A Question About Naval Aviation And Winter

Cheers guys,

I know something about Hornet but very little about carrier operations. Therefore I'd like to throw a question to you guys who know more about this business!

Simply put, what kind of means of combating more 'arctic' conditions these vessels equip? Do they have any on-deck de-icing capability, and are there any serious means to keep the deck free of snow and ice?

Or, are the carriers necessarily kept out of the harsh stuff in what comes to the winter weather?

I've been wondering about this since Jane's sim, as it was localized into an area where winter conditions do prevail for a good part of a year, but never really found out anything on the question.

I can only quote my American submariner friends, "a surface fleet is great for peace time, a submarine fleet is great for war time."

I'm pretty sure these large ships were never meant to go near icing conditions. Not to mention American technology isn't really meant to work under -15 degrees celcius.

Come to think of it I don't think any US fighter has any real anti-ice equipment, I know the USAF spray their jets with de-icing liquid before taking off but that's it. And considering every documentary and everyone I talked to that had to deal with US aircraft had this F.O.D. or "foreign object debris" phobia, I'm guessing if there's chance of ice they don't wanna risk damaging their engines.

I'm nowhere near educated in the subject though, maybe someone else will have a clearer answer for you.

Fly south for the winter?

I can only quote my American submariner friends, "a surface fleet is great for peace time, a submarine fleet is great for war time."

I'm pretty sure these large ships were never meant to go near icing conditions. Not to mention American technology isn't really meant to work under -15 degrees celcius.

 

Come to think of it I don't think any US fighter has any real anti-ice equipment, I know the USAF spray their jets with de-icing liquid before taking off but that's it. And considering every documentary and everyone I talked to that had to deal with US aircraft had this F.O.D. or "foreign object debris" phobia, I'm guessing if there's chance of ice they don't wanna risk damaging their engines.

I'm nowhere near educated in the subject though, maybe someone else will have a clearer answer for you.

Well, US military vehicles has been designed to assist US to invade other countries and typically somewhere middle-east or such conditions, where they still have a plenty of the problems.

Like it was barely possible to fly the AH-64 in the Iraq etc as they weren't designed for such climate. Only thing that kept those things flying were the ground crews modifications to almost everything so pilots could do their work. There were lots of panties flying :megalol:

Then there is this opposite party, Soviets and now Russia where they design their gear to operate in their country for defensive purposes. And it is easy for them when they country covers basically every climate there is from hot deserts to coldest areas and jungles.

So then there comes Americans who does claims like:

And then you have claims like this:

So they are totally opposite ones really (even when that is about different kind aircrafts, yet operating from same fields etc).

And if one is to defend their country, your military needs to operate in that climate you want to defend. If one is to invade other countries, your military needs to operate in climates in those.

But that said, the American aircrafts needs to have a good de-icing etc functions as at altitude you will generate ice just like even any passenger jet. But then question of how much better withstanding you have for something like those is questionable.

And if you can keep your operation conditions cleaner and safer to minimize the risks and accidents, then just better.

Thank you for your responses so far! :)

Indeed, most military airplanes lack structural ice protection, albeit in most other fast airplanes, such as jet airliners, only minimal amount of surfaces are ice protected as well (in airliners we speak of engine inlet rings and a couple of most critical slat panels for example). Hornet only has heating on its probes and engine inlet guide vanes. There is an inlet ice detector in the LH engine intake duct, which is the only ice detector on the airplane. Windscreen is protected by blowing some bleed air over it if necessary. When having to penetrate icing conditions, fighters rely on high airspeed mostly.

Hornets do relatively well with cold, perhaps in part because they don't rely on battery for starting (APU is kicked on by hydraulic accumulator). But it appears so far, that the aircraft carrier as an "airfield" is not that winterized but is primarily intended for relatively mild conditions.

US does operate jets and other military equipment in Alaska and because it's a strategic piece of land they do make sure their equipment works there.

This is pure speculation but I'd think that using the bountiful heat from the nuclear reactor would help you keep the deck and rest of the ship defrosted regardless of weather. Just make sure you dont have too much insulation. The airplanes themselves seem to operate in cold weather just fine.

Then there is this opposite party, Soviets and now Russia where they design their gear to operate in their country for defensive purposes. And it is easy for them when they country covers basically every climate there is from hot deserts to coldest areas and jungles.

lmao

anythings possible when your standards are low enough, like the yak-38 which could just barely take off with r-60s as soon as the latitudes got warm

Try it now

Well, US military vehicles has been designed to assist US to invade other countries and typically somewhere middle-east or such conditions, where they still have a plenty of the problems.

