Landing with unused bombs

[Dragon1-1]

Harriers had thin margins mostly because they had to hover at the end of their approach. Margins on that are thin indeed, if you have the Harrier you can try hovering with any sort of stores asymmetry, but it's a chore. I think the F-35B would have to do that, too, if it was landing on an LPD with no arrestor wires, although it's FBW so it probably can handle a larger asymmetry. However, if landing on a big carrier, it can bring plenty of ordnance back. It's ultimately down to how much fuel you're able to sacrifice. In the Hornet, practically any bombs will kick you over max trap if you're planning on keeping a reasonable gas reserve for the pattern, but you can bring missiles back. 

[Swift.]

On 5/15/2023 at 12:45 PM, Temetre said:

Always depends on the weight, its 33k top usually. In DCS, and probably in reality, you can land 37k or so too, but probably not done IRL because risk or airframe stress or so. Then again, if its a more even wartime scenario, ammo is short, then we'd actually see how far the US navy would be willing to go with landing restrictions. 

IIRC the old Harriers actually had to drop bombs almost every landing on a vertical landing, because the margins were so thin. Super Hornet and I think F-35 were specifically designed so they can at least bring some ordinance back to save money.

 

33K unrestricted
34K restricted (ie no movlas, wind limits but I can't remember what they are etc)
39K if you flare

And those limits are to avoid breaking things, which is something you'd want to avoid in a war aswell as in peacetime no? Surely a really great way to lose a war is to keep losing jets unnecessarily because of landing overweight, or over stressing the airframe etc.

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Swift.:

33K unrestricted
34K restricted (ie no movlas, wind limits but I can't remember what they are etc)
39K if you flare

 Thanks, I never knew about that!

Is this the point about flaring specifically about flaring on carriers, or when flying land bases? 

vor einer Stunde schrieb Swift.:

And those limits are to avoid breaking things, which is something you'd want to avoid in a war aswell as in peacetime no? Surely a really great way to lose a war is to keep losing jets unnecessarily because of landing overweight, or over stressing the airframe etc.

I mean it depends on the specific limit, I would assume? Theres limits to make sure an airframe lasts 30 years, which might become less relevant in a war where you actually get planes shot down.

Recently read about the Forrestal fire, pretty neat example where the US navy and its sailors, under stress of war, adopted a bunch of practices that went way beyond even common sense. Obviously after that the restrictions got taken way more seriously, but its still an example of trying to make do with what you got.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Temetre

[Swift.]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

 Thanks, I never knew about that!

Is this the point about flaring specifically about flaring on carriers, or when flying land bases? 

Never flare at the boat, so that 39k number is only for shorebased landings.

Also technically you should always be flaring with Litening, FWIW.

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Swift.:

Never flare at the boat, so that 39k number is only for shorebased landings.

Aight so I understood correctly, was just confused for a sec xD 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Swift.:

Also technically you should always be flaring with Litening, FWIW.

I remember hearing they Litening was only used when F-18s were started from airports. I suppose the "never flare" rule isnt that consistent then?

[Swift.]

10 hours ago, Temetre said:

Aight so I understood correctly, was just confused for a sec xD 

I remember hearing they Litening was only used when F-18s were started from airports. I suppose the "never flare" rule isnt that consistent then?

Never flare at the boat still holds true, hence why litening isn't flown from the boat. ATFLIR and Nitehawk are the carrier tpods.