Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: artik on January 09, 2014, 08:38:51 AM
-
It looks like STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) carriers layout is growing thanks to Russian designers:
- The INS Vikramaditya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya_(R33)) that was modified from STOVL carrier, now equipped with latest MiG-29Ks tha are quite capable aircrafts with updated engines, ASEA Radar, fly-by-wire, glass cockpit etc.
- The Admiral Kuznetsov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov) that was operational for a long period with Su-33 and should receive MiG-29Ks as well.
- The Chinese Liaoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning) (originally Russian carrier)
- The newly designed INS Vikrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)) is also STOBAR, and it wasn't build by Russians.
Actually STOBAR operations were the vast majority of the operations until the beginning of the jet age (basically all WW2 carriers operated as STOBAR), now with modern fighters with a high thrust to weight ratio it becomes quite feasible and looks like due to lower cost and operation simplicity quite attractive option.
Of course it has obvious limitations like payload... on the other hand STOVL layout has exactly the same problem as well. If you look at F-35B or Harrier, the MiG-29K looks like a better option especially when you can buy 4-5 migs on a price of one F-35B.
BTW absolutely beautiful video of MiG-29K trials on Vikramaditya: http://theaviationist.com/2013/10/11/mig-29k-new-video/ (note at 1:47 the takeoff with two air-ground/sea test weapons and a fuel tank on the center line)
So do you think STOBAR makes a comeback and we see more such carriers in future (of course not in US navy with its mega carriers)?
-
Can they launch and land at the same time? How many birds can they launch within say 10 minutes? What would an Alpha Striker package look like?
I am just wondering if they have the ability to sustain the same operational tempo as our Nimitz Class CVNs. Good post.
boo
-
Can they launch and land at the same time? How many birds can they launch within say 10 minutes? What would an Alpha Striker package look like?
I am just wondering if they have the ability to sustain the same operational tempo as our Nimitz Class CVNs. Good post.
boo
Depends...
If you take Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, it has 3 takeoff positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ussr_cv.svg two that do not interfere with landing deck can lanch planes and one longer for heavier loads takeoff that does interfere - same would be for the Chinese one from the same class.
On the other hand the smaller Vikramaditya that is modified STOVL carrier and future Vikrant (that is even smaller) can't as their lanch position shared with the landing deck.
See:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:INS_Vikrant_CGI.png
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:INS_Vikramaditya_(R33)_with_a_Sea_Harrier.jpg (note the Yellow lines for takeoff)
Another interesting point is that lanching an aircraft with Skyjump is much simpler procedure and probably can be performed with higher takeoff per lanch position ratio - think of an airbase with a single runway.
-
STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) is a system used for the launch and recovery of aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier, combining elements of both short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) without catapult-assisted take-off but with arrested recovery (CATOBAR).
Aircraft launch under their own power using a ski-jump to assist take-off (rather than using a catapult like most carriers). However, these are conventional, rather than STOVL aircraft, and thus require arrestor wires to land on the ship. The STOBAR system is simpler to build than CATOBAR — but it works only with light, and lightly armed, fighter aircraft that have a high thrust to weight ratio. As of 2013, it has only been used regularly on Russian, Indian, and Chinese carriers.
Sorry had to google term I'm a Civi. :bolt:
...and stop saying "Lunch" you are making me hungry. :old:
-
...and stop saying "Lunch" you are making me hungry
:rofl
Fixed :-)
-
:rofl
:rofl
Still not fixed lol "Launch" Good Info on the STOBAR carriers though. :aok
-
These strike me as great, low level, power projection platforms. They could easily park off a low-threat coast and keep 2-4 birds on station all day, taking into consideration rotations. As far as an alpha strike, max 20 birds? Compared to the US, which could sustain 200+ sorites a day with an alpha strike of 50+ birds. +/-.
These carriers are essentially Light-CVs comparable, contemporary to the Independence Class from WW2 or some of the Brit small CVs like Hermes, etc. Good addition to a fleet, long way to go before it compares to a Nimitz/Ford.
Boo
-
These strike me as great, low level, power projection platforms. They could easily park off a low-threat coast and keep 2-4 birds on station all day, taking into consideration rotations. As far as an alpha strike, max 20 birds? Compared to the US, which could sustain 200+ sorites a day with an alpha strike of 50+ birds. +/-.
