- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
Police identify the victims in the Nashville elementary school shooting. The children killed were all 9 years old. cnn.it/3zhVjIN
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
RT @CNN: The shooter who killed six people, including three students, at a Christian school in Nashville on Monday morning was a 28-year-ol…
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
UPDATE: 3 students and 3 adults killed in shooting at private Christian elementary school in Nashville, police say.â€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Hj
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
At least 3 children killed in shooting at private Christian elementary school in Nashville, a local hospital confirâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Ps
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
Nashville police say a gunman is dead following an "active shooter event" at a private Christian elementary school cnn.it/3JRl1c4
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
Controversial plans to overhaul Israel's judiciary will be paused, one of Netanyahu's far-right coalition partnersâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…HA
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,131,881
Embattled Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu calls on protesters to "behave responsibly" and avoid violence. Followâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Le
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
Why aircraft carriers may be good for parking cars but not landing new jets
As this third week in January starts, we're learning three things about the U.S. military aircraft carrier program:
- The Pentagon may be looking at reducing the number of carriers in the U.S. fleet from 11 to 10 to save money.
- The military's new F-35C Joint Strike Fighter may not be suitable for carrier use.
- Aircraft carriers make fine automobile transports.
On the first point, The Washington Times reports, citing unnamed sources, that the U.S. Navy may be trying to cut one of its 11 carriers to save money.
Congress has mandated by law that the Navy maintain 11 carriers. But the Pentagon is also under orders from the Obama administration to cut $488 billion from its budget within the next 10 years, Rowan Scarborough reports in the Times.
Cutting a carrier, along with the other forces that make up and support a carrier battle group, could save the Navy billions of dollars, according to the Times report.
An F-35C test aircraft launches from a test catapult in Lakehurst, New Jersey.
As for the F-35C, reports have begun circulating that the aircraft the military says is "the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used by so many warfighters across the globe" won't be able to land on aircraft carriers, apparently because its tailhook is too short and is situated too close to its landing gear for the plane to properly grab the arresting cables that enable planes to land on aircraft carriers.
The report was first seen last week on the website aviationintel.com and was backed up by a report in London's Sunday Times that has been picked up by press across Britain.
Aviationintel.com reported that the design flaw is not fixable because there's just not enough space on the belly of the F-35C to move the tailhook back.
British naval sources said the flaws could place the entire JSF program in jeopardy, according to a report in The Daily Telegraph. Britain was expected to buy about 50 of the planes, the Telegraph reported.
Jim Murphy, the shadow defense secretary, said, "An island nation like ours should be able to operate aeroplanes from an aircraft carrier. The government must come clean on the full impact of the defense review. It's essential we know how long we will be without carrier strike capability," according to the Telegraph report.
Just last week, the U.S. Marine Corps reported it welcomed its first F-35B into its fleet. The first Marine jets will be used for training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, the Corps said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the website Jalopnik reports that aircraft carriers also make great automobile carriers and save the Navy money in the process.
Photos from the USS Ronald Reagan show its flight deck loaded with the personal vehicles of sailors as the carrier travels along the West Coast to Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, Washington, where the carrier will undergo maintenance.
And the saving money part?
"First, the only other way to get vehicles owned by Navy sailors to their final destinations is to put them in another ship. Second, if they didn't send soldiers' vehicles they'd have to pay for transportation at the final destination. Both of which would absolutely cost more money," Jalopnik points out.
On Twitter
On Twitter
@cnnbrk on Twitter
There are (were) supposed to be three variations of the F-35. One, a land based USAF version, Second, a carrier based-takeoff-and-land Naval aircraft, and Third, a vertical take-off-landing version for the Marines. That is why it was called the Joint Strike Force aircraft when it was first proposed. By trying to create three versions out of one...the DOD is developing a cow with fins.
Been there, done that – the F-14 / FB111 were both substandard aircraft cobbled out of another failed "one size fits all" program back when McNamara was SecDef
I have news for you Mike, the F-111 was one of the all time great low level bombers. It had problems when first fielded, but proved to be faster on the deck and longer ranged than any other low level bomber. Your comment on the F-14 is completely uninformed. It was superior to even the F/A-18E/F as an air superiority fighter, both faster and with the D model it had more energy to sustain turns, so it was a better dog fighter. It's weapons and radar had longer range than those of the F/A-18. The only things the Hornet and Super Hornet have going for them are cost and reliablitiy. The old Tomcat was expensive to maintain, and required a lot of labor to keep full mission capable. The Super Hornet costs less per hour to fly than some big helicopters and is exceptionally reliable by the standards of twin engines multi-role combat jets. In a dogfight a Flanker will have a Super Hornet for lunch, assuming equally skilled pilots. But a Tomcat with variable sweep wings and the D model engines could match a Flanker in turn and climb rates. The reason the Tomcat was decommissioned was the perception that, with the demise of the USSR, the Super Hornet was good enough for the likely threat at a cost that made it unbeatable budgewise.
