Russian Carrier puts to Sea

Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/STOBAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/stobar

Ken

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ken Duffey wrote:

:The Kuznetsov has four arresting wires - and is therfore a 'STOBAR' design.

You're going to have to explain where the back half of that acronym
comes from.

Ken Duffey wrote:

Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/STOBAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/stobar

Ken

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ken Duffey wrote:

:The Kuznetsov has four arresting wires - and is therfore a 'STOBAR' design.

You're going to have to explain where the back half of that acronym
comes from.

Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and everything
else (at the moment) is STOVL.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" a écrit dans le message
news: ...
Ken Duffey wrote:
(snip)
Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and
everything
else (at the moment) is STOVL.

Guy

CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off and
vertical landing ?

Christophe

Christophe Chazot wrote:
"Guy Alcala" a écrit dans le message
news: ...

Ken Duffey wrote:

(snip)

Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and

everything

else (at the moment) is STOVL.

Guy


CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off and
vertical landing ?

Christophe



CTOL, STOL, VTOL, VSTOL all refer to land-based ops.

Carrier launches are anything but 'conventional' - hence the CATO bit.

I guess you have to add BAR to differentiate it from a VL - as in a Harrier.

That would be STOVL ??

So, for carrier ops you can CATO or STO to launch and BAR or VL to
recover - and mix-and-match to suit ....

CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??

I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??

Ken

David Biddulph wrote:
"Drifter Bob" wrote in message
.. .
Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW

The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of
Murmansk
on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic,
Russian news reports said.

Is that named for Kuznetsov the WWII fighter ace?

No.

Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Nikolai Gerasimovich
Kuznetsov:
http://admiral.centro.ru/start_e.htm

Good website!
--
David Biddulph

"More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take
place during the exercises."...

wow, they must have a budget surplus this year.....

Ken Duffey wrote:
snip

CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??

I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??

Ken

We used to talk about CV and STOVL when it came to embarked fast-jets
and everyone knew what was meant. Don't know who came up with the term
"STOBAR" but I suspect it was already being done before BAe (as was) got
all excited at the prospect of a "Navalised" EFA. Given that combat
aircraft used to get airborne from carriers for years without catapults,
the "S" in STOBAR would appear to mean "Ski-jump" in practice (otherwise
use the term "LWUT" - Like We Used To). As for the "B", I think this
comes under the "Law of acronyms" which says you get the acronym first
and explain it later, if forced to.

As for what you term CATOVL, you perhaps may recall the P1154RN, which
the RN wanted to cat launch (hence replacing the original P1154's
bicycle gear with a tricycle layout) but presumably would VL whenever
possible for embarked ops.

NoHoverstop wrote:

Ken Duffey wrote:
snip

CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??

I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??

Ken

We used to talk about CV and STOVL when it came to embarked fast-jets
and everyone knew what was meant. Don't know who came up with the term
"STOBAR" but I suspect it was already being done before BAe (as was) got
all excited at the prospect of a "Navalised" EFA. Given that combat
aircraft used to get airborne from carriers for years without catapults,
the "S" in STOBAR would appear to mean "Ski-jump" in practice (otherwise
use the term "LWUT" - Like We Used To).

Right. The USN experimented with ski jumps for "conventional" carrier a/c
back in the late '80s. I don't recall seeing the term STOBAR used until the
Kuznetsov entered service, at which point someone decided to come up with an
acronym to describe how it fit in between the other two methods. I suppose
you could call flat deck conventional launches ROTOBAR, i.e. Rolling Takeoff
But etc.

As for the "B", I think this
comes under the "Law of acronyms" which says you get the acronym first
and explain it later, if forced to.

'B' is necessary for STOBAR, to show that it's a hybrid of the usual
methods; but CATOBAR just looks better and has an obvious pronunciation,
compared to CATOAR or the even worse CATOAAR. CATOBAR was a retrospective
designation, once STOVL and STOBAR were in the field, it was necessary to
distinguish the types, and CTOL just didn't work (cf. the F-35A CTOL/F-35B
STOVL/F-35C 'CV' variants). CVs don't have to use cat launches, so while
using 'CV' for the F-35C works for the USN (and takes up less space than
CATOBAR), you really would prefer to describe the launch and landing
technique of the a/c rather than the ship type.

As for what you term CATOVL, you perhaps may recall the P1154RN, which
the RN wanted to cat launch (hence replacing the original P1154's
bicycle gear with a tricycle layout) but presumably would VL whenever
possible for embarked ops.

If they can get EMALS cats to work up a curved ski jump, we may yet see
CATOVL a/c.

Guy

Ken Duffey wrote:
Christophe Chazot wrote:
"Guy Alcala" a =E9crit dans le
message
news: ...

Ken Duffey wrote:

(snip)

Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR,
and

everything

else