How To Catch A Jet: Stopping Military Aircraft In Emergencies ✈️
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- Flying military jets is a dangerous business.
In the event of an aircraft experiencing difficulties when coming in to land - whether that's a mechanical failure, like its brakes, or an unforeseen emergency, like hitting a bird - airfields are equipped with safety systems to bring a jet to a halt.
@FTVHan has been along to RAF Leeming to find out more!
You can read more here 👉 www.forces.net...
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitter: / forcesnews
When the Reporter signed off she said her name “Hanna King at RAF Leeming” but I honestly thought she said “Panic-ing at RAF Leeming” 😂🤣
Glad I wasnt the only one to hear 'panicking'
Nice to see GEF getting some love, the RHAG is the Rotary Hydraulic Arrester Gear. The blades are immersed in an AL39/ water mix so it does not freeze in winter, the barriers are used by aircraft that don't have tail hooks. Cables can be set for Approach or overrun, spent 22 years looking after those life savers. Good to see Leemings still going 😊
Love to see more vids like this, love learning about things I never would have thought of.
wow. i would love to see a phantom fly these days
Congrats on the promotion, Harry!
Great video thank you.
A Salute to the Arrestor Crews.
Great job guys, in a very dangerous environment.
Bring back the Tsetse. Great plane, so many uses
I see that Tatty Ton arw still going strong. They were my last squadron when they left Finningly in 1995.
For a video produced by a flying organisation I'm surprised that no one "caught" the aircraft landing downwind (around 1:40). Just saying; no hard feelings.
Good spot!
I would love to catch a phantom
Get a spotter to see a problem ie Lakenheath (F 15) a few weeks ago and ring airport / Airforce ops .
I used to work on Phantoms during the 90's and as I was GEF and we had an arrester team, usually it always happened during tea breaks. I sadly never went on a shout (ok I was lazy), it was all done manually in those days, we did not have all the mod cons like they do now, even the hangers we were in had to be opened and closed manually. Health and safety in the 90's lol what health and safety?
Sounds like a great job
I hated grommets. Bow springs were so much better.
I used to see the net go up and down all the time when I lived and worked at Boscombe Down.
Were you at Boscombe when the supposed top secret US aircraft crash landed there?
@@JohnSmith-ts8xp I had just left before it but I do know of the crash.
Richard Maunder Anything interesting you can share?
@@JohnSmith-ts8xp Everything I know about it is already out there online. There were some pictures but they were taken by the MOD and US Gov. I would like to see those one day if they ever came out again or were released ?? Thank you.
What about a large plane, like a c130?
That net would do nothing as it is too heavy. FastJets only.
Hope and prayers
Wrong rank at start! 🙂
how to stop a jet? will an RPG do?
'every military base has a system' - cosford doesn't.
How many jets fly at cosford though…
All those jets requiring the cable or barrier at cosford ey
Jets are stupid, bring back the Spitfires
LOL !
Flight Lieutenant? Get it right, luv - FLYING OFFICER!
Hope the UK gets nuclear carriers so they can use Catobar or EMALS. Much better sortie rates.
We can fit them to the two carriers we have - it was a specific requirement when they were designed. CATOBAR capability is easily added or removed, we only removed it from our two new carriers since the french couldn’t afford to buy one of them.
the sortie rates on the QEs as STOVL carriers is actually faster in the first few hours as it takes time to set up a CATOBAR carrier and stage aircraft. Plus when retrieving aircraft any CATs on the angled flight deck are unusable and even the Port Bow CAT has to be paused. On QE its high tempo straight off. However over 24 hours a QE gets some 10% fewer sorties than a Nimitz.
CATOBAR and even EMALS are not nuclear power specific. In fact there is no strategic or tactical benefit to using nuclear carriers and the costs are stratospheric in build, manning and disposal.
The QEs have been passively engineered for CATOBAR and have the electric output to power EMALS (which actually doesn't need huge amounts of power) so maybe come their half life refits they may well be converted.
We dodged a huge bullet avoiding EMALS in 2010. Ask the Yanks how their $18 Bn non operating EMALS carrier is doing....
We will never have nuclear carriers because they are too expensive and are not allowed access to most of the world's ports and also we won't have cats and traps because ramps don't break down and no wires to snap!
@@B-A-L They are allowed in 99 percent of the worlds ports and can be cheaper.
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
25-29 May 1991: Nimitz anchored at Dubai
11-12 Mar 1993: Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Malacca
18 Jun 1993: Nimitz sailed outbound through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea
13-14 Feb 1998: Nimitz anchored off Port Suez, Egypt, and passed through the Suez Canal
21-23 Apr 1985: Nimitz anchored in Augusta Bay, Sicily, to turn over to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
31 Dec 1988-6 Jan 1989: Nimitz anchored at Singapore , affording her crew their first port of call after 71 punishing days at sea.
@@ThatCarGuy Blimey you dug deep to excessively labour a very small point of disagreement (where they can or can't go) while sort of brushing aside the cost element. Which is the killer factor for most countries.
1. Nuclear carriers (CVN) cost $12 Bn more per carrier to operate in their service life than a conventional carrier - US Congress report dated 1998 adjusted for inflation.
2. CVN also cost about 3 times more to build than a conventional carrier. Or if its the USS Gerald R Ford its like $18 Bn compared to $5 Bn
3. CVNs pay for fuelling regardless of if it is used or not. Given they spent some 50% of their lives in dock that is a waste of money. Conventional carriers only pay for fuel used.
4. CVNs require RAS for weapons, victualling and aircraft fuel. that requires support tankers and solid support ships. Which are generally the slowest in the CSG. This also negates the supposed higher top speeds of the carrier.
5. And then we have the issues of de-fuelling and scrapping CVNs after retirement. That cost is NOT included in the $12 Bn figure above although it does include the mid life refuelling. Allegedly another $5 Bn per CVN.