Saw a mudhen try to land in the dirt once at Moldyhole (I think--might have been at Lakenheath; been a looonnngg time!). At any rate, it didn't work out so well for the flying vacuum cleaner. Drivers got out alive and it provided further reasons to keep jets in their place--on a large, paved runway somewhere near some air conditioning so the rest of us can get some work done without having to listen to the whine (of the jets, of course). Fighters are handy, though. Gives the ACC weanies something to do besides bother me.
Almost happened. The idea of a F-15N Sea Eagle "Seagle" was scrapped possibly because of the ridiciulus nickname it was given. The Navy chose F-14 / F-18 mix instead.
Could be. Or (more likely) because the undercarriage of the Eagle is way too flimsy for carrier ops and it's never been corrosion-resistant. McDonnell Douglas could've proposed to navalize a Strike Eagle instead of super-sizing a Hornet, but the choice is obvious. /score one for the Herky-birds
There was discussion about an amphibious C-130 capable of landing on water. Basically replacing the landing gear with floats. I know the Marines were interested in the concept at one point... don't know if the idea is permanently scrapped or not.
It was a concept study done by Lockheed in the early 90s; pretty sure it's been shelved, but not certain.
real aviators dont use runways. http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/08/w...on-lands-his-jet-on-a-spanish-cargo-ship.html
Why do you groundpounders throw that around as if they do not use an elaborate guidance system? I respect Navy aviators and the fact that they land on bo-ats, but that does not make them any better than us. We each have difficult parameters to land in. The only aviators that really deserve respect are the helo guys. The rest of us are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).
C-130's weren't always bad, but the only door jump I did was at jump school, all the ones in my unit ended up being ramp blasts. Smoooooth. Although we did fly over to Afghanistan from Bragg in a C-17. It was pretty nice actually. We had outlets, and we spread out around the aircraft, and up on top of the ISU-90's to sleep.
Hey, no need to get defensive. And they don't use any guidance systems that you don't use. They just get to do it on an airfield where the runway won't stay put and the margin for error is measured in feet instead of tens of meters. It's all the same skill-set when you're up in the air, but nobody harbors any illusions about which job is tougher during the launch and recovery phase. My hat's off to anybody that can do that as a career, and especially to anybody that can pull it off in a big-ass cargo bird that wasn't designed for it. Especially considering that they did it without arresting gear or catapults. Gotta hand it to the Herky drivers; there's pretty much nothing they can't do in those big unglamorous boxcars. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs"]PBS: Carrier - Landing on a Pitching Deck Pt. 1 - YouTube[/ame]
No one is getting defensive, so cool it. Cool your nerves and your C-130 circle-jerk. Most of what has been said here has been in jest and it gets ruined when other people get involved. No one thinks Navy pilots have an easy job. None of us do. We have different sets of hurdles to land in our different environments.
We got a C-130 air guard unit here... ... used to be a F-4 Phantom air reconn unit... ... till they sold `em to Spain.
You take that back. That is what we are there for. Glad you got to enjoy a show. A-freaking-men, brother. Say what?
Serious question: Why does the Air Force still use boom operators? Every other military on the planet (including our Navy and Marines and all our allies) uses probe-and-drogue. What are you supposed to do if you can't get a compatible tanker? What is everyone else supposed to do when your tanker is the only one in the neighborhood? Seems like a particularly stupid reason to lose an aircraft.