Carrier Airplanes

[candycorn]

Never thought much about it but I was watching some clips yesterday of planes landing on aircraft carriers. Do they have to land on the stern due to the plane’s mechanics? I get that safety of the pilot would be in jeopardy if they had to eject into the path of a carrier moving forward but does the mechanics of the plane and the ship prevent approach and landing off the bow?

 

[Oddball]

Well, it is obvious that you haven't thought about it.....at all.

 

[OKTexas]

Never thought much about it but I was watching some clips yesterday of planes landing on aircraft carriers. Do they have to land on the stern due to the plane’s mechanics? I get that safety of the pilot would be in jeopardy if they had to eject into the path of a carrier moving forward but does the mechanics of the plane and the ship prevent approach and landing off the bow?

If you knew anything about the dynamics of flight, you'd know that air speed is what keeps an aircraft aloft. The carrier turns into the wind when retrieving aircraft to help maintain the air speed of the aircraft. They launch into the wind for the same reason. They get a higher air speed with the same ground speed.

.

 

[Oddball]

If you knew anything about the dynamics of flight, you'd know that air speed is what keeps an aircraft aloft. The carrier turns into the wind when retrieving aircraft to help maintain the air speed of the aircraft. They launch into the wind for the same reason. They get a higher air speed with the same ground speed.

.

Half the story.

In order for aircraft to land on the ship on the front, the ship would have to be traveling downwind.

You would then have the ship and the aircraft moving in opposite directions for air operations....The potentially highly catastrophic consequences of which a 3rd grader could figure out.

As I said; the OP hasn't thought the situation through at all.

 

[luiza]

There will be no aircraft carriers next generation .
They are simply too easy to strike and destroy with Hyper Sonic missiles, for which there is no present defence .

Have a word with the Captain of the USS Harry Truman . He has real life experience .
As do the happy Houthi Tooty Freedom Fighters .

 

[luiza]

• 

Reactions:Stryder50

I see you have got tired of simple facts .
What Conspiracy Theory are you offering instead?

 

[Stryder50]

There will be no aircraft carriers next generation .
They are simply too easy to strike and destroy with Hyper Sonic missiles, for which there is no present defence .

Have a word with the Captain of the USS Harry Truman . He has real life experience .
As do the happy Houthi Tooty Freedom Fighters .

Much depends on the type of warhead on the hypersonic missile(s) and/or how many. Among other factors.

USN Aircraft Carriers have nearly a century of existence and experience and along with extensive combat results and damage have been designed with compartmentalization and damage control systems that are quite effective.

USN aircraft carriers, CVs, operate with a task force of several escorting warships which provide a ring of outer defense systems for dealing with air, surface, and subsurface threats, in combination with the aircraft stationed onboard the CV. In threat situations there is always one airborne radar and warning aircraft, AWACS, at least and combat air patrols plus others ready to launch.

The CV also has point defense anti-aircraft/missile systems like Phalanx, and newer systems are in design/development.

Modern warfare has been a history of constant R&D and new offensive methods often countered with new defensive methods.

USN CVs aren't going to cease to exist any time soon as part of essential over sea naval resources. Their primary value as mobile airfields, able to deploy to parts of the world where there are no land based airfields or friendly nation airfields make them an essential part of the USA's military preparedness and defense structure.

 

[luiza]

Much depends on the type of warhead on the hypersonic missile(s) and/or how many. Among other factors.

USN Aircraft Carriers have nearly a century of existence and experience and along with extensive combat results and damage have been designed with compartmentalization and damage control systems that are quite effective.

USN aircraft carriers, CVs, operate with a task force of several escorting warships which provide a ring of outer defense systems for dealing with air, surface, and subsurface threats, in combination with the aircraft stationed onboard the CV. In threat situations there is always one airborne radar and warning aircraft, AWACS, at least and combat air patrols plus others ready to launch.

The CV also has point defense anti-aircraft/missile systems like Phalanx, and newer systems are in design/development.

Modern warfare has been a history of constant R&D and new offensive methods often countered with new defensive methods.

USN CVs aren't going to cease to exist any time soon as part of essential over sea naval resources. Their primary value as mobile airfields, able to deploy to parts of the world where there are no land based airfields or friendly nation airfields make them an essential part of the USA's military preparedness and defense structure.

Appreciate your thorough reply .
But I repeat my main point that currently the US has no defense to Russian Hyper Sonic missiles .
From universal comment . And the same probably applies re. the Chinese .
And experts report that the US lags by an estimated decade in terms of catching up -- let alone going ahead .

Further, the effective US Carrier fleet is only about six as there are always 5 or 6 in dry dock -- for whatever reasons .
So , in theory the whole US fleet could be destroyed in a day if that was what was required .

Almost regardless, I find it difficult to imagine that big future conflicts will be fought with any above water ships or live troops .
They will be redundant in the face of computers , satellites and Direct Energy Weapons .

I suspect that outside the use of tactical nuclear warfare --- hopefully discounted on common sense grounds -- NATO and the Pentagon are fully aware of their present weak position , even if it is never officially admitted . For obvious reasons .
They therefore are working under a colossal handicap because in terms of present economic conditions they are all technically bankrupt like the US, or severely financially embarrassed .
If Iran is now producing high end wepons themselves, I imagine the EU plus UK would be wiped out very quickly indeed in a worst involvement scenario .
I guess the US might hang out a little longer but only because of distance and its size ,
But not good on any War Game analysis.
imho .

 

[Harry Dresden]

Appreciate your thorough reply .
But I repeat my main point that currently the US has no defense to Russian Hyper Sonic missiles .
From universal comment . And the same probably applies re. the Chinese .
And experts report that the US lags by an estimated decade in terms of catching up -- let alone going ahead .

Further, the effective US Carrier fleet is only about six as there are always 5 or 6 in dry dock -- for whatever reasons .
So , in theory the whole US fleet could be destroyed in a day if that was what was required .

Almost regardless, I find it difficult to imagine that big future conflicts will be fought with any above water ships or live troops .
They will be redundant in the face of computers , satellites and Direct Energy Weapons .

I suspect that outside the use of tactical nuclear warfare --- hopefully discounted on common sense grounds -- NATO and the Pentagon are fully aware of their present weak position , even if it is never officially admitted . For obvious reasons .
They therefore are working under a colossal handicap because in terms of present economic conditions they are all technically bankrupt like the US, or severely financially embarrassed .
If Iran is now producing high end wepons themselves, I imagine the EU plus UK would be wiped out very quickly indeed in a worst involvement scenario .
I guess the US might hang out a little longer but only because of distance and its size ,
But not good on any War Game analysis.
imho .

luiza no one here knows what the us military has or is working on....i live next to a pilot who flies out of nellis air base....he said i cant tell you the things we have right now but the us military has hyper sonic missile systems...the AF Army and Navy have their own versions.....and the navy recently shot down one in a test off of Hawaii coast...

 

[luiza]

luiza no one here knows what the us military has or is working on....i live next to a pilot who flies out of nellis air base....he said i cant tell you the things we have right now but the us military has hyper sonic missile systems...the AF Army and Navy have their own versions.....and the navy recently shot down one in a test off of Hawaii coast...

Yes
Just like Nazi Germany running up to WW2
and throughout .
They most certainly had some incredible weapons in development but they never were used .
We UAP watchers know all about reverse engineering from crash retrievals but with no hard evidence.
Why has the US never used one of these amazing weapons to avoid humiliation in all the conflicts it has lost ?
Very strange .
I am repeatedly assured that we have had ZPE and Anti Gravity from the ‘50s , but just assurances and no demonstration .
As ever I retain an open mind but like Cult Christians I am losingFaith .

 

[AZrailwhale]

Half the story.

In order for aircraft to land on the ship on the front, the ship would have to be traveling downwind.

You would then have the ship and the aircraft moving in opposite directions for air operations....The potentially highly catastrophic consequences of which a 3rd grader could figure out.

As I said; the OP hasn't thought the situation through at all.

The Yorktown class were designed to land aircraft over the bow while steaming astern.

 

[Oddball]

The Yorktown class were designed to land aircraft over the bow while steaming astern.

Does that arrangement have the two vehicles moving in the opposite direction during flight operations?

 

[candycorn]

The Yorktown class were designed to land aircraft over the bow while steaming astern.

Forgive my ignorance on the topic but I'm assuming that the direction the plane is landing and the direction the carrier is moving have to be roughly the same heading more or less. Does it have to be like the exact degree? Like if the heading is 180--due south...does the plane have to be headed 180 degrees too or can it "get away with" 178 or 182???

I imagine the elevator that brings the planes up to the flight deck is only on one side of the ship. So would it mean that the ship has to have the planes land to where they eventually stop is by that elevator?

Fun stuff to think about....

 

[Stryder50]

The Yorktown class were designed to land aircraft over the bow while steaming astern.

And steaming into the wind as well.
Note that the class was designed in late 1930s and commissioned 1941-42, when aircraft were transitioning from bi-wing to mono-wing and most landing speeds were in range of 80-100mph. And normally there were no arresting wires* for the hook to grab since such would interfere with the catapults on the bow deck. 2 of the 3 in the class were sunk early in the war, only the Enterprise survived to post-war.

USS Yorktown (CV-5) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Arresting wires are strung crosswise on the rear of the flight deck with intent of the landing aircraft snagging one with it's tail-hook when touching down on the deck as landing. In the older, "straight deck" design of carriers, there was a landing signal officer to direct the aircraft that was landing and if the approach was not correct, the pilot would get a wave-off and have to circle around for another try. Usually there was a net strung across the flight deck about mid-ship to catch the aircraft should the hook miss snagging an arrestor wire.

 

[Stryder50]

Appreciate your thorough reply .
But I repeat my main point that currently the US has no defense to Russian Hyper Sonic missiles .
From universal comment . And the same probably applies re. the Chinese .
And experts report that the US lags by an estimated decade in terms of catching up -- let alone going ahead .

Further, the effective US Carrier fleet is only about six as there are always 5 or 6 in dry dock -- for whatever reasons .
So , in theory the whole US fleet could be destroyed in a day if that was what was required .

Almost regardless, I find it difficult to imagine that big future conflicts will be fought with any above water ships or live troops .
They will be redundant in the face of computers , satellites and Direct Energy Weapons .

I suspect that outside the use of tactical nuclear warfare --- hopefully discounted on common sense grounds -- NATO and the Pentagon are fully aware of their present weak position , even if it is never officially admitted . For obvious reasons .
They therefore are working under a colossal handicap because in terms of present economic conditions they are all technically bankrupt like the US, or severely financially embarrassed .
If Iran is now producing high end wepons themselves, I imagine the EU plus UK would be wiped out very quickly indeed in a worst involvement scenario .
I guess the US might hang out a little longer but only because of distance and its size ,
But not good on any War Game analysis.
imho .

Usually no more than one in a dry dock, unless having received major damage needing major repairs. Dry dock stint usually about 15-20 years into service life when major overhauls and refits needed.

Like most types of warships, the one in three rule of operation applies.
One on active duty deployment.
A second on either wind-down or working up for deployment.
A third in for refit, restore/restock, upgrades, general repairs, etc.; usually moored (tied) to a wet dock.

The Air Wing of the non-active R&R ship(s) is usually deployed to land airfields for their rest, refit, re-training, etc.
The Air Wing of ships working up are refreshing in carrier take-off and landing and other training, while those for a wind-down are starting to deploy landside.

Usually there will be about 3-4 deployed and "On Station", distant from the USA. Another 3-4 either working up and training while in-route for a deploy/station, and 2-3 "down" for R&R, etc.
If situations(crisis) require, usually 2-3 additional can be surged to deploy, making it possible to have @ 5-6 on duty/deploy/station, but this will cost on the down-time/turn-around R&R schedules.

 

[Stryder50]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic but I'm assuming that the direction the plane is landing and the direction the carrier is moving have to be roughly the same heading more or less. Does it have to be like the exact degree? Like if the heading is 180--due south...does the plane have to be headed 180 degrees too or can it "get away with" 178 or 182???

I imagine the elevator that brings the planes up to the flight deck is only on one side of the ship. So would it mean that the ship has to have the planes land to where they eventually stop is by that elevator?

Fun stuff to think about....

A few answers here and reflect the evolution of design in aircraft carriers, a.k.a. CVs.

Originally the flight deck was a straight run on top of the ship and since they are designed to move forward, propellers in the back/stern; then aircraft would take-off going towards the front, bow, of the ship and land in that direction upon the rear/stern. In both cases the ship is moving into the wind direction so that the air flows over the deck and provides more lift to the aircraft wings. A CV at near full speed and into the wind can give an added 20-30mph to an aircraft's relative speed for takeoff. Moving into the wind for landing allows the aircraft to come in slightly slower than if it were landing on a land based runway.

This was standard up until about the mid 1950's when the angled flight deck was introduced. More on that in a moment.

In the picture shown here, of an Essex class CV, c.1944, one can see the two catapult tracks on the front/bow part of the flight deck. these weren't always used unless circumstance warranted. In this photo we see the aircrafts parked on the rear/stern of the flight deck and there is enough clear deck for the planes to launch forward under full throttle, no catapult assist needed. As the aircraft move forward out of the tight pack at the rear, their wings will unfold and lock into flight position.

Near the front/bow you will see the outline of a large square in the middle of the flight deck, this is one of three elevators on the ship for lowering/raising aircraft from the hanger below the flight deck. There is another elevator on the port(left) side of the ship, about mid-ships, and the third is at the stern, view blocked by the aircraft parked over it. Aircraft are moved about the deck either by man-power pushing and/or small tractors that can tow them. This is how the planes get to and from the elevators.

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

With design aircraft take-off and land along the long axis of the flight deck and the ship moves into the wind to help provide added lift under the wings, and reduce need for the pilot to deal with crosswinds when in the take-off/landing mode.

We'll go to another post to cover the changes in design in the mid-50's onward with the angled flight deck.

 

[progressive hunter]

As I said; the OP hasn't thought the situation through at all.

well it is candyass asking the question,,

hes not to bright,,

 

[Stryder50]

The British, Royal Navy, are the ones who thought up the angled flight deck approach to CV design and it resulted in added flexibility in flight operations on the carrier decks.

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This photo shows an aircraft carrier of the same class(type) as shown in post above, but with an enlarged flight deck modification know as the angled flight deck (@ 1962). We see two aircraft in the forward area about to use the catapults to launch, with others waiting to the rear. Notice the black and white coloring of the rear area. This shows a landing deck where the aircraft will come towards the ship slightly to the right side and moving slightly towards the left side, an angle crossing diagonal to the length of the ship.
(Also the rear elevator has been shifted to just astern of the Island, structure on the right/starboard side.)

With the old style of the straight flight deck, if there were no aircraft on the forward part of the deck, an airplane missing the arrestor wires with it's tailhook could just run down the deck, and take off for another try. But in a combat situation where you might have say 40 aircraft returning from a mission and running low on fuel, you need to get them to land as quick as you can. So as the planes landed they would be pushed forward and packed in on the bow until all had landed. In case there might be a miss of the wires, there was usually a net or two stung across the deck in the mid length to catch the plane that missed hooking the wire. Usually this worked, but on occasion the aircraft might have too much momentum and would plow through the net into the pack of aircraft on the bow.

The angled landing area at the rear of the flight deck solved this problem, and another one. As aircraft became jet powered and heavier, needing faster landing speeds, the straight deck with safety net began to see too many failures with crashes and aircraft destruction, and pilot/crew injuries/deaths.

With the angled deck for landing, if the aircraft missed hooking the wire, it goes off over the side. However, procedure is for it not to plunge into the sea doing such. So the modern approach has the jet aircraft coming down a bit faster than usual landing speed. If the hook snags the arrestor wire (there are about 5-6 for it to grab) the pilot cuts the throttle and applies the brakes, QUICKLY! If the hook fails to grab a wire, then the pilot jams the throttle full ahead and takes off the runway/deck - ideally.

I'm making it sound a bit more simple than it is. Landing speed varies based upon aircraft type, and it requires high alertness and training for the pilot to either successfully hook a wire and land, or bolt off the deck for a go around try.

So answer to your last question, with a straight flight deck design CV, one lands and takes off with the long axis of the ship, into the wind, and dead on same heading/direction.

With the angled flight deck design, one takes off straight in line with ship movement, but lands coming in at an angle to the motion of the ship. Aiming for that center white line.

Also, modern angle deck CV will have a third and/or fourth catapult in stern landing area pointing nearly straight towards front/bow of the ship allowing for 3-4 aircraft launches in quick order. Alternatively, if the deck isn't too crowded with parked planes, the carrier could be launching off the bow and taking landings on the stern at the same times.

 

[Stryder50]

In the two posts I made above the top link is for the photo shown and the lower link is to the Wiki page listing USA aircraft carriers, CVs.

This photo shows two newer CVs from the 1970s+ era. Their decks are too loaded with parked aircraft to conduct take-off and landing operations, but you can see on both CVs the openings below the flight decks for the three elevators on the starboard side of the ships.

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This next photo, from @ 2011, shows two newer current design CVs, showing much design details. #65 in foreground, with a near empty flight deck shows the four elevators, 3 on the starboard side (two with doors closed), and one on the portside, rear.

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This photo from 2020 shows two even newer and larger design CVs. The one, #78, in foreground shows a good view of the four catapult launchers. Those small darkish rectangles are the blast shields that pop up before a launch to deflect the jet engine blasts.

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Appreciate your thorough reply .
But I repeat my main point that currently the US has no defense to Russian Hyper Sonic missiles .
From universal comment . And the same probably applies re. the Chinese .
And experts report that the US lags by an estimated decade in terms of catching up -- let alone going ahead .

Further, the effective US Carrier fleet is only about six as there are always 5 or 6 in dry dock -- for whatever reasons .
So , in theory the whole US fleet could be destroyed in a day if that was what was required .

Almost regardless, I find it difficult to imagine that big future conflicts will be fought with any above water ships or live troops .
They will be redundant in the face of computers , satellites and Direct Energy Weapons .

I suspect that outside the use of tactical nuclear warfare --- hopefully discounted on common sense grounds -- NATO and the Pentagon are fully aware of their present weak position , even if it is never officially admitted . For obvious reasons .
They therefore are working under a colossal handicap because in terms of present economic conditions they are all technically bankrupt like the US, or severely financially embarrassed .
If Iran is now producing high end wepons themselves, I imagine the EU plus UK would be wiped out very quickly indeed in a worst involvement scenario .
I guess the US might hang out a little longer but only because of distance and its size ,
But not good on any War Game analysis.
imho .

I've war gamed/conflict simulated those future scenarios and I can't share your pessimism.

To much raw material and goods need to move by surface ships and surface warships will be needed to protect and/or attack such.
Also, surface ships will be needed to move troops and vehicles overseas and provide amphibious landing options.

Computers have their limits (GIGO) and most are easy victim to EMP.
Satellites are vulnerable to destruction/neutralize. (Can't hide in orbit)
Direct Energy Weapons still mostly in R&D stage, and they require huge energy supplies, that is one of the weak links in their chain.

There are only so many submarines, they also require down time for R&R, and ASW is getting better all the time.

Hyper sonic missiles aren't very maneuverable, and not invincible. Direct Energy Weapons and things like a rail gun could shot them down or destroy them. Directed EMP might also be effective.

One thing that is a weak link for the USA, and few know or discuss it, is that our supply of expendable munitions is rather small. In an intense and extended conflict, we might consume most (to all) of them within a couple weeks to a month, and then be SOL. The lag time to build them, especially PGMs, is months or more. Also some of the production lines have been reduced or shut down. This is an area that needs immediate attention and action since there is increasing probability for enlarged conventional global conflict(s) in near future.