How come the the landing area on aircraft carriers not be straight?

Why not straighten the landing area on the port side of the aircraft carrier so the naval aviators don't have to land on an angle while the ship is still moving which the aviators have to keep compensating prior to landing. I know that old WW2 aircraft carriers where the aviators land straight and could crash and it could endanger the ship if crashing into a row of aircraft sitting there or into the bridge and the design of the modern carriers are built on that. But the modern aircraft carriers have room where the landing area could be move to port side that if the aviator makes a mistake and crash, he or she would still crash landed and the wrecked aircraft is still skidding out to the port side. And also make it easier for aviators to land while the carrier is still moving. I know that moving the landing area to port side would mean the loss of one of the elevators also.

From the days when I was on the USS John F. Kennedy....

It is because if they missed the stop wire (forgot name) they could take off again without running over the other planes getting ready for take off and not kill the airdales roaming the flight deck.

They DO miss those lines sometimes.

Originally posted by godservant
From the days when I was on the USS John F. Kennedy....

It is because if they missed the stop wire (forgot name) they could take off again without running over the other planes getting ready for take off and not kill the airdales roaming the flight deck.

They DO miss those lines sometimes.

Thats why I say straighten the runway by having the whole landing area move to port side. As you see the angled deck where it points towards the port side, I want the bottom part of the landing deck shifted straight while still pointing outward to sea. Kind of like a ruler on your desk, its angled, but I want to move the bottom part of the ruler to the left to straighten out while the top part does not move much.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by deltaboy]

It would take a few hundred added tons of very expensive material to do that, whereas the way it is now achieves the same result with much less mass.

Even so, adding more weight reduces maneuverability and adds vulnerability.

Its a warship.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by sozzledboot]

If the wind is coming straight down the main deck -IE: parallel with the keel - landing on the angled deck is the same as a mild crosswind landing.

Compensation for the angle deck pulling away from you looks to be easily done as well.

The pattern flown could have the plane following the main deck and then a turn just before landing.

More than likely the pattern flown does follow the angled deck and perhaps there is a small amount of slipping done to keep the plane's angle aligned to the landing deck.

Speed may have a lot to do with it.
With the high approach speeds of the jets, the angled deck pulling away may be no dig deal and it's treated the same as a straight on land runway approach.


It does look like they could fill in the left rear area of the deck easily.
Not to gain a parallel landing deck, but to add some on-deck parking area.
Two, perhaps three F-14's could be added to that area.


WW2 Corsairs did the final turn for deck alignment very close to the fantail as part of their normal landing pattern.
That because of the lack of visibility over the long nose.
Until they did that, the Corsairs were deemed non-viable for carrier use.

Granted, another era and slower speeds, but just part of showing what's required for some situations.

Also, the angled deck allows for launch and retrieval operations to be carried on simultaneously. If an aircraft has a non-catastrophic problem immediately after take-off, it can quickly come around and make an emergency landing. Also as previously stated, if a landing aircraft misses all four arrestor cables, it has a better chance of making a go around without plowing into other aircraft staged on the deck. I would also add that if an aircraft does have a catastrophic failure on takeoff, or misses all four wires and is unable to go around, there is a higher probability the pilot will be able to ditch his plane without being run over by the ship.

I´d also say tha with the current configuration the "Island" is as much out of harm´s way as possible; after all the Island is about the only object on deck that cannot be retracted or moved in case of an emergency.

Originally posted by godservant
From the days when I was on the USS John F. Kennedy....

It is because if they missed the stop wire (forgot name) they could take off again without running over the other planes getting ready for take off and not kill the airdales roaming the flight deck.

They DO miss those lines sometimes.

First things first, Semper Fi on your pic (85-92) for me. Secondly, its called the arresting wire/cable. Your reasoning is correct, also its so they can launch AND recover aircraft at the same time.

I'm glad to see they are going to locate the island farther aft in the new CVN-21 class. The layout of the deck also allows the simultaneous launching of multiple aircraft classes, as well as the previously mentioned recovery/launch scenario.

Originally posted by Lordling
I'm glad to see they are going to locate the island farther aft in the new CVN-21 class. The layout of the deck also allows the simultaneous launching of multiple aircraft classes, as well as the previously mentioned recovery/launch scenario.

Nice pic, sometimes I wish I was still active duty, I miss working around military aircraft.

Also, the angled deck allows for launch and retrieval operations to be carried on simultaneously.

Icarus Rising has it right - the advantage of the angled deck is that it allows the CV to simultaneously launch and recover aircraft, while also being able to surge aircraft more quickly (more cats) for large launch operations. Straight deck carriers can't do that. You could build another parallel deck to serve the same purpose - but you'd end up with a ship that couldn't fit through the Panama Canal.

[edit on 3/20/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex

Icarus Rising has it right - the advantage of the angled deck is that it allows the CV to simultaneously launch and recover aircraft, while also being able to surge aircraft more quickly (more cats) for large launch operations. Straight deck carriers can't do that. You could build another parallel deck to serve the same purpose - but you'd end up with a ship that couldn't fit through the Panama Canal.

Im not asking for a carrier that is based on the whole entire deck going straight like Invincible class carrier. As I have said, move the landing deck to the port side of the carrier. It can still launch carrier operations as well as recover, only its straight and not angled, but as someone mentioned that it would require more materials to add more area to the deck, however it will not mean changing the ship altogther that require increase size of the ship that it can't fit throught the Panama Canal. As I try to explain, imagine the ruler on your desk as the landing area with the white straight lines, and you move the bottom part of the ruler to the left while keep the top part still pointed outward to sea, which avoids any possibility of crashing and destroying any sitting aircraft.

Sorry but a Nimitz Class already cannot fit through the Panama Canal, it has to go around Cape Horn to reach the West Coast.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sorry but a Nimitz Class already cannot fit through the Panama Canal, it has to go around Cape Horn to reach the West Coast.

Yes, the Nimitz class already too big cannot fit through the Canal, so the increase size of the carrier wouldn't matter anyways. Thank you WP for pointing that out.

Sorry but a Nimitz Class already cannot fit through the Panama Canal, it has to go around Cape Horn to reach the West Coast.

Just looked it up and you're right. Never knew that before.

Still the angled deck seems to offer practical advantages that stright decks don't. All large carriers these days have them, US, Russian & French alike.

if you had a straight landing deck you would not be able to launch and retrive at the same time. also you wouldn't be able to launch that fast either. when planes launch they don't just fly straight for a while and then turn. they may have to launch and turn quickly.


if you have watched any of the crash video's on the net you would see that if a plane crashes on landing the carrier is still able to launch aircraft as the debris is usually on a straight line, widening path with the crashing airplane. if it were straight then instead of debris going over the edge you might have it hitting aircraft waiting to launch.

sure landing is at an angle compared to the direction of the ship. but landing in a crosswind on a fixed runway is similar

High tempo flight ops.

And so the carrier doesn't run over you if you screw up, miss the wires and go into the water instead of lifting again.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
High tempo flight ops.

And so the carrier doesn't run over you if you screw up, miss the wires and go into the water instead of lifting again.

As long as its on the straight port side of the landing area, they will not get run over. And any aircraft that misses the four wires can still fly back up, because the port side straight landing is still sticking out to the left.

Ok I just want to post this proposed design visually because I think there is still some confusion going on. After drawing it out I must say I’m not yet convinced that this twin deck proposal wont be as efficient and safe as the current configuration.

Ok, this is the current CVN-21 design.



This is deltaboy’s proposed design

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok I just want to post this proposed design visually because I think there is still some confusion going on. After drawing it out I must say I’m not yet convinced that this twin deck proposal wont be as efficient and safe as the current configuration.

Ok, this is the current CVN-21 design.

This is deltaboy’s proposed design

Thank you WP!!! Thats what I meant. Its far better than using the ruler on a desk to make comparison. I was thinking about drawing and putting it up, but you were thinking way ahead. O yeah, why do you think its not safe?

O yeah I see it now, if aircraft misses or crashes its not farther out than we comfortably like. However I would say we could extend it outward a couple of more feet though.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by deltaboy]