Basnight: When he's good, he's very good
From The Daily Advance in Elizabeth City:
“For more than six years, the Navy pursued its plans to build an OLF in an area that is clearly unsuitable,” Basnight’s letter to lawmakers states. “Our experience with the Navy was pathetic, with so many untruths that built so much distrust into this whole process.”
For as long as I've been following this issue, Marc Basnight has wanted to the Navy to pursue some kind of floating platform as an alternative to building a land-based outlying landing field. I don't know whether the idea has technical merit or not, but I sure do like the way the good Senator speaks his mind.
On the OLF, Basnight has been a staunch and valuable ally. Too bad we didn't have him on our side when the North Carolina Senate voted this summer to give a tax break to the richest North Carolinians.
PS The specific idea of anchoring an old carrier somewhere and using it as a landing field is dumb for a bunch of very practical reasons. But that doesn't rule out the possibility of some other kind of platform. To my knowledge.
Tagged:
BlueNC is dedicated to making North Carolina a more progressive and prosperous state. If your intention is to disrupt this effort, please find somewhere else to express your opinions.
Like?
Comments
Explain to me why it's a dumb idea
because to this landlubber (is that what they call us?), it makes a hell of a lot more sense than destroying homes and natural habitats.
And yeah, yay for Basnight. I'd say he's one of the best we've got.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Aircraft carriers
have to be moving when planes land and take off. They combine their own speed with the speed of the wind to create the right conditions. With rare exceptions, pilots cannot land or take off from carriers that are sitting still. (Helicopters, of course, can land almost anywhere, but we are not talking about them in the OLF debate.)
If, however, a carrier were ten times bigger (I'm just guessing about that multiplier), it would be a different story. Pilots would have enough runway (as they would on a land-based OLF) to land and take off safely.
Parmea knows a lot more about this than I do, but I think my general take is correct.
That's all moot now that we have such a wonder jet as the .....
Harrier Jump Jet.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
And the
Albatros
I call this plane the TORO
as it is a great aircraft for plowing fields with. However, I am sure glad I am not a Marine that has to go into harms way in it.
the Harrier or jump
jet in my opinion is a horrible plane for the air superiority role. The Harrier was the air umbrella aircraft for the British in the Falkands war. The Argentinian air force had 5 Excorcet missiles that were launched from old A-4 (1960s? plane). All 5 missiles hit ships. The British Navy lost to many ships in this war because they relied on smaller aircraft carriers and jump-jet technology. I think all the Argentinian pilots returned home.
The Harrier has a role in close ground support, but not as the primary plane for the Navy.
Common sense tells me your take is 'bout right
I also can imagine the cost of a mega floating platform. There is still an environmental cost, but the human cost factor isn't there. It's just money.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Build a island Admiral!
Marc Basnight has wanted to the Navy to pursue some kind of floating platform as an alternative to building a land-based outlying landing field.* A
It is call a aircraft carrier that last time I check out Jane's fighting ships of the World....If they can build a bridge across Norfolk to Maryland, surely the Navy can build a a island in the middle of the Chesapeak bay as a landing strip as the Japs did years ago in Toyo....
I had a nice write up, but forgot to copy before pasting
This argument is in reference to stopping and taking off from a complete stop.
Yes, for full stops and takeoffs, specific winds across the deck is needed.
For FCLPs, the plane is already flying, it is flying at 130kts when it touches down. All it needs to do is touch down in a predetermined location on the platform utilizing the "ball". I am not a pilot, but Fentress arguably has cross-wind concerns periodically. The pilots, and the "ball" system has a method of overcoming this. This would also be incorporated at the platform.
Having a platform that is large enough to support that predetermined location and provide a margin of error that would support to short or over shots is all that is required. Power generation to run the radio and other electronic devices required.
Pilots have a process in place that if they have a problem they will divert to a dry land facility if one is available. In this platform system, if it is determined that something went wrong, tire blown, etc. the plane is flying and can get back into the air. Then the pilot can figure out the next best thing to do. Fly to another facility, ditch the plane. This floating platform can never be used to stop a plane.
Because this platform is an augmentation to provide operational flexibility for Fentress and Oceana, this platform would not logically be utilized by a pilot on his very first set of FCLPs. He would first practice at Oceana, then FCLP at Fentress, then maybe come out to this platform. When the weather forces this platform to be closed all operations get done at Fentress with overflow to Oceana, if required.
Senator Basnights request for a platform is not as wacked out as the Navy would like us to believe. While pilots may not wish to use this, and it will be a royal pain to get crews out there for each shift, money overcomes all.
However, I will never accept that an older carrier is a safe and viable option. The platform system can be made big enough to safely perform FCLP operations, an old carrier could never be made safe enough for the pilot.
Crew?
Aricraft carriers also take a lot more people and money to operate than a landing field.
