Arrestor Hook for Runways - Needs to be optional

Dev Server "Heavy Cavalry" General Discussion - Dev Server
1

Written with help from @Schindibee

In this coming major update, we are seeing the addition of Arrestor wires added to Airfields for casual, regular use, with arrestor hooks deploying automatically with landing gear. This in my opinion is an overall poor addition on multiple counts.

The first and most important is historical accuracy and immersion. These runway arrestor wires were only used in emergencies and under strict conditions, otherwise it would result in pretty major damage to the airframes. Most are not built to handle the extreme forces involved like carrier aircraft are. For example, this excerpt from “Tornado Boys” talks about RAF pilots on an exchange posting to the Luftwaffe and needing to use the Arrestor Wire to land safely after a hydraulic issue. They were forced to land on another runway due to the tailwinds being too strong and if they had attempted to do so, they would have probably taken the tail of the aircraft off.

Tornado Boys by Ian Hall

image

The second is one of gameplay. Taking off and landing has already become overly simplified and many fail to land properly at all, opting instead to belly land and slide down the runway, which is a real shame and also further breaks immersion. This change just makes landing even simpler, without the player having to do much more than landing in the right spot.

The final is one of balance. A more minor point, but one well worth being stated. This is going to be quite a notable buff for any aircraft with these hooks, but anyone without is going to have to land the normal way and have a significantly larger turn around time.

Proposed Changes

The first and foremost is to make their use entirely optional. The arrestor hook is currently set to deploy automatically with the landing gear. This needs to be changed.

There are 2 approaches to this I can see.

Option 1

The first is to separate the keybinds entirely. So you have a separate keybind for deploying the landing gear and arrestor hook. This could then be set to the same keybind if you want both to deploy all the time.

Option 2

The other would be to have a setting that toggles the automatic deployment with then a separate keybind for the arrestor hook. So when enabled, it functions as described in the post, when disabled, it only deploys via the separate keybind. The benefit of this is that it would be impossible for the arrestor hook and gear to become unsynchronised.

In either case, it makes both the deployment of the hook, and the use of the arrestor wire entirely optional.

Would you like to see the keybinds separated for the gear and hook?

  • Yes - Option 1
  • Yes - Option 2
  • No
0 voters

The second change I would make is to actually add a consequence to landing using the arrestor hook, like the airframe sustaining damage, the faster you land, the more damage you take. Naval aircraft designed for it would naturally take far less than a light fighter that was not. This then heavily promotes the use of these wires only when necessary (like say in an emergency landing after sustaining damage) and requires some care on approach as to avoid landing too fast.

This could be taken further and also applied to carriers too, so it would stop non-naval aircraft from landing on a carrier and then getting an airspawn. This occurs quite a bit with aircraft like the F-104, which is massively unrealistic.

This therefore would still require the pilot to land sensibly and not make landing so trivial and make it far more realistic overall. It also adds a meaningful addition to naval aircraft which currently can feel a bit neglected.

An alternative possibility would be to just have the wire not work when going too fast, a universal speed of around 250-300kts where the wire simply would never catch.Making sure it can’t be exploited and land at speeds that would normally be impossible.

In the future, landing weight could also be considered, especially since we now have a fuel dump mechanic it would be possible to pro-actively reduce all weight to successfully land on demand.

Would you like to see damage or arrestor hook failure to occur when landing using an arrestor hook at unsafe speeds?

  • Only damage
  • Only arrestor hook failure
  • Both
  • Neither
0 voters

Would you like to see damage or arrestor hook failure to occur when landing using an arrestor hook at unsafe weights?

  • Only damage
  • Only arrestor hook failure
  • Both
  • Neither
0 voters

Would you like to see Naval aircraft actually get modeled with reinforced airframes so they are the only aircraft that can land on a Carrier safely?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
2

+1 for option 2 of the first poll, but I personally don’t see the point in changing anything else about them.

3 Likes
3

Do we know if it will be on both runways, or just one out of the FOB runway and Proper Airfield?

4

Theyve never stated it thus far

5

This absolutely has to go - or become optional or controllable.

While it would be a ‘nice to have’ as an option to make arrested landings on airfields, it’s absolutely unrealistic and ridiculous in the scope in which it is implemented, that being that it is forced upon everybody, at all times, as soon as you have a hook!

Now I’m fully aware that at least western military airfields have been equipped with cable arresting equipment for emercencies (the reason for that bein that they damage the aircfat less than a net barrier does), but this is EXCLUSIVELY used in emergencies, if the pilot has to suspect his brakes are not working. This would typically be the case if there is battle damage, issues with hydraulics or a flameout landing.

