elevator placement ultimately sets the constraints on launch and trap rates. thats one of the big lessons learnt on US carriers ever since Midway was launched but fundamentally since Forrestal (as the grand daddy of "super carriers")
PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy
- Thread starter Wall83
- Start date
elevator placement ultimately sets the constraints on launch and trap rates. thats one of the big lessons learnt on US carriers ever since Midway was launched but fundamentally since Forrestal (as the grand daddy of "super carriers")
I see. Just wondering, is there a convention where aft elevators are serviced by aircraft that have been trapped, while stern elevators are serviced by aircraft prepped for flight i.e. proximity determines elevator usage?
Admittedly I don't have a lot of access to resources and reading material regarding flight deck matters.
Might be better for one of the USN Defprofs to comment here re specifics.... but
you have to clear the trap area as soon as possible so that others already stacked can come in - and its a timing issue with whats happening further up in the forward launch areas.
the USN is a good example of how almost 95 years of Carrier experience has led them to specific design elements - and the benchmark for the super carrier construct.
the danger however is considering the carrier in isolation - ie the platform focus dilemma
as a platform though the CVN's can load, launch trap etc with multiple aircraft stacked to go and stacked to trap with a high degree of efficiency. and you have to remember that they are computing the launch numbers for every aircraft type in the queue - and that queue determines how the airwing forms up and does its job
Hey GF thanks a lot, I think I got a grasp (not a good one, but waaaay better than before) on the key theories behind flight deck operations and how elevators, what's really left to be seen is how these theories are implemented on future PLAN carriers.
it does go to the very fundamental issues of why catobar and stobar launches have an impact on how the airwings can prosecute their jobs
Yes, I do seem to remember now. Engines101 did share quite a lot of information regarding this, I finally found this gem here: https://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/juan-carlos-canberra-class-lhd-12136-22/#post284245
If I understand it right i.e. STOBAR can put more fighters in the air as compared to STOVL, but performance of individual fighters launched through STOBAR will be limited due to weight issues.
One thing that got me thinking is the fact that presently the Liaoning looks to me like it can either dedicate the deck to launch, or trap, but not simultaneously. Admittedly this is just my hypothesis from seeing images where launch ops are ongoing and all the J-15s are huddled at the back, parked all over the arrestor wires. I am wondering if this is an issue in operations i.e. while you maximise your ability to get as many airframes in the air, could there be a safety issue i.e. pilot needs to land ASAP shortly after take off?
yep, nice detail provided by him. worth keeping as a reference for these types of discussions
potentially yes, but its still an issue of mapping the real estate to take advantage of issues like surges in tempo etc.... concurrent launches by stovl would be an interesting concept but on a Forrestal sized carrier or Midway sized carrier, am not so sure the opportunity can actually be realised to any meaningful effect
using the CdG as a comparison,. I doubt that Liaoning can even remotely approach CdG launch rates.
Engines actually says that STOVL has higher sortie generation rates than STOBAR and believes they can at least match - if not exceed - CATOBAR rates.
the problem though is the support assets, as the issue is then about relative consumption rates, unrefueled range, organic tanking impact and the absolute reach issues.
it starts to become a package and assist issue against the mission reqs. the deeper the strike away from the carrier the more the numbers start to shift in favour of catobar (IMO)
100% agree. CATOBAR offers the most complete and effective package for the extremely significant portion of missions that a carrier would need to undertake.
Presumably the USN isn't overly concerned about their current carrier as the Russians run something similar and only really put them up with a limited CAP loadout for fleet air defence. Although i think i'm right in thinking that it was down to doctrinal difference in that the Russians wanted missile carrying cruisers to be the heavy hitters and the USN their carriers.
China will go CATOBAR eventually. Maybe not in this second carrier as the J-15 I think has hit FRP and considering the recent announcement that an EMALS has been developed, it'd be quite a bold move to put such a developmental system in their first attempt at building a carrier.
Even so, once they have the capability and develop the rest of the air group, it'll still be a decade+ of running her to become fully experienced in her operation. While all that's going on, the USN will keep on going.
I'm quite interested in the SSN aspect, in my head i'm imagining Cold War style USN/PLAN submarine games with their attack boats and boomers.
GF, once again thank you very much for your responses. When you mentioned mapping the real estate, that refers to the flight deck right?
It's quite interesting in the sense that STOBAR seems to be neither here nor there. I mean, it can carry quite a large embarked air wing, but there are so many limitations to maximising the launched aircraft's full potential, I wonder if these STOBAR carriers are really useful in supporting surface combatants, at land or at sea.
Rob, I was thinking less in terms of sortie generation rate and more in terms of absolute numbers of aircraft that can be launched. If I remember correctly, some STOVL carriers have only a small embarked air wing, barely 10 fighters operating from it, while I seem to recall that most of these STOBAR carriers have a larger complement of jets, roughly twice the amount a STOVL carrier.
It's quite interesting in the sense that STOBAR seems to be neither here nor there. I mean, it can carry quite a large embarked air wing, but there are so many limitations to maximising the launched aircraft's full potential, I wonder if these STOBAR carriers are really useful in supporting surface combatants, at land or at sea.
