It's hard to believe that they are having this many problems with these new, high-tech ships! They have all of the technology in the world available to them to design and simulate stress on them including finite analysis software. He would think that the design itself should be extremely solid. Hit the modern technological marvels have many more problems than ships that were designed decades ago without the aid of computers etc. Just goes to show that the designers today are much worse and depend too much and their tools instead of knowledge when designing ships or anything else for that matter.

On top of this it takes longer today to design and produce a new ship (or almost anything else for that matter) than it used to. Can you imagine what would've happened in WWII if it took as long as it does today to design new ships and aircraft?

Of course, in the case of the ships instead of building 1 of each design and testing them thoroughly they just went ahead and produced large numbers of them before they were proven! Of course what should the Navy or any of the other military branches care, their funding is almost limitless!

We got swindled. The whole modular ship concept was created to scam our government. They were sold as low cost alternatives to proper Navy ships. They were able to sell them at a lower cost because they weren't complete. They didn't have to prove any capabilities, they didn't even need to have a purpose. That could come later after they were built. It never did. See also the Montford Point class of ships built around the same time. Another modular example. They sailed right from the shipyard to the dock where they have remained since.

Maybe we should ask ourselves what Austal, an Australian company is doing designing our Navy ships? It doesn't seem like they would have the experience considering Australia as a country operates only 44 Navy ships with a very different mission than the USA's.

And yet the Austal ships are not the ones being taken out of service. The US designed ones are.

I would have thought that aluminum hulled warships would have been banned.

FEA, Failure Event Assured.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

1503-44, like it :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Locklin on science has a blog post on the subject.

The LCS named for my town, USS Tulsa was sponsored with a bunch of hoo-rah, and several officers visited the namesake town recently. Looks to be the Independence class (cracked hull).

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

I do like the part about covering the cracks in the side shell with RTV, as long as it doesn't go beyond the crack and impede inspection for crack growth. Perhaps the side shell is non-structural, because I am not seeing how RTV fixes a structural crack. I suppose it hides it pretty well.

Maybe it's to keep sea water from sloshing in and making a big mess. I note the SPOKESMAN pointed out that the problem was above the waterline, and that there's nothing to worry about (or, put another way: "...no cause for alarm...").

I just gotta wonder if it would be bad if one of the "side hulls" broke off. Above the waterline, of course.


spsalso

I watched a bit of the video mentioned by "Locklin on science". Wow, so absolutely cutting edge and latest high tech everything. Just ask us. Well, except perhaps at second 38, where we see an M2 machine gun working. Designed over 100 years ago, and still doing a good job of being VERY dangerous. After that, my attention drifted.

I've an associate who spent some time on military boats that might need to make approaching fast boats not be a problem. His opinion was that the 50 cal was the all around best tool for the job. Not too big. Not too small. Goldilocks likes it!


spsalso

China smiles :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Neat article... and real limitations on ships capability, almost rendering them useless. I didn't think they used aluminum for hulls; I seem to remember an issue with a couple of UK ships that were badly damaged because of aluminum hulls in the Falklands war. It would be neat to watch the crack 'grow'.

I remember as a pre-teenager putting a glazing point into the hardened putty of my bedroom window. I guess I accidentally 'chipped' the glazing and a crack slowly formed. I marked and dated the progression over several weeks; my dad was less impressed.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (Maybe we should ask ourselves what Austal, an Australian company is doing designing our Navy ships? It doesn't seem like they would have the experience considering Australia as a country operates only 44 Navy ships with a very different mission than the USA's.)

If Hokie's correct, do you want all of them to 'break'? Maybe there are some lessons to learn... Did Australia design them? or just build them? If design, maybe the US should be looking at the differences. If just built them, they should also look at the differences. It's a lovely looking boat, almost stealthy.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (China smiles :))

Not just China... there may be the odd Canadian, too.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

RTV stands for room temperature vulcanizing... I'd not heard of that before.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Take the article with a grain of salt. General Dynamics has operated the NASSCO shipyard in San Diego for quite some time and they build both military and commercial ships of moderate quality.