UNDER NO NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD AN AIRCRAFT BE LANDING USING THE ARRESTOR SYSTEM!!!

For me, this change kills immersion terribly, and I cant for the life of me understand how this would even be considered to be added. Again, optionally yes, but forcing all landing to be exclusively this way I can not understand.

Now, if it was optional, and decoupled from gear operation, that addition would be perfectly fine, but not being able to lower your gear without also lowering the hook?!?

I can imagine the argument being that a lot of players land with their gear up to save a few seconds until they can take off again, and this has been added to make this not necessary. But for every player who actually is even slightly serious about flying those aircraft in any resemblance of a proper way, this absolutelly attrocious.

Especially in Sim we take our pride to be able to fly a proper approach and land an aircraft nicely and safely.

Instead of those arrestor cables (which to me seem strange in themselves as well: never seen an installation a) so close to the runway threshhold and b) in the form of several cables…) a welcome addition would have been PAPI/VASI light, like every airbase has, and every simulator has implemented, and every sim pilot uses every time, instead of a gimmick that is implemented in a ridiculously unrealistic way.

And to fiinish my rant: I’ve grown up practically ON a military airbase, and have seen literally hundreds if not thousands of fighter jets landing. I’ve seen arrested landings exactly twice in my life, during airshows…

1 Like
6

while I do agree its an eyebrow raising change in terms of realism I otherwise don’t care because airfracft without drag chutes take forever to slow down and I would rather all aircraft slow down quickly as opposed to just some, which are primarily Russian and Chinese

7

…but optional.

Or hey, a funny idea: Exclude it from Sim!

1 Like
8

Doctrinal/training decisions have nothing to do with realism.
It’s a personal decision to reduce maintenance costs/increase power of the arresting gear.
Either way, without manual hook, we can always just… land after the arresting gear.

Though manual hook has been something I’ve personally wanted since sometimes the hook doesn’t go down automatically…

9

Yeah but in game we do have carrier aircraft landing on runways a lot, which sure, has changed more recently but I dont think this change is unjustifiable especially cause of lot of those planes dont get chutes to slow down.

10

Arrestor hook should only spawn when an aircraft is damaged sufficiently, for example if one of my wings is red or my engine caught on fire, then a hook should spawn. Hook landings without reasonable cause should not happen, esspecially in realistic or simulator battles. However I’m fine with land-based aircraft landing on carriers, since it looks cool.

2 Likes
11

So work aaround an unrealistic feature by using an unrealistic landing procedure?

No.

But really, this patch there were I think about half a dozen new configurable controls added. Would it really have hurt to make the ONE feature which is completely unrealistic not also as a configurable control too instead of forcing it on everybody?!?

2 Likes
12

I cant think of a single Carrier aircraft that is incapable of landing on a land IRL.

But what about aircraft without a tail hook?

If naval aircraft that are intended to land fast using a hook and therefore lack a chute are unfair vs aircraft with a chute. Then surely the same logic applies to aircraft with a hook vs an aircraft without a hook.

For example Hunter F6 vs F-104

and even regardless of that. The main change being asked for isnt to get rid of it entirely. Its just to get rid of the hook being tied directly to the landing gear, and instead being a separate control. Make it optional

1 Like
13

only for you, not for the rest of your team? There would basically always be someone filling those conditions

14

Let’s face it: that feature was added to make it easier for people to get back into battle without having to belly land. There’s no other rationale for it.

So they now save maybe, what, 20 seconds? 30?

And for that this is FORCED upon EVERYBODY?

1 Like
15

Yeah i completely agree, another switch like “autocontrol of landing gear” is needed for carrier hooks

Im just trying to understand why gaijin would add this at all because i just cant help but think its wholly unneccesary

2 Likes
16

Its a “realisitic” equivalent to belly/crash landing.

Just speed up the game and make it more arcadey.

The next step is to just get rid of landing entirely and just have a ring you fly through over the AF to refuel and rearm

17

Frankly, no clue.

I also find it silly that land aircraft with hooks can land on carriers, but I’m fine that those who want have that choice.

So I’m also fine if those who want to unrealistically make a carrier trap on land occasionally or all the time can do so, bu that’s it.

18

They already did it for takeoff

Lets be real this is for all the american premium carrier aircraft that get sold to 12 year olds who cant be bothered landing

19

Yeah, pretty much

20

Nooooo, next step is when you lower your landing gear you teleport and directly spawn with engines running at the airfield.

1 Like