Originally Posted by Maxor

Not that its really relevant for anything but U-2's have taken off and landed on carriers in testing and practice. Just because its thoretically possible in a tight near emergancy situation doesn't mean its really a good idea. With some aircraft the issue of landing is less of a problem than getting it back off the deck again. The f-15 and f-16 as well as some other older USAF fighters also have tailhooks, they aren't really carrier capable though since the landing gear and plane airframe can't really stand up to the sudden stop as well as the navalized planes can (Its used for engine testing and emergancy landing on land you could probably get a carrier landing or two out of them without really damaging the plane but its strongly not recommended sorta like turning on your car and taking it immedately to redline or overclocking your computer significantly).


You are looking at about 15% extra structural bulk frame wise over a non-carrier capable airplane with everything else being equal. The land version of the hornet was actually almost 30% lighter but that was also a fairly extensive redesign including changing the fuel system signifcantly. It makes for an interesting question about how much weight could be easily saved by making a land only version for export, and how that would effect cost/handeling. I think it would have to be something of a half measure because it simply wouldn't be worth retooling the entire airframe but lightening the landing gear and chaning the tailhook to the lighter AF version might be worth it and be doable cheaply.