...maybe a multi-billion dollar, grain of salt...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

"China smiles :)"

No. But China wonders how far the rot goes, and how much it may be to their advantage.

Wondering, of course, does not make it so.


spsalso

Modern military ships have historically been built around compartmentalization. Current ships are built around CAN bus. I refuse to call the new ships modern.

This article is from 1987, so I guess the Navy didn't learn much about aluminum shipbuilding.

https://apnews.com/article/fb3c5f5bb2688593dadac51...

Dik, the HMAS Sheffield had a steel hull, but it was falsely reported that the Exocet missile which hit it made it burn because it was built of aluminum.

The littoral ships which Austal built were not designed or built in Australia, but rather in Mobile, Alabama, with lots of consultation witn the US Navy.

We, USA, also recently reached out to Damen, another foreign company, to build our 154 ft Cost Guard cutters. The bow has insufficient stiffness and is experiencing cracking and this is steel construction.

Then again, we also miscalculated the strength required to extend our own 110ft cutter fleet to 123 ft and all vessels had to be scrapped after conversion.

These problems are trivial, though. There is a specific problem in American shipbuilding and lays in the details. There is no ownership of the project, American shipbuilding is too compartmentalized and nobody cares about anything except their own tiny system.

This article is evidence.

https://gcaptain.com/rusting-fleet-top-us-navy-adm...

USA shipbuilders couldn't care less about what materials they spec on deck. Most of the rust stains on navy ships are around flanged pipe on deck and overboards. In past years flat faced flanges were specified on deck so and rubber spouts were installed on overboards so the water would drain away from the hull and minimize stains.

The problems with USA shipbuilding lay in the minor details. The LCS is a culmination of a lot of minor details.

Thanks for the added info, Hokie. I'd heard the UK ship was aluminum hull. I didn't know they were designed and fabricated in the US... were they designed in the US, too?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

thanks, tug...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (We, USA, also recently reached out to Damen, another foreign company)

Were they designed and built in the US?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (MarkR)

modern technological marvels have many more problems than ships that were designed decades ago without the aid of computers etc. Just goes to show that the designers today are much worse and depend too much and their tools instead of knowledge when designing ships or anything else for that matter.

Decades age the designers didn't know the design loads and knew that they didn't know.

Today they don't know the design loads, but think that they do.

It's s world wide military equipment procurement issue.

Half of it is that any purchase is a political decision. The other half is that the end user has very little input into what will actually be delivered.

If you asked your medium experience grunt on the ground what they want to take the fight to the enemy you would be starting up the warthog production line. Once the politicians and headshed aviators get involved a single stealth aircraft gets purchased instead of 20 warthogs.

A navy which just gets what they want and that works is the Swedish Navy. The Danish also is functional and effective.

The MV Liemba was scuttled, reinstated and remains in service on the shores of lake Tanganyika to this day. Astounding.

I just had to look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Liemba
not just scuttled, under water from 26 July 1916, until a British Royal Navy salvage team raised her and in 1927,

Love those triple expansion steam engines (as on the above mentioned boat until converted to diesel). I recall watching the one on the boat that used to go down to Mount Vernon. They had a viewing area, and me being me, I tended to watch it rather than the beauteous shoreline.

Here, by the way, is another triple expansion steam engine:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xiUc7DMUNu8/X1G1rHuLOCI...


spsalso

Alistair_Heaton,

The A-10 Warthog was a response to casualties in Vietnam. The Americans figured that about half of their aircraft lost were destroyed by small arms fire.

Question: Were the victims of small arms fire spread across all the aircraft types the Americans brought to Vietnam, or were they things that flew in range of Vietnamese small arms, like helicopters? How many F4s and B-52s were brought down by small arms?

Another question: The A-10 is supposed to be a successor to the Ilyushin Il-2 "Shturmovik". The "Shturmovik" happens to have been the most shot-down aircraft of WWII. How long would an A-10 survive in airspace occupied by hostile jet fighters, possibly using something other than small arms?

