Carriers

Local news reported an explosion from the fire while the San Diego Fire department said that several sailors are being treated for injuries.

According to USNI News, sailors have been hurt in a fire aboard the amphibious warship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) that was docked at the pier at Naval Base San Diego, Calif., on Jul. 12, 2020.

“The fire was called away at approx. 8:30 AM, July 12. 160 Sailors were aboard at the time. Bonhomme Richard is going through a maintenance availability and has a crew size of approx. 1000. 18 Sailors have been transferred to a local hospital with non-life threatening injuries,” a statement on Twitter from Naval Surface Forces said.

Local news reported an explosion from the fire while the San Diego Fire department said that several sailors are being treated for injuries.

The official confirmed to USNI News that Navy and local officials are battling the fire on Bonhomme Richard.

As a video from local news station CBS 8, the big deck amphib, which is adjacent to a crew berthing barge, is at Pier 2 on the naval base, sharing it with two Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers (DDG-51).

Wasp-class LHDs like Bonhomme Richard provide the Marine Corps with a means of ship-to-shore movement by helicopter in addition to movement by landing craft. LHAs (and later LHDs) have been participants in major humanitarian assistance, occupation, and combat operations in which the US has been involved. Such operations have included participating as launch platforms for Marine Corps expeditionary forces in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and 2002, Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and humanitarian support after the catastrophic Tsunami in 2004. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, two LHDs served as “Harrier carriers,” launching an air group of AV-8B attack aircraft against targets inside Iraq. In 2004, LHDs were used to transport thousands of Marines and their equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan for combat operations. Post-Hurricane Katrina support was provided in New Orleans by LHD 7 (Iwo Jima) where thousands of police, fire, and rescue personnel were hosted onboard during recovery operations and Iwo Jima operated as the central command and control hub.

Bonhomme Richard spent six years in Japan as part of the US Forward Deployed Naval Force before arriving in San Diego in 2018.

 

Explosion with at least one injury at the USS Bonhomme Richard. #shipfire pic.twitter.com/HooWIRcjU4

— SDFD (@SDFD) July 12, 2020

Photo by CNN

Ford is underway conducting integrated air wing operations, and the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group remains at sea in the Atlantic as a certified carrier strike group force ready for tasking in order to protect the crew from the risks posed by COVID-19.

Taken on Jun. 4, 2020, the cool pictures in this post feature the Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) transiting the Atlantic Ocean, marking the first time a Ford-class and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier operated together underway.

Ford is underway conducting integrated air wing operations, and the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group remains at sea in the Atlantic as a certified carrier strike group force ready for tasking in order to protect the crew from the risks posed by COVID-19, following their successful deployment to the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operation. 

The U.S. Navy 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), USS George Washington (CVN 73), USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), are the largest warships in the world, each designed for an approximately 50-year service life with just a single mid-life refueling.

The next generation of aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford-class (CVN 78) was ordered in September 2008 as the force structure replacement for USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which was inactivated in 2012.

The Gerald R. Ford class is the future aircraft carrier replacement class for Enterprise and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. The lead ship, Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), was commissioned in 2017.  The class brings improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for our Sailors, and reduced total ownership costs.

The CVN 78 is designed to operate effectively with almost 700 fewer crew members than a CVN 68-class ship (which features 5,000 crew members). Improvements in the ship design will also allow the embarked air wing to operate with fewer personnel. New technologies and ship design features are expected to reduce the watch standing and maintenance workload for the crew. Gerald R. Ford is the first aircraft carrier designed with all electric utilities, eliminating steam service lines from the ship, reducing maintenance requirements, and improving corrosion control. The new A1B reactor, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and Dual Band Radar (DBR) all offer enhanced capability with reduced manning. The Gerald R. Ford class is designed to maximize the striking power of the embarked carrier air wing. The ship’s systems and configuration are optimized to maximize the sortie generation rate (SGR) of attached strike aircraft, resulting in a 33 percent increase in SGR over the Nimitz- class. The ship’s configuration and electrical generating plant are designed to accommodate new systems, including direct energy weapons, during its 50-year service life.

The typical air wing aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier consists of:

• Four Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each.

• One Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.

• One Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D “Advanced” Hawkeyes.

• One Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks.

• One Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks, 3–5 of which are typically based in detachments on other ships of the carrier strike group.

• A Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds.

Photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Riley McDowell and Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ruben Reed / US Navy

Ballistic missiles could inflict considerable damage to American aircraft carrier groups as well as to every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region.

The Pentagon has concluded after a series of war games that China will defeat American forces in a sea war by 2030, by which time a modernized Chinese navy would operate an array of new attack submarines, aircraft carriers, and destroyers.

