navychief

Found this great picture of the USS Constellation (CV-64). Go NAVAIR! Chief W.

Hey Mig I think you are asking how many aircraft are on the carrier? Seems like around 75 would be about right, including helos; but I could be wrong. The complement of aircraft today might be different than when I was on them, since the Hornet perform dual missions. Also, I understand the S-3 isn't used so much for anti-sub warfare as in years past. Chief

Ok, I need help on this one. I know how to do a print screen; simply push the "Print Screen" button, DUH! The thing is, I have not tried doing so in SFP1. I tried the other night. I heard a sound like a camera shutter, but where the heck do the pictures get stored????? Am sure someone out there will give me an answer macht schnell. Thanks shipmates, Chief

Thanks Cowboy I never actually looked into the print screen option, so thanks for the tip. Looking forward to taking some snapshots. Chief

For those who are checking this forum tonight, 7 May, there is a documentary about the F-8 Crusader on the Discovery Wings Channel at 7 pm.... Chief W.

Here are three more... Chief W.

Downloaded these today. Some very interesting. Chief W.

Thanks, Cowboy But all I do is search out the pictures; I can't claim ownership of them! I do intensive searches, and pick out the ones I like the most to share with you fine folks at Bio. I get a lot of satisfaction just doing that. Being able to share memories of my military past means a lot to me. Chief W.

Just a question for the fine folks who are designing the I-hope-to-be-forthcoming-soon aircraft addons for SFP1. Will the Navy aircraft that will be added be capable of wingfold? I am hopeful that carrier ops will be an added feature, and wingfold would surely be a great plus. Chief W.

My very first flight sim was Fighter Anthology. At the time, I was using Windows 95, and that was in 97. It was a great sim, and am VERY much looking forward to an updated version. I especially liked the carrier ops in it. Chief W.

In light of the news of the so called human cloning going on, we have to ask ourselves a hypothetical question. If you pushed your naked clone off the top of a tall building, would it be: A) murder, B) suicide, or C) merely making an obscene clone fall. Hehehehehehe…………… Chief W.

Ok, all these new aicraft for SFP1 are on the "horizon", but when can we reasonably expect to see them? I know, I know, be patient, Grasshopper, ....right? I wanna fly my A-7!!!!!!! Ok, time for a Sea Story. When I was with VA-15, we had a LCDR named "Hoggy" Monroe. He was one of the older pilots; having been in an attack squadron during Nam. Back before the end of the Cold War, the Russians used to "shadow" our carriers, and they had one of their Krivak class frigates following the carrier I was on; the USS Independence. Well, one day LCDR Monroe was on his final approach to the Indy, and as usual the Russian Frigate was not far behind the Indy. "Hoggy" decided to wake the Russians up a little, and dropped a practice bomb in the wake of the Krivak. As soon as Hoggy landed, he was called to VA-15's Ready Room, and got his ass chewed on by the CO. Everyone in the squadron thought it was great to see the Russians shaken up a little, but it damn near caused an international incident! True story. Chief W.

Oh my gosh, but it "woiks" GREAT!!!!! Thanks, Bananimal! The view is utterly fantastic! Chief W.

Try these, http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/1915.htm http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/ARL15.htm http://www.usspennsylvania.com/BucknerBay/ http://inspect503.tripod.com/louise.htm The Minotaur was originally designated LST-645 Let me know if I can be of any more help. Chief W.

Awesome!....Totally awesome!!! GREAT SKIN!!! Chief W.

The following URL has a story posted that is amazing. It is the true story of a US Navy A-6 BN, Lt. Keith Gallagher, who survived a partial ejection. Unbelievable. You can read it at: http://www.gallagher.com/ejection_seat/ You will find it most interesting. Chief W.

Found these on my hard drive. Thought they were good ones. Chief W. P.S. Anyone heard from Fast Eagle? He should be back at NAS Oceana soon, I hope.

