The start of jet operations in US Navy.

Frode Hansen wrote:

Ogden Johnson III wrote:

[snips]

[Why do I suspect that the statement isn't supported by a
footnoted/endnoted citation?]

You just gave me the answer actually, as the footnote included an URL to
an article. So I can answer it myself:

(The quoted article I questioned can be found on p 25 in Naval War
College Review Vol 59 no 4, autumn 2006, also available he
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review...s/NWCRAU06.pdf )

Source quoted for the paragraph mentioned is an article by Sandra Erwin
in National Defense Magazine oct 2000:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Navy_Aims.htm

There the sentence reads:

...."In 1954, said Dirren, the Navy lost 776 airplanes, an average of
two a day. But even though fewer planes are lost in accidents today, the
cost of naval aircraft has gone up so much that the financial
implications of mishaps are more significant than ever, he explained.
“We lost 22 in 1999. But those 22 airplanes were worth 10 times what the
776 airplanes were worth in 1954,” he said. The A4 Skyhawks were
$240,000 a copy. Today’s premier naval fighter-bomber, the F/A-18E/F,
costs $57 million.

Back in those days, said Dirren, such high rates of mishaps were
acceptable and viewed as “the cost of doing business.”....

The "master jet aviation"-bit seems to be added by Erickson/Wilson to
illustrate the difficulties of carrier operations.
Anyway, I have to assume these are correct numbers.

OK, they observed good practice in footnoting. They also engaged
in bad writing, and possibly thinking. Their statement you
quoted said 800 airplanes, jets, lost in carrier operations.
Their footnoted statement said that the Navy lost 776 airplanes.
Absent any breakdown, one has to presume that the 776 figure
includes aircraft of all types, jet and prop, lost in all phases
of Navy flight operations, land-based and carrier-based.

I don't have time to research this, but assuming, for ease of
calculation, for 1954 a breakdown of prop vs jet of 50/50, and
an operational breakdown of 50/50 land-based/carrier-based, the
776 is reduced to 338 jets, and further to 194 carrier-based
jets. Left uncalculated is the number of mishaps in
take-off/landing operations, which would be where "carrier
operations" makes a real difference, and enroute travel,
simulated air-to-air combat, simulated air-to-ground, etc.
operations, in which carrier based vs land based makes no
difference. Fixating on a target and flying too low to recover
from your dive is no different vis-a-vis the type of aircraft you
are flying or where you started your flight and intended to end
your flight. It still kills you and breaks the aircraft.

It was a stretch to convert that to 'In 1954 alone, in working to
master jet aviation off carriers, the U.S. Navy lost nearly eight
hundred aircraft' Misleading at best, outright fudging the
numbers to support your postulation at worst.
--
OJ III

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
[snip]
OK, they observed good practice in footnoting. They also engaged
in bad writing, and possibly thinking. Their statement you
quoted said 800 airplanes, jets, lost in carrier operations.
Their footnoted statement said that the Navy lost 776 airplanes.
Absent any breakdown, one has to presume that the 776 figure
includes aircraft of all types, jet and prop, lost in all phases
of Navy flight operations, land-based and carrier-based.

I don't have time to research this, but assuming, for ease of
calculation, for 1954 a breakdown of prop vs jet of 50/50, and
an operational breakdown of 50/50 land-based/carrier-based, the
776 is reduced to 338 jets, and further to 194 carrier-based
jets. Left uncalculated is the number of mishaps in
take-off/landing operations, which would be where "carrier
operations" makes a real difference, and enroute travel,
simulated air-to-air combat, simulated air-to-ground, etc.
operations, in which carrier based vs land based makes no
difference. Fixating on a target and flying too low to recover
from your dive is no different vis-a-vis the type of aircraft you
are flying or where you started your flight and intended to end
your flight. It still kills you and breaks the aircraft.

It was a stretch to convert that to 'In 1954 alone, in working to
master jet aviation off carriers, the U.S. Navy lost nearly eight
hundred aircraft' Misleading at best, outright fudging the
numbers to support your postulation at worst.

I agree, given the factors used to break the number down are reasonably
in the ballpark. It would be interesting to see how USAF accident loss
rates compared for the same period, also the total no of planes in
operation for the USN in the period.

While I'm at it: ISTR reading that US and France are the only two
carrier operators using steam catapults with success. If true, is this
due to the size of the carriers or some specific technical challenge
involved?

In article , F Hansen
wrote:

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
[snip]
OK, they observed good practice in footnoting. They also engaged
in bad writing, and possibly thinking. Their statement you
quoted said 800 airplanes, jets, lost in carrier operations.
Their footnoted statement said that the Navy lost 776 airplanes.
Absent any breakdown, one has to presume that the 776 figure
includes aircraft of all types, jet and prop, lost in all phases
of Navy flight operations, land-based and carrier-based.

I don't have time to research this, but assuming, for ease of
calculation, for 1954 a breakdown of prop vs jet of 50/50, and
an operational breakdown of 50/50 land-based/carrier-based, the
776 is reduced to 338 jets, and further to 194 carrier-based
jets. Left uncalculated is the number of mishaps in
take-off/landing operations, which would be where "carrier
operations" makes a real difference, and enroute travel,
simulated air-to-air combat, simulated air-to-ground, etc.
operations, in which carrier based vs land based makes no
difference. Fixating on a target and flying too low to recover
from your dive is no different vis-a-vis the type of aircraft you
are flying or where you started your flight and intended to end
your flight. It still kills you and breaks the aircraft.

It was a stretch to convert that to 'In 1954 alone, in working to
master jet aviation off carriers, the U.S. Navy lost nearly eight
hundred aircraft' Misleading at best, outright fudging the
numbers to support your postulation at worst.

I agree, given the factors used to break the number down are reasonably
in the ballpark. It would be interesting to see how USAF accident loss
rates compared for the same period, also the total no of planes in
operation for the USN in the period.

While I'm at it: ISTR reading that US and France are the only two
carrier operators using steam catapults with success. If true, is this
due to the size of the carriers or some specific technical challenge
involved?

The US and France are about the only countries operating navies with
cat-launched aircraft. The Royal Navy ceased that kind of operations
several years ago.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:25:15 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:


The US and France are about the only countries operating navies with
cat-launched aircraft. The Royal Navy ceased that kind of operations
several years ago.

Somebody better notify the Brazilians.

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/...o/saopaulo.htm

While I'm at it: ISTR reading that US and France are the only two carrier operators using steam catapults with success. If true, is this due to the size of the carriers or some specific technical challenge involved?

Not sure, as I am not a snipe, but ship size would be a definite factor.

Steam cats require beaucoup steam. To operate steam cats and all of the other steam-powered auxiliary equipment - as well as steaming at 30+ knots to assure sufficient wind over the deck and distilling fresh water for the needs of your equipment and the 5,000+ souls who man your carrier - you require a bodacious steam generating capability.

Such capacity needs dictate a rather large ship to host all of this activity. Experience with steam cats also helps greatly. Only the US and France have current steam cat "corporate knowledge" here.

Anyone with better info please step in and enlighten us.


--
Mike Kanze

"Have you ever felt like your patron saint is a man named Murphy?"

- Anonymous

"F Hansen" wrote in message ...
Ogden Johnson III wrote:
[snip]
OK, they observed good practice in footnoting. They also engaged
in bad writing, and possibly thinking. Their statement you
quoted said 800 airplanes, jets, lost in carrier operations.
Their footnoted statement said that the Navy lost 776 airplanes.
Absent any breakdown, one has to presume that the 776 figure
includes aircraft of all types, jet and prop, lost in all phases
of Navy flight operations, land-based and carrier-based.

I don't have time to research this, but assuming, for ease of
calculation, for 1954 a breakdown of prop vs jet of 50/50, and
an operational breakdown of 50/50 land-based/carrier-based, the
776 is reduced to 338 jets, and further to 194 carrier-based
jets. Left uncalculated is the number of mishaps in
take-off/landing operations, which would be where "carrier
operations" makes a real difference, and enroute travel,
simulated air-to-air combat, simulated air-to-ground, etc.
operations, in which carrier based vs land based makes no
difference. Fixating on a target and flying too low to recover
from your dive is no different vis-a-vis the type of aircraft you
are flying or where you started your flight and intended to end
your flight. It still kills you and breaks the aircraft.

It was a stretch to convert that to 'In 1954 alone, in working to
master jet aviation off carriers, the U.S. Navy lost nearly eight
hundred aircraft' Misleading at best, outright fudging the
numbers to support your postulation at worst.

I agree, given the factors used to break the number down are reasonably
in the ballpark. It would be interesting to see how USAF accident loss
rates compared for the same period, also the total no of planes in
operation for the USN in the period.

While I'm at it: ISTR reading that US and France are the only two
carrier operators using steam catapults with success. If true, is this
due to the size of the carriers or some specific technical challenge
involved?

Mike Kanze wrote:
While I'm at it: ISTR reading that US and France are the only two
carrier operators using steam catapults with success. If true, is this
due to the size of the carriers or some specific technical challenge
involved?

Not sure, as I am not a snipe, but ship size would be a definite factor.

Steam cats require beaucoup steam. To operate steam cats and all of the
other steam-powered auxiliary equipment - as well as steaming at 30+
knots to assure sufficient wind over the deck and distilling fresh water
for the needs of your equipment and the 5,000+ souls who man your
carrier - you require a bodacious steam generating capability.

Such capacity needs dictate a rather large ship to host all of this
activity. Experience with steam cats also helps greatly. Only the US and
France have current steam cat "corporate knowledge" here.

Anyone with better info please step in and enlighten us.


--
Mike Kanze

Hmmm...... I think you basically are on target. Few Blue water navies
have USN type cash to play with. Once upon a time even Canada & the
Aussies were players in this game. The cost vs. needs lead to them
scraping there forces. The rest seem to have places their eggs in the
VSTOL carrier(Spain, India, Etc.). The knowledge thing can be aqquired.