Select committe Carriers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regard to the US Navy moving away from specialized aircraft carrier carrier aircraft, note that Navy has retired the S-3 Viking.
Lockheed S-3 Viking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The S-3 was primarily an antisubmarine warfare platform, but was also used for electronic signals gathering and as an air to air tanker.
PeePruneers have been discussing maritime patrol aircraft, but I haven't seen the S-3 mentioned.
Going back to the 1990's, the Navy was thinking about getting either an evolved S-3 or an entirely new Common Support Aircraft, but those proposals seem to have fallen off the table and into the wastebasket:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...es/csa-jhu.gif
I predict that the E-2 Hawkeye will be around for many more years, and eventually Hawkeye will be replaced by a large, land-based UAV.
Lockheed S-3 Viking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The S-3 was primarily an antisubmarine warfare platform, but was also used for electronic signals gathering and as an air to air tanker.
PeePruneers have been discussing maritime patrol aircraft, but I haven't seen the S-3 mentioned.
Going back to the 1990's, the Navy was thinking about getting either an evolved S-3 or an entirely new Common Support Aircraft, but those proposals seem to have fallen off the table and into the wastebasket:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...es/csa-jhu.gif
I predict that the E-2 Hawkeye will be around for many more years, and eventually Hawkeye will be replaced by a large, land-based UAV.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found that video quite shocking.
Even if the committee members had only just come to earth that very morning they could have asked more intelligent questions.
On not understanding the difference between two and four rails.....If the lady didn't understand the concept of rails, then why ask the question, or expect to understand the answer!, And to say that our system would be bespoke!.......I wasn't aware I could nip into my local M and S and buy one, and thought they were all fairly bespoke, as are aircraft carriers themselves (even ones in the USN).
I did enjoy the logic of the chair that to have a capability gap was a bad thing, but that it would have also been better to delay buying any JSF's
You really could not make up stupidity at this level.
Even if the committee members had only just come to earth that very morning they could have asked more intelligent questions.
On not understanding the difference between two and four rails.....If the lady didn't understand the concept of rails, then why ask the question, or expect to understand the answer!, And to say that our system would be bespoke!.......I wasn't aware I could nip into my local M and S and buy one, and thought they were all fairly bespoke, as are aircraft carriers themselves (even ones in the USN).
I did enjoy the logic of the chair that to have a capability gap was a bad thing, but that it would have also been better to delay buying any JSF's
You really could not make up stupidity at this level.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance is bliss!
As displayed here quite convincingly by Mgt Hodge and more routinely daily by our elected Members of Parliament.
They are only ever as good as the last briefing received and that depends markedly on both how well they listened and the level of their intellect!
I know that she was trying to bottom it out but, by her lack of knowledge, understanding and ignorance when coupled with her bombastic b!tch approach, she showed herself to be the shallow hypocrite that most of the current cohort aspire to!
As Billy Connolly said: The very fact that you want to become a politician should ban you for life of ever becoming one!
Foldie
As displayed here quite convincingly by Mgt Hodge and more routinely daily by our elected Members of Parliament.
They are only ever as good as the last briefing received and that depends markedly on both how well they listened and the level of their intellect!
I know that she was trying to bottom it out but, by her lack of knowledge, understanding and ignorance when coupled with her bombastic b!tch approach, she showed herself to be the shallow hypocrite that most of the current cohort aspire to!
As Billy Connolly said: The very fact that you want to become a politician should ban you for life of ever becoming one!
Foldie
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being unfamiliar with the support staff of members of parliament, I find it very surprising that most of the technical issues weren’t addressed before this hearing between the various staff members and the MoD representatives. I believe that in the US most of the specific technical details would have been reviewed by DoD liaison officers and the congressional staff members before any public hearing. Most members of congress are lawyers who don’t have much grasp of the technical issues, but they usually hire staff members who have some technical background to advise them. Is this not the same for members of parliament?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bevo
Only if their relatives happen to have the required specialist knowledge
MPs should be barred from hiring family after 'exploiting' expenses system, says sleaze watchdog | Mail Online
Only if their relatives happen to have the required specialist knowledge
MPs should be barred from hiring family after 'exploiting' expenses system, says sleaze watchdog | Mail Online
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being unfamiliar with the support staff of members of parliament, I find it very surprising that most of the technical issues weren’t addressed before this hearing between the various staff members and the MoD representatives. I believe that in the US most of the specific technical details would have been reviewed by DoD liaison officers and the congressional staff members before any public hearing. Most members of congress are lawyers who don’t have much grasp of the technical issues, but they usually hire staff members who have some technical background to advise them. Is this not the same for members of parliament?
Rear Admiral Hussain came across as a well informed, professional and highly competent officer. His only failing appears to be that he is no Enid Blyton. In other words he lacks the ability to be able to communicate with very young children. That was highlighted when he tried to explain in what I thought was a well worded description but perhaps to technical for the average five year old child to understand!!
No matter how he tried to explain the term 'rail' he failed miserably to just say it is the system used to launch an aircraft. We will use the exact same model (or system) as fitted to American aircraft carriers, but the decks of our ships will need just two 'rails' compared to the four that are fitted on the US ships!
The chair of that committee was a dead ringer for that obnoxious person that hosts the 'Weakest Link TV show!' I thought she was rude, arrogant, self opinionated and someone that refuses to listen to any answer that did not conform to her preconceived ideas.
It made me smile every time she cut off that poor lady that attempted to explain 'Projected power!'
Every time she tried giving any type of answer she was accused of trying to change the subject. Our highly educated, well informed chair gave the impression that she was convinced that this 'projected power' was part and parcel of the catapult launch system!
There were possibly one or maybe two M.P.s that had some idea of what they were talking about but even they were heard to mutter something about using the Tornado as a short term option?
FodPlod
I enjoy reading ALL your excellent, well informed posts, but was surprised to see how you say a QE" carrier would have more than enough space to fit the necessary boiler\s to operate steam powered catapults.
However, if it "dont work", then steam is indeed the only viable alternative to power the cats. But as the Admiral said, installing the necessary boiler(s) and associated equipment (for which CVF has more than enough space) would be more intrusive than fitting EMALS as they will have to go deep inside the bowels of the ship with all the extra risk, hassle and expense entailed. He also pointed out that steam technology would rapidly become obsolete compared to EMALS, hence more difficult and expensive to support.
(poor attempt at humour) I am thinking about how they would need to butcher there way into the bowels of this ship to install this boiler room, then run all the pipework control room etc and then make sure they have maintained the integrity\strength of this capital ship!!! It will certainly be a nice 'little' earner for the Naval Architects. Sticking with this theme I had heard rumours that the EMALS was designed for the much longer US class ships and there were queries as to whether our vessels would be long enough. If they are, then fine but if not, then ooops! Thankfully this committee failed to ask how much this conversion would cost if the EMALS system failed to perform on our smaller carrier.
The committee were making a number of points about training with and cross decking with the French aircraft carrier?? My own thoughts on this point is that I thought we were negotiating for the F-35 aircraft!! Not something in the French inventory??
Was it just me that got the opinion this particular committee were of the opinion these ships were built solely to keep a work force employed!! This theme was mentioned several times during that sitting and their ignorance regarding their complete lack of knowledge regarding the issues they were discussing would have been funny if it were not so serious.
That'll be the same Margaret Hodge - that well known champagne socialist - who got away without being prosecuted following one of the worst cases of child abuse ever when she was part of Islington Council.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The very same Red - but these days who notices? Integrity throughout the fabric of our whole being is evaporating. Sounds pompous, which I thunk I'm not, but there are many as herself with similar 3rd Class degree 'qualifications' among us who are rising to the surface without being endowed with a measure of common intelligence. They are not of us, and would not hold their own in an old codgers' debate held in either the Mess or my pub. She will rot, but unfortunately, she'll influence others younger than her. I'm off to the Lakes for awhile, and will forget her --
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikipedia, the sometimes reliable source of military technology info., has some inneresting bits about EMALS cattypults and arrester gear on the USSS Ford:
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
...
The keel of the Gerald R. Ford was laid down on 13 November 2009.[1]
Power generation
...
The new A1B reactor plant is a smaller, more efficient design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz-class A4W reactor plant. ...
The Gerald R. Ford-class will be an integral component of the fleet for a total of nearly ninety years. ( Wow, 90 years. )
Launch systems
The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. Steam catapults were developed in the 1950s and have been exceptionally reliable. ( "Exceptionally reliable"? Maybe not. See how the next sentence somewhat contradicts "exceptionally reliable" --Elmo ) For over fifty years at least one of the four catapults has been able to launch an aircraft 99.5% of the time.[23] However, there are a number of drawbacks. “The foremost deficiency is that the catapult operates without feedback control. With no feedback, there often occurs large transients in tow force that can damage or reduce the life of the airframe.”[24] The steam system is massive, inefficient (4–6%),[25] and hard to control.
Control problems with the system results in minimum and maximum weight limits. The minimum weight limit is above the weight of all UAVs. An inability to launch the latest additions to the Naval Air Forces is a restriction on operations that cannot continue into the next generation of aircraft carriers. ... An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.
On one hand, it's good if CVN Ford can launch Predators and Reapers. On the other hand, is the new super-duper carrier the appropriate venue for Predators, Reapers, etc.?
Possible upgrades
Preparing for the future is a trademark of Gerald R. Ford. New defense systems, such as free electron laser directed-energy weapons, dynamic armor, and tracking systems will require more power. “Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on CVN 78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN 78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz class lacks to run lasers and dynamic armor.”[28] ...
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
...
The keel of the Gerald R. Ford was laid down on 13 November 2009.[1]
Power generation
...
The new A1B reactor plant is a smaller, more efficient design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz-class A4W reactor plant. ...
The Gerald R. Ford-class will be an integral component of the fleet for a total of nearly ninety years. ( Wow, 90 years. )
Launch systems
The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. Steam catapults were developed in the 1950s and have been exceptionally reliable. ( "Exceptionally reliable"? Maybe not. See how the next sentence somewhat contradicts "exceptionally reliable" --Elmo ) For over fifty years at least one of the four catapults has been able to launch an aircraft 99.5% of the time.[23] However, there are a number of drawbacks. “The foremost deficiency is that the catapult operates without feedback control. With no feedback, there often occurs large transients in tow force that can damage or reduce the life of the airframe.”[24] The steam system is massive, inefficient (4–6%),[25] and hard to control.
Control problems with the system results in minimum and maximum weight limits. The minimum weight limit is above the weight of all UAVs. An inability to launch the latest additions to the Naval Air Forces is a restriction on operations that cannot continue into the next generation of aircraft carriers. ... An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.
On one hand, it's good if CVN Ford can launch Predators and Reapers. On the other hand, is the new super-duper carrier the appropriate venue for Predators, Reapers, etc.?
Possible upgrades
Preparing for the future is a trademark of Gerald R. Ford. New defense systems, such as free electron laser directed-energy weapons, dynamic armor, and tracking systems will require more power. “Only half of the electrical power-generation capability on CVN 78 is needed to run currently planned systems, including EMALS. CVN 78 will thus have the power reserves that the Nimitz class lacks to run lasers and dynamic armor.”[28] ...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this sentence is at the very least 'interesting'
Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.
I accept we are talking about 'wikipedia' but is it suggesting the Nimitz class cannot generate sufficient power to operate the EMALS launch system?
I am asking this question because the QE class carriers were not designed to operate this latest launch system and they are a far smaller ship than the huge Nimitz class.
Regarding the steam catapults I would respectfully suggest they were\are an excellent launch system that gave great service to all nations that used it but like all technology it is now possibly being replaced by something that is '21st century'
I guess we can launch the wardroom piano without it being ripped apart by the acceleration of the steam catapult
Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.
I accept we are talking about 'wikipedia' but is it suggesting the Nimitz class cannot generate sufficient power to operate the EMALS launch system?
I am asking this question because the QE class carriers were not designed to operate this latest launch system and they are a far smaller ship than the huge Nimitz class.
Regarding the steam catapults I would respectfully suggest they were\are an excellent launch system that gave great service to all nations that used it but like all technology it is now possibly being replaced by something that is '21st century'
I guess we can launch the wardroom piano without it being ripped apart by the acceleration of the steam catapult
I think you'll find it's not power in the sense of megawatts, but rather power transmission in the sense of kVA. Don't think the Nimitz power distribution system has a high enough rating for EMALS and a full re-wire ain't a credible option.
QEC has an 11kVA power dist system based on offshore practice.
QEC has an 11kVA power dist system based on offshore practice.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 19th Jul 2011 at 10:01.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News flash
This morning I was watching the latest televised sitting in the House of Lords in which the Government is discussing 'Defence Transformation
Lord West of Spithead has just asked a very pertinent question regarding EMALS
In the latest expenditure documentation regarding the new carriers he highlighted a very pertinent sentence:
He put great emphasis on the wording and the plural regarding 'carriers'
Lord Astor the spokes person on Defence then clarified this issue.
'I can confirm that the EMALS system will be fitted on ONE carrier although it has NOT yet been decided on which one!! The final decision regarding fitting of EMALS to both ships will be made in 2015 (not an exact quote)
Lord West was not a happy bunny as the documentation quite clearly states the plural, whereas the intent is on the singular.
It is now openly being discussed that the STOVL version of the F-35 may never become an operational aircraft. If this were to happen then if we build a carrier with a ski-slope then its only purpose would be to host the White Elephant Winter Olympics!!!
Who decided to opt for the STOVL version when it is technically a far more complex aircraft which would demand more servicing, less air time.
Has one more engine.
Smaller bomb bay which means it is incapable of carrying some of our larger air to ground munitions.
Has to ditch ordinance prior to its vertical landing envelope.
A very worrying potential of heat damage to the flight deck
Those are the benefits but on the downside it is a far more expensive aircraft that will only be built in limited numbers.
On a serious note it does make me wonder why we opted for this version but is that going off topic for this thread
Lord West of Spithead has just asked a very pertinent question regarding EMALS
In the latest expenditure documentation regarding the new carriers he highlighted a very pertinent sentence:
I can now give the go ahead for the cat and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers
Lord Astor the spokes person on Defence then clarified this issue.
'I can confirm that the EMALS system will be fitted on ONE carrier although it has NOT yet been decided on which one!! The final decision regarding fitting of EMALS to both ships will be made in 2015 (not an exact quote)
Lord West was not a happy bunny as the documentation quite clearly states the plural, whereas the intent is on the singular.
It is now openly being discussed that the STOVL version of the F-35 may never become an operational aircraft. If this were to happen then if we build a carrier with a ski-slope then its only purpose would be to host the White Elephant Winter Olympics!!!
Who decided to opt for the STOVL version when it is technically a far more complex aircraft which would demand more servicing, less air time.
Has one more engine.
Smaller bomb bay which means it is incapable of carrying some of our larger air to ground munitions.
Has to ditch ordinance prior to its vertical landing envelope.
A very worrying potential of heat damage to the flight deck
Those are the benefits but on the downside it is a far more expensive aircraft that will only be built in limited numbers.
On a serious note it does make me wonder why we opted for this version but is that going off topic for this thread
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the marinised versions of Typhoon and Gripen will both - supposedly - be ski-jump capable
And don't forget that the Hawkeye has been successfully ski-jumped
so there are alternatives. Dunno what the cost implications would be though
And don't forget that the Hawkeye has been successfully ski-jumped
so there are alternatives. Dunno what the cost implications would be though
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD... The grown ups in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance Marquee at Greenwich, told me the Sea King was going to provide the AEW cover!!!!! on the new Carriers
now that is an alternative!!!
now that is an alternative!!!
By Glojo:
"Who decided to opt for the STOVL version when it is technically a far more complex aircraft which would demand more servicing, less air time".
Both the RN & RAF completed many years of studies in to which variant they wanted to meet their operational requirement. Both services agreed that it had to be the CTOL version & (in the Navy's case) cat & trap capable. The report went to the Minister (Buff(Hoon)) and the CEOs of both BAE & RR cried foul on the grounds that the CTOL version would be detrimental to British industries involvement in the project. The Minister backed BAe/ RR & not the customer!
"Who decided to opt for the STOVL version when it is technically a far more complex aircraft which would demand more servicing, less air time".
Both the RN & RAF completed many years of studies in to which variant they wanted to meet their operational requirement. Both services agreed that it had to be the CTOL version & (in the Navy's case) cat & trap capable. The report went to the Minister (Buff(Hoon)) and the CEOs of both BAE & RR cried foul on the grounds that the CTOL version would be detrimental to British industries involvement in the project. The Minister backed BAe/ RR & not the customer!
Couple of points of order.
1. Neither QEC or PoW will complete with a ski-jump. That's quite easy to remove from the design. It is not so easy (at this stage of QEC build) to install EMALS.
2. F35B does not have two engines. It has a shaft driven lift fan.
3. Hawkeye has not been "ski-jumped" in the STOVL sense. Many years ago, Pax River or NAWC Lakehurst (forget which) experimented with a small (<3 deg as opposed to the 12 deg ramps on UK/SP & IT ships) ramp at the end of the cat run to instill an initial climb attitude and AoA - principally with F/A18s. The French may well have run some trials with a similar small ramp (on Foch I think) during the Rafale development, which may also have had one of their Hawkeyes run over it.
4. Andyy has pretty much nailed it wrt the STOVL version. Apart from locking us into a one-horse race for the aircraft (no other credible STOVL jets are anywhere near serious development) and hence major risk, it also led to some utterly barking ideas on recovery techniques. Including one that still gives me nightmares for a number of reasons, although thankfully I don't believe I will ever have to follow-up on the principal one!
1. Neither QEC or PoW will complete with a ski-jump. That's quite easy to remove from the design. It is not so easy (at this stage of QEC build) to install EMALS.
2. F35B does not have two engines. It has a shaft driven lift fan.
3. Hawkeye has not been "ski-jumped" in the STOVL sense. Many years ago, Pax River or NAWC Lakehurst (forget which) experimented with a small (<3 deg as opposed to the 12 deg ramps on UK/SP & IT ships) ramp at the end of the cat run to instill an initial climb attitude and AoA - principally with F/A18s. The French may well have run some trials with a similar small ramp (on Foch I think) during the Rafale development, which may also have had one of their Hawkeyes run over it.
4. Andyy has pretty much nailed it wrt the STOVL version. Apart from locking us into a one-horse race for the aircraft (no other credible STOVL jets are anywhere near serious development) and hence major risk, it also led to some utterly barking ideas on recovery techniques. Including one that still gives me nightmares for a number of reasons, although thankfully I don't believe I will ever have to follow-up on the principal one!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the RN & RAF completed many years of studies in to which variant they wanted to meet their operational requirement. Both services agreed that it had to be the CTOL version & (in the Navy's case) cat & trap capable. The report went to the Minister (Buff(Hoon)) and the CEOs of both BAE & RR cried foul on the grounds that the CTOL version would be detrimental to British industries involvement in the project. The Minister backed BAe/ RR & not the customer!
Thank you very much for confirming my thoughts and if both services are operating the same excellent aircraft then it gives us all far more flexibility...
Cats and traps should have been a 'no brainer' but further to Andy's observations about decisions.. The cost of building the ski-slope version of this warship is far, far cheaper than the conventional carrier. Who cares how much the aircraft would cost... The ships will need thousands of employees to make them and each employee is a vote to keep these people in office. The ministers responsible for these decisions would no doubt have all long since been replaced and probably be sitting on the board of some arms manufacturer. Meanwhile we are building aircraft carriers that might not have any aircraft suitable for purpose.
Not-a-boffin,
NO decision has been made regarding what carrier will get the EMALS and this morning it has been stated no further decisions will be made until 2015 at the earliest! This is NOT from a newspaper article, it is from the relevant minister in the House of Lords. I take onboard what you are saying and the construction of the actual ski-jump may well not even be started until before 2015.. That is not the issue.
Would the installation of EMALS need to be done PRIOR to fitting 'the roof'? Might I suggest that installing it as an 'after thought' is going to create huge problems, that would no doubt take considerable periods of time to overcome and no doubt have huge cost ramifications. Should all the design, electrical and installation work be a part of the original concept as installation may well effect the stability of the ship?
This carrier contract may well have been negotiated for several years and it may well have involved the most highly qualified experts in the country but is it a professional contract that has been well thought out, well planned and inspires confidence?
A Royal Navy frigate gets converted to carry a detachment of just twenty Royal Marines. Not a big job but..... All the anti submarine equipment had to be removed, all the weaponry for the anti submarine role had to be removed. All just to make space for a store-room which is needed to take the additional equipment of these twenty extra crew members. Plus to allow these twenty Royal Marines to be a part of that ships company, twenty sailors had to go.
Is the fitting of EMALS going to take up space, space that has already been allocated which means a redesign and a recalculation regarding allocation of space. This system will also effect the stability of the ship plus it will need additional operators that have not been planned for. Has the accommodation been allocated, this will also have to be a consideration.
If the EMALS does not work then would a steam option be considered? An interesting challenge as this will be fitted way down in the guts of the ship, and then all the plumbing plus enormous amounts of insulation would need installation.
My thoughts are that this EMALS issue needs to be resolved as quickly as is possible because each day that goes by sees these carriers slowly being built. If in two years time they say no to the ski ramp and perish the thought, no to the electric option, then do they then decide to go for the steam option??
No one can say at this moment in time if the EMALS system will work on our smaller carriers?? I am in the corner that hopes it will, but this system is designed for ships much longer than our vessels and am I correct to say all the tests so far are based on their installation into that type of ship?
Good afternoon James
the marinised versions of Typhoon and Gripen will both - supposedly - be ski-jump capable and don't forget that the Hawkeye has been successfully ski-jumped
PLEASE look on this post along with all my other contributions as questions, as opposed to statements of facts unless clearly stated