CNN has an article posted this AM about the on-going misery in Myanmar resulting from the recent cyclone that devastated the Irrawaddy delta and has left as many as 100,000 dead. The country's paranoid military dictatorship is hampering aid efforts, and as a result, is no doubt adding to the number of dead and injured.
In writing about the U.S. forces in the area poised to help if the dictatorship will only allow international aid, CNN makes the following curious claim (in bold):
The U.S has also been pushing for access, pledging $3.25 million and offering to send U.S. Navy ships to the region to help relief efforts.The U.S. military had already flown six helicopters on to a Thai airbase, as Washington awaits permission to go into the south Asian country, two senior military officials told CNN's Barbara Starr.
In addition, several C-130 cargo aircraft aboard the USS Essex, which was conducting an exercise in the region, were available for relief missions.
That is one neat trick.
Essex is a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. It is perhaps the most capable ship class in the world when it comes to providing help in the event of coastal disasters such as hurricane and cyclones due to its onboard 600-bed hospital, large helicopter contingent with search and rescue and transport capability, and well deck that houses LCACS and LCUs capable of landing heavy supplies and vehicles directly onto the beach. Essex is capable of a lot of things... but launching and landing a C-130 is not remotely among their capabilities.
Either Essex is merely being used to haul C-130s to the region that will have to be offloaded in port before being used, or CNN drastically has their story wrong. I suspect the former over the latter but you never know.
After all... "this is CNN."
Cross-posted to Confederate Yankee.
—Bob Owens is an investigative blogger who writes at Confederate Yankee.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Journalism expertese. I
May 8, 2008 - 12:54 ET by bassndudeJournalism expertese. I graduated journalism school. I know everything and am never wrong...I can read, so I did not have to join the military.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
... and therefore, the only
May 8, 2008 - 13:10 ET by dmntd1... and therefore, the only reason I've been to Iraq/Afghanistan is to show how awful our illiterate troops are.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
Thank you for your service
May 8, 2008 - 14:18 ET by reasonsjesterA good thread on NB that describes about how liberals think military personnel are idiots is the one on the Stephen King-Noel Sheppard squabble.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
V-22 Osprey
May 8, 2008 - 13:09 ET by ChasvsThey probably mistook the Tilt rotor V22 Osprey for a C-130. But then CNN never did get anything related to the Military correct!
C-1 what?
May 8, 2008 - 14:14 ET by reasonsjesterMilitary.com: "The C-130 requires approximately 5,000 feet of runway to operate,”
states the report, crafted by CRS analyst Christopher Bolkcom.
The length of a Wasp class amphibious assault ship is 844 ft.
I did go to public school, but I would say that that is a logistical problem.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
no, no, not a problem
May 8, 2008 - 16:31 ET by wizardjrYou just get a really, really powerful rubber band and hook it from the bow to the front landing gear and get the Herky Bird to wind up the props in reverse until he's hanging off the stern. Then... let go! Wheeeee!
I'd pay money to see
May 8, 2008 - 21:03 ET by FastEdthat launch, then make it all back with a laundry contract with the pilots!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I'm wondering how many
May 8, 2008 - 14:24 ET by FranksamI'm wondering how many French ships are on hand to help in this disaster which, from what I've read, was only made worse by the Myanmar Gov't. America can't win in these deals. No matter how generous we are to the losers in the world, they end up heaping the blame on us. I'm a bit weary of that status. Let China help, too, they are quite a bit closer to the scene.
never enough
May 8, 2008 - 14:30 ET by LionKingIt seems like it is never enough for the rest of the world.
good point
May 8, 2008 - 14:42 ET by szampIf we apply liberal logic to the problem....
How can we afford to help these people if our economy is in such a bad shape at the moment? We're supposed to be in a recession. Where is the government finding this money? Will we be able to deduct this charirty expense from our UN taxes?
After all this, I'm just waiting for the MSM to find something negative. Possible options are:
-We disturbed the environment when we dropped the food. Probably caused extinction of some rare species.
-The Bush administration cause the cyclone in the first place just to show that we can help other countries.
-The carbon footprint of the military vehicles caused more damaged than good.
-Whatever we spent is just a small percentage of our GDP.
-We are just helping so we can explore them later.
Classic post
May 10, 2008 - 04:22 ET by reasonsjesterBut I would like to suggest some slight modifications.
Whatever we spend helping them could be better spent - on carbon credits.
We are just helping them so we can occupy them and drill for oil.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
China help?
May 8, 2008 - 14:44 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarWhat with the Tibetans to squash, killer virus to hide, air to clean up and the Olympics coming. Surely you jest. They are just too damn busy.
After all, as the Chinese Scrooge would say,"If they'd rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
You forgot to mention the
May 8, 2008 - 15:00 ET by BuffNBoneYou forgot to mention the lead paint on toys.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Just what the Chinese need
May 8, 2008 - 18:21 ET by reasonsjesterAnother power vacuum to jump into.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Interestingly, the French
May 8, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberInterestingly, the French were saying something like "why should we wait for their gov't to accept aid? We should be helping these people!"
Obviously the CNN has
May 8, 2008 - 15:05 ET by BuffNBoneObviously the CNN has secret knowledge about the new Navy variant C-130. Assuming the carrier does 55 knots into a 35 knot headwind with JATO assist the aircraft can take off in 412 feet plus or minus 8 inches.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
and it got to 55 knots how?
May 8, 2008 - 16:33 ET by wizardjrWas there a couple of Littoral Combat Ships pushing? :-))
Yes, but!!!
May 9, 2008 - 00:23 ET by HumblepieYou know them military types, can't read. Probably put the JATO on backwards.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
C-130 On Aircraft Carriers
May 8, 2008 - 15:24 ET by bradbenj5952The Navy did conduct experiments with landings and takeoffs of C-130s on aircraft carriers...in the early 1960s...but scrapped the idea because it was "too risky".
See: http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
all the way to the bottom
May 8, 2008 - 16:35 ET by wizardjrAs heavy as a Herc is and the way the Navy pilots slam their birds on the deck I get visions of the 130 winding up in the basement next to the keel. :-))
The other side would be
May 8, 2008 - 21:06 ET by FastEdhave the "several C-130's" grab the arestor wires and then 'fly' the Essex to the trouble.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Naval aviators don't "slam
May 9, 2008 - 09:46 ET by NL207Naval aviators don't "slam a bird on the deck". A perfect trap puts the a/c mains down on the deck just past the #3 wire. Airspeed at the instant of touchdown is usually about 5-8% above stall. Something like 140-150 knots. The hook snags the 3 wire in the 'perfect' world. Glide path angle [of descent] is about -3 degrees. Do all of this and maintain proper AOA and on approach, full throttle on touchdown, call the ball promptly on your 45, etc, etc, and the LSO will give you the coveted 'OK' score. If it's perfect, he may even underline it.
Most of the jarring associated with the trap is the result of the AOA suddenly going to zero when the arrestor stops the a/c and banging the nose gear down.
The most rigorous part on the body is the deceleration forces imparted by the shoulder harnesses to the upper torso. It can be strong enough to bruise around the collarbone.
One question...
May 9, 2008 - 19:04 ET by reasonsjesterWhat is an AOA?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
My guess is Angle Of Approach.
May 9, 2008 - 20:38 ET by JerMy guess is Angle Of Approach.
Jer
It stands for Angle of
May 9, 2008 - 23:02 ET by BuffNBoneIt stands for Angle of Attack which is the difference between where the wing is pointed and the direction of the air flowing over the wing.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
That was my second guess.
May 10, 2008 - 17:57 ET by JerThat was my second guess. :>)
Jer
BnB got it right. Angle of
May 10, 2008 - 13:59 ET by NL207BnB got it right. Angle of Attack. Its the angle between the direction of airflow over the wing and the plane of the wing. It measures how 'nose up' you are in an aerodynamic sense, that is, with respect to the directional component of your velocity vector. There are two other instruments to measure this with respect to vertical. On carrier approach, the rate of descent and airspeed are controlled by AOA and throttle.
After checking out your
May 9, 2008 - 00:55 ET by RESTLESS 1After checking out your link, I am reminded of seeing something like this on Discovery, or History Channel or something. I don't remember if it was these tests, but I do remember the pilots having to take the engines up to near max rpm's while holding the brake to sort of sling-shot the planes off the deck. Impressive vids, and taking into account the slow cruising speed of these planes, I can see the landing (maybe not the Hercules or the more recent C-130J/30-J, they added about 15' to that one).
BTW, I stand corrected. Disregard my posts below.
Perhaps CNN is thinking of the Essex (CV-9) of the same name.
May 8, 2008 - 17:18 ET by R D HelmNot that they would know the difference between a full-sized aircraft carrier and an assault ship or anything. :-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Straighten me out here
May 8, 2008 - 18:23 ET by reasonsjesterThe link to your full-sized carrier says it is 872 feet. A Wasp class amphibious assault ship is 844 feet. Is the Essex in your picture the carrier or the amphibious assault ship? From what I gather a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is about a 1000 feet, so that didn't clear it up for me.
What I am wondering is how much runway a C-130 needs. I got from a report "5000 feet" of runway space. This may not be the same as length, it isn't exactly clear to me. So can the Essex amphibious assault ship handle C-130s or not? (My Dad from the Navy was unavailable for comment).
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
C-130's are cargo planes,
May 8, 2008 - 18:23 ET by RESTLESS 1C-130's are cargo planes, and pretty big. I can't see one taking off from a carrier.
An Odd Thought
May 8, 2008 - 18:25 ET by reasonsjesterI agree. I can't imagine a lot of C-130s being able to navigate on a flight deck.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Eh, never mind,
May 8, 2008 - 19:37 ET by RESTLESS 1It seems I've misinterpreted you posts. :(
RESTLESS1, The carrier my dad served aboard in Korea...
May 9, 2008 - 00:17 ET by R D Helm...was an Essex-class, CV-47.
It once launched six R4D transports for Admiral Byrd's polar expedition.
And don't forget the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, in which B-25's were launched from the Hornet, CV-8.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Yeah, but C-130's would be
May 9, 2008 - 00:34 ET by RESTLESS 1Yeah, but C-130's would be a stretch. These are big, heavy birds. The newest models are over 112' in length. How big are the R4D and the B-25 bomber for comparison?
Now, if they could pull it off, I would love to be an eyewitness to the takeoff, and the landing would be...um interesting, I would think.
B25 51ft
May 9, 2008 - 00:47 ET by general companyB25 51ft long
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/b25.html
B29 was 99ft long
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b29.html
B52 was 159ft long
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/b-52_stratofortress.pl
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
RESTLESS1,
May 9, 2008 - 00:59 ET by R D HelmIt has been done, but, as a practical matter I doubt there would be much potential for widespread use outside of clandestine missions and such.
And even that would be doubtful, depending on the target, as they probably would have to keep one or more on the flight deck until launch, and, even if disguised, it would be hard to hide them from satellites.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Yeah, I saw those when I
May 9, 2008 - 01:00 ET by RESTLESS 1Yeah, I saw those when I clicked on the posters link above. Impressive videos and very impressive birds. I stand corrected and humbled by the mighty C-130, not to mention the genius of our military minds. Thank God these guys are on our side.
That looked surprisingly
May 9, 2008 - 01:21 ET by general companyThat looked surprisingly smooth, especially the landing, did he not just stall that thing onto the ship? I did not notice any restraints.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
According to the link
May 9, 2008 - 01:25 ET by RESTLESS 1According to the link provided above, they did not use the arestor lines. All brakes. I think they did "chop" the engines just prior to landing.
gc, I'm just glad I wasn't the pilot performing that landing.
May 9, 2008 - 01:33 ET by R D HelmLOL-As the, ah, pucker-factor must have been decidedly intense. :-O
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Thrust reverse the props.
May 9, 2008 - 02:51 ET by NL207Thrust reverse the props. Tremendous braking power.
The Herk doesn't have arresting gear, no hook and its airframe isn't rated for a trap even if it did have a hook. The energy absorbing pistons below deck that are attached to the arresting system cross-deck pendants can't handle a load the size of the Herk either. The heaviest airplane I know of that ever took a trap on the wires was the A3D Skywarrior. It had a gross weight of about 70,000 # if I recall correctly.
The pilot flying the C-130 in that video is someone special: James H. Flatley, III.
NL207, that is one hell of a manuever.
May 9, 2008 - 02:58 ET by R D HelmI am not sure about the carrier landing procedures for a C-130, as I doubt they have ever been "officially" published.
However, most carrier landings require the aircraft to hit the deck in a full power-on configuration, just in case they miss the wire and have to bolter. If they are carrying insufficient speed to get airborne, they are going for a swim.
Having no wire means they have to stop on their own. Even reversing the thrust takes time, as prop pitch doesn't change instantaneously. That is hairy enough in a short-field landing, so it must have been scary as hell on a carrier landing.
You are correct. Jim Flatley, who wasn't going to get a "second chance" had he failed to glue that thing to the deck all by his lonesome, was a stud!
