Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: con.onelink.me/kZW6/NWYT03 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
Yeah! I dig it- and, the cost/benefit ratio of software versus hardware updates, vis. the ease and expense of implementation, etc, is a huge advantage of such software based solutions.
With the increase in bandwidth of modern radios then they can send a lot more information to ensure the landing is safe. If they can send real time data to the plane that includes the angle of landing deck, wind speed/direction, and it can more accurately propagate the landing path using edge computing on the plane. Predicting where the aircraft and ship will be is essential when giving an accurate landing. The more data the better Gotta increase that sample rate!
@@mitchconner403 Yeah... Nice! Remember when it was a big deal that dialup went from 14.4 to 28.8? I could finally run DOOM P2P with a pal. (Using an ancient protocol called 'Kermit', if my memory serves). Cheers.
I always love how much "power" GPU's get thanks to all those driver updates. One or two don't matter that much, but if you compare the first driver with the last at the end of a GPU cycle, it is always insane. The 750ti, is better than cards that should be better but have their support dropped a long time ago.
Fun story about this, the system is so accurate that it caused excessive wear on the flight deck because the hooks were hitting the same spot ervery time. They had to add variation to the landing area.
I was part of the NAVAIR team that did the first hands off landing. It was some years back on the Teddy Roosevelt and the project was JPALS. Joint Precision Aircraft Landing System. I was part of the instrumentation system team. I actually had to go out under the aircraft while on the cat and flip switches for final calibration of the system. INTENSE! Being under a Hornet while ready to shoot off the sound is so loud it’s a physical thing. I felt my guts being pummeled and got nauseous a few times. RIP Danny Greer, my team leader.
A had a family member that worked at Pax River. I used to love staying with them on base and watching the air show and practices. The full motion simulators were pretty fun too!
Seeing a lot of comments saying that this is just ILS or ACLS. It's a totally different system. Magic Carpet changes the control laws of the aircraft so that the stick and throttles actually perform different functions in PLM. In the standard control mode, pulling back on the stick is a request for more AOA, which slows the aircraft down, meaning you need to compensate with throttle, which changes your AOA, so you change the pitch command, etc. etc. In PLM, pulling back on the stick is a direct request for more lift without changing pitch or airspeed. Now the stick operates in a manner more similar to the collective on a helicopter: pull back and you go up on the glideslope, push forward and you sink down. Because you're changing the basic function of control inputs, this system requires a 100% fly by wire aircraft, so, no it's not a rebrand of something we've had since the 70s.
Not 70s but the A320 has been flying with the same control law since the late 80s and that sounds exactly like what they are doing to the F18 except 40 years later
Thank you for pointing out the pilot was rescued. I dont know if that's a new RUclips requirement, but as a viewer it's nice to know I'm not watching someone's last moments.
On my first time on a carrier, I was walking through a corridor that was directly under the flight deck. An aircraft landed directly over my head. Those landings are not soft.
I remember doing my first proper guided simulated carrier landing at the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum, and was surprised to learn how flaring onto the deck involved pushing the nose down as opposed to gently floating in like a normal landing. Learning about that deliberate slamming is when I realized why a carrier landing keeps getting called a "controlled crash".
My berthing compartment on USS Ranger was directly under #2 cable - pretty close to where the landing gear hit on a good "caught the #3 cable" landing.
The biggest problem with this new system is the damage to the deck caused by the unbelievable consistency of impact on exactly the same spot on the deck . Software changes have spread the impact area reducing the damage .
at 11:36, "what if an angle of attack probe failed"... and proceeds to show a pitot tube. That's a pretty serious failure of an AOA sensor if it turns into a pitot tube! 😄
Imagine how hard being a carrier pilot was back in WW2. Everything is bound to be much easier with computers taking a big amount of the workload off the pilot.
IMO, easier in WWII...harder with jets, to a degree. Speeds increased, a bit more involved in training carrier Aviators. Meatball, line-up, and AoA have been the basics forever. Magic carpet, changes things a bit for the good...unless it fails. My understanding it has redundancy but the main issue is the pilot. Why an F35 had a ramp strike.
Jets really upped the difficulty of landing on a short runway like an aircraft carrier. Older aircraft had a much lower top speed but could also stay airborne at pretty low speeds without stalling, so you have more margin for landing.
I think this channel sets the gold standard for what a narrator should sound like. Serious but not angry, good pacing and just the right inflections so you know what the important bits are and he holds your attention without shouting (Looking at you Steve) so thank you for not stooping to a robo-voice.
@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n His accent doesn't even _remotely_ sound like the two you mentioned. It just doesn't sound like any American accent that I can think of, so I found your guess amusing. Not trying to be mean, it just surprised me how off your guess was, but I don't know you so for all I know you rarely hear those accents you thought he had, or maybe your audio device is messed up.
This channel always has quality video footage to go with the posts; Unlike other channels (that I won't name here *cough! Infogr......), there's never a ton of unrelated stock footage, or unnacurate, even misleading BS, sensationalism, etc... Cheers!
Thanks very much! From the get-go, we always have focused on using quality footage. It does make things more challenging though, as you can imagine. We like the Infographics Show too. They are just a different type of channel, that's all :-)
@@NotWhatYouThink Right on. I (and I would assume, other viewers) really appreciate that effort. And, thanks for not jumping on the AI train for graphics, etc. The channels that have done so (with AI) have, imo, suffered a drop in quality. A ton of their illustration now looks repetitive, devoid of interest, and sometimes very misleading. (It just feel lazy, too.) Anyway... Cheers! Edit: I've been digging the shorts, too. Very accessible.
most of this footage is from highly skilled Sailors that work in public affairs offices on the ships, they upload these products to DVIDS [Defense Visual Information Distribution Service] for all eyes to enjoy.
