Aircraft Carriers III

FORBIN said:

View attachment 33718 View attachment 33719 View attachment 33720

Click to expand...

mankyle said:

Sorry Jeff, but as an Spaniard I must correct you. I assume that there was a Typo and that wanted to write Matadores. Matador was the nickname give to the spanish AV-8S (S letter comes from Spain) that Spain bought at the beginning of the 80s.
Italy bought AV-8Bs Harrier II + not AV-8As.

Anyway I agree that that's a beautiful ship and picture, and I would love to see both the Cavour and the Juan Carlos I LHD with F-35 Bravos on their flightdecks. In Italy's case I take that more or less for granted. Not for Spain. The government we have, they are an absolut bunch of incompetents and they don't give a damm to National sovereign and defence.
And we will pay the price for their incempetence in the future

Hope you're well Jeff. Keep on fighting!!!

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

Popeye's Russian Rant.

I liked the video of the ADM"K" operating it's air wing. Kinda slow motion...Virtually no crew men on the deck...WTH??!! No LSO, no firefighters, nobody watching that arresting gear, No aircraft directors or handlers. No grapes(re-fuelers)..no ordies(ordancemen)...no aircraft maintenance men i.e.trouble shooters to quickly fix pesky problems...nuthin'. It's like a floating AIR FORCE BASE. I wonder what their sortie rate is? Maybe 7-10 a day.....Definitely NOT Hi-Tempo ops like ..well..you know who.

A aircrfat carrier the size of a Forrestal class with only 15 attack aircraft? Heck when I served aboard Midway in '74-'75 VA-115 had 15 A-6E in their squadron..

Hey, can the Russians operate that carrier at night?

Rant over.

That stated, this is an aircraft carrier.. USS Midway(CVA 41) in 1985 or so... this was the USN 31 years ago.....Does anyone else ..except the French come close? Nope.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

THank you. You are exactly correct.

I did intend Matadores and have gone back and corrected them.

No need to feel bad abut getting things right a long as we all do it with respect, which you most certainly did and I thank you for it.

Click to expand...

bd popeye said:

News Flash.. Tomcats did operate aboard both Midway and Coral Sea. No they did not make a deployment but they were aboard for short periods of time.

Tomcats aboard Coral Sea

Here's photos of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Jura said:

remember my rant
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-85#post-395328
?
Navy May Back Away From Advanced Arresting Gear for Ford Carriers

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The troubled General Atomics Advanced Arresting Gear program is doing well in its delayed testing program on land and on carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the head of Naval Sea Systems Command told reporters on Wednesday.

Last month, Naval Air Systems Command successfully landed an F/A-18E Super Hornet at its land-based test facility in Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, in Lakehurst, N.J. 12 times in a day with no problems in a little-publicized test and shipboard testing of the AAG system on Ford is doing well, said Vice Adm. Tom Moore.

“We have got a shipboard unit installed at the runway assisted landing site, not just at the jet car test site, and we’re actually putting real aircraft on it — which is the point we needed to get to,” he said.
“What I’m seeing today on AAG and what I’ve seen consistently is we will have an aircraft recovery bulletin for Super Hornet by February. I just came from a detailed brief on that we’re on track to do that.”

AAG, one of several new technological firsts on Ford, has suffered several design and reliability problems over the last several years drawing scrutiny of the Senate Armed Services Committee and several sources in the Navy told USNI News in May the service may consider using a modified version of the older Mk7 MOD 3 hydraulic arresting system in follow-on Ford carriers like John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and Enterprise (CVN-80).

In 2015, the service announced a key component of the AAG, the water twister — a complex paddlewheel designed to absorb 70 percent of the force of a landing — has been under engineered and the process of finding the fix cost the Navy two years in testing delays. However, Moore said that the recent positive signs at Lakehurst and on Ford point that system will be ready when the ship delivers to the service — likely sometime next year.

“When that ship delivers we’ll be ready to land aircraft on AAG. I think 78 is doing much better and I think we’ll have a fully functional system,” Moore said.
“I don’t want to presuppose any decision but I believe if the system functions the way it does on 78 — and given where we are on CVN 79 and the construction of the ship — that it’s a very strong and viable path forward for us.”

While the system is showing more success in the recent testing than it has in years, there is ongoing scrutiny of the AAG program from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress that could still have an effect on the progress of the program regardless of testing success.

A look into the AAG is one of five components of a review of the Ford carrier program by the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) Frank Kendall.

“What we have to determine now is whether it is best to ‘stay the course’ or adjust our plans, particularly for future ships of the class,”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
“The first step in that process has to be a completely objective and technically deep review of the current situation.”

In addition, the AAG system could also be the subject of a Nunn-McCurdy breach if the version of the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 budget — currently in conference — passes due to changes according to language in the new legislation.

ANunn-McCurdy breach — a federal law that requires the Defense Department recertify a program after costs have increased 25 percent per unit above the original estimate — would force the Defense Department and the Navy to take a hard look at the program and evaluate its need in the service.

In

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the SASC laid out a pattern of cost increases from about a $476 million in costs for research development and acquisition in 2009 for four systems to a 2016 cost estimate of $1.4 billion – about a 130 percent increase when adjusted for inflation.

Click to expand...

11
Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced
Arresting Gear program (sec. 125)
The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the
obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be appropriated
by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for
research and development, design, procurement, or advanced
procurement of materials for the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) to
be installed on USS Enterprise (CVN–80) until the Secretary of
Defense submits to the congressional defense committees the report
required under section 2433a(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code,
commonly referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy certification, for the
AAG program.
...
For the purposes of this provision, the committee considers the
2009 APB to constitute the original baseline estimate and the
November 2013 GAO reporting to constitute the current baseline
estimate. As a result, through February 2016, the committee finds the
program acquisition unit cost has risen $230.0 million, or 186
percent compared to the original baseline estimate, and $107.0
million, or 43 percent, compared to the current baseline estimate.
Based on both percentage increases, the committee finds the AAG
program has exceeded the PAUC critical cost growth thresholds as
prescribed in section 2433 of title 10, United States Code,
warranting a Nunn-McCurdy review.
...

Click to expand...