Huh?
CNN has an article posted this AM about the on-going misery in Myanmar resulting from the recent cyclone that devastated the Irrawaddy delta and has left as many as 100,000 dead. The country's paranoid military dictatorship is hampering aid efforts, and as a result, is no doubt adding to the number of dead and injured.
In writing about the U.S. forces in the area poised to help if the dictatorship will only allow international aid, CNN makes the following curious claim (in bold):That is one neat trick. Essex is a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. It is perhaps the most capable ship class in the world when it comes to providing help in the event of coastal disasters such as hurricane and cyclones due to its onboard 600-bed hospital, large helicopter contingent with search and rescue and transport capability, and well deck that houses LCACS and LCUs capable of landing heavy supplies and vehicles directly onto the beach. Essex is capable of a lot of things... but launching and landing a C-130 is not remotely among their capabilities. Either Essex is merely being used to haul C-130s to the region that will have to be offloaded in port before being used, or CNN drastically has their story wrong. I suspect the former over the latter but you never know. After all... "this is CNN."
The U.S has also been pushing for access, pledging $3.25 million and offering to send U.S. Navy ships to the region to help relief efforts. The U.S. military had already flown six helicopters on to a Thai airbase, as Washington awaits permission to go into the south Asian country, two senior military officials told CNN's Barbara Starr. In addition, several C-130 cargo aircraft aboard the USS Essex, which was conducting an exercise in the region, were available for relief missions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 AM
Comments
Posted by: D-lo at May 08, 2008 09:44 AM (4FSAp)
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 08, 2008 10:22 AM (0pZel)
The wackjobs in the Myanmar/Burmese government that won't let aid in the country--that's all Bush's fault.
The screwups in reporting by CNN--that's all Bush's fault.
I think I've got tomorrow's CNN story line down pat. But the punchline "it's all Bush's fault" never changes at CNN
Posted by: Michael J. Myers at May 08, 2008 10:35 AM (LZ3cP)
I could be mistaken, but looking at a Wasp class list of compliment aircraft, they are all vertical take-off. (In other words, probably no catapult nor arresting lines.) Now I know the C-130 has exceptional STOL capabilities (it has unassisted landings and take-offs on the USS Forrestal - deck length 1060ft) and may even be able to land and take off on the 844ft deck of the USS Essex, but with a wingspan of 132ft, landing on the deck of ship with a beam of 106ft might be problematic.
Posted by: bains at May 08, 2008 10:58 AM (xpcgN)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 08, 2008 11:45 AM (0wfsk)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 08, 2008 11:47 AM (0wfsk)
But to the expert military reporters at CNN, who once referred to a fleet oiler as a "battleship", a C-130 is little different than a CH-53. After all, they both begin with "C".
Posted by: Navyvet at May 08, 2008 12:03 PM (xyyVG)
That said, the Forrestal was a heck of a lot bigger and more importantly, wider than either the Tarawa or Wasp-class ships, and a -130 attempting to land on one of these ships would likely rip off the right wing on the ship's superstructure, which I've heard tell is detrimental to their airworthiness, and would be generally unappreciated by the ship's crew.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 08, 2008 12:18 PM (xNV2a)
Posted by: Deputyjoe1 at May 08, 2008 12:26 PM (bkfTF)
Posted by: Dale at May 08, 2008 03:15 PM (Xv9Cu)
Posted by: Dale at May 08, 2008 03:16 PM (Xv9Cu)
I fear for my country; I truly do.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 08, 2008 06:18 PM (cwBZ+)
But CNN is again showing its ignorance - they can't land on the ship.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." Bertrand Russell
Posted by: just_some_guy at May 08, 2008 08:00 PM (xIFnn)
We did not carry any C130s.
We did carry the 31st MEU, a lot, and a bunch of jeeps (not sure the technical name) and LCACs, and helos, and some VTO&L jets, but no fixed-wings.
Deputy Joe! Is he AIMD? Is Chief Skrzyptchek (yes, I murdered the spelling) still there?
Posted by: Foxfier at May 08, 2008 11:00 PM (s2ydv)
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd22.jpg
I've heard rumors about landing C-17s on carriers, but this image is photoshopped:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd55.jpg
And then there is this landing (which I offer without comment: http://home.grandecom.net/~austin/Engr/Humor/X-wing.jpeg
Posted by: Mark L at May 09, 2008 07:48 AM (AfORa)
Posted by: Deputyjoe1 at May 09, 2008 07:57 AM (bkfTF)
Ah, well. Good luck to him!
Posted by: Foxfier at May 09, 2008 08:44 AM (s2ydv)
Posted by: Scot J at May 09, 2008 10:20 AM (mPpLn)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0125 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0087 seconds, 26 records returned.
Page size 12 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.