Re: Aircraft Carriers II
An often claimed axiom with little investigation into whether it's true.
Just saying -- it's not.
no_name translated a great write up regarding Su-33's payload and MTOW on kuznetsov, and basically it said Su-33 could take off from kuznetsov with an operationally competent payload and fuel load, as well as MTOW, depending on the engine Su-33/J-15 used, and more importantly, the headwind the carrier is experiencing.
I believe the greatest advantage a CATOBAR carrier offers is the ability to launch fixed wing AEW planes, which a STOBAR simply cannot no matter how much headwind you give it. CATOBAR also offers the capability to launch fighters reliably without headwind, whereas STOBAR launched fighters may experience engine failure at the crucial moment and fall out under the carrier's path.
Here are the photos:
A rough translation of the important bits: MTOW from a normal land based take off is 33tons, and take off from 110m using ski jump with 25 knots of headwind can take off with 32 tons, the MTOW. Without headwind, the 110m launch positions are limited to 28 tons. 110m are the 1 and 2 point take off positions.
From the 195m position it can take off with 32 tons without headwind.
So really this flies in the face of CATOBAR > STOBAR, where it shoudl really be CATOBAR > STOBAR (under certain circumstances)
And it actually makes a lot of sense that planes are still able to fly from STOBAR carriers with a full load or near full load. The Russians designed kuznetsov and ulyvanosk both with ski jumps in mind. The latter would have had cats on the waist, so why not stick them on the bow as well if a ski jump limited payload so much? Also India paid a lot to convert gorshkov into a STOBAR carriers, and they are quite demanding customers. Would they really have bought a carrier which Mig-29Ks cannot fly off with a less than full payload?
The only argument for the inferiority of STOBAR being unable to launch heavily loaded fighters is the lack of photos... but that I think is more due to the fact that the russian navy currently operate the world's only STOBAR carrier and haven't had the funds since kuznetsov was launched to properly arm their fighters. Also, more importantly, the whole "STOBAR can't launch fighters at MTOW" phrase has been repeated so often now without investigation that people simply accept it.
The only way to settle this once and for all is for us to wait for liaoning to launch a fully loaded J-15 or vikram to launch a fully loaded Mig-29K, but I think logic and evidence here should prevail.
An often claimed axiom with little investigation into whether it's true.
Just saying -- it's not.
no_name translated a great write up regarding Su-33's payload and MTOW on kuznetsov, and basically it said Su-33 could take off from kuznetsov with an operationally competent payload and fuel load, as well as MTOW, depending on the engine Su-33/J-15 used, and more importantly, the headwind the carrier is experiencing.
I believe the greatest advantage a CATOBAR carrier offers is the ability to launch fixed wing AEW planes, which a STOBAR simply cannot no matter how much headwind you give it. CATOBAR also offers the capability to launch fighters reliably without headwind, whereas STOBAR launched fighters may experience engine failure at the crucial moment and fall out under the carrier's path.
Here are the photos:
A rough translation of the important bits: MTOW from a normal land based take off is 33tons, and take off from 110m using ski jump with 25 knots of headwind can take off with 32 tons, the MTOW. Without headwind, the 110m launch positions are limited to 28 tons. 110m are the 1 and 2 point take off positions.
From the 195m position it can take off with 32 tons without headwind.
So really this flies in the face of CATOBAR > STOBAR, where it shoudl really be CATOBAR > STOBAR (under certain circumstances)
And it actually makes a lot of sense that planes are still able to fly from STOBAR carriers with a full load or near full load. The Russians designed kuznetsov and ulyvanosk both with ski jumps in mind. The latter would have had cats on the waist, so why not stick them on the bow as well if a ski jump limited payload so much? Also India paid a lot to convert gorshkov into a STOBAR carriers, and they are quite demanding customers. Would they really have bought a carrier which Mig-29Ks cannot fly off with a less than full payload?
The only argument for the inferiority of STOBAR being unable to launch heavily loaded fighters is the lack of photos... but that I think is more due to the fact that the russian navy currently operate the world's only STOBAR carrier and haven't had the funds since kuznetsov was launched to properly arm their fighters. Also, more importantly, the whole "STOBAR can't launch fighters at MTOW" phrase has been repeated so often now without investigation that people simply accept it.
The only way to settle this once and for all is for us to wait for liaoning to launch a fully loaded J-15 or vikram to launch a fully loaded Mig-29K, but I think logic and evidence here should prevail.
