Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:46 PM Jan 2012

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.

...

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.

more
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/why-aircraft-carriers-may-be-good-for-parking-cars-but-not-landing-new-jets/?hpt=hp_bn1

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why aircraft carriers may be good for parking cars but not landing new jets (Original Post) n2doc Jan 2012 OP
On a side note...We could reduce the carrier fleet to 4 and still outnumber the rest of our enemies rustydog Jan 2012 #1
+1 think Jan 2012 #3
No one thought to require landing on aircraft carrier in a design requirement liberal N proud Jan 2012 #2
Yeah, they did. They put a hook on the plane, correct? RC Jan 2012 #4
F 35 Affordable???? Even I am not that stupid tech3149 Jan 2012 #5
There Seem To Be These Disconnects In Military Planners' Thinking Vogon_Glory Jan 2012 #6
Unlike the F-14 and F-18, it is also single-engine FarCenter Jan 2012 #7

rustydog

(9,186 posts)
1. On a side note...We could reduce the carrier fleet to 4 and still outnumber the rest of our enemies
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:48 PM
Jan 2012

Military spending must be cut by 60% at least. We'd still have a larger defense spending budget than all industrialized nations COMBINED. We could still build more aircraft carriers.

liberal N proud

(60,338 posts)
2. No one thought to require landing on aircraft carrier in a design requirement
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:51 PM
Jan 2012

when they were developign the F-35C?

tech3149

(4,452 posts)
5. F 35 Affordable???? Even I am not that stupid
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:39 PM
Jan 2012

I read an article from a retired general who had worked in procurement for most of his career.
He stated in no uncertain terms that we haven't bought a weapons system since the 50's that was worth a damn. They have all been overpriced, ineffective, unneeded, or just plain don't work.
And all those retired staff officers that go to work for the weapons manufacturers really would like to keep it that way.

Vogon_Glory

(9,124 posts)
6. There Seem To Be These Disconnects In Military Planners' Thinking
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:15 PM
Jan 2012

There seem to be these wonderful disconnects in US military planners' thinking. I'm reminded of right-wing Republicans bellowing about "handing OUR canal in Panama" to the Panamanians, yet oblivious to the fact that Ronnie's naval build-up called for capital ships too large to make their way through the Panama Canal's locks.

Go figure.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why aircraft carriers may...