 

Like it was barely possible to fly the AH-64 in the Iraq etc as they weren't designed for such climate. Only thing that kept those things flying were the ground crews modifications to almost everything so pilots could do their work. There were lots of panties flying :megalol:

 

Then there is this opposite party, Soviets and now Russia where they design their gear to operate in their country for defensive purposes. And it is easy for them when they country covers basically every climate there is from hot deserts to coldest areas and jungles.

 

So then there comes Americans who does claims like:

 

And then you have claims like this:

 

So they are totally opposite ones really (even when that is about different kind aircrafts, yet operating from same fields etc).

 

And if one is to defend their country, your military needs to operate in that climate you want to defend. If one is to invade other countries, your military needs to operate in climates in those.

 

But that said, the American aircrafts needs to have a good de-icing etc functions as at altitude you will generate ice just like even any passenger jet. But then question of how much better withstanding you have for something like those is questionable.

 

And if you can keep your operation conditions cleaner and safer to minimize the risks and accidents, then just better.

Not to mention American technology isn't really meant to work under -15 degrees celcius.

http://www.mcasiwakuni.marines.mil/News/News-Stories/News-Article-Display/Article/643407/fighting-bengals-soar-pacific-skies-with-japanese-pilots/

It does look super hot there in MCAS Iwakuni, and for the looks of all that snow on the ground, they are super worried about FOD.

US does operate jets and other military equipment in Alaska and because it's a strategic piece of land they do make sure their equipment works there.

That's a part of the point of the original question. Such airfields certainly do have some winter maintenance and warm hangar space.

I understand that on the carrier, a portion of the air wing spends its time on the deck instead of under it. What comes to the deck itself, I doubt it would be heated. For simply being a maintenance nightmare that way.

Necessity is the mother of invention. The AH-64s were made to work in Iraq, and Harriers operated in extremely sub-optimal conditions in the South Atlantic during the Falklands crisis.

Routinely, it might not happen, but when push comes to shove, people just find a way to cope, and get on with it as best thy can.

Cheers guys,

 

I know something about Hornet but very little about carrier operations. Therefore I'd like to throw a question to you guys who know more about this business!

 

Simply put, what kind of means of combating more 'arctic' conditions these vessels equip? Do they have any on-deck de-icing capability, and are there any serious means to keep the deck free of snow and ice?

 

Or, are the carriers necessarily kept out of the harsh stuff in what comes to the winter weather?

 

I've been wondering about this since Jane's sim, as it was localized into an area where winter conditions do prevail for a good part of a year, but never really found out anything on the question.

We never had a problem with ice or snow on the deck. Snow rarely accumulated on the deck and when it did it was not there long. Steel is not a good insulator and the ship is packed full of equipment and the crew all of which create heat. Between that and the fact that during flight ops there were so many jet engines turning that the conditions were not good for H2O to remain in its solid form. I can tell you that a Maglite stuck into jet exhaust right by the tailpipe for a couple of seconds makes a great hand warmer.

I'm just throwing this out there from first hand experience as an aircraft maintainer at probably the second coldest base that has an actual flying squadron the USAF has to offer...

I can only quote my American submariner friends, "a surface fleet is great for peace time, a submarine fleet is great for war time."

I'm pretty sure these large ships were never meant to go near icing conditions. Not to mention American technology isn't really meant to work under -15 degrees celcius.

 

Come to think of it I don't think any US fighter has any real anti-ice equipment, I know the USAF spray their jets with de-icing liquid before taking off but that's it. And considering every documentary and everyone I talked to that had to deal with US aircraft had this F.O.D. or "foreign object debris" phobia, I'm guessing if there's chance of ice they don't wanna risk damaging their engines.

I'm nowhere near educated in the subject though, maybe someone else will have a clearer answer for you.

