Discussion:
Converging U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups in Middle East
(too old to reply)
j***@yahoo.com
2005-03-12 21:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Converging U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups in Middle East

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=31129
Michael Adams
2005-03-13 04:00:36 UTC
Permalink
To invade Iran or ..

Mike
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Converging U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups in Middle East
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=31129
Howard Berkowitz
2005-03-13 04:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Adams
To invade Iran or ..
I can say, with complete confidence, that a carrier battle group never
invaded anything, and never will.
la n.
2005-03-13 04:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Berkowitz
Post by Michael Adams
To invade Iran or ..
I can say, with complete confidence, that a carrier battle group never
invaded anything, and never will.
Even I the silly villain could have said that ... :). And one notes that
this Michael Adams has a mil. email addy. That boy better be sent
back to school!

- n'a
Billzz
2005-03-13 22:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by la n.
Post by Howard Berkowitz
Post by Michael Adams
To invade Iran or ..
I can say, with complete confidence, that a carrier battle group never
invaded anything, and never will.
Even I the silly villain could have said that ... :). And one notes that
this Michael Adams has a mil. email addy. That boy better be sent
back to school!
- n'a
I attended a seminar on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country. He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea. In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make. Everyone in
the room realized that the US was the only country with forces in the area.
And so, he said, negotiations went much faster, and with much better
results.
Howard Berkowitz
2005-03-13 22:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
Post by la n.
Post by Howard Berkowitz
Post by Michael Adams
To invade Iran or ..
I can say, with complete confidence, that a carrier battle group never
invaded anything, and never will.
Even I the silly villain could have said that ... :). And one notes that
this Michael Adams has a mil. email addy. That boy better be sent
back to school!
- n'a
I attended a seminar on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country. He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea. In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make. Everyone in
the room realized that the US was the only country with forces in the area.
And so, he said, negotiations went much faster, and with much better
results.
F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
Zamboni
2005-03-14 18:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Berkowitz
F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the "coming
to a stop" part that needs work.
--
Zamboni
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
2005-03-14 20:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zamboni
Post by Howard Berkowitz
F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the "coming
to a stop" part that needs work.
--
Zamboni
There was no problem coming to a stop. The problem was digging out the
dry roasted pilots before shoving the debris over the side. This tended
to slow down recovery times.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Glenn Dowdy
2005-03-14 21:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zamboni
Post by Howard Berkowitz
F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the "coming
to a stop" part that needs work.
Maybe they were just shooting touch and gos.

Glenn D.
Fred J. McCall
2005-03-15 04:56:21 UTC
Permalink
"Zamboni" <***@nospam.com> wrote:

:
:"Howard Berkowitz" <***@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
:news:hcb-***@newsgroups.comcast.net...
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the "coming
:to a stop" part that needs work.

You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Chad Irby
2005-03-15 06:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
It's not really that hard.

All you have to do is spool the carrier up to 100 knots or so.
Daryl Hunt
2005-03-15 09:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Fred J. McCall
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
It's not really that hard.
All you have to do is spool the carrier up to 100 knots or so.
I've seen a carrier at 100 kts or more. Just how does the F-16 land with
that rooster tail in the way? Kind of like landing a parachute on a speed
boat. (grin)

Just use the arresting net. The AF pilots know that routine well.
Chad Irby
2005-03-18 19:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Fred J. McCall
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
It's not really that hard.
All you have to do is spool the carrier up to 100 knots or so.
I've seen a carrier at 100 kts or more. Just how does the F-16 land with
that rooster tail in the way? Kind of like landing a parachute on a speed
boat. (grin)
The water jet helps slow the plane, of course. Duh.
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just use the arresting net. The AF pilots know that routine well.
No, they don't. Not in the way you think they do.

In the extraordinarily rare case of of AF pilots hitting a net, it's
after a long coast down a runway, with a chute deployment and with
everything extended, knocking quite a bit of speed off of the plane.