--
JHG

First air superiority. Can't fight anything WWII or more recent without air superiority. In essence the P51 became the first air superiority fighter even with its "P" designation. Once the Warthog only has to worry about the ground it isn't going to sustain a lot of small arms damage. At 50 or 100 feet off the deck the slew rate is beyond anything anybody with small arms can manage. One Warthog running down one column on a 2 lane road would take the whole thing out of commission even if every 10th or so vehicle was rendered immobile. If Ukraine had had 100 Warthogs in February, my guess is that it would be all over and they'd still have well over 75 of them. If they'd had the necessary coverage to allow the Warthog to do their thing.

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations

I thought the A-10 was a successor to the P-47--it WAS also called the Thunderbolt II.

But another candidate was the A-1. Any of those three can deliver a lot of sadness to a column.

I suspect the A-10 was an Air Force response to an Army demand for a ground attack airplane. Odd, how the Army would want such a thing, as opposed to a Mach 2 fighter--go figure. Also contributing was the continuing threat of the Army taking over Air Force work by using helicopters. The Air Force got REALLY testy when the Army decided to get their own ground attack plane, the OV-10.

Love the A-10, but I think the Javelin (and etc) was the way to go, at least until the Russians got their act together. How they doin' on that?


spsalso

This machine produced all of our "good" aircraft.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...

Perhaps it's old and worn out and can no longer produce required aircraft components.

From what i heard about the A-10 is that apart from its ability to do the job it was purchased for....

Is that is battle damage fixability is utterly outstanding. They can swap wings about willy nilly. Engine changes take an hour.

The wall of lead is still an issue to modern aircraft and the Ukrainian's have been putting it to good effect. We also got taught to make up air Défense gravel pits by the Royal Engineers. Its basically a ditch with a focused up form at the bottom with plastic explosive. Then filled with gravel/small rocks. Then when the aircraft starts its attack run its fired and with any luck the aircraft flys through the upwards and downwards debris and the rocks take it out. Apparently it has been used with success with modernish hardware.

Someone also said that the A-10 is pretty robust to fragmentation surface to A-A and G-A missiles. So most manpads would need a very precise hit to take it out of the air.

Also the phycological effect they have is not to be under played. I saw a scramble of 4 of them in Kandahar, got told to stop and they came hurtling out the dispersal. Took off gear up and then at about 1200ft turn left and PPhruu the noise was incredible. They were 10 NM away and we had 2 garrtte turbines running on our J41 and headsets on and boy could you still hear them letting rip with that cannon. Everyone knows when they are out shopping.

One of my coworkers is an Iraqi that assisted the US Government during gulf War 2 in exchange for asylum. Much of the duty of our fighter jets was to fly over villages with their afterburners on to intimidate the primitives. It must work because Fleet Week in San Francisco makes our villagers tremble on fear as well. Anyways, the Iraqis called it "flashing" when the US would do it over their country. I think this is an apt name, it's all for show.

spsalso quote:
"I do like the part about covering the cracks in the side shell with RTV, as long as it doesn't go beyond the crack and impede inspection for crack growth. Perhaps the side shell is non-structural, because I am not seeing how RTV fixes a structural crack. I suppose it hides it pretty well."

Maybe Phil Swift and Flex Seal could help out.




My other big question is why in the world do they think they can replace the A10 with the F35? Using a really expensive fighter with a troubled history for close ground support and exposure to ground fire is stupid. Also, the gun on the F35 has very limited capability vs the A10.




Kyle

A search for "why replace the A-10 with the F-35" develops an interesting reading list.

I do think the Army should be in charge of ground attack airplanes: the "A" planes. Build what you want. Fly them when and where you want. Meet the ground-pounders later for beers and explain how good a job you did for your co-workers. If necessary.

