STOBAR Aircraft Carrier Comeback?

[GScholz]

But if you do need the one supercarrier for limited power projection, would it be better to build two/three light carriers for the same cost? At least then you could have one carrier at a time in port for maintenance without withdrawing your whole force, and you could always combine all your carriers in a single formation to match the capabilities of one supercarrier in a carrier battle group.

[GScholz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhN7_L3R6uU

Walkaround of the Indian Navy MIG 29K.

[Rich46yo]

Again, what is the mission?

I think GB is making a mistake. They barely got by the Falklands with their small jump carriers and now that they are building two legitimate SCVs what do they do? They still make their aircraft jump into the air without assist. A mistake. You either project power or you dont.

I would argue any CV of this type is not a power projection asset but instead a sea/air denial one and there is a difference as has already been mentioned. In sortie rates, the types of aircraft operated, the fuel and ordinance loads. I'd much rather have one super CV then 3 jump CVs in an action. Remember our big CVs dont just operate fighters and strike aircraft but also refuelers, Intel gathering, ASW, and drone aircraft. They can strike an enemy much further out, with a lot more ords, and have a clearer view of whats going on to boot.

[artik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhN7_L3R6uU

Walkaround of the Indian Navy MIG 29K.

It is so cool to see Israeli ECM Pod (7:32 to the video the "ELTA" is clearly visible), also according to the Wikipedia it is capable of using Python-5 missiles...

So it seems to be VERY capable aircraft especially with that pod and missiles (which according to some sources makes a plane virtually invisible on the radar - see the video of a pilot about training with Indian air forces)

As more I learn about MiG-29K more I understand that it is very dangerous plane and anybody who thinks about it in terms of the well known MiG-29 can't be more wrong.

 

[artik]

Remember our big CVs dont just operate fighters and strike aircraft but also refuelers, Intel gathering, ASW, and drone aircraft. They can strike an enemy much further out, with a lot more ords, and have a clearer view of whats going on to boot.

- Air refueling - even super carriers do not operate KC-130, they operate buddy refueling - and MiG-29K has such a capabilities.
- ASW - is traditionally handled by helicopters... so no point there
- Drones - currently only one goes testing AFAIK. Also wouldn't be a big difference in drope operations - especially if you take some smaller ones with lower stall speeds - finally - if B-25 can takeoff from a carrier without an assist why drone can't?

So yes, it is clear that STOBAR carriers are less capable.

But are they good enough or not - and probably in most of cases they are.

I think GB is making a mistake

You are mixing STOVL and STOBAR...

STOVL - is short takeoff and vertical landing - only special aircraft are capable, there were two operational aircrafts of such type, and there would be 3rd soon, and till now only one - Harrier - was really successful (Harrier, Yak-38 and F-35B becoming operational soon)

STOBAR is short takeoff - like we do it today in AH but with an assist of Skyjump and Arrested landing. It significantly improves the range of potential planes that can operate on such a carriers.

GB are going to use STOVL with F-35B and it is the only option they have, unless they decide in future to convert it to STOBAR like India did (the latest India's carrier was STOVL before operating helicopters and Yak-38s) or CATOBAR which BTW would probably be much harder.

[GScholz]

That said, the F-35B looks to become a very capable STOVL aircraft, with nearly the same capabilities as the 35C.

[Rich46yo]

You are mixing STOVL and STOBAR...

STOVL - is short takeoff and vertical landing - only special aircraft are capable, there were two operational aircrafts of such type, and there would be 3rd soon, and till now only one - Harrier - was really successful (Harrier, Yak-38 and F-35B becoming operational soon)

STOBAR is short takeoff - like we do it today in AH but with an assist of Skyjump and Arrested landing. It significantly improves the range of potential planes that can operate on such a carriers.

No I understand perfectly what they mean. Actualing I was talking about the S3 Viking, "forgetting at the time they were all retired a few years ago". But be it ords or fuel no doubt more can be launched with catapult gear.

- ASW - is traditionally handled by helicopters... so no point there

I know that. But a bigger carrier, with a bigger air wing, able to launch and operate more aircraft? On a bigger flight deck?