In the years I worked on planes, I never saw a plane use a net for a
landing, even in the worst cases. They just used the cable (a much
longer runout than for carriers), or, barring that, ran off the end of
the runway into the cable/chain drag area (cables strung between large
pieces of anchor chain).
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
2005-03-18 21:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
In the years I worked on planes, I never saw a plane use a net for a
landing, even in the worst cases. They just used the cable (a much
longer runout than for carriers), or, barring that, ran off the end of
the runway into the cable/chain drag area (cables strung between large
pieces of anchor chain).
The only time I ever saw an Air Force aircraft take a barrier was in
1975 at Langley AFB. A T-39 clipped a sign in the maze cutting the brake
line on the left gear. It was a bright, sunny day and the T-39 was about
6 feet off the ground 100 yards short of the runway. He took the barrier
at the opposite end.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
a***@netdoor.com
2005-03-19 15:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Fred J. McCall
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
It's not really that hard.
All you have to do is spool the carrier up to 100 knots or so.
I've seen a carrier at 100 kts or more. Just how does the F-16 land with
that rooster tail in the way? Kind of like landing a parachute on a speed
boat. (grin)
The water jet helps slow the plane, of course. Duh.
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just use the arresting net. The AF pilots know that routine well.
No, they don't. Not in the way you think they do.
In the extraordinarily rare case of of AF pilots hitting a net, it's
after a long coast down a runway, with a chute deployment and with
everything extended, knocking quite a bit of speed off of the plane.
In the years I worked on planes, I never saw a plane use a net for a
landing, even in the worst cases. They just used the cable (a much
longer runout than for carriers), or, barring that, ran off the end of
the runway into the cable/chain drag area (cables strung between large
pieces of anchor chain).
Or, if you were flying a "Scooter" (A-4) you simply landed on the
emergency landing gear (otherwise known as aux fuel tanks) :-))

Al Minyard
Abrigon Gusiq
2005-03-21 08:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Likely a opps.. F-14s and FA-18s..

Mike

Daryl Hunt
2005-03-15 09:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the "coming
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.

Now, would I want to be the pilot in the F-16 on that type of landing?
Hell, I don't want to be an F-anything pilot but that would have to be some
hotshot or a pilot with a real bad need.
Jack
2005-03-15 12:11:22 UTC
Permalink
...it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Better make that "some aircraft", or better yet, "a few aircraft". That and
your lack of interest in flying fighters makes whatever you post highly
suspect (not to mention your cross-posting).

Do you even have your joystick plugged in -- or do you just read the manuals?


Jack
Noah Little
2005-03-15 12:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
There are quite a few multi-thousand hour pilots reading this newsgroup
who don't remember that at all.
--
Noah
Mike P
2005-03-15 14:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah Little
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
There are quite a few multi-thousand hour pilots reading this newsgroup
who don't remember that at all.
Just killfile him. If you said you were in VietNam he will say he was
there watching Marines leave their buddys behind to take their weapons.
If your talking about Jump Training he was there at Fort Bragg going
through training where there wasn't any. He was even dropping the 101st
into combat that wasn't even there. He's been everything, and done
everything everyone in the Military has ever done.

Mike
John Teague
2005-03-16 00:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike P
Post by Noah Little
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
There are quite a few multi-thousand hour pilots reading this newsgroup
who don't remember that at all.
Just killfile him. If you said you were in VietNam he will say he was
there watching Marines leave their buddys behind to take their
weapons.
Post by Mike P
If your talking about Jump Training he was there at Fort Bragg going
through training where there wasn't any. He was even dropping the 101st
into combat that wasn't even there. He's been everything, and done
everything everyone in the Military has ever done.
Not so fast Mike. You are fully-aware that *all* Falcon drivers touch
down lighter than a feather and deploy their own feet (Flintstone
Technique) to brake without need of any other arrest device of any
kind. Just ask any of them if you doubt me on this. ;]
Mike P
2005-03-16 01:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Mike P
Post by Noah Little
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
There are quite a few multi-thousand hour pilots reading this
newsgroup
Post by Mike P
Post by Noah Little
who don't remember that at all.
Just killfile him. If you said you were in VietNam he will say he was
there watching Marines leave their buddys behind to take their
weapons.
Post by Mike P
If your talking about Jump Training he was there at Fort Bragg going
through training where there wasn't any. He was even dropping the
101st
Post by Mike P
into combat that wasn't even there. He's been everything, and done
everything everyone in the Military has ever done.
Not so fast Mike. You are fully-aware that *all* Falcon drivers touch
down lighter than a feather and deploy their own feet (Flintstone
Technique) to brake without need of any other arrest device of any
kind. Just ask any of them if you doubt me on this. ;]
LOL
Perhaps someone should ask daryl about that. After all he knows
everything there is about the Navy Pilots.

Mike
John Teague
2005-03-16 23:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike P
Post by John Teague
Not so fast Mike. You are fully-aware that *all* Falcon drivers touch
down lighter than a feather and deploy their own feet (Flintstone
Technique) to brake without need of any other arrest device of any
kind. Just ask any of them if you doubt me on this. ;]
LOL
Perhaps someone should ask daryl about that. After all he knows
everything there is about the Navy Pilots.
Mike
No doubt some of the best hanger-flying I've run across yet ;\

John Teague
Tank Fixer
2005-03-17 03:36:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <d16k9r$b8k$***@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
on Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:30:02 GMT,
Post by Noah Little
Post by Daryl Hunt
Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
There are quite a few multi-thousand hour pilots reading this newsgroup
who don't remember that at all.
I find daryl's idea a bit hilarious...
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
MICHAEL OLEARY
2005-03-16 00:39:36 UTC
Permalink
As a recovery LSO, I would have to say that your post about using the
barricade and that it can be deployed quickly is absolutely ludicrous. Plus
the long part is not that straight of a shot. One would have to almost
clear the flight deck in order to allow such an evolution. So, a carrier CO
would put all of the airwing aircraft in the hangar bay and constantly rig
the barricade in order to catch an F-16 and then derig it in order to launch
it. Geez, I've seen some slow decks before, but that would be ridiculous.
OBTW,
Don't talk about carrier aviation with some authority unless you actually
have done it.
-Moe
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Now, would I want to be the pilot in the F-16 on that type of landing?
Hell, I don't want to be an F-anything pilot but that would have to be some
hotshot or a pilot with a real bad need.
Noah Little
2005-03-16 03:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by MICHAEL OLEARY
As a recovery LSO,
A recovering LSO? I had some buds like that, after their LSO stints...
--
Old Man Noah
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
2005-03-16 03:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by MICHAEL OLEARY
As a recovery LSO, I would have to say that your post about using the
barricade and that it can be deployed quickly is absolutely ludicrous. Plus
the long part is not that straight of a shot. One would have to almost
clear the flight deck in order to allow such an evolution. So, a carrier CO
would put all of the airwing aircraft in the hangar bay and constantly rig
the barricade in order to catch an F-16 and then derig it in order to launch
it. Geez, I've seen some slow decks before, but that would be ridiculous.
OBTW,
Don't talk about carrier aviation with some authority unless you actually
have done it.
-Moe
I guess landing a B-52 would be out of the question?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Chad Irby
2005-03-16 05:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
I guess landing a B-52 would be out of the question?
Get two or three supercarriers, run them along at about 60 knots
nose-to-tail, it's doable.