Well, I must say this about being on a carrier. Now that I am retired, it is so easy to reflect back on the excitement of life aboard an aircraft carrier, but not to think about the not-so-nice living conditions. Perhaps the newer ships are better, but the older ones, i.e. the Sara and the Indy....were pigs. Oh, they launched and recovered aircraft just dandy. But life aboard them sucked! Retirement is great. One can think only of the positive aspects of things if one chooses.... Chief W.

Well, if you listen to an S-3 Viking when it powers up, it kinda sounds like a vacuum cleaner. The other thing is, the intake is very large and so close to the deck, so the Viking is known for "vacuuming" unattentive deck hands into the opening..... Ruins your whole outlook on life, ....permanently. Chief W.

Alright, bring on the "Hoover"! Yes, there are S-3s in that picture. In fact, the very first successful 4-seat ejection happened on the Indy when I was on her. It was a cold cat shot. Happened so fast, it was amazing in retrospect. Chief W.

Hey Steve The T-2 was designed to be a trainer from the beginning. Here ya go: North American (Rockwell) T-2 Buckeye (Variants/Other Names: T-2A/B/C/D/E; DT-2B/C) I included pictures of a single engine T-2A, a T-2C, and a Greek T-2E -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- History: When, in 1956, the U.S. Navy requested competitive designs for a new jet trainer capable of taking their student pilots through advanced combat flight categories such as gunnery, fighter tactics, bombing, and carrier qualification, North American Aviation emerged the winner with its design, which used proven features from operational North American aircraft like the FJ-1 Fury and T-28 Trojan. Skipping the prototype phase, North American (purchased by Rockwell, which was later purchased by Boeing) went straight to the pre-production stage, building six YT2J-1 aircraft for evaluation. Of mid-wing configuration, the aircraft had tandem LS-1 ejection seats for pupil (front) and instructor (rear). The instructor's seat was raised to provide a good view, with full dual controls so the aircraft could be controlled from either seat. The first of the YT2J-1s flew on January 31, 1958. Built with student pilots in mind, the Buckeye, as it was called, had a strong, wide-based tricycle landing gear, powered controls, large trailing-edge flaps, air brakes on both sides of the fuselage, and a retractable arrester hook, all of which were hydraulically actuated. The YT2-J1 was powered by a single 3400-pound thrust Westinghouse J34-WE-48 fuselage-mounted turbojet, as were the initial T2J-1 production models (T2-A after 1962). 201 of this version were produced, the first entering service in July, 1959. In August, 1962, the first of two YT2J-2 test aircraft were converted from T2J-1 configuration by replacing the single turbojet with two 3,000-pound thrust Pratt and Whitney J60-P-6 turbojets. This conversion was chosen to replace the T-2A, and the first of 97 new T-2B aircraft flew on May 21, 1965 and entered service in December, 1965 with Training Squadron VT-4 at Pensacola Naval Air Station. Next, the T-2B was converted to a YT-2C for evaluation of the aircraft with two General Electric J85-GE-4 engines. This led to the manufacture of 231 T-2Cs with the GE powerplants for the U.S. Navy Training Command, with the first production model being flown on December 10, 1968. A few T-2B and T-2C aircraft were converted for service as drone directors under the designations of DT-2B and DT-2C, respectively, while two additional variants of the T-2C were procured for the Venezuelan (T-2D) and Greek (T-2E) air forces. Capable of carrying a wide variety of training weapons packages on two wing mounts, the Buckeye could be upgraded to a six-mount status via an armament accessory kit that made the aircraft an effective light attack aircraft capable of carrying bombs, rockets and gun pods. The Buckeye was well-designed for field maintenance conditions, with serviceable components installed at waist level or lower. Thus, the need for stands and ladders for most routine maintenance, including fueling, was eliminated. While training more than 11,000 student pilots to fly 18 different models of Navy jet aircraft, the Buckeye established an outstanding record of safety and reliability for many years, but as the machine has aged it has developed some problems, being grounded for safety reasons three times in 1997 alone. After 41 years of service, the North American T-2 "Buckeye" jet trainer is now being phased out, in favor of the Boeing/BAE T-45A "Goshawk." At least one T-2 has made its way into civilian ownership (pictured above). [History by Kevin Murphy] Nicknames: Attack Guppy; Trusty Tubbyjet Specifications: Engine: One 2,950-lb thrust General Electric J85-GE-4 turbojet Weight: Empty 8,115 lbs., Max Takeoff 13,180 lbs. Wing Span: 38ft. 2in. Length: 38ft. 8in. Height: 14ft. 9.5in. Performance: Maximum Speed: 521 mph Ceiling: 44,400 ft. Range: 910 miles Armament: None Number Built: 529 Number Still Airworthy: At least one privately-owned as a warbird; numerous examples still in military service as of 1998. Links: Air Capitol Warbirds, Wichita, Kansas, USA : T-2 Buckeye Photovault T-2 Photo Page North American Company History (@Boeing.com) -- T-2 Page

