I asked because see the STOBAR/ramped carrier is being built anew in the UK, Italy, South Korea and Turkey. In 2025, for Turkey as well speak as they just cut steel for a 60K carrier with a ramp.
Definitions:
- CATOBAR - Catapuld-Assisted Take-Off Barrier-Arrested Recovery
- STOBAR - Short Take-Off Barrier-Arrested Recovery
- STOVL - Short Take-Off Vertical Landing
STO
BAR involves having a series of arrestor cables along the deck, usually the angled deck, which the landing plane catches with a tailhook which then transfers excess kinetic energy of the plane into the arrestor system.
However all aircraft carriers have options for emergency landings which is when the deck is cleared and the plane attempts to land in a traditional fashion. The plane is usually arrested by a net barrier. So all carriers are STOBAR to some extent.
Arrestors are used due to the difficulty of matching the velocity of the plane (vector and magnitude of speed) with the length and conditions of the landing zone. The landing zone must be sufficiently long to allow for the plane to expend all kinetic energy. All kinds of natural conditions enter into the equation - if the surface is too slippery, the wind is too strong or too weak etc. Deck landing is always extremely risky which is why arrestors were developed to allow the pilots to force the landing.
Catapults are used to impart additional momentum which allows the planes to be launched at one end of the deck, opening the rest for landing and preparation, and to launch them with maximum payloads. However until recently the only viable technology for catapults was a hydraulic piston powered with pressured steam. That technology was simple to build but very risky to employ in combat because it required extreme pressures to be carried across the ship from the boiler compartment to the catapult. The pressures carried by these pipes was such that if anything went wrong - they were deformed or lost air-tightness - they became a bomb inside the ship. The damaged pipes then had to be checked and/or replaced in their entirety so as not to repeat the problem which was time-consuming. Therefore steam catapults were constructed for safety reasons to have plenty of elements that could break down quickly under stress which meant that catapults would be often out of commission but could be repaired quicker. EMALS is a huge leap forward in that it eliminates the threat inside the ship. All the other benefits like smoother acceleration or better efficienty are just added benefits. The most important thing is that when the catapult is malfunctioning tere is no threat to the ship.
Vertical Landing is used because of historical accident. In 1970s Royal Navy didn't have money to maintain a fleet of carriers and its air wings but it needed ASW ships for protection of Atlantic operations. At the time there were also no reliable long range SAMs so fighters were the default solution for fleet defense. But by that time RAF had fielded Harriers as CAS aircraft for support of British Army (introduced in 1969) and a naval version was developed as consequence. Harriers, and STOVL aircraft, are so strongly associated with US marines and naval operations that I constantly have to remind people that they were designed for army land warfare originally.
Alternatively, one can ask whether there is any history of a navy which has achieved CATOBAR for their carriers and then chosen to continue introducing STOBARs for their carrier.
And obviously the answer is: Indian Navy.
INS Vikrant (1961-1997) built form the unfinished British Majestic-class carrier HMS Hercules had a catapult and arrestors.
It was refit in 1980s to replace the catapult with a ski-jump after older naval aircraft (SeaHawk, Alize) were retired and only Sea Harriers remained in service.
Any subsequent carrier in Indian Naval service is STOBAR... because that's what was available to them.
Preserving institutional capabilities was more important than cutting cost or waiting for alternatives.
And this brings us to the best question
@GiantPanda can be asking himself - not whether STOBAR or STOVL have advantages over CATOBAR but whether there is a
rationale for aircraft carriers without fixed-wing aircraft.
If it is cost and the affordability associated with smaller carriers then that scenario fits in well with the PLAN's possible lower tier. You don't need super carrier sortie-rates and load all the time, especially during peace-time.
Except you
do need super-carrier sortie rates and load all the time. If you don't need them, then you really don't need a carrier. You only
want one. Why? Presently it's for all the wrong reasons.
And here's PatchworkChimera from two years ago on the viability of Liaoning and Shandong as combat vessels:
Well, Liaoning isn't really so much a fully combat-capable, operationally-focused CV as it is a training, doctrine development, and technology maturation platform. Sure, it can be used for real operations, but it's just... well, it's not very suited to that sort of thing. Shandong is a bit better, but it's still obviously lacking as you mentioned. If they do end up participating in hostilities, I'd wager it would look something like Shandong in the SCS with a couple escorts providing air cover for forward-postured surface formations, while Liaoning could potentially accompany surface formations transiting Tsushima, and provide air cover if any naval forces operate in the Sea of Japan.
Liaoning providing air cover for naval forces in Sea of Japan is kawaii. But not serious.
PatchworkChimera obviously forgot about the role of aircraft carriers in ASW. Why? I can't answer for him but my suspicion is that he was a civilian "number cruncher" and lacked knowledge in the military domain, especially knowledge of 1945-1991 period which to him - judging his likely age from his preference for anime etc. - would be ancient history. Like many others he ignored it focusing on task at hand despite the fact that that period influenced the entirety of the apparatus that he was working with.
There are three types of "proper" aircraft carriers:
- CV/N supercarriers
- ASW helicopter carriers
- LHD helicopter carriers
Anything else is a substitute of CV/N wrapped in propaganda.
The notion that light or lighter carriers can serve their function as ships carrying fighter planes is completely mistaken and driven by ignorant or dishonest interests inside the American MIC or an attempt to push for more F-35B sales.
An
ASW helicopter carrier is a valid and often necessary ship in its own right, but unfairly dismissed by the experts of SDF because real world warfare rarely fits into their fantasies. For example many such experts online will develop sophisticated scenarios involving countless saturation attacks with anti-ship missiles while forgetting that a single torpedo is sufficient to mission-kill or even sink a frigate, a destroyer and even a cruiser wile two torpedos can seriously damage an aircraft carrier and will likely sink an LHD. Physics of underwater explosions and the structural integrity of ship hulls are very clear on that. This is why even the most outdated submarine is always considered a primary threat.
Examples of ASW helicopter carriers are Japanese
Hyuga and
Izumo classes, replacing
Shirane and
Haruna classes.
Kiev class of Soviet navy, replacing
Moskva class, was also a helicopter carrier (and nuclear missile cruiser) as Yak-38 due to poor design was never properly implemented on those ships. It's classification as aircraft carrier (as the rationale given for missiles) was simply incorrect but it was not the only thing CIA got wrong about Soviets.
During the later Cold War (1970-1990):
- Soviets used their carriers for ASW with fighters serving only to chase away enemy recon planes.
- USN used carriers for fleet defense and ASW with strike planes being carried due to practical considerations.
- France used their carriers as a smaller version of USN supercarriers
- other European navies used carriers primarily for ASW with fleet defense being of symbolic value.
All of the aircraft carriers that you mentioned earlier are STOVL which means that landing is performed vertically by rotorcraft (helicopters or tilt-rotors) or by STOVL planes like F-35B landing vertically. These countries use STOVL designs because they use the carriers as ASW helicopter carriers or LHD amphibious transports. Their ability to launch F-35B is completely incidental and if that plane didn't exist these ships would still be built. See French
Mistral class or the Russian
Priboy class being built or Australian
Canberra class which - despite Australia using F-35A - will not be adapted for F-35B use.
And now I have to do some shopping.
