RLE - Actually, that's not a stupid question at all. It's one that is very difficult to answer.
Let's take two propositions.
One, a Super Hornet doesn't land without a whole bunch of smart computing that interprets "where pilot wants to go" in terms of "flap this and adjust that". The F-35C is slightly more so, and I'd argue that one reason that the B is considered easy to operate at sea is that it has a whole bunch of extra control effectors which allow the whole operation to take place step by step - stop, sidestep, land - at the pilot's pace. All this is done by computers that are designed so that a catastrophic failure is about as rare as the wing falling off.
Two, we pretty much know how to use GPS to determine the relative position of two objects (for instance, the center of the three wire and the end of the tailhook) within a matter of inches. Also with good reliability, particularly in an area where there are few obstructions to seeing satellites (for instance, 60 feet up in the middle of the ocean).
So basically, I tell the computer on the airplane: Here is projected position of wire when you get there, and I update this at up to 100 Hz. At computer clock speeds, this makes a CV landing like watching paint dry.
And of course, back in the 1960s and 1970s, we knew how to make commercial aircraft with passengers on board land automatically in zero visibility (and then realized that the exercise was a bit pointless since nobody could drive to the airport anyway).
The basic problem is this: Are you so sure that you will always have autoland that you can do without the manual element and the associated training?
Last edited by LowObservable; 1st May 2012 at 20:54.