Could any modern CATOBAR jet aircraft trap on a 1930s CV?

[Admiral Beez]

Just sitting here, mind wandering into silly town….. could a modern jet (not turboprop) fixed wing, non-STOVL carrier aircraft currently in fleet service (sorry A-4 fans) running at minimum weight land on any 1930s carrier using the arrestor gear of the time?

We'd need to keep the weight down, so our time traveller needs to fly something light, perhaps a 10,000 lb. McDonnell Douglas T-45 Goshawk, 23,000 lb. Sukhoi Su-25UTG, or the 25,000 lb. Dassault Rafale M.

 

[SaparotRob]

I understand your restriction because it's the easiest(?) choice but I think the A-4 is probably the best choice.

 

[GrauGeist]

So...I'm assuming the Harrier is out of the running?

 

[TheAircraftBuilder]

In a word. No.

In more than a few words.....

A jet carrier landing is like a controlled crash where the sink rate is akin to several hundred feet a minute and the landing speeds a good bit higher also. Prop aircraft of the 30s were not pounding into the deck at such a speed. As you correctly point out weight is another issue - even a 'small' carrier capable jet is a heavy old lump on a par to a WW2 medium bomber. All of the above means you'd need a bigger carrier built far more robustly than what was on offer - you'd possibly get one landing before ending up with a dented carrier and/or lots of aircraft parts littering the ocean!

That's just my understanding of the matter at any rate. Look at how comically beefed up the landing gear is on a carrier jet in order to take the enormous forces involved.

 

[The Basket]

If you look at say 25th of May the Argentina carrier, that was a WW2 carrier carrying modern jet.

So maybe you can use that as a research basis.

 

[TheAircraftBuilder]

The Argentine CV was somewhat upgraded from original spec to handle jets (even then I think they were limited to A-4s?).

 

[Snautzer01]

1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[EwenS]

Highly unlikely. Deck strength is only part of the issue, albeit an important one.

The spec for the Essex class in 1941 called for a fight deck able to support ".... maximum working stress of 25,000lbs per square inch." That was when aircraft like the Avenger and Helldiver were on order. Postwar that was upgraded in the SCB-27 conversion to allow it to cope with aircraft up to 52,000lbs like the North American AJ Savage.

The other factor is the ability of the arrester gear to stop the landing aircraft. Typical arrester gear had the following limits:-

Lexington class as built - 8,000lb at 60 knots entry speed
Essex class - 12,000lb at 75 knot entry speed
Midway - 30,000lb at 78 knots entry speed.

Eagle from 1936, Hermes & Courageous class - 11,000lb at 53 knots
Ark Royal & Illustrious class as designed - 11,000lb at 55 knots
Implacable class - 20,000lb at 60 knots.

And then there is the "pull out" distance to consider i.e the distance over which the aircraft, having caught an arrester wire, will pull it out over before it is brought to a halt. The arrester gear is today tensioned for each type of aircraft to ensure the airframe is not overstressed.

So, even if the aircraft weight can be brought within 1930s limits, the approach speed will probably still be higher and the flight deck probably not long enough to allow the aircraft to be stopped before it either hits the barrier (if there is one, as not all did in the 1930s) on a straight decked carrier, or runs off the forward end (depends on location of the arrester gear relative to the stern). IIRC modern aircraft will pull the wire out over some 250 feet. Not all 1930s carriers would have that much landing area to play with. I doubt that an. Arrester wire of that era would pull out much beyond 150 feet, with some being shorter as you approach the barrier.

Those British WW2 light fleet carriers that went on to operate jets and Trackers all had their flight decks strengthened.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I understand your restriction because it's the easiest(?) choice but I think the A-4 is probably the best choice.

Dispair not, the T-45 Goshawk is lighter and slower than the A-4. With a stall speed of about 105 knots and a min weight of about 11,000 lbs. (not far off from the takeoff weight of the Douglas TBD Devastator) the Goshawk might be able to do it. Use a Lexington-class aircraft carrier running at 33 knots, set the wires for their loaded TBD recovery setting.

