Ok, Ex-Navy DUers, What's wrong with this picture?

[TheMightyFavog]

[Rick Myers]

1. I'm ex- Air Force, I'll take a guess...

The destroyer is too close to the carrier? Something to do with the fighter, it's an F-14, I think... Is that a surfaced sub in the background? I can't really get much detail from the JPG...

:toast:

[democracyindanger]

2. Not former Navy but

as someone who read one of your earlier threads: You're posting the cover of a model airplane box? :evilgrin:

[Mr_Lefty]

3. I've never seen external missles on a Bear

[FDRrocks]

4. If that thing landed on the carrier it would take out

what looks to be about 5 planes? :)

[HawkerHurricane]

5. That Bear is MUCH too close to the carrier.

If Mr. Bear got that close while carrying (missiles), Mr. Tomcat (the one you don't see in the picture, it's about a mile behind him) would put a salvo of Sidewinders into him.

[TheMightyFavog]

24. That's the answer I was looking for!

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!

[XNASA]

26. But, but, but.....

That's probably true enough. But I did carrier duty, and I saw a Bear very close up while cruising around the Med back in the 70's. Nowadays, it might be unheard of, I dunno.

No doubt they were too close and had 2 F-4's on their tail but, they were close enough for me to plainly see it. They even made a couple of passes.

I thought my answer was better. If Flight-Ops are going on, what's are all those planes doing parked on the deck?

[TheMightyFavog]

27. You know, I just noticed that...

How could they get the Tomcat in that picture back down with all those planes on deck?

[HawkerHurricane]

30. While riding shotgun on USS Nimitz

back in 1988, we had a Bear go by, with a pair of Tomcats dogging him... BUT he was not 'carrying' ie he had on missiles visible.

[Rick Myers]

6. Are those Long John missiles on that Bear?

It's NOT a 'g'???

I'm dancin' as fast as I can!

[GordonOKC]

7. I'm not Navy

but a look at the wake left by the destroyer on the right side of the picture seems wrong. Like the ship is almost going sideways.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. I can't imagine it ever taking off or landing on a carrier

when it hit the catch wire, the engines would just keep on going... not to mention the wings getting clipped off by the tower, perhaps...

But I'm no expert, and I could be wrong.

[Brewman_Jax]

9. That bomber would never get that close

to a carrier task force.

[-..__...]

10. The ships are sailing across the current?

[absyntheNsugar]

11. I'm guessing D_S is right

eom

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Question for many here: you've mentioned that a bomber wouldn't

get that close to a carrier group.

Why is that? I assume it is from fear of a misfire from a bomb? But the planes on carriers also have bombs and missiles, so why be worried about a bomber, but not worried about something sporting tomahawk missiles?

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Because it's a SOVIET bomber.

Obviously, a Soviet bomber would not be ALLOWED to get that close to an AMERICAN carrier group...as soon as it entered the radar perimeter, the carrier group's combat air patrol would be directed to intercept.

[absyntheNsugar]

14. But how do we know the carrier is American

It could be soviet as well

I'm going with the current one

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. That's pretty obviously a Nimitz-class carrier.

And that's an F-14 Tomcat in the background, which presumably flew off of the carrier's flight deck.

The Soviets did NOT have full-size aircraft carriers comparable to US CVN's, and those that they DID have (for example the Kiev) had a "ski-jump" flight deck, for vertical/short takeoff/landing, not a flat deck as in the picture. (But anyone at all familiar with naval vessels can tell that's a Nimitz-class with a glance, anyway.)

[TheMightyFavog]

25. I know about the Kiev Class VSTOL carriers.

Much like the RN's carriers



But what about the Admiral Kuznetsov?



Carried navalized Flankers and Frogfoots. Seems like a full-size carrier to me.

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. Not in service until 1991...

and not fully operational with air wing until 1995, even though it was launched in 1985...so it hardly counts when discussing the Soviet era.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Thanks! Shows my stupidity when it comes to things military

I should have reaqlized with the stars on the tail, but it didn't register with me.

Of course they don't want a russian bomber getting close to an american convoy...

Thanks!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

17. There are not really big holes in the Bear with parachutes in the air?

and the tomcat is by itself and too far away.

there would be like 15 of them flying 2 feet over the bear's cockpit until he got bored of sucking jet fumes and went back to from where he came.

[Nailzberg]

18. And shouldn't it be about 50 miles out with holes and flames

while the chutes drop? I'm not Navy myself, but I'm from a Navy town. Sheesh, can't these model airplane companies get it right?

[FireHeart]

19. Glaringly obvious

The destroyer/cruiser escort would NOT be lagging BEHIND the carrier. They are a SCREEN to protect the carrier, not running so far behind they couldn't fire a shot. Their job is to defend.

Other aspects, of course, include the closeness of the Bear. Outside of the external missiles, the F-14 would not have been flying alongside the Bear in such a fashion. It would have (stretching the imagination to it's fullest) presented a threat to the cockpit by "escorting" the Bear away from the Strike Group.

Just my opinion.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

20. No, at least one destroyer is always behind the carrier as

a plane guard, just in case the SAR helo can't do it's thing.

[FireHeart]

21. Of course you are right.

At least one. But from the box cover, it looks as if the entire screening force is lagging behind, not just a destroyer. From what I saw, it appears the carrier is charging into battle at the forefront!

:)

[XNASA]

22. Too many planes parked on the flight deck for Flight-Ops to be going on.

If it's implied that this is in the open sea, during flight-ops, then WTF are all those planes doing parked on the carrier deck?

I've seen a Bear that close to a carrier before, and I've seen an F-4 scrambled to within that distance of a Bear. I've also seen other ships around the carrier that close before, but during Flight-Ops they're a bit farther off. Even the destroyer trailing the carrier, JIC, would be miles behind it.

[Ganja Ninja]

23. I'm guessing the missiles are some kind of ground to air ..

anti-aircraft missiles. They are way too big for a maritime patrol plane to carry.

[Deja Q]

29. The airplane is a paradox, an optical illusion worthy of Escher

There's the plane in the distance and what is likely a second plane immediately behind the one in the foreground, but it's the one in the foreground that's paradoxical. The wing points in one direction, but it doesn't gel with the position of the propellers.

Looking at it more closely, I don't think there's another plane behind the foreground one. It's just another aspect of the optical illusion.

The artist must be M C Escher reincarnate... :-)

[Mika]

31. What's wrong with the picture?

All of the war/death machines depicted actually exist - that's what's wrong!