If you’re in an F-15 and somehow find yourself in a place where the closest landing strip is an aircraft carrier, that’s an accomplishment in itself own right

@zafarsyed6437

Ай бұрын

Can you please explain? I don't understand why. I assume it's due to F-15's range?

@SilverStarHeggisist

Ай бұрын

@@zafarsyed6437 Because you already took off from a land based airbase, then you flew out over the ocean past bingo fuel and kept going.

@zafarsyed6437

Ай бұрын

​@@SilverStarHeggisist Thank you. (Sometimes, you just want to go for a longer cruise and lose track of time...) 😊

@willythemailboy2

Ай бұрын

Closest landing strip isn't that difficult to achieve. Only landing strip in range is quite a feat and probably involves your plane suffering severe damage rather than running out of fuel.

@Led00t-du9rj

Ай бұрын

@@zafarsyed6437 because if your that far out, then the mission would be more practical to do in a carrier based aircraft

US Air Force tail hook is not rated for carrier arrest. The undercarriage wouldn't survive either.

@willythemailboy2

Ай бұрын

USAF aircraft don't have tail hooks at all. Despite that, there is at least one type of aircraft used by the USAF that is capable of landing on aircraft carriers. C-130 cargo planes can fly slow enough that they can brake to a halt without any assistance in the length of the flight deck, and have the power to take off - again unassisted - in that same distance .

@CK-lp4is

Ай бұрын

​@@willythemailboy2most usaf jets do have tail hooks for emergency landings on regular runways

@USSWisconsin

Ай бұрын

​@@CK-lp4isyup, military runways do have arresting cables

@maverickmissile801

Ай бұрын

​@@willythemailboy2Actually, all USAF planes have tail hooks for emergency use. Though, it is not rated for a carrier, but rather airfield cables.

@wolfulfhethinn6396

Ай бұрын

​@@willythemailboy2 and has accomplished that feat at least once, iirc

The Air Boss wouldn't allow that to happen on his deck. He would say "we'll pluck you out of the water,instead "

@henrikelanschuetzer4261

26 күн бұрын

How BRUTAL!

@MK0272

25 күн бұрын

I suspect if someone were crazy enough to try, not that they would, they might well be shot down before they got close. Or the carrier would simply park equipment on the deck to deter an attempt.

My dad was an f16 pilot and said it could possibly be done but only once because the gears wouldn’t be able to handle the force so once you land/crash it that thing ain’t flying anymore 💀

@justicedunham4088

23 күн бұрын

So at that point, it would probably be easier for everyone to eject and get picked up by helicopter or by one of the escort ships?

@LordVader-vd1pi

23 күн бұрын

@@justicedunham4088 yeah probably it woukd be safer

The first three seconds looked like me trying to land hydra in GTA

RVNAF Cessna O-1: hold my beer

@timanderson5543

Ай бұрын

He did’nt trap.

POV: "thank you for flying spirit airlines"

I was thinking that they risk the ejection because then there's no risk of harming others on deck.

@icecold9511

Ай бұрын

Or harming the recovery deck with planes in the air.

@christopherbedford9897

Ай бұрын

That too. Just another reason to throw a billion $$$ away rather than try save it and fuck up even more

They couldn't lany on a carrier because their aircraft don't have arresting hooks. They also would not know how to deal with the role and motions of the carrier.

@kelbycahalan149

22 күн бұрын

most air force planes actually do have hooks for emergencies

U-2: hold my beer

You didn't say the line. 😡😅 Great video otherwise, informative as always.

@ThunDoom1116

Ай бұрын

Cus it is what you think this time

Aircraft carriers have a net/barricade they can deploy across the deck to catch landing aircraft with no tail-hook. It would destroy the plane, but it would stop a fighter jet.

@Batman-rl1ph

27 күн бұрын

Sure it would stop it, but it'd probably kill or at least severely injure the pilot as well in the process. I know that ejecting is also high risk and could potentially cause injury as well, but I think the risk is probably still lower than just crashing into a net and hoping for the best.

@rileybriggs4731

26 күн бұрын

@@Batman-rl1ph The net is designed to let the nose of the aircraft pass through it, as to not crush the cockpit. As long as the plane is still on all its wheels its fairly safe.

If it is a foreign air force (e.g australia where we have hornets as one of our main planes) it could physically work but would still be risky edit: i guess i didnt say this clearly, i mean to say if an airforce uses navy-spec planes (like the RAAF uses super hornets) then it could land on an aircraft carrier, albeit still being risky as the pilots likely wouldnt have undergone training

@masoncornish6663

28 күн бұрын

Hornets are American made multi role fighters with a naval variant. Most Australian hornets are the naval model from memory its because of logistics, cheaper to taxi them on a carrier than to fly them from airfield to airfield or fuel plane to fuel plane. But then again I think we only have a single out dated carrier capable to do said task in sufficient numbers I could be wrong though because finding out what we’ve actually got at the moment is kinda well you’ve seen our government no one makes sense. The liberals really fucked all our domestic production military and civilian. Even our bush masters (some built/fabricated in my locality) are coming out slower and slower as a result 😂

@johno9507

24 күн бұрын

Your just making things up. Australia doesn't have any 'out dated' aircraft carriers, the last carrier was the HMAS Melbourne which we sold in 1982. We only have 2 Landing Helicopter Docks, the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, but they can't operate F-18s. The first 4 RAAF F/A-18 Hornets were built in the USA and FLOWN to Australia, the next 71 were assembled in Australia. The RAAF Super Hornets were all built in the USA to US Navy specs with Australian upgrades and again all were flown to Australia.

@MiteBlueRuby

24 күн бұрын

@@johno9507 i said air force not navy, and also was meaning international collaboration

@masoncornish6663

24 күн бұрын

@@johno9507 No I was simply assuming that we wouldn’t be foolish enough to ham sting our navy and Air Force but apparently I’m wrong. Ahh well looks like the only solution is ditch over the ocean and prey to god you don’t freeze to death before someone can find you 🤣 Honestly not surprised that we don’t even have a modern carrier. Why would we need one it’s not like we’d be a target if the pacific were to go into conflict… oh wait Darwin is. Well I guess fuck Darwin. Again! 🤣🤣

An Air Force pilot wouldn't be landing on a aircraft carrier. They aren't trained for it.

@JP_TaVeryMuch

Ай бұрын

Echo! 00:33

Finally some topic that’s „not what you think“ and you didn’t say it

We're not STUPID enough to let an Air Farce pilot attempt to land on a carrier !

@chadlampson

Ай бұрын

Anything stops the U S Air FARCE

@dan-nutu

28 күн бұрын

Did you write Farce on purpose?

@billotto602

28 күн бұрын

@@dan-nutu yes !

Okay there's just too many sexbots at this point.

@someguy2272

Ай бұрын

they are taking over. i even find them in random ass 12 subscribers channels, like bro they’re everywhere

@cybercat7851

29 күн бұрын

I don't see any, are they in this short?

@Will-dn9dq

27 күн бұрын

I see literally none. Would you do me? I'd do me! Lol😂😂😂

Australian Airforce (RAAF) F-18 Super Hornets could land on a US carrier.😏 🇦🇺

@DecxdedFortnite

24 күн бұрын

If we had the training, yes

@redfalcon6027

23 күн бұрын

so does the Royal Malaysian Air Force, Swiss Air Force, Finnish Air Force, Kuwait Air Force and Spanish Air and Space Force F-18's. with adequate training ofc.

War Thunder Players: Navy, Army it won’t matter if we land safley we can get back up and fly without any repair costs. Or if not we will try to land into our opponent

Not the 🌽 bots 😭

@bombercbc9431

Ай бұрын

Lmao, there's like 5 bot comments around your comment

@Oh-God-Of-All-Creation

Ай бұрын

"why these corn bots are filling my comment section is not what you think" 😂😂

@MeethaMadina1263

Ай бұрын

They're gone now!

Why would an Air Force pilot be landing on a Carrier anyway 🤷🏼‍♂️🤓😎✌🏼

@maxisjustgood4682

23 күн бұрын

did you not watch the video??

@paulsarnik8506

23 күн бұрын

@@maxisjustgood4682 Uh, DOI!🙄 Why would I be commenting otherwise🤷🏼‍♂️SMH. 🤓😎✌🏼

@bfam5920

22 күн бұрын

@paulsarnik8506 facts 👍🏼

Remember that dude who landed on the random cargo ship cause he ran out of gas? Legend

A tanker to refuel would be called before bingo fuel

Air force pilots dont land on aircraft carriers. 1 they're not trained to do it. They need big luxury runways. 2 their jets don't have the proper equipment to do it. You cannot land a jet on a carrier without an arresting hook. It is physically impossible. Too much airspeed is required to keep the jet aloft to allow them to stop on a carrier deck without catching an arresting wire. Hence the need for the hook that has neber been installed on any airfoce jet.

@dallasyap3064

29 күн бұрын

Some Air Force jets have arrestor hook, used for the same exact way in an emergency on an airbase runway, but they're not strengthened (to CATOBAR standards) to catch the arrestor cables on a carrier.

@rileybriggs4731

26 күн бұрын

Probably should have first watched the whole video, second actually done any research. You just restated things he already said in the video, and most air force planes have emergency arrestor hooks that, while not designed for regular use, are strong enough to stop the aircraft. In a land or die emergency an air force jet is absolutely capable of landing on a carrier. Its just more dangerous than ejecting so they would just eject instead. As he said.

That first clip of the Russian jet trying to land on a aircraft carrier kills me every time LMAO

@dizzy916

27 күн бұрын

It's an Su-33, if you care

nah bikin bottom abouta get dive bombed

This is purely hypothetical but.. Let's assume this scenario. If (in the Twilight Zone) I found myself somehow far enough from land while flying my Cessna 150 (N7561U) that I (stupidly) ran out of fuel, and the only chance I had was to ditch in the ocean (without any life preserver (and I can't swim ) or land on an aircraft carrier, (and assume - this is hypothetical so they wouldn't shoot me down, I believe it would rather easy to land on a carrier. No tail hook or arrester net required. Because..1. The C150/152/172 series can handle landing on rough terrain, so a rather hard landing would not be a problem 2. I have landed with a head wind well under what a carrier would produce (30-40kts) while headed into the wind, which is how they position the ship when about to receive incoming aircraft. 3. Most pilots of these planes train for short field landings (both on paved and dirt landing strips). This is all hypothetical and a bit of a imagination and fantasy, but if this came together, boy, would I like to give a try.😎😁

@dallasyap3064

22 күн бұрын

During the American evacuation from the Vietnam war 1975 aka Operation Frequent Wind, there was a South Vietnamese officer who landed on a US carrier with his small plane (Cessna I think).

As a Naval Aviator friend of mine once said when talking about the difference in Air Force pilots landing at airbases and Naval Aviators making carrier landings, "Air Force P_ssies".

They wouldn't risk the ship, or risk damaging the ability to recover other aircraft. Especially when you can't save the plane. If multiple aircraft are in the air, and one crashes. The rest have a real problem.

They would setup the barrier net .. in case the landing gear didn’t make it , hook failed, or pilot missed the trap

During Vietnam, my biological father flew O-2 markers. It's a push pull plane. You get most of your power from the rear engine. His rear engine was shot out. He requested to land on a carrier. The carrier responded if you try to attempt a landing you will be shot down. So he had to ditch the plane in the ocean.

@dan-nutu

28 күн бұрын

It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

As he was coming in the first pilot, they said to him watch out for the big pile of seagull shit on the deck, he said don’t worry I’ll get rid of it and burned it straight off

My ex-mother-in-law has a tailhook and reinforced undercarriage for carrier-based landings

Or an arrestor hook!

Were the Air Force and Navy variants of the F4 Phantom structurally similar enough that an Air Force F4 would have been carrier capable in the hands of a Navy pilot?

@Monarch683

26 күн бұрын

No, the Air Force model of the Phantom is not rated for carrier landings. The Navy and USAF variants of the F-4 were actually not structurally similar at all, at least starting from the F-4E variant. The Navy's models were "hard wing" Phantoms which meant they don't have the maneuvering slats that "soft wing" USAF Phantoms had. I do not believe any later variants of the Navy's F-4s received the maneuvering slats upgrade, but I could be wrong on that.

@MK0272

26 күн бұрын

@@Monarch683 Ok, thanks. That answers a question I've been wondering about. Do you happen to know if the F-18s flown by other countries' air forces would be carrier capable? On the one hand it seems a waste to carry around a lot of extra structural weight for an aircraft with a purely land based role, but it also seems like a great deal of expense to redesign the structure.

@Monarch683

26 күн бұрын

@@MK0272 From what I know, the Australian variant of the original F/A-18A/B, AKA the Legacy Hornet, lacked the nose gear launch bar found on USN Hornets for attachment to catapult shuttles, had a lighter tail hook for emergency field operations, and had their Automatic Carrier Landing Systems (ACLS) swapped out for Instrument Landing Systems (ILS). I can’t find information for the Legacy Hornets of other nations, but I’d assume something similar was also done. These changes are rather minor and would not be as expensive than say, swapping out the entire undercarriage for a weaker but lighter one. Interestingly enough, some exported Legacy Hornets also lacked air-to-ground capabilities so the “A” in “F/A-18” was dropped for them. However, air-to-ground functionality was later added to them in upgrade packages.

A good example is putting your pants on while walking to the front door VS putting your pants on while running to the front door.

So Ace combat 4 and 5 were actually very detailed

Good thing the first guy didn’t catch a wire

@dan-nutu

27 күн бұрын

That would have been a very rough landing! Can the pilot control the release of the cable from the hook after it is caught?

@Monarch683

26 күн бұрын

@@dan-nutu Nope. Once the aircraft is pulled to a stop, the arresting wire will be automatically pulled back and the tailhook raised.

Chair force

The most difficult thing for an chairforce pilot to do is run

I just want to say how cool carriers are tho. Mobile freakin airports. So freakin cool

Can you make a video about ORP Piorun?

Airffforce plane also don’t have the tail hook which is the most fundamental part of carrier landing

Why he is not saying his line anymore. That was the reason why i watch his videos

Well, carriers have their emergency nets, im sure they could land and catch the plane with the net and thats how they would handle that situation as a last ditch effort

@CJP-oz6hr

23 күн бұрын

The tail hook would work but the stress on the landing gear could be a concern. F-16’s use cables on runways to make emergency arrestments and the only inspection required is checking the tail hook shoe for wear and replacing a shear bolt.

@michaelmappin4425

19 күн бұрын

Still a nope! The barricade is not gonna be rigged, and pilots don't just use it like a butterfly catcher.

No arrested landing training.

Land, and eject the moment it touches down.

Also a non-carrier plane has no arresting hook.

The opening scene of a Cobra maneuver was a Save by punching the throttles. The narrator explains why the F-15 isn't carrier adapted. Weaker airframe/landing gear. No hook and can't do catapult launches. > Edit: Without a tail hook, a barricade is required and the F-15 pilot would use the air brake to slow way down. For takeoff, a bridle needs to be rigged to the airframe. IMHO

dude... these bot💀💀

Doing a cobra on landing is the real deal.

It would literally be the first time Dusty Crophopper was forced to land on an Aircraft Carrier. It's like half the size or less an actual runway and it MOVES! Also an air force plane doesn't have that hook to catch those cables.

If an airforce pilot is near an aircraft carrier he is lost .

How come one of the last scenes shows an airforce logo?

Wasn't there a scene in Disney's where a propeller plane managed to land on a carrier? How would that work?

The only plane the Air Force has that can land and takeoff from carriers would be the C-130 Hercules and CV-22 Ospreys.

Pretty funny to see camo on a jet lmao. As if they cant be seen by eye or radar. hahah

Easy solution make every jet carrier capable. I don't understand why this wasn't that standard since the inception of carriers and jets. It's expensive to simply trash airframes when you have a perfectly good floating runway to land on in an emergency. Jet upgrades anyone? Jets should be multi capable like a Swiss army knife or multi tool.

Because he is a navy aviator

No hook so odds of landing successfully are almost zero

@rileybriggs4731

26 күн бұрын

They do have hooks.

trick question

Also Air Force fighter jets don't have tail hooks

I did it in War Thunder, so it’s definitely doable

When ejecting everytime you have a 1 in 3 chance if breaking your spine

@rickstanley4570

29 күн бұрын

Yes, watch the canopy Goose

@Monarch683

26 күн бұрын

Untrue. This is one of many myths that originated from the early days of ejection seats. Modern ones are much safer now and have a much smaller chance of injury/death. The chance is still there, but it's much better than trying to force a bad landing. There have been countless pilots that have ejected and lived to see another day all while being completely unharmed. They may even be able to fly again the next day too if a flight surgeon clears them.

Air Force pilots would eject. Naval pilots would call the ball and land the aircraft!!!

Is it flying boom or flying broom?🤔

The fact that US Air Force planes only use flying boom air to air refueling and the U.S. Navy only uses probe and drogue for air to air refueling just proves how stupid the government can be. Imagine how much money would be saved, and how much logistics would be simplified, if they all just used the same system.

@garryuyahoo

28 күн бұрын

The Air Force has drogue refueling available on most of its tankers for refueling helicopters and Navy planes operating inland. But the flying boom can pump fuel much faster, and that's critical when refueling large planes like Strategic bombers. It also allows them to cycle smaller fighters faster. It's the better option for the kind of job the Air Force does. But carrier based tankers don't carry the flying boom to save on weight.

@dallasyap3064

22 күн бұрын

That's what happens when so many branches want to have its own air force

This has to come up once a month. No. It would never be authorized. NATOPS is the aircraft carrier bible. It stands for Naval Aviation Training and Operating Standards. Commanding Officers do not violate NATOPS. Air Force doesn't operate at sea anyhow unless they are big aircraft with long legs or flying with a tanker.

Not fully true; an A-10 have strong enough landing gear, and so does the Swedish JAS-39... 🤷🏻‍♂️

Better to ditch near the ship.

Seems good plan to waste billions of tax money

@CJP-oz6hr

23 күн бұрын

Fortunately there hasn’t been any case that I’m aware of in which a fighter would need to land on an aircraft due to an emergency. I’m sure there’s been some in the past but it’s very rare.

@da4realz

23 күн бұрын

i dont think you know how much 1 billion is, that carrier is the biggest and most advanced in the world and its 13 billion

@dmitriblyat8237

23 күн бұрын

@@da4realz still hospital bills into that

@CJP-oz6hr

23 күн бұрын

@@da4realz “billions”

@da4realz

22 күн бұрын

@@CJP-oz6hr the videos on about planes tho?

Square peg in round hole

I thought the carrieers have a net to catch a jet who cannot do normal landing with arrested hook.. Isn't saving 50% of an airframe by landing on a carrier is better than loosing 100% of the aircraft by ejection???

Oh? Then how do you explain the A-1E Skyraider? And how about the F-4 Phantom II?

@kurnass2000

Ай бұрын

both were designed as naval planes.

@Pepsi_man_official

28 күн бұрын

This has to be the dumbest comment

@Monarch683

26 күн бұрын

The A-1 Skyraider was unique in that the USAF and USN operated the same models which were designed from the ground up as naval aircraft. In contrast to that, the Phantom has a naval variant (F-4A/B/J/N/S) just like the F-35.

Ejecting is riskier but if you are in a situation where you have to eject, the alternative is dying so... acceptable risk. Landing is not all that risky in the hands of a skilled pilot.

Okay okay im confused so Uncle Sam has another "air force" in the Navy?? Does the army have their air force too?

@ianmacfarlane1241

Ай бұрын

Not just the USA. Any country with aircraft carriers has Naval Squadrons - different from Air Force.

@willythemailboy2

Ай бұрын

Of course the army has their own air wing, and despite the common saying about the US Navy being the second biggest air force in the world the Army actually has more aircraft than the Navy. It's just that they're mostly helicopters instead of fixed wing planes. So by the numbers the three biggest air forces in the world are the US Air Force, US Army, and US Navy, in that order. This excludes the aircraft of the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. Even though China groups all of its armed forces under the People's Liberation Army, their entire military doesn't have enough aircraft to get them higher than fourth on that list.

@j10001

Ай бұрын

Also there are US Marine aircraft that operate from carriers, and Marine pilots teach at the Top Gun school, too.

@dallasyap3064

Ай бұрын

The US military aviation structure is a little bit weird and fcked up as in every branch wants to have its own air force. The Army doesn't have its own fixed-wing air force anymore bcoz its leader signed the Key West Agreement 1948, which specifies which branch gets what aviation assets and stuff as well as banning the Army from most aviation assets. The US Air Force was established from the US Army (they were known as US Army Air Forces). 1 of the main reasons why it was to be elevated to an independent service branch was to consolidate all the services (Army, Navy & Marine Corps) fixed-wing air combat assets into a single authority/entity as the Air Force as an independent branch with its own warfare domain (aerial warfare, as well as strategic bombing) just like the rest. But the Navy and Marine Corps were b*tching around and wanting to have and claiming a need for them to have their own air force. This wasn't necessarily as the Air Force had agreed to operate aircraft from Navy carriers and fulfil naval aviation missions in support of Navy, joint and national strategies. So maritime aviation isn't dead or getting killed off, it's just being flown by the Air Force, who as the main aerial warfare service of the US should be the one doing so. Personally, I'd say the Navy & Marine Corps, especially the former, just wanted to look and act cool, cuz aviation is what makes a person, entity looks/feels cool, awesome, badas*. Do u feel badass while driving a freaking ship or sitting in one? Not so much right, as compared to flying or riding an aircraft especially a fighter one. As ww2 ended, and Japan's Navy (as was its entire military), which was the largest after the US if not mistaken, was disbanded. Would be Cold War enemies of US, the USSR, PRC, DPRK, N Vietnam etc all had a small Navy compared to the US mighty naval power, thus maritime warfare/threats are mostly gone for the early few decades of the cold war. This means the US Navy now has nobody to contend with, therefore they don't play as much of a big role in the cold war strategy as they did in ww2. Cold war emphasized on the USSR, PRC, DPRK, N Vietnam, all of which focused mostly on land and aerial warfare (especially the former's ground invasion of Europe). The Navy realized this after ww2, and wanted to find a way to stay relevant to the national strategy to counter the USSR, so 1 way is to have its own air force stationed on carriers that can be forward deploy, to strike USSR territory. The major deterrent was strategic bombing, including with nukes, was a major Air Force war doctrine, which was the Air Force main focus against the USSR. To get more involved, the Navy even wanted to have its own carrier-based strategic bombing planes, just so they can play "I'm an air force too, and I can do air force missions as well". Disputes for the roles of each services eventually led to several meetings that culminated in the Key West Agreement, where the Navy (including Marine Corps) strongly objected to Air Force taking over its maritime aviation all in the name of wanting to look cool and act cool, all while they (& Air Force) ganged up on the Army (which still had a fleet of its own planes after the Air Force branched out) to bully them into surrendering its aviation assets, saying Army should just fight on land and not touch with flying toys. And the Army leader, General Omar Bradley, agreed to it, he didn't even put enough effort in fighting for the Army to have its fixed-wing assets against the other branches.

@willythemailboy2

Ай бұрын

@@dallasyap3064 "As ww2 ended, and Japan's Navy (as was its entire military), which was the largest after the US if not mistaken," If the rest of your rambling didn't make it obvious you don't know what you're talking about, this certainly did. At the end of WW2, the IJN had all of 15 warships destroyer sized or larger still afloat, most of them not capable of moving under their own power. Even the German navy had more ships left afloat, although less cumulative tonnage. The fact is that there were and are significant, valid reasons to keep the various air wings attached to their associated service. The Army/Air Force divide makes the most sense, as close air support by attack helicopters and air cav units makes sense to keep under a unified command with the ground units they work with, while air supremacy, SEAD, tactical/strategic bombing, and strategic airlift all make sense as Air Force functions. Separating out the Navy and Marines makes sense as well, as they work in entirely different operational regimes and operate entirely different types of aircraft. And no, it's not just the pilots. It's the support personnel that make up the vast majority of any air wing. A carrier air wing is about 75 aircraft and 1500 personnel, the vast majority of them working on the aircraft rather than flying on them. It makes sense for those personnel to be Navy since they would deploy on carriers but can be shifted between carriers when air wings are reassigned.

couldn't he just eject the canopy and jump out?

@hans1253

Ай бұрын

From a jet? Cmon bro this isn't 1940

@willythemailboy2

Ай бұрын

Not and survive. Even if was somehow survivable, the ejection system isn't designed to have separate stages like that. There's no way to eject just the canopy, it all works as a single integrated operation to insure that all the various moving and exploding parts go off in order to get the pilot out of the plane as quickly and safely as possible. Speed is prioritized over safety, and often the ejecting pilot is injured in the ejection. There's also concern about the g forces and physical stresses on the body during ejection, and a pilot is permanently grounded after their second lifetime ejection regardless of the cause.

@christopherbedford9897

Ай бұрын

For starters the parachute is integrated into the ejection seat, not strapped on to the pilot. Then there's no way to open the canopy far enough to clear a pilot climbing out, not even if the a/c is flying just above stall speed. And there's also no way for a pilot to climb out with that kind of slipstream.

Eject

Lol

No tail hook so the only option would be into the barricade-net.

@sleepyancient6655

29 күн бұрын

There is a tail hook, believe it or not, it's just not rated for cables that stop the aircraft so quickly. Air Force runways often have cables for emergency landings, but those things are easier on the airframe than the carrier ones. Personally, I'd wonder whether the tail hook would be ripped right off if an USAF jet tried to catch a carrier arresting cable. For sure they'd just wipe the computer and dump it overboard once the pilot got out-ain't no fixing an airframe that got yanked that hard and wasn't prepared for it.

The Air Force is where they have been separating the men from the boys since Day One. Often with a crowbar!

Why are most of these, exactly what I thought? An F-16 has very small gear and can easily be blown over by strong winds. F-15 might survive a carrier landing but I don’t think you would find anyone to try it. Plus, those aircraft aren’t typically near aircraft carriers. If they are, aerial refuelers are probably in the area too.

An F-16 and F15 can land on an aircraft carrier using the emergency hook and still be able to not damage the landing gear if they come just a bit below the glideslope and do a light flare before touching the deck which isn't so hard to do if you keep your mind together and if the plane isn't too heavy. About refuelling, buckets work. About taking off. Simply use full brakes and start from the back edge of the carrier and you'll still get enough airspeed to go above 1G after quickly but carefully going close to critical AoA once you leave the deck. There's a PC flight sim called X-Plane which simulates aircraft performances within a good realism and could be used as a test platform and there is DCS which has a much better damage tolerance model for landing gears and the F-16 can land on a deck like i've said and it should be remarkably doable in reality as well.

@dallasyap3064

29 күн бұрын

If it works, I'm sure they would have tested it. But I'm still curious to see how it would be played out. I'm guessing maybe the Air Force can try to conduct such test using an old F-15 & F-16 that will be retired and sent to The Boneyard.

@Maverickf22flyer

29 күн бұрын

@@dallasyap3064 Maybe they are still to silly being safety crazed like many are who are so scared to even think of such tests, some that are even scared to get out of bed. They should try on a runway with cables and see how a lightly loaded (maybe fuel only after jettisoning all heavy ordnance, except expensive missiles) F-16's landing gear and airframe would resist at some 2-3G probable peak at touchdown at a vertical speed rate exactly like for a carrier landing and catch the wire in mid air before touchdown, exactly as it can many times happen on a carrier. I'm pretty sore they won't even bother for 2 reasons: money and safety obsession.

@dallasyap3064

29 күн бұрын

@@Maverickf22flyer Well u could be right, and most definitely right with the money and safety obsession part, another issue I'm thinking of is the Navy. I believe the Navy would not allow such test to be conducted on their carriers, probably also due to being safety obsessed as well as pride in carrier-based aviation. Unless of course, it's the Navy F-16s flown by Navy pilots conducting such test, then maybe.

@Maverickf22flyer

29 күн бұрын

@@dallasyap3064 Well, you got it. It's also the pride...! Pride...! An enemy for a good mankind development. No problem many parts of the industrt and other domains sometimes stagnate instead of normally grow. Because someone's meaningless PRIDE stands in place.

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Imagine an F-16 doing a carrier landing. LOL

I would bet the airforce fighter planes tail hook and gear would at least function for 1 landing, that would be the end of its life but so would ejecting . And with fly by wire the pilot could probably handle it

@icecold9511

Ай бұрын

AF doesn't have a hook at all.

@Potayto_

Ай бұрын

@@icecold9511some have emergency hooks

@rileybriggs4731

26 күн бұрын

@@icecold9511 Yes most AF planes have emergency tail hooks.

@icecold9511

26 күн бұрын

@@rileybriggs4731 What's the point? Navy will never risk a carrier trying to recover an AF plane. And the plane would never survive the attempt even if it landed. The airframe would be wrecked.

@Monarch683

26 күн бұрын

Only F-16s and the newer F-15EX (of which only a handful exist) have fly-by-wire systems too. They help to make the aircraft easier to fly, but it would still be a nightmare for a USAF pilot who has zero experience performing carrier ops to trap (land) on the carrier. They'd have no idea how to properly fly on glide-slope while watching the "ball" on the Optical Landing System (OLS). That's not even mentioning that your bet is incorrect. Air Force aircraft are *not* rated for naval operations. The undercarriages would crumple instantly the moment they touched down on a carrier. Just look at the way Navy vs. Air Force pilots land if you don't believe me.

Didnt know the navy had planes

@ObjectPe-

Ай бұрын

are you fr rn

@jakk222

Ай бұрын

b r u h TopGun ain’t Air Force

@williamnicholson4163

Ай бұрын

No disrespect bro but you probably need to stick to cheese...lol

@williamnicholson4163

Ай бұрын

If you have ever heard of the Blue Angels? They are bad ass and 100% Navy

@CheeseMiser

Ай бұрын

@@williamnicholson4163 can you explain to me what Use this knowledge gives me as a farmer

C130 been done in early 60's once only

UP! UP! SPEED UP!! SPEED UP!! DOWN! DOWN! 😬🛬💥 🤔 (Instructions unclear?)