Can a plane land on an aircraft carrier without support from its crew?












12












$begingroup$


Imagine a scenario where a carrier was dead in the water. No-one inside. Could a plane land on the carrier? What would such a procedure look like potentially?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Step 1: get a helicopter...
    $endgroup$
    – IMil
    3 hours ago
















12












$begingroup$


Imagine a scenario where a carrier was dead in the water. No-one inside. Could a plane land on the carrier? What would such a procedure look like potentially?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Step 1: get a helicopter...
    $endgroup$
    – IMil
    3 hours ago














12












12








12


1



$begingroup$


Imagine a scenario where a carrier was dead in the water. No-one inside. Could a plane land on the carrier? What would such a procedure look like potentially?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Imagine a scenario where a carrier was dead in the water. No-one inside. Could a plane land on the carrier? What would such a procedure look like potentially?







landing aircraft-carrier






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Pondlife

51.2k8138284




51.2k8138284










asked 17 hours ago









RugnirRugnir

28739




28739








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Step 1: get a helicopter...
    $endgroup$
    – IMil
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Step 1: get a helicopter...
    $endgroup$
    – IMil
    3 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Step 1: get a helicopter...
$endgroup$
– IMil
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Step 1: get a helicopter...
$endgroup$
– IMil
3 hours ago










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















17












$begingroup$


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 small (2-4 seat) aircraft could land & stop in that distance. I'm pretty sure I could in my Cessna 177B, fixed gear, with micro-vortex generators for slower landings. Even without any headwind to help slow down.



From the 177B Pilot Operating Handbook:




LANDING PERFORMANCE:
Ground Roll ---------------------------------------------------- 600 FT




And that was before the micro VGs, so it should be even shorter now.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    13 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
    $endgroup$
    – CrossRoads
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
    $endgroup$
    – dotancohen
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    11 hours ago



















12












$begingroup$

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 t. 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).






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
    $endgroup$
    – MSalters
    8 hours ago



















7












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
    $endgroup$
    – Baldrickk
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Baldrickk very true - updated.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    13 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
    $endgroup$
    – Graham
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
    $endgroup$
    – Peteris
    2 hours ago



















4












$begingroup$

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 a fair effort to prepare the flight deck for whatever they expect to happen next. If friendly rescue is all but certain, they may clear the landing deck. Otherwise they would intentionally block it by positioning forklifts, tugs or (loaded?) ammo carts specifically to prevent an adversary from doing what you intend. Would they have time? Surely - a carrier takes a long time to evacuate.



Check the weather



That said, you will have no trouble finding a variety of aircraft capable of even a desperation 1/8 deck landing that involves stopping by crashing into a forklift.



The weather will be a significant factor! If there is a significant wind, it then matters whether the wind is aligned with the deck, or crosswind to it.



Further, if the wind is high enough, you would be able to do essentially vertical landings using low stall-speed aircraft. Here, our go-to bird is the Antonov-2.



enter image description here



This thing is called the "Colt" but it's a beast. I chose that picture to show you how enormous it is. 4700 pounds of useful load (15 men and gear) and a stall speed of 30 mph, so in 26 knot wind it can essentially vertically land. That means viable landing in a worst-case crosswind. However for this same reason, you'll need to tie it down immediately on landing, or the wind could take it. So your crews better train that!



The Antonov-2 and brother



Range is 525 miles on 800 litres of fuel, but you can "turn it into a flying gas can", trading useful load for extended range at about 2 pounds per mile. Doing so actually works in your favor, since this will mean a lighter landing weight and thus a slower landing.



It is also feasible to use a variety of ships as an ad-hoc carrier for the An-2 or many other STOL aircraft, as long as a short runway could be improvised. The wind that makes landing favorable would also aid takeoffs. A container ship might be a good choice. Containers have varying height, so certain ones could be selected to yield an even top surface, with some welded-up bridge panels for the gaps.



Suffice it to say, you could land quite a significant force on this abandoned carrier with a squadron of An-2‘s.



You may also consider the An-3, a factory upgrade to a turboprop engine that may buy you some cargo capacity and/or range: one big advantage is that you can refuel an An-3 from the carrier's stores of jet fuel; carriers do not stock aviation gasoline. However, An-2's are plentiful and in service. An-3's are rare enough that if you acquire one of them (let alone sixteen), someone's bound to notice.



The An-2/3 isn't actually Russian, it's Ukranian. Further, it's also manufactured in Poland under license, and while the FAA obstructs registration of Soviet bloc aircraft in the US, we have a trade treaty with Poland whose effect is Polish built An-2‘s are allowed.



Open the deck



Once you have a force on board and are able to clear the deck, this would open to larger STOL cargo aircraft such as a DHC-5 Buffalo, which has meaningfully greater cargo capacity. However, these aircraft made in low production, so it's the same "people are going to notice" problem as you acquire aircraft and parts.



Only after the carrier is made operational and able to self-propel into the wind, could you consider larger STOL craft like the C-130. Again, if the crews intended it, on their way out, they could assure no one but a heavy drydock could get it operational. In particular, nuclear reactors are not to be trifled with.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
    $endgroup$
    – TimLymington
    4 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
    $endgroup$
    – Harper
    4 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$






    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 fighters in top cover, more naval fighters in bombing configuration, electronic warfare birds (for jamming anything), probably a submarine for underwater cover, and probably many more things.
    The Marines would fly in helicopters or Ospreys at sea level and rappel down (probably) above the carrier. Landing planes on the carrier might not take place until the carrier is considered "secure" - six Ospreys might be used to rappel down about 200 marines (or SEALS).



    Also, SEALS might choose to swim to the carrier and enter it either via climbing to flight deck or other accessible entry points, or even breach (break) into it.



    Here is an Osprey's vertical landing:









    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "528"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60087%2fcan-a-plane-land-on-an-aircraft-carrier-without-support-from-its-crew%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      17












      $begingroup$


      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 small (2-4 seat) aircraft could land & stop in that distance. I'm pretty sure I could in my Cessna 177B, fixed gear, with micro-vortex generators for slower landings. Even without any headwind to help slow down.



      From the 177B Pilot Operating Handbook:




      LANDING PERFORMANCE:
      Ground Roll ---------------------------------------------------- 600 FT




      And that was before the micro VGs, so it should be even shorter now.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        13 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
        $endgroup$
        – CrossRoads
        13 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
        $endgroup$
        – dotancohen
        12 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        11 hours ago
















      17












      $begingroup$


      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 small (2-4 seat) aircraft could land & stop in that distance. I'm pretty sure I could in my Cessna 177B, fixed gear, with micro-vortex generators for slower landings. Even without any headwind to help slow down.



      From the 177B Pilot Operating Handbook:




      LANDING PERFORMANCE:
      Ground Roll ---------------------------------------------------- 600 FT




      And that was before the micro VGs, so it should be even shorter now.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        13 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
        $endgroup$
        – CrossRoads
        13 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
        $endgroup$
        – dotancohen
        12 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        11 hours ago














      17












      17








      17





      $begingroup$


      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 small (2-4 seat) aircraft could land & stop in that distance. I'm pretty sure I could in my Cessna 177B, fixed gear, with micro-vortex generators for slower landings. Even without any headwind to help slow down.



      From the 177B Pilot Operating Handbook:




      LANDING PERFORMANCE:
      Ground Roll ---------------------------------------------------- 600 FT




      And that was before the micro VGs, so it should be even shorter now.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$




      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 small (2-4 seat) aircraft could land & stop in that distance. I'm pretty sure I could in my Cessna 177B, fixed gear, with micro-vortex generators for slower landings. Even without any headwind to help slow down.



      From the 177B Pilot Operating Handbook:




      LANDING PERFORMANCE:
      Ground Roll ---------------------------------------------------- 600 FT




      And that was before the micro VGs, so it should be even shorter now.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 14 hours ago

























      answered 14 hours ago









      CrossRoadsCrossRoads

      4,5071719




      4,5071719








      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        13 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
        $endgroup$
        – CrossRoads
        13 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
        $endgroup$
        – dotancohen
        12 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        11 hours ago














      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        13 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
        $endgroup$
        – CrossRoads
        13 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
        $endgroup$
        – dotancohen
        12 hours ago






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
        $endgroup$
        – AEhere
        11 hours ago








      8




      8




      $begingroup$
      Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      13 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      Pretty sure a Cessna was landed on a carrier during the fall of Saigon... EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind a Cessna O-1 piloted by Major Buang
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      13 hours ago














      $begingroup$
      Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
      $endgroup$
      – CrossRoads
      13 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Scrolling down, I was thinking that the O-1 looked a lot like a C-170: "The U.S. Army issued the specification for a two-seat liaison and observation monoplane, and the Cessna Aircraft Company submitted the Cessna Model 305A, a development of the Cessna 170. The Cessna 305A was a single-engined, lightweight, strut-braced, high-wing monoplane with a tailwheel landing gear. The greatest difference from the Cessna 170 was that the 305A had only two seats, in tandem configuration (the largest tandem-seat aircraft Cessna ever produced), with angled side windows to improve ground observation. "
      $endgroup$
      – CrossRoads
      13 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
      $endgroup$
      – dotancohen
      12 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The Cessna was landed with cooperation of the carrier. In fact, the deck crew dumped viable aircraft overboard to make room for the Cessna to land.
      $endgroup$
      – dotancohen
      12 hours ago




      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      12 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @dotancohen the OP's question doesn't state anything about the deck being not clear, and in this particular instance, the carrier had its flight deck obstructed due to the extraordinary circumstances it was operating in.
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      12 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      11 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @dotancohen that yellow shirt is marshalling the taxi along the deck, which is arguably more complicated as ground visibility takes a lower priority in aircraft design and the deck was quite crowded on this occasion. If you want to argue that it would have been impossible or unduly difficult to land that same aircraft without Paddles, go ahead, but I'm unconvinced, that kind of assistance is mostly for jets that: a) need to catch an arresting wire, b) handle like a cow at low speeds and c) come in with nose high.
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      11 hours ago











      12












      $begingroup$

      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 t. 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).






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
        $endgroup$
        – MSalters
        8 hours ago
















      12












      $begingroup$

      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 t. 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).






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
        $endgroup$
        – MSalters
        8 hours ago














      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$

      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 t. 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).






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      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 t. 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).







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 16 hours ago









      HobbesHobbes

      3,237816




      3,237816












      • $begingroup$
        "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
        $endgroup$
        – MSalters
        8 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
        $endgroup$
        – MSalters
        8 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
      $endgroup$
      – MSalters
      8 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      "Against the wind" is a good point. The carrier might not be in the right orientation, which could greatly hinder the landing.
      $endgroup$
      – MSalters
      8 hours ago











      7












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
        $endgroup$
        – Baldrickk
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Baldrickk very true - updated.
        $endgroup$
        – UKMonkey
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
        $endgroup$
        – Graham
        2 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
        $endgroup$
        – Peteris
        2 hours ago
















      7












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
        $endgroup$
        – Baldrickk
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Baldrickk very true - updated.
        $endgroup$
        – UKMonkey
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
        $endgroup$
        – Graham
        2 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
        $endgroup$
        – Peteris
        2 hours ago














      7












      7








      7





      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$



      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.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 13 hours ago





















      New contributor




      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered 13 hours ago









      UKMonkeyUKMonkey

      1715




      1715




      New contributor




      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      UKMonkey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • $begingroup$
        As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
        $endgroup$
        – Baldrickk
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Baldrickk very true - updated.
        $endgroup$
        – UKMonkey
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
        $endgroup$
        – Graham
        2 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
        $endgroup$
        – Peteris
        2 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
        $endgroup$
        – Baldrickk
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Baldrickk very true - updated.
        $endgroup$
        – UKMonkey
        13 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
        $endgroup$
        – Graham
        2 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
        $endgroup$
        – Peteris
        2 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
      $endgroup$
      – Baldrickk
      13 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      As I understand it, fuel isn't the real issue here. The Harrier was limited to ~20s of VTOL because it would run out of water, which was used as a coolant. Beyond that the engines would overheat and stop working. Not an issue in flight, as the wings produce lift, it isn't just the raw power of the engine.
      $endgroup$
      – Baldrickk
      13 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @Baldrickk very true - updated.
      $endgroup$
      – UKMonkey
      13 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @Baldrickk very true - updated.
      $endgroup$
      – UKMonkey
      13 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
      $endgroup$
      – Graham
      2 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      The Harrier could, certainly. It was designed to land with zero runway, and in any conditions. The V-22 and F-35, less so. Both have fearsomely hot exhaust which will melt metal, so carriers are being outfitted with cooling on runways. One of those could land on a carrier, certainly. More than one would be a risk in case they landed with some forward speed and hit a deformed area of runway. But however many you landed, none would be taking off again until the carrier had had major repairs.
      $endgroup$
      – Graham
      2 hours ago














