Hard to tell except by observation from Japanese/ROC units. JSDF has the most detailed data. Shandong reached 57 sorties per day in 2023. Highest they recorded for Liaoning was 46.
CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Hard to tell except by observation from Japanese/ROC units. JSDF has the most detailed data. Shandong reached 57 sorties per day in 2023. Highest they recorded for Liaoning was 46.
According to (officially released?) Chinese media Shandong made 10000 sorties in 5 years or 2000 per year. I'm pretty sure it reached the 10000 milestone far faster than Liaoning (with the experience gained from the Liaoning!)
Liaoning's MLU definitely has an impact but not sure that meant it is sortieing more than Shandong:
Liaoning's MLU definitely has an impact but not sure that meant it is sortieing more than Shandong:
I thought it would be interesting to look at other modern STOBAR sorties, the closest one I found recorded was the Kuznetsov during its two month deployment against Syria in 2017. It did 400+ sorties in total (but apparently this included the air wing operating from land bases after two carrier fixed wing crashed.)
So two months, 60 days, dividing up 400 sorties would be in single digits. Worse if a proportion of the sorties were from land bases.
There is absolute nothing on Indian STOBAR sorties. Or even operational patrol deployments, for that matter.
So two months, 60 days, dividing up 400 sorties would be in single digits. Worse if a proportion of the sorties were from land bases.
There is absolute nothing on Indian STOBAR sorties. Or even operational patrol deployments, for that matter.
I think it is safe to say that the Liaoning and Shandong are pretty much state of the art as far as STOBARs are concerned. Most of the other ramped carriers are VTOL with the F-35B or the Harrier before that.
The Kuznetsov did single digit launches per day during a war setting in Syria when we assume a carrier should be maxxing out its capabilities. A far cry from the 50 for the Chinese STOBARs.
With the Kuznetsov abandoned, there is only the Indian STOBARs for comparison. Except there is no comparison.
Vikramaditya had been in service since 2013 but there is absolutely no records of deployments other than a few photo ops and training exercises. So nothing about any possible sorties rate. The same paucity of deployment records for Vikrant as well but it didn't even have a radar installed until last year.
The Chinese STOBARs are the best you'll see from this technology and the best you'll see from any carrier setup except for CATOBARs.
I would put up the STOBARs against the UK QEs and their VTOL/STOVL even though the QEs supposedly can do up to 110 sorties. During the Persian Gulf ops against the Houthis, the Brits did an average of 60 sorties per day not much more than the 45 to 50 we see from the Chinese carriers.
The Kuznetsov did single digit launches per day during a war setting in Syria when we assume a carrier should be maxxing out its capabilities. A far cry from the 50 for the Chinese STOBARs.
With the Kuznetsov abandoned, there is only the Indian STOBARs for comparison. Except there is no comparison.
Vikramaditya had been in service since 2013 but there is absolutely no records of deployments other than a few photo ops and training exercises. So nothing about any possible sorties rate. The same paucity of deployment records for Vikrant as well but it didn't even have a radar installed until last year.
The Chinese STOBARs are the best you'll see from this technology and the best you'll see from any carrier setup except for CATOBARs.
I would put up the STOBARs against the UK QEs and their VTOL/STOVL even though the QEs supposedly can do up to 110 sorties. During the Persian Gulf ops against the Houthis, the Brits did an average of 60 sorties per day not much more than the 45 to 50 we see from the Chinese carriers.
One of the issues with statements such as "state of the art" or comparisons of sortie rates across various carrier designs is that the sample base is so small as to being effectively useless.
Its fair to say for relevant navies so far (that includes China btw) the restraints on sortie rate that are not inherent to the organic design of the carrier, but external factors (aircraft numbers, aircraft capabilities, training & development pipeleine), outweigh design aspects.
Which makes related discussions IMO very esoteric.
The only time in history of course, when a good sample base existed, was probably late WW2 or the early Cold War period (early WW2 for a strictly one on one comparison of Japan/US). So its outliers all around.
Its fair to say for relevant navies so far (that includes China btw) the restraints on sortie rate that are not inherent to the organic design of the carrier, but external factors (aircraft numbers, aircraft capabilities, training & development pipeleine), outweigh design aspects.
Which makes related discussions IMO very esoteric.
The only time in history of course, when a good sample base existed, was probably late WW2 or the early Cold War period (early WW2 for a strictly one on one comparison of Japan/US). So its outliers all around.
CV-16 Liaoning transited Miyako Strait for training exercises in the Pacific alongside her 1x 055 DDG and 2x 052D DDG escorts. Posted by @万年炎帝 on Weibo.
Last edited:
And that militaries rarely go all out in peacetime training to lower risk, preserve fuel/munitions, reduce wear and tear, etc.
The Liaoning's location, which is unusual as she has never taken a path like this. This is getting interesting.
Also worth noting, a type 901 departed Qingdao on the 6th (via foolsball) and might join the CSG at a later time.
Also worth noting, a type 901 departed Qingdao on the 6th (via foolsball) and might join the CSG at a later time.