From my personal experience -15ºC (5ºF) isn't that cold and hanve't seen parts fail anymore than usual. That is a warm winter day where I work. The only thing that doesn't work as well is our fuel control since we use JP-8. We had to change all the fuel controls to one fith FEV (Fuel enrichment Valve) that helps with cold weather starting. It was never an issue with JP-4

None of the aircrafts I've worked on had any sort of airframe anti-ice. We just de-ice and it flies. Cant say I've ever seen a single jet come down with ice on any of the leading edge or control surfaces. Controlled FOD (man induced), i.e. lost tools, assembling components with loose hardware/items floating around or rocks, hardware, rags, uniforms, sitting on the ground unsecured that could be sucked up into the engines that is the real problem. It all comes down to housekeeping and maintenance practices. Shitty tool control and/or airfield management = more FOD damage. Uncontrolled FOD (wildlife/weather) isn't a phobia. Those are inherit risks with day to day operation. We don't cancel flying just because our runway just happens to be in the middle of one of the largest waterfowl migration routes in north america. We'll just suck them up, spit em out, get feather samples, clean bird splatter, borescope the engine, and return to service if there's no internal damage. Very rarely do we cancel flying due to weather. The times we have cancel for weather were because we were getting like 12" of snow in 24 hrs. The problem is that people can't drive on the roads to get to work to remove snow from the ramp, taxiways and runways because the highway gets shutdown. Manpower is the real limiting factor. From first hand experience, the worst condition to start engines is when there is fog and below freezing. Ring cowls and IGV start to form ice almost immediately, so you must anti-ice right after it reaches idle. Heck we launch jets all the time with snow on top of the engines and see they get sucked into the engine all the time. We don't even remove the snow on the ground in front of the engines, just where the landing gear is.

Thank you for your responses so far! :)

 

Indeed, most military airplanes lack structural ice protection, albeit in most other fast airplanes, such as jet airliners, only minimal amount of surfaces are ice protected as well (in airliners we speak of engine inlet rings and a couple of most critical slat panels for example). Hornet only has heating on its probes and engine inlet guide vanes. There is an inlet ice detector in the LH engine intake duct, which is the only ice detector on the airplane. Windscreen is protected by blowing some bleed air over it if necessary. When having to penetrate icing conditions, fighters rely on high airspeed mostly.

 

Hornets do relatively well with cold, perhaps in part because they don't rely on battery for starting (APU is kicked on by hydraulic accumulator). But it appears so far, that the aircraft carrier as an "airfield" is not that winterized but is primarily intended for relatively mild conditions.

B-52's have bleed air anti-ice on the ring cowls/PT2 probe and IGV's/ nose cone. B-52's dont blow air over the windshield to de-ice. The glass panes themselves are embedded with wires around the perimeter of the window that electrically heat it. No anti-ice on any part of the airframe other than that and pitot probes.

F-15/16's with PW F-100-220/220E/229 have an electrically heated PS2 probe, with bleed air anti-ice on 17 of the 21 CIVV's (a moveable IGV) and nose cone. I haven't worked on a jet with slats, so I can't comment on that. F-15's engine anti ice probe is on the left intake as well. F-16's also have an electrically heated strut(?) in the inlet intake, I have no clue what the strut is since I've never been assigned to 16's. Also on the PW F100-220/229's installed in F-15/16's, just because you have the engine anti-ice switch on, it doesn't mean that the DEEC will allow engine ant-ice. It can say no and inhibit anti-ice

That's a part of the point of the original question. Such airfields certainly do have some winter maintenance and warm hangar space.

 

I understand that on the carrier, a portion of the air wing spends its time on the deck instead of under it. What comes to the deck itself, I doubt it would be heated. For simply being a maintenance nightmare that way.

Warm hangar space is a luxury. We have 9 hangars that can be use for aircraft maintenance. Of the 9, 4 are nose dock hangars, meaning only the front half is in the hangar, the tail still sticks out. Those are old hangars with heaters that sometimes work. the remaining 5 are full hangars but they're often used for scheduled maintenance. You have a jet for WLT, phase and wash, that takes up 3 of the 5 "nice hangar". The last nice hangar is for fuels. So any fuel system maintenance can only be done in that hangar. 90% of unscheduled mx still has to happen out on the ramp in the elements including engine changes. We pray that it gets below -45ºF, since that's the temperature that our regulation says that no work may be performed. But of course that is always waiverable for real world situations.

I think it's high time western aircraft designers put aside their ego and start putting FOD protection. Just because the Soviets did it doesn't mean you can't.

FOD on the ground just isn't that big of a concern. Not enough to add weight and complexity. Russian jets aren't immune to FOD. At takeoff power, a Sukhoi is just as vulnerable to FOD as an F-15. Nobody fixes a runway without sweeping it.

We never had a problem with ice or snow on the deck. Snow rarely accumulated on the deck and when it did it was not there long. Steel is not a good insulator and the ship is packed full of equipment and the crew all of which create heat. Between that and the fact that during flight ops there were so many jet engines turning that the conditions were not good for H2O to remain in its solid form. I can tell you that a Maglite stuck into jet exhaust right by the tailpipe for a couple of seconds makes a great hand warmer.

I'm just throwing this out there from first hand experience as an aircraft maintainer at probably the second coldest base that has an actual flying squadron the USAF has to offer...

 

(snip)

 

Interesting! Thanks for sharing Vampyre and ZEEOH6!

Zee you don't need to write in bold text I can assure you everyone can read you all the same.

Come on, don't lie to me.. damaging your engines with FOD just because the aircrafts weren't designed properly isn't the way to go. You're not proving anything to anyone. I think we both know an ice cube can destroy engine blades. Nevermind actual FODs. If what you say is true then I feel bad saying it but, it's just gross negligence, if it's false then it proves my point that "first world" air forces have an FOD phobia.

 

I think it's high time western aircraft designers put aside their ego and start putting FOD protection. Just because the Soviets did it doesn't mean you can't.

 

What will happen when things won't go your way and your airfield gets bombed once? What

You'll spend the next week sweeping debris? You just admitted you have a manpower problem, It's just not realistic. Even the Mig-21 has FOD protection.

I have no horse in this race, I'm just stating the obvious.

I didn't know how the multi quote on this forum works, so I put it in bold to separate it. But now I see that it quotes them individually rather than having them as a collapsible cascade.

How is starting an engine while its snowing damaging it? I know that an ice cube wont destroy an engine. Can it? of course, depending on how big it is and where it strikes. There are repair limits for everything. A majority of blade damage can be blended out, which returns them to service. I can hacksaw off a 2" piece of fan blade in certain areas and it's within limits. While some parts even a 1/8" nick rejects the engine. Even if they are out of limits, we can get waivers for them making it serviceable and not destroyed so it will continue to stay on wing. FOD damage is not the main reason for engine removal. I have changed 0 engines in the past 3 months due to FOD damage, but I've changed 8 engines for other reasons in that time span.

Our FOD protection is maintenance practice, tool control, FOD walks, FOD checks, keeping the airfield clean, etc. We don't need mechanical devices to stop FOD. Mechanical devices are inherently man made with nuts and bolts. Those nuts and bolts require safety wires, safety wires break all the time. Now where did that piece of safety wire go? How do you feel about inlet x-rays then?

I've personally launched Col. Fornoff's F-15. He was the 422nd TE squadron commander when I was there. Hes the colonel in the youtube video posted by Fri13 about the Indian Su-30MKI coming to Red Flag for the first time. I also got to walk around India's Su-30MKI (heck, I like to think that I'm one of the first USAF maintainers to be able to check out the Su-30MKI with no red tape). While watching them recover the jets, they had a jet taxi in with it's #2 intake ramp stuck in the up position. You know how they fixed it? They beat it down with a mallet. I also noticed during my walkaround that they have have borescope access ports that leads directly to the engine's AP plugs. Why else would they easily accessible AP plugs if their engine was so FOD proof? Unless they feel their engine is gonna grenade ever sortie and requires you to scope it that frequently, or they realize that it is just as prone to FOD as any other fighter, if not more so.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing Vampyre and ZEEOH6!

:beer:

Simply put, what kind of means of combating more 'arctic' conditions these vessels equip?

Never really thought about it, but I must say that is a great question!

Thanks to all who share their personal insight, that's very interesting and enlightening to read! :thumbup: :beer:

iirc fod protection has been removed from modern marks of russian aircraft as well; furthermore even when present they were stowed after takeoff despite birdstrikes remaining a threat at such low altitudes.

I don't know why this is a debate. Simply search carrier OP's and snow.

The thing is US equipment was designed to stop the Russian hoard from crossing the Fulda Gap. North Atlantic cruises were the norm as was guarding the GIUK gap and supporting Norway from the Russian Fleet. Some One in this thread also is under the mistaken impression the Apache was designed to fight in Iraq. It was made to kill Russian Armor in Germany. Most US equipment was not a fan of the desert.

F-16's also have an electrically heated strut(?) in the inlet intake, I have no clue what the strut is since I've never been assigned to 16's.

The strut itself is not heated, but it has a electrically heated metal cover. You can grab the metal cover and it should move.

I know that an ice cube wont destroy an engine. Can it? of course, depending on how big it is and where it strikes. There are repair limits for everything. A majority of blade damage can be blended out, which returns them to service. I can hacksaw off a 2" piece of fan blade in certain areas and it's within limits. While some parts even a 1/8" nick rejects the engine. Even if they are out of limits, we can get waivers for them making it serviceable and not destroyed so it will continue to stay on wing. FOD damage is not the main reason for engine removal. I have changed 0 engines in the past 3 months due to FOD damage, but I've changed 8 engines for other reasons in that time span.

On the F-117, we got ice damage all the time ( because of the grids that cover the intake) But those F404 are crazy durable with huge tolerances. First time I inspected an engine I thought someone was pulling a prank on me. Tip curls, huge blade blends, whole blade tips cut off and blended, those engine could take a beating a shrug it off. One pilot had 7 engine tall and he did not notice, the jet was code one until we downloaded the STEMS. I ran it to try to figure out what was going on and got a huge fire ball out the back...I did not see it but my ground guys almost took off running because of it.

Great discussion so far, thanks guys! :)

I might specify a little what I'm looking for. I am familiar with aviation in cold weather per se. Cold itself is not really a big problem for most airplanes - and certainly not for Hornets (I think I've handled them down to some -25 °C but many here on the forum have certainly been below that). With civil aircraft, the issues are mainly those of doors and toilet systems, which may get stuck or blocked due to ice. Landing gears may or may not develop various seal issues.

When we get into more...adventurous conditions, with freezing temperatures but mostly open sea not covered by ice, one issue is sea spray blown by the wind, which freezes over the surfaces it hits.

LINK

While certainly not an issue to the vessel of that size itself, it doesn't have to be that extreme to render the aircraft parked on the deck unflyable before some de-icing takes place. I don't know if there are any means and/or procedures for such encounters, or if the deck is in practice above most of spray.

In combinations with land areas in particular, one can also have rather intense snow storms over an open water, but I suspect one doesn't run into those so often when a good distance away from the land, where carriers mainly operate, I think.

Aircraft Carrier Sails Through Winter Wonderland

ZEEOH6;

Thanks for sharing your experiences, great read! I guess I've been luckier than you in what comes to warm hangar - "warm" at least in comparison to the outside, not necessarily in cozy terms.

mvsgas;

Yeah, those intake grilles may cause some headache. For similar reasons, the removable intake protector webs (what are they called?) that are normally used during engine tests runs were not used in conditions where they might collect some ice.

mvsgas;

 

Yeah, those intake grilles may cause some headache. For similar reasons, the removable intake protector webs (what are they called?) that are normally used during engine tests runs were not used in conditions where they might collect some ice.

We still use the run screens, we have to. Maintenance personnel can not run some aircraft unless this are on, but in icing condition, an observer must look for sign of ice formation and if ice is noted, the run must be terminated. By the way, run screen are just to prevent people from being suck into the intake.

When talking about the F-117, I was referring to the RADAR Absorbing Structure (RAS) in front of the intakes.

We still use the run screens, we have to. Maintenance personnel can not run some aircraft unless this are on, but in icing condition, an observer must look for sign of ice formation and if ice is noted, the run must be terminated. By the way, run screen are just to prevent people from being suck into the intake.

 

When talking about the F-117, I was referring to the RADAR Absorbing Structure (RAS) in front of the intakes.

Yep, gotcha. Just didn't have the name for run screens. Around here, they weren't always used (and I think were prohibited during icing conditions), I'd guess it was trusted that people and stuff were off the danger area.

Mvgas, I worked with a guy that PCS’ed from 117’s back in 2005ish. Where you working 117’s around that time?

Akarhu, are you Canadian by any chance? I was up in Cold Lake and their hangars were pretty nice. Probably the nicest one I’ve worked out of.

We didn’t use run fences to often on 15’s. If it was a maintenance run for ECS stuff, which was right in front and between the inlets or running in the hush house, those were really the only times I’ve used the run fence.

On the B-52’s we have to use a run fence anytime theres maintenance being done on an operating engine. The run fence doesn’t install on the aircraft. It’s just a big home plate shaped fence on casters that we’ll park in front of the pod.

Mvgas, I worked with a guy that PCS’ed from 117’s back in 2005ish. Where you working 117’s around that time?

I got to Holloman in 2004 and hated my live and updated my dream sheet every day until December 2007 when I went to Kunsan. I wish I was joking but I literally updated my dream sheet every day before rollcall. Number one was Osan 2 was Kunsan, then I will switch them. I was in Aviano when I go the assignment to Holloman, IIRC we where going through a ORE at the time of my PCS out. An inspector ask where I was going, I told him Holloman, and he proceeded to actually LOL. That should have been a clue.