45

It's technical, not political The F-35 was an attempt to do exactly what you propose, lowering costs by planned sharing of 80% of parts across variants, but it turns out that the USN's F-35C costs over twice as much as the USAF's F-35A, and only shares 20-25% of it's parts. The project has been a disaster practically since day one, and the services are ...


33

The Nimitz Class aircraft carriers are the largest warships ever built. With over 6,000 personnel (crew and aircrew), the carrier has a displacement of 102,000t, and a flight deck length of 332.9m. From: Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/ 332.9m * 39 in/m * 1 ft/12in = 1081.9 ft. I think many ...


29

Most carrier-borne aircraft can't: they need (at a minimum) the arrestor wire system to be functional and set to the correct weight. As jwenting said, smaller aircraft may be able to. A C-130 Hercules famously landed on a carrier (without arrestor hook), but that may have required wind over the deck (i.e. the carrier steaming against the wind at high speed)...


22

All VTOL's (Vertial takeoff or landing) planes will be able to land on an abandoned carrier, as they need a vastly reduced runway; it would be a bit like landing a helicopter. They will do so though at the cost of a huge amount of fuel and coolant; which may mean that they could struggle to do a return trip if they can't refuel.


18

Depends what's on the deck Carriers often stuff the deck with aircraft, or have the deck disrupted for other reasons. If the evacuation interrupted an evolution when the deck was cluttered or in repair, they may have just left it that way, and you could have a much smaller space to land in. Also, the evacuating forces are not fools. They will have made ...


17

The YF-17 is the answer to your question. It is the predecessor to the F/A-18, and was designed as a land-based fighter. The YF-17 is much lighter than the F/A-18, because it does not need to carry equipment for carrier landings. Adding this equipment makes the aircraft heavier, compromising performance. You then need to compensate for the added weight, but ...


11

First I would like to dispel the common misconception that the ship’s forward motion relative to the water requires the pilot to aim for a point forward of the intended point of landing. It does not. The approach is flown the same whether the ship is stationary or moving. For any pilots out there, do you aim for a different landing point on the ...


11

The needs to operate on a carrier are different than the needs for a land based aircraft. They are subtle, but significant. As others have pointed out, the F-35 attempted to address these issues and wound up way over budget. (It was made even more complicated by the addition of a STOVL version for the Marines, the F-35B). CATOBAR aircraft differ from ...


11

Planes specially modified for short landing would be able to land in almost any conditions - some even across the flight deck instead of along it. However, considering an aircraft carrier dead in the water would be a suspicious occurrence, I suppose the "plane" used would be an V-22 Osprey, with the option of vertical landing. The operation would use naval ...


9

From Wikipedia (emphasize mine): At one time, in an effort to extend the U-2's operating range and to eliminate the need for foreign government approval for U-2 operations from USAF bases in foreign countries, it was suggested that the U-2 be operated from aircraft carriers. Three aircraft were converted for carrier operations by the installation of ...


9

You are correct. US carriers did indeed have a homing beacon that enabled aircraft to find them. The carrier transmitting units were called YE or YG, and the receiving units in the planes were designated ZB, and called "Zeebies". The transmitters consisted of rotating "superfrequency" beacons that broadcast different morse letters in different directions ...


9

Correct, at the weights and speeds of most carrier based jets they would need several lengths of an aircraft carrier to get airborne. Catapults became required as the airwings transferred to jets in the 1950s and 1960s. Aircraft are stored in the hangar below decks, and on the sides. Anywhere there is free space. Even during simultaneous launch and ...


9

Because when selecting aircraft the requirements were for close air-support and to be able to operate from amphibious assault ships like the USS Tarawa and the USS Nassua. These ships have very small decks that aren't geared towards launching larger aircraft like the F-18.


8

The short answer is that it is because the carrier is moving toward the point that the FPM is indicating; where the ship and aircraft will converge at the moment of landing. In reviewing my answer to the other question linked in the comments, it struck me that some clarification might be needed to distinguish between landing visually, or by reference to ...


5

Depends on the aircraft, obviously. Something that needs less runway to stop than the length of the landing area of the flight deck should have no problems. Of course that's assuming the deck is clear and the aircraft small enough to not hit the island or other obstacles. Something like a Piper Cub or Beaver could probably do it. An F/A-18 likely could not....


4

Modern aircraft that are not VTOL or STOVL cannot achieve combat effectiveness on a straight deck, without a catapult or a ski jump ramp. An unassisted takeoff from a straight carrier's deck is within the capabilities of some modern naval fighters. But it would severely limit the useful load (fuel and ordnance) that can be carried, and may be impossible ...


4

An unloaded 737, flown by a top-tier pilot can stop incredibly fast, generally in a shorter distance than a Cessna-172 flown by a student (typically around 900 ft: I've seen planes at Boeing Field, land 32L and stop well before A9). Because the brakes are meant to stop a fully loaded plane on a wet runway, they are extremely powerful when the plane is ...


4

Another reason that carrier aircraft tend to be quite different from land based aircraft is the environment in which they operate: lots of salt. Consequently, carrier aircraft contain a much greater degree of corrosion resistant components, raising the price and in some cases the weight. Several naval aircraft have been adopted by land air forces. The USAF ...


3

Having a second set of 3-4 wires would need a longer deck. But if one set is damaged, so would this landing area, so we need 2 runways: Doubling the size of the flight deck would result in a massive ship, and scaling doesn't favor something getting too big. Consider the 1967 USS Forrestal fire, even if the deck were to be double the size allowing two ...


3

No, the F-16 cannot "carrier land", even with the tail hook. The Air Force jets (aside from any that are shared with the Navy) have tail hooks only for emergency purposes during landing, or securing the aircraft during engine run-up testing. The tail hooks are not designed to arrest an aircraft like it would for a carrier landing, the land-based arresting ...


3

The hook is for emergency use at airports that have Runway Arrestor Systems. Lots of non-naval fighters have arrestor hooks for that purpose. Now, there is nothing stopping someone from landing an F-16 or any other fighter on a carrier deck and using its arrestor system, which works the same way. The main issues are the proficiency required to do it and ...


3

Standard practice is to turn abeam. This results in 10-15 seconds “in the groove” once you roll wings level on final. Because of the angled deck, the turn to final is more than 180 degrees. This does vary based on wind. Once, when both the natural winds were high and the ship was in a hurry to get somewhere (luckily into the wind) we saw 50 kts wind over ...


3

According to the F/A-18's manual, the pilot starts the 180° from downwind when abeam the landing signal officer's platform: With a 30-knot wind over the deck begin the 180° turn to the final approach when approximately abeam the LSO platform. Here's the illustration (of course the ship is not fixed, it's moving): Click to view


2

If you’re talking about multiple landing areas (LAs), the idea has been considered by the Navy; early concepts of the Ford-Class carriers were large catamaran type vessels featuring parallel LAs. But the designs were excessively complex and expensive and not likely to survive to maturation. Laying out additional arresting gear on the angled LA would ...


2

Fairey Swordfish, operated off Royal Navy carriers in WW2. Supermarine Walrus, a single engine pusher flying boat carried on cruisers. Similar vintage.


2

On the old carriers that had a center deck elevator planes would spin on the deck and get into position to taxi into hangar bay one! You wouldn't believe how loud a "screaming Demon" could be! I was on the Oriskany in 1963 when they were still doing but later that year I was on the Midway and they stopped doing it!


1

To answer the questions you asked: 1) It isn’t a question of whether a STOVL aircraft can takeoff on the angled deck of a CATOBAR ship, It’s a question of how much payload the jet can carry doing so. Short takeoff aircraft like the Harrier or F-35B can only perform short takeoffs aboard ship with limited warlords as compared with jets launched by catapult. ...


1

In addition to the other posts: it depends on how much notice the carrier has. The C-130 landed on an empty deck; during normal operations the edge of the flight deck is lined with aircraft. This goes double if you decide to use the full deck length instead of just the landing area. The bow area is often used for parking. So in order to land a 737, you ...


1

Yes, basically just (dim) Edge and Centerline lights plus the IFLOLS


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible