Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Share

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 26, 2016 2:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:they will not become Nimitz type strike carriers... Russia simply has no use for such vessels.

    Nimitz are not strike carriers. They are just aircraft carriers with a wide range of capabilities on behalf of their air groups. Aerial dominance, nuclear strike, ASW, EW, AEW&C, etc. You're thinking of commando carriers like good old HMS Hermes or Wasp and Tarawa class of amphib assault carriers.

    GarryB wrote:Let you in on a secret... they are both colonial powers with very specific needs.

    Russia was/is a colonial power as well, just not a major naval colonial power like the other two.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15880
    Points : 16585
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:40 am

    Nimitz are not strike carriers. They are just aircraft carriers with a wide range of capabilities on behalf of their air groups. Aerial dominance, nuclear strike, ASW, EW, AEW&C, etc. You're thinking of commando carriers like good old HMS Hermes or Wasp and Tarawa class of amphib assault carriers.

    They are strike carriers. Their purpose is to go somewhere with bombers to attack places and to have fighter aircraft to protect the strike packages and carrier.

    Hermes is a helicopter carrier trying to be an aircraft carrier on the cheap.

    Russia was/is a colonial power as well, just not a major naval colonial power like the other two.

    Was. Not is. And only a land colonial power of very limited reach.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Nimitz are not strike carriers. They are just aircraft carriers with a wide range of capabilities on behalf of their air groups. Aerial dominance, nuclear strike, ASW, EW, AEW&C, etc. You're thinking of commando carriers like good old HMS Hermes or Wasp and Tarawa class of amphib assault carriers.

    They are strike carriers. Their purpose is to go somewhere with bombers to attack places and to have fighter aircraft to protect the strike packages and carrier.

    Hermes is a helicopter carrier trying to be an aircraft carrier on the cheap.

    I said the old R12 Hermes. Nimitz are not strike carriers, they're not just about strike packages, at all.

    GarryB wrote:
    Russia was/is a colonial power as well, just not a major naval colonial power like the other two.

    Was. Not is. And only a land colonial power of very limited reach.

    So it's what I said. Russia is a colonial power. They have presence in colonially acquired regions to this very day.
    And I don't think that's wrong, just stating the facts.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15880
    Points : 16585
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:10 am

    I said the old R12 Hermes. Nimitz are not strike carriers, they're not just about strike packages, at all.

    Bombers make up half the aircraft on board and with new multirole aircraft all the aircraft on board will be bomber capable...

    So it's what I said. Russia is a colonial power. They have presence in colonially acquired regions to this very day.
    And I don't think that's wrong, just stating the facts.

    There is a difference between is and was. Russia does not have colonies.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:14 am

    GarryB wrote:Bombers make up half the aircraft on board and with new multirole aircraft all the aircraft on board will be bomber capable...

    Not dedicated bombers.

    There is a difference between is and was.

    That's you talking to yourself then.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:41 am

    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

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5269
    Points : 5314
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:47 am

    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 Smile. 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.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 847
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:53 am

    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 Smile. 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).

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:02 am

    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

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 847
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:07 am

    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? scratch

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:10 am

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

    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.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 847
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:38 am

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

    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.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:16 pm

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

    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.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 847
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:42 pm

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

    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15880
    Points : 16585
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:21 am

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



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5269
    Points : 5314
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:14 pm

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15880
    Points : 16585
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:39 am

    Yeah, but they drop it before they try to land.

    this is not so much a case of trying to meet max landing weights as... this is not properly secured on the aircraft... didn't matter on take off accelerating forward, or flying around, but suddenly stopping and there is a problem...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1605
    Points : 1633
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:49 am

    This American Warship Shot Down MiGs and Pranked the Soviets
    USS ‘Biddle’ fought the Cold War with ferocity

    by STEVE WEINTZ
    This article was originally published on April 13, 2015.



    During the Cold War, many lesser-known confrontations occurred at sea away from the headlines and major crises. This was certainly true for the crew of the U.S. Navy’s Belknap-class guided-missile cruiser USS Biddle.

