Chinooks and Sea knights

[Fudd]

IRL (and I know that Lock-On is not) there are NO H-47's landing on Aircraft Carriers! The H-46 used by the Marines for medium lift capacity and used by the Navy for SAR, land on aircraft carriers. You wont find Marine H-46's on CVN's, the only helos that typically land on CVN's are MH-53's, MH-60's and H-3's. CH-53's CH-46's (soon to be replaced by V-22's) AH-1W's and UH-1N's are found on amphibious carriers LHD's and LHA's.

 

IMO I think ED should remove the H-47's ability to land on ships. It falls along the same lines as the argument: the F-15 has an arrestor hook, why cant we land on ships?

 

Here is a reference for those confused about the difference between S**thooks and phrogs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-467.htm

[Guest IguanaKing]

Good observations...but more-likely guests on CVNs are CH-53s and SH-60's. MH-type helos should NEVER be considered regular guests of any naval vessel. ;)

[Guest Cali]

The arrestor hook on the F-15 wasn't made to take the abuse of landing on a carrier.

[britgliderpilot]

Yeah, we've got some limits on the aircraft/ships available to us in Lomac.

 

 

It doesn't happen IRL, but I don't believe there is a pressing technological reason why it couldn't - in the meantime, it helps with mission building opportunities :)

 

The other choppers they let land on ships should have had the capability to and didn't - they overdid it a bit, but it's on balance better than it was before.

 

 

They may choose to fine-tune things at the next patch stage, but right now I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.

 

If it's a big deal to you, I can show you how to edit the MeInit to remove the Chinook's ability to use a ship as an airbase.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Heh...true. The A-10 was never equipped with a hook, but some guys have managed to land it on a CVN in LOMAC. Not that its possible, nor has it ever been done. ;)

[britgliderpilot]

The arrestor hook on the F-15 wasn't made to take the abuse of landing on a carrier.

 

I think he knows, he's using it as an example ;)

[Fudd]

The arrestor hook on the F-15 wasn't made to take the abuse of landing on a carrier.

 

I am aware of that, I am just illustrating the argument.

 

Good observations...but more-likely guests on CVNs are CH-53s and SH-60's. MH-type helos should NEVER be considered regular guests of any naval vessel.

 

I worked on CH-53's for five years in the Corps. We rarely landed on CVN's. The only instance that I remember is when we were part of a west-pac and deployed on a LHD. We picked up mail for the carrier group and landed aboard the Stinson.

 

MH-53's are not only for mine sweeping and often times are used for the Navy's heavy lift needs

[Guest IguanaKing]

Roger that, Fudd ;) ...but MH-53Es and MH-60Gs are even less-likely on a CVN. :D

[Shaman]

Look at this other way.

If they'd really need to land ANY HELI on carrier: special operation or emergency (f.e. out of fuel), they'd do that.

 

Devs shouldn't remove that ability.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

You are absolutely right Fudd, (I'm always having to educate my non-aviation buddies about the 46/47 difference when they see 'em on TV:) ) but in the absence of any LHD's and LHA's in Lockon, allowing any helo's to use a carrier is better than nothing.

The F-15 arrestor hook argument is a little thin - trying to put a 15 onto a carrier deck would be a lot nearer to certain death than landing a 47 on a carrier.

 

There was a lot of interest 18 months ago when info was posted on the English language forums about how to mod the MEInit.xml to allow it, so I guess many folks in the Community are happy to have it till ED add in LHA's, LHD's,LCAC's and H-46, V-22 and AV-8B:icon_syda models (OK I can dream:rolleyes: ).

 

I love the Marines, they are the only Service branch who don't give a **** who makes the equipment so long as it does the job. Distinct lack of "not invented here" syndrome.....

[Guest IguanaKing]

More like..."invented elsewhere...battle tested for years by someone else...so we'll stick with it...OOOO-RAHHH!!!"

 

Nothing wrong with that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just as a side-note on the helicopters...it is WHEN the CH-53 or CH-46 ISN'T leaking hydraulic fluid all over the place that you need to be really scared. If all else is in place...still place your bets on who goes home. Heh...those are his thoughts anyway...my bro, Sgt. USMC MARFORRES 3rd Recon bn.

[Fudd]

allowing any helo's to use a carrier is better than nothing.

The F-15 arrestor hook argument is a little thin - trying to put a 15 onto a carrier deck would be a lot nearer to certain death than landing a 47 on a carrier.

 

It may be a little over exagerated, however, the chance that a CH-47 would be flying around far enough out to sea to land on a CVN is not that likely. I do agree that allowing helos to land on the carrier is good, until they creat LHD's.... but Army helos.... REDICULOUS! :horseback

[Fudd]

Just as a side-note on the helicopters...it is WHEN the CH-53 or CH-46 ISN'T leaking hydraulic fluid all over the place that you need to be really scared. If all else is in place...still place your bets on who goes home. Heh...those are his thoughts anyway...my bro, Sgt. USMC MARFORRES 3rd Recon bn.

 

Be very scared, no matter what, flying on a CH-46!!!!!!! The Phrog mechs used to joke about the fact that there were airframes out on the flight-line that had bullet hole patches in them from Vietnam! Their replacement is long overdue.

 

They should just replace them with more CH-53's! over 4500 shaft horespower per engine! Kicks A**! External loads over 36,000 pounds!

[Guest IguanaKing]

EXACTLY!!! He HATES 46s. :D 53s aren't much better...but they are a HELL of a lot better than 22s.

[Andrew_McP]

I've always wanted complete flexibility in which aircraft I can use and where. If it's physically possible for something to happen (ie I'm not talking about launching a B-52 from the Kuznetsov... though it might be fun to try a landing ;-) then I'd like to be able to make it happen. It'd give us a lot more options in the quest to make unusual and involving missions.

 

Duplicating real world deployments etc. is one line to take in sims, but I've always prefered to have the option of doing unusual things with realistically modelled hardware. Perhaps I've just never recovered from not being able to afford a PC fast enough to run Strike Commander. :-)

 

Andrew McP

[Kula66]

IRL (and I know that Lock-On is not) there are NO H-47's landing on Aircraft Carriers!

 

Well the Brits land CH-47s on our baby carriers ... so I'm sure its possible on a CVN!

[Caretaker]

It may be a little over exagerated, however, the chance that a CH-47 would be flying around far enough out to sea to land on a CVN is not that likely.

 

The chance that any US carrier would sail through the Black Sea isn't very high either :)

[Kula66]

Mind you the use of a CH-47 on a CVN would probably wreck flight ops cycles, so they would not bother - CVNs are for jets ... they have other decks for such things. We Brits are so lucky!

[MBot]

IRL there are NO H-47's landing on Aircraft Carriers!

 

During the evacuation of Saigon, CH-47 DID land on CVs, as did UH-1s and about everything else that could fly. Perhaps they did even land on CVNs, I can't remeber right now if the Enterprise was part of Operation Frequent Wind.

 

Any helo has the physical ability to land on ships, so this ability should not be removed IMO. USAF F-15 would never operate from russian airfields, do you want to remove the ability of the F-15 to land at Krasnodar or Majkop AB ?

It is the mission designers choice how we sets up his scenario and the editor should provide him as much options as possible. If you don't want to see CH-47 on carriers, simply don't build or play any missions with that happening. There are plenty of missions out there that try to be realistic. At least that is my opinion.

[Gazehound]

During the evacuation of Saigon, CH-47 DID land on CVs, as did UH-1s and about everything else that could fly. Perhaps they did even land on CVNs, I can't remeber right now if the Enterprise was part of Operation Frequent Wind.

 

Any helo has the physical ability to land on ships, so this ability should not be removed IMO. USAF F-15 would never operate from russian airfields, do you want to remove the ability of the F-15 to land at Krasnodar or Majkop AB ?

It is the mission designers choice how we sets up his scenario and the editor should provide him as much options as possible. If you don't want to see CH-47 on carriers, simply don't build or play any missions with that happening. There are plenty of missions out there that try to be realistic. At least that is my opinion.

Agreed.

I really appreciate Fudds RL experience and input, but I think it is very odd to actually stop it from happening because it isnt done, not because it cannot be done.

This is good info for the mission builders though!