Actually interesting that Ford class carrier designed to generate 140-160 sorties a day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#Features_summary) with 220 as peak and it is considered an improvement over Nimitz. Given a ~75 aircraft on-board it represents ~3 sorties a day per aircraft at peak and 2 sorties per aircraft normally.
For land based air force such numbers are quite pathetic. It is a daily routine to fly 3 sorties a day for land based aircraft and handle 5-6 sorties a day reasonable easily at peak requirements.
I was quite surprised by the numbers, but I assume it is due to lack of free space on the flight deck to maintain the planes limits the sortie generation ability.
These carriers are essentially Light-CVs comparable, contemporary to the Independence Class from WW2 or some of the Brit small CVs like Hermes, etc. Good addition to a fleet, long way to go before it compares to a Nimitz/Ford.
Boo
The point, that nobody besides US has or probably needs such a power projection. Given 10 Nimitz class carriers it is basically possible to blew up any medium sized country on short alert without a problem (of course having good foreign diplomacy would make these 10 carries actually much more useful... ok I'm not going there so the this thread wouldn't get locked :bolt: )
Many other countries just do not need such type of power (especially when it costs a small fortune), however having pinpoint strike ability and managing air superiority over a fleet is actually very useful if not critical (Falklands war as an example...)
-
Actually interesting that Ford class carrier designed to generate 140-160 sorties a day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#Features_summary) with 220 as peak and it is considered an improvement over Nimitz. Given a ~75 aircraft on-board it represents ~3 sorties a day per aircraft at peak and 2 sorties per aircraft normally.
For land based air force such numbers are quite pathetic. It is a daily routine to fly 3 sorties a day for land based aircraft and handle 5-6 sorties a day reasonable easily at peak requirements.
I was quite surprised by the numbers, but I assume it is due to lack of free space on the flight deck to maintain the planes limits the sortie generation ability.
The point, that nobody besides US has or probably needs such a power projection. Given 10 Nimitz class carriers it is basically possible to blew up any medium sized country on short alert without a problem (of course having good foreign diplomacy would make these 10 carries actually much more useful... ok I'm not going there so the this thread wouldn't get locked :bolt: )
Many other countries just do not need such type of power (especially when it costs a small fortune), however having pinpoint strike ability and managing air superiority over a fleet is actually very useful if not critical (Falklands war as an example...)
Great info and summary. I concur!
boo
-
These strike me as great, low level, power projection platforms. They could easily park off a low-threat coast and keep 2-4 birds on station all day, taking into consideration rotations. As far as an alpha strike, max 20 birds? Compared to the US, which could sustain 200+ sorites a day with an alpha strike of 50+ birds. +/-.
These carriers are essentially Light-CVs comparable, contemporary to the Independence Class from WW2 or some of the Brit small CVs like Hermes, etc. Good addition to a fleet, long way to go before it compares to a Nimitz/Ford.
Boo
But then you have to consider the cost. Do you think it is better to have one super carrier, or two/three light carriers with a total aircraft complement of equal size?
-
That is some slow launches! In the time it took for that jet to run out and get in the air a Nimitz class would have launched two. I spent a few years on the Eisenhower (CVN69) and ops were run at a leisurely pace and they only used 2 cats. Even so it didn't take long to have a wing in the air.
I know that if they wanted they could launch a LOT faster. With the deck as big as it is and the use of all of those elevators they could move aircraft below deck as well as on top to position for launch from all 4 cats. Remember, what you read is the information that they let out, not necessarily what is really true.
-
(http://If you look at F-35B or Harrier, the MiG-29K looks like a better option especially when you can buy 4-5 migs on a price of one F-35B.)
There is no substitute for better technology.
A Modern super carrier with F35 is on another level beyond any STOBAR CV.
-
But is it better than three STOBAR carriers with F-35s?
-
A Modern super carrier [snip] is on another level beyond any STOBAR CV
There is no doubt that a super carrier has much higher capabilities. Nobody declines this.
