USS Ronald Reagan: Initial Deployment

[sarongsong]

January 4, 2006 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060104-0857-reagan.html)
"The Ronald Reagan (http://navysite.de/cvn/cvn76.html), the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, leaves San Diego this morning to lead a six-ship strike group on its first full-scale deployment since being commissioned in July 2003..."

[Candy]

Thank you for posting this. :cool:

[sarongsong]

You're welcome---lots of local TV coverage today, too. Will probably become one of history's most-watched ships.

[Yoshua]

Interesting, it is being launched on my birthday.

[Candy]

Happy Birthday, Yoshua! I've been lacking in the HB thread. :shifty:

This is a very good thread!

[Nicolas]

The hoax believer thread ??? ;)

[Nicolas]

If they would make an aircraft carrier that would use the full length of the deck for takeoff and landing, that would obvioulsy be less efficient (only one landing, or 2 takeoffs at a time). But would it allow for substantially larger aircraft to be carrier compatible?

[jumbo]

Id have thought it unlikely.
For the plane to be carrier compatable you have to be able to get the thing back aboard the boat. The arrester cables can only take a certain amount of load ruling out very large aircraft from using them. The landing roll of most large aircraft is far longer than the deck of the carrier,so for most not using the arrester gear is not an option. (The largest plane i know of that can use a carrier is the C130 Hercules and that isnt an easy task)
In addition you have the problem of storing the plane once aboard unless its going to take off again straight away. (The only planes that would likely do this would be supply aircraft and supplying carriers doesnt seem too much of a problem) Large planes take up a lot of room and room isnt something theres much of on a carrier.
Landing large planes will make the LSO and pilots lives harder too as i reckon you'd have to wave off a landing far earlier if there was a problem on approach.

[Nicolas]

You can't stow away large planes that easily indeed. Good point. And as said the deck needs to be completely clear.

The C-130 thing is quite nuts :). They used the full deck length. But as the deck needed to be clear and the mission wasn't easy by any means, it was never done outside of the tests. (they never planned to stow away a C-130 on board though, it was only for supply runs).

I was thinking about having B-1B and the like operating from carriers, but I think that midair refueling is more handy. Certainly for an aircraft like the B-1B which needs hours to prepare for flight, which would REALLY interfere with normal flight deck operations.

[jumbo]

Yeah the C130 was only used in a test. It used a lot less deck to stop than you'd think though. It could stop in 270 feet or two wingspan distances. With a tuoch down point of about 1-200 feet from the stern it meant that there was lots of deck left.

The U2 (whilst not huge it certainly has a decent wingspan) was also tested for carrier used and once was flown operationally but like the C130 the plans were abandoned as they were to disruptive to deck operations.

A large bomber operating from a carrier isnt that useful nowadays. The largest bombers can arrive in theatre and drop their ordinance and return to their bases virtually anywhere in the world. Carriers have some pretty heavy firepower (or did) within their attack squadrons. The main use for a large aircraft would be supply but that seems under control too. There isnt really much need for bigger planes.

[Eta C]

Clearing the carrier's deck to land a large plane is impractical for another reason. There isn't enought room in the hanger to store all of the aircraft carried (about 70) so about half are parked on the flight deck. This also speeds up operations since they don't need to bring planes up on the elevators to conduct flight ops.

There is a cargo plane, however, that is built for carrier operations; the C-2 Greyhound (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-2.htm) more commonly referred to as the COD (for its mission, carrier onboard delivery). While a useful plane, it's not particularly comfortable for its passengers (I know, I've flown in them). You sit backwards (for safety on landing) are strapped in with a helmet and lifevest, there are no windows, and it's noisier than any other plane I've ridden. It makes those turboprop puddle-jumpers luxurious in comparison. Take offs and landings are quite a ride though. An E-ticket ride at Disneyland as we used to say.

For those interested, here's the Reagan's website (http://www.reagan.navy.mil/). Also, to be technical, the ship was launched in 2001, commissioned in 2003. This is simply her first operational deployment.

[tofu]

In the mid 90's I saw an article in popular science about how the air force was looking into purchasing several used offshore oil drilling platforms. They were going to tie them together to make a full size runway nearly a mile long. It would have taken months to tow the sections where you needed them, but once there, you'd have an instant airforce base right off shore capable of supporting full size aircraft like C-17s and even bombers. No catapults required.

[Doodler]

Nice insignia, though I'd think We Trust, But We Verify would have been a more fitting motto for the Gipper's namesake.

Probably the most profound statement he made in his tenure.

[HenrikOlsen]

The C-130 thing is quite nuts :). They used the full deck length.

There's a writeup here (http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp).
"The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted."
"That airplane stopped right opposite the captain's bridge," recalled Flock. "There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, "LOOK MA, NO HOOK."

