CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

[Blitzo]

Given the expansion of Chinese carrier discussions in terms of the emerging maturity of CV-16 and CV-17, as well as the 003 CATOBAR carrier, and possible emergence of the nuclear carrier in the medium term future, I have locked the existing CV-16 and CV-17 threads.

All further discussion about CV-16 Liaoning and CV-17 Shandong will be consolidated here in this thread.

Past CV-16 thread here:

CV-16 Liaoning (001 carrier) Thread II ...News, Views and operations

Damage control you say. Not practiced since about WW2. You just need to look at the burn down of the Bonhomme Richard as an example of how good it is in practice today. Granted, they do have more combat experience. But I think once China gets the nuclear powered carriers they will start to flex...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

Past CV-17 thread here:

CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations

CVBG-17 PLANS Shandong in Action

www.sinodefenceforum.com

 

[tphuang]

Shilao and his gang had an interesting podcast recently as a celebration of 5 years of CV-17 being launched. He discussed quite a few interesting items in there. I will have to listen it over again, but of the top of my head.
- J-15T and J-35 will be able to operate off both STOBAR and CATOBAR carrier
- It is possible for KJ-600 to operate off STOBAR carrier. Might need rocket-assisted takeoff
- While they did not originally plan to build a modified version of CV-16, they learnt a lot from building a brand new one all by themselves. Well worth the effort.
- They are not going to be behind USN when it comes to UCAVs/UAV airwing. Already tested some drones off there. In the future, will have counter stealth UAV AWACS flying off.
- 003 is a nice intermediate step, but it's not their end point or even a path to their end point, since I assume they are going down the nuclear powered path.
- They are carrying far more and launching far more fixed aircraft off CV-16/17 than Soviet did with Admiral Kutznetsov class. Their approach is very similar to USN.
- Carrier group will get a lot of help from KJ-500 (which should have better flight performance than KJ-200 due to Y-9) as long as it's close enough to the shore. It maybe not be necessary to fly KJ-600 off CV-16/17
- Talked about missiles that J-35/J-15s can carry. This really kind of matched my imagination. J-15s will imo be around for a long time carrying large missiles that you probably don't want J-35s to carry.

Still makes me wonder if they have a plan for refuellers.

 

[Blitzo]

- J-15T and J-35 will be able to operate off both STOBAR and CATOBAR carrier

I think this is perhaps the most consequential part, if true, and is something that's been discussed here in the past.

A CV-16/17 able to operate J-XY/35 (and the CATOBAR J-15B to an extent) will have a much longer relevant shelf life going into the future, simply by being able to operate a 5th generation fighter.

 

[Gloire_bb]

A CV-16/17 able to operate J-XY/35 (and the CATOBAR J-15B to an extent) will have a much longer relevant shelf life going into the future, simply by being able to operate a 5th generation fighter.

It would be strange for the PLAN to just somehow forget two of its new, most expensive and most prestigious assets aflot, frankly speaking.
I am like 99.9% sure STOBAR capability was mentioned within first few points of the technical requirement for this plane.

 

[Blitzo]

It would be strange for the PLAN to just somehow forget two of its new, most expensive and most prestigious assets aflot, frankly speaking.
I am like 99.9% sure STOBAR capability was mentioned within first few points of the technical requirement for this plane.

I mean, I agree that it would be intuitive to think that both J-XY/35 and J-15B would be designed to be able to cross deck from the CATOBAR and STOBAR carriers... But there of course was always the possibility that the PLAN might have chosen to develop a separate STOBAR variant of each aircraft for the STOBAR carriers instead. Such an option would obviously be less flexible and more wasteful, but that would depend on whether the respective aircraft were able to structurally accommodate the demands of STOBAR and CATOBAR launch in a single airframe.

In other words -- I think it makes sense for them to be STOBAR and CATOBAR compatible, but it's something I think that needs to be awaited for confirmation (either officially via pictures and video, or via the grapevine), given the significance of whether it's true or not.

I'm not sure what technical requirements you are referring to?.

 

[Squidward]

- It is possible for KJ-600 to operate off STOBAR carrier. Might need rocket-assisted takeoff

You've seen STOBAR carriers, you've even seen CATOBAR ones, but now get ready for... RATOBAR?

Are there any current or historical precendents for launching planes off carriers with rocket boosters? Even moreso off of a ramp?

 

[Intrepid]

Yes, I remember weak ... may be for U-2 ???

Or this:

 

[Volpler11]

I mean, I agree that it would be intuitive to think that both J-XY/35 and J-15B would be designed to be able to cross deck from the CATOBAR and STOBAR carriers... But there of course was always the possibility that the PLAN might have chosen to develop a separate STOBAR variant of each aircraft for the STOBAR carriers instead. Such an option would obviously be less flexible and more wasteful, but that would depend on whether the respective aircraft were able to structurally accommodate the demands of STOBAR and CATOBAR launch in a single airframe.

In other words -- I think it makes sense for them to be STOBAR and CATOBAR compatible, but it's something I think that needs to be awaited for confirmation (either officially via pictures and video, or via the grapevine), given the significance of whether it's true or not.

I'm not sure what technical requirements you are referring to?.

What are the design requirements for a STOBAR aircraft that are different to CATOBAR? The only one I can think of is engine takeoff thrust. Maybe lighter nose landing gear vs CATOBAR aircraft. I can't imagine an aircraft designed for CATOBAR carrier will suddenly be so overweight that it can't take off from a STOBAR carrier.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I'm not sure what technical requirements you are referring to?.

List of requirements future aircraft is required to comply with.
That in different countries is RFP, tactical-technical task (战术技术要求）, etc.

You've seen STOBAR carriers, you've even seen CATOBAR ones, but now get ready for... RATOBAR?

Are there any current or historical precendents for launching planes off carriers with rocket boosters? Even moreso off of a ramp?

Actually was pretty popular in the late 1940s - early 1950s, i.e. before the modern steam catapult.

 

[Blitzo]

What are the design requirements for a STOBAR aircraft that are different to CATOBAR? The only one I can think of is engine takeoff thrust. Maybe lighter nose landing gear vs CATOBAR aircraft. I can't imagine an aircraft designed for CATOBAR carrier will suddenly be so overweight that it can't take off from a STOBAR carrier.

It isn't about weight alone, but more about transmission of force, and the ability to reinforce an aircraft for both STOBAR and CATOBAR, and if that weight can be contained.


Both a STOBAR and CATOBAR compatible aircraft need to be structurally reinforced to survive arrested landings -- that is the same for both of them.

However, for STOBAR launches, as part of the take off from the ski jump you will have a degree of additional vertical forces acting upwards, "pushing up" through the nose gear and forward part of the aircraft, as the aircraft takes off.

In the case of CATOBAR launches, you have horizontal forces acting forwards, as it "pull" on the nosegear and the aircraft overall.

Meaning if they want an aircraft to be both CATOBAR and STOBAR compatible, they will need to have designed the aircraft to have been reinforced in both ways.

I'm sure it is possible to do, but the question is how much weight does it add, and more importantly whether they've actually decided to do so.