This article is complete crap as are most of the comments. Even the Navy version of the prototype X35C was tested extensively for carrier landings. Someone has their facts wrong and most of the comments here are by the ignorant. The STOVL variant is exactly that: Short Takeoff & Vertical Landing. That means its only flying vertically when it's fuel load is low and the plane is therefore light. Secondly, the brilliant lift fan design blows cool air which is why the plane can generate far more lift in vertical mode than a Harrier. Yes the tail blows hot jet exhaust down in the rear, but carrier decks, unlike concrete runways, can deal with it; if they didn't the Harrier would not have worked either.
Correction: the C model was NOT tested for arrested landings aboard Carriers during the X-32/X-35 prototype evaluation phase. It was not a requirement at the time. And btw, this 'news' is not exactly breaking and has in fact already been covered a week ago on the Defense-related 'elpdefensenews' blogspot.
Ooops, sorry...most of the cooments don't have the all mighty username of "InTheKnow".
Plus, it injects water into the engine for additional thrust during landing. But leave it to a poorly written and ill-informed article to bring out the nitwits and idiots for whom details and facts are irrelevant, huh?
In the KNOW – about what?? You seem to have confused the Navy version F-35C withe the Marine version F-35B! They are yet to test the Charlie model at the Boat! The test they have done re the ability to snag the cross deck pendent, at the test facility ON LAND, have been less than satisfactory! The problem being that with the tailhook being so close to the MLG, the pendent, raised above the deck on springs to enable the hook to snag it, depresses as the MLG (main Landing Gear) crosses over the wire and when it springs back the hook has already passed, given the aircraft is at some 135knots or so. the distance from MLG to hook on the F-35C is about 7' whereas on the Tomcat it was 22', Super Hornet 18', Legacy Hornet 18.9', Prowler 30' and E-2 28'. The figures tell the tale.
"the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used by so many warfighters across the globe"
Complete bunk. The taxpayer is being taken for yet another ride by the military industrial complex. Boy, we sure didn't listen to good old Ike, did we. And as far as the congressional mandate as to the number of carriers we need, the congress can't find its collective butt in broad daylight. Why should we pay them any mind whatsoever. Scuttle two or three carriers as well as the 'littoral combat ship,' another Naval boondoggle.
Thats why you use f35b which can land on aircraft carriers (the smallest aircraft carriers too).... Seriously did the author really overlook this?
The STOVL version, the F-35B, has no gun, carries less payload and has less range than the F-35C does. These are acceptable trade offs for the Marines and to be able to fly them off of smaller, less costly amphibious ships with no catapults and arresting gear. Their mission is close air support in a comparatively bening air defense environment. The Navy's C models, by comparison, wiil be the ones to take down the enemy's air defense network and challenge their fighters in air combat so the Marines can come in and do their job. It's a tougher mission.
Wonderful and amazing! Aircraft carrier transporting sailors' cars to SAVE MONEY. Whoa – this is new and exceptional trend? The military thinking about money and saving money? No more carte blanch for military? Can this be true?!
They've been doing it for decades when a ship changes home port. Get a clue.
Why does the military transport their vehicles for them at all, whether on ship or by having the cars transported? It seems to me you are responsible for the transportation costs related to your own vehicle. That is how it works in the private sector.
Amazing. These are people who have agreed to put their lives on the line for their country, who are getting a nice perk when their place of work changes location, and yet you sit in your mama's basement banging on your keyboard complaining about it. Grow up.
@bhibsen- The ship is changing home port for an extended period of time; it will be in Kitsap NS likely for over two years. You expect the crew (who, BTW, have to sail the ship there) to have the expense of shipping their vehicles across country because the Navy said to? This is a cost saving program, green, and one hell of a morale booster during a period when morale is usually at an all time low...yard time SUCKS for boat chugs!
Again you need to engage brain before bashing the Navy ( military). Your morning host joked that the ship was "going up and down the coast" delivering cars wondering how cost effective that was. When a large ship changes homeport for a major overhaul or intends to be away from its home port for an overhaul 6 or more months, its saves the travel time of its men and fuel costs by putting them on board. The ship is going that way any way, with no aircraft, as it goes into a major overhaul period. Get the facts before you belittle a smart, cost effective and yes Green program. It might also be considered a moral booster.
Very expensive ferry!
The carrier qualifications for the F35 are going text book perfect. The problem is that Obama is putting people in power in the government to destroy the military. History has proven that peace come through power. Obama is trying to prove history wrong by proving that peace can be gained through kind thoughts and disarming our military. In other words Obama is lighting the fuse to a global war. Obama is a very dangerous man.
Obama is cutting billions from the military budget because the Congressional Super Committee sat on its hands and didn't agree to real budget compromises and spending cuts. Therefore, the automatic cuts built into the debt ceiling agreement kicked in.
The medical term for this is paranoia. What does Obama, whether you love him or hate him, has to do with technical features of an aricraft that was designed before he even took office?
That aside, if the aircraft is not going to need a tailhook due to STOVL capability, why does it have one?
Truthfully, it's a great idea; the Navy saving money. I hope we see more dollar-saving from the military going forward.
