If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

I think you are giving DoD way too much credit if you think they give a crap what is in Wikipedia. Every once in a while, some former or current yahoo of where-ever makes an edit and says something he shouldn't, and maybe an office buddy or someone sees it while surfing and says, "I think that is classified...". Then it gets ignored or maybe the guy gets poked and edits it.

But, as far as I can tell, and I have a pretty decent view, nobody actually gives a rats ass what gets put on wiki until someone makes an issue of it. Then they deal with that particular issue (or not) and go back to ignoring it.

So the relevant citatations for the section are generic, and do not directly address the UAV concern. At best, you have Dr. Rodrigues making some unknown commentary at a convention (ref 28) about how reliable and better it will be. And for the record, he works for General Atomics, not the government.
On the other side (launches) EMALS refs. (ref 26 & 27), a Lakehurst pub. I am sure this pub does not speak to UAV airframe damage.
As you well know, citing wikipedia is fraught with danger, and here I think you have stepped on a landmine. You have not provided a direct reference yet from the government, DoD or DoN that says X-47B can't operate or continue to operate from a CVN deck in assisted launch and recovery profiles.

And "these defense rags" are not based on official policy. They are based on opinion and what sells with occasional references to fact or misrepresented fact.

Please provide a real ref. or concede that X-47B is carrier certed and capable.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

Your analysis makes no sense. Of course DoD doesn't care what's in wiki. Who would suggest such a thing? DoD decides what they want in wiki. And in the trades. They release what they do as a reflection of policy, and their policy is to underreport.

Why are we having this inane argument when I haven't even been disagreeing with you?

Both wiki and the trade quoted, as well as the other trade I posted from months ago, all say the same thing: UAV's cannot be operated from CVN's because they are too light and will suffer damage both trapping and launching. I'm just reporting what these sources say, so why are we having this debate? Obviously, this IS what the sources say, and they point back to specific US Navy studies.

End of discussion.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

Here is more or less what you have been saying in your own words:
I didn't. I'm just reporting what the Pentagon has been saying for ages and what I have posted about here several times. Go back through the thread if you like or do your own search. The official DOD story is, the X-47b can't be operated from the CVN because of the steam system. As I have said, in this context, several times now, DOD routinely misreports their capability as a matter of policy. Wiki is almost NEVER right when it comes to the real stats of ships, for example. Since WWII, this has been DOD's method, and the Soviet method has been the opposite: to report capabilities they don't have. So don't make too much of the statements, and note too, that if indeed the X-47b were not designed to take the abuse of a steam cat, we would have one landing and launching on one anyway, just so see how long it lasts. So pointing to a single event does not reflect real operational capabilities.
The Pentagon has NEVER said that X-47B is not carrier capable. There is NO official DoD story that says the steam system prevents X-47B use on carriers. That is my only point.

DoD does NOT misrepresent capability. It is STATED AND CLEAR DoD policy not to tell lies. If the answer is not meant to go into the wild, the question is not answered. THAT is official DoD policy. I can show it to you in writing. A wonderful example is the maximum speed or depth of a submerged submarine. It is always referenced to be ">" than some number.

Wiki has nothing to do with DoD, and its errors are its own and those clowns that write about stuff that they don't have accurate answers for. Your sources DO NOT point back directly or in some cases indirectly to Official Government sources. You have yet to provide a viable reference regarding X-47B's ability to not operate from a carrier deck.

The discussion about UAVs is moot. We all agree that if it is not designed for assisted launch and recovery, it will not fair well. That is a no brainer. What we have been tyring to talk about is the X-47B which was designed for assisted launch and recovery ops. And, it has been executing them. And it will do more. All documented in Official DoD releases and information.