Anonymous US defense sources told The Times that China’s ballistic missiles could inflict considerable damage to American aircraft carrier groups as well as to every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region. The Pacific island of Guam, a base for American strategic bombers such as the B-1, B-2, and B-52, is now considered to be wholly at risk.

Various scenarios also show that in an invasion of Taiwan, Americans will struggle to stop Chinese forces from taking over the island.

“Every simulation that has been conducted looking at the threat from China by 2030, and there have been various ones carried out, for example in the event of China invading Taiwan, have all ended up with the defeat of the US,” said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China power project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a consultant for the US government on East Asia. “Taiwan is the most volatile issue because that could escalate to a war with the US, even to a nuclear war.

“In the Pentagon and state department and the White House, China is now seen without doubt as the biggest threat. We have been too passive in the past … Guam is now in range of their ballistic missiles, so the US would take a beating if there was a conflict.”

Beijing has stepped up its military activities in the South and East China Seas, harassing ships, militarising islands whose sovereignty is claimed by others, and sabre-rattling over the planned reincorporation of Taiwan. President Xi has said he wants the island back under “One China” by 2050 and is prepared to use force.

The US has no defense pact with Taiwan but has increased arms sales to help it to build a deterrent. US concerns are expected to be highlighted in the Pentagon’s 2020 China military power report, which is due to be sent to Congress in the summer.

A source was quoted as saying that the Pentagon is channeling resources toward hypersonic weapons to counter Chinese ballistic missiles.

As already reported, Rear Admiral Lou Yuan, deputy head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, told during the Military Industry List summit in Shenzhen on Dec. 20, 2018, that the ongoing disputes over the ownership of the East and South China Seas could be resolved by sinking two US Navy aircraft carriers.  

He declared in fact that China’s highly capable anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles are more than capable of hitting U.S. Navy carriers, despite them being at the center of a ‘bubble’ of defensive escorts.

The U.S. Navy 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), USS George Washington (CVN 73), USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), are the largest warships in the world, each designed for an approximately 50-year service life with just a single mid-life refueling. The next generation of aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford-class (CVN 78) was ordered in September 2008 as the force structure replacement for USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which was inactivated in 2012.

The typical air wing aboard a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier consists of:

• Four Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each.

• One Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.

• One Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D “Advanced” Hawkeyes.

• One Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks.

• One Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks, 3–5 of which are typically based in detachments on other ships of the carrier strike group.

• A Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds.

Photo by U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force

“The airplane stopped right opposite the captain’s bridge. 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,” Art E. Flock, Lockheed’s chief engineer.

It can be said without fear of contradiction that the C-130 Hercules is one of the most important aircraft in aviation history.

Since its first flight in 1954, Hercules has been everywhere and done just about anything. Aircrews have flown it to both poles, landed or airdropped military supplies to hot spots from Vietnam to Afghanistan, and performed countless relief operations around the globe. The Hercules has been used to drop bombs, retrieve satellites in midair, conduct reconnaissance, and attack ground targets with cannons. Some models are flown as commercial transports. The C-130 has the longest, continuous military aircraft production run in history and one of the top three longest, continuous aircraft production lines of any type. 

As told by Joseph Earl Dabney in his book Herk: Hero of the Skies, when one reviews the encyclopedic range of accomplishments by the C-130 Hercules and its valiant aircrews over the years, surely one of the most astounding took place in October 1963 when the US Navy decided to try to land a Hercules on an aircraft carrier. Was it possible? Who would believe that the big, four-engine C-130 with its bulky fuselage and 132-foot wing span could land on the deck of a carrier?

Not only was it possible, but it was also done in moderately rough seas 500 miles out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Boston. In so doing, the airplane became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day.

When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg. “Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody’s got to be kidding,” he said. But they weren’t kidding. In fact, the Chief of Naval Operations himself had ordered a feasibility study on operating the big propjet aboard the Norfolk-based USS Forrestal (CVA-59). The Navy was trying to find out whether they could use the Hercules as a “Super COD” – a “Carrier Onboard Delivery” aircraft. The airplane then used for such tasks was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine bird with a limited payload capacity and a 300-mile range. If an aircraft carrier is operating in mid-ocean, it has no “onboard delivery” system to fall back on and must come nearer land before taking aboard even urgently needed items. The Hercules was stable and reliable, with a long cruising range and capable of carrying large payloads.

The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines, was delivered on Oct. 8. Lockheed’s only modifications to the original plane included installing a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the underwing refueling pods. “The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second,” Flatley said. As it turned out, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin.

In addition to Flatley, the crew consisted of Lt.Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. The initial sea-born landings on Oct. 30, 1963, were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft’s wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for landing roll. The short landing roll resulted from close coordination between Flatley and Jerry Daugherty, the carrier’s landing signal officer. Daugherty, later to become a captain and assigned to the Naval Air Systems Command, gave Flatley an engine “chop” while still three or four feet off the deck.

Lockheed’s Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. “The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped 270 feet more, and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple of hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted.”

The plane’s wingspan cleared the Forrestal’s flight deck “island” control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. Lockheed’s chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard to observe the testing. “The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain’s bridge. I watched a man on the ship’s bow as that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet.” The speed of the ship was increased by 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction. Thus, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50-knot wind on the nose. “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.”

From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the C-130 Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130, and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

The following video is the original footage of the KC-130 tests conducted aboard the USS Forrestal.

Photo by U.S. Navy

‘I can see a scenario where a Soviet captain, during the height of the Cold War, would want to surface his sub in the middle of an American carrier task force as a ploy to try to prove the superiority of Soviet technology and Soviet seamanship,’ David Hornbuckle, former Nuclear Power Plant Mechanical Operator MM1/SS at US Navy.

In March 1984 USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) Carrier Strike Group (CSG), with more than 80 aircraft and eight escort ships, entered the Sea of Japan to take part in a joint US-Korean exercise codenamed Team Spirit-84.

Such a powerful CSG not far from the Soviet Far East could not go unnoticed by the Soviet Pacific Fleet, in fact, the Victor-Class nuclear submarine K-314 was ordered to follow the aircraft carrier.

On Mar. 14, Kitty Hawk was located by K-314. The Soviet submarine began the chase of the US Navy aircraft carrier which soon discovered that it was followed by K-314 and did what it could to break away from the Soviet submarine.

As already explained in a previous article, this cat-and-mouse game continued for a week, until something unexpected happened.

On Mar. 20, K-314 rose to a depth of just 10 meters after having lost track of USS Kitty Hawk due to bad weather.

Through the periscope, Captain Vladimir Evseenko discovered that the entire USS Kitty Hawk CSG was only 4 to 5 kilometers away. More alarmingly still, the Americans and K-314 were heading toward each other at full throttle.

Evseenko gave an immediate order to submerge, but it was too late. K-314 and USS Kitty Hawk collided.

‘The Soviet submarine K-314 surfaced at 22:05 (10:05 PM) in front of the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63. The K-314, surfaced in front of the bow of the carrier at night and too close for either vessel to avoid the collision,’ David Hornbuckle, former Nuclear Power Plant Mechanical Operator MM1/SS at US Navy, on Quora.

‘It is a normal practice for submarines, when surfacing, to verify the area is clear of other vessels. Most submarines do a sonar sweep using passive sonar, plus the K-314 was shadowing the carrier task force in an attempt to gather intelligence, so I am fairly certain the K-314 did not do an active sonar sweep.

‘When surfacing, the periscope is raised (I am telling this from an American perspective since I served on two US submarines) and as soon as the scope breaks the surface, the OOD or Captain does a visual sweep for other vessels in the area.

‘Small boats and large vessels which are sitting still (some ships have to wait outside a port for high tide or a harbor pilot to enter port) make very little noise and can be missed on passive sonar.’

Hornbuckle continues.

‘How the sonar crew on the K-314 missed the sound of an 82,000-ton aircraft carrier bearing down on them is beyond comprehension barring a failure in their sonar system.

‘It is the submarines’ fault for surfacing directly in front of an underway aircraft carrier.

‘As for how it happened, I have an idea of how it might have gone. Soviet submarine commanders are known to be reckless when compared to American captains.

‘I can see a scenario where a Soviet captain, during the height of the Cold War, would want to surface his sub in the middle of an American carrier task force as a ploy to try to prove the superiority of Soviet technology and Soviet seamanship.

‘Using his sonar to position his sub in the Sea of Japan, which has a reputation for poor sonar operation at times, the Soviet captain thought he had positioned his boat perfectly.

‘Unknown to the Soviet captain, the aircraft carrier had gone to flight ops changing direction to head into the wind and increasing the speed of the carrier.’

Hornbuckle concludes:

‘It could have been bad timing that just as the Soviet captain surfaced his sub, the carrier had gone to flight ops and instead of being off his port or starboard side, the carrier was heading straight at him at 30 knots. No time to react or avoid the collision.

‘Instead of a propaganda success, it becomes a humiliation of the captain. Why the Soviet sonar failed to detect the USS Kitty Hawk is still the question about the incident that I would love to know the answer to. Whether this is what occurred that night, I don’t know. Just some thoughts from a former submariner.’

After the accident, Kitty Hawk immediately launched ‘two helicopters to see if we could render any assistance to them but the Soviet sub appeared to have suffered no extensive damage,’ Captain David N. Rogers, the ship commander, recalled.

