Posted on 03/10/2012 3:53:50 PM PST by DemforBush
“The only ship I’d tolerate for Obama would be a cargo ship ACTUALLY named USS Reluctant [ala “Mister Roberts”] with his name ONLY affixed to the commemorative plaque on the door to the Head “
Do you think the crew will throw is palm tree overboard?
I remember those 2100's .... had three or four of them tied up in Orange painted from stack-caps to waterline in gray-green fish-oil based preservative paint. I was TEMDU there in 1971 for a few weeks before reporting to my new command in Norfolk.
We had 55 DD's and DE's that had recently been stricken from the Navy list, mostly 1600-class (Gleaves/Livermore and Benson/Mayo-class ships) and assorted DE's of the Edsall and Rudderow types, with a couple of Buckley-class and some APD's thrown in. (The APD's were converted 28-knot DE's that had had the after gun mount removed and the deckhouse rebuilt as quarters for spooks and equipped with numbers of davits for the boats they carried -- Norwegian-designed Nasty boats, I think they were, but correct me if that's wrong. They'd done a lot of work on the DeSoto Patrols north of the DMZ back in the day, six and seven years earlier. Now here they were, with Vietnam still raging, sitting at the pier.)
There were some unstricken "C"-readiness reserve DD's also tied up there, and these were the "Improved Fletcher class" DD's. We went aboard one; she'd been completed in September 1945 and made one trip to Germany and back before being laid up -- 1400 steaming hours on that destroyer, total. I was amazed. She was still in dehumidification (the stricken ships had all been powered down and stank of rubber dry-rotting in the humid air) and looked as if her crew had just stepped away. She was damn-near pristine. Found her logs in a locker just aft of the bridge area, and they were immaculate, looked as if someone had just put down the pencil and gone for coffee. Very strange sensation to be on a ship like that.
And Ensign Pulver will light a firecracker in the laundry ...
Before he is through, Obongo Bozo will be the most thoroughly discredited President to ever have served. His reputation will be in tatters, and his legacy will be that he will be remembered as a colossal failure.
You heard it here first!
FYI - the Navy “loaned” the IX-308 (no name) for filming “Mr. Roberts”. (I recall the tag-line....”...from tedium to apathy and back again...”)
Later on, the IX-308 was re-configured for torpedo testing (a single torpedo tube) and sent to the the Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport. (Later on, the station was designated Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station - NUWES...then Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport.)
The IX-308 was used up until the mid-90’s for testing some of the newest Mk 48 and Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes. I worked at the station, was involved in various test programs, and occasionally went along on the IX-308 as engineering support as various torpedo tests were run.
When the IX-308 was finally decommissioned in the mid-90’s, the station invited Jack Lemmon (Ens. Pulver from the movie) to attend. (He declined.) They did get someone to dress up in “wash-khakis” and do the closing scene of the movie where a small planted palm tree was up-rooted and thrown over the side. (The IX-308 was sold as scrap ....but could have been bought by anyone wanting to use the ship as a ship!)
Because I'd like to wager some money on your prediction...if we can narrow down the terms.
What do you say?
A-3: Length 76’ 6”. Wingspan 72’ 6”
A-5: Length 76’ 6”. Wingspan 53’
Each aircraft had its own “flavor” around the boat, but the high pucker factor aircraft, IMHO, were A-3 on the 27C (landing area was only 105’ wide, IIRC), A-5 and F-8, in that order. A-5 on the big decks was always exciting, more so than the A-3. F-8s on any deck were exciting!
PS Lest anyone get the wrong impression, every carrier landing by any carrier aircraft, irrespective of its peculiarities carries a large element of danger.
FRom most perspectives, ALL carrier ops were high pucker factor, for many reasons, some not related to the aircraft in question.
HST, I enjoyed every damn minute of my carrier aviation career!
Obongo Bozo regime ends Jan 22, 2013!
He will be a beaten man, and his LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist cronies will slink off into the dustbin of history!
Gentlemen’s wager for bragging rights?
Great story! Thanks!
We are still using famous names for the LPH/marine carriers. The lead ship of the next class, USS America is under contruction.
Had an Operations Specialist on my first ship that says he tracked that sucker going 60.
H.S. kids will be reading glowing accounts of this donkey...for years into the future.
Bet on it.
Unrelated question, but long ago I seem to recall reading that shortly after WW II, the Navy and USAF conducted tests to see about LANDING bombers on carriers. There is film somewhere, I just haven't been able to find it. This was obviously before air-to-air refueling was developed..I think the theory was to use the carriers as midpoint refueling stations. Do you recall anything about this?
Actually, I am betting that Obongo Bozo and his LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist hangers-on will self destruct in the not-too-distant future.
And, his mention in the history books will be that of a missed opportunity and a huge failed Presidency!
That is the only way I can keep my sanity!
I have never heard about that idea.
Don’t think it would have worked, though. Too many mods required for AF aircraft to land on a carrier, and a hellofalot of pilot training required.
IIRC, in 1970 or therabouts, there was an “offer” made by a large deck carrier to take a low fuel state USAF F-4 aboard in the Gulf of Tonkin. Pilot was not confident he could get aboard safely, and elected to eject alongside the ship.
HST, I do not believe that a non-carrier qualified USAF pilot has ever attempted to land on a carrier. We had USAF exchange pilots flying A-7s and F-4s when I was in Kitty Hawk, but they had been through the entire USN Fleet Replacement Pilot training syllabus. Most of them, IIRC, once they got over the shock of carrier aviation vis a vis USAF flight doctrine, liked flying around the boat.
That last statement begs for an explanation: USN and USAF flight doctrines are different.
In the Navy, if the “book” does not say you CANNOT perform a certain maneuver, you can test the A/C performance envelope.
In the USAF, if the “book” does not say you CAN perform a certain maneuver, you MUST NOT perform that maeuver.
Think on that for a moment — USN pilots are not discouraged FRom testing their aircraft performance envelope, whereas USAF pilots are — theirs is more of a “by the book” type of flying. Makes for a different mindset, as you might imagine.
And, there is not question in anyone’s mind who has been around carrier aviation, that Naval Aviators have a different mindset!
FYI..found on YouTube a great 6 minute vid of a C-130 doing multiple landings on the Forrestal. Tried to post the link but it didn't take..just do a search on YouTube - "C-130 Hercules lands on carrier...." there are several versions..look for the 6 minute one..
I'll continue to search for the story about the bomber landing on the carrier..I think it was a B-24...
You are most welcome. Somedays, it is hard to find an appreciative audience for “back in the day” sea stories!
Re: C-130 landing on Forrestal. Check out this account: http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp .
Yes, the Lt. Flatley test pilot was the son of the famoust WW II Naval Aviator by the same name.
Please ping me if/when you run the WW II bomber story to ground. I’ll be quite surprised if it was a B-24 — the Liberator had a 110’ wingspan and was 65’ 8” long.
You will recall that my memory was that the width of the WW II aircraft carrier’s landing area was only 105’. It would take one hellofapilot to get a B-24 safely aboard a small deck carrier!
The C-130 data makes it seem plausible. The wingspan of the C-130, some 132 feet, is smaller than that of the 110' of the B-24. The straight deck WWII fleet carriers had a maximum deck widt of about 145', according to specs. I figure take off 50' for the island, ( couldn't find size specs. and it's doable with an off center "center line"..Indeed..that's how I seem to remember it...
Will keep digging..
Note that when the C-130 landed on Forrestal, it was the only airplane on the flight deck!
I suppose, theoretically, that if there were no airplanes on the flight deck aft of the island, one could land a large airplane on the deck of a WW II Esse Class fleet carrier — later referred to as “27 Charlies”. Remember, they were straight deck carriers; the angled deck did not come into use until well after WW II was over.
HST, this is an interesting exercise, and I hope you can run the rumor to ground. If you can, it will make for an interesting story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.