[Nicolas]

I've seen the webiste. I phrased it a bit wrong. I meant that the runway was the full deck length for this test, which normally is not done. They did not acutally need all that length though.

[sarongsong]

Hey, sailor!July 7, 2006
CORONADO – With a horn blast and the command to dismiss, 5,000 sailors of the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan streamed off the ship yesterday, ending a maiden voyage that saw history made... San Diego Union Teribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060707-9999-7m7reagan.html)

[Ronald Brak]

If the U.S. is going to name aircraft carriers after movie stars I think The Clint Eastwood would sound a lot more intimidating.

[jt-3d]

Perhaps you didn't hear but he was also the US president for eight years. As for the movie star thing, he was a better president.

[Ronald Brak]

Perhaps you didn't hear but he was also the US president for eight years. As for the movie star thing, he was a better president.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

[BigDon]

Large aircraft also bend the flight deck after repeated landings. That was the main reason the Navy didn't buy the F-111. After only the number of landings equal to about half a normal cruise the flightdeck developed a distinct depression in the centerline. Folks blame all kinds of reasons but that was what killed it.

[Roy Batty]

Better named after presidents than actors, else we'd end up with the USS Bonzo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043325/) ... mind you, it was the better actor :D

[Ronald Brak]

Large aircraft also bend the flight deck after repeated landings. That was the main reason the Navy didn't buy the F-111. After only the number of landings equal to about half a normal cruise the flightdeck developed a distinct depression in the centerline. Folks blame all kinds of reasons but that was what killed it.

So where is the structural strength of the aircraft carrier? In the flight deck or the hanger deck?

[Celestial Mechanic]

I wonder if the USS Ronald Reagan has a Chief Astrologer among its officers. Just wondering! ;)

[Swift]

If the U.S. is going to name aircraft carriers after movie stars I think The Clint Eastwood would sound a lot more intimidating.
\Clint mode
Did I launch 3 or 4 F-18s punk? Go ahead, enter my airspace.

[Ronald Brak]

Okay, I'm going to have to ask people to lay off the jokes. I know I started it, but I couldn't help myself. I know it's wrong to make jokes about dead Presidents, but I find it hard to help myself because I'm Australian. We're a weird mob. After our Prime Minister drowned we named a pool after him.

[Swift]

Okay, I'm going to have to ask people to lay off the jokes. I know I started it, but I couldn't help myself. I know it's wrong to make jokes about dead Presidents, but I find it hard to help myself because I'm Australian. We're a weird mob. After our Prime Minister drowned we named a pool after him.
Why? As long as they are good natured, family-oriented, and non-political, what's the problem? They are/were president, not king? As was said about Gerald Ford, the president puts his pants on both legs at the same time, just like everyone else. ;)

[Doodler]

We can still respect the office while lampooning its occupant. More than a few of them were rather entertaining.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Okay, I'm going to have to ask people to lay off the jokes. I know I started it, but I couldn't help myself.
As Swift said, "As long as they are good natured, family-oriented, and non-political, what's the problem?"
I know it's wrong to make jokes about dead Presidents, but I find it hard to help myself because I'm Australian.
We Americans joke about our dead Presidents all the time (some of us even refer to our currency as "dead presidents"). Take Millard Fillmore. Please! :lol:
We're a weird mob. After our Prime Minister drowned we named a pool after him.
Here in Milwaukee two young boys drowned in a park lagoon. The lagoon has since been named after them. I wonder, if someone else drowns in that lagoon, are they going to expect their name to be added to it or even for it to be renamed (until the next victim)? I think it would have been better to name the playground or something else in the park after them, not the lagoon that they drowned in! :sad:

[Doodler]

Here in Milwaukee two young boys drowned in a park lagoon. The lagoon has since been named after them. I wonder, if someone else drowns in that lagoon, are they going to expect their name to be added to it or even for it to be renamed (until the next victim)? I think it would have been better to name the playground or something else in the park after them, not the lagoon that they drowned in! :sad:

Thats one of the reasons I'm not overly hyped about public memorials. After a while, in some neighborhoods, you could end up with a park having more names than Spanish royalty.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Before this thread strays too far, let me add my appreciation to the officers and crew of the USS Ronald Reagan for a job well done. :clap:

[BigDon]

So where is the structural strength of the aircraft carrier? In the flight deck or the hanger deck?


You'ld think it would be the flightdeck. On the Constellation (or other Kittyhawk class carriers) the flightdeck was 3.5 inches thick and had an area of 4.5 acres. You can "hang" a lot of stuff underneath that. And in the case of the F-111 you already had a fleet of carriers. A lot earier to pick a new aircraft than to revamp the fleet. You don't want the tail wagging the dog, as it were.

And besides after the cancellation of the F-111 they developed a MUCH better fighter, my baby, the F-14!