    The warship sailed into the thick of the Vietnam War and came face-to-face with the Soviet Navy. During the 1970s, Biddle shot down North Vietnamese MiGs and even sneaked up on a Soviet refueling ship. Provocative, fierce and gutsy, the ship’s crew kept alive the fighting spirit of their ship’s namesake — a hard-charging captain from the American Revolutionary War.

    Biddle launched on July 2, 1965 at Bath Iron Works, Maine. She was the fourth ship to bear the name of Capt. Nicholas Biddle of the Continental Navy. The colonial-era captain and Philadalelphian went to sea at age 13 in 1763. By the time he joined the independence movement at age 25, Biddle had already served in the Royal Navy, survived a shipwreck and joined young Horatio Nelson on an Arctic expedition.

    Biddle later became dedicated to the Patriot cause. In 1775, the Continental Congress issued him a captain’s commission, and he proved himself up to it. The next year, his brig Andrea Doria seized two British transports off Newfoundland. In the winter of 1777, while in command of the 32-gun frigate Randolph, Biddle seized four ships full of war supplies off South Carolina.

    He put down a rebellion of deserting sailors by aiming a loaded pistol at the ringleader. In 1778, he ran the British blockade. And later that year, Randolph engaged HMS Yarmouth — a warship with twice her firepower — east of Charleston. The ships exchanged several broadsides before Randolph’s powder magazines exploded. Seriously wounded, Biddle went down with his ship.



    The night of the MiGs

    One hundred ninety-four years later, the cruiser USS Biddle — call-sign “Hard Charger” — kept station in the Gulf of Tonkin east of Vietnam. From a buoy 200 miles north of Yankee Station, the cruiser guided air strikes, watched for hostiles headed out to sea and conducted search-and-rescue operations.
    On the night of July 19, 1972, Biddle’s duty watch officers monitored an American combat air patrol escorting two damaged A-6 Intruders on their way back from a mission. Suddenly, five incoming MiGs popped up on the ship’s radar.

    The crew wasn’t immediately alarmed. North Vietnamese fighters had taken runs at American warships before, and they almost always turned back before heading out to sea. This time was different.

    With the MiGs just minutes away and inbound at 500 knots, Biddle’screw scrambled to their battle stations. Fire-control systems locked onto the approaching aircraft while the ship readied her Terrier missiles. Biddle increased speed to 25 knots and began evasive maneuvers. The warship fired her missiles, which lit up the deck with a blazing glow as they streaked toward their targets. The radar confirmed one MiG destroyed. Two others turned tail and ran.

    But the two remaining MiGs — aligned one behind the other — kept coming. The warship pounded away at the incoming jets with her three- and five-inch guns while the missile systems locked on and fired. One MiG crashed, and the other bolted for home. The ship was safe, but it wasn’t clear if her guns or missiles shot down the enemy plane. If the guns did it, then the Biddle scored the last manually-operated gun kill by a ship on an aircraft in the U.S. Navy’s history.



    Prank the Soviets

    But war is more than terror and shock — it’s also stupid, boring and funny. The Biddle’s crew found room in the strange goings-on of the Cold War to play a practical joke. During a Mediterranean cruise vaguely dated to the 1970s, Biddle received orders for a “special assignment” — to shadow a Soviet naval task force — in the Black Sea.

    The Biddle quietly steamed into the Black Sea where she stalked and found the Soviet ships strung out in a long line, according to an account from the USS Biddle Association. A support ship refueled the Soviet vessels from a long stern-mounted hose. Biddle’s skipper guessed that the Soviet crews were too preoccupied with navigation and refueling to notice one more vessel in their midst.

    He ordered his ship to steer into the refueling line. When his ship’s turn came, the American captain had a Russian-speaking crewman talk to the refueling ship. “How much do you need?” came the query. “Just a token amount,” replied the sailor. “What ship are you?” the Soviet crewman asked on final approach. The American sailor replied in perfect Russian, “United States battle cruiser Biddle.”