History repeats itself once again. F35A/B/C = F111A/B
At least it fits between the foul lines.
Aviationintel.com reported that the design flaw is not fixable because there's just not enough space on the belly of the F-35C to move the tailhook back.
really eh? lemme have the contract and one of the planes and I'll fix it for em ...
Herein is the MAJOR porblem with our Military LEADERS....They present a Weapons system that Cost are astronimical and wont work abord Carriers...What Brillant Military Minds came up with this plan...The next thing they will say is we need NEW carriers for the Birds we are building...Im tellin ya...Im not surprised we have not won a major conflict since WWII....With Planning like this it's hard to JUSTIFY ANY NEW MAJOR wepons systems...The Joint Chiefs are insane...They forgo Americas ONLY SINGLE advantage our Aircraft Carriers for a fighter Jet......
SLASH MILITARY SPENDING......it's the Black Hole of our Tax dollars anyway...PAr back the Carrier fleet to eight...Ships...and stop declaring War on every petty Dictator around the globe...Do serious R & D into cruies and dfone aircraft..Make there Comman and control secure form outside interferance...Ge the CIA outta of the Military handeling of wepons systems.....and CANCEL I MEAN CANCEL this boondogle of a Strike Fighter..It has no purpose within the framwork of our Military....
BEWARE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.....
Let me suggest that if you want to be taken seriously you learn how to spell and create a complete sentence.
Dude... How many jobs are created by these huge defense prokects? The military drives lot of the US ecomomy and the countries where troops are deployed. There is a "wink wink" agreement between the US and China/Russia – we make them out to be the bad guys to "justify" large amounts of spending and we let them in the "back door" to steal the technology our military R&D developes after a few years. Think about it – GPS, microwaves, the internet, nuclear technology (energy and medical uses), etc. etc, were developed by the US military. So what they have to fix these planes – they will do it – just means they will be delayed. If we didn't have competetion between China/Russia and the US/UK and other allies where would we be with regard to technology???????? This is all a big process and everyone plays a role in it. The only real issues are related to countries like Iran and terrorists that are all messing up the system.
Having any kind of floating battery is good for projecting force. Add aircraft and your reach extends all over the world beyond coastlines.
We actually need more than 11 carriers, but no one asked me about it. Who am I? Just a lone voice in the wilderness.
The problems are in the military-industrial complex itself and not on our country's need to project force.
We need real reform in the way we do business. Cutting a few billion dollars is just ignoring the problem and trying the old "check-book" fallacies in how we treat defense – two very different areas of influence.
Military power is not a financial thing. The corporate-driven corruption that causes so many problems is not military oriented beyond filling one's own pockets by any means necessary – it uses our country's vulnerability against us in favor of a few executives and shareholders. They will watch anyone burn as long as they get some money out of it.
We need more carrier groups, especially with the Arctic opening up due to global warming.
Alaska and Canada are at an increased level of unacceptable risk. New coastlines are opening up. Our Navy needs more financial effectiveness, and the military-industrial complex is firmly against that.
Herein is the MAJOR porblem with our Military LEADERS....They present a Weapons system that Cost are astronimical and wont work abord Carriers...What Brillant Military Minds came up with this plan...The next thing they will say is we need NEW carriers for the Birds we are building...Im tellin ya...Im not surprised we have not won a major conflict since WWII....With Planning like this it's hard to JUSTIFY ANY NEW MAJOR wepons systems...The Joint Chiefs are insane...They forgo Americas ONLY SINGLE advantage our Aircraft Carriers for a fighter Jet......
SLASH MILITARY SPENDING......it's the Black Hole of our Tax dollars anyway...PAr back the Carrier fleet to eight...Ships...and stop declaring War on every petty Dictator around the globe...Do serious R & D into cruies and drone aircraft..Make there Comman and control secure form outside interferance...Get the CIA outta of the Military handeling of wepons systems.....and CANCEL I MEAN CANCEL this boondogle of a Strike Fighter..It has no purpose within the framwork of our Military....
BEWARE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.....
I often thought that cutting a few aircraft carriers would make a huge impact. I just never thought they even consider it, not even one. But when you consider the US has 11 of them with another under construction I think, and then after that you have only Spain and Italy with 2. China is building one but it isn't finished yet. No other nation anywhere will come close to having the amount the US currently has even the ones being built come off the line. So why have so many?
And with all the flaws being found in the new jet fighter, you almost wonder if they forgot to make it fly.
To keep one carrier on patrol continuously in any given part of the world requires three carriers to be built. One is out cruising for 6 months, one has just returned from deployment and requires 6 months of repair work in a shipyard, and crew rest and retraining after that deployment, and there is a third carrier group, the carrier, it's air wing and all the escorting ships, that takes six months to train up as a unit for their deployment.
The Royal Navy is going to try to do it with only two carriers, hoping they can always keep one at sea while the other is in port for repairs and retraining. We'll see if they can pull this off. Otherwise, you have periods where there is no carrier at sea. Of course your adversaries will know when your carrier is not on patrol and act accordingly.