Okay, maybe four carriers.
Paul J. Adam
2005-03-17 18:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
I guess landing a B-52 would be out of the question?
Get two or three supercarriers, run them along at about 60 knots
nose-to-tail, it's doable.
Okay, maybe four carriers.
Only if it's the B-52N, with the starboard wing autofolding as soon as
the Weight-On-Wheels switch gets a reading.
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Chad Irby
2005-03-17 21:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Adam
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
I guess landing a B-52 would be out of the question?
Get two or three supercarriers, run them along at about 60 knots
nose-to-tail, it's doable.
Okay, maybe four carriers.
Only if it's the B-52N, with the starboard wing autofolding as soon as
the Weight-On-Wheels switch gets a reading.
Naah, you just have to crab it into the wind a lot, and use the landing
gear offset to max.

Or you could use the "alternate landing" scenario, and come in on the
offset angle of the deck. Takes some really good piloting on the part
of the carrier drivers, though.
HawkCW4
2005-03-17 17:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Hunt, I will admit to reading problems at times, but did you just say an
aircraft needs more runway, (distance) to land than to take off? If
so, I have to further ask if you are really ex airforce. And if you
are, were you ever around airplanes very much?

I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort short in
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook Troutdale
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing to get it
out of there.

Ed
USA Ret
Post by Zamboni
Now, would I want to be the pilot in the F-16 on that type of landing?
Hell, I don't want to be an F-anything pilot but that would have to be some
hotshot or a pilot with a real bad need.
Mike P
2005-03-17 19:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Hunt, I will admit to reading problems at times, but did you just say an
aircraft needs more runway, (distance) to land than to take off? If
so, I have to further ask if you are really ex airforce. And if you
are, were you ever around airplanes very much?
I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort short in
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook Troutdale
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing to get it
out of there.
Ed
USA Ret
Naa he's just been sucking on the tail pipes of SUV's again.
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/66081.php

Mike
Daryl Hunt
2005-03-18 20:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike P
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used.
Of
Post by Mike P
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Hunt, I will admit to reading problems at times, but did you just say an
aircraft needs more runway, (distance) to land than to take off? If
so, I have to further ask if you are really ex airforce. And if you
are, were you ever around airplanes very much?
I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort short in
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook Troutdale
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing to get it
out of there.
Ed
USA Ret
Naa he's just been sucking on the tail pipes of SUV's again.
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/66081.php
Mike
Note: See 404thk00k
Leanne
2005-03-17 18:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by HawkCW4
I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort
short in
Post by HawkCW4
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook
Troutdale
Post by HawkCW4
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing
to get it
Post by HawkCW4
out of there.
There was also a Seaboard World DC-8 loaded with troops that
landed at Marble Mountain Air Facility, which was about 5000'
runway, vice Danang. I understand to fly it out,that they had to
basically strip out the interior and put on just enough fuel to
make it the last 5 miles where he was supposed to land.

Leanne
FatKat
2005-03-17 21:55:18 UTC
Permalink
What was that runway used for? I remember reading in "Phantom over
Vietnam" about an airliner that mistook a heavy Helicopter airfield for
the main runway at Danang, and having to be stripped down to barely any
fuel just to get to the nearest suitable runway.
Leanne
2005-03-18 01:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by FatKat
What was that runway used for? I remember reading in "Phantom
over
Post by FatKat
Vietnam" about an airliner that mistook a heavy Helicopter
airfield for
Post by FatKat
the main runway at Danang, and having to be stripped down to
barely any
Post by FatKat
fuel just to get to the nearest suitable runway.
That runway was for helos and light observation.

Leanne
Tank Fixer
2005-03-18 03:07:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <Zuj_d.13901$***@fed1read03>,
on Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:05 -0700,
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Hunt, I will admit to reading problems at times, but did you just say an
aircraft needs more runway, (distance) to land than to take off? If
so, I have to further ask if you are really ex airforce. And if you
are, were you ever around airplanes very much?
I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort short in
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook Troutdale
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing to get it
out of there.
Boeing 727
Happened many years ago.
IIRC they actually lightened and he flew it off.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Daryl Hunt
2005-03-18 20:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the same
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and I do
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get him
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet is
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an AC
than it takes to Take Off from.
Hunt, I will admit to reading problems at times, but did you just say an
aircraft needs more runway, (distance) to land than to take off? If
so, I have to further ask if you are really ex airforce. And if you
are, were you ever around airplanes very much?
I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort short in
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook Troutdale
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing to get it
out of there.
Yes, you definately have a reading problem or at least a perception problem.
A 747 has different flight parimeters than an F-16. When they finally build
a 747 with a better than 1 to one power to weight then that will be
something to see. Makes every takeoff a hairy ride.

I spent more than my fair share around short runways that the fighters had
to land on what was designed for a C-130 Runway. They landed with arresting
nets and took off in full AB.

Now, stay with the line of thought here.

(now watch the rest of the 404thk00ks prove just how stupid they really are)
a***@netdoor.com
2005-03-19 15:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Hunt
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> F-16's on a carrier? Was the noise *crunch*?
:More of a *sploosh*. The landings themselves went well, it was the
"coming
Post by Fred J. McCall
:to a stop" part that needs work.
You could only consider an F-16 landing on a carrier as going well if
you think the idea is to rip the short-field hook off and drive the
gear up through the fuselage.
Actually, there is a method of landing an F-16 on a carrier. It's the
same
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
we used on F-4s on a short runways. An arresting Net works wonders and
I do
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
know that carriers have those onboard and can deploy them very quickly.
Something as light as a F-16 can land very short if the Net is used. Of
course, getting off may be a problem but a Carrier is long enough to get
him
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
airborne on it's own power as long as it uses the LONG part. 1000 feet
is
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
should be enough. Just remember, it takes a lot more runway to land an
AC
Post by HawkCW4
Post by Zamboni
than it takes to Take Off from.
Hunt, I will admit to reading problems at times, but did you just say an
aircraft needs more runway, (distance) to land than to take off? If
so, I have to further ask if you are really ex airforce. And if you
are, were you ever around airplanes very much?
I recall an incident, where a 747 I think, landed one AirPort short in
Oregon. He was going to Portland from the east, and mistook Troutdale
for Portland. He landed, but they had to dismantle that thing to get it
out of there.
Yes, you definately have a reading problem or at least a perception problem.
A 747 has different flight parimeters than an F-16. When they finally build
a 747 with a better than 1 to one power to weight then that will be
something to see. Makes every takeoff a hairy ride.
I spent more than my fair share around short runways that the fighters had
to land on what was designed for a C-130 Runway. They landed with arresting
nets and took off in full AB.
Now, stay with the line of thought here.
(now watch the rest of the 404thk00ks prove just how stupid they really are)
Ye Gods, he really is as:

1. Stupid

2. Disingenuous

3. Ignorant

As he appears (your choice).

PLONK

Al Minyard
Johnny Bravo
2005-03-14 00:29:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:05:01 -0800, "Billzz"
Post by Billzz
I attended a seminar on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country. He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea.
So that would be tactical positioning? <grin> Couldn't resist. :)
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
Tank Fixer
2005-03-14 05:42:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <b0835$4234b90f$94401b00$***@STARBAND.NET>,
on Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:05:01 -0800,
Post by Billzz
In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make
A neat trick in itself as F16's are not carrier capable.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Billzz
2005-03-14 06:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tank Fixer
on Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:05:01 -0800,
Post by Billzz
In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make
A neat trick in itself as F16's are not carrier capable.
Oops. F-14 Tomcat.
Brian Sharrock
2005-03-14 10:14:48 UTC
Permalink
"Billzz" <***@starband.net> wrote in message news:b0835$4234b90f$94401b00$***@STARBAND.NET...

SNIP
Post by Billzz
I attended a seminar
You didn't have to pay for attendance, did you?
But on the basis of what you've stated ...;-
Post by Billzz
on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country.
Why not name him and the 'island country'? You haven't mentioned
anything about the seminar having a restricted audience ...
Post by Billzz
He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea. In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force.
Letsee ... 'on the horizon' perhaps three miles off, perhaps
ten miles from a bloody tall building ... rather close for
positioning a carrier that'd need to have a bone in her teeth
to generate Wind-over-deck ...
Post by Billzz
The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings
Good trick! although they'd need to practise a lot
to gain carier-qualification

< ....with as much noise as they could make.

Good trick ...
Post by Billzz
Everyone in
the room realized that the US was the only country with forces in the area.
And so, he said, negotiations went much faster, and with much better
results.
Afterwards; the "former ambassador to an island country"
said to the seminar organisers, "That was the easiest
bundle of bucks I've ever trousered ... most gullible audience
I've faced since I last sold snake-oil down the Broadway"
--
Brian
w***@vic.com
2005-03-14 11:28:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:05:01 -0800, "Billzz"
Post by Billzz
I attended a seminar on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country. He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea. In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make. Everyone in
the room realized that the US was the only country with forces in the area.
And so, he said, negotiations went much faster, and with much better
results.
I have no doubt that this type of story might have been used at a
seminar. Indeed, it is the modern incarnation of "gunboat diplomacy"
of the past, where warships would exercise the guns or run obvious
drills within sight of someone you wished to influence.

Still, if somebody is going to use this approach then a bit of
attention to detail might be nice (F/A-18 vice F-16, a way to address
the fact that CQ within sight of land is not something I've ever seen
documented, etc.) Note that I have seen S-2s and C-1s launched while
at anchor. Never saw a recovery, though. I don't know if you could
shoot a light F/A-18 with 0 wind over the deck.

Still, ain't Sea Stories grand?!?!?!?! ;-)

Bill Kambic
Billzz
2005-03-14 19:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Bravo
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:05:01 -0800, "Billzz"
Post by Billzz
I attended a seminar on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country. He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea. In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make. Everyone in
the room realized that the US was the only country with forces in the area.
And so, he said, negotiations went much faster, and with much better
results.
I have no doubt that this type of story might have been used at a
seminar. Indeed, it is the modern incarnation of "gunboat diplomacy"
of the past, where warships would exercise the guns or run obvious
drills within sight of someone you wished to influence.
Still, if somebody is going to use this approach then a bit of
attention to detail might be nice (F/A-18 vice F-16, a way to address
the fact that CQ within sight of land is not something I've ever seen
documented, etc.) Note that I have seen S-2s and C-1s launched while
at anchor. Never saw a recovery, though. I don't know if you could
shoot a light F/A-18 with 0 wind over the deck.
Still, ain't Sea Stories grand?!?!?!?! ;-)
Bill Kambic
Well, it was 1979, and I was a student at the National War College, in
Washington, D.C. The speakers are there in a "not for attribution" role so
they can say what they want without being quoted. I don't remember what
island country - and to be honest I don't remember who he was, other than he
was a professional State Department person, not a political appointment. I
took the story at face value, and maybe it was embellished, although we had
US Navy types in the room, including carrier pilots, and they didn't seem to
take offense. He even used the old phrase about the art of diplomacy is
saying "nice doggy" while looking for a stick and the professional State
Department types appreciated going to negotiations with the military stick
available. Anyway, I suppose his story could be examined in detail, but the
teaching point seemed acceptable to the twenty or so O-5s and O-6s from all
the military services that were there.
w***@vic.com
2005-03-15 00:23:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:42:21 -0800, "Billzz"
Post by Billzz
Well, it was 1979, and I was a student at the National War College, in
Washington, D.C. The speakers are there in a "not for attribution" role so
they can say what they want without being quoted. I don't remember what
island country - and to be honest I don't remember who he was, other than he
was a professional State Department person, not a political appointment. I
took the story at face value, and maybe it was embellished, although we had
US Navy types in the room, including carrier pilots, and they didn't seem to
take offense.
I think we all appreciate a good story, well told and on point. This
is true even if the details get a bit "fuzzy"! ;-)

He even used the old phrase about the art of diplomacy is
Post by Billzz
saying "nice doggy" while looking for a stick and the professional State
Department types appreciated going to negotiations with the military stick
available.
Good on 'em for that.

Anyway, I suppose his story could be examined in detail, but the
Post by Billzz
teaching point seemed acceptable to the twenty or so O-5s and O-6s from all
the military services that were there.
Not all diplomacy lies in the State Department. ;-)

Bill Kambic
Abrigon Gusiq
2005-03-21 08:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
I attended a seminar on the role of military support to diplomatic
negotiations taught by a former ambassador to an island country. He
explained how strategic positioning worked. He said that during
negotiations he got up from the table and positioned himself next to the
window overlooking the harbor and the sea. In the background, on the
horizon, was a US Navy carrier task force. The F-16s were practicing
take-offs and landings with as much noise as they could make. Everyone in
the room realized that the US was the only country with forces in the area.
And so, he said, negotiations went much faster, and with much better
results.
Yeppers, helps to have a military presence, gives the negotiators a
feeling that if things don't go well, things might happen, or just
reminds me how much security costs.. Like why did China want an Air
Craft Carrier, for force projection or just to give people something to
think about.. So we want your island, and are here to claim it, and we
have an aircraft carrier group of the coast, so while you wait for your
nation to send forces, we will just sort of take over..

Air Craft Carriers exists soley for force projection, or the threat of
force. Or for allies, to let them know we are their to back them up..

Mike
Tank Fixer
2005-03-14 05:41:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>,
on Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:44:56 -0800,
Post by la n.
Post by Howard Berkowitz
Post by Michael Adams
To invade Iran or ..
I can say, with complete confidence, that a carrier battle group never
invaded anything, and never will.
Even I the silly villain could have said that ... :). And one notes that
this Michael Adams has a mil. email addy. That boy better be sent
back to school!
He tends to go off half cocked....
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
redc1c4
2005-03-13 07:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Berkowitz
Post by Michael Adams
To invade Iran or ..
I can say, with complete confidence, that a carrier battle group never
invaded anything, and never will.
as opposed to an LHD......

redc1c4,
not that the loons know the difference. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
hoarse with no name
2005-03-15 01:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=31129
There is less to the article than the headline suggests. The only
substance to the piece was this single line "The U.S. Navy aircraft
carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on the move in Atlantic Ocean and is
possibly headed towards the Mediterranean Sea. " That's not much. I
don't see why we would send a carrier to the Med to hit Iran.
s***@go2.pl
2005-03-16 07:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Planned Bright Star exercises being one "alternative" reason enough;-)
This time maybe last time with Tomcats, and no Super Hornets
involved...

Regards,

Jacek
Post by hoarse with no name
Post by j***@yahoo.com
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=31129
There is less to the article than the headline suggests. The only
substance to the piece was this single line "The U.S. Navy aircraft
carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on the move in Atlantic Ocean and is
possibly headed towards the Mediterranean Sea. " That's not much. I
don't see why we would send a carrier to the Med to hit Iran.
s***@go2.pl
2005-03-15 07:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Frankly, I don't know what is this all noise about. The media often
exaggerate, telling about normal carrier movements as "preparing to
war", or the other way round...;-)

USS Theodore Roosevelt/CVW-8 were to deploy early 2005 anyhow? HST is
still supporting OIF, and Vinson CSG is on the "World Cruise". Anything
unusual? If a new carrier enters the Gulf and relieves the previous
one, as usually, it's normal - different story, when two (or three)
carriers start to operate together there...

BTW, Navy News Stand shows some photos of weapons being transferred to
CVN-71 from CV-67, which is seemingly doomed to end its career...

Best regards,

Jacek
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Converging U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups in Middle East
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=31129
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...