Then the Air Force could use their "F" planes to take down any flying opposition to the A's.


spsalso

The A-10 is singularly good at doing the mission it's been assigned; the 30-mm Gatling gun is literally a killer app, which the F-35 doesn't have.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The F-35, like other modern fighter jets when used in a ground combat role, tends to be a 'stand-off' type weapons platform, while the A-10 was an in-your-face, eat-dirt type of weapons platform. About the only thing that the F-35 and A-10 have in common was that they both have two wings and one pilot.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

50,000 TON CLOSED DIE FORGING PRESS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoa_50,000_ton_for...
It was out of service from 2008 to 2012 for $100 million of repairs, but is now reported to have returned to service at the same location now operated by Howmet Aerospace.
https://archive.wksu.org/news/story/30777

If you want to put kill stencils on the plane below the cockpit, an A10 could pick up more vehicles in a single sortie (sp?) the an F35 might collect aircraft over its entire life time.

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations

If you're going to "stand off", it starts looking like drones are superior to the F-35. MUCH cheaper, and no pilot to kill.

The reason for close-in work by the A-10 is so the pilot can make immediate decisions NOW. If you don't need that, I'd go with those drones.

Divide the cost of an F-35 by the cost of an attack drone, and decide whether you'd rather attack with one plane or XXX drones.



spsalso

It's my opinion that the Top Gun types are not interested in giving over their jobs to a guy sitting in a container in Iowa :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

I always figured that if I could fill the sky with some sort of modern P51 clone (the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano may suffice) that the capabilities of the numerically limited opponent (read F35 for instance) wouldn't matter, I'd have air superiority. Given what Ukraine has done with drone launched hand grenades, air superiority may be over rated. Maybe all that's needed is control of the air space up to about 25 feet off the deck.

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations

What is your goal? Do you want to kill people or take out infrastructure? Russia has economic interest in taking over Ukraine so destroying infrastructure isn't their ideal option. Instead they have to demoralize their enemy with death. This type of war supports lots of planes and lots of bullets. On the other end of the spectrum is a war to disable the enemy. This can be done with precision strikes against infrastructure and this is supported by precision munitions and stealth. I don't know that this type of war has ever been successful. It's more of a deterrent until it doesn't work anymore and we have to resort to the killing type war.

What is "my" goal?

To destroy all Russian equipment in Ukraine. On land. In air. On water. This will likely demoralize any remaining Russian soldiers, and their enthusiasm to stay will be diminished.

Russia can still fire artillery and rockets from Russia into Ukraine. A problem is that of Ukraine firing back into Russia to destroy that equipment, too.

I do wonder where the "counter battery radar" is. Why is the Russian artillery (in Ukraine) not being taken out?


spsalso

Is it possible to win a war from a defensive standpoint? I can find a list of battles won but no wars?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_victories...#

The question now is that destroying Russian assets still costs Ukrainian lives. How many Ukrainian lives is a Russian tank worth?

OK, I haven't seen TG2, but don't the Fs still have to keep the Migs off the A10s. If you have total air superiority, or are not especially interested in neutralizing assorted armor, just need to take out SAM and Migs so the Bs can get past them and reach the nuclear launch sites, or Qadafie's palace, I think you'd want some F-somethings nearby as somebody should probably be keeping an eye on angle sector while the A10s kind of have their arses up in the air when they are focused on pounding 6 O'c. 30mm doesn't have the range for that and drones are probably a bit too low and slow for mig chasing. When you've got nothing else to do but pound tanks, sure you want enough A10s to block out the sun.

Since failing attackers often go on to defending their homeland the die is probably a bit weighted towards victory falling to the ultimate attackers. On the other hand, are attackers ever ultimately the winners of any conflict. How many conflicts have there been between England, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Italy. Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Scotland, Wales ... yet they all continue to exist in various forms. Unless you kill every man and child, enslave all the women and plow salt into the fields, wars accomplish little in the long term scheme of things. Most results are temporary.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

I'm not into war stuff... but, I thought the A10 was a special weapon with really a single purpose. It, I understand, was exceptional at that. This is something that few military 'weapons' achieve.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Tank buster. I recall video from one of the Gulf wars of one lighting up a building. Impressive. Make you want to abandon any vehicle.

They keep trying to "retire" them, no luck yet as far as I know. :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

There just isn't anything else that can quickly lay down heavy ground attack ordinance like that can and a new platform would take 15yrs to develop.