      $begingroup$
      @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
      $endgroup$
      – Peteris
      2 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @Graham "none would be taking off again" - why? It seems reasonable that after such an emergency VTOL landing, one of these could taxi 50 feet to a "fresh" section of runway and take off vertically again.
      $endgroup$
      – Peteris
      2 hours ago











      4












      $begingroup$

      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 a fair effort to prepare the flight deck for whatever they expect to happen next. If friendly rescue is all but certain, they may clear the landing deck. Otherwise they would intentionally block it by positioning forklifts, tugs or (loaded?) ammo carts specifically to prevent an adversary from doing what you intend. Would they have time? Surely - a carrier takes a long time to evacuate.



      Check the weather



      That said, you will have no trouble finding a variety of aircraft capable of even a desperation 1/8 deck landing that involves stopping by crashing into a forklift.



      The weather will be a significant factor! If there is a significant wind, it then matters whether the wind is aligned with the deck, or crosswind to it.



      Further, if the wind is high enough, you would be able to do essentially vertical landings using low stall-speed aircraft. Here, our go-to bird is the Antonov-2.



      enter image description here



      This thing is called the "Colt" but it's a beast. I chose that picture to show you how enormous it is. 4700 pounds of useful load (15 men and gear) and a stall speed of 30 mph, so in 26 knot wind it can essentially vertically land. That means viable landing in a worst-case crosswind. However for this same reason, you'll need to tie it down immediately on landing, or the wind could take it. So your crews better train that!



      The Antonov-2 and brother



      Range is 525 miles on 800 litres of fuel, but you can "turn it into a flying gas can", trading useful load for extended range at about 2 pounds per mile. Doing so actually works in your favor, since this will mean a lighter landing weight and thus a slower landing.



      It is also feasible to use a variety of ships as an ad-hoc carrier for the An-2 or many other STOL aircraft, as long as a short runway could be improvised. The wind that makes landing favorable would also aid takeoffs. A container ship might be a good choice. Containers have varying height, so certain ones could be selected to yield an even top surface, with some welded-up bridge panels for the gaps.



      Suffice it to say, you could land quite a significant force on this abandoned carrier with a squadron of An-2‘s.



      You may also consider the An-3, a factory upgrade to a turboprop engine that may buy you some cargo capacity and/or range: one big advantage is that you can refuel an An-3 from the carrier's stores of jet fuel; carriers do not stock aviation gasoline. However, An-2's are plentiful and in service. An-3's are rare enough that if you acquire one of them (let alone sixteen), someone's bound to notice.



      The An-2/3 isn't actually Russian, it's Ukranian. Further, it's also manufactured in Poland under license, and while the FAA obstructs registration of Soviet bloc aircraft in the US, we have a trade treaty with Poland whose effect is Polish built An-2‘s are allowed.



      Open the deck



      Once you have a force on board and are able to clear the deck, this would open to larger STOL cargo aircraft such as a DHC-5 Buffalo, which has meaningfully greater cargo capacity. However, these aircraft made in low production, so it's the same "people are going to notice" problem as you acquire aircraft and parts.



      Only after the carrier is made operational and able to self-propel into the wind, could you consider larger STOL craft like the C-130. Again, if the crews intended it, on their way out, they could assure no one but a heavy drydock could get it operational. In particular, nuclear reactors are not to be trifled with.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
        $endgroup$
        – TimLymington
        4 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
        $endgroup$
        – Harper
        4 hours ago
















      4












      $begingroup$

      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 a fair effort to prepare the flight deck for whatever they expect to happen next. If friendly rescue is all but certain, they may clear the landing deck. Otherwise they would intentionally block it by positioning forklifts, tugs or (loaded?) ammo carts specifically to prevent an adversary from doing what you intend. Would they have time? Surely - a carrier takes a long time to evacuate.