A Modern super carrier with F35
Currently is still fiction as F-35C can't land on carrier yet... They hadn't fixed its hook. Actually as of December 2013 Lockheed has installed an improved hook on a test aircraft but hadn't stated testing yet. (http://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockheed-new-carrier-hook-f-35) which is even more sad as 14 F-35C variants are already produced.
But then you have to consider the cost. Do you think it is better to have one super carrier, or two/three light carriers with a total aircraft complement of equal size?
It actually depends...
Lets assume that operating (i.e. sending to a task for specific mission) 1 carrier x 90 aircaft is cheaper than operating 2 carriers x 45 aircraft or 3 carriers x 30 aircraft (which BTW I'm not entirely sure about) in the same manner that it is cheaper to operate one mega tanker/container ship than 2 small tankers or container ships.
However the question is, what budget can you afford as a nation? Can you afford 5-10 super carriers? Than yes, it is probably better to operate super carriers in CATOBAR configuration.
But lets assume you can afford a 1 super carrier x90 planes or 2 smaller carriers x 30 planes. (I especially reduce the numbers to adjust for a budget), than the question is different.
(a) you are probably not operating both carriers together, in many cases it is enough to send a one carrier for a mission (so it reduces cost per request significantly
(b) you can always put a carrier to a dry dock for overhaul and you still can provide decent power of 1/2 of the force at immediate readiness.
(c) if you operate two carriers together you significantly reduce the risk through redundancy - as even if one of the carriers is hit and need some time to repair the damages (even if it takes several hours) the 2nd one remains fully operational.
But is it better than three STOBAR carriers with F-35s?
I would rephrase it, it is better to have a Super carrier vs 3 STOBAR carriers with same class of aircraft, I personally think that 3 smaller STOBAR provide much higher flexibility.
There are two major limitations of STOBAR:
1. The ability to handle cargo and AEW planes - they all currently operate a helicopters for such a role that has lower range/payload/ceiling etc.
2. The strike payload, range.
The first one can probably be addressed with VC-22. There are already discussions about providing a AEW capabilities for VC-22. And the second one seems to be less problematic as well when you read about the capabilities of MiG-29K it looks like an amazing aircraft - it takeoffs with reasonable amount of air-to-ground weapons and with a drop tank (see the videos above), it has buddy refueling pods, has all the 4++ generation avionics, excellent A2A weapons and good performance like all modern fighters - so it looks like being as good as anything that operates from CATOBAR.
So probably yes, the 3 or 2 carriers maybe a better option. But it really depends on your goals and your budget. For US with its 10x100,000 tonne carriers it is probably to have what they have now.
Another interesting issue I thought about it. Currently all operating CATOBAR carriers are either:
- Nuclear powered (all US Nimitz class or French Charles de Gaulle)
- Powered with steam boilers like Brazilian São Paulo
That both have steam "for free"
Now modern ships usually operate on Gas Turbines and/or Diesel. So without EMALS or built in steam generator it is very hard to have CATOBAR carrier...
-
I think your over all strategic objective is more important then is your amount of CVs vis-a-vis STOBARS vs Super Carriers.
Russia built them because, hard as it is to believe, their surface Navy played a supporting role to their submarine Navy. Their entire strategic objective was to provide cover for their ship killer submarines to break out into open ocean. They didnt need super carriers, and supporting ships, due to the cost outlay; To fight a battle they didnt want to fight and would surely lose anyways.
Building one carrier of any type doesnt really make sense because the thing will be in dry dock part of the time and what if you really need it then?
If I remember right only America and France operate Catobar CVs. Last I heard England changed their minds again about their Lizzies being built now. I would argue all three countries have missions and responsibilities that would warrant standard aircraft carriers. China and India are both moving from sea denial to sea control but both have limited areas of concern. They have no need to sail an airport to the other side of the world.
And THAT is the answer to the question. Not 3 vs 1, but do you even need the 1?
-
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.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhN7_L3R6uU
Walkaround of the Indian Navy MIG 29K.
-
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.
-
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.
:x :x :x
-
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.
-
That said, the F-35B looks to become a very capable STOVL aircraft, with nearly the same capabilities as the 35C.
-
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.
-
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 (http://carcamal.ele.cie.uva.es/cem/articulos/catapult.pdf):
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.