@@zavtparticles6828 Yeah. That is such an amazing rating. (I had considered the Navy, a family tradition, until I blew my knees out in high school and so could probably never be an aviator even if I did get accepted to Annapolis...). Although, I thought that a communications speciality (simaler to what I eventually pursued in college) would be a possibility... So much of their work is of excellent quality (naturally), and even though it's not usually a front-line kind of duty, it's still important; I still admire the sailors that do that work, and what they must get to see and understand. (It just seems super interesting, eh?)
Technology like this, that not only makes the pilots' job safer but also easier means more missions, less crew/material losses and a more effective operation. So cool to see!
I've heard of this but as an old naval aviator, Vietnam era, all I can say is you have got to be kidding me..... OMG I had no idea it was this effective
yes but somehow after a strike mission on NV dodging flack, taking my hands off the throttle and stick at night, in the rain, no moon, no horizon, believing in the "software" scares the crap out of me just thinking about it. @@DesertPunks
A f18 hornet with a combat load can come close to 70 million dollars. The thought of having to land something that expensive on a pitching and rolling short runway in the middle of the ocean, at night, is enough to get me sweating and my heart beating faster, I cant even imagine how streesful it is in real life. No offense to the other branches, but Navy pilots are something else!
Naval aviators deserve the ultimate respect with nerves of steel. Just image what it takes to land on that short deck at night in bad weather with the deck pitching up and down 20ft.
An unusually thorough and nuanced treatment of current carrier ops. It's nice to see productions like this where someone really did their homework. I would like to point out that there are still E-2 Hawkeyes and C-2 Greyhounds landing on carrier the old-fashioned, manual way. And most flight school students still obtain their initial day carrier quals in manual T-45 Goshawks (completely solo, by the way) prior to obtaining their wings. Although the Navy is moving towards starting to have those students who will proceed to fighter aircraft (F-18/35) skip the Goshawk CQ and move that first carrier landing experience to their fleet aircraft training squadron. I'm happy to see the Navy moving in this direction overall. The benefits mentioned in this video are real and significant. But at the same time, I am very proud of my 400+, completely manual carrier landings . . . even if I was occasionally terrified! Fly Navy!
Don't let anyone say this will make naval aviators soft. The improvements in landing reliability will reduce maintenance unavailability from hard landing and increase the cadence of flight operations and lead to flying more combat missions. Keeping pilots safe while improving the combat effectiveness of the carrier air group is pure positivity.
Landing is always the hardest part. Whether an aircraft can take off is quite easy to find out... but once you're up there, getting it down in just the right spot, time, angle, and speed is hard! After noticing how hard it is even in fairly simplified games like BF1942 and BF2, I long wondered how the hell they do it in real life and sure enough, it takes an immense amount of instruments and trainings to make landings as reliable and safe as they are today. Landing automation has been a critical target of automation in commercial aviation as well, with some landings being only possible with auto-landing systems (when the clouds/fog hang very low so that a visual approach isn't possible), and I'm sure it will continue to remain a key focus until it can be automated almost every time.
oh yeah. i remember trying to land planes in Battlefield as a kid every now and then when I was bored, and boy was it a struggle. i'd be lucky if i could get more than single digit success rates during a 10~15 minute run before i got bored and went off to do something more entertaining
Landing is easy! Unless you’re a spaceship, it’s physically impossible to not land again somewhere, somewhen. The trick is being able to take off again afterwards 😂
Yes it is. Especially the first one. Your first solo, I don't care who you are, there is this moment (just after you get over the pitch angle you can hold climb airspeed without the Instructor's weight), when it kinda hits you that you have to land it. In my case, I had always landed the plane but for the couple of times the instructor demonstrated something. He had never had to intervene or help. So nothing was actually different, and it all went as planned. But there was that moment...... the reality became extra real. "Plan B" just got out of the plane. Forty years ago and I can laugh now, but it IS a reality moment.
Glad you included a number of these points, since all these aircraft are FBW, they can't fly without computers or sensor feedback. We have seen digital flight systems fail when the sensors fail, and at that point, the plane can't fly because it doesn't know what to do. Thus, using this system, along with other safety nets like AGCAS is a no brainer in practice. Secondarily, otherwise-qualified pilots wash out simply because they can't land on the boat. It's sad that despite being fully awesome and capable, a person can't be qualified and has to leave the program. It's a problem that the Air Force simply doesn't have.
0:30 And side-to-side, though not normally as much. Carriers roll. and the flight deck is high enough to translate some of that into side-to-side motion. Ex-USS Ranger (CV_61) sailor.
They made the exact same complaints about fly by wire, glass cockpits, anti lock breaks, power steering, GPS... And every new technology ever introduced in any field. It's "i didn't have it that easy so they shouldn't either".
I miss sooo much working on a fly deck of a Carrier. My 7 deployments in my 21 years of career in the Navy were not enough!! The adrenaline of fixing Super Hornets on the fly deck while keeping your head on swivel for so long was an unpresedent event for me. Every American should live this expierence at least once in their lives.
You want to see something really cool , In foggy weather or bad visibility aircraft perform a case 3 landing circling the ship lower and lower each pass to locate the deck , Only seen it a couple times but neat to watch !
8:45 Since I'm an athlete, I decided to track my heart rate during my flying lessons. You can see when I was coming in for a landing, my heart rate would spike! Pretty hilarious considering I'm only flying a Cessna 172.
@@rElliot09The OP mentioned flying lessons, so presumably at the start of their flying career. I am sure that night carrier landings are more technically demanding, but given comparative experience levels, probably equivalent in terms of stress to the pilot.
Currently flying the T-45. The navy no longer sends all of us to a ship in advanced, as the CQ training is not seen as vital anymore, only ~50% of us go. I really hope to go to the boat just so I can say I've landed manually on an aircraft carrier before.
That seems like a huge mistake... but I suppose with improved barrier recovery of damaged aircraft, it's probably not as necessary... just land the jet before the barrier on speed AoA and the barrier does the rest... More impressive is that military avionics are that reliable now... because things like ACLS have existed for decades but haven't been traditionally used due to the absolute shit show of reliability that it was.
Just like the video stated i would make at least 1 out of 5 sorties done in manual mode so pilots doesnt lose the skill of landing in a carrier however with the age of drones already upon us feels like complete automation is an inevitability
I think the fears they talk of at the end are not valid, as long as training continues then they will be fine. Commercial pilots have had ILS landings for decades but they can still land without it if needed.
i forget if it was magic carpet or a different system but the US Navy had an issue with the jets landing in the same exact spot every time which most would think is a good thing, but it ended up warping the flight deck due to the force of the F-18 hitting the same spot over and over. The USN told the engineers of the system that they needed some type of error to make the force more spread out instead of hitting the same "X" Sqft area all the time so i believe it was a 5% error that was implemented into the software that then made the A/C hit the wire they needed to but disperse the force of the impact to different spots.
The real reason why carrier landing became easier with PLM is the integrated direct lift control. Before PLM pilots uses throttle to control the descent rate and stick for line up and AOA, engine response can be slow and line up is tricky, hence there are a lots of adjustment required to fly the ball. What PLM does is to turn F18's flap into a lift control device, by adjusting the flap and change the lift the aircraft could change decent rate almost instantly, once PLM is engaged, the aircraft will aim for 3 degree glide slope, if pilot find themself too high, push the stick will not change the aircraft pitch, instead the lift will decrease and aircraft will sink more, once the aircraft is back on the glide slope, move the stick to center will cause aircraft automaticly return to 3 degrees glide slope, through out this entire process the ATC (Automatic Throttle Control) will control the aircraft speed to maintain the correct AOA. That's why pilots inputs are greatly decress when using PLM.
i think one day it will mean lighter landing gear with improved envelopes of bring back also. maybe after they prove how much easier it is on the gear/airframe
Can someone answer this for me? Why would you wanna aim for the third wire? Why not the first so that you have 3 more backups rather than just a single backup (the 4th). What's the point of the first two then?
I think it would be helpful to take over the drone development from Dji and everything that revolves around communication from Huawei. Does anyone have any other ideas on which competing companies could work together?
13:50 the JPALS is neat. But according to this video, it’s based on GPS. That worries me, because we are probably going to lose the GPS satellites in the next major war. Thank goodness for backups, and training.
My thought also. There should be a backup mode that uses aircraft radar to measure relative speed and distance to the carrier. That would also take out pilot error in the manual entry of carrier speed.
I see Magic Carpet as similar to the technologies introduced into cars. One of the funniest videos I saw was a bunch of kids with about 5 years of experience first driving a current car in adverse conditions and then switching to a 1980s car!
that first failed landing clip was so painful to watch like the "pilot successfully rescued" note kinda gave away that it was gonna fail but the plane looked _so much_ like it was gonna come to a stop at the last second
Thank you for sharing your amazing content with us and the world! Navy pilots are a breed all their own! The only tougher is the Marine Helicopter Pilot because, they have to fly into the combat zone at low altitude!😮
The fact that computers can respond faster and more accurately shouldn’t be a blow. The fact that they went out of their way to make this system so pilots could still feel like they’re part of the landing process should be. The system should have been fully automated from the start.
I usually never comment but that video has me wondering about something Does that technology also exist on the french Charles de Gaules nuclear carrier ? Since it is the only non-US carrier that is able to operate US figthers jets due to the CATOBAR design being implemented there ? And in the same topic, does the Rafale also support said technology ? Since they are the only non-US plane allowed to land on US carriers ? From a french viewer !
The F-14 had something called ACLS (all-weather carrier landing system or something like that) which would land the plane for you through Link 4A. Coolest system Ever
True. But it doesn't help you in case I. The Tomcat did also have Auto-Throttles that maintain AOA and I would argue the biggest advantage it had was the Direct Lift Control System so the pilot could adjust vertical descent rate without adjusting throttle or attitude.
The F-14 wasn't the only carrier a/c that had ACLS. If my memory is correct, only the prop driven a/c like the E-2 didn't have ACLS. The E-2 pilots had to fly using the "needles". If the ship's ACLS was active, needles gave the pilots a lineup indication on the glideslope, but it was not connected to the throttle or control surfaces as the ACLS was.
Eventually the F-14 wasn't the only carrier a/c that had ACLS. If my memory is correct, only the prop driven a/c like the E-2 didn't have ACLS. The E-2 pilots had to fly using the "needles". If the ship's ACLS was active, needles gave the pilots a lineup indication on the glideslope, but it was not connected to the throttle or control surfaces like it was for the ACLS equipped A/C.
This reminds of an ILS landing on an aircraft with an auto throttle. Once it’s in final approach mode the aircraft more or less follows the glide slope down and lands itself.
It's a bit more involved than that. I believe it's actually an outgrowth of work that Boeing did for a very wonky plane they were working on as a jet replacement for the Greyhound/Hawkeye/Viking. It was a twin truss wing design(the wings were the Radome/Sensor arrays), and it's big claim to fame was it's flight control system actively changing the flight control behavior based on the portion of flight/mission mode it was in. Even MCAS has some ties back to this, as one of its big features was also it's ability to make the plane behave as if were a different aircraft (you could toggle between it emulating a Viking, or a Prowler or Greyhound etc). Never made it to production, but a lot of the crazy active aero control that Boeing has been showing off on the Super Hornets last blocks and the F-15EX go back to that trapezoidal air whale
Seems like they should still have it as a training requirement to land without it... And then land without it x amount of times a year. I'm sure it's mostly software but imagine if your aircraft was damaged you had nowhere else to land and you had to land manually for the first time
That’s actually an autopilot, by definition: it manages the control surfaces and thrust without pilot input. Autopilots do not have to adjust attitudes to be called so.
If an electrical problem takes out the software, odds are it's also taken down the fly-by-wire computer; time to eject, cuz you don't have any control at all.
I was thinking about that. Probably when doing practice runs or however navy pilots get their flight hours outside of combat they would be practicing without it unless its needed, meanwhile the team behind it would be bug testing it (hopefully on land)@@Aramis444
@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n Less skilled at one very specific thing, perhaps. It's like saying drivers are less skilled because antilock brakes replaced the need to learn the skill of feathering the brake in slippery conditions. Perhaps true, but the benefits far outweigh that very specific skill.
Worries about over-reliance on Magic Carpet can be reduced by the pilot's seeing the same view again and again. Replicating this familiar sight picture HAS to be easier when under manual control. Even if a degraded system only gives the pilot an ILS-like screen depiction, the LSO's job will be a lot easier!
![[old upload] Petronas Twin Towers in Microsoft Flight Simulator X](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PLvZzffsLDQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: con.onelink.me/kZW6/NWYT03
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
zamn
Not compatible with my mobile device! 😢
if the f-35 is goku, the f-15 is vegeta
it's trying to become better than the f-35 and it doesn;t care if it's an old man
I'm from India trying to download conflicts of nation on my Android device but I can't find it on play store.
Can anyone help.
Remember. May acoonuw. Is peovatte
As a software engineer, it’s cool to see a pure software update have such an impact on safety.
Yeah! I dig it- and, the cost/benefit ratio of software versus hardware updates, vis. the ease and expense of implementation, etc, is a huge advantage of such software based solutions.
With the increase in bandwidth of modern radios then they can send a lot more information to ensure the landing is safe.
If they can send real time data to the plane that includes the angle of landing deck, wind speed/direction, and it can more accurately propagate the landing path using edge computing on the plane.
Predicting where the aircraft and ship will be is essential when giving an accurate landing. The more data the better
Gotta increase that sample rate!
@@mitchconner403
Yeah... Nice! Remember when it was a big deal that dialup went from 14.4 to 28.8? I could finally run DOOM P2P with a pal. (Using an ancient protocol called 'Kermit', if my memory serves).
Cheers.
I always love how much "power" GPU's get thanks to all those driver updates. One or two don't matter that much, but if you compare the first driver with the last at the end of a GPU cycle, it is always insane. The 750ti, is better than cards that should be better but have their support dropped a long time ago.
You all guys will be replaced by ai soon and you'll be unemployed
Fun story about this, the system is so accurate that it caused excessive wear on the flight deck because the hooks were hitting the same spot ervery time. They had to add variation to the landing area.
Or just make a replaceable deck wear plate for that spot, perhaps with a hardened surface or a low-friction (don't walk there!) coating.
@@paulbade3566 yeah i would do this. the fact that it hits the same spot everytime is a gift. you know something is off if its missing it
@@paulbade3566 Low friction coatings wear out.
Hit the same spot with the highest-wear action that happens on a carrier, they wear out FAST.
Suffering from success
@@Louisiana1815 Unintended consequences, actually.
I was part of the NAVAIR team that did the first hands off landing. It was some years back on the Teddy Roosevelt and the project was JPALS. Joint Precision Aircraft Landing System. I was part of the instrumentation system team. I actually had to go out under the aircraft while on the cat and flip switches for final calibration of the system. INTENSE! Being under a Hornet while ready to shoot off the sound is so loud it’s a physical thing. I felt my guts being pummeled and got nauseous a few times. RIP Danny Greer, my team leader.
It was an honor and fun to work on the X-31 VECTOR program that helped develop the DGPS tech that enables JPALS and MAGIC CARPET.
A had a family member that worked at Pax River. I used to love staying with them on base and watching the air show and practices. The full motion simulators were pretty fun too!
Probably got some brain damage from that eh? Just like these guys with all the booms giving them brain injuries
the MAGIC CARPET being an actual fucking acronym caught me offguard. haha
You know that Yakuza meme? The one where the guy hits the table? That's me when he said they changed it.
Gotta love the us militaries ideology of acronym everything.
Some people have a lot of time on their hands. I know a guy who sank over 80 work hours tweaking an EPR to read DIRTBAG down the left side
Classical backronyms in the military.
As another example, the MATADOR - "Man-portable Anti-Tank, Anti-DOoR".
Has to be a backronym
Seeing a lot of comments saying that this is just ILS or ACLS. It's a totally different system. Magic Carpet changes the control laws of the aircraft so that the stick and throttles actually perform different functions in PLM. In the standard control mode, pulling back on the stick is a request for more AOA, which slows the aircraft down, meaning you need to compensate with throttle, which changes your AOA, so you change the pitch command, etc. etc.
In PLM, pulling back on the stick is a direct request for more lift without changing pitch or airspeed. Now the stick operates in a manner more similar to the collective on a helicopter: pull back and you go up on the glideslope, push forward and you sink down.
Because you're changing the basic function of control inputs, this system requires a 100% fly by wire aircraft, so, no it's not a rebrand of something we've had since the 70s.
Not 70s but the A320 has been flying with the same control law since the late 80s and that sounds exactly like what they are doing to the F18 except 40 years later
Thank you for pointing out the pilot was rescued. I dont know if that's a new RUclips requirement, but as a viewer it's nice to know I'm not watching someone's last moments.
stay off ig reels
On my first time on a carrier, I was walking through a corridor that was directly under the flight deck. An aircraft landed directly over my head. Those landings are not soft.
Try to imagine being in a hard, wooden chair, suspended 10ft in the air.....
......then being dropped onto a concrete floor.
@@Rotorhead1651oof 😅 sounds like it would hurt a bit!
I remember doing my first proper guided simulated carrier landing at the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum, and was surprised to learn how flaring onto the deck involved pushing the nose down as opposed to gently floating in like a normal landing. Learning about that deliberate slamming is when I realized why a carrier landing keeps getting called a "controlled crash".
"The shock absorbers on the plane have been paid for, so I'm gonna use them!"
My berthing compartment on USS Ranger was directly under #2 cable - pretty close to where the landing gear hit on a good "caught the #3 cable" landing.
The biggest problem with this new system is the damage to the deck caused by the unbelievable consistency of impact on exactly the same spot on the deck . Software changes have spread the impact area reducing the damage .
at 11:36, "what if an angle of attack probe failed"... and proceeds to show a pitot tube. That's a pretty serious failure of an AOA sensor if it turns into a pitot tube! 😄
Similar to that "landing" at 12:28 that shows a take off 😅
Imagine how hard being a carrier pilot was back in WW2. Everything is bound to be much easier with computers taking a big amount of the workload off the pilot.
imagine landing well and still ending up with a flipped plane
IMO, easier in WWII...harder with jets, to a degree. Speeds increased, a bit more involved in training carrier Aviators. Meatball, line-up, and AoA have been the basics forever. Magic carpet, changes things a bit for the good...unless it fails. My understanding it has redundancy but the main issue is the pilot. Why an F35 had a ramp strike.
@@rElliot09 Isn't it true that due to jets being heavier the stall speed is higher which also makes it harder.
@@Powerof7even -- the higher stall speed in modern fighter jets (since the 80s - or earlier) can make it more difficult. Weather also causes problems!
Jets really upped the difficulty of landing on a short runway like an aircraft carrier. Older aircraft had a much lower top speed but could also stay airborne at pretty low speeds without stalling, so you have more margin for landing.
I think this channel sets the gold standard for what a narrator should sound like. Serious but not angry, good pacing and just the right inflections so you know what the important bits are and he holds your attention without shouting (Looking at you Steve) so thank you for not stooping to a robo-voice.
Hehe thanks! Finally someone who likes the narrator! 😅
@@NotWhatYouThink Totally. It's good to be unique. Is that a Philly or NY accent?
lmao, he is not even from the US I believe. Pretty sure it's a foreign, eastern European (?) accent.@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n
What part of that is funny?
@@moogle68
@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n His accent doesn't even _remotely_ sound like the two you mentioned. It just doesn't sound like any American accent that I can think of, so I found your guess amusing. Not trying to be mean, it just surprised me how off your guess was, but I don't know you so for all I know you rarely hear those accents you thought he had, or maybe your audio device is messed up.
This channel always has quality video footage to go with the posts; Unlike other channels (that I won't name here *cough! Infogr......), there's never a ton of unrelated stock footage, or unnacurate, even misleading BS, sensationalism, etc...
Cheers!
Thanks very much! From the get-go, we always have focused on using quality footage. It does make things more challenging though, as you can imagine.
We like the Infographics Show too. They are just a different type of channel, that's all :-)
@@NotWhatYouThink
Right on. I (and I would assume, other viewers) really appreciate that effort. And, thanks for not jumping on the AI train for graphics, etc.
The channels that have done so (with AI) have, imo, suffered a drop in quality. A ton of their illustration now looks repetitive, devoid of interest, and sometimes very misleading. (It just feel lazy, too.)
Anyway... Cheers!
Edit: I've been digging the shorts, too. Very accessible.
The kitten footage was the best part of this video.
most of this footage is from highly skilled Sailors that work in public affairs offices on the ships, they upload these products to DVIDS [Defense Visual Information Distribution Service] for all eyes to enjoy.
@@zavtparticles6828
Yeah. That is such an amazing rating. (I had considered the Navy, a family tradition, until I blew my knees out in high school and so could probably never be an aviator even if I did get accepted to Annapolis...). Although, I thought that a communications speciality (simaler to what I eventually pursued in college) would be a possibility...
So much of their work is of excellent quality (naturally), and even though it's not usually a front-line kind of duty, it's still important; I still admire the sailors that do that work, and what they must get to see and understand. (It just seems super interesting, eh?)
Technology like this, that not only makes the pilots' job safer but also easier means more missions, less crew/material losses and a more effective operation. So cool to see!
This channel has without a doubt the best footage! Very well done & I don't really mind the ads when they enable such great content..Thankx!
I've heard of this but as an old naval aviator, Vietnam era, all I can say is you have got to be kidding me..... OMG I had no idea it was this effective
tech's come a long way since the ACLS on the tomcat haha
yes but somehow after a strike mission on NV dodging flack, taking my hands off the throttle and stick at night, in the rain, no moon, no horizon, believing in the "software" scares the crap out of me just thinking about it. @@DesertPunks
A f18 hornet with a combat load can come close to 70 million dollars. The thought of having to land something that expensive on a pitching and rolling short runway in the middle of the ocean, at night, is enough to get me sweating and my heart beating faster, I cant even imagine how streesful it is in real life.
No offense to the other branches, but Navy pilots are something else!
The work to make that backronym fit is pretty impressive too
Naval aviators deserve the ultimate respect with nerves of steel. Just image what it takes to land on that short deck at night in bad weather with the deck pitching up and down 20ft.
Can you imagine the titanium steel cojones of the test pilots on the Hercules on a Carrier landings?
This is the only channel, where i do like at the start of the video. all of them are so interesting! thank you.
An unusually thorough and nuanced treatment of current carrier ops. It's nice to see productions like this where someone really did their homework.
I would like to point out that there are still E-2 Hawkeyes and C-2 Greyhounds landing on carrier the old-fashioned, manual way. And most flight school students still obtain their initial day carrier quals in manual T-45 Goshawks (completely solo, by the way) prior to obtaining their wings. Although the Navy is moving towards starting to have those students who will proceed to fighter aircraft (F-18/35) skip the Goshawk CQ and move that first carrier landing experience to their fleet aircraft training squadron.
I'm happy to see the Navy moving in this direction overall. The benefits mentioned in this video are real and significant. But at the same time, I am very proud of my 400+, completely manual carrier landings . . . even if I was occasionally terrified!
Fly Navy!
Im suprised NWYT has not gotten a sponser for Raid Shadow Legends. Hes bulletproof literally
Don't let anyone say this will make naval aviators soft. The improvements in landing reliability will reduce maintenance unavailability from hard landing and increase the cadence of flight operations and lead to flying more combat missions. Keeping pilots safe while improving the combat effectiveness of the carrier air group is pure positivity.
Landing is always the hardest part.
Whether an aircraft can take off is quite easy to find out... but once you're up there, getting it down in just the right spot, time, angle, and speed is hard!
After noticing how hard it is even in fairly simplified games like BF1942 and BF2, I long wondered how the hell they do it in real life and sure enough, it takes an immense amount of instruments and trainings to make landings as reliable and safe as they are today. Landing automation has been a critical target of automation in commercial aviation as well, with some landings being only possible with auto-landing systems (when the clouds/fog hang very low so that a visual approach isn't possible), and I'm sure it will continue to remain a key focus until it can be automated almost every time.
oh yeah. i remember trying to land planes in Battlefield as a kid every now and then when I was bored, and boy was it a struggle. i'd be lucky if i could get more than single digit success rates during a 10~15 minute run before i got bored and went off to do something more entertaining
Landing is easy! Unless you’re a spaceship, it’s physically impossible to not land again somewhere, somewhen. The trick is being able to take off again afterwards 😂
bullshit, landing is easy. even if you cock it up you're still making it to the ground!
Yes it is. Especially the first one. Your first solo, I don't care who you are, there is this moment (just after you get over the pitch angle you can hold climb airspeed without the Instructor's weight), when it kinda hits you that you have to land it. In my case, I had always landed the plane but for the couple of times the instructor demonstrated something. He had never had to intervene or help. So nothing was actually different, and it all went as planned. But there was that moment...... the reality became extra real. "Plan B" just got out of the plane. Forty years ago and I can laugh now, but it IS a reality moment.
My dad a senior defense computer research scientist worked on the ACLS system project
Glad you included a number of these points, since all these aircraft are FBW, they can't fly without computers or sensor feedback. We have seen digital flight systems fail when the sensors fail, and at that point, the plane can't fly because it doesn't know what to do. Thus, using this system, along with other safety nets like AGCAS is a no brainer in practice. Secondarily, otherwise-qualified pilots wash out simply because they can't land on the boat. It's sad that despite being fully awesome and capable, a person can't be qualified and has to leave the program. It's a problem that the Air Force simply doesn't have.
0:30 And side-to-side, though not normally as much.
Carriers roll. and the flight deck is high enough to translate some of that into side-to-side motion.
Ex-USS Ranger (CV_61) sailor.
My respect for Naval Aviators knows no bounds. IMHO they are the best in the world. VA 85 A6intruder USS Forrestal 76-80
They made the exact same complaints about fly by wire, glass cockpits, anti lock breaks, power steering, GPS... And every new technology ever introduced in any field. It's "i didn't have it that easy so they shouldn't either".
nICE landing dude.
No I did not specify which landing.
I miss sooo much working on a fly deck of a Carrier. My 7 deployments in my 21 years of career in the Navy were not enough!! The adrenaline of fixing Super Hornets on the fly deck while keeping your head on swivel for so long was an unpresedent event for me. Every American should live this expierence at least once in their lives.
I knew something like this was in the works as soon as I heard about drones making carrier landings.
Absolutely magnificent engineering. This software saves lives.
You want to see something really cool , In foggy weather or bad visibility aircraft perform a case 3 landing circling the ship lower and lower each pass to locate the deck , Only seen it a couple times but neat to watch !
8:45
Since I'm an athlete, I decided to track my heart rate during my flying lessons. You can see when I was coming in for a landing, my heart rate would spike! Pretty hilarious considering I'm only flying a Cessna 172.
No comparison to carrier landings, especially at night and/or in weather. But we train quite a bit to stay current and safe.
@@rElliot09The OP mentioned flying lessons, so presumably at the start of their flying career. I am sure that night carrier landings are more technically demanding, but given comparative experience levels, probably equivalent in terms of stress to the pilot.
Currently flying the T-45. The navy no longer sends all of us to a ship in advanced, as the CQ training is not seen as vital anymore, only ~50% of us go. I really hope to go to the boat just so I can say I've landed manually on an aircraft carrier before.
That seems like a huge mistake... but I suppose with improved barrier recovery of damaged aircraft, it's probably not as necessary... just land the jet before the barrier on speed AoA and the barrier does the rest... More impressive is that military avionics are that reliable now... because things like ACLS have existed for decades but haven't been traditionally used due to the absolute shit show of reliability that it was.
Just like the video stated i would make at least 1 out of 5 sorties done in manual mode so pilots doesnt lose the skill of landing in a carrier however with the age of drones already upon us feels like complete automation is an inevitability
the military's acronyms never cease to amaze me. that guy must get paid pretty good money XD
I think the fears they talk of at the end are not valid, as long as training continues then they will be fine. Commercial pilots have had ILS landings for decades but they can still land without it if needed.
i forget if it was magic carpet or a different system but the US Navy had an issue with the jets landing in the same exact spot every time which most would think is a good thing, but it ended up warping the flight deck due to the force of the F-18 hitting the same spot over and over. The USN told the engineers of the system that they needed some type of error to make the force more spread out instead of hitting the same "X" Sqft area all the time so i believe it was a 5% error that was implemented into the software that then made the A/C hit the wire they needed to but disperse the force of the impact to different spots.
I never knew any of these things. Very interesting! Thank you. 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Amazing video!!
Have you covered any of the Swedish Air force? Like the take off and landing on motorways?
nice reporting. Thank you!
The real reason why carrier landing became easier with PLM is the integrated direct lift control.
Before PLM pilots uses throttle to control the descent rate and stick for line up and AOA, engine response can be slow and line up is tricky, hence there are a lots of adjustment required to fly the ball.
What PLM does is to turn F18's flap into a lift control device, by adjusting the flap and change the lift the aircraft could change decent rate almost instantly, once PLM is engaged, the aircraft will aim for 3 degree glide slope, if pilot find themself too high, push the stick will not change the aircraft pitch, instead the lift will decrease and aircraft will sink more, once the aircraft is back on the glide slope, move the stick to center will cause aircraft automaticly return to 3 degrees glide slope, through out this entire process the ATC (Automatic Throttle Control) will control the aircraft speed to maintain the correct AOA. That's why pilots inputs are greatly decress when using PLM.
i think one day it will mean lighter landing gear with improved envelopes of bring back also. maybe after they prove how much easier it is on the gear/airframe
A great improvement for safety.
7:27 The aircraft knows where it is at all times
Clear skies, smooth sea, daylight, perfect time to practice manual landings.
Can someone answer this for me? Why would you wanna aim for the third wire? Why not the first so that you have 3 more backups rather than just a single backup (the 4th). What's the point of the first two then?
That's got to save a lot of wear on the airframe as well.
WW2 naval pilots were metal as fuuuuuuuu
Balls of steel
I think it would be helpful to take over the drone development from Dji and everything that revolves around communication from Huawei.
Does anyone have any other ideas on which competing companies could work together?
Best score that you can get in the LSO's little book is OK 3
13:50 the JPALS is neat. But according to this video, it’s based on GPS. That worries me, because we are probably going to lose the GPS satellites in the next major war. Thank goodness for backups, and training.
My thought also. There should be a backup mode that uses aircraft radar to measure relative speed and distance to the carrier. That would also take out pilot error in the manual entry of carrier speed.
I see Magic Carpet as similar to the technologies introduced into cars. One of the funniest videos I saw was a bunch of kids with about 5 years of experience first driving a current car in adverse conditions and then switching to a 1980s car!
This might be the hardest stretch for an acronym I have ever seen in my entire life.
that first failed landing clip was so painful to watch
like the "pilot successfully rescued" note kinda gave away that it was gonna fail
but the plane looked _so much_ like it was gonna come to a stop at the last second
Thank you for sharing your amazing content with us and the world! Navy pilots are a breed all their own! The only tougher is the Marine Helicopter Pilot because, they have to fly into the combat zone at low altitude!😮
Wow this would save millions maybe billions in long term
Learned something.
interesting , Thank You .
8:18 is one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen. What video is that originally from!? Such a stunning view and shot of the plane!
Also working on the Dassault Rafale, since the early versions if I recall correctly
We had automatic landing system on the F4 but it was not reliable enough for pilots to trust it. The engineers called it "Project Shoehorn".
Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜
I'm sure this system is a blow to many egos, but it looks like this is much safer.
The fact that computers can respond faster and more accurately shouldn’t be a blow. The fact that they went out of their way to make this system so pilots could still feel like they’re part of the landing process should be. The system should have been fully automated from the start.
Why does everything in the military sounds like it was named by an 18yo teenager? Wait...
I usually never comment but that video has me wondering about something
Does that technology also exist on the french Charles de Gaules nuclear carrier ? Since it is the only non-US carrier that is able to operate US figthers jets due to the CATOBAR design being implemented there ?
And in the same topic, does the Rafale also support said technology ? Since they are the only non-US plane allowed to land on US carriers ?
