USS Forrestal C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials

[TEHGROUND]

HOLY SHIT...

[soberek]

This is San Andreas stuff @work...

[F22RaptorSquadron]

Lt Cmdr STOVL? What a fitting name haha

[52Quantum]

@F22RaptorSquadron Indeed I thought that. His landing wasn't as vertical as expected though :D

[UncleFester84]

They should try again with the C27j 'Spartan'

[7249xxl]

whats next a C-17?

[wcresponder]

there you go another american parking his big ol' vehicle any where he pleases.

actually major props to the pilots.

[4FXDetailers]

The C-130 is also the only aircraft that can reverse the proppellers to help slow down or go backwards while taxi-ing on the tarmac with it variable pitch capabilities..

[Danzkaz]

@4FXDetailers only aircraft?? really? I'm guessing you don't work on aircraft then... :-) (and before you say only military aircraft, don't bother...)

[4FXDetailers]

@Danzkaz sorry dude didn't mean to get your panties buched up!!! I should have stated that It was one of the Only planes thathad that capabilty back then to do this in the early 60's and that my information came from a USAF C-130 pilot out of the Youngstown,OH Air Guard. just what I was told by him

[Danzkaz]

@4FXDetailers haha, sorry 4FX, got 'em tangled around my neck... :-)

[cripticgatekeep]

@4FXDetailers actually that isn't correct almost all turbo prop planes have propellers that reverse. for example the puddle jumper planes like the Bombardier Dash 8 has reverse propeller capability.

[OldSpice0420]

@4FXDetailers Hmmm. False. The P-3 Orion has the EXACT same engines as the C-130. Only the props are different and the engines are on top of the wing and not under it.

[Sp33dyD3m0n]

Wow, those guys had some big balls! Landing a cargo aircraft on an aircraft carrier. I understand that the Nimitz is the largest ACC ever built, but I'm surprised it can safety allow a huge quadprop plane to take off.

[fairclought7]

@Sp33dyD3m0n Actually the biggest carrier ever built to date is also the oldest, the USS Enterprise

[Sp33dyD3m0n]

@fairclought7 Enterprise was one ship, I said Nimitz, as in a class. Yes things change but its the same basic design.

[KingM535i]

Those jockeys must have a pair of bowling balls between their legs!

[TheRazorbackpilot]

Further proof the C-130 is the greatest aircraft built in its type ever. Even if you couldn't stow it this shows you can land on a carrier if you need to. Though one does wonder if the new Juliet models could do this, probably since modern carriers are way bigger than the Forrestal.

[dinosaurssayni]

i can do better than the pilot, the uploader and all other posters at all activities. Don't even bother getting out of bed you mediocre noobs...........

[richie8811]

WHAT THE HELL???

[stalkingalizee]

Worthless capability, you have to clear the entire deck.

[guspriyol]

Amazing pilots, big balls too!!

[gcord21]

Wow, I thought this was going to be a flight simulator video. I had no idea a C-130 could do this.

[Redbulltaste]

holy shit, good pilots

[wenaldy]

Wtf??

[flesruoyeb]

WTF

[insaneone5150]

yes this was done by the air force carrying rangers in the early 80's with JATO packs. I dont know about landing on the carrier but I do know for a fact that take offs and training missions were done. We got out in mid-flight...:)

[Dominoes282]

Damn the USAF experimented with EVERYTHING back then

[doughesson]

@Dominoes282 Navy pilot flew this.The thinking was that it would be easier to transition a sailor into the C-130 than it would be to teach an Air Farce pilot how to land on a carrier. This was a Navy experiment all the way.

[Halffooter123]

Those pilots should be charged with the murder of the C-130

[sentineloffreedom]

those pilots were insane and possibly unfit for duty... lol

[Marcus666Sund]

LOL, now when I have seen this, I've started to think about that maybe in the future, A Boeing 737-700 can land on a carrier, xD

[NRGFuzeGaming]

I think that the navy should invent a type of aircraft carrier with a MASSIVE deck and aircraft storage area capable of landing and storing a c-130, or even a c-17. Now that would be military power!

[barmtrail]

@NRGFuzeGaming There is no reason to. C-17 or C-130 do not need to land on carriers, there is no purpose for it. These were just sea trials experimenting. All this was about was delivering S.E.A.L.s closer to shore. They found it better to do it with Subs. Our military is always experimenting with special forces delivery options.

You just cant justifying a carriers deck for the time period needed to carry out that type of mission. Board a sub and go anywhere swift silent and deadly.