- Drones - currently only one goes testing AFAIK. Also wouldn't be a big difference in drope operations - especially if you take some smaller ones with lower stall speeds - finally - if B-25 can takeoff from a carrier without an assist why drone can't?

Yes they can. But CVs last at least 50 years and the future will belong to X47 type drones that greatly benefit from assisted take off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7Jo4XmamA Again we get into the fact that catapults increase the amount of fuel and payload you can put into the air.

I never said STOBAR wasnt "good enough". It may well be for some countries. But the mission is what dictates that, and its sure as hell not as good as a catapult launch. I stand by my assertion that if your going to the trouble of building two 65,000 ton class CVs theres no point not putting a catapult on them. It may be penny wise but its pound foolish.

[artik]

I stand by my assertion that if your going to the trouble of building two 65,000 ton class CVs theres no point not putting a catapult on them. It may be penny wise but its pound foolish.

For 65,000 ton class carrier, probably, but all current STOBAR carriers are smaller than 65,000 tons:

- INS Vikramaditya - 45,400
- The biggest one (and oldest one) Kuznetsov ~55,000 fully loaded
- INS Vikrant - 40,000

Maybe I'm wrong, but you probably underestimate the complexity of catapult installation. Lets talk about steam catapult. EMALS should be good but it is still under development.

First of all, steam catapult can be used as is only on carriers that have steam based propulsion (i.e. boilers or reactor),  it would require a separate steam generator for gas turbine/disel powered ships. Another thing they are heavy and require lots of space:

Quoting:

Other drawbacks to the steam catapult include a high volume of 1133 m³, and a weight of 486 metric tons. Most of this is top-side weight that adversely impacts the ship's stability and righting moment. The large volume allocated to the steam catapult occupies "prime" real estate on the carrier. The steam catapults are also highly maintenance intensive, inefficient (4-6%)

So given the fact that you need at least two catapults it becomes significant. Also EMALS reduce the weight/volume, but it still only by factor of ~2. For a small carrier such costs are significant.

Also what about the operation costs, crew, complexity of operation, airframe wear, etc etc. So it looks like for a small carriers STOBAR may actually be a better option - that fills the gap between CATOBAR and STOVL, if not a better alternative to STOVL in general.

[Rich46yo]

Actually the catapults of the future will be electric.

And no I do know the cost, upkeep, and space needed for steam is high.

But if your up against a CV air group that can sortie more aircraft to further ranges, carrying more ords, that "cost" may seem trivial.

A CV launched today may see 3 or 4 countries go CATOBAR during its 50 year lifetime. China for sure, and if China does then India will. Russia maybe. Thats why the RN has an upgrade built into the design of its Lizzies. And I think the 2nd one will likely have the EMALS catapult. Such a ship, with both F35B and F18SH, would be formidable. Theres no need for them to buy F35C cause there will be plenty of capable used F18SHs around for lease or sale.

[artik]

Theres no need for them to buy F35C cause there will be plenty of capable used F18SHs around for lease or sale.

I would say British would go for Navalised Typhoon rather than the Super Bug.

I had also found an interesting notes about Typhoon's bid for Indian Navy:

In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy's future Vikrant class aircraft carrier. The changes needed to enable the Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about 500 kg to the airframe. If however the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting "... catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Navalised_Eurofighter

Basically, the STOBAR planes weight less, easier to design from the conventional ones and have better performance.

This brings me to the options of CATOBAR fighter aircraft that are production ready, currently only: F-18 Super Bug and Dassault Rafale (F-35C isn't ready yet - can't land on carrier)

So it gives you another 2nd thought about what variant to choose - do you want a vendor lock-in or not? India, for example could choose from Rafal, F-18, Typhoon, MiG-29K, Griphen, Tejas, Su-33 and more because it was easier to adopt the plane to carrier landing than catapult takeoff.

[Rich46yo]

There is no "navalized Eurofighter". Even if they build them they will cost a ton and have a very small customer base. So why build them?

India is already buying the Rafael so why would they complicate things by buying navalized Euros instead of navalized Rafaels?

Why is it every Russian fighter is seen as the new "super fighter"?

EMALS is the future. Nobody in the carrier business disputes that. It may not yet be operationally deployed but neither is it a concept. A land version has successfully launched aircraft.