I finally bought the Topgun DVD, after hearing so much about the sound quality. It wasn't until late last year that I even had the sound system to support it. But today, I saw the DVD at WalMart and bought it. WHEW! I cranked up the sound, and if I closed my eyes, I could almost feel as though I was back on a carrier deck. Only thing missing was the intense exhaust heat, and the stinging/burning of my eyes from the jet fuel fumes. The latter of which, I really DON'T miss at all. It is an old flick, but the DVD release is worth the expense. Awesome! Chief Ward, AMEC Retired.

Yep, you are right about that, Ranger. The movie is filled with errors, but the sound is excellent, for sure. I got a thrill from watching the flight deck sequences more than anything. The flight deck is an amazing place. I have to tell you though, I much rather enjoy watching it, than being on it. Whenever the Air Boss would say, "All unnecessary personnel clear the Flight Deck"; I wouldn't waste any time. I worked as a troubleshooter only for a brief period with VA-15. The rest of the time, I worked as a maintainer, but below decks in the hangar. The flight deck is one VERY dangerous place to be; and especially at night! When they would go to Darken Ship condition, it was a hairy experience at best to navigate across that deck. Heck, just tripping over a tiedown chain could mess you up; not to mention being hit by an aircraft trapping. Chief

Downloaded these today. Great site: http://www.airliners.net/ and pictures are high quality too. Chief W.

The following is a satirical article by Fred Reed. He has a site at: http://www.fredoneverything.net/index.html His writings are oftimes hysterically funny, and this one is no exception. The Pottification Of The Navy Yet Another Reason Not To Enlist Hoo, the Navy has gone funnier than when Junior put his tadpoles in Aunt Lu's milk. It's wonderful. Headline, the Washington Times: "Navy admiral wants to get rid of urinals." On aircraft carriers. Yep. See, urinals aren't good for gender-equity, which is what the Navy is for. Best I can tell, the admiral figures urinals make the girls aboard feel plumbing-challenged. It gums up their self-concept. And life, remember, is already tough for gals on warships. It's bad enough having those boomy old gun thingies everywhere, and those smelly airplanes. They make a hostile environment and all. But the worst is those disgusting white patriarchy symbols, stuck threateningly to bathroom walls. Think about it. Every time a woman goes to the men's room, there they hang, row on row, in silent reproach, telling her she isn't Fully A Person. The horror. But now help gallops over the horizon, thumpety-thump. The help's name is Admiral John Nathman, and (incredibly) he's a naval aviator. Yes indeed. Potty John, the Carrie Nation of urinals, is going to make it all better. He wants "gender-neutral water closets." When I was a Marine, I always wanted a commander who had an interest in urinals. None of them did, and they probably still don't. But the Navy, as Marines have always suspected, is a little different. And apparently getting differenter. Personally I don't think Potty John has gone far enough in making the military resemble a sorority house. For example, a gal on ship stands out by virtue of having breasts, which must create a hostile work environment. (In fact I've never met a sailor who was hostile to breasts, but I'm being socially progressive here.) I think that as a simple matter of consideration for our warrioresses, men in the services should be required to have breast implants. Gender equity. This is, after all, the New Navy. If compulsory surgery seems extreme this year, at the very least silicone strap-on mammaries should be mandated. Think of them as pre-loaded bras. Since servicemen have to wear uniforms anyway, minor additions could do no harm. Infantrymen carry packs, don't they? I figure breasts might become insignia of rank. Enlisted men would get small ones. Officers would have big mommas. Potty John, being an admiral, would have three. The Chief of Naval Operations would wear an udder. Look, I'm just trying to be helpful. Let's be honest. Many unnecessary hardships are inflicted on women by the Navy. It's so…military. I figure the Navy might consider renaming a carrier or two in a more woman-friendly manner -- the USS Daycare comes to mind, or the good ship Terrycloth. Then there are family separations. I'm agin'em. So I figure a carrier's hangar deck could be divided into a labor ward and a nursery. Granted, weapons would have to be sacrificed, but all they do is encourage violence. (Onboard counseling might help to reduce this lamentable side-effect of testosterone. We could have caring, sensitive fighter pilots.) Fact is, I admire Potty John for his willingness to be different from all those stodgy old male admirals we used to have. Can you imagine Bull Halsey (I guess today he'd be Heifer Halsey, or maybe Steer Halsey) focusing on urinal equity as he led the fleet against the Japanese? How about David Farragut: "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ah…Wait! Let's stop and talk about gender equity!" No. No urinals for them. They were fixated on violence. My father spent four years at sea during World War II, first aboard the USS Greer in the North Atlantic, and then in the Pacific on DD-554, the Franks. He didn't talk a lot about it. He was there for some of the big assaults, doing close fire support with 5-inch-38s. Those were ugly days when blood ran on the decks and the kamikazes screamed in and you red-barreled everything you had at the nacelles and hoped you hit a fuel tank before the pilot hit you. I bet those sailors, mostly dead now, all of them forgotten, would be proud to know about Potty Consciousness. Truth is, the military needs to be stripped of all manner of gender-unfriendly trappings. What could be more phallic than a tank gun? The very thought must be offensive to women, and make them Uncomfortable. Submarines are nothing but nuclear-powered phallic symbols. (With a propeller, which is a disturbing thought.) I reckon we ought to have gender-neutral, cubic submarines. Flowered wallpaper would add a homey feel and, if you got rid of those awful male torpedo-things, there might be room for a shopping deck. The potty problem has reared its genderishly inequitable head for years in the mascara military. You just get in trouble for talking about it. Consider urinals and the Army. They were never a problem, because men regard the entire earth as a urinal in waiting. The side of the road, the middle of the road, a tree, the ocean -- they don't discriminate. The way feminists see oppression everywhere, men see urinals. It's a design feature. Which means that if a battalion of trucks is maneuvering in the desert, guys don't care. Anywhere is as good as anywhere else. Women see things differently. They're embarrassed. They want a bush to go behind. In deserts there aren't any bushes. That's how you know it's a desert. So they want all the guys to stand on one side of the truck while the ladies retire to the other. Of course, if the truck is in the middle of a group of trucks, this doesn't work. And if some dimwitted guy forgets he's not really in the military, and thoughtlessly goes to the wrong side of the truck to check the oil -- that's sexual harassment, buddy. Firing squad to the fore. I'm dead serious: Research has been done on ways to let female soldiers pee standing up. If that's not gender equity, it's at least comic relief. I have to agree with Potty John: For many reasons, none of which I can think of, men should not be allowed to stand comfortably while making a sacrifice to the Porcelain God. However, the Navy shouldn't simply write off its investment in urinals. Surely unmasculine uses can be found for them. They would make splendid planters for flowers, for example: They have a robust watering system and good drainage. The lighting would have to be replaced with grow lamps, but this requires a mere changing of bulbs. Easy. We would have a win-win situation: Feminists would get even with men for being able to use urinals, and men would have flowers to look at. A window-box arrangement around them with drapes would be lovely. See why I tell guys, Don't enlist in this silly circus? I've gotta run. To my stockbroker's, to invest in implant companies.