Besides, anything that can take it like this is going to be hard to get rid of.

The A-10 is battle-hardened to an exceptional degree, being able to survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. It has double-redundant hydraulic flight systems, and a mechanical system as a backup if hydraulics are lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion control system; pitch and yaw control engages automatically, roll control is pilot-selected. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base, though control forces are greater than normal. The aircraft is designed to be able to fly with one engine, half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic...

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

They use them for all sorts of ground targets. Afghanistan didn't have many amour targets if any.

Think they have also used them against ships.

A relic from the time when we could still DO stuff :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

A-10 in service since 1976.

Javelin in service since 1996. Doin' stuff.



spsalso

Where does the AC-130 stand in all of this?

Quote (TugboatEng )

Where does the AC-130 stand in all of this?

The AC-130 is functional only against targets that lack air power and anti-aircraft. One of the cases made for the A-10 is that it flies low and slow over the target and correctly identifies it. One of the AC-130's big moments was the strafing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital.

--
JHG

Quote (SnTMan)

Tank buster. I recall video from one of the Gulf wars of one lighting up a building. Impressive. Make you want to abandon any vehicle.

Does the A-10's 30mm cannon penetrate the armour of heavy tanks? I was under the impression that WWII guns and rockets actually were not effective against the later tanks. The Germans eventually mounted a 75mm cannon on their Hs-129s, but the aircraft absolutely required air superiority.

The problem the German tanks had in France in 1944 was the strafing of their fuel trucks.

--
JHG

I think the AC130 30mm cannon is the same as the A10's unit. An AC130 with a F flying above would be a good combination. I wonder if the handheld SAM missiles can reach it?

drawoh, Wikipedia syas yes.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

According to Wikipedia, the AC130's Gatling gun is actually 25-mm. The A-10's 30-mm cannon would need to stick out the other side of an AC130's fuselage, given the 19-ft length of the gun. The A-10's 30-mm round is about 2 inches longer than the Apache's 30-mm cannon round, and PGU-14 are depleted uranium rounds. The A-10's ammo has about 200 m/s higher muzzle velocity than the Apache's

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

"Does the A-10's 30mm cannon penetrate the armour of heavy tanks?"

No, it does not. Tests were done with this gun against T-62's, and it did not, shooting on the frontal armor. The T-62 is now over half a century old. Of course, you can shoot off all the tracks on the sides, and you have a pretty useless tank. But THAT is not the answer to your question.

So, like many questions, yours develops subtleties.

The Javelin, however, appears to do a great job of defeating all tank armor.

Hence my suggestion of spreading Javelins around everywhere, and making tanks into very sad coffins. How many of those are in Ukraine today?



spsalso

For "danger close" support I don't see how the F35 can do what the A10 can do. There are videos on Youtube showing the A10 engaging the enemy hiding in a tree line very close to US soldiers. The firepower is absolutely devastating yet provides some "safety" since missiles, rockets or bombs are not being used - just the 30mm gun. Plus, once the enemy hears the "Brrrrt" of the 30mm (those that are left), I imagine morale drops quickly.

The F35 has 200 rounds while the A10 can hold over 1100 rounds. That's not a lot of "Brrrrrt" time for the F35. One pass and the F35 is done.

There are also some interesting videos on Youtube on a channel called "grim reapers" where they simulate scenarios for the A10. One is the miles long Russian convoy in Ukraine. A few passes and the convoy is in serious trouble.

Another puts the A10 against a WW2 battleship. When using the gun, the A10 inflicts some damage but the wall of lead rips it to pieces. Standoff weapons like bombs and maverick missiles allow the A10 to inflict serious damage to the ship.

Modern US ships have CIWS, which, interestingly, is the same gun and use the same ammo as the A10, but because they're on ships, they essentially have infinite ammo, compared to the A10, and that means the A10 is overmatched if using the cannon only.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Without questioning the engineering and manufacturing prowess behind the product, IMHO evaluating any aircraft and weapon system against religious militia, mercenaries, conscripts, guerillas, poorly trained and ill-equipped forces wielding outdated soviet equipment maybe fallacious. Nevertheless, the Ukraine invasion now proves that the soviet nostalgia of meeting an eye for an eye with US tech in war would only result in them getting blind. However, the US Navy needs to get their act together - too many incidents.