      Check the weather



      That said, you will have no trouble finding a variety of aircraft capable of even a desperation 1/8 deck landing that involves stopping by crashing into a forklift.



      The weather will be a significant factor! If there is a significant wind, it then matters whether the wind is aligned with the deck, or crosswind to it.



      Further, if the wind is high enough, you would be able to do essentially vertical landings using low stall-speed aircraft. Here, our go-to bird is the Antonov-2.



      enter image description here



      This thing is called the "Colt" but it's a beast. I chose that picture to show you how enormous it is. 4700 pounds of useful load (15 men and gear) and a stall speed of 30 mph, so in 26 knot wind it can essentially vertically land. That means viable landing in a worst-case crosswind. However for this same reason, you'll need to tie it down immediately on landing, or the wind could take it. So your crews better train that!



      The Antonov-2 and brother



      Range is 525 miles on 800 litres of fuel, but you can "turn it into a flying gas can", trading useful load for extended range at about 2 pounds per mile. Doing so actually works in your favor, since this will mean a lighter landing weight and thus a slower landing.



      It is also feasible to use a variety of ships as an ad-hoc carrier for the An-2 or many other STOL aircraft, as long as a short runway could be improvised. The wind that makes landing favorable would also aid takeoffs. A container ship might be a good choice. Containers have varying height, so certain ones could be selected to yield an even top surface, with some welded-up bridge panels for the gaps.



      Suffice it to say, you could land quite a significant force on this abandoned carrier with a squadron of An-2‘s.



      You may also consider the An-3, a factory upgrade to a turboprop engine that may buy you some cargo capacity and/or range: one big advantage is that you can refuel an An-3 from the carrier's stores of jet fuel; carriers do not stock aviation gasoline. However, An-2's are plentiful and in service. An-3's are rare enough that if you acquire one of them (let alone sixteen), someone's bound to notice.



      The An-2/3 isn't actually Russian, it's Ukranian. Further, it's also manufactured in Poland under license, and while the FAA obstructs registration of Soviet bloc aircraft in the US, we have a trade treaty with Poland whose effect is Polish built An-2‘s are allowed.



      Open the deck



      Once you have a force on board and are able to clear the deck, this would open to larger STOL cargo aircraft such as a DHC-5 Buffalo, which has meaningfully greater cargo capacity. However, these aircraft made in low production, so it's the same "people are going to notice" problem as you acquire aircraft and parts.



      Only after the carrier is made operational and able to self-propel into the wind, could you consider larger STOL craft like the C-130. Again, if the crews intended it, on their way out, they could assure no one but a heavy drydock could get it operational. In particular, nuclear reactors are not to be trifled with.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
        $endgroup$
        – TimLymington
        4 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
        $endgroup$
        – Harper
        4 hours ago














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$

      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 a fair effort to prepare the flight deck for whatever they expect to happen next. If friendly rescue is all but certain, they may clear the landing deck. Otherwise they would intentionally block it by positioning forklifts, tugs or (loaded?) ammo carts specifically to prevent an adversary from doing what you intend. Would they have time? Surely - a carrier takes a long time to evacuate.



      Check the weather



      That said, you will have no trouble finding a variety of aircraft capable of even a desperation 1/8 deck landing that involves stopping by crashing into a forklift.



      The weather will be a significant factor! If there is a significant wind, it then matters whether the wind is aligned with the deck, or crosswind to it.



      Further, if the wind is high enough, you would be able to do essentially vertical landings using low stall-speed aircraft. Here, our go-to bird is the Antonov-2.



      enter image description here



      This thing is called the "Colt" but it's a beast. I chose that picture to show you how enormous it is. 4700 pounds of useful load (15 men and gear) and a stall speed of 30 mph, so in 26 knot wind it can essentially vertically land. That means viable landing in a worst-case crosswind. However for this same reason, you'll need to tie it down immediately on landing, or the wind could take it. So your crews better train that!



      The Antonov-2 and brother



      Range is 525 miles on 800 litres of fuel, but you can "turn it into a flying gas can", trading useful load for extended range at about 2 pounds per mile. Doing so actually works in your favor, since this will mean a lighter landing weight and thus a slower landing.



      It is also feasible to use a variety of ships as an ad-hoc carrier for the An-2 or many other STOL aircraft, as long as a short runway could be improvised. The wind that makes landing favorable would also aid takeoffs. A container ship might be a good choice. Containers have varying height, so certain ones could be selected to yield an even top surface, with some welded-up bridge panels for the gaps.



      Suffice it to say, you could land quite a significant force on this abandoned carrier with a squadron of An-2‘s.



      You may also consider the An-3, a factory upgrade to a turboprop engine that may buy you some cargo capacity and/or range: one big advantage is that you can refuel an An-3 from the carrier's stores of jet fuel; carriers do not stock aviation gasoline. However, An-2's are plentiful and in service. An-3's are rare enough that if you acquire one of them (let alone sixteen), someone's bound to notice.



      The An-2/3 isn't actually Russian, it's Ukranian. Further, it's also manufactured in Poland under license, and while the FAA obstructs registration of Soviet bloc aircraft in the US, we have a trade treaty with Poland whose effect is Polish built An-2‘s are allowed.



      Open the deck



      Once you have a force on board and are able to clear the deck, this would open to larger STOL cargo aircraft such as a DHC-5 Buffalo, which has meaningfully greater cargo capacity. However, these aircraft made in low production, so it's the same "people are going to notice" problem as you acquire aircraft and parts.



      Only after the carrier is made operational and able to self-propel into the wind, could you consider larger STOL craft like the C-130. Again, if the crews intended it, on their way out, they could assure no one but a heavy drydock could get it operational. In particular, nuclear reactors are not to be trifled with.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      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 a fair effort to prepare the flight deck for whatever they expect to happen next. If friendly rescue is all but certain, they may clear the landing deck. Otherwise they would intentionally block it by positioning forklifts, tugs or (loaded?) ammo carts specifically to prevent an adversary from doing what you intend. Would they have time? Surely - a carrier takes a long time to evacuate.



      Check the weather



      That said, you will have no trouble finding a variety of aircraft capable of even a desperation 1/8 deck landing that involves stopping by crashing into a forklift.



      The weather will be a significant factor! If there is a significant wind, it then matters whether the wind is aligned with the deck, or crosswind to it.



      Further, if the wind is high enough, you would be able to do essentially vertical landings using low stall-speed aircraft. Here, our go-to bird is the Antonov-2.



      enter image description here



      This thing is called the "Colt" but it's a beast. I chose that picture to show you how enormous it is. 4700 pounds of useful load (15 men and gear) and a stall speed of 30 mph, so in 26 knot wind it can essentially vertically land. That means viable landing in a worst-case crosswind. However for this same reason, you'll need to tie it down immediately on landing, or the wind could take it. So your crews better train that!



      The Antonov-2 and brother



      Range is 525 miles on 800 litres of fuel, but you can "turn it into a flying gas can", trading useful load for extended range at about 2 pounds per mile. Doing so actually works in your favor, since this will mean a lighter landing weight and thus a slower landing.



      It is also feasible to use a variety of ships as an ad-hoc carrier for the An-2 or many other STOL aircraft, as long as a short runway could be improvised. The wind that makes landing favorable would also aid takeoffs. A container ship might be a good choice. Containers have varying height, so certain ones could be selected to yield an even top surface, with some welded-up bridge panels for the gaps.



      Suffice it to say, you could land quite a significant force on this abandoned carrier with a squadron of An-2‘s.



      You may also consider the An-3, a factory upgrade to a turboprop engine that may buy you some cargo capacity and/or range: one big advantage is that you can refuel an An-3 from the carrier's stores of jet fuel; carriers do not stock aviation gasoline. However, An-2's are plentiful and in service. An-3's are rare enough that if you acquire one of them (let alone sixteen), someone's bound to notice.



      The An-2/3 isn't actually Russian, it's Ukranian. Further, it's also manufactured in Poland under license, and while the FAA obstructs registration of Soviet bloc aircraft in the US, we have a trade treaty with Poland whose effect is Polish built An-2‘s are allowed.



