If a plane was out at sea and had a fuel leak or something that

Idk, sounds doubtful. But if you ditched they'd pick you up I bet

>>31078286

given the overall protectiveness of the USN towards its carriers, the skill set needed to land on a carrier, the size of a carrier deck, and the specialized equipment needed to land on a carrier successfully... no fucking way.

>>31078286

To land on a carrier you need a tail hook. You also need pretty significant structural enhancement to the plane forbthat tail hook to not just rip the back of the plane off as it lands on the carrier.

On top of that the carrier is a very small landing surface and it is rocking in the sea. So let's say, for some reason, a civilian craft DID have a tail hook and the strength needed the pilot would almost certainly not be able to land on a carrier.

If the plane could communicate with the carrier well enough to land it could bail into the water and the crew and passengers would stand a good chance of being rescued alive.

So no, a carrier wouldn't under any normal circumstances even be ABLE to let a civilian craft land on it.

a carrier is a quarter mile long, that's plenty of room for like a cessena 172 to naland

>>31078380

what is a Cessna 172 doing that far off shore, and why hasn't REDCROWN shot them down before they got close to a carrier?

>>31078286
They probably wouldn't allow a landing for the reasons mentioned above but they'd be on SAR pretty damn quickly.

>>31078368
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind

>>31078294
This.
You aren't coming near a carriers air space with out a shit load of authorization. Even other American planes can't just loli over to another carrier weazy peazy

>>31078543

Because the U.S is spineless, same reason why a tu95's have flown over carrier groups and nothing happens, same reasons subs have surfaced a few miles from Carriers and nothing happens.


U.S wont do shit.

>>31078286
No!

>>31078726
Isn't that allowed within the Open Skies Treaty and/or international waters? Not polite, but not horrible.

Unless you're talking about the buzzing incidences, then that's different.

>>31078699
You cant just shoot trespassers in international waters. It goes both ways.

the chinese certainly havent shot down all those spy planes they bitch about.

the soviets didnt shoot down all the B-52s making bee-lines to their back door only to turn at the last second.

measured brinksmanship is part of the international dick-waving contest, nothing to truly worry about. When it DOES go hot it tends to go bad, and occasionally airliners get to be the victim (KAL 007 As an example)

>>31078286
Your typical civi plane lacks any type of fortification necessary to land on the hook in the first place, and the pilots lack the training to reliably do so in IDEAL conditions, let alone during some emergency. And even then there is a high probability that any plane with the range to get out that far simply wont fit on the carrier. They arent Star Destroyers, they arent that big. Bigger relative to a lot of things? Yes. But not THAT big.

>>31078543
*PIRAZ

Wow, people have no fucking clue on this.

Yes it would happen.

There are laws on the high seas.
I hate to use the movie "water world" for this example!e, but its legit.

You cannot deny safe harbor unless you're at war on the high seas.

>>31078947
It may not be 'safe' harbor though. Landing gear structures on planes designed for aircraft carriers are often built to 3x the strength levels as 'traditional' land based.

>>31078947
>Gee shall we let someone that has no idea how to land on a carrier land on a carrier

>Fuck no

And there you have it

>>31078976
Would a WW2 aircraft be able to land safely on a modern carrier?

>>31078726
>Single craft that have been tracked from the moment they were under construction and could be destroyed at any time allowed to continue existing when they annoy a carrier.

It's purely to avoid an international incident. The USN could cancel the PLAN in about a half hour and wipe out every Tu-95 in the world in a day.

>>31078902
nigger have you ever seen one of those fuckers in reality? those niggers are almost a quarter mile long

>>31078947
The issue isnt "safe harbor" when there is a good chance that "safe harbor" literally involves part of the plane smacking the tower and killing people OR the plane having a grave amount of structural damage as it smacks the line, OR the pilot stands a good chance of rolling the plane over into the ocean anyway. Oceanic landings adjacent to a carrier group in that sense is way more forgiving

>>31079050
That depends on the aircraft. A B-28? No. A Hellcat? Sure. Pretty much any fighter built in world war 2 could land on a 330 meter runway.

>>31079061
I am aware of their size. But big planes need big places to land for the same basic reason that semi trucks cant stop as fast as a honda civic, even when both are going 60mph to start.

i am saying that trying to land a 747-like plane on a 1/4 mile carrier with NO reinforcement with a plane wildly oversized (width wise) compared to the deck with a pilot who has likely never attempted anything like this during an emergency is absurdly dangerous compared to the carrier guiding it down to the sea then picking them up.

If there's no possible way to return to land, they probably would advise the plane to ditch in the water somewhat nearby and attempt a rescue.

Given the odds of landing an unequipped and questionably compromised aircraft safely on a rolling ship filled with people, explosives and nuclear material, versus a relatively even and stable expanse of water...

File: VNAF_pilot_jumps_into_the_sea_from_his_Huey.jpg (59KB, 800x457px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x457px

>>31078663
>All those Hueys and other aircraft they pushed into the sea.
Also fucking this
>A VNAF pilot jumps from his UH-1 Huey after dropping off evacuees on USS Midway during Operation Frequent Wind
Holy shit

>>31078368
>To land on a carrier you need a tail hook.


Ahem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHAqePYliU

>>31079102
>>31079072
>>31079061
>>31078368
Not all Civilian planes are airliners, not all civilian planes carry passengers, not all civilian planes tiny little planes with only a few hundred kilometer flight radius. There are a great any civilian air craft physically capable of landing on a carrier.

>>31078976
The only reason Fighter craft landing gear are so strong is because the planes themselves come in far faster and far harder than normal aircraft. The Navy did it with a C130 for fucks sake unmodified with no tow hook. Both landed AND took off. if a C130 can do it then a great deal more aircraft can do it.

Cessnas don't need much runway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqrjbAKdIMA

File: 1471291318730.jpg (39KB, 534x490px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 534x490px

>>31078368
Private Pilot here.
I'm pretty sure one could land a Cessna 172 or similar small, recreational prop plane on a carrier, theoretically anyway. I sure as hell wouldn't want to fucking try it though...okay maybe a little. Id say anything up to the size, weight and stall speed of a Piper Arrow could do it, albeit not in the best shape.

There was a mission on FSX exactly like this, I did some research and apparently you're encouraged to try a water landing

>>31079467
The landing was impressive - no doubt this plane could land even on a small heli carrier.

I would think if it were a serious emergency, the web of communications will eventually get to the carrier group. At most, they'll probably send a few jets to monitor the plane and once it makes emergency water landing, I wouldn't be surprised if USN ships go pick survivors out of the water.

>>31078699
>loli over to another carrier
damn it now i want a loli carrier. fuck aircraft.

>>31078286
I don't think the plane would be able to land on such a short runway, they don't have the hook for the cable

>>31078368
>it is rocking in the sea
lolno

>>31079410
But here is a problem, any plane with a fuel range big enough to put it in the middle of an ocean (if it was closer to land on an airstrip or highway country-side, it would) would most likely be fairly large. Which again, poses the size issue. A cropduster isnt going to wind up in the middle of the atlantic or pacific, so this would need to be a fairly big plane to hold all that fuel. And that still wouldnt address the pilot's skill and lack of tail hook

>>31079247
Did he die or did they go get him?

File: AR-150509788.jpg (67KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x540px

it happened once during the vietnam war