Wasn't the F4 the first fighter aircraft that "didn't need a gun"?

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Actually the F-4 Phantom was the THIRD US fighter jet to be designed and built without guns. The first was the F-86D Sabre (earlier F-86's did have guns) first flown in 1949. The second was the F-102 Delta Dagger in 1953 and finally the F-4 Phantom in 1958.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

I guess I was thinking of the Phantom entering the Vietnam war "not needing a gun"...till it did.

Thx, JRB

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

The A10 Gatling gun GAU-8 fires depleted uranium. Much denser than lead there are some peculiar physics the bullet undergoes when it hits an object. Read starting at the fourth paragraph of this link.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo

AFAIK the big problem with the A10 is MANPADs (Stinger missiles and the like) and other SAMs. It's a very durable aircraft, but it's also a very easy target to hit. The F35 is worse at the job of close air support (CAS), but (at least in theory) it's much harder to lock onto & hit than an A10, and so more likely for the pilot to come back alive. This biases the USAF away from the use of the A10 in situations where the enemy has access to advanced air defenses, like China does. The Army & Marines want the better CAS platform, the Air Force wants the new shiny that doesn't get shot down.

A lot of the issue with the F35 is the "jack of all trades, master of none" aspect of trying to share a single chassis between a fighter (F35 A), STOVL CAS aircraft (F35 B), and carrier-based fighter (F35 C). It's less effective at any of its roles than a dedicated plane would be. A stealthy ground attack aircraft with heavy armor & redundancy like the A10 could be quite effective, but they didn't build that. They built a compromise that works better at shoveling money to Lockheed-Martin than any of its officially acknowledged roles.

Remember the F-111? Of course you do! (late '60's)

That was to be an all things to all people plane, too.

At the time, I was working for the Navy. I got to yakkin' with an older co-worker (jeez, musta been 40, poor guy). Anyway, he opined that it was stupid to build an Air Force plane that had a structure that would allow a carrier landing. He mentioned adding a ton to pull it off--don't know how informed he was on that. He said, of course WE have to. But why THEM? Here we have a Navy guy expressing sympathy for the Air Force!

But it sure made sense. You design a plane for a task. Not ALL tasks. IF it can do something else well, great. See AC-130, mentioned earlier.


spsalso

Same name, but many versions for interdiction, separate version, "Wild Weasle" for ground attack, different aviaonics, different airframes, different weapons, different structural mounting systems. Cannons are of limited use in interdiction missions, but necessary for ground attack versions. Air Force versions do not have tail hooks, or catapult launch capability, or strength in the frame to allow either. If an AF version ever managed to land on a carrier, it was into a net and, if it survived that, was probably lifted off by crane, or pushed overboard. I doubt it fits onto the elevator, or into the below deck hangers without wing folding capability. No AF or Navy version can really be considered to be the exact same aircraft, yet it makes a ton of sense to have similarities when such is possible and differences when not. The search for a universal platform starts and ends in the unicorn forest.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

The old Buccaneer UK carrier aircraft was much loved by the pilots.Not so much loved by those that had to maintain it.

Unlike the Jaguar which was pretty much pants at every it was meant to do. Although at the end of life it apparently was ok at being the target designator for precision weapons delivered by other asset's.

From Wikipedia entry for Navy version (F-111B)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics–Grumman_F-111B

"The Air Force F-111A and Navy F-111B variants used the same airframe structural components..."

This would seem to fit what my Navy associate said.


spsalso

The debate continues, even now after the last F111 was buried by the Australian air force in 2010.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/...

Note that the A10 carries multiple ammunitions, only one of which, the PGU-14 is DU tipped. PGU-13 is straightforward high explosive incendiary (HEI), among others https://fbcinc.com/source/Northrop_Resources/30_x_...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

spsalso, from your same link

"The F-111 that resulted first flew in December 1964. The F-111B flew in May 1965, but the navy said that it was too heavy for use on aircraft carriers.[15] With an unacceptable navy version,

F-111 could be a quirk. The swept wing required a stronger airframe than typical, so it could have been substantially the same, although there is the usual Navy version. The trunion added a lot of weight as well. I imagine it made for high operating costs. For whatever reasons, neither version was particularly successful and were not produced in great numbers.

I had a "close experience" with 2 x F-111s 2000 ft above the Freeport beach on the Texas Coast in the 70's. Well within the ADIZ and very low for them, they went from a smoke spot several miles ahead to in my face in a second. Passed me head on #1, then #2 a second later, at 500 feet or less to my right, heading southwest. Far too close for me. That left an impression. A deja vu every time I smell kerosene.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Quote (Alistair)

pretty much pants

I have no idea whether that was a compliment or insult!

My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. - http://xkcd.com/319/

'Pretty much pants' is not a compliment in Brit-speak.

It's not rude though.

The Jag only gets airborne due to the curvature of the earth and the ground dropping away from it. The only thing it can out climb is a Shackleton bomber.

shouldn't that be, "pretty much kilts"? What does the expression mean, I've not heard it, and cannot find an explanation on the web.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Utterly rubbish..

Pants don't mean trousers in proper English. If you say it most would think you were talking about male underwear.

British Military kit

Pants: utterly useless rubbish that the G10 or clothing stores issue.

Gucci: utterly the best bit of kit you can get your hands on by any means including stealing it from allied forces or liberation from enemy.

https://pin.it/D6QIp4v

https://pin.it/62iEPNy

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

WHY!?!?

https://gcaptain.com/austal-usa-wins-u-s-coast-gua...

Has Austal produced a successful design yet?

They really should transfer the Littoral Combat ships to the USCG instead of building new ones.

Nowhere in that article does it say that Austal is designing the cutters. By that, I take it that they are constructing them, and there is no reason that a shipyard in Mobile should not be able to compete with one in Panama City, especially when the Eastern shipyard is still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Michael. These cutters will not be just for use in US coastal waters, but rather all around the Pacific islands. Haven't you heard of the Chinese threat in the Pacific?

I don't know if they are any good, but they look great. The article says design and construction.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I missed that. But still, since they already have the design, why not just continue to use it? Doesn't the Coast Guard own the design?

I dunno... maybe the new interior designer on staff would like to see...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

US Coast Guard is cash-poor, so it's highly unlikely they funded much in the way of new designs.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

This article says that the design was 'unstable', whatever that means, after the Hurricane Michael disaster. To me, it implies that the Coast Guard is responsible for stabilising the design, schedule, and cost estimate before proceeding further.

https://gcaptain.com/gao-study-finds-significant-r...

Quote:

To me, it implies that the Coast Guard is responsible for stabilising the design, schedule, and cost estimate before proceeding further.

Note that the GAO uses "stability" instead of completeness, so it wasn't necessarily that the design was continually changing, but rather, the design was incomplete or incompletely analyzed or validated. And yes, the CG was responsible, but they gave the shipbuilder authorization to start production, even though parts of the design were incomplete or grossly immature, thereby risking massive rework or rebuild if the design needed to be changed because of noncompliance to requirements discovered later.

This is pretty common in high profile projects where the customer "bets on the come" to maintain an already slipped schedule. A previous company I worked at did the same, and had to suck up the spectacle of having to re-design a critical mask layer on our flagship microprocessor, all because they damned the torpedoes and refused to wait for the design rule check before starting fabrication. As it was, it cost them way more than the day it would have taken to run the design rule check.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

We see this in the tug industry. The customer gives the yard a basic arrangement. That's the hull construction and machinery locations. Everything else gets left to "shipyard spec" which basically leaves it to the fitters and electricians to figure out how to make the boat complete.

Design build. Often a disaster in construction of buildings, and probably more so in complicated pieces of machinery like ships.