    “The radio went silent — then all Hell broke loose,” wrote Richard Outland, a hull technician on board Biddle. “Gongs, whistles, lights all seemed to go off at once on board the Russkie ships, as they scattered in every direction away from us.” The captains of the American cruiser and the Soviet oiler exchanged pleasantries — and the ships separated in the night — with the Americans feeling a rush.

    Biddle served until the end of the Cold War and took part in operations off Libya and in the Persian Gulf. But her time — and reason for being — ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    The Navy decommissioned Biddle in 1993 and scrapped her in 2001. But the ship’s crew kept something in common with Biddle the captain. He had “the primary qualification of a good naval officer — an indomitable will,” Willis John Abbot wrote in The Naval History of the United States.

    https://warisboring.com/this-american-warship-shot-down-migs-and-pranked-the-soviets-45a9eb5f5b95#.6q4dvyu03

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15880
    Points : 16585
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:54 am

    Yeah... the US Navy has been trying to be funny for years... like this:



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3623
    Points : 3672
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:26 am

    The US Navy is altering course to expand the capability set of the "Sea Hunter," a submarine-specialist vessel, to include broader lethal weapon attachments and a set of tools to initiate electronic attacks.

    "Right now, the sky’s the limit," Sea Hunter project manager Capt. Jon Rucker said at the Surface Naval Association in Arlington, Virginia on Tuesday. But the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) wants to give the submarine-hunting drone ship a "mission portfolio" makeover.

    The Sea Hunter checks in at 132-feet long, 135 tons, has a range of 10,000 miles and was designed to weather waves of up to 13 feet. What DARPA thinks make the Sea Hunter unique, however, are sophisticated sensors which can locate virtually silent enemy submarines. Retrieving the underwater GPS coordinates of stealthy diesel-electric submarines in busy waterways is akin to "trying to identify the sound of a single car engine in the din of a major city," Rear Adm. Frank Drennan, a senior anti-submarine warfare official said Tuesday.

    The Sea Hunter belongs to the Pentagon’s "anti-submarine warfare continuous trail unmanned vessel" (ACTUV), where the agency intended to design a partially-autonomous ship to navigate naval theaters globally. DARPA hopes to have the Sea Hunter traveling autonomously for 90 days.

    In April 2016 the Navy celebrated the Sea Hunter’s first test firing of a payload. By monitoring the position and movement of foreign-deployed submarines over long time frames, the goal, Rucker said, is to stop enemy submarines from lurking in strategically vital areas, perhaps the Strait of Hormuz or South China Sea.

    One existing Pentagon doctrine requires a human-centric command and control center to authorize lethal force, which could potentially complicate DARPA’s quest to achieve increased self-governing transport and autonomous deadly-fire capability.


    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201701121049501488-navy-submarine-hunter-surface-warfare/

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9801
    Points : 10293
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:48 pm

    US Navy Missile Submarine Gets Go-Ahead

    WASHINGTON -- The program to build a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines for the US Navy passed a major procedural hurdle Jan. 4, the US Navy announced Monday, allowing engineers and designers to move to the detail design portion of the effort.

    The Milestone B approval was granted by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall for the Columbia-class program, previously known as the Ohio Class Replacement (ORP) and as SSBN(X).

    The US plans to design and build 12 Columbia-class submarines for a total acquisition cost of $100 billion – as measured in 2017 dollars – or $128 billion, as measured in total year dollars through the program, which stretches into the mid-2030s.

    In a statement, Columbia program director Capt. David Goggins declared “the Navy is committed to delivering Columbia on time and within budget while taking advantage of every opportunity to achieve further cost savings.”

    The official tally for the acquisition cost has been baselined at $100 billion, pegged to the year of the Milestone B review.

    With that approval, the Columbia class moves to the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program. The first ship is scheduled to be ordered in 2021.