      Open the deck



      Once you have a force on board and are able to clear the deck, this would open to larger STOL cargo aircraft such as a DHC-5 Buffalo, which has meaningfully greater cargo capacity. However, these aircraft made in low production, so it's the same "people are going to notice" problem as you acquire aircraft and parts.



      Only after the carrier is made operational and able to self-propel into the wind, could you consider larger STOL craft like the C-130. Again, if the crews intended it, on their way out, they could assure no one but a heavy drydock could get it operational. In particular, nuclear reactors are not to be trifled with.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 8 hours ago

























      answered 8 hours ago









      HarperHarper

      3,070619




      3,070619












      • $begingroup$
        "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
        $endgroup$
        – TimLymington
        4 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
        $endgroup$
        – Harper
        4 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
        $endgroup$
        – TimLymington
        4 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
        $endgroup$
        – Harper
        4 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
      $endgroup$
      – TimLymington
      4 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      "If there is a significant wind" (there almost always is at sea) there will be a swell, which means the deck is rolling and pitching as you land on it.
      $endgroup$
      – TimLymington
      4 hours ago














      $begingroup$
      @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
      $endgroup$
      – Harper
      4 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @TimLymington all the better. As you get very close to the deck, the wind slows because of surface effects, and you could potentially stall the aircraft and drop hard. With a pitching deck, you let the deck come up and meet you, shortening that "stall" period.
      $endgroup$
      – Harper
      4 hours ago











      3












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 17 hours ago









          jwentingjwenting

          11.3k12744




          11.3k12744























              3












              $begingroup$






              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 fighters in top cover, more naval fighters in bombing configuration, electronic warfare birds (for jamming anything), probably a submarine for underwater cover, and probably many more things.
              The Marines would fly in helicopters or Ospreys at sea level and rappel down (probably) above the carrier. Landing planes on the carrier might not take place until the carrier is considered "secure" - six Ospreys might be used to rappel down about 200 marines (or SEALS).



              Also, SEALS might choose to swim to the carrier and enter it either via climbing to flight deck or other accessible entry points, or even breach (break) into it.



              Here is an Osprey's vertical landing:









              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$






                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 fighters in top cover, more naval fighters in bombing configuration, electronic warfare birds (for jamming anything), probably a submarine for underwater cover, and probably many more things.
                The Marines would fly in helicopters or Ospreys at sea level and rappel down (probably) above the carrier. Landing planes on the carrier might not take place until the carrier is considered "secure" - six Ospreys might be used to rappel down about 200 marines (or SEALS).



                Also, SEALS might choose to swim to the carrier and enter it either via climbing to flight deck or other accessible entry points, or even breach (break) into it.



                Here is an Osprey's vertical landing:









                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$






                  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 fighters in top cover, more naval fighters in bombing configuration, electronic warfare birds (for jamming anything), probably a submarine for underwater cover, and probably many more things.
                  The Marines would fly in helicopters or Ospreys at sea level and rappel down (probably) above the carrier. Landing planes on the carrier might not take place until the carrier is considered "secure" - six Ospreys might be used to rappel down about 200 marines (or SEALS).



                  Also, SEALS might choose to swim to the carrier and enter it either via climbing to flight deck or other accessible entry points, or even breach (break) into it.



                  Here is an Osprey's vertical landing:









                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$








                  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 fighters in top cover, more naval fighters in bombing configuration, electronic warfare birds (for jamming anything), probably a submarine for underwater cover, and probably many more things.
                  The Marines would fly in helicopters or Ospreys at sea level and rappel down (probably) above the carrier. Landing planes on the carrier might not take place until the carrier is considered "secure" - six Ospreys might be used to rappel down about 200 marines (or SEALS).



                  Also, SEALS might choose to swim to the carrier and enter it either via climbing to flight deck or other accessible entry points, or even breach (break) into it.



                  Here is an Osprey's vertical landing:


























                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 10 hours ago









                  Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras

                  612




                  612






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60087%2fcan-a-plane-land-on-an-aircraft-carrier-without-support-from-its-crew%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Statuo de Libereco

                      Tanganjiko

                      Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg