# Be carefull on those carriers!



## syscom3 (Jan 23, 2007)

Yikes!

Aircraft carriers cable nearly slices crew in half :: Vidmax.com


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2007)

Ouch, something to definitely watch out for on a carrier although I think it is a relatively rare occurence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2007)

Sailors have been killed and had limbs severed by this....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

You hear about it every once in a while.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

well in an enviroment like that they're bound to happen, with all that activity in such a small space it's a credit to the crews that so few accidents do occour..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2007)

I agree, in order for it to work efficiently, everyone has to be in the right spot and doing there best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

it's one advantage of our smaller carriers and Harriers, vertical landings are far safer and obviously need less space, no steam catapults and movements are much less, aircraft are only ever moved from around the island or the rear onto what is in effect the runway so movements are very predicatable, obviously though there are other advantages to the American carriers  ...........


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

You really believe that Lanc. I have been told that the most dangerous aspect of carrier work is jet exhaust. Unless you blokes have perfected the turbine engine, I can't see whether catapult versus ski ramp really makes a difference in the prime safety risk.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

that's not the point i'm making, on the 4.5 acres of deck space on the Nimitz carriers there are aircraft all over the place, it's a hive of activity and you have to be on your guard all the time as aircraft could come from anywhere, on an Invincible class carrier they only ever have to move aircraft from the island or the rear of the deck to the launch position, which is a set position i.e. everyone will know when there's an aircraf there and when it's there she's about to take off, not like an american carrier where there're exaust all over the place, what's more the vertical landing has always been considdered far safer for both pilot and deck crew..........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2007)

The british carriers are just like our helo amphib assault carriers.

The CV's used by the US are in a whole different league compared to the less usefull british carriers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

our carriers suit us fine for the moment, we're still waiting to see what happens with the new carriers we've planned......


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

I don't believe that the British have a need for American style ginormous nuclear carriers. Tarawa class Amphib Assault ships can conduct V/STOL, STOVL, VTOL, and tiltrotor operations in addition to rotary wing.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> our carriers suit us fine for the moment, we're still waiting to see what happens with the new carriers we've planned......



What type is that??


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2007)

I believe they will be "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers

Royal Navy CVF programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HMS Queen Elizabeth (CVF) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> I believe they will be "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers
> 
> Royal Navy CVF programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> HMS Queen Elizabeth (CVF) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thanks for the links...


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2007)

Those CVF's look nice have the keels been laid yet


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 1, 2007)

Not yet, there is talk of abandoning them all together (not good imho) as part of the defence cuts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

I also don't agree with the proposed names HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Prince of Wales but you can't name a warship after an aging Queen, what happens when she dies? what will it do for moral in a war if a ship named after one of our greatest monarchs sinks? furthermore we've had an Ark Royal at the centre of our fleet for hundreds of years, we _need_ an Ark Royal.............


----------



## mkloby (Feb 3, 2007)

I've always liked the RN naming of ships.


----------



## trackend (Feb 3, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I also don't agree with the proposed names HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Prince of Wales but you can't name a warship after an aging Queen, what happens when she dies? what will it do for moral in a war if a ship named after one of our greatest monarchs sinks? furthermore we've had an Ark Royal at the centre of our fleet for hundreds of years, we _need_ an Ark Royal.............



I still like Illustrious , Renown or Repulse as ship names Lanc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

I don't mind the name Prince of Wales but i don't think it's right for a major ship of this nature, if the Navy were to say to me "Oh wise Lanc, what should we name the world's most modern aircraft carriers?" i'd reply "HMS Ark Royal and HMS Invincible"...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what's more the vertical landing has always been considdered far safer for both pilot and deck crew..........



Where did you hear that? If you dont time the landing right with the ships natural movement in the waves you damage the aircraft and possibly kill the crew.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

The US is going to lay down the first ship in the CVNX program (next generation Super Carrier) later this year. It will be called the CVN-21 Gerald R. Ford.

It has many revolutionary designs, is slightly larger and faster, better propulsion.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 3, 2007)

Have they ever used any of the WW2 Flower Class corvette names again I think it would nice to name on of the new carriers after one of them in honour of the work of the corvettes . Wouldn't it sound nice to land or alit upon the Petunia or Pansy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

That would suck.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That would suck.



So would having to serve on the USS Jimmy Carter.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 3, 2007)

He was a nuke boat capt thats not a job for the feeble minded


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 3, 2007)

No. But Jimmy Carter would imply a panzy *** short d*ck F'up for a president who in a single 4 year span screwed up the American economy such that mortgage interest rates became 18%, obtaining gas required you to push for bloody car to the pump, and kowtowing to any violent aggressor towards the United States.

...oh. Sorry. Those were supposed to be inside words.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where did you hear that? If you dont time the landing right with the ships natural movement in the waves you damage the aircraft and possibly kill the crew.



what's safer, controlling your rate of decent vertically down, ensuring you can hit nothing and no one is in danger, landing on what i can testify to be very strong landing gear that has been perpose designed for vertical landings on ships, or hurteling towards a short runway at a few hundred knots, knowing that if you don't have enough power you'll crash into the back of the ship as you can't accelerate in time, too much power you'll just overshoot, you have to aim for 3 wires, if you miss you come around again or simply crash into a stretchy barrier, if you do catch then you're decellerated under greater G forces than a vertical landing and what's more your chances of hitting something or someone are far greater, i know which i'd prefer to be doing! just look at some of the comparative accidents involved in the processes! it's one of the reasons the JSF has a requirement to land vertically and it's the same principles that apply to helicopter landings, what's more your argument about timing is just as valid if not moreso for a conventional landing on a rocking Nimitz class...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2007)

All I am saying is Lanc, it is not much safer than you think.

The timing is actually worse for a verticaly landing aircraft (I know this because of my time with Helos and doing deck landings) because you dont have the forward momentum to push you through it.

I do agree that it is somewhat safer to do a vertical landing, however dont just assume things, especially just because they are what the British are using. That is what I am getting at.


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

There are good points and bad points to both systems. I spent 3 1/2 years on the USS Saipan LHA-2 as a fire fighter and machinest mate. Besides the helicopters we also carried 6 to 7 harriers. After talking with many a harrier pilot, many would prefer to land in a convention jet then a vertical harrier in heavy seas which puts a limitation on the harrier. Ive seen a couple of harriers crash on the flight deck in heavy seas. The ship drops between two waves and then heavies up and swats it like a bug because it takes longer to get down. All naval aircraft have heavy landing gear so that not much help for any other type of naval aircraft. 

Then again as you said conventional jets come in fast and furious on a conventional carrier. Both types are very dangerous to work around. Bottom line is you have to pay attention to whats going on and not have your head some where else.

As for countries purchasing carriers it depends on how much a country wants to spend on a aircraft carrier and what it will be used for. 

Micdrow


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

I have bounced off a few of the LHA class ships before Midcrow... Better than those stinkin LPH's...


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I have bounced off a few of the LHA class ships before Midcrow... Better than those stinkin LPH's...



Take it by the comment you use to be or are a marine harrier pilot??? Ever land on the Saipan. Was on board her from 1989 to 1993.

Small world if we have met before 

Micdrow


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

Surprised u dont already know Midcrow, but I was Navy SEAL from 87-97... We worked off of many Gator Freighters, and if memory serves me, used the Saipan on a few Ops...


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Surprised u dont already know Midcrow, but I was Navy SEAL from 87-97... We worked off of many Gator Freighters, and if memory serves me, used the Saipan on a few Ops...



To be honest lesofprimus Im still playing catch up by reading all the threads at the board including the old ones.  

So much information to digest and sort through not to mention how much comes in on a daily basis. 

Then you could of been part of the fun when the marines came on board. They always liked to take over the weight room. One cruise (dont remember which one) the captain made a challenge to the marines. They beat the best wrestlers on the ship and navy stays out of weight room. We win and we share it. Needless to say we sent in the seals and well it was shared for the whole cruise. One of many stories on board when the seals where on board.

Micdrow


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

I was most likely one of those SEAL Team Members u are describing... If Im not mistaken, it took place in 1990 in the Med, during the whole Liberia mess...


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I was most likely one of those SEAL Team Members u are describing... If Im not mistaken, it took place in 1990 in the Med, during the whole Liberia mess...



Wow does that campaign bring back memorie's. I flew in to the ship on a UH-53E from Free town Africa. 

What a small world this is.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

Yes indeed shipmate, yes indeed....


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Yes indeed shipmate, yes indeed....



Here's a picture of the patch from the past then.

Micdrow


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

Haha.... God I hated Liberia...


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

Actually dont know which was worse. Liberia in 90 or Bosnia in 93


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

Bosnia was worse...


----------



## Micdrow (Feb 4, 2007)

Dont know if you have seen this web site, might interest you but might not also. The naval web page of the USS Saipan.

http://www.saipan.navy.mil/


----------



## mkloby (Feb 4, 2007)

Funny story. Marines suck, stupid jarheads  

Speaking of Jimmy Carter, my uncle was a devil dog back in 76-80, and even still today when Jimmy Carter comes up in conversation, he just says, "he was my Commander in Chief" and leaves it at that.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 4, 2007)

What more could you say about Carter (that micromanaging dip****)


----------

