PLAN Carrier Construction

Engineer

Engineer

Major
delft said:
STOBAR is really an inappropriate name. The take off run on Adm K and Liaoning is longer for the two front positions, much longer for the third position than the length of the USN cats. And even so the speed at which aircraft leave the ski ramp is less than of those launched by cat from a flat deck.
If aircraft should leave the ski ramp at 70% of the speed they need from a conventional cat then a cat built into the ramp and giving the same acceleration need only be half as long, 45 rather than 90 meters. The short run from the forward positions is some 130 meters in Adm K and Liaoning so such cats would free a deck length of 85 meters for spotting aircraft and much more from the third position.
To approach the quality of USN aircraft carrier operation PLAN has two ways: experience - immensely important - but also innovation. A carrier with cats in the ski ramp is truly STOBAR.
Click to expand...

Acceleration provided by a catapult is basically the maximum acceleration tolerable by the airframe and pilots. It is not physically possible to provide more acceleration than that without breaking things. In other words, it is not possible make take off runs any shorter than through the use of a catapult.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
delft said:
STOBAR is really an inappropriate name.
Click to expand...
Delft, you are making a comparison in order to say that the acronym is not appropriate, that is not the rational for the name/acronym. You are comparing STOBAR and CATOBAR to each other as a basis for the appropriateness, when in actuality they should not be compared like that. They are meant to be compared to how they would otherwise have to operate when not on the carrier. From that perspective, STOBAR is a very appropriate acronym.

They are meant to reference how the aircraft take off and land on the two different types of carriers compared to how they would otherwise take off and land without a carrier.

The "STO" in STOBAR means Short Take Off...which it most certainly is compared to how it would have to launch without being on that particular type of a carrier.

The "CAT" in CATOBAR means Catapult Assisted Take-off...which it most certainly is compared to how it would have to launch without being on that particular type of carrier.

The "BAR" in both acronyms (of course) refers to the Arrested Recovery Systems, and both acronyms describe the landing in the same way, which is very appropriate for how they land on the carrier compared to how they would have to land without being on those types of carriers.
 
Last edited:
D

delft

Brigadier
Engineer said:
Acceleration provided by a catapult is basically the maximum acceleration tolerable by the airframe and pilots. It is not physically possible to provide more acceleration than that without breaking things. In other words, it is not possible make take off runs any shorter than through the use of a catapult.
Click to expand...
Quite true. That why you need a ski ramp to reduce the speed necessary to get away safely, to perhaps 70%, which would halve the length of the cat and correspond nicely with the size of the ramp.
Btw I would call Liaoning a Jeep carrier.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
delft said:
Btw I would call Liaoning a Jeep carrier.
Click to expand...
Well, Delft, Jeep Carriers were built in world War II and have not been built since. 78 were built and their officail designation was "Escort Carrier," or CVE.

They had a very specific duties which were focused almost entirely on the escort of convoys (hence "escort carrier") and protecting them from, and hunting down and killing, submarines that threatened the convoys. They were very successful at this. They were also built to relieve the large carriers from having to stay close to shore to provide air support for amphibipous landings. In this role they were not expected to fight with enemy combatants, either other aircraft carriers or surface combatant groups.

Today this ampohibious assault role is carried out in the US Navy by LHD and LHA ampbibious assault vessels...but they too are not really "Jeep" carriers.

Many of the "Jeep" carriers were built from commercial or naval tranpsort vessels. They were much smaller, they did not have the propuslion and speed, the armor, the efensive weaponry, military specifications, or capacities of purpose built carriers. Because of their weaknesses, they were never meant to be engaged in any really major combat situations where they would be threratened by other carrier groups are large enemy task forces. Yhey were not deisgned or meant for that.

Because of these qualities, and understanding what any major combat would mean, their crews had their own meaning for the term, "CVE." They veiwed it as, "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable."

IMHO, the Lioaning does not fit this definition. She is a large carrier (the only larger carriers are the US super carriers), she will carry a very respectful, capable airwing, she is built to military specifications, she has strong defensive weaponry, she is able to maintain high speeds. She is capable, with her airwing and escorts of being a real threat to any other carrier battle group she may come up against, once she has a full airwing that has been well trained.

So, given the historical record, I certainly would not call the Liaoing a "Jeep" carrier at all.

But that is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
D

delft

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
Well, Delft, Jeep Carriers were built in world War II and have not been built since. 78 were built and their officail designation was "Escort Carrier," or CVE.

They had a very specific duties which were focused almost entirely on the escort of convoys (hence "escort carrier") and protecting them from, and hunting down and killing, submarines that threatened the convoys. They were very successful at this. They were also built to relieve the large carriers from having to stay close to shore to provide air support for amphibipous landings. In this role they were not expected to fight with enemy combatants, either other aircraft carriers or surface combatant groups.

Today this ampohibious assault role is carried out in the US Navy by LHD and LHA ampbibious assault vessels...but they too are not really "Jeep" carriers.

Many of the "Jeep" carriers were built from commercial or naval tranpsort vessels. They were much smaller, they did not have the propuslion and speed, the armor, the efensive weaponry, military specifications, or capacities of purpose built carriers. Because of their weaknesses, they were never meant to be engaged in any really major combat situations where they would be threratened by other carrier groups are large enemy task forces. Yhey were not deisgned or meant for that.

Because of these qualities, and understanding what any major combat would mean, their crews had their own meaning for the term, "CVE." They veiwed it as, "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable."

IMHO, the Lioaning does not fit this definition. She is a large carrier (the only larger carriers are the US super carriers), she will carry a very respectful, capable airwing, she is built to military specifications, she has strong defensive weaponry, she is able to maintain high speeds. She is capable, with her airwing and escorts of being a real threat to any other carrier battle group she may come up against, once she has a full airwing that has been well trained.

So, given the historical record, I certainly would not call the Liaoing a "Jeep" carrier at all.

But that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I meant to say "Btw I would not call Liaoning a Jeep carrier." as a response to Blackstone, #710.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
delft said:
I'm sorry. I meant to say "Btw I would not call Liaoning a Jeep carrier." as a response to Blackstone, #710.
Click to expand...
Copy that. Well, I agree with that statement then.

It was nice to provide a history lesson just the same for future lurkers to read. LOL!
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
delft said:
I'm sorry. I meant to say "Btw I would not call Liaoning a Jeep carrier." as a response to Blackstone, #710.
Click to expand...

Humm..., but the Jeep Carriers I was talking about are baby flattops like Thailand's HTMS Chakri Naruebet with cats, and not something like the CNS Liaoning.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Blackstone said:
Humm..., but the Jeep Carriers I was talking about are baby flattops like Thailand's HTMS Chakri Naruebet with cats, and not something like the CNS Liaoning.
Click to expand...
A nice thought, but I don't think you could land a MiG-29 on her ( assuming of course that you added an angled deck). I do see the possibility of going to a smaller flattop, but that would mean the next Indian carrier Vikrant ( 40k ) in a refit, and after India ended the farcical "Tibetan government in exile". The concept presumes twin engine aircraft that will survive the loss of an engine at the retraction of the wheel chocks.
On second thought: what about an aircraft like the Westland Wyvern, one of my favorites despite its horrible propensity to kill pilots, with two engines driving coaxial propellers.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
Humm..., but the Jeep Carriers I was talking about are baby flattops like Thailand's HTMS Chakri Naruebet with cats, and not something like the CNS Liaoning.
Click to expand...
Well, it is true that carriers like the Thai Chakri Naruebet, the Italian Garibaldi, the Spanish Asturias (now decommissioned), the Japanese Hyugas and Izumos...those types of STOVL carriers without a well deck, are probably as close to "Jeep" carriers as anything in existance today.

I leave oot the well deck vessels because they are multi-mission vessels with a huge role in the Amphibious and Air Assault roles.

However, once those carriers are equipped with something like a EV-22 Opsrey AEW aircraft, a V-22 refuleing aircraft and F-35Bs and the ordinance they can carry...they will become real threats to much larger carriers and will progess beyond just being escort or "Jeep" carriers, or close support for amphibious landings in terms of their raw capability.

A wing of even 12 F-35Bs could pose a real threat to other carriers and would have to be respected as such.

But we are getting pretty far off-fopic from Chinese Carrier Construction here and probably need to get back on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top