DmitriKozlowsky Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I get it, that real world NATOPS and USMC Harrier and F-35B Squadrons SOPs dictate a helicopter like approach and landing. Approach to vessel's port (aviator's starboard) side, stabilize at 50 feet above deck, then little side shimmy to stabilize 50' above landing station. Then land vertically, with respect to vessel, around 12-20 knots . Vessel usually steaming into wind, to provide 20-30 knots wind over deck. OK so that is SOP. I am questioning this process, when it appears , that approaching from vessel's stern, and landing with 5-10 kn IAS using runline, is easier quicker and safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroReady Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Not positive, but could it be because the Harrier's wheel brakes are barely functional and the suspension isn't built to handle slamming down on a pitching deck at speed? Just safer and easier on the jet to come down vertically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USSInchon Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It is possible to do it the way you suggest, and in certain cases it is done. However, during Case I operations it allows for harrier landings while helicopters are staged on the starboard spots. This means that the Harriers can land be rearmed while helicopters/Ospreys are ferrying Grunts and supplies to the beach without having to protect for a long rollout by a Harrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DmitriKozlowsky Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 USSInchon. Thats sounds good. But it would not preclude stern straight approach and landing almost vertically with 5 knot ground(deck) speed, on strern station. It takes minimal room, and leaves plenty space for rotary operations. There is no need to slam onto deck with F/A-18 VV . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow_1stVFW Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 In the Sim, sure, why not. In real life What happens if the brakes fail on roll out? What happens if a tire blows? What new approach system will be installed on the ship to accommodate this? What about all the lessons learned during WWII on straight in approaches to ships? I could go on. The ship is designed to accept aircraft in that manner. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 There is also footage showing recoveries of multiple jets parking along the tram line. If you're #2 or #3 and you come in for a rolling landing, you'll smack into the guy parked in front of you. There's simply not as much deck space as a full-fledged carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoBlue Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 In real life What about all the lessons learned during WWII on straight in approaches to ships? I was wondering why the tight CASE I pattern is preferred instead of straight in approaches on the carrier, thinking F-18 here. What was the disadvantages of straight in approaches vs. CASE I pattern? i7 8700k@4.7, 1080ti, DDR4 32GB, 2x SSD , HD 2TB, W10, ASUS 27", TrackIr5, TMWH, X-56, GProR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow_1stVFW Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 I was wondering why the tight CASE I pattern is preferred instead of straight in approaches on the carrier, thinking F-18 here. What was the disadvantages of straight in approaches vs. CASE I pattern? By "straight in" I meant deck style. I should have been more clear. I was specifically talking about the invention of the angled deck. But, to answer your question the Case I approach is extremely efficient. I allows pilots and controllers to conduct radio silent recoveries, it's simple, and can be translated to ground based airfields which simplifies pilot training. Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repth Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) The CASE I pattern is a modified left hand traffic pattern similar to what you have at your local small airport. It simplifies the work for the controllers and allows proper separation between landing aircraft, Whereas if planes were to come straight in they could potentially be arriving from anywhere in a 180 degree arc and collisions could occur. Using CASE I one ensures that all aircraft are approaching the runway or landing area from the same direction. Edit: Sniped by Shadow Edited November 9, 2018 by Repth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Orso Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 There is only one CASE I approach and landing pattern so that the pilot only has one to learn, with no variations over which he/she might trip. The slide-in from the side allows for landing at different a different landing-point if the main landing-point (7.5) is otherwise not free to be used, without having to use a different method. You use the exact same method, only landing on a different landing-point. When you hit the wrong button on take-off System Specs. Spoiler System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27" CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tea_cypher Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 It may be worth and this point to hightlight the RN is looking to use a rolling landing with f35B, so as to allow heavier loads, not sure if this was every done the the harrier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Orso Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 ... on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, which are not LH[A/D]'s and are more than 50% larger. Different aircraft carrier, different aircraft, different sizes, different duties, and a different navy ... On the Invincible class carriers the RN was still doing side-in landings. When you hit the wrong button on take-off System Specs. Spoiler System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27" CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slundal Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 I've started using the rolling landings with the harrier on the Tarawa and it works just fine. We're discussing using it in our squadron since it requires less fuel and allows for a return with more fuel, ordnance. Alos I actually find it easier especially in bad weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quadg Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 the Tarawa was an amphibious assault ship. termed a landing helicopter assault (LHA) type. the Tarawa's main weapon was 2000 marines and their vehicles, not its 6 marines in harrier. to do all the lifting it also had 26 sea knights. 4x as many helicopters as harrier. 4 landing craft and a submergible well deck. so you can understand why the harrier was relegated to landing on a small bit of the aft deck. it has to fit in with the helicopters. doing the primary mission, that they are supporting. getting marines ashore and supporting them. probably under fire. the Tarawa only had jets because they can VTOL. if they could not they would be gone and it would only have had helicopters. landing helicopter assault ship... and the accident rate in harriers was much higher because the pilots do mess up vertical landings more than conventional ones (mechanical failures being more critical in this kind of flight, just like with helicopters, the curve of death). the marines lived with that fact, as the cost of doing business. ie having ground attack aircraft, they control, on their assault ships. and you really don't want to carry out emergency landings on a ship containing 3 days fuel and ammo for a marine assault force of 2000 men and vehicles.. so you would not use it in emergency situations marines are taught to ditch in the sea. its why you pull up next to the ship and not over it. so if anything mechanical fails you fall into the sea and not onto the floating bomb packed full of marines. vertical landing may be harder for the aircraft but it is required for the proper running of the ship. a fleet aircraft carrier is a whole different kettle of fish. apples to oranges. fly the f/a18 if you want to conventionally land on a carrier :) the harrier VTOL's onto small crowded LHA :) it is the harriers main selling point.... My Rig: AM5 7950X, 32GB DDR5 6000, M2 SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts