Take-off and Landing Configurations on Naval Aviation Platforms: CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL

Naval aviation represents one of the most challenging operational environments in the history of engineering. The process of landing and launching aircraft onto a moving, confined deck imposes significant constraints on the aircraft’s structural design, aerodynamic characteristics, material selection and avionics architecture. Modern aircraft carrier operations are broadly categorised into three configurations: Catapult-Assisted Take-Off with Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR), Short Take-Off with Barrier Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) and Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL). This article examines the engineering implications of these systems on aircraft platforms in technical detail.

The cover image shows an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, an EA-18G Growler, an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and an MH-60S / MH-60R Seahawk on the deck of CVN-78 USS Gerald R Ford. Photo: US Navy.

Classification of Aviation Platforms and Operational Background

Aircraft carrier-based operations represent a radical departure from land-based aviation. CATOBAR systems, used on the US Navy’s Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes and the French Charles de Gaulle, are the most capable yet technically the most complex method. China’s inclusion in this class with its new-generation Fujian vessel confirms the configuration’s importance in global power projection. The STOBAR system, favoured by Russia (Admiral Kuznetsov), China (Liaoning, Shandong) and India (Vikramaditya, Vikrant), is an intermediate solution that uses a ski-jump ramp instead of a catapult but requires a arresting wire for landing. STOVL, on the other hand, is a flexibility-focused approach implemented by countries such as the UK, Italy and Spain on their light aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships, utilising platforms such as the F-35B and Harrier.

Engineering Implications for Fuselage Structure and Weight Management

The ‘marination’ (adaptation/optimisation for maritime conditions) of an aircraft platform involves redesigning the fuselage so that it can withstand the immense dynamic loads generated by aircraft carrier operations. This process leads to a significant increase in weight across every component of the aircraft.

Structural Reinforcement and Fuselage Design

In CATOBAR aircraft, the aircraft must accelerate from a standstill to take-off speed within seconds during catapult launch. During this acceleration, immense tensile forces are transmitted from the nose landing gear to the aircraft’s main fuselage (keel). On platforms such as the F-35C and F/A-18E/F, the nose strut is designed to withstand not only landing loads but also the axial forces applied by the launch bar.

Dynamic modelling demonstrates that the catapult process alters the aircraft’s structural topology in real time. During the pre-launch tensioning phase, the nose gear is connected to both the catapult mechanism and the restraint rod. The moment the restraint rod disengages, the catapult force is suddenly transmitted to the aircraft’s main spars; tests have demonstrated that, at this transition point, the load on the rear strut exhibits an instantaneous increase of approximately 238.5 kN. At the end of the launch stroke, as the aircraft separates from the catapult, the load on the rear strut drops abruptly from 486.2 kN to -20.3 kN; this rapidly changes the aircraft’s pitch angle between -0.93 degrees and 0.54 degrees. These severe load cycles deplete the airframe’s fatigue life much more rapidly than in land-based aircraft.

Landing Gear and Arresting Hook Mechanics

Aircraft carrier landings can be described as a controlled collision. Instead of a parallel glide to the deck, the aircraft strikes the deck directly using a method known as ‘fly-in arrestment’. CATOBAR and STOBAR aircraft are subjected to a negative acceleration of between 3G and 4.5G when they engage the arresting wire. To withstand this load, the connection of the arresting hook (tailhook) to the aircraft’s tail structure requires massive reinforcement to distribute the load along the fuselage.

The table below highlights the structural weight and capacity differences between the various versions of the F-35 platform:

Table 1: Technical and Structural Comparison of F-35 Lightning II Variants

Parameter F-35A (Land-based) F-35B (STOVL) F-35C (CATOBAR)

Empty Weight (kg) 13,154 14,715 15,686

Internal Fuel Capacity (kg) 8,391 6,045 8,901

Maximum G-Load +9.0 +7.0 +7.5

Wing Area (m²) 42.7 42.7 62.1

Weapon Payload (kg) 8,165 7,258 8,165

The approximately 2.5-tonne additional weight on the F-35C stems from wider wings, a reinforced nose and main landing gear, and the arresting gear. In the F-35B, the weight increase stems from the lift fan located in the centre of the aircraft and the swivelling nozzle system behind the engine; these systems necessitate a reduction in the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity and weapons bay volume.

Aerodynamic Characteristics and Flow Dynamics Analysis

Naval aviation configurations require the aircraft’s aerodynamic profile to generate maximum lift at low speeds.

Wing Design and Low-Speed Control

The most critical phase in CATOBAR operations is the low-speed approach. A low stall speed allows the pilot to approach the arresting wires at a safer speed. To meet this requirement, as seen in the F-35C, the wing area and control surfaces (ailerons, flaps) have been significantly increased. Wider wings not only increase lift but also necessitate foldable wingtip mechanisms to allow the aircraft to be stored in the limited space available on the aircraft carrier.

In STOBAR aircraft (Su-33, J-15), however, the wings feature more complex flap systems. The J-15 has more advanced double-slotted trailing edge flaps compared to the Su-33. Furthermore, the canards located at the nose of these aircraft increase body lift at low speeds, thereby improving the pitch (nose-up) ratio during ramp exit.

Ski-Jump and Ballistic Flight Dynamics

The ski-jump used on STOBAR and STOVL ships converts part of the aircraft’s horizontal speed into a vertical vector, enabling the aircraft to leave the deck below its stall speed. When the aircraft leaves the ramp, its speed is insufficient and it experiences a degree of ‘sink’; however, the vertical momentum imparted by the ramp provides enough time for the aircraft to remain airborne until the engines bring it up to flight speed.

In this process, the ramp angle and ramp length are directly related to the aircraft’s take-off weight. On ships such as the INS Vikramaditya, the ramp angle of 14 degrees rapidly increases the aircraft’s angle of attack (AoA). Simulations have shown that for take-off weights exceeding 30,000 kg (for example, the Su-33), the altitude loss experienced by the aircraft after leaving the ramp reaches critical limits before it reaches a safe climb rate.

Air Wake and the ‘Burble’ Effect

The island and stern geometry of an aircraft carrier create a turbulent zone for approaching aircraft. This phenomenon, known as the ‘burble effect’, causes pilots to experience a sudden loss of altitude or a stall sensation during the final approach to the ship. Research has demonstrated that the ski-jump ramp intensifies this turbulence and increases the turbulent kinetic energy (TKe) along the approach path by 208 per cent compared to a flat deck. As an engineering solution, aerodynamically optimising the ramp with a hemicylindrical (half-cylindrical) shape can reduce this turbulence by 49%.

The image above shows three take-off (launch) positions on the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, designated for fixed-wing aircraft.

Propulsion Systems: Propulsion Requirements and Safety Doctrines

Naval aviation propulsion systems vary radically depending on the configuration.

In the image above, the aircraft deployed on the Russian Navy’s heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, which features a STOBAR configuration, can be clearly seen. The Sukhoi Su-33 (three-coloured, in shades of blue and grey), Mikoyan MiG-29K and Kamov Ka-27 / Ka-31 (Helix) helicopter are visible. The first notable feature in the design of aircraft carriers of this class is the integration of the ski-jump ramp.

Thrust-to-Weight Ratio and Take-off Performance

In STOVL systems, the aircraft relies solely on its own engine power as there is no catapult assistance. This necessitates aircraft such as the Su-33 and MiG-29K having a very high thrust-to-weight ratio. During take-off, whilst the engines operate in ‘maximum afterburner’ mode, chocks are placed in front of the main landing gear to prevent the aircraft from sliding on the deck.17

In STOVL operations, however, the engine must provide not only thrust but also lift (lift). The F-35B’s F135-PW-600 engine directs most of the thrust downward during vertical landing whilst simultaneously rotating the forward lift fan. The complexity of this system reduces the aircraft’s operational tempo (sortie rate) capacity compared to simpler CATOBAR systems.

Dual-Engine Redundancy and Survivability Analysis

For many years in naval aviation, the doctrine that ‘two engines at sea are safe’ has prevailed. Twin-engine platforms (F/A-18, Rafale, Su-33) increase the likelihood of the aircraft returning to the ship and being caught by the arresting wire in the event of an engine failure.

The acceptance of the single-engine F-35C stems from a belief that modern engine reliability has improved. However, engineering data indicates that the risk in carrier-based operations stems not only from mechanical failure but also from foreign object damage (FOD). In a twin-engine aircraft, if one engine fails due to a bird strike or deck debris, the remaining engine can save the aircraft; in a single-engine aircraft, this situation immediately necessitates the use of the ejection seat.

The effects of propulsion performance and the number of engines can be examined using the following formulations. The rate of climb (ROC) is a function of thrust margin:

ROC = [(Thrust – Drag) / Weight] × V

ROC (Rate of Climb): Climb Rate (usually expressed in ft/min or m/s).

Thrust: Thrust (The forward thrust force generated by the engine).

Drag: Drag / Rearward Drag Force (Air resistance).

Weight: Weight (The gravitational force acting on the aircraft’s total mass at that moment).

V (Velocity): Airspeed (The aircraft’s speed relative to the air).

In a twin-engine aircraft, whilst thrust is reduced by 50% when one engine fails, climb performance (as drag and weight remain constant) typically drops by more than 80%. For example, the minimum speed required for a single-engine climb is defined as Vmc, and loss of control occurs below this speed.

Hot Gas Ingestion (Hot Gas Ingestion) Risk

The greatest technical challenge for STOVL aircraft (particularly the F-35B) is the re-ingestion of hot exhaust gases bouncing off the ground into the engine air intakes during vertical take-off or landing (Hot Gas Ingestion – HGI). This situation suddenly increases the temperature of the air entering the air intake by 20–30 K, reducing the engine’s compressor margin and triggering the risk of ‘surge’ (sudden stall). To prevent this in the F-35B, ‘lift improvement devices’ and flow barriers to divert the hot gas away from the air intake.

The LiftFan (Lift Fan) that enables the F-35B variant to perform vertical landing and short take-off (STOVL)

It is a massive fan mounted vertically on the fuselage, immediately behind the cockpit. It rotates by drawing 29,000 horsepower from the main engine at the rear of the aircraft via a shaft. It draws in clean air from above the fuselage and blows it downwards at high speed.

How Does the System Work? (During Vertical Take-off/Landing)

While the aircraft is hovering, three main elements maintain its weight balance:

1. Front Section (Cold Thrust): The LiftFan keeps the front of the aircraft aloft by blowing cold air, untouched by engine heat, towards the ground (~9 tonnes of lift).
2. Rear Section (Hot Thrust): The main engine’s exhaust nozzle (3BSD) is bent downwards at a 90-degree angle to keep the rear of the aircraft in the air.
3. Wings (Stability): Small air outlets beneath the wings (Roll Posts) prevent the aircraft from rolling from side to side.

Table 2: Operational and Design Trade-offs of the LiftFan System on the F-35B (Advantage/Disadvantage Analysis)

Advantages Disadvantages

No Runway Required: It can land on smaller amphibious assault ships (e.g. TCG Anadolu) instead of aircraft carriers. Dead Weight: During normal (horizontal) flight, excluding vertical take-off and landing, this massive system adds unnecessary weight to the aircraft.

Protects the Surface: Cold air blown from the front prevents the runway/deck from melting and stops hot gas from entering the engine and causing a stall. Loss of Volume: As it takes up a lot of space in the fuselage, the F-35B’s internal fuel capacity and weapons bay volume are smaller than those of other F-35 models.

Material Technology and Corrosion Challenges

The aircraft carrier environment is a combination of high salt concentration, humidity, exhaust gases containing sulphur dioxide, and extreme dynamic loads. This situation prioritises corrosion resistance and fatigue strength in material selection.

Corrosion and Galvanic Interactions

The contact between different metals (aluminium, titanium, steel) used in naval aircraft, combined with the conductivity of seawater, creates ‘galvanic corrosion’ cells. Ironically, the widespread use of carbon fibre composites (CFRP) has exacerbated this problem; due to its electropositive nature, carbon fibre can rapidly corrode aluminium rivets and fuselage panels.

Strategies used to prevent this corrosion:

-Advanced Aluminium Alloys: Alloys such as 7075-T73 are made resistant to corrosion cracking through special heat treatments. Tests show that the fatigue life of bare aluminium exposed to a marine atmosphere drops from over 125×10⁴ cycles to over 16×10⁴ cycles within 15 days.

-Cadmium and Chromate Coatings: These traditionally used materials are being replaced by nanocomposite coatings and plasma spraying methods such as alumina-titania due to environmental restrictions.

-Sealants: Metal-filled sealants used in bushings and connection points prevent water ingress, thereby maintaining structural integrity.

Structural Fatigue and the ‘Safe-Life’ Approach

Unlike the land forces’ ‘damage tolerance’ approach, the US Navy adopts the ‘safe-life’ approach for aircraft carrier aircraft. The reason for this is the impossibility of carrying out complex structural repairs whilst deployed at sea. The aircraft fuselage is designed so that not even micro-cracks will form throughout its expected service life (e.g. 6,000–8,000 hours), and this lifespan is verified through full-scale fatigue tests. Each aircraft carrier landing consumes a specific ‘fatigue unit’ , and the aircraft’s remaining service life is updated every three months based on this data.

Avionics and Precision Control Systems

Modern technology has developed revolutionary systems to reduce the pilot’s workload during aircraft carrier landings and enhance safety.

Precision Landing Mode (PLM)

Officially known as ‘MAGIC CARPET’ (Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies), is a radical update to the flight control software.40 Whereas in traditional landings the pilot must coordinate pitch, roll, yaw and thrust simultaneously, with PLM these axes are decoupled (decoupling). The pilot uses the control stick to command only the aircraft’s “flight path”. The computer automatically manages the aircraft’s speed and angle of attack (AoA), keeping the aircraft on the planned glideslope (glide path). This technology has reduced the number of control inputs required by the pilot during the final approach from hundreds to single digits and has increased landing success rates to over 95%.

JPALS and Automatic Landing Infrastructure

The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System – JPALS) is a ship-based differential GPS system. Providing range and heading information up to 200 nautical miles, the system offers centimetre-accurate landing guidance to the aircraft within the final 10 nautical miles. JPALS’s greatest advantage is its resistance to signal jamming and its ability to transmit a low-observable (LPI) transmission; this allows aircraft to return safely without revealing the ship’s position to the enemy. This system forms the cornerstone of enabling platforms such as the F-35C and MQ-25A to perform fully autonomous landings.

EMALS and Electromagnetic Compatibility

(Electromagnetic Interference - EMI / Electromagnetic Compatibility - EMC)

The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), which has replaced steam catapults on Gerald R. Ford-class ships, has created a new threat to aircraft avionics. The dual-sided linear induction motors used during launch generate powerful low-frequency magnetic fields around 118 Hz that can penetrate the aircraft’s nacelle (engine compartment) structure. These fields can cause interference in the aircraft’s electronic control systems, such as the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). As an engineering solution, where aluminium hulls prove inadequate at these frequencies, ‘permalloy’ shields and flexible surface coatings with high magnetic permeability are applied around critical avionics units.

Comparative Technical Analysis Table

A comprehensive comparison table summarising the effects of the configurations on aircraft platforms is presented below:

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL Systems from an Engineering and Doctrine Perspective

Feature CATOBAR (e.g. F-35C, F/A-18E) STOBAR (e.g. Su-33, MiG-29K) STOVL (e.g. F-35B, Harrier)

Take-off Mechanism Catapult (Steam/EMALS) Ski-Jump Ski-Jump + Thrust Vectoring

Landing Mechanism Arresting Wire Arresting Wire Vertical Landing / SRVL

Strategic Impact Full-Spectrum Power Projection Fleet Defence / Limited Strike Flexible Regional Power

Weight Penalty 15–20% (Structural/Wing) 10–15% (Structural) 20–25% (Lift System)

Thrust Requirement Moderate (Catapult support available) Very High (Thrust-to-Weight ratio must be >1) Critical (Entire load on engine)

Payload Capacity Maximum (100%) Limited (60–80%) Very Limited (40–60%)

Avionics Complexity High (Automatic launch/landing) Medium Very High (Flight/Thrust integration)

Support Aircraft Heavy aircraft such as E-2D, C-2 are suitable Not suitable (Jets only) Not suitable

Operational Cost Very High Medium High (Complex maintenance)

In-Depth Analysis of Weight Management and Payload Constraints

In aircraft carrier operations, the difference between the ‘Maximum Take-Off Weight’ (MTOW) and the ‘Maximum Landing Weight’ (Maximum Landing Weight - MLW) in aircraft carrier operations determines the aircraft’s bring-back capacity.

Fuel Dumping and Weapon Jettisoning Requirements

A land-based aircraft can land safely on the runway at a weight close to its take-off weight immediately after take-off in an emergency. However, a CATOBAR aircraft is limited by the capacity of the arresting wires. For example, on the F/A-18 Hornet platform, the ‘Max Trap Weight’ (Maximum Arresting Weight) is approximately 33,000–34,000 lbs. If the aircraft has taken off with a full internal fuel load (10,900) and heavy ordnance and needs to make an emergency landing, it must either jettison fuel or drop its expensive ordnance into the sea to prevent the airframe from breaking apart.

Modern fuel dumping systems can discharge 1 to 2.5 tonnes of fuel per minute and bring the aircraft to a safe landing weight within 10–20 minutes. In STOVL aircraft, the situation is even more critical; to perform a vertical landing, the aircraft’s weight must be less than the vertical thrust the engine can generate at the current air temperature. This is a technical constraint that forces aircraft such as the F-35B to jettison their munitions into the sea upon returning from missions in hot climates (such as the Persian Gulf). To overcome this limitation, the Royal Navy has developed the ‘Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing’ (SRVL) method, in which the aircraft utilises lift from its wings by landing at a slight horizontal speed.

Structural Weight Distribution and Moments of Inertia

Weight management is not solely about total mass; where the mass is concentrated on the aircraft is also important. In STOVL aircraft (F-35B), the lift fan at the centre of the aircraft increases the aircraft’s “pitch moment of inertia”. This reduces the aircraft’s manoeuvrability during dogfights compared to the F-35A, which has a lighter version of the same engine. In CATOBAR aircraft (F-35C), however, the large wings reduce the aircraft’s roll rate and slow its acceleration to supersonic speeds.

Conclusion and Strategic Assessment

The effects of aircraft carrier take-off and landing configurations on naval aviation platforms demonstrate that in engineering, the search is not for the ‘perfect solution’ but for the ‘best compromise’.

1. Despite its technical complexity and the structural load of over 2.5 tonnes it imposes on the aircraft, CATOBAR is the only system capable of utilising the platform’s operational potential (range and weapons load) at a 100% rate.
2. Whilst STOBAR does not require the extreme structural reinforcements for the catapult in the aircraft’s fuselage, it places demands on the propulsion system and aerodynamic design (requirement for canards, high AoA stability) and leads to a significant compromise in the aircraft’s operational range.
3. STOVL maximises platform flexibility whilst allocating a significant portion of the aircraft’s internal volume to take-off systems, creating an imbalance between logistics and firepower.
4. Avionics and Control have revolutionised the approach to overcoming hardware limitations through software (such as Magic Carpet). These systems standardise the structural stresses the aircraft is subjected to, thereby reducing maintenance costs and optimising the platform’s service life.
5. Materials and Corrosion Management remain the ‘hidden cost’ of naval aviation. Advanced corrosion prediction software (CorrosionMaster) and digital twin (Advanced Digital Twin – ADT) technologies will make the maintenance cycles of these platforms more manageable in the future.

Consequently, the success of a naval aviation platform depends on how well the selected take-off and landing configuration is designed to align with the aircraft’s engineering architecture. The F-35 programme has taken its place in history as a case study that most clearly illustrates the engineering challenges and structural weight increases resulting from evolving from a single basic design into three different configurations.

This first instalment in my series of articles on naval aviation lays the groundwork for future pieces. I will continue to write on the subject of naval aviation.

References

1. What are the pros and cons of the different carrier types? : r/WarCollege - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1o9xlek/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_different/
2. 167 - Carrier suitability of land-based aircraft - ICAS - International ..., http://icas.org/icas_archive/ICAS2012/PAPERS/167.PDF
3. Aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier
4. Explained: STOBAR vs CATOBAR aircraft carriers - DefenceXP, https://www.defencexp.com/explained-stobar-vs-catobar-type-of-aircraft-carriers/
5. How different are carrier operations between a CATOBAR and STOVL carrier? - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1psk2vt/how_different_is_carrier_operations_between_a/
6. Analysis of Carrier-Based Aircraft Catapult Launching Based on ..., https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/19/9037
7. Everything You Need to Know about the F-35C, https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-f-35c.html
8. The ABCs of the F-35, https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/The-ABCs-of-F-35.html
9. F-35C completes initial catapult testing | NAVAIR, https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/18056
10. Difference between STOBAR and CATOBAR launch of a J-15 [Video] - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/1nqa2j6/difference_between_stobar_and_catobar_launch_of_a/
11. r/F35Lightning Wiki: F-35 Variants Guide - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/wiki/variants/
12. A, B, C: What’s the difference between the different Lockheed Martin F-35 variants?, https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/lockheed-martin -f-35-a-b-c-differences-explained/
13. F-35A Lightning II > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display, https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii/
14. A comparison of the size of the F-35A and F-35B bay via Tamiya [1600 x 1200] - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/1inwbvv/a_comparison_of_the_size_of_the_f35a_and_f35b_bay/
15. “Flying Shark” Gaining Altitude: How might the new J-15 strike fighter improve China’s maritime air warfare capability?, https://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/06/08/flying-shark-gaining-altitude-how-might-new-j-15-strike-fighter-improve-chinas-maritime-air-warfare-ability/
16. Sukhoi Su-33 and Su-33UB Flanker D / Shenyang J-15 Flanker D - Air Power Australia, https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Maritime-Flanker-D.html
17. Ski-jump (aviation) - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski-jump_(aviation)
18. STOBAR Carrier Ski-jump Simulator - CppCMS, http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/
19. Analysis of the mechanics for ski-jump takeoff - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289964452_Analysis_of_the_mechanics_for_ski-jump_takeoff
20. Can the Su-33 actually take off with a full load of weapons and fuel? : r/hoggit - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/4icm85/can_the_su33_takeoff_in_reality_with_a_full_load/
21. Investigation of the Effect of Ski Jump on the Flow Dynamics around ..., https://publicationsdrdo.in/index.php/dsj/article/download/15648/7515/57910
22. STOBAR VS CATOBAR - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1fvyZo-yxcY
23. Su-33 carrier takeoff tips : r/hoggit - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/7qlsxc/su33_carrier_takeoff_tips/
24. F-35_Air_Vehicle_Technology_Overview.pdf - Lockheed Martin, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/webt/F-35_Air_Vehicle_Technology_Overview.pdf
25. F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Carrier Variant - Naval Technology, https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35c-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-carrier-variant/
26. What is the rationale for single-engine military aircraft? - Aviation Stack Exchange, https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71939/what-is-the-rationale-for-single-engine-military-aircraft
27. What are the pros and cons of single versus dual jet fighter engines if they have the same total thrust? - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/ouh51c/what_is_the_pros_and_cons_of_single_vs_dual_jet/
28. F-35C - Is a single-engine fighter viable for use on an aircraft carrier? : r/WarCollege - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/ilpln2/f35c_is_a_single_engined_fighter_viable_for_use/
29. Twin Engine Aircraft Safety - Accident Prevention Programme, https://www.gofir.com/aviation_accident_prevention_program/docs/pdf/twin_engine_aircraft_safety.pdf
30. Hot gas ingestion characteristics and flow visualisation of a vectored thrust STOVL concept - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900016693
31. CFD Analysis of Hot Gas Ingestion Mechanisms for the Vertical Descent Phase of a Harrier Aircraft | Request PDF - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267500135_CFD_Analysis_of_Hot_Gas_Ingestion_Mechanisms_for_the_Vertical_Descent_Phase_of_a_Harrier_Aircraft
32. Innovative Approach for Predicting Galvanic Corrosion Effects on Airframe Systems | Request PDF - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390840229_Innovative_Approach_for_Predicting_Galvanic_Corrosion_Effects_on_Airframe_Systems
33. Predicting-corrosion -in-military-aircraft.pdf - Corrdesa, https://corrdesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Predicting-corrosion-in-military-aircraft.pdf
34. Actual Marine Atmospheric Pre-Corrosion Fatigue Performance of 7075-T73 Aluminium Alloy, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/12/5/874
35. Scientific Advancements in Composite Materials for Aircraft ..., https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9692500/
36. NAVAIR Perspective on Corrosion Prevention and Control - DTIC, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA375736.pdf
37. Corrosion and Fatigue Research - Structural Issues and Relevance to Naval Aviation - DTIC, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA388746.pdf
38. Service fatigue life and service calendar life limits of aircraft structure: aircraft structural life envelope | The Aeronautical Journal | Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/aeronautical-journal/article/service-fatigue-life-and-service-calendar-life-limits-of-aircraft -structure-aircraft-structural-life-envelope/440A2FCBFA914800CC204EB5D4E73F12
39. OPNAVINST 3110.11V N98 8 Mar 2022 OPNAV INSTRUCTION 3110.11V From: Chief of Naval Operations Subject, https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/03000%20Naval%20Operations%20and%20Readiness/03-100%20Naval%20Operations%20Support/3110.11V.pdf
40. The Navy’s latest flight control technology ensures safety in the skies – NAVAIR, https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/Navys-latest-flight-control-technology-sustains-safety-skies/Tue-12142021-1541
41. MAGIC CARPET: Revolutionising Aircraft Carrier Landings | by Christian Baghai | Medium, https:// christianbaghai.medium.com/magic-carpet-revolutionizing-aircraft-carrier-landings-879aa0ddc5c
42. Project MAGIC CARPET: “Advanced Controls and Displays for Precision Carrier Landings”, https://virtualsim.nuaa.edu.cn/file/up_document/2021/05/IdeYAqCc4Ki6TWPE.pdf
43. US Navy Pilots In Training Will Now Make Their 1st Carrier Landing In An F/A-18 Or F-35, https://simpleflying.com/us-navy-pilots-training-1st-carrier-landing-f-a-18-f-35/
44. Joint precision approach and landing system - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_precision_approach_and_landing_system
45. JPALS - NAVAIR, https://www.navair.navy.mil/jpals
46. Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) | Collins Aerospace - RTX, https://www.rtx.com/collinsaerospace/what-we-do/industries/military-and-defense/navigation/airborne-products/navigation-and-landing-systems/jpals
47. JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEM (JPALS) - Executive Services Directorate, https://www.esd.whs. mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2021_SARS/22-F-0762_JPALS_SAR_2021.pdf
48. Navy declares initial operational capability for Joint Precision Approach and Landing System | NAVAIR, https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/Navy-declares-initial-operational-capability-Joint-Precision-Approach-and-Landing-System/Tue
49. Electromagnetic Interference Simulation and Shielding Design for ..., https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/10/4789
50. What criteria are used to jettison external munitions or drop tanks prior to landing an aircraft? : r/WarCollege - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1di2l19/what_criteria_are_used_to_discard_external/
51. Fuel Jettison Systems Explained: When and Why Aircraft Dump Fuel - Acumen Aero, https://www.acumen.aero/blogs/fuel-jettison-systems-explained-when-and-why-aircraft-dump-fue
52. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
53. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
54. https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cvn/CVN-78-USS-Gerald-R-Ford.htm
55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j26ppRiUBe0&t=117s
56. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/admiral-kuznetsov-russias-marooned-aircraft-carrier-explained-2-words-212007