A purpose-built tool that LOOKS like a stool. Ie. the title is misleading.

"Stool" is probably a more descriptive term than what it is really called, which is probably along the lines of "EMERGENCY LANDING GIRDLE, HARRIER, REINFORCED, MIL-STD 9503" and conveniently priced in the upper five figures.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be a stool, it would be an ELGHR. It looks pretty uncomfortable, too, especially for upwards of $10k.

Clearly its a Support Tool On Oversized Legs :-)

Nah, the military doesn't have a sense of humor.

The purpose-built tool for main (rear) gear failure must be an interesting-looking piece of work.

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. Even if it's purpose built, it still fits the definition of a stool.

All the stools I've ever sat on would be about as tall as one of the wheels and would have been crushed to splinters...

A stool is something I sit on, not something an aircraft lands on.

Schrodinger's stool? the stool is not until it's sat on?

That was my first thought when I read the title. What, a stool, like one I would sit on? A barstool or something? What stool wouldn't be completely destroyed by any aircraft landing on it?

Someone should make a purpose-built remote-controlled vehicle for this! On my street, there are workmen who are using a remote-controlled vehicle to tamp down dirt during street repair.

http://gamka.com/index.php/construction-equipment-rentals/wa...

Reminded me of those trust exercises where you have to fall back hoping someone would catch you :) Cool video though.

Nice propaganda piece from whoever's trying to justify the horrible decision to put VTOL on the F-35.

Harrier is 45 years old. There is no need for propaganda, just a statistics form its use would do it. So there is definitely need for the new VTOL.

How this new VTOL was built is another question. F-35 VTOL seems to be an improvement over Harrier. Of course it is still to be seen in real life. What, because of VTOL req, F-35 isn't an improvement over is the F-15/18/22/etc...

The Harrier still is a pretty impressive fighter. The F-35 is, also, quite impressive, but not quite for the same reasons. Or the right ones, I should say.

Unfortunately, in this world that considers low observability so important, the Harrier is the opposite of stealth.

Low observability is crucial in a world where a $100,000 missile can bring down a $100,000,000 fighter.

There are two ways out of this - make fighters cheaper or make them stealthier.

There is probably a $200K unit that can already track and take down an F-35. Or, in 10 years, there will be. Multi-mission fighters are usually easy targets.

I hope to live long enough to see declassified reports of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles that can take out an entire aircraft carrier. I also hope not to see them in action.

Was it propaganda? I watched it with no sound, but I was thinking about Pierre Sprey's critiques the whole time. At least we have excellent pilots.

What would've happened had the "stool" not been there?

It seemed (though perhaps the footage was slowed) that the plane descended vertically pretty slowly, so it would've banged the nose on the carrier at touchdown, but would that have been severe?

It would certainly have grounded the aircraft until it could be inspected/repaired back on land and it would probably have destroyed the radar housed in the aircraft's nose.

You can see the airframe flex a bit as he hits the stool so you'd likely break the frame if it hit too hard.

The point where it's flexing is where the front gear would normally be.

This is amazing, Harriers are notoriously hard to control in vertical ascent/descent.

I keep hearing managing the transition between normal flight and VTOL flight is the trickiest part, and that the VTOL mode is very automated, with reaction jets on the wings controlled with the stick the way you would expect them to be.

I liked how he made it very clear just how nervous/scared he was. No fake bravado.

No need when you've got video.

What if a traditional landing jet had the nose gear fail? Do the belly land, eject or other?

There is a video on Youtube of a Marine F/A-18 with a nose gear problem using the emergency barricade on the carrier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD_mUwzpUs4

The jet was reportedly flown off the carrier a few months later after being repaired.

Some F/A-18 pilots with nosegear problems have used field arresting cable to stop and the empty center fuel tank to take the landing impact. With pilot skill and some luck, This results in almost no damage to the actual airframe.

Belly land and send the plane in for pretty considerable repairs.

This wasn't very cool. I think I could do this.

Nothing you can do is cool then? That's sad.

The solution was obvious immediately when the gear failed, "Oh shit!".