 

[TheAircraftBuilder]

Dispair not, the T-45 Goshawk is lighter and slower than the A-4. With a stall speed of about 105 knots and a min weight of about 11,000 lbs. (not far off from the takeoff weight of the Douglas TBD Devastator) the Goshawk might be able to do it. Use a Lexington-class aircraft carrier running at 33 knots, set the wires for their loaded TBD recovery setting.

Presumably not carrying much of anything in way of payload or fuel. It would still be an 'interesting' experiment but not one you'd find many willing volunteers to undertake!

Please also bear in mind that landing approach speed will be higher than stall speed by a fair margin for obvious reasons.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The arrestor gear will be the problem in most cases, though the planes mentioned above with light weights etc may be able to get by.

At that point, getting the jet flying off the carrier is going to be the problem.

 

[EwenS]

Figure I've found for the T-45 approach speed is 125 knots.

Edit - there is a manual here with various landing speeds v aircraft weight. 11,000lb = 114 Knots IAS rising to 133 knots IAS at 15,000lb. All with full flap.

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-1212.pdf

Another problem for your 1930s carrier. No optical landing system on the ship for the pilot to follow. Can the batsman cope with the high approach speed?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Another problem for your 1930s carrier. No optical landing system on the ship for the pilot to follow. Can the batsman cope with the high approach speed?

The lack of landing system is a problem for the pilot, since they'll have no experience landing without the guidance systems onboard and linked with the CVN. But having a straight stern approach rather than angled to port should help.

Our Goshawk pilot comes in at 120 knots with the CV flanked to 33 knots with only #7 and 8 wires aft and all eight forward wires up (no barrier up, to allow for bolter), cuts throttle to drop onto the deck far aft at 110 knots, runs the brakes for 50-75 feet before catching wire 8.

 

[Shortround6]

Ugh, guys, the energy the arrestor system has to deal with goes up with square of speed.

10,000lb plane coming in at 60 knots will have 4 times the energy of a 10,000lb plane at 120 knots.

A 15,000lb plane at 60 kts is easier to handle than 10,000lb plane at 90kts.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Shortround6,

Typo! in line 2 "10,000lb plane coming in at 60 knots will have 4 times the energy of a 10,000lb plane at 120 knots" - "4" should be "1/4".

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks

 

[cherry blossom]

Just for completeness, the IJN Taiho was rated for a 13,200lb aircraft at 78 knots (6 tons at 30 m/s) according to Armoured Aircraft Carriers. The good news is that you have a landing light system but it is not gyro stabilized. Taiho made over 33 knots on trials and the armoured part of the deck, 75 mm on 19mm, should survive the impact.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Argentine CV was somewhat upgraded from original spec to handle jets (even then I think they were limited to A-4s?).View attachment 651208

Had the Argentines, Indians, Australians, Canadians, etc. kept their Colossus/Majestic class carriers in their CATOBAR layout I wonder what strike-fighter would have replaced the A-4s, Sea Hawks and Banshees. F-6 Crusader is too big. I suppose they'd need to stay with Skyhawks, so it's something like the ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk into the 1990s.

 

[EwenS]

The problem isn't so much one of what aircraft can be operated from these carriers, as what kind of useful load such an aircraft could carry while doing so.

In 1982 in the South Atlantic the Argentinians wanted to operate their A-4Q Skyhawks from the deck of 25th of May with a load of 4x500lb bombs. This proved impossible because of the unusual zero wind conditions encountered and the limited speed of the carrier herself (25 knots when brand new in 1945. But how much lower in 1982?). They reduced it to 2 bombs by which time they concluded the risk was not worth the potential reward.

During 1981 25th of May had been refitted to operate Dassault Super Etendard aircraft. There is video footage of them qualifying on her deck but these were lightly loaded (no weapons visible under wings or fuselage).


So the question would be how much wind over the deck would be required to allow an Etendard to operate off the deck carrying an Exocet on its usual underwing station and a balancing drop tank on the opposite wing without even thinking about the defensive Matra Magic self defence AAM that could be carried on the outboard pylons. This is one launching off the larger FNS Foch in 1983.

File:Super Étendard with Exocet launching from Foch (R99) 1983.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.m.wikimedia.org