That’s pretty much the question. I know that a carrier’s air assets are usually disembarked before arriving in port, so in a friendly port, the planes are going to be nearby. But what if the planes stayed with the ship instead? Could they be launched and recovered? Is it a situation of “strongly not advised” or “simply can’t be done”? I’m envisioning a Pearl Harbor sort of situation where the enemy has arrived and is pounding the port. Could a carrier mount a defense while moored alongside the dock?
I have never been in the Navy and I’m sure our Navy Dopers will chime in with great detail, but if the carrier were operated under the same procedures as when actually in sea, I don’t see why not. The main difference would be that there might be ground interference, i.e., your radar may see buildings and clutter, the airplanes would have more collision hazards, missiles might accidentally hit buildings, but otherwise it would be theoretically the same.
I have an 8 mm reel dad took while he was on USS Oklahoma City (CLG-5) in Japan. It shows an A-4 Skyhawk launching from a docked aircraft carrier.
Don’t aircraft carriers alter speed and course to assist take-offs and landings of their aircraft? Not being able to do this might make take-offs and landings more difficult.
I don’t know for sure (being a former submariner and never having served aboard a bird farm 
), but it seems to me to it may be possible, but will also reduce the margin for error and/or reduce the maximum takeoff weight or landing weight. The reason is that aircraft carriers turn into the wind and also produce their own wind across the deck by means of their own speed while underway. The combined effect may add 20-30 knots. This is a “bonus” for aircraft being launched as well during aircraft recovery.
I don’t think this would happen at all. Most, if not all, US Navy ports are located in medium to large metropolitan areas. Where I live, there are Navy ports in Bremerton and Everett, 2 medium sized cities and both have residential housing near the bases. The home base for the squadrons for the carriers home based at these ports is NAS Whidbey Island which is located in a much more rural area. Even at Whidbey, where I was assigned for 2 years while I was in the Navy, the local citizenry still complained about the noise from base operations. The city of Oak Harbor has grown a lot since I was there in the late 70’s and the complaints have grown with the population.
When I was transferred from Whidbey to the sub base at Point Loma, I went from rural to a larger city. The 32nd Street Naval base is located right next to downtown San Diego. There is also the Coronado bridge in the area, both of these would mean no flying from any carriers at that base. Squadrons have NAS Coronado right across San Diego Bay to conduct flight operations. The 2 largest Naval bases the US have, Norfolk and Pearl Harbor, both have Naval Air Stations in close proximity for performing flight operations. The location of both would prevent any kind of flight operations from carriers while in port.
Not a Pilot, but I served on the USS Ranger CV-61 for my time at sea.
Jet operations can’t really be done in port. To launch jets the carrier needs to get up to a fairly decent speed and usually heading into the wind on top of that.
So it isn’t really the buildings and bridges that are the issue.
I can’t speak to the new Marine F-35 that I believe can achieve vertical take off. Helicopters of course can.
We did launch the mail planes from Coronado to fly out to the carriers. I was a passenger once. Jets flew from further inland like the Miramar air base IIRC.
Any regular carrier port will also have an airbase like Miramar nearby.
Of course, helicopters could be used.
So, we know that the SOP for a carrier is to get its planes off the deck and to a nearby air station when it comes into port. So why would an A-4 launch when the carrier is docked?
I would guess your dad saw a plane that was scratched from flight operations on the day of the flyoff - possibly a missing or damaged part. Once they get into port, they could get it repaired, but then it’s still sitting there on the deck or in the hangar, possibly interfering with what they were trying to do with the carrier, or else not participating in training with the rest of the squadron.
Since the A-4 is a very light aircraft, and that delta wing gives a lot of lift, it might well be that the best way to get the plane off the deck and back to the rest of the carrier’s air complement was to fly it there, probably with no payload, a really low fuel status, and the lightest pilot in the squadron at the controls. I’d guess an A-6 or F-4 might have presented more of a challenge to get off the deck.
So while I’m not sure it should be quite considered “flight operations,” it is an interesting historical curiousity.
Exactly, one plane hardly qualifies as flight operations. Just an abnormal event.
The catapult launches at 165-170 mph and most carrier aircraft have a takeoff speed close to that or even a little higher. Depending on the takeoff speed (which depends on weight, atmospheric conditions, etc), a 30 knot headwind may be little more than an additional safety factor or it may be an absolute necessity.
Can you perform flight operations with heavily loaded aircraft? Probably not. Can you launch a plane? Sure.
In 1971, the USS Saratoga started sinking while docked in Athens, so they started launching aircraft. I looked for an official report or something but couldn’t find one, but this book claims they shot 53 jets off as fast as they could.
Since they were in a port visit, I presume none of them were armed and all were light enough to get up to takeoff speed without needing a headwind.
If the launch system speed is close to the stall speed of the plane then they could probably launch with minimum fuel and no heavy weapons. Consider that an F-35 a has fuel payload of 18,000 lbs and can carry 18,000 lbs of weapons there’s a lot to work with.
FWIW, the footage my dad captured must have been in 1965. I’m certain the carrier was an Essex class. Knowing my dad, I think he would have captured every launch; but he only captured the one. SunUp posted what I had assumed.
I have grandparents buried at Point Loma. Maternal grandfather was a submariner.
08/15/71: The USS Saratoga (CVA-60) suffers flooding in an engine room while anchored off Athens, Greece … Anchorage off Athens is an at sea anchorage so would be exposed to the sea breeze, a headwind is guaranteed… ? We would need the full story for the event anyway, they might have just sent the planes away since the ship was going to be under maintenance for a while ?Not due to the ship being at risk of sinking or anything. if it wasn’t in a rush, they could have waited for a suitable seabreeze to launch the planes ?
Don’t they use catapults so as to reduce dependency on headwind ? In WW2 Japan did miss an attack opportunity due to the lack of any wind for launching planes … the ships max speed wasnt quite enough for launching on a windless day… but that was before catapults.
The original question must mean like, if they are docked , or at best anchored in a waterway like San Francisco’s Bay or Sydney Harbour.
There would be no plane movements when the carrier is DOCKED… for safety… an incident in port, eg while docked, could turn into a massive disaster…
Anchor offshore to refuel, resupply, give the crew some shore leave… Ok keep the planes on board… the ship can get underway in only a short time, if something happens eg over at Egypt or Israel, it can set off soon… But if docking, make the ship as safe as possible… You don’t want a Princeton style explosion while its docked…
I certainly looked for more official information but couldn’t find any. There are sailors out there that tell stories about it, but this is the most official thing I could find. However, it’s clear they were emergency launches. They may or may not have had a headwind. If they did I highly doubt it was 35 knots.
The original question said “in port” then at the end said “moored alongside the dock.” I don’t care if being docked makes it more dangerous or would never be allowed, only whether it’s possible. I don’t believe it really matters as the OP is asking about normal flight operations, even a battle, which I don’t think are possible either anchored or docked. But that doesn’t mean all launches are impossible. If they can get a plane to launch speed, which probably means it’s lightly loaded, they can launch it. It will be possible for some planes, not possible for others.
Here is a video of the Constellation launching fighters at what appears to be a relative standstill. It is moving incredibly slowly, making steerage, but watch the steam from the catapult, it is standing still or even blowing forward a little bit. They’re definitely getting zero headwind whatsoever for those launches. She might as well be anchored or docked. The Conny, and the Saratoga for that matter, both had slightly less powerful and 60ft shorter catapults than what is used now.
So at least for those three aircraft (S-3, F-18, F-14) on that particular carrier, zero-headwind launches are possible. The F-14 is the heaviest of these planes by a good margin.
This page gives some basic specs on carrier catapults:
The catapult stroke takes about three seconds. According to this, they aim to get a plane up to about 170 MPH before liftoff (this may vary from type to type). That’s an acceleration of 56.7 MPH per second; one G is 22 MPH per second, so the total thrust-to-weight ratio (including catapult force and engine thrust) during launch would need to be about 2.6:1. From the Wikipedia page, the Saratoga’s cats can provide 40,000-70,000 pounds of force (more at lower speed, less at higher speed; call it an average of 55,000 pounds). The F-14’s engines can deliver a combined 56,400 pounds of thrust. So if the total force available during launch is 111,400 pounds, and we need 2.6 G, then the tomcat can only weigh 43,000 pounds at launch. That’s the tomcat’s empty weight, so:
- they must have had that plane loaded with barely enough fuel to get to the nearest runway
- the tomcat must not require a full 170 MPH to take to the air
- the higher cat force early in the stroke must make all the difference (like a drag racing car having high engine torque at low RPM)
The situation looks to be just as marginal for the S-3: my calc gives a max permissible takeoff weight of 28,550 pounds (versus an empty weight of 26,581 lbs).
For both of these planes, it seems like the catapult’s higher force early in the stroke and lower force later on (like a drag racing car whose engine makes high torque at low RPM) must make all the difference in providing enough forward speed for zero-headwind operation.
For the F-18, my calc gives a max allowable weight of 35,146 pounds, against an empty weight of 23,000 pounds, so the hornet seems like it has no problem here at all.
Fellow Whidbey vet! I was with the Seabee unit for three years there over at the Seaplane Base. Great duty station.
There’s a reason why, under most circumstances, a carrier’s air wing will depart the ship prior to berthing. Normal flight operations are impossible to conduct without 30 knots of wind across the deck.
Since the OP is asking about a Pearl Harbor type of situation, the fighters wouldn’t need much fuel at all. They won’t be flying any far distance - the enemy is right overhead. They only need enough fuel to take off, fire some missiles, and then land somewhere. I imagine that would reduce weight a bit and they might not need the extra 20-30 knots for added lift?
I did a similar analysis the other day as a demonstration to a dynamics class I’m teaching. I used a starting speed of 40-50 mph (carrier speed plus headwind) and an ending speed of 170 mph, then a catapult of 93 m length putting out between 2 and 3 g’s of acceleration. No problems with the numbers.
In port, though, you’d have no control / less control of the headwind, and of course your carrier speed would be zero. So you’d have to accelerate the aircraft as hard as possible, and the takeoff speed might be sufficient, especially if a smaller aircraft / relatively unloaded. Landings, though, might be pretty hard, with less time for corrections and harder forces on the aircraft. Probably just too difficult to do with a sufficient safety margin.
Living in the Puget Sound area, I saw carriers frequently, at Bremerton, Everett, and even at sea. However, none of them had aircraft visible on the deck. They offload their air arm at Whidbey on their way in, and pick them up again on the way out, is how I heard it.