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
If you read Flatley's
May 9, 2008 - 03:09 ET by NL207If you read Flatley's account, he says they were standing on the brakes before they touched down on the deck.
The other thing about the Herk: Its stall speed is only about 90 knots. This compares to the F-4 which is about 135 landing. The F-4 takes a trap at 145-150 knots. The Hercules can make final at 105-110.
R1,
May 9, 2008 - 01:05 ET by R D HelmI think, properly modified, launching a 112' C-130 from a Nimitz class carrier would be a breeze. If they couldn't modify the nose gear sufficiently to withstand the strain of the catapult run, which is somewhat short, they could always employ JATOs, or a combination of both.
Recovery, however, might be an issue, but once again, properly modified, I think it entirely possible.
And, yes, I'd love to see that live and in person.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
RD
May 9, 2008 - 01:16 ET by RESTLESS 1After seeing the videos, I would have to agree, especially with the length of carriers increasing, and new technology. The C-130 has been around a long time, and has done the nation proud, along with the fine pilots of these planes.
Reasonjester
May 8, 2008 - 19:36 ET by RESTLESS 1This is a picture of the C-130 Hercules. I think it is bigger than the economy model, but it gives you and idea. I believe that this is the smaller version. My dad flew them when he was in the Air Force.
reasonjester, LOL-I was being mildly sarcastic in my post.
May 9, 2008 - 00:04 ET by R D HelmI should have made that more clear, I guess.
I could see how people who are not into this sort of thing could make the mistake. Personally, I think it was an honest one on the part of CNN.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Maybe so
May 9, 2008 - 00:08 ET by reasonsjesterThere are worse things to be wrong on. Like your entire worldview.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
reasonjester, as I said, my comment was
May 9, 2008 - 01:24 ET by R D Helmreasonjester, as I said, my comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I will apologize once more for not having made that more apparent.
As for my considered "worldview," I will defend it against anyone's on this site at anytime.
Should you decide to test this, I think you will find my defense to be most vigorous.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
R D...I think reasonjester
May 9, 2008 - 01:47 ET by JerR D...I think reasonjester must have been referring to CNN's worldview--not yours. Otherwise his remark was completely uncalled for.
Jer
Jer,
May 9, 2008 - 02:29 ET by R D HelmYou might be correct. After all, I sort of botched my initial comment on this thread as well.
As for my overall worldview, I will admit that it is different from that held by most today. Far different, even. Perhaps I have read too much history, military and otherwise.
LOL-Of course, even my "conservative" friends look at me askance from time to time. My liberal friends do, too, which suggests to me I might be on to something.
Oh, well. It's tough being conservative in the defense of my country and in the fiscal arena, yet pretty much a libertarian on the social side.
LOL-Still, it's fun being me. :-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Sounds about right
May 9, 2008 - 06:36 ET by reasonsjesterI stand corrected. Seems like you got everything about figured out - according to the little voice in my head at least.
Oh Snap
May 9, 2008 - 03:46 ET by reasonsjesterOf course I meant CNN's RD, you seem like a righteous dude.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Let's not go overboard.
May 9, 2008 - 04:33 ET by JerLet's not go overboard. :>)
Jer
reasonjester,
May 9, 2008 - 22:42 ET by R D HelmGlad that is resolved, as you seem pretty well-grounded as well.
LOL-I should know better than to cruise NB on three brain cells, which is what I was firing on last night.
-Or, was it this morning. :-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Perhaps they were
May 8, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Dan The Man 2Perhaps they were channeling this?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Could be, but
May 8, 2008 - 21:08 ET by FastEdwhen doing relief work, it's better to go back and forth, not one way!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Sloppy writing puts huge planes on Essex
May 8, 2008 - 18:00 ET by nkviking75Here is the relevant press release from the US DOD. Note the following excerpt:
The Navy is dispatching helicopters from the USS Essex strike group to a staging area in Thailand, where they will be able to reach Burma with relief supplies “in a matter of hours,”[Defense Secretary Robert M.] Gates said.
In addition, six C-130 aircraft also are available to provide humanitarian support and could airdrop food and water if granted position, he said.
Note that the Essex and the C-130's are mentioned in adjacent paragraphs. Someone got sloppy when writing the story.
In farness, the CNN credits said AP contributed to the story, so it could be an AP error.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Could be,
May 8, 2008 - 21:09 ET by FastEdbut it is more fun, making fun of CNN!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V