Whenever stability is mentioned in nautical things I usually presume its to do with the centre of floatation is way way to close to the Centre of Gravity which means the thing is unstable and likely to capsize.

But in this case I agree its to do with the process.

To be fair that report could have been written about every single project that British Aerospace has done for the last 50 years. And most military contracts.

Just as they near finishing it then some officer will want the new latest system fitted to it. And its a must have otherwise they will be obsolete before they even get wet.

Some background The "Medium Endurance Cutter" are two classes mainly consisting of the 270-foot (82 m) Famous- and 210-foot (64 m) Reliance-class cutters. These classes are reliable ships at this point, but are defiantly at the age where they will be spending time in shipyards repairing age related wear. Few commercial ships stay in service as long as the reliance class cutters (Built 1962–1968).

Coast Guard Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to Reduce Risk for the Offshore Patrol Cutter Program The source (GAO) uses the term this way "Proceeding towards OPC 3 construction before stabilizing the design". I read this as they started the construction with some of the design "preliminary". and are ready to start construction of the third cutter, with some of the design still preliminary.

Given the adders related to the cost of making changes at design, vs the cost of changes once everything is put together, (can be more than 1000:1) I hope as a tax payer the shipyard absorbs the costs of building on preliminary drawings 3D Model.

The root cause is protectionism in form of the Jones act.

No, we can build good ships. The bean counters won't let us.

Here is an example of some world class ship construction done in the USA:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...

Speaking of Austal.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/07/21/easte...

No steel building experience, a portfolio of failure, yet they get a contract under way transferred to them.

Quote (TugboatEng)

No steel building experience...

That's not quite accurate...

From your own article:

Austal has in the past focused on aluminum ship programs, including the Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ship and the Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport. OPC would be the first major contract for the yard’s steel shipbuilding line, after winning contracts for one floating dry dock and two towing and salvage ships in the last year.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Did you miss the part about this being the first contract for the steel building line?

"first major contract"

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

They haven't built the other three vessels yet either.

Quote (tug)

Here is an example of some world class ship construction done in the USA:

They were designed and modelled in Europe.

There was loads of work in Scotland done on them in about 97 I think.

Swedish Dutch British design team...

They were built in USA ship yards but there was issues with that because those boats are metric through and through. In the end I think they got them powered up and took them across to Europe for fitting out because all the pipe work was DIN metric as well.

I don't think anyone has repeated the exercise but I could be wrong.

My understanding was that some construction was done in France because a hurricane wiped out the Florida shipyard.

I don't know much about them apart from there was a extremely intelligent young naval architect lecturer who was involved at Strathclyde. The centre of steel excellence on the Clyde was also involved with the welding protocols. And I think Edinburgh or Aberdeen uni dynamics did some of the work on the engine vibration.

That guy who wrote your link is British qualified.

They had to be USA registered because they were for USA waters point to point without international transit legs. They weren't originally going to be built in the USA but then the required USA registration meant they had to be quite late on.

I am pretty certain they were completely metric boat design. Which must have caused major issues in a USA ship yard in the 90's

There's a thread I noticed here. The Captain of the Iowa when its turret exploded, killing 47 sailors, resigned soon after that, when the investigation was messed up. They tried to scapegoat one of the dead crewmen, but it was a bad investigation. Anyway, after that he, the captain of the Iowa, "floated around", but being well connected got a job with Lockheed Martin, on the Freedom Class Littoral Ship project. That project was a general disaster, but don't worry, he next started working for Fincantieri who had purchased Marinette Marine, who was building these ships.
Now this is all Wikipedia talking, but it sure seems interesting and coincidental.

Seems the royal navy has just taken possession of a new ship today. Commissioned and outfitted in the Netherlands.

And the Jack tars are extremely buzzed up that Basystems has had nothing to do with it.

Appears to be the world's smallest container ship (2 x 40' or 2 x 20'):


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-experimental-s...


spsalso

Basystems???

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

BAE

It leads the world on stupidity with defense contracts.

Only reason why Boeing leads the world on financial screw up front is because the projects are bigger.

But stupidity BAE systems is world class.