[NRGFuzeGaming]

@barmtrail Well I do agree as to the lack of neccesity, but to be able to bring a cargo plane to the exact right spot for delivery or a bomber for attack would make missions quicker and easier for more efficent runs on a target or to an area. There is not a current need for a type of carrier like this, and hopefully there never will be. But if the need arises to get multiple runs of a bomber of a transport to somewhere quickly, it is always good to have that at our side for deployment.

[doughesson]

@NRGFuzeGaming Back in the 50s,they were looking for an aircraft with short landing and takeoff capability for use as Carrier On Board Delivery(COD) to get more supplies flown in when the birdfarm was close to shore.

[corymike1990]

i luv these old news reel speeches XD

[DAMIFINO59]

C-130 is such an awesome airplane. Gotta say the pilot had cajones of steel too.

[dowaat]

just only the usa on !!!!!!!!

[danieldeibler]

Lieutenant Commander STOVL? lol. Quick, someone get Alanis Morissette.

[ferginator69]

haha imagine a gunship hercules on a carrier i wish it happened

[shinobu59]

これマジっすか！？

[macuss87]

From what I heard it was deamed too dangerous to do it during normal carrier operations. That and it's just to damn big on the deck, for quick on off loads or a combat drop touch and go, might work. With the Ford Class carriers being built they have a new cat and arrester system that might work(no clue) for something like the C-130

Either way having something a little bigger than a C-2 would make a big difference.

[alberttwo68]

Amasing !! I never thought before that C-130 can do that !

[baboon69pashley]

Crazy!

[Cajun76]

It's important to note that the carrier is doing 25+ knots into the wind. With respect to the speed over the deck, relative speed over the deck is lower by 25-50+ knots. Amazing aircraft, I was a C-130 engine mechanic in the USAF.

[Baklava013]

@Cajun76 Well event the Air Carrier rides at 25 kts the pilot has to land a "CGO" ACFT on the bridge of such a ship ! !j The crew better not mix up....

[Leviathan2k]

That's awesome, why didn't they continue this program? Also, there are rocket boosters for the C-130 used for short takeoffs, they could come in handy there.

[Jacka1]

Because the C-130 is too massive to be stowed away.

It can neither be parked underneath nor can it be parked above on deck as this would prevent landing and take offs and hence rendering the purpose of an aircraft carrier redundant.

[Flagman00]

@Jacka1 Thats why you have to offload that sucker ASAP that get that bad boy off the deck in a matter of minutes.

[nolifemerc]

@Jacka1 ok so there is an another solution, elevate it into the air by crane and swing it over the sea, when u need too bring down or up something else :)

[anglicky69]

@Jacka1 you mean, ineffective. not 'redundant'. geez i hope someone has corrected you by now. that comment was over a year ago.

[Jacka1]

@anglicky69 Having an C130 on the deck of an Aircraft Carrier means you can't launch or land planes. A $4.5 Billion dollar Combat Aircraft Carrier that can't launch or land Fighter Jets makes it redundant.

If you're going to correct somebody, at least use some common sense. Welcome to 2011.

[anglicky69]

@Jacka1 negative. the carrier itself still has purpose. just because the carrier is not ideal for this mission, the carrier itself is not without purpose nor obsolete. therefore, the carrier is ineffective for this particular mission. it is, however, still ideal for the main purpose it was designed for. so, the carrier itself is not redundant. it's just ineffective and unacceptable for this use. 

[Jacka1]

@anglicky69 Okay keyboard warrior. Say what you will. I've made my point.

[anglicky69]

@Jacka1 keyboard warrior? i wasn't even sarcastic or condescending like you were. looks like someone can't handle being wrong. try to learn some bearing and tact. and while you're at it, learn context.

welcome to 2011...

[Jacka1]

@anglicky69 If you're going to use big words, make sure they fit the title. What I expressed was my point of view. If you handle it, don't read it.

To think that you are full of Expert Opinions whose youtube uploads are full of guitar videos and act like you have the final authority on Aircraft Carriers ?

Here's a thought, why don't you join the US Navy and protect your Country like I have in the Air Force, AA Guns Unit. Oh thats right, its always easier to argue on the internet isn't it ?

[anglicky69]

@Jacka1 hey nerd, calm down. don't start bawling now. you can wait until after you answer this question yes or no: is an aircraft carriers purpose to carry aircraft at sea? if you answer yes, that makes me correct. if you answer no, then i'm still correct and you're just as stupid as you seem to be (and you seem to be getting dumber by the minute). you're wrong. deal with it.

[cjeam9199]

@anglicky69 You're arguing over semantics, you're also being a douche. If the plane is in the middle of the flight deck, planes can't take off, which means the aircraft carrier is pretty useless. Sure it can still carry aircraft, but then that's not the main point.

[anglicky69]

@cjeam9199 who asked you to stick your two cents in? of course only being able to carry one plane makes the aircraft carrier pretty useless, or ineffective; for that mission. but it does NOT render any or all carriers redundant. thanks for agreeing with me and not even knowing it. who's the douche now? guess what, you are. and you wouldn't have been if you hadn't stuck your nose into this. thanks =]

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 Only if your literary skills good, then maybe you would be able to put a good arguement. But in this case you're just making your self sound even more stupid. He can put his "two cents" in if he wants to. Last I checked you do not own the internet thus for you have no room to say who can or cant put their nose into this. Your agruement is clearly invalid, Jacka1 is correct. It is redundant. Also in a way your statement is too.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 Neither of you are wrong. Its just your stupidity that lead to a pointless arguement. Its redundant because the C-130 is out of nature. Its not normal for a cargo plane to land on a carrier during those times. Thus for making it redundant. But in your POV, it is also ineffective. But for only a short amount of time. That time is between when it lands and when it takes off. Thats a realitive short amount of time. So in your words, "Who's the douche now? guess what, you are."

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 Its ineffective due to it halting the ability for other aircraft to land and take off. Such forth making the carrier a sitting target if it was at anypoint to come under attack (hypothetically). Now please, be sure read carefully on the comments that you have the urge to reply to. Cause sometimes, its just better to not talk at all. Also, by the way, go purchase your self a dictionary or look online next time. Dumbass

[anglicky69]

@SUFI194189 direct quote from your very first line of your very first comment: "only if your literary skills good, then maybe you would be able to put a good argument." then you go on to say that Jacka1 is correct, while in the first line of your next comment, you say that neither of us are wrong. well? which one is it? and you say that i am making myself sound stupid? thanks for the laugh. oh and btw; did it really take you over an hour to figure out what to say for your last comment? hehehe

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 And so you continue to agrue a pointless battle. Sorry man, but you fail. Yes maybe if you read it a little bit slower and carefully you'll realize that I was indicating that both of you were correct. I never said either of you were wrong so in that case I wasnt picking a side. I said Jacka1 was correct as well as yours. Read the lines you dumbass. Lord you need help son cause you are not reading the comment. Your just picking out bits and pieces.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 If you have any common sense whatsoever left in you, then if I was you. I would use to shut my mouth. Cause if you go back a read every single one of your comments, you'll realize that you were no where near winning the arguement but your stubbornness got you talking shit about stuff that you know nothing about. In that sense, what was the point for even arguing?? Everytime you try to talk trash, you just make your self sound more and more stupid.

[anglicky69]

@SUFI194189 define the word Redundant you fucking waste of space. you're trying to sound intelligent and aloof, but you're so full of shit that your eyes are probably brown. now it's you who's having a pointless argument. you're guilty of the very thing you're telling me i'm stupid for. goddamn you're dumb. shut up already.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 Haha looks like someone needs to change their tampon. Redundant is being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural and having some unusual or extra part or feature. SO "you fucking waste of space". Yes my eyes are brown. Doesnt take a PhD graduate in geneology to tell me that. Brown is the most common eye color due to its domination of its gene. Please just stop talking. Youre little shit talking escapade is not getting you anywhere.

[anglicky69]

@SUFI194189 it also means, no longer needed, or useful. superfluous. able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function. so, if a brand new carrier were to come out that could handle 10 or 15 C-130's, that fact would render all other carriers that could only handle one, redundant. and that will never happen. so, the current carriers are not able to be omitted. and they have value and purpose, and that means they are NOT redundant. keep your childishness to yourself and leave me alone.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 Hahaha, now you changed the subject to a whole fleet when we were just talking about one. But its all about context. Meaning to the word varies from one to another based upon how it is being used in the sentence. So on that fact, redundant was being used in the terms of "being in excess". Your arguement is pointless so just stop already. You're starting to speak hypothetically in which that you need start speaking in reality. And in reality you already lost the arguement.