K-314’s propeller was heavily damaged as a result of the collision. Kitty Hawk instead had a huge hole in its bow, causing several thousand tons of jet fuel to leak into the sea; by sheer miracle, it did not explode.

Luckily, nor did the nuclear weapons on board the Soviet and American vessels detonate.

Close escorted by a US Navy frigate for part of the route, the Soviet Submarine was towed to the nearest Soviet naval base.

For USS Kitty Hawk, exercise Team Spirit was over: the aircraft carrier in fact made its way to the port of Subic Bay for repair.

The Americans blamed the Soviet submarine captain for the incident, and the Soviet Naval command concurred. Vladimir Evseenko was suspended from the post of captain and continued his service on land.

Evseenko could not agree with such a verdict, since the incident had caused no loss of life or the submarine itself: “Everybody was lucky. We didn’t sink, no one got burned.”

“We even managed to kick out the ‘enemy’ for a long time,” he pointed out.

Photo by U.S. Navy

Ever since this attack was undertaken, the British have been insistent that all the Argentine reports about an attack on HMS Invincible are wrong, and that the ship was neither attacked nor hit.

By 1982, the backbone of the Argentine combat aviation, both in the Air Force and the Navy, was formed by three batches of Douglas A-4 Skyhawks, with the A-4B and C of the Air Force and the A-4Qs of the Navy.

Despite their age, being a model almost 30 years old at the time of the war, and lacking protection, they took on the overwhelming struggle to fight the British Task Force that opposed the Argentine forces on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. The Skyhawks were responsible for inflicting the greatest damage upon the Royal Navy, sinking HMS Coventry, Ardent, Antelope, RFA Sir Galahad, and LCU F-4 while damaging many other ships and striking ground targets.

According to Santiago Rivas’ book Skyhawks over the South Atlantic, Argentine Skyhawks in the Malvinas/Falklands War, the A-4 Skyhawks from Argentine Air Force’s (Fuerza Aérea Argentina, FAA) Escuadron I Aeromovil even attempted a strike on HMS Invincible aircraft carrier on May 30, 1982.

Coded Mission OF.1268, the Strike on HMS Invincible saw Primer Tenientes José Vazquez (on C-301) and Ernesto Ureta (C-321) volunteering to take part, and they selected PTs Omar Castillo (C-310) and Alférez Gerardo Isaac (C-318) as their wingmen. Teniente Paredi (C-302) was to serve as a reserve. The formation was codenamed Zonda, and each aircraft was armed with three BRP.250 bombs. In front of them was Section Ala, including Super Etendards 3-A-202 piloted by Capitan de Corbeta (CC) Alejandro Francisco, and 3-A-205 with Teniente de Navio Luis Collavino. Because of the long flight and the quantity of aircraft, both FAA KC-130Hs were reserved for this mission, both launching from Rio Gallegos.

Alférez [Zonda 4] recalled:

‘At 40 miles from what would be the target, according to the coordinates given, the Super Etendards lifted for the first time, made a radar sweep, and went down, at 30 miles did the same and at 20 the launch should occur. When they get up I look to the left to see the launch, I thought that the missile was coming out of the pylon but it fell down when I saw that the missile was falling [and] I thought that it had failed, but then its engine started. At this moment their leader said “in front is the aircraft carrier,” turned left, and returned to the Rio Grande. We follow the trail, we start to converge and the missile disappeared in a moment, it got lost in the horizon (the weather was covered with clouds, grey with some showers that we had to avoid) and in the same place where the missile was lost, a few seconds later, the silhouette of a very large ship appeared, unlike all the silhouettes we had studied and the clearest was the asymmetry, the ship was in the same direction we were flying and it was totally asymmetric, the flight deck gave me a disruptive vision, I was clearly looking at an aircraft carrier, I clearly saw the flight deck and the island where all the antennas and the bridge are, as we approached two columns of black smoke began to emerge on both sides as if screwed, came from both sides, more and more smoke began to settle in the area of the aircraft carrier and began to cover the lower part of her. As I got closer I started to see her only from the flight deck upwards, in this moment I started to feel hot air, I started to feel the mask very hot, and I thought I had to put more cold air, but this meant that I had to take the hand from the accelerator and grab the stick with the left and with the right hand move the command of the air. I sent the command to both hands and neither responded, the left stayed on the accelerator and the right on the stick. I stuck close to the water, and since I saw the aircraft carrier I forgot the rest of the world, I had what is called target fascination, I experienced it exactly as the manual says as if two earmuffs began to close and the only thing that existed to me was the ship. Until about 10 kilometers away I felt an explosion that I knew was not from my plane, I looked to the left and saw an A-4 [callsign Zondan1, flown by Vasquez] that was exploding, a wing broke, showed the belly, and crashed on the water. Everyone was to my left, I was on the right. I did not know who it was. I looked forward again, back to the ship and when I was about to start shooting with the guns – I wanted to start shooting the guns from afar, because on May 25 when I entered San Carlos and entered shooting with guns I felt invulnerable, I felt that nothing was going to happen to me – they were firing at us, the explosive ammunition was visible. When I was about to start firing I felt another explosion, much stronger, inside the cabin. I felt it as when you let out the gas for a while and then throw phosphorus, pressure, and depression, it’s the same sensation because it’s not even noise. I looked to my left and saw, at between 5 and 10 meters, another A-4 [callsign Zondan2, flown by Castillo] that exploded, the image I have was an A-4 twice as long and twice as fat, with the same shape as the A-4 but with all the sheets separated and between sheet and sheet all orange. I looked again at the nose and began to shoot with the guns, 200 rounds came out against the stern and over the smoke, because I was flying between the flight deck and the water, and up to the right was the island. I couldn’t climb to pass over the deck, so I turned right and went through the right side of the aircraft carrier. When I passed the bow of the aircraft carrier I started to make turns with high load factor, right and left for a long time, trying to prevent ore from being hit.’

Ureta [Zonda 3] recalled the attempt to hitnHMS Invincible as follows:

‘We approached on heading 340° or 350°,nforming to the Super kendards, at 100 feet altitude and a speed of 420 knots.nBefore launching the Exocet, the Super Etendards made a slight correction tonthe right and the wingman remained slightly ahead of the leader. heard the leader indicating the position of the target, so I asked “how far?” and henreplied “20 miles ahead.”

‘Then I pulled the throttle to full powernand I called Zonda 1, but he didn’t answer, although I had him within sight: he was approaching me while we were converging to the target. Once we were at 30nmeters from each other I saw that a part of his left wing detached from hisnaircraft: seconds later, the engine exploded, leaving the aircraft without the rear part. He began a descent to the left. I had not seen the moment in which it hit the water, nor the pilot ejecting. We were too low and I do not think he could do so.

‘Meanwhile, my target was in view, and [I] continued my approach and when I was in range for my guns, I opened fire. However, my cannons jammed after firing only two rounds. Thus, I continued my approachnkeeping the pipper a the target all the time, then pressed the trigger to dropnthe bombs while attacking from about 30° from the stern, before passing over the rear half of the ship. Once on the other side, I called Numbers 2 and 4, but they did not answer. Thus, I assumed I was returning alone. It was onlynlater that I saw [in] my mirror that another aircraft was to the right and behind me: on changing the frequency of my radio to that for contactingntankers, I realized this was the Number 4.

‘When I recall that mission, I am sure we attacked HMS Invincible: it had a long island atop a long, empty flight deck.nOn the final leg of my attack run, I saw a lot of dense, black smoke risingnfrom the ship. Moreover, when trying to see the ship after the attack all I could see was even more smoke rising from it. I did not see any other ships, atnleast not to my left — because my vision was concentrated to that side – exceptnfor the carrier.’

Ever since this attack was undertaken, the British have been insistent that all the Argentine reports about an attack onnHMS Invincible are wrong, and that the ship was neither attacked nor hit. ThenArgentines remain persistent with their claims until this very day:nunsurprisingly related discussions are often heated.

What is certain is that the six fighter-bombers involved took off at 12:30; the Super Etendards fired their Exocet two hours later, and then returned to land at 15:30. The two survivingnSkyhawks landed back at the base at 16:23. At 15:40, the Base Aérea Militar (BAM, Military Air Base) Malvinas forwarded a message from the FAA’s radar on the Falklands to Comando Fuerza Aérea Sud (CdoFAS, Air Force Command South, FAA):

‘… lots of British helicopters were detected over the fleet, all moving to the east, where the HMS Invincible was supposed to be, and the Sea Harriers – which flew their CAPs at an altitude of 30,000ft -were landing at a different point than the one where they have taken off.’

The rest of the Argentine version of thisnaffair is based on what Ureta and Isaac claim to have seen: both of them agreednthat the ship they bombed was the same that they saw in the pictures beforenmission, that it had a rectangular flight deck, a big long island, and the twonradar masts. They also both stressed that they had left the ship enveloped in a dense cloud of black smoke, rising from about the center of the hull, below the island. Moreover, the two Super Etendard pilots stated that the target thatnthey had tracked with their radars was the size of an aircraft carrier.

Once the corresponding reports were published in Argentina, late on 30 May, the British Defence Minister John Nottnstated that the Argentines had re-attacked the burned-out hulk of SS Atlantic Conveyor, and that one Skyhawk was shot down. Actually, Atlantic Conveyor had sunk alreadyndays earlier, which means that Nott’s statement was false. Three days later, the British stated the Skyhawks actually attacked the Type 21 frigate HMSnAvenger (F185), which – together with the destroyer HMS Exeter (D89) – wasnsouth-east of the Royal Navy’s task force and heading for the islands with the task of providing fire-support following night. The frigate was seven milesnsouth-west of the destroyer, and 24 miles west of HMS Invincible at the time of the attack: about 45 seconds after the incoming airstrike was detected it may havenshot down the approaching Exocet with her 4.5in (115mm) gun. The two Skyhawksnwere then shot down by Sea Dart SAMs fired by HMS Exeter, and the black smoke seennby the Argentine pilots were ‘normal’ for such a ship. With their own navy operating exactly e same guns on its two British-made destroyers, the Argentines concluded this version as ‘very doubtful,’ because they consider such guns as ineffective for use even against aircraft, not to mention sea-skimming missiles.

Whether they actually attacked the Britishnaircraft carrier or a frigate, there is little doubt that the Skyhawks managed to penetrate the defenses of the Royal Navy’s task force, and their pilots demonstratednbravery beyond what could have been expected from them. Unsurprisingly, Isaac andnUreta were both decorated with the Medalla al Heroico Valore n Combat – the highest military award of Argentina.

Skyhawks over the South Atlantic, Argentine Skyhawks in the Malvinas/Falklands War, is published by Helion & Company and is available to order here.

Photo by Argentine Air Force, U.S. Navy and Royal Navy

On Apr. 19, 2005, USS America left Philadelphia under tow on its final mission. America was towed off the east coast where the ship was finally disposed of during a classified SinkEx.

USS America was the third Kitty Hawk – class aircraft carrier and the third ship in the US Navy to bear the name. Initially commissioned as an attack aircraft carrier CVA 66, she was redesignated as a multi-purpose aircraft carrier CV 66 on Jun. 30, 1975. Decommissioned on Aug. 9, 1996, the USS America spend the following years at the Naval Inactive Ships Facility in Philadelphia.

On Apr. 19, 2005, the carrier left Philadelphia under tow on its final mission. America was towed off the east coast where the ship was finally disposed of during a classified SinkEx.

The USS America is the only supercarrier ever sunk, either on purpose or in combat. Blake Horner, Mechanical Engineer, explains why on Quora “It took four weeks and they ended up having to scuttle her from on board due to her not sinking. She is not only far larger than WWII battleships, but she is also a lot tougher. While she does not have the heavy armor the battleships of yore had, she does have a double-layered hull, meaning weapons have to push through alternating layers of steel and empty pockets to reach her internals.

“On top of that, her internal compartmentalization was far better than that of battleships. She is so large, there are so many more rooms that must be filled in order to make her sink than that of a battleship.

“Additionally, thanks to modern technology, most bombs, torpedoes, and missiles actually have smaller warheads than what they used against WWII vessels. And in the process of the tests, they were actually using controlled explosives, not actual weapons.

“The whole point of the tests was to make future carriers more survivable, as well as see how warships reacted to underwater explosion and damage. Clearly, after taking a beating for four weeks, they can survive a LOT due to just their sheer bulk. But at the same time, the tests were not meant to truly sink her immediately. Thus, there was non“shoot to kill” mindset of the naval officers conducting the test, versus the whole point of attacking enemy battleships being to sink them.

“America lasted so much longer because A) they were not trying to sink her immediately (though they did end up having to board her to make her sink) and B) her sheer bulk made it a lot harder to sink by being able to absorb damage better than battleships.”

America was planned to be sold for scrapping. However, she was chosen to be a live-fire test and evaluation platform in 2005, to aid the design of future aircraft carriers. There was some objection to a ship being named after the U.S. being deliberately sunk at sea, and a committee of her former crew members and other supporters attempted to save the ship for use as a museum ship. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. In a letter to them, then-Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John B. Nathman explained:

“America will make one final and vital contribution to our national defense, this time as a live-fire test and evaluation platform. America’s legacy will serve as a footprint in the design of future carriers — ships that will protect the sons, daughters, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of American veterans. We will conduct a variety of comprehensive tests above and below the waterline collecting data for use by naval architects and engineers in creating the nation’s future carrier fleet. It is essential we make those ships as highly survivable as possible. When that mission is complete, America will slip quietly beneath the sea. I know America has a very special place in your hearts, not only for the name but also for your service aboard her. I ask that you understand why we selected this ship for this one last crucial mission and make note of the critical nature of her final service.”

