CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

Intrepid

Major
Pilots are humans. They need to eat, sleep, go to the toilet, and yes they have other duties besides flying an aircraft ...
... and they can't sleep when there are flights and the catapult sledges are rushing to the brakes with a lot of noise. That's why several aircraft carriers always belong to a formation. One for one half of the day, the other for the other half of the day.

In the past, the flights were shorter, the aircraft were smaller and the squadrons were larger; up to 200 missions were flown per day. Not anymore these days, but the planes stay in the air for many hours and are refueled there.

The number of missions flown is not a relevant measure.
 

Lethe

Captain
Gerald Ford can do ~200 sorties per day with ~90 aircrafts

The number of missions flown is not a relevant measure.

From DOT&E, 2021: "CVN 78 is unlikely to achieve its SGR requirement. The target SGR threshold is well above achieved historical
rates and based on unrealistic assumptions."

In the real world, nobody is remotely concerned about Ford failing to meet its SGR requirement. SGR was invented by USN in the post-Cold War, post-Desert Storm era to defend the nuclear-powered supercarrier against its twin critics of USAF and budget hawks. The critics were empowered by Desert Storm data demonstrating that USAF was able to deliver more munitions at lower cost than USN (with four carriers on station) did, amidst a shrinking budgetary pie that required each service, and each niche within each service, to fiercely defend its own territory and attempt to claim that belonging to others. In the public and legislative mind, USAF was the clear "perceptual winner" emerging from 1991 and was most clearly aligned with the "Revolution in Military Affairs" fervor that swept the American establishment at that time.

USN's response was to promise that CVN-21 would leverage the amazing technologies of the future to achieve unprecedented cost savings while achieving unprecedented sortie rates. The high SGR threshold was important because it was both directly relevant to a hypothetical replay of Desert Storm and because it was a measure by which smaller, less expensive carriers could not compete. As with USAF and its fear that acceding to upgraded F-16s would doom its vision for an all-VLO inventory, USN feared that (re-)opening the door to conventional carriers would spell the end of the nuclear-powered supercarrier. That high SGR was only relevant in a narrow range of operational scenarios that were probably not worth structuring the fleet around (as evidenced by USN not even bothering to quantify it until 1997) was neither here nor there, for the enemy to be met wasn't Iran, Russia, or China; rather, the enemy was USAF and the budget hawks in the Clinton administration. Now that the future of the nuclear-powered supercarrier has been safely secured, SGR can be quietly demoted from being the definitive measure of carrier utility to being just one characteristic amongst many, and Ford's failure to achieve its SGR requirement greeted with a shrug: who cares?
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
From DOT&E, 2021: "CVN 78 is unlikely to achieve its SGR requirement. The target SGR threshold is well above achieved historical
rates and based on unrealistic assumptions."

In the real world, nobody is remotely concerned about Ford failing to meet its SGR requirement. SGR was invented by USN in the post-Cold War, post-Desert Storm era to defend the nuclear-powered supercarrier against its twin critics of USAF and budget hawks. The critics were empowered by Desert Storm data demonstrating that USAF was able to deliver more munitions at lower cost than USN (with four carriers on station) did, amidst a shrinking budgetary pie that required each service, and each niche within each service, to fiercely defend its own territory and attempt to claim that belonging to others. In the public and legislative mind, USAF was the clear "perceptual winner" emerging from 1991 and was most clearly aligned with the "Revolution in Military Affairs" fervor that swept the American establishment at that time.

USN's response was to promise that CVN-21 would leverage the amazing technologies of the future to achieve unprecedented cost savings while achieving unprecedented sortie rates. The high SGR threshold was important because it was both directly relevant to a hypothetical replay of Desert Storm and because it was a measure by which smaller, less expensive carriers could not compete. As with USAF and its fear that acceding to upgraded F-16s would doom its vision for an all-VLO inventory, USN feared that (re-)opening the door to conventional carriers would spell the end of the nuclear-powered supercarrier. That high SGR was only relevant in a narrow range of operational scenarios that were probably not worth structuring the fleet around (as evidenced by USN not even bothering to quantify it until 1997) was neither here nor there, for the enemy to be met wasn't Iran, Russia, or China; rather, the enemy was USAF and the budget hawks in the Clinton administration. Now that the future of the nuclear-powered supercarrier has been safely secured, SGR can be quietly demoted from being the definitive measure of carrier utility to being just one characteristic amongst many, and Ford's failure to achieve its SGR requirement greeted with a shrug: who cares?

I agree this whole thing about "bombs on target" is against defenceless enemy who has no fighter jets

if USN CVN goes up against CV-18 for sure sorties rates will be the last thing they will need to win the war

here it comes down to situational awareness, strategy, tactics, intelligence , electronic warfare and whole array of other things
 
  • Like
Reactions: pkj

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
But how about comparing the F-35B to J-15? It's not really much of a competition other than the J-15 with more of a payload. Speaking of which I know there were rumors that J-15 had limited payload taking off of the ski ramps if the carrier was not traveling at 24knts. With the new engines I imagine this issue was sort of remedied?
CATOBAR carrier are going at speed in head winds to help aircraft liftoff anyway. Catapult launching induce a lot of stress on airframes and the more headwind the less stress you have. Still a CATOBAR have way more leverage to assist takeoff than STOBAR.

We don't see a lot of heavy loads on CV-16-CV17 mostly because it's just stupid to carry heavy if you don't use them on a training range. For most aircrafts, you need to drop load over a weight treshold before landing on a carrier and it's a waste.

Would be great to see a full load liftoff but footages are scarce and managed by PLANAF. If we follow rumors... Tejas is better than J-15.
 

by78

General
A nice magazine scan for the weekend.

53358066311_50ca1e96db_k.jpg
 
Top