USS Forrestal question

[rubberchicken]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Never heard that cartridge story. I know we changed out cartridges every 270 days for new ones (I think that's the number).

Ejection seats have saved thousands of lives. There have also been hundreds who didn't survive ejection. Seats of that era (and mine, newer ones are better) were hard on the human body. Spinal compression, for example, or spinal fracture. A friend's father ejected from an F-4 in Vietnam, lost an inch and a half in height once the fracture healed. Break your back in the ejection, end up in the water with a few other broken bones, and you're in trouble. Can't work the radio. Can't board the raft. The life vest is auto-inflated, but the parachute is all around you. Modest sea currents can drag you under if you don't get free of it...hard to do with a broken arm, or two and a broken back...

Pulling the handle beats imminent death from a crash, but it's not something you do lightly...


Its been 30+ years since I heard him tell the story about the bacteria-fouled cartridges, and the story usually came up at parties with coworkers, and was laced with chemical and weapons terms that made no sense to me at the time. According to him, figuring out the problem was difficult, but devising the solution was much easier. The next hurdle was proving and testing the solution, and then getting them manufactured. The family story is that he disappeared for about a month, then came back home with a bunch of souvenirs from Saigon and Tokyo. Worked furiously for another month jumping around from place to place in Maryland, Norfolk, Florida and back to Maryland. Then disappeared back to Tokyo for a bit but took my mom with him this time. That is about all I know- anything else would be speculation. He did say that if you took the propellent and put it under a microscope, and you knew what you were looking for, then you could tell if a sample was contaminated. Stick the sample in a petri dish and you could cultivate the bugs.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by DeepFriar
Great write-up Astro, thanks. I've studied that period also and one of the strategic backdrops at the time was the Air Force - Navy bureaucratic battle over who would have primary nuke fighting capability. The United States went away when the Navy lost that argument. Didn't matter though, the Navy got leadership (in my opinion) back with the SLBM's. And they count on for awhile with the A-5. As a kid I was knocked out by three airplanes that I had models of. B-58, A-5, F-104. Then the RA-5 was my fav.... Just gorgeous! We were so far ahead of the Soviets that it wasn't even a contest. We have managed to pee away, or give away/lose, a lot of our lead. I just pray there are some knockout punches in the black should we need them but, if the balloon goes up, I don't think there will be any winners next time.


The United States still has huge advantages, and most of those advantages the US has is in the advantages of the enemy. Putin is a lifetime President. Let's just call a spade a spade. He is a total vain egomaniac who loves his power. He is no Osama Bin Laden. That man has zero capacity to live his days in a dirty underground shelter somewhere, or going from hole-to-hole on the run from the International Community. He's probably the best sabre-rattler that has ever existed in the history of mankind. He's got a really good schtick going on, pretending he is willing to wrestle a pack of rabid bears with his bare hands, as he sits in a comfortable chair making sure his manicurist got the edges of his fingernails just right.

Since the Iron Curtain fell, we now know that even the most radical Cold-Era Soviets pretty much threw up and soiled their pants at the same time at the thought of going toe-to-toe with the United States. Their resolve has certainly not grown in the time since them. The last two decades have proven that if you anger the US, chances are, you are going to be dragged out of your hole and die (Bin laden, Qaddafi, Saddam, Uday, Qusay). It has also become evident that the US has a ridiculously long memory of transgressions that it is completely unwilling to forgive or forget (Qaddafi, Bin Laden).

The other advantages we have that have nothing to do with military technology are politics and geography. In the case of transgression, we can step up to pretty much any one of the nations that Russia has been a bad neighbor to (almost all of them) and set up and drive right through them with either complete support, or tacit approval arising out of wanting to avoid getting wrapped up in the situation. Nobody is going to fight on their side.

Russia, on the other hand, has zero chance making an alliance in the Americas. The alliances Russia does have on the other side of the Atlantic stand little chance of holding up once the US starts helicoptering in the pallets of cash, and the understanding that the sword is the other option available. Russia spends a fraction of what the US does on defense and military. Once theory became reality, the picture of who has what would change distinctly.

In the same way that English Kings both feared and threatened powerful nobles, so exists the same relationship with Putin and his powerful thugs and oligarchs. Any talk of nuclear war, and they would almost certainly combine with resistant elements of the Russian military to make him "retire". With several pieces of high velocity jewelry to go along with it.

Russia never recovered from WW2. The chances of them desiring a new apocalyptic encounter are slim to none. But it makes for a great picture acting they could or would.

 

[cjcride]

Thanks for the link Quattro. That's a good read.