If navy can do it with C-130, we can do it in A-10

[DaveRindner]

So I saw YT old footage of Navy landing C-130 on Forrestal, using long axis of the deck for run. I wanted to do the same, but without cheating of super high wind setting. I set wind to be 14 m/s with 7 turbulence. Set the CVN to steam into wind at 50 kph, its flank speed being 55. So we end up with 64 kph, that we can use. I did , more or less, Navy 3/4 mile turn to align with deck. Except using long axis , instead of angled approach. Speed at ramp was about 110 knots (about 205 kph) - 64 speed of deck+wind. Gave me airspeed at ramp of about 140 kph (75 knots) more or less. I did bounce, but managed to stop.

 

The aircraft was light and clean. No ammo, no pods, no weapons, and 60% fuel. Aircraft was 68% of max gross weight.

Track included.

carrierAproach.trk

[Hamblue]

A few have done it. Here's one

 

[DaveRindner]

I saw that. That looked wrong. First he had wind way up. Second, how did he fire the gun with gear down? In my version DCS 1.2.5 A-10C, ground safety turns on when gear is down, or aircraft is on ground. That is how it is in reality. Third , using gun recoil, as somekind of brake, is absurd, to say the least. I wanted to see if A-10 can land in the same manner as C-130, and not have the gear collapse, and not run out of deck.

[GC1993]

I saw that. That looked wrong. First he had wind way up. Second, how did he fire the gun with gear down? In my version DCS 1.2.5 A-10C, ground safety turns on when gear is down, or aircraft is on ground. That is how it is in reality. Third , using gun recoil, as somekind of brake, is absurd, to say the least. I wanted to see if A-10 can land in the same manner as C-130, and not have the gear collapse, and not run out of deck.

His wind was ridiculous agreed, however you can fire the gun on the ground by turning ground safety off (right at the back of the left panel under a red cover, then master arm on & gun safe off and you're away. I've used it to reverse a few times when I've over cooked a corner on the taxiway.... :lol:

[311Gryphon]

I agree that using the gun as a brake is kind of cheating. Fun, and possible, but cheating if you're attempting to do something as realistically as possible.

[SmokeyTheLung]

No wind was present when we filmed that! The carrier was moving at 25knots iirc, we couldn't accomplish it otherwise.

 

Also, the gun stops working with weight on wheels, not when the gear is lowered. If you watch the entire vid you'll see that we eventually pulled it off without the GAU-air brake :D

[SmokeyTheLung]

That looked wrong.

Lighten up! :)

 

...we weren't trying to write the book on a-10c carrier ops... We were just having a good time!

[Hamblue]

Also I'm sure the C130 would need a hook installed or arrestor net raised to land on a carrier

[Harzach]

Also I'm sure the C130 would need a hook installed or arrestor net raised to land on a carrier

 

No arrestor or catapult:

 

 

Though obviously it was not deemed practical.

[Hamblue]

Pretty amazing.

Probably deemed non practical because the aircraft would block normal operations since they cant lower it to the hangar.

It would be interesting if they used it for special ops to refuel in long range missions.

 

As to the wind it would be realistic to have a pretty high one.

Carriers can do 40+ knots and with normal wind added can get to be 50+.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Hamblue

[DaveRindner]

What I understand is that C-130 could it, becouse with 2 pairs of hand, the crew could apply wheel breaks, and reverse proppelers at the same time. The approach was deemed too risky for normal operations, because it required long axis of the deck. Required clearing the deck of aircraft, and equipment. Too risky to land, becouse once props were reversed, simutaneously with application of wheel breaks, there was no margin of safety. If either failed to be applied the airctaft was too fast to stop , and too slow to touch and go. But thats what I understand from Navy pubs.

The ship was required to sail at flank speed into the wind. Normal arrested recovery require 30 knots steaming with angled deck into the wind.

Helicopters and C-2 Greyhound operations were deemed sufficient.

[DaveRindner]

I think that Dept. OF Navy really missied an oppurtunity in 1970's to Navalise A-10. A-10 shares many handling characterstics, and components with S-3 Viking. Two share same engines, occupy similar space, and have similar low speed handling characteristics. What would be reuired is to strengthen landing gear. Develop folding wing with midwing pivot. The arrestor geat would be mid fuselage. A-10 could fly slow, and do approach at safer lower speed. It has great internal fuel storage. It would be deployed in similar manner as A-1 Skyraider attack squadrons. Mainly as embarked USMC VMFA attack squadrons, and shore based aircraft for CAS. But USMC wanted Harrier for CAS , so they could use it on LHA's. I love the Harrier, but not impressed by it. It actually carries very little stores. Usually just two pylons worth. Harrier take 2 pylons for self -defense Sidewinders. Two pylons for ext tanks. One pylon for Litening or Sniper pod. Center belly pylons for 25mm cannon and ammo. That leaves just two pylons for ordinance. Either two AGM-65(X), or two CBU's, or two JDAM's, or two MK, or two small LGB's.

Marines love it beocuse it is a VTOL, and can operate from LHA's. I think this is an unnecessary requirement. I was U.S. Army, not Marine. But I think USMC would have been better served with more shore based CTOL attack aircraft, then with fewer VTOL. Using that space for more helicopter assets. Well thats just my opinion.

[whartsell]

 

So basically a complete redesign ;)

[dumgrunt]

Navy weren't really concerned with CAS at the time, bears with cruise missiles were the big concern. hence the investment they put into the Tomcat.

The Marines LOVED the A-4, and had just put a large amount of dollars into an upgraded variant for them, so why take the risk with a new model (which many in the air force were poo pooing the idea of the A-10 anyway)

 

But yeah a navalised A-10 would be cool. The air frame would certainly be strong enough.

[DaveRindner]

Regretting to digress from USMC USN A-10, A-4 was small, cheap, simple, flexible, rugged, and survivable. Everything Marines love about their weapons, is in A-4. They stuck with Cobra for almost 40 years. Lockheed recently converted old A-4s for Argentina, by putting F-16C avionics, in them. Did they really shoehorn APG-68 into A-4's nose? Seems unlikely. Some old time retired USMC aviators still talk of A-4 as A4EVER.

[IvanK]

"Did they really shoehorn APG-68 into A-4's nose?"

 

Well the Kiwis did get the APG66 into their A4K's nose, and they live on in the US today:

 

http://drakenintl.com/a-4k-skyhawk.html

[muamshai]

After these satisfactory results, they decided to take a huge leap of faith on YMC-130 during 80s. Perhaps the time frame wasn't enough to make it a huge success.

Edited August 21, 2013 by muamshai

[Hamblue]

Also understand that the Navy is geared primarily towards Anti-Ship and Sub.

A plane as slow as the Hog wouldn't survive very long against ship borne targets as well as the aircraft that may accompany them. There is also no terrain to hide behind.