    “Milestone B enables the program to move into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase where we will focus our attention on achieving an 83 percent design maturity prior to construction start in 2021,” Goggins said in the statement, adding that the next phase will be a production readiness review.

    General Dynamics Electric Boat is the Columbia program’s prime contractor. The shipbuilder, with shipyards at Quonset Point, Rhode Island and Groton, Connecticut, is expected to grow its workforce from 14,000 to 18,000 employees to build the Columbias while continuing to build Virginia-class attack submarines.

    Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding, GD’s 50-50 partner in building the Virginia class, will built roughly a third of each Columbia.

    The Columbia’s name was officially announced Dec. 14 and will carry hull designation SSBN 826. Follow-on ships of the class will be designated SSBN 827 through 837.

    US ballistic missile submarines carry the Trident D5 weapon with nuclear warheads. The Lockheed Martin-built missile will also arm Britain’s new Successor-class submarines, now known as the Dreadnought-class after the name of the first ship.

    The Navy expects the Columbia to carry out its first deterrent patrol during fiscal 2031.

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-missile-submarine-gets-go-ahead


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9801
    Points : 10293
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:59 am

    US Navy Builds Third Stealth Zumwalt Destroyer Despite Embarrassing Breakdowns

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702041050333643-navy-build-third-zumwalt-destroyer/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9801
    Points : 10293
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  George1 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:21 am

    Grounded: Nearly two-thirds of US Navy’s strike fighters can’t fly

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet strike fighters are the tip of the spear, embodying most of the fierce striking power of the aircraft carrier strike group. But nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s strike fighters can’t fly — grounded because they’re either undergoing maintenance or simply waiting for parts or their turn in line on the aviation depot backlog.

    Overall, more than half the Navy’s aircraft are grounded, most because there isn’t enough money to fix them.

    Additionally, there isn’t enough money to fix the fleet’s ships, and the backlog of ships needing work continues to grow. Overhauls — “availabilities” in Navy parlance — are being canceled or deferred, and when ships do come in they need longer to refit. Every carrier overall for at least three years has run long, and some submarines are out of service for prolonged periods, as much as four years or more. One submarine, the Boise, has lost its diving certification and can’t operate pending shipyard work.

    Leaders claim that if more money doesn’t become available, five more submarines will be in the same state by the end of this year.

    The Navy can’t get money to move around service members and their families to change assignments, and about $440 million is needed to pay sailors. And the service claims 15 percent of its shore facilities are in failed condition — awaiting repair, replacement or demolition.

    The bleak picture presented by service leaders is in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s widely talked about plan to grow the Navy from today’s goal of 308 ships to 350 — now topped by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson’s new Force Structure Assessment that aims at a 355-ship fleet. Richardson’s staff is crafting further details on how the growth will be carried out — plans congressional leaders are eager to hear. It seems to many as though the Navy will be showered with money to attain such lofty goals.

    Yet, for now, money is tight, due to several years of declining budgets mandated first by the Obama administration, then Congress, and to the chronic inability of lawmakers to provide uninterrupted funds to the military services and the government at large. Budgets have been cut despite no slackening in the demand for the fleet’s services; and the Navy, to preserve shipbuilding funds, made a conscious choice to slash maintenance and training budgets rather than eliminate ships, which take many years to build and can’t be produced promptly even when funding becomes available.

    Congress has failed for the ninth straight year to produce a budget before the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2017, reverting to continuing resolutions that keep money flowing at prior year levels. CRs have numerous caveats, however, and many new projects or plans can’t be funded since they didn’t exist in the prior year. There is widespread agreement that CR funding creates havoc throughout the Pentagon and the industrial base that supports it — often substantially driving costs higher to recover from lengthy delays. Yet, like the proverbial weather that everyone talks about but no one can change, there seems to be little urgency in Congress to return to a more businesslike budget profile.

    The current continuing resolution through April 28 marks the longest stop-gap measure since fiscal 1977 — outstripping 2011 by only a couple weeks, noted Todd Harrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a post on Twitter. This also marks the first CR situation during a presidential transition year.

    And while the talk about building dozens of more ships grabs headlines, it is not at all clear when or even whether Congress will repeal the Budget Control Act — sequestration — which, if unabated, will continue its restrictions to 2021.

    Meanwhile, some details are emerging of the new administration’s efforts to move along the budget process. In a Jan. 31 memorandum, Defense Secretary James Mattis described a three-phase plan that included submission by the Pentagon of a 2017 budget amendment request. The request would be sent to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget by March 1.

    Under the plan, the full 2018 budget request is due to OMB no later than May 1.

    The third phase of the plan involves a new National Defense Strategy and FY2019-2023 defense program, which “will include a new force sizing construct” to “inform our targets for force structure growth,” Mattis said in the memo.

    The services will make their case to Congress this week when the vice chiefs of the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps testify in readiness hearings before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday and the Senate Armed Services Committee the following day.

    The vice chiefs are expected to make their pitches for money that can be spent right away, rather than funds for long-term projects that, with only five months left in the fiscal year even if Congress passes a 2017 budget, can’t be quickly put to use.

    “If we get any money at all, the first thing we’re going to do is throw it into the places we can execute it,” a senior Navy source said Feb. 2. “All of those places are in ship maintenance, aviation depot throughput — parts and spares — and permanent changes of station so we can move our families around and fill the holes that are being generated by the lack of PCS money.”

    The backlog is high. “There’s about $6-8 billion of stuff we can execute in April if we got the money,” the senior Navy source said. “We can put it on contract, we can deliver on it right away.”

    Even if the budget top line is increased, Navy leaders say, the immediate need is for maintenance money, not new ship construction. A supplemental Navy list of unfunded requirements for 2017 that was sent to Congress in early January and is still being revised made it clear that maintenance needs are paramount.

    “Our priorities are unambiguously focused on readiness — those things required to get planes in the air, ships and subs at sea, sailors trained and ready,” a Navy official declared. “No new starts.”

    The dire situation of naval aviation is sobering. According to the Navy, 53 percent of all Navy aircraft can’t fly — about 1,700 combat aircraft, patrol, and transport planes and helicopters. Not all are due to budget problems — at any given time, about one-fourth to one-third of aircraft are out of service for regular maintenance. But the 53 percent figure represents about twice the historic norm.

    The strike fighter situation is even more acute and more remarkable since the aircraft are vitally important to projecting the fleet’s combat power. Sixty-two percent of F/A-18s are out of service; 27 percent in major depot work; and 35 percent simply awaiting maintenance or parts, the Navy said.

    With training and flying hour funds cut, the Navy’s aircrews are struggling to maintain even minimum flying requirements, the senior Navy source said. Retention is becoming a problem, too. In 2013, 17 percent of flying officers declined department head tours after being selected. The percentage grew to 29 percent in 2016.

    Funding shortfalls mean many service members are unable to relocate to take on new assignments. So far in 2017, the Navy said, there have been 15,250 fewer moves compared with 2016.

    Under the continuing resolution, the senior Navy official said, another 14 ship availabilities will be deferred in 2018 — one submarine, one cruiser, six destroyers, two landing ship docks, one amphibious transport dock and three minesweepers. Programs seeking to buy items that were not included in the 2016 budget can’t move forward, including CH-53K helicopters, Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles, Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles and littoral combat ship module weapons. Many more programs that were to increase 2017 buys over 2016 levels can’t do so.

    And with only five months left in fiscal 2017, even if a budget is passed in late April, there is some talk about a yearlong continuing resolution — a prospect at which the senior Navy official shook his head.

    “The full CR is not a good situation at all,” he said.

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2994
    Points : 3028
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  max steel on Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:58 pm

    The Deadly Danger of Trump’s Naval Buildup


    The Navy could soon see a shipbuilding boom. But workers are dying and the contracts keep coming.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US Navy and Naval Aircraft: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:41 am