USAF: Attempt Carrier Landing or Eject Nearby?

Center_Mid

Center_Mid

Well-Known Member
I know the arresting hook on planes like the F-15, 16, etc. wasn't engineered for carrier landings, and I know the landing gear might wreck, but...in an emergency, would it ever make sense to attempt to land a USAF plane on a carrier deck (assuming VFR day, favorable winds, and no runway alternative for some reason)? Or would it actually be safer to punch out a mile away and wait for the SAR helo? Could the arresting barrier on the carrier be used instead of the cables?

Just curious.
 
Center_Mid said:
I know the arresting hook on planes like the F-15, 16, etc. wasn't engineered for carrier landings, and I know the landing gear might wreck, but...in an emergency, would it ever make sense to attempt to land a USAF plane on a carrier deck (assuming VFR day, favorable winds, and no runway alternative for some reason)? Or would it actually be safer to punch out a mile away and wait for the SAR helo? Could the arresting barrier on the carrier be used instead of the cables?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

No. Carrier landings aren't something you really want to be trying for the first time by yourself in a jet. The gear on a USAF jet isn't designed for it, the pilot isn't trained for it, the hook may or may not hold, and there's a really good chance that the jet will more than likely end up as a fireball on deck.....likely from a ramp strike if the pilot tries to "spot the deck", a common error that can be made in an undiscplined approach, even with my little understanding of carrier ops.

Not to say it hasn't been done before, like the VNAF pilot who landed on the USS Midway in 1975 during the fall of Saigon, but his Cessna O-1 Birddog landing at 30 or less knots groundspeed (approach speed combined with wind over the deck), is FAR different than trying it in a tactical jet aircraft.
 
It seems incredibly dangerous to me, but on the other hand, the punch out scenario presumes the Navy is even going to come looking for you...
 
I could never see this happening, regardless of the severity of the situation. There are a million reasons it would be a bad idea, least of which being the tailhook wasn't designed for it.
 
Boris Badenov said:
It seems incredibly dangerous to me, but on the other hand, the punch out scenario presumes the Navy is even going to come looking for you...
Click to expand...

I think the OP is assuming that you'd be in sight of the carrier, and it's a matter or try to land, or eject near the carrier. Personally, I don't even think the carrier would allow the AF plane to land, as the severe amount of collateral damage that could potentially occur from an accident....both planes/personnel/equipment, is a huge amount of risk, for very little reward. Not to mention the risk of the plane making a successful landing, as I mentioned above.
 
MikeD said:
The gear on a USAF jet isn't designed for it, the pilot isn't trained for it, the hook may or may not hold, and there's a really good chance that the jet will more than likely end up as a fireball on deck.....
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to not jeopardizing a bunch of other lives plus the ship, versus only yourself and your plane.

What about AF F-4's in the old days? Were they built differently than their Navy cousins?
 
Center_Mid said:
I guess it comes down to not jeopardizing a bunch of other lives plus the ship, versus only yourself and your plane.

What about AF F-4's in the old days? Were they built differently than their Navy cousins?
Click to expand...

No. The USAF F-4s had different landing gear than their USN and USMC cousins. The USN/USMC versions (B/J/N/S) had much beefier gear that you can actually see the difference in pictures from the USAF models (C/D/E/F/G)
 
On the other hand, you wouldn't exactly need to nail the landing using the barricade system instead of the cables. Solely from the perspective of the pilot's safety, would a semi-controlled crash onto a carrier deck be safer than an ejection above the ocean?
 
Center_Mid said:
On the other hand, you wouldn't exactly need to nail the landing using the barricade system instead of the cables. Solely from the perspective of the pilot's safety, would a semi-controlled crash onto a carrier deck be safer than an ejection above the ocean?
Click to expand...

Between those two? Take the ejection. Taking the barrier isn't easy either (Bunk or //AMG could tell you more from their training than I could), but remember that with a carrier landing, it's not just the pilot controlling the plane, it's the ship pitching and rolling, etc. All of these things are something one doesn't want to be doing their first time.

Now, while ejections are risky in and of themselves, a controlled ejection is fairly low risk. Controlled meaning that the pilot initiates it when he wants to, not when he HAS to, and has the ability to be straight and level or in a slight climb, at a speed of his choosing..... basically having the luxury of doing everything he can to help the ejection seat help him, and give it the best chance of success.
 
Thanks for the discussion. Still, for purely selfish reasons I'd like to see some plucky Eagle driver try it. Just to prove that Navy pilots haven't cornered the market on brass spheroids. (Cue Kenny Loggins...)
 
Center_Mid said:
Thanks for the discussion. Still, for purely selfish reasons I'd like to see some plucky Eagle driver try it. Just to prove that Navy pilots haven't cornered the market on brass spheroids. (Cue Kenny Loggins...)
Click to expand...

It's a great question to ask, and a good one for discussion, since on the surface it seems plausible. It's just both the obvious as well as hidden dangers that will bite if not done properly and with the proper equipment.

I too am mildly curious, if in a controlled environment, how a representative USAF aircraft like the F-4 or F-15 would hold up. But, the way USN pilots fly their approaches and how hard/firm they land (because they must, there's no room for style points or flare's or smooth landings on a carrier deck), I'm not very confident the outcome would be good for the jet, and by extension, the pilot; part and parcel from all the other dangers mentioned.
 
Center_Mid said:
On the other hand, you wouldn't exactly need to nail the landing using the barricade system instead of the cables. Solely from the perspective of the pilot's safety, would a semi-controlled crash onto a carrier deck be safer than an ejection above the ocean?
Click to expand...

You still have to fly the ball and obey paddles. If not trained for it, the barricade could become a bad thing. You don't just come in and land on the boat. Are we assuming a trained aviator, one who has done a boat tour? Too many assumptions here. Best option is to give it back to the tax payers.

 
bunk22 said:
You still have to fly the ball and obey paddles. If not trained for it, the barricade could become a bad thing. You don't just come in and land on the boat. Are we assuming a trained aviator, one who has done a boat tour? Too many assumptions here. Best option is to give it back to the tax payers.

]
Click to expand...

The OP is talking an AF pilot in an AF plane. Though I contend that even a USN pilot in an AF plane, the plane likely wouldn't fare well under even normal circumstances.
 
In LSO school, we watched a lot of bad video's, one of which was an A-3 Skywarrior attempting to take the barricade at night. Many things went wrong and the crew was killed when they hit the top of the barricade.
 
MikeD said:
The OP is talking an AF pilot in an AF plane. Though I contend that even a USN pilot in an AF plane, the plane likely wouldn't fare well under even normal circumstances.
Click to expand...

I understand that but it could be an Eagle driver who did a boat tour and now back in an Eagle but has experience flying the ball and understanding paddles lingo.
 
bunk22 said:
I understand that but it could be an Eagle driver who did a boat tour and now back in an Eagle but has experience flying the ball and understanding paddles lingo.
Click to expand...

You reminded me that a guy I flew F-117s with did just that, doing a tour with VFA-125 after his F-15C tour and before the 117.

Would the jet hold up, even with the expertise?
 
It's a very specialized skill set that can't just be picked up on a whim during the course of some fictitious emergency. I'm not saying that AF dudes don't have the capabilities to do it, but they certainly don't know the techniques that we use, and they haven't practiced it 100's of times before they ever see the back of the boat either. The way we fly an approach is fundamentally different than the way AF jets are flown, and I'm not even sure that an Eagle or Viper could even be flown in the manner that is needed for a carrier approach. I know the T-45 (for example) as well as the S-3 took a good deal of massaging during flight test before they came up with fixes that made them suitable for CV approaches. For the -45, that involved added speedbrakes, which are extended for the approach, which allows the engine to be spooled up higher giving better throttle response. Throttle response being just one part of the equation. The pilot would need to be flying at some undetermined optimal AoA which would give him the correct ball indications (high, low, on) relative to where the hook point actually is in space. For a naval jet/aircraft, it you are slow or fast, you will actually see an inaccurate indication on the IFLOLS, owed to the difference in hook to eye distance because of the aircraft's different attitude while being above or below on speed. Waveoff capability is another concern. At such an approach speed, will the jet's motors be spooled back so far that he doesn't have the engine response/spool time to execute a safe waveoff if things don't work out? Just way too many factors, many of them not even being pilot-centric, for this to even be a possibility. I don't think any LSO worth his job would ever let it happen, let alone an Air Boss or a boat skipper. And as Bunk eluded to, a barricade isn't easier in theory or practice than a normal trap.
 
Exactly this. The Goshawk is the perfect example as the Hawk was completely unprepared to be a boat bird. Taking a big chance, even if the pilot had done an exchange tour with the Navy as mentioned.

///AMG said:
It's a very specialized skill set that can't just be picked up on a whim during the course of some fictitious emergency. I'm not saying that AF dudes don't have the capabilities to do it, but they certainly don't know the techniques that we use, and they haven't practiced it 100's of times before they ever see the back of the boat either. The way we fly an approach is fundamentally different than the way AF jets are flown, and I'm not even sure that an Eagle or Viper could even be flown in the manner that is needed for a carrier approach. I know the T-45 (for example) as well as the S-3 took a good deal of massaging during flight test before they came up with fixes that made them suitable for CV approaches. For the -45, that involved added speedbrakes, which are extended for the approach, which allows the engine to be spooled up higher giving better throttle response. Throttle response being just one part of the equation. The pilot would need to be flying at some undetermined optimal AoA which would give him the correct ball indications (high, low, on) relative to where the hook point actually is in space. For a naval jet/aircraft, it you are slow or fast, you will actually see an inaccurate indication on the IFLOLS, owed to the difference in hook to eye distance because of the aircraft's different attitude while being above or below on speed. Waveoff capability is another concern. At such an approach speed, will the jet's motors be spooled back so far that he doesn't have the engine response/spool time to execute a safe waveoff if things don't work out? Just way too many factors, many of them not even being pilot-centric, for this to even be a possibility. I don't think any LSO worth his job would ever let it happen, let alone an Air Boss or a boat skipper. And as Bunk eluded to, a barricade isn't easier in theory or practice than a normal trap.
Click to expand...
 
///AMG said:
It's a very specialized skill set that can't just be picked up on a whim during the course of some fictitious emergency. I'm not saying that AF dudes don't have the capabilities to do it, but they certainly don't know the techniques that we use, and they haven't practiced it 100's of times before they ever see the back of the boat either. .
Click to expand...

Truthfully, without them knowing or having practiced the techniques, you would be entirely correct that they don't have the capabilties, practically speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top