[anglicky69]

@SUFI194189 actually, this has been my argument all along. i'm sorry that you can't understand it because there is no profanity or childish name calling involved. it's not my fault that you implied your own context to my words and didn't take them at face value from the beginning. you're just out to argue for the sake of arguing. and you seem like a petty and small person. how can i lose? the only competition taking place is a fictional one that has been implied by yourself. you're a sad person

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 Did you just seriously say "no profanity or childish name calling involved"!? Do you have amnesia or what? I can go back and recall numerous comments with your "profanity and childish name calling". Dude in the beginning, i was agreeing with both of you by saying that both of you were correct and neither of you were wrong. Which, til this point, still stands. Its your ignorance that cannot see past that and actually look upon what that comment was implying.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 The implement was that both of you were correct and that there was no need to agrue and that your ignorance was making your self look stupid. Im not out to argue for no reason. My reason for arguing with you, is for you to get your head out of your ass and stop making a fool out of your self. Im surprised that you can read personalities by just their comments. You obviously assume too much.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 A fictional one implied by myself? Dude are you seriously that stupid? The only thing fictional is what your talking about. You're arguing about something that was only in trial stages YEARS ago. You're acting like its a huge damn deal. Its not the end of the damn world so theres no need to get so damn serious over a video on the internet. If you seriously have need to start a huge argument over something this small and be childish about it then you obviously need to get a life.

[SUFI194189]

@anglicky69 I am done with you. You start an argument based on something you have little knowledge about. Youre ignorance is something that will bring you down in life. If the only thing you know how to do is argue of the internet bout childish stuff then you need to get out in the real world and make something of your self. Now do us all a favor as well as yourself and grow the hell up.

[Jacka1]

@SUFI194189 There isn't a need to argue with anglicky69. He'll simply bring you down to his level. There are those that step up and serve their countries and those who hide behind computer screens. A guy who doesn't serve the Military in any shape or form but want to dictate what his definition of a US Aircraft Carrier should be.

I pity American troops who sweat and bleed protecting individuals like anglicky69. Sorry for your time.

[SUFI194189]

@Jacka1 Thats true. He may have brought me down but i threw him down deeper. Yeah he was speaking as if all the US Carriers sail in huge fleet all together. Theres two types of people in the world, the ones who they know that they know and the ones who think that they know. anglicky69 thought he knew but doesnt.

[cjeam9199]

@anglicky69 Hehe, I think you're having fun here aren't you?

[thestrokeds10]

@Jacka1 keep in mind that even C-2s are only on deck for a little while.. an hr at most. long enough to unload and/ or pick up people. then they shoot off again. they don't fly at night.

[RunningSwimmingMan]

@thestrokeds10 That's only when they are within operating range, the first four or five days of a 6-month cruise, then probably another 2 months when they get on station, then they will fly back onboard and ride the ship back toward home again. So out of a 6-month cruise, if they are lucky, they may be able to do that fly-on, fly-off, hour on deck thing, a maximum of 3 months out of the 6, but probably more like 2 months of not living aboard the carrier. been there, done that, wasted 2 many yrs

[LesPaulBJJ]

@Jacka1 Would it be possible to design a C-130 specifically for carrier operations (i.e. modular folding wings and/ or tail)? I'm a seasprite pilot in the RNZAF so I don't know alot about Herc weight specs in regard to this but it seems like it could be done.

[Jacka1]

@LesPaulBJJ If Lockheed had the money and Govt has the need for such capability, I don't see why not. In saying that, I am not an A/C engineer so I'm not qualified to say. Combat A/C Carrier with limited space, Combat and Countermeasure fixed or rotary wings would be more appropriate. If the A/C carrier require supplies, that role is fulfilled by Support carriers which is more cost effective. Always good to meet an Aviator.

Were you involved in Exercise Pitch Black 2010 ?

[LesPaulBJJ]

Afraid I wasn't, I was stuck at Base Auckland during June, July and August last year. Our Seasprite was undergoing some Avionics upgrades all through July and the powers at be didn't see fit to transfer my crew to another aircraft for the excercise unfortunately.

[KustomCompBuilder]

@Leviathan2k 1. The government deemed it unsafe to have c-130's on deck

2. They to have a bad reputation; not to mention the other aircraft/people on deck.

[Vyppaaa11]

@KustomCompBuilder You don't know what youa re talking about. C-130s never had a bad reputation.

[syngates4life11]

@Vyppaaa11 i dont know why i said they had a bad reputation? my bad. but they just took up to much space on deck.

[Vyppaaa11]

@syngates4life11 I agree that they took up too much space, but they have one of the best operating records in the world only beaton by aircraft like the concord.

[jafalks]

C-130 is a perfect plane

[blsh214]

the C-130 can it can take off and land on less then one football feald

[EuropaBloke]

yea, i can't honestly believe that, unassisted takeoff for such a large plane?

[rumrnr78]

Watch the video, idiot.

[SgtKanyo]

lol wtf? And it could actually even take off?

[dowaat]

uscrew fly like a eagle. and landed too!!!!!

[ubermarklar]

incredible! 13 ton payload with no arrestor...

[6mmexpert]

hmmm ??????