From a french viewer !
Great questions! I should hope so. Salute to you from a retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer.
The F-14 had something called ACLS (all-weather carrier landing system or something like that) which would land the plane for you through Link 4A. Coolest system Ever
True. But it doesn't help you in case I. The Tomcat did also have Auto-Throttles that maintain AOA and I would argue the biggest advantage it had was the Direct Lift Control System so the pilot could adjust vertical descent rate without adjusting throttle or attitude.
someone didn't watch the full video.....
Scared cat!
@halcisakdylan5 read the original comment: "something called ACLS" .....which is clearly mentioned in the video.
The F-14 wasn't the only carrier a/c that had ACLS. If my memory is correct, only the prop driven a/c like the E-2 didn't have ACLS. The E-2 pilots had to fly using the "needles". If the ship's ACLS was active, needles gave the pilots a lineup indication on the glideslope, but it was not connected to the throttle or control surfaces as the ACLS was.
A friend is a landing officer on a carrier told me that this software is so good that they are wearing out the deck in relation to the 3rd wire.
I think I have heard something similar.
Eventually the F-14 wasn't the only carrier a/c that had ACLS. If my memory is correct, only the prop driven a/c like the E-2 didn't have ACLS. The E-2 pilots had to fly using the "needles". If the ship's ACLS was active, needles gave the pilots a lineup indication on the glideslope, but it was not connected to the throttle or control surfaces like it was for the ACLS equipped A/C.
it wasn’t what i thought 💭
Wish I had that during my carrier career!
Precision landing mode is the latest technology used for carrier landings.
That may be the most times I've said, "I'm glad they're okay!" while watching a video.
Imagine, being that pilot with that single bolter out of 594 landings :D
Aladdin and The Magic Carpet got nothing on this one 😂
This reminds of an ILS landing on an aircraft with an auto throttle. Once it’s in final approach mode the aircraft more or less follows the glide slope down and lands itself.
Landing is always the most dangerous part of the flight.
In land based aviation where the deck is stationary also.
So it is not by any means trivial.
This was planned for. A extra slot was left to take a computer card that would do this function.
Why aim for 3? Why not one so you have 2 or 3 more chances?
Aiming for the first wire increases the chances of hitting the edge of the flight deck.
They get a score on their landing which is publicly displayed on the Aircraft carrier
Its a win for operational range, they can count on getting the planes down quickly
somebody should cheaply animate a pilot landing a magic carpet on an aircraft carrier and make it look professional.
I need a laugh.
So, in other words. The navy took the software that's been in the F16 for the last 30 years and put it in the F18.
It's a bit more involved than that. I believe it's actually an outgrowth of work that Boeing did for a very wonky plane they were working on as a jet replacement for the Greyhound/Hawkeye/Viking. It was a twin truss wing design(the wings were the Radome/Sensor arrays), and it's big claim to fame was it's flight control system actively changing the flight control behavior based on the portion of flight/mission mode it was in. Even MCAS has some ties back to this, as one of its big features was also it's ability to make the plane behave as if were a different aircraft (you could toggle between it emulating a Viking, or a Prowler or Greyhound etc).
Never made it to production, but a lot of the crazy active aero control that Boeing has been showing off on the Super Hornets last blocks and the F-15EX go back to that trapezoidal air whale
f-16s land on carriers?
Seems like they should still have it as a training requirement to land without it... And then land without it x amount of times a year. I'm sure it's mostly software but imagine if your aircraft was damaged you had nowhere else to land and you had to land manually for the first time
Conflict of nations is one of my favorite game
That’s actually an autopilot, by definition: it manages the control surfaces and thrust without pilot input. Autopilots do not have to adjust attitudes to be called so.
Feels like a mustash is required to be a navy pilot.
thats a great Thumbnail there 🗿
If an electrical problem takes out the software, odds are it's also taken down the fly-by-wire computer; time to eject, cuz you don't have any control at all.
I wonder how long it will be before people say pilots are no longer skilled because they are less at risk of faceflooring the flight deck
They probably train for landing without the system, in case of system failure.
I was thinking about that. Probably when doing practice runs or however navy pilots get their flight hours outside of combat they would be practicing without it unless its needed, meanwhile the team behind it would be bug testing it (hopefully on land)@@Aramis444
But they will be less skilled, obviously.
@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n Less skilled at one very specific thing, perhaps. It's like saying drivers are less skilled because antilock brakes replaced the need to learn the skill of feathering the brake in slippery conditions. Perhaps true, but the benefits far outweigh that very specific skill.
@@keith6706 If something isn't as difficult, it requires less skill. Your example proves my point. Benefits outweigh skill. What is your point?
Shabbat Shalom everybody!
Gut Shabbos
Worries about over-reliance on Magic Carpet can be reduced by the pilot's seeing the same view again and again. Replicating this familiar sight picture HAS to be easier when under manual control. Even if a degraded system only gives the pilot an ILS-like screen depiction, the LSO's job will be a lot easier!
Crazy to think that these updates came to the military many years after ILS was invented for commercial aircraft.
Magic Carpet, aside from being one mouthful of an acronym, is confusing because of Operation Magic Carpet, I can see why they renamed it to a TLA.
at 4m37 :: ~300 corrections in 18s would mean 16+ corrections per second. either these are made by flying system or it is impossible IMHO.
You know the old saying: the takeoff in an aircraft is optional - the landing is mandatory. 😁🤟
This system has been available since 2010 so the Navy adopting it NOW is just about fucking time.
This is so cool.