Why can't you accept that you mispoke on X-47B? That is the center of this issue brought up by myself and a couple of others. The other stuff, like citing non-government sources as government sources, is not really what I am after.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by GIThruster »

ladajo wrote:The Pentagon has NEVER said that X-47B is not carrier capable. There is NO official DoD story that says the steam system prevents X-47B use on carriers. That is my only point.
Maybe DoD and the defense trades are drawing a distinction we've missed--that between UAV's and UCAV's--and the official statements that UAV's cannot be landed or launched by the old steam system therefore do not apply to the X-47b? That would make sense to me, as I've said; makes no sense that the X-47b which is designed for Navy use would not be solid enough to land on a CVN.
DoD does NOT misrepresent capability. It is STATED AND CLEAR DoD policy not to tell lies.
I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. Go on any of the technical/engineering sites online that look at US Navy tech and you'll find dozens of engineers complaining that literally nothing is correct at places like wiki. This has nothing to do with the honor of the Navy. It has to do with prudence and noting that some things need to be secret when dealing with defense. And if you check, you will indeed find that it has been US defense policy for many decades to underreport all martial capability, while it has been the Soviet and Russian policy to overreport their capability. It was in no way lacking honor to keep the F-117 under wraps for a decade. That's the way the art of war works.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

dozens of engineers complaining that literally nothing is correct at places like wiki.
And again, wiki is NOT controlled nor run by the Government. What is on wiki has no bearing to reality. It is as real as the crowd sourcing makes it. And a good number of the crowd don't actually know the truth. They base it Janes or Trade rag estimates. Bringing wiki accuracy into the argument serve you no relevance.

Your comment on F-177 is exactly what I am saying. There was no lie. It was not reported.

You could be right about DoD distinction in systems. Releases are always(mostly) very careful to use correct taxonomy.
X-47B is a UCAV design. Not a UAV.

All this said, there are UAV systems that can operate from a CVN deck in an unassisted mode. I have purposely stayed away from that discussion.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

I will also restate that DoD policy is to tell truth, or say nothing. It is not to lie.
For example. "The U.S. Navy neither confirms nor denies the presence of nuclear weapons on its vessels."

You can think it is silly all you want. It is what it is.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ltgbrown
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ltgbrown »

All this said, there are UAV systems that can operate from a CVN deck in an unassisted mode. I have purposely stayed away from that discussion.
That was what I was very careful to not rule out by the wording I chose in my previous post. What makes the X-47B special is that it can use the catapult and arresting gear. That then means it can have other larger/greater performance capabilities. An E-2 Hawkeye can do a deck run takeoff. An F-14 Tomcat could not. But, an F-14 is "slightly" faster. :wink:
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

Glenn,
I am with you. The problem here is that there are things that one accepts as base knowledge, but is not for others.
It is not their fault, or a failure. It is simply a fact of circumstance. Those others probably have expertise or experience that is not shared by others also.
In this case, there are things taken for granted that the other party is not aware of.

In this case, you know and I know that you can launch and recover all sorts of interesting airframes unassisted on a CVN deck. It is purely limited by wind. The pitch and roll is a function of pilot skill and airframe forgiveness. Whether or not a CVN would do it is a function of mission neccessity v. ORM. We have and do fly UAVs from CRUDES and that is a much more challengeing dynamic than a CVN.

Meh.

The bottom line here is that X-47B was built for assisted operations. It is unique in that.
It will be interesting for me to see if we build on X-47B or if we spin up a new frame, 'Son of X-47B'. Money talks as they say.
In any discussion, it is niave to think that UCAV is not coming. That is like saying Railgun is not coming.
The 60B community thought that 60R & S was the lease on life they needed to remain relevant. Then PEO came along with MQ-8C over 8B. So much for manned to Rotary. How does that song go? "I can do what you can do, only better..." I remember oft teasing the 60B guys that with Hawklink waypoints and remote sensor control, the only reason to have a body was to release the weapon when told. :) I viewed launch and recovery as a soon to be automated function...and then came MQ-8B Firescout, "Son of DASH"
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by paperburn1 »

after some landing I have seen automation seems like a good idea.

Firescout news
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/05 ... 2019s.html
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

What Pat Smith is not saying is that MQ-8C is the soup d'jour. That is why the B pipeline is being shutdown.
And to be fair, C is way better across the board, and already flying.
The navy will spin up fast on C. It is like the F-18 program. think of C as E/F.