Horner concludes:

“Economically, it was the smallest loss to the original cost ratio versus any of the Nimitz class, or even its sister ships of the Kitty Hawk class (USS America never really went through the Navy’s Carrier Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and therefore, the ship was in bad shape during its last years of service. In the early 1990s, America even had one of her flight deck elevators fall with an S-3B aircraft and several blueshirts on it. Additionally, the carrier suffered steam and fuel leaks and – also in the early 1990s, returning home from deployment – the carrier cut through a Hurricane destroying large parts of the flight deck catwalks.). America was conventionally powered, meaning they did not have to worry about the nuclear radiation of a Nimitz class. It was of similar size and design to the Nimitz so they could learn just as much as they would from sinking one of those in preparation for the Ford class. There were no plans for using her as a potential reactivation ship (one that could come back to service) or as a museum, as she was in very bad condition in comparison to her sisters. It resulted that the potential benefits far outweighed the loss, as the lessons learned from sinking her would allow the Navy to perfect the Gerald R. Ford class, which was under development. It was just a logical decision in allowing the vessel to serve in one last capacity, without having to pay for tearing her apart or letting her sit as a museum. And hopefully, it worked.”

Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Michael Sandberg / U.S. Navy

‘I think the Bronze, Silver, and Gold for difficult aircraft to land has to go to Vought aircraft,’ David Tussey, former US Naval Aviator

Landing on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier is probably the most difficult thing a US Navy pilot will ever do. The flight deck only has about 500 feet (~150 meters) of runway space for landing planes, which isn’t nearly enough for the heavy, high-speed jets on U.S.ncarriers.

Each aircraft is equipped with a tailhook to land on the flight deck. The naval aviator‘s goal is to snag the tailhook on one of four arresting wires, sturdy cables woven from high-tensile steel wire.

There are four parallel arresting wires, spaced about 50 feet (15 meters) apart, to expand the target area for the pilot. Pilots are aiming for the third wire, as it’s the safest and most effective target.

But which US Navy jet is the most difficult or the easiest to land on the Aircraft Carrier?

‘I think the Bronze, Silver, and Gold for difficult aircraft to land has to go to Vought aircraft,’ David Tussey, former US Naval Aviator explains on Quora.

‘First up, the F7U Cutlass. It was just so poorly designed and had such terrible engines, that they were damn near impossible to land on a carrier. The accident and fatality rate was horrible. Look at the angle the airplane had to assume to land. Just a terrible (and frequently tragic) design. Earned the nickname The Ensign Killer.

‘In more modern times, the F-8 Crusader had a similar issue (also made by Vought). The angle of attack required to slow the aircraft for carrier approach speeds was so extreme that in order to prevent ramp strikes, the aircraft had to incorporate a movable wing to use during landings and takeoffs. (Actually, the fuselage moved, not the wing, but that’s semantics.) The Crusader is somewhat redeemed by having a reputation as a great fighter aircraft to fly. Still, very challenging to bring aboard the boat, and the subject of some horrific ramp strikes.’

‘And to complete the Vought triumvirate, a derivative of the Crusader, the A-7 Corsair, while better, was also very challenging to land on the carrier. (This was the aircraft that I flew for 800+ carrier landings.) The Corsair suffered from a slow response engine as well as a fast approach speed, so deviations during the approach were very difficult to manage. At least the wing didn’t move up and down.

‘Here’s me having a hard landing on a badly pitching deck onboard USS Midway. If you look closely, you can see the starboard wheel coming apart. Clearly, a controlled crash as were many A-7 Landings. Earned a trip to the bridge on this one.

‘The A-7 Corsair was, however, much loved by the Navy for its mission flexibility and effectiveness. So much of its terrible landing traits were forgiven.’

Tussey concludes:

‘I would propose that the easiest aircraft to land on the carrier, is the current F/A-18 Super Hornet. The Rhino not only has great aerodynamics, but also a super responsive engine, coupled with the amazing Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies  (MAGIC CARPET. The premise of this technology The premise of MAGIC CARPET is simple – rather than worry about adjusting roll, yaw, and pitch, adding and reducing power, and predicting how the plane’s course will intersect with the moving ship’s, the pilot can more directly and simply control flight path) greatly reduces pilot workload. (Finally!) Oh, the magic of digital flight controls. Just a superbly designed aircraft. Solid as a rock coming aboard.’

Photo Credit: David Tussey and Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Christopher B. Long / U.S. Navy

USS Gerald R. Ford will be the only carrier regularly available to provide carrier qualifications to pilots who require them on the east coast this year.

