Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

[85 gt kid]

Here's a question for anyone:

How come the Midways (or Essexs) couldn't carry the F-14s?

[SteveDaPirate]

If I had to guess, I would say it was a weight issue. The F-14 could weight 60,000+ pounds loaded. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn that the older carriers weren't up to handling that kind of weight hitting the deck.

[RustyBattleship]

Well, I don't know about that since I've never been to sea on a Carrier (worked on an awful lot of them at the shipyard though).

However I believe the USS Ranger carried F-14's in at least two movies; "Top Gun" and "The Final Countdown". She was also a berthed stand-in for the Enterprise in "Star Trek IV".

Her last notable "launches" was on May 18, 1992 was having two B-25 bombers take off from her deck commemorating the Doolittle Raid.

[tbm3fan]

1. Only some Essex carriers got steam catapults which would have enough power to launch an F-14. In fact not even the Big "O" carried the F-4 during it's time of operation. The remaining carriers kept their hydraulic catapults. As for the landing area it was still teak on top of a relatively thin layer of metal that formed the overhead of O2. The jet would probably end up on O1 after landing and crashing through.

2. The operational turn around time would also be hampered by thee elevator layout of an Essex Class. On top of that where do you store the planes on a flight deck that easily fits inside a Kitty Hawk, Enterprise or Nimitz? Last lower hanger deck height.

3. If I had to make a guess for the Midway Class it would be the limited hanger height would prevent some maintenance on the plane. The first thing I noticed when I walked on the Midway, up in Oakland in 2003, was how low the overhead was in the hanger. Seemed lower to me than in an Essex Class. In actuality it was an optical illusion in that it was a tad wider and longer since both were standard at 17'6" high. Looking at our F-14 sitting in the hanger deck I bet there would be issues trying to get out an ejection seat. Basically something that either had to be lifted or dropped. I know Nimitz Class is at 25'5".

[SharkPilot]

Have a book entitled "USS Midway". In it there is a story about the ship operating with Enterprise in September 1982. Weather closed in on Enterprise while she had two F-14's airborne. Fuel got low so a a KA-6D was launched to buy time. Meanwhile Midway found an opening in the weather. While there was some concern about the weight of the F-14's they successfully recovered aboard Midway, along with the KA-6D. The book states that Midway's jet blast deflectors were too small for the F-14 and they took off in military power the next day. It also states the Midway's catapults had 'wet receivers' thus making her catapults more capable than those aboard Enterprise.
Not sure about how true this all is, but it's in the book. For what that's worth.

[DonBelt]

Here are a few photos and references to said incident:

[Dreadnought]

Not enough steam to throw them. They were heavy planes and IMO one of the most beautiful.

[surfgun]

Here is F-14's on Coral Sea. Looks like carrier qualifications. The 14's are bare.
Aircraft Carrier USS Coral Sea Flight Deck 88-89 2 - YouTube

[Gun Boat]

Say a CVN loses propulsion far from home. Is there a plan in place to recover a ship of that size and importance? Can the escorts take her under tow and expect to have reasonable control over her in case of heavy seas etc?

[85 gt kid]

Well the Navy is really great about redundancy in their ships. It would be hard for them to totally lose both reactors. But they do have back up generators in case that they can limp along with (atleast i think ithey can use them for propulsion). They could probably tow one but it'd prob take 2 DDG/CGs.

[Tamara]

Well the Navy is really great about redundancy in their ships. It would be hard for them to totally lose both reactors. But they do have back up generators in case that they can limp along with (atleast i think ithey can use them for propulsion). They could probably tow one but it'd prob take 2 DDG/CGs.

Can't say for a carrier but on other ships, usually those diesel generators are for electrical power and not propulsion.

In fact, way, way back in NROTC, I perplexed a prof once because I asked about ships that had diesels as alternate propulsion and was wondering what kind of ship I was talking about....more on that later.

Back then, I can't remember a CODAG warship, surface wise, in the US Navy (except for the one I was torturing the prof with). Nor a CODAS one.

Is there one today? Well, there are probably people around who can answer that.

As to what I had in mind for aux diesels for propulsion?



(he said I was right but actually, operationally, it was the other way around)

[85 gt kid]

I think they have secondary generators for just that purpose but I could be totally wrong and read it wrong lol.

[DonBelt]

The LM 2500 was used for the water jet when it was foilborne. The USS Aries had her LM-2500 removed when she was decommissioned but retained the original Mercedes-Benz diesels and is able to get underway. She is currently in the Grand River in Brunswick, Missouri and the owners are trying to acquire an LM-2500 and other parts to restore her. They are also hoping to move her to Key West, but that's a long way off I think. The USS Montgomery and USS Coronado, LCSs', are going to be CODAG vessels with LM-2500's.

[85 gt kid]

I bet those GTs aren't cheap. Speaking of having the turbines pulled I have a question:

Ex-USS Ticonderoga is up for donation and last I looked a group in Missouri or Mississippi was gonna get her but from what i've read the Navy pulled her Lm2500s, the props and some other things out. If she becomes a museum what happens to the missing stuff? Re-installing those engines can't be easy or cheap but you can't have a museum ship without engines!

[ChrisV71]

I bet those GTs aren't cheap. Speaking of having the turbines pulled I have a question:

Ex-USS Ticonderoga is up for donation and last I looked a group in Missouri or Mississippi was gonna get her but from what i've read the Navy pulled her Lm2500s, the props and some other things out. If she becomes a museum what happens to the missing stuff? Re-installing those engines can't be easy or cheap but you can't have a museum ship without engines!

Ticonderoga was removed from museum hold on May 16, 2013. She's going to be scrapped. So stripping major parts off of her wasn't an issue.

Inactiveships - Inactiveships_News

Ex-TICONDEROGA (CG 47) Status

5/16/2013 - Ex-TICONDEROGA was removed from donation hold effective May 16, 2013 after almost nine years on donation hold. The Navy will proceed with preparing the ship for dismantlement, including further equipment removals to support Navy requirements.