Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Media Screwups

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Media Screwups

    Mods, have you considered a category for all the media howlers? Here they have F-16's operating from aircraft carriers...

    http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-...,3350473.story

  • #2
    Very often do media talk without knowing shit.


    But here nothing is wrong, they never said F-16 land on carrier, they just say that the hook used here is the same system which is used on carriers....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe View Post
      Very often do media talk without knowing shit.


      But here nothing is wrong, they never said F-16 land on carrier, they just say that the hook used here is the same system which is used on carriers....
      "which is how the planes routinely land on ships" Now I realise he did not say "how F-16's land on ships" or "how these aircraft land on ships", but when you use 'the' in the way the newsreader did it implies he was talking about the subject airplane - ergo the F-16.

      Probably should have worded it differently.

      Comment


      • #4
        The language is a little vague/ambiguous and confusing; so it could be misinterpreted (taken several ways). It’s definitely a little sloppy; but the report actually seems much better than the typical media report.

        The premise of your thread seems to be that you are asserting that the media is reporting “F-16's operating from aircraft carriers”. That doesn’t seem to be what they are saying; however the language is vague and can be interpreted widely differently.

        IMAO It seems that your interpretation is more sloppy than the media reporting in this case.

        Comment


        • #5
          Who cares? I bet you're the only one who has read the story who has noticed.
          Tanner Johnson - Owner
          twenty53 Photography

          Comment


          • #6
            Interesting.

            I am constantly amazed at how the media blows it- and could go for a dedicated thread.

            I also belive in looking at both sides and am not sure that an average, generalist reporter should know that F-16's don't work on carriers- frankly this is news to me too- just a general public assumption that figher planes can work off of carriers (most do don't they?)

            A reporter is a HUGE generalist and cannot know all details. That being said, it does not forgive the gross sloppiness, lack of confirmation, lack of expert input and "never let the facts get in the way of the story" that you often see.

            A recent GREAT one was a news report quoting a passenger on an MD-80 involved in a bird strike. The passenger reported seeing "stuff" come out of the back of the engine and three or four news outlest dutifully reported it...(if you missed it- the key word here is "MD-80")

            Anyway- if you feel strongly about a media bashing thread- why not go to the "overall aviation forum" and simply start one- as opposed to the website having it as a formal category.....And start it there- I do figure that a MILITARY MEDIA FUBAR thread is too much.

            If it takes hold as a long-lived thread, then obviously there's a need for it....if it fades away, then there isn't. I know I've started a lot of threads to bash particular media foul ups- but they tend to fade away. To be honest, case-by-case threads may be the better way?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              (most do don't they?)
              Since the retirement of the F-14. The F/A-18 is the only carrier capable fighter in the US Inventory.

              The tailhooks on Air Farce fighters are for the reason we saw in the video. AIRFIELD Emergency landings. They are not built to land on a ship. Look at the specs for the JSF. The price and specs are a lot different between the USN/USMC verison compared to the USAF. This is becasue of the carrier duty.
              -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
              -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by P3_Super_Bee View Post
                Since the retirement of the F-14. The F/A-18 is the only carrier capable fighter in the US Inventory.

                The tailhooks on Air Farce fighters are for the reason we saw in the video. AIRFIELD Emergency landings. They are not built to land on a ship. Look at the specs for the JSF. The price and specs are a lot different between the USN/USMC verison compared to the USAF. This is becasue of the carrier duty.
                Are you sure about that? Just this last Feb during Red Flag 09-02, I shot 4 Marine F-16s, painted in the Aggressor camouflage, and all had tail hooks. Whether or not these have ever landed on a carrier, it would seem logical that they are capable.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Tim,
                  all F-16 (AFAIK) are able to make emergency landing on ground with that hook (just like the F-5) but the landing gears are really note able to support a hard landing on carriers (agressor USN F-5s never landed on carriers either)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by twagenknecht View Post
                    Are you sure about that? Just this last Feb during Red Flag 09-02, I shot 4 Marine F-16s, painted in the Aggressor camouflage, and all had tail hooks. Whether or not these have ever landed on a carrier, it would seem logical that they are capable.
                    I think the Navy might have used the F-16s to simulate carrier landings on land-based air bases. I think the F-16s are cheaper to fly and maintain. I think they practiced arrested landings on land-based air bases before they tried to land on an actual carrier at sea pitching in the waves. I think it's a more smoother transition and safer training. I think the only main complication is that it requires pilots to be trained on different aircraft. I don't know if this is widespread but I thought that was some of the intent of the Navy F-16s. I don't think any of the F-16s in service are rated to land on a carrier. I think their gear is too narrow, the wing is too small and the gear and the fuselage isn't hardened enough to withstand repeated landings and to do it safely (particularly on a pitching and rolling deck).

                    I think the main reason (and intent) that the Navy has/had F-16s is for dissimilar combat training. I don't know if it's common practice to use them for land-based carrier simulated landings. I don't know of any time that an F-16 landed on a carrier. I doubt it ever did. I think there were some plans to make a more robust version; but I think the funding fell through because they realized it was probably a folly.

                    The Navy version of the F-16 may not even have a carrier type of Tailhook (one that is hardened and recycles/resets itself/opening closes using actuators). I think most if not all of the land-based aircraft that have tail hooks used tail hooks that do not self retract. I think some of them use explosive bolts for deployment or use gaseous pyrotechnics I think some of them may use some sort of solenoid/servo system; but in any case I don't think they are as hardened as carrier-based arrestor systems and I don't think they're capable of a self retract. I think when an aircraft like an F-16 or F-15 uses its Tailhook in an emergency they have to manually retract it and send it to the hangar for maintenance.

                    Put simply I think there are some fundamental differences between the type of Tailhook that is used by carrier-based aircraft like the F-18, F-14; versus the land-based aircraft like the F-16 and F-15. Just because an aircraft has a Tailhook doesn't mean it is rated for a carrier or carrier capable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                      I think the main reason (and intent) that the Navy has/had F-16s is for dissimilar combat training.
                      Yep that's it.

                      Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                      I don't know if it's common practice to use them for land-based carrier simulated landings. I don't know of any time that an F-16 landed on a carrier. I doubt it ever did. I think there were some plans to make a more robust version; but I think the funding fell through because they realized it was probably a folly.
                      There were like 20 or so F-16N's built which were purpose built for the Navy, they were based off the C/D model, but had larger wings. They ended up being grounded because of wing cracks. They couldn' handle the day to day rigors of combat sims. If they are still using them they are using old USAF A/B frames.

                      Only the F/A-18 is currently carrier capable. ALL jet fighters have tailhooks for emergency airfield landings. Check out the differences in an F/A-18, F-14 Tailhook, compared to any Air Farce jet. The USAF F-4 wasn't carrier capable.

                      I'm betting too that the foriegn operators of the F/A-18 aren't carrier capable either.

                      There are three F-35's in the pipeline right off the bat...

                      F-35A - USAF, and rest of world version, CTOL(Conventional Take/Off & Landing)

                      F-35B - USMC, Royal Air Force, and Royal Navy STOL(Short Take/Off & Landing)

                      F-35C - USN, Carrier varrient. which will have larger, folding wings, larger control surfaces for low speed control, stronger landing gear for carrier landings, Larger wing area allows for decressed landing speed, increased range & payload.

                      They all will have tailhooks.
                      -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
                      -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So, did you like it how the Mayor of NY was (after mere hours) able to state that the helicopter-piper accident was unsurvivable and comment on the situation with flight data recorders?

                        He's a very amazing man to have collected such data, and to be the expert that informs the press so us masses might be properly and factually informed........(Not bashing the mayor....I'm bashing the presses treatment of his comments)
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                          Mods, have you considered a category for all the media howlers?
                          Maybe we need a category for all the misinformed posts made by members of the forum as well?
                          KC-135: Passing gas and taking names!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Moose135 View Post
                            Maybe we need a category for all the misinformed posts made by members of the forum as well?
                            Fantatic idea, got any examples? No hang on, most of the members of this forum don't put themselves forward as reporters with a responsibilty to the public for accurate and unbiassed reporting. Perhaps we have different expectations of the press in Australia?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Tail hooks is sometimes used on the runway. Scratching it causing Friction..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X