Landings...ahh.
My not favorite was years ago while transiting the North Pacific in a storm on an FFG. I had the deck, and the boss wanted the det. to fly. We were out of limits pitch & roll with high winds (but in the curve). The boss' take was that while the ship was in motion we were not always out of limits...
We pushed, as you know the get off is not that hard. I pressed to recover as things go worse, and they came back. I watched from the port wing, in heavy seas, wind and rain. They got over deck, but had to make several attempts to get the wire. Once they got on the wire, it got crazy. The ship was all over the place and they could not get down over the trap even with the wire. It was getting really squirrely, and on what became the last try, as the shack pulled them down the ship went bow in and hard roll to stbd. The bird went hard port to get out of the way. From the port wing, I was looking the right seat in the eyeballs (visor), and could see both seats body language as not good. The rotor arc came within single low digit feet of wet as the bird rolled on the wire to port, and was completely clear of the flight deck. At that moment my instinct was screaming crash alarm, but I held off. Then too fast for anyone to really track well, the ship comes hard back the other way, and the shack was all in on the wire. As we rolled, I watched the bird go down and back behind the hanger wall, and felt the thump as they got rubber on deck hard.
I zipped back in the bridge as the tower called the landing and saw it on the monitor. It was one of the most relieved feelings I have had. There was no way we would have gotten them back had they gone in. The conditions were just too much.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by JLawson »

ladajo wrote:Landings...ahh.
My not favorite was years ago while transiting the North Pacific in a storm on an FFG. I had the deck, and the boss wanted the det. to fly. We were out of limits pitch & roll with high winds (but in the curve). The boss' take was that while the ship was in motion we were not always out of limits...
We pushed, as you know the get off is not that hard. I pressed to recover as things go worse, and they came back. I watched from the port wing, in heavy seas, wind and rain. They got over deck, but had to make several attempts to get the wire. Once they got on the wire, it got crazy. The ship was all over the place and they could not get down over the trap even with the wire. It was getting really squirrely, and on what became the last try, as the shack pulled them down the ship went bow in and hard roll to stbd. The bird went hard port to get out of the way. From the port wing, I was looking the right seat in the eyeballs (visor), and could see both seats body language as not good. The rotor arc came within single low digit feet of wet as the bird rolled on the wire to port, and was completely clear of the flight deck. At that moment my instinct was screaming crash alarm, but I held off. Then too fast for anyone to really track well, the ship comes hard back the other way, and the shack was all in on the wire. As we rolled, I watched the bird go down and back behind the hanger wall, and felt the thump as they got rubber on deck hard.
I zipped back in the bridge as the tower called the landing and saw it on the monitor. It was one of the most relieved feelings I have had. There was no way we would have gotten them back had they gone in. The conditions were just too much.
Which is why I have a GREAT deal of respect for naval aviation. They keep going in conditions that you'd have to be insane to otherwise fly in...
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

Yeah, but all the same, I am glad I never went through that again. Afterwards, I was down in the wardroom, sitting quietly and thinking throught what had gone down and if I had done my part my best. The HAC came in and sat down on the couch across from me. He didn't say anything for a few minutes. Then he looked at me and said, "I am glad you were on the bridge, as I am not sure if it had been anyone else we would have gotten on deck.". I said, "I am glad you got on deck. That was some serious flying.". I will never forget that moment. It was all we said to each other. We sat there quietly for a while longer, and then both got up and went on with business.
Our ship had lost a Helo the previous deployment up in the northern Persian Gulf. Luckily it was shallow and everyone got out. The pilot rode it to the bottom in his seat. The rescue swimmer had to go back down and unstrap him. He said later that the HAC was just sitting there (upside down) all strapped in with his pony bottle looking calmly at the console. They had a bad launch, the bird did some lefty-righty probably due to excessive footpedals (this guy was known for it), and they hooked the shack wash piping and external cables with the right wheel. Instant inversion and splash. Luckily, as I said this went down in about 30 feet of water.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by Skipjack »

Wow, those are some scary stories. Glad everyone made it out of that!

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by ladajo »

I've got more. But not today. It is someone else's turn.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

Post by Skipjack »

ladajo wrote:I've got more.
Yikes! No matter what harsh discussion we have sometimes, I sure respect your work and would certainly not mind more stories ;)

Post Reply