The interesting picture in this post features an F/A-18E Super Hornet, attached to “Blue Blasters” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 34, landing aboard USS Gerald R. Ford’s (CVN 78) flight deck marking the 1,000th recovery of a fixed wing aircraft using Ford’s Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) Mar. 19, 2020 at 5:13 p.m.

As told by Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryan Seelbach, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), in the article 1000th Aircraft Arrestment, Launch on Ford, minutes later, the crew celebrated a second milestone launching an F/A-18E Super Hornet attached to “Warhawks” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 97 from Ford’s Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapults for the 1,000th time.

With 1,000 launches and recoveries complete, Ford continued flight operations and the following day obtained its Flight Deck Certification (FDC) and Carrier Air Traffic Control Center (CATCC) Certification last week.

This will allow the carrier to provide carrier qualifications to pilots who require them. In fact, the ship will be the only carrier regularly available for this role on the east coast this year.

In order to certify Ford’s flight deck and carrier air traffic control center, the ship was required to complete a Precision Approach Landing Systems (PALS) certification, and conduct two consecutive days of flight operations with 50 day traps on day one, followed by 70 day traps and 40 night traps on day two. As explained by Petty Officer 1st Class Gary Prill, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), in the article Ready for the Fleet: Ford Completes Flight Deck and Carrier Air Traffic Control Center Certifications, together, the crews of Ford and CVW 8 exceeded those minimum requirements.

Over a two-day period, F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets from four squadrons assigned to CVW 8 conducted 123 day, and 42 night cats and traps aboard Ford to reach this milestone in Ford’s operational readiness.

These significant milestones in the ships’ history began on Jul. 28, 2017 with Ford’s first fixed wing recovery and launch using its first-in-class AAG and EMALS technologies.

Boasting the US Navy’s first major design investment in aircraft carriers since the 1960s, Ford’s AAG and EMALs support greater launch and recovery energy requirements of future air wings, increasing the safety margin over legacy launch and arresting gear found on Nimitz-class carriers.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Gary Prill

If the pilot’s happy with the airplane’s performance, he or she will salute – that’s the signal that “we’re good to go.” Then the shooter – the catapult officer – will do the last check to make sure everyone’s clear, then will kneel down, touch the deck and point forward, sometimes dramatically for fun.

The following cool video features the famed scene from Top Gun movie where Maverick is launched on Alert 5 after Hollywood has been hit during the final dogfight of the film.

At 0:29 in the video Maverick salutes the catapult officer or “shooter” before launching from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier.

Dave Barak, former S-3 Viking sensor operator (SENSO) in the US Navy, gives a basic but very interesting description of things during a cat shot from the flight deck of a US Navy flattop on Quora.

‘The person under the airplane watches as the airplane slowly taxis forward until the nose tow launch bar drops down to the deck in front of the catapult shuttle. At that point, he or she signals the deck edge operator to “tension the cat” (which isn’t technically an accurate term, but it’s what’s used). The shuttle slides forward a few inches, taking up any slack between it and the nose tow launch bar. At that point, the person under the airplane quickly checks to make sure everything looks good, then runs out with a thumbs up (hopefully) to signify all is well.

‘At that point, the pilot gets the signal to advance the throttles to whatever setting is needed for the launch. He or she “wipes out the controls,” moving the ailerons, rudder(s), and elevators*. The final checkers near the rear of the airplane look at all that and raise their thumbs if everything’s good. While that’s happening the pilot is checking the crucial instruments – engines for one. At that point, if the pilot’s happy with the airplane’s performance, he or she will salute – that’s the signal that “we’re good to go.” Then the shooter – the catapult officer – will do the last check to make sure everyone’s clear, then will kneel down, touch the deck and point forward, sometimes dramatically for fun. At that point, the deck edge operator does a quick check to make sure everyone’s clear, then presses the launch button. Sometimes – I think more often now than in my day – the shooter is in the “bubble,” an armored glass enclosure at flight deck level, and that’s where the catapult is fired from.’

Taken from the cockpit of a US Navy F/A-18E the following clip (taken from the YouTube channel of The Fighter Pilot Podcast) shows the Super Hornet being launched from catapult 3 of USS George Washington (CVN-73). At 2:01 in the clip, the Naval Aviator salutes the shooter before launching from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier.

Barak concludes

‘However, at night the process is slightly different. Because the pilot’s salute can’t be seen, he or she will switch on the airplane’s strobe lights to signify everything’s good.’

This video confirms Barak’s statement: in fact at 0:23 in the footage the F/A-18E Super Hornet featured in the clip switches on its strobe lights before launching from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71).

*These days, ailerons, rudders, and elevators often do double duty. For instance, the elevators at the rear of the airplane may move at different rates and by different amounts, performing some of the functions of the ailerons. I’m being a bit basic on the description.