Most important to the issue is how does the aircract take off? You have to have a catapult unless you have a really long runway. The catapult needs a big expensive powerplant and steam system to operate. There's the crew too.
With no catapult, an F-18 really needs about a half mile to take off- ten times longer than with a catapult. To be safe, you might want the ship to be 3,000+ feet long, which is twice as long as the longest ship in the world. Nimitz Class aircraft carriers are among the largest ships in the world already at 1092 feet long.
Offshore Platform would work for an OLF
Note: Navy spokesman, Ted Brown, says an aircraft carrier is not feasible for an OLF, he does not say an offshore platform is not feasible for an OLF. In fact he does not mention an offshore platform at all. Could that be because an offshore platform would work for an OLF?
“They need to perform very dangerous landings, particularly at night,” Brown said, adding that the 8,000-foot runway of a land-based OLF provides a much greater margin of error than the flight deck of a carrier. “If you fly in too high (on the carrier) you can miss arresting gear wire that stops the plane, and have to turn around for another approach, which can cost additional fuel and time. If you fly in too low, you’ll crash into back of ship.”
Brown also said the Navy couldn’t just anchor a ship and use it for jet training exercises. He explained that fighter jets need a certain amount of wind to lift off from the deck of a carrier.
“Typically, the carrier (captain) for launches and recoveries points the carrier into the wind, and then steams ahead at a certain speed to generate enough wind (for jets to take off),” Brown said. “You can’t just anchor (a ship) and use that as a place (for pilot training). It would have to be an operational aircraft carrier.”
Basnight knows better
I may be way off base here (pun mildly purposeful), but I think that after lo' so many years have passed Basnight knows the Navy isn't going to go for the floating platform. I suspect it is his way of telling 'em to go find a site in Virginia. Saying it outright would be a little crude for our Marc's preferred style.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Basnight’s Letter to OLF Study Group
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
SENATOR MARC BASNIGHT
RALEIGH 27601-2808
1ST DISTRICT
STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601-2808
TEL (919) 733-6854 FAX (919) 733-8740
October 23, 2007
Dear OLF Study Group:
I regret that I am unable to join you in person this afternoon, but I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Ed Jones, is a member of the Study Group and will add his valuable insight.
Please know of my very strong opposition to the Navy’s plans to build an OLF in northeastern North Carolina. Over the last six years, I have made my opposition to the proposed site in Washington and Beaufort counties clear. Today, I want you to know of my total and complete opposition to proposed sites in Camden and Gates counties. This is an awful proposal that could mean a drastic reduction in economic benefits and that any future for our children is obliterated. I have expressed my position and the reasons for it to Governor Easley and Senators Dole and Burr and asked for their assistance in stopping these short-sighted and detrimental proposals.
For more than six years, the Navy pursued its plan to build an OLF in an area that is clearly unsuitable. Our experience with the Navy was pathetic, with so many untruths that built so much distrust into this whole process. The Navy still considers the Washington-Beaufort site an option and these new proposed sites are no better. In addition to the public safety risks, these sites pose danger to the local economy, to the environment and to the property rights of families who have worked this land for generations. Furthermore, the 52 jobs the OLF would create would not even begin to compensate for the jet noise and lowered property values that the project would bring for generations to come. Locating an OLF in a rural, economically distressed county is absolutely unacceptable.
I have been even more disappointed with the recent disclosure that an OLF would be primarily serving Super Hornet squads based at Oceana in Virginia—and not at Cherry Point in North Carolina. While Virginia Beach would receive the economic benefits, northeastern North Carolina would not. If Virginia Beach wants it, give it to them.
One option that deserves thorough exploration is building an offshore training platform in the Atlantic Ocean or perhaps in the Pamlico Sound. This concept is not a new one – in fact, the Navy itself already has a Mobile Offshore Base program and has found that this is a feasible technology. My office previously consulted with engineering firms which determined that it would cost roughly $600 million to build an offshore training platform of similar size and scope to the currently proposed OLF – a cost that is negligible given that the entire U.S. Navy budget is more than $120 billion. This option would create opportunities and replicate the conditions that fighter planes encounter. By constructing a facility in the water, we can avoid safety hazards associated with aircraft crashing into the land, a school, a home or other structure. It also would not cause further economic damage in one of North Carolina’s most economically depressed areas, or denigrate the property rights of the landowners. We have shown this to the Navy previously and we will show them again. An offshore OLF would show the world that North Carolina, the most military-friendly state in the country, is at the forefront of helping to enhance our military capabilities.
It is my hope that even after all this time, we can work toward a solution that allows the Navy to meet its training needs, addresses the concerns of local residents, and continues the proud tradition of cooperation between the military and our state.
Sincerely,
Marc Basnight
Nope
Basnight knows better.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke