The plane aims at the runway numbers nose down, then as it crosses the end of the runway, it rocks back into a nose-up attitude, settles into a thing called "ground effect," (compression of air against the wings and the ground) then "floats" in that ground effect "cushion" until it dissipates, at which point it "plunks" onto the runway at a fast roll, then brakes to a stop. That rocking back as it passes the runway threshhold is called "flaring."
Carrier landings are "no flare."
The plane lines up with the landing space on the flight deck already in a nose-up attitude, then descends all the way down to the deck in that condition, slamming onto the deck at/near the aim point (usually between the arrestor wires) where the hook then hopefully snags a wire to be dragged to a stop.
Not even remotely similar landings. The training for each is entirely different. The stresses on an aircraft from slamming onto the deck and being wrenched to a stop require frame/landing gear strength far beyond what any land based aircraft must have. It is more than "just a tailhook."
A Tigershark being a land based plane, it would not fare well in any attempt to get it aboard a carrier. First, the pilot would have to have some knowledge of how to do a "no flare" landing. Assuming he did, then the force of slamming onto the deck would most likely drive the landing gear up through the wings.
Attempting a "normal" land-type landing would see the aircraft flare at the ramp, then float past the flight deck and settle into the sea.
The short answer is: Soviet, US, or whomevever...NO! Aircraft designed for land operations can do little more than "crash elegantly" on a carrier, so would probably be denied permission to even make the attempt. They would ditch nearby and be recovered.
: Hey, Guys?
: Hi ... May I ask you a "What If"
: The two Soviet aircraft carriers; could
: either of them, in an one-off thing, recover
: a fixed wing fighter - like a F-20
: Thank you,