Rob, I was thinking less in terms of sortie generation rate and more in terms of absolute numbers of aircraft that can be launched. If I remember correctly, some STOVL carriers have only a small embarked air wing, barely 10 fighters operating from it, while I seem to recall that most of these STOBAR carriers have a larger complement of jets, roughly twice the amount a STOVL carrier.
Original response was kinda fragmented so i'll try again.
You'll find STOVL ships to be smaller for a couple of reasons. Firstly is that STOVL aircraft like Harrier/F-35B are an excellent way to get fixed wing aircraft on smaller ships because launch/recovery is as easy as it gets. You don't find smaller STOBAR/CATOBAR ships for a number of reasons, but add in catapults/arrestor gear and you start adding more complex machinery and the crew to operate them. You need a bigger ship. Not to mention deck movements are more complex and require more space.
Secondly, STOVL carriers aren't usually proper carriers, they're usually flat deck amphibs that people want to get fixed wing aircraft on. STOBAR/CATOBAR carriers are designed for air power, that's why you get larger ships and complements so they can sustain larger numbers of aircraft for longer periods.
Vikramaditya and Lioning (STOBAR) have nominal air wing sizes of 36 each, HMS Queen Elizabeth (STOVL) is 40 with max load being 50. The reason the latter bucks the trend is because HMS Queen Elizabeth was designed for fixed wing operations and ended up being north of 70,000t with a maximum complement of 50. That's why she's a big ass STOVL carrier.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
In the last few years there seems to be quite a trend towards ski-jump-equipped amphibs / carriers (and not just Russia & China): Italy, Spain, Australia, Turkey, heck even the Queen Elizabeth has a bit of an amphibious assault role.
Yep, real estate is a euphemism for any platform where you are trying to squeeze capability into a known area - so its not only flight deck (as in this conversation) but can also refer to fitting out a citadel in a skimmer etc.....
its the danger of having platform focused discussions though - you run the risk of missing the forest for the trees
its all about force management and projection relevant to the capability
the push has actually been around multi-purpose multi role platforms where they can not only fulfill military roles but also extend govt policy via soft roles such as HADR support. One of the ways for services to get platforms through tight budgets is to argue multi-hatting. It gets to appease the bean counters in treasury/finance/exchequer etc....
although not obvious, a lot of the expeditionary assets are gaining currency due to the multi-hat arguments and because they are also being seen as potential fits for other re-emergent capabilities such as hunter-killer flags etc....
HI Rob, thanks for your response.
When I was thinking STOVL carrier, I was actually thinking along the lines of the Invincible-class carriers. I do agree that a good number of LHDs/LHAs will also have a small air complement, effectively making them mini-carriers.
Will admit that I was surprised to hear that the QEC will be STOVL, I was really expected a CATOBAR type given the size...
When I was thinking STOVL carrier, I was actually thinking along the lines of the Invincible-class carriers. I do agree that a good number of LHDs/LHAs will also have a small air complement, effectively making them mini-carriers.
Will admit that I was surprised to hear that the QEC will be STOVL, I was really expected a CATOBAR type given the size...
Then again the Invincibles were - if I remember rightly - supposed to be more like a sea control ship, they'd be carrying a good number of ASW aircraft with a handful of Harriers for fleet air defence, intercepting Soviet bombers and the like. They weren't primarily about fixed wing aircraft
That's why they are how they were, they only became 'carriers' because the Reds collapsed and it was believed the concept was outdated. That's when it became a Harrier oriented group but the ship was still principally designed for helicopter operations.
Eh, don't get me started. But for right now, STOVL represents the best option for the RN hands down.
Ah yes, that's true. Actually come to think of it, it was her performance in the Falklands that left a strong impression on me that the Invincible's could provide pretty good air superiority. No doubt though, that STOVL is the best option for RN.
Whoops, sorry, didn't mean to ignore your response. I see, I get what you mean.
Well, I'm always worried about going down that path, and I must say it does take effort. I guess it's tempting to make generalisations based on a particular metric to justify an internal conscious/unconscious bias.its the danger of having platform focused discussions though - you run the risk of missing the forest for the trees
So, in that sense, lets say one of the roles of the Liaoning is to be able to intercept x number of enemy bombers y km away from the fleet. Even if the launch rates are lower than other carriers and things are done less efficiently, so long as the BARCAP can be thrown up in time and achieve it's function, then in the eyes of the PLAN, the Liaoning is good to go.
Hope I got that understanding right! You guys have been really patient in helping me develop a clearer understanding
the fundamentals are always wrapped around the multiple "d's"
detection, distraction, disruption, delamination, deterrence, destruction
If the presence of Liaoning is enough to cause an enemy to redistribute their forces from a critical fighting mass to deal with it (even if that just means shadowing) then that may be a sufficient end result to achieve an element of "win". The force element attached to the carrier also starts to give an indication of their intent - especially if its not the conventional formed up fleet for that platform
its why subs are the greatest demonstrators of disproportionate impact
one sub can tie up a fleet, one sub can cause the reallocation of significant critical resources of the opposing team, one sub can change the game plan,
eg look at the cuban crisis (russian subs) and the falklands (belgrano impact)