to launch aircraft from a CV is the use of a catapult. Period.

are all "bubbles" fixed on all US CVs ?

Click to expand...

Not sure.. I've not been to sea in a long time. More than likely they are.

NikeX said:

LSO station on Admiral Kuznetsov

Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what I pointed to in my three pics above.

You know, NikeX, you can post both pictures in the same post and not have to make two?

Even if you find it later you can go back and edit the post and put it in there.

Was not sure if you were aware of this or not.

navyreco said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

There has been talk, over and over abpout this over the years.

The results have been the same...the carriers have continued on.

If the budgeting talks go through as this individual represents, then it will be for one reason only, and that is because the Obama administration wants this to happen. Perhaps its just another part of his "fundamental change". Such a course would impact far more than the carriers themselves.

My guess is however, that as knowledge of this spreads there will be a voter backlash. We already know if the GOP gets in that such trends that are cutting deep into the defense budget will be halted and though cuts there will continue...they will not be crippling like this one. The cuts will also reach into the much more expensive social and entitlement programs and into foreign aid.

I believe there will be more Ford carriers built. They are over half way complete with the Ford now. The John F. Kennedy construction has already started.

CVN-80 will be built.

I believe we will see these carriers being built for the next 50 years and that they will replace the Nimitz class completely ultimately...but time will tell. If the more exotic defenses planned for this class materialize in the form of Laser, directed energy, rail gun type defenses...then they will be able to defend themselves against emerging threats as well.

Anyhow, it is likely that this will not be the last time we here these same arguements...but this arguement is much more budget directed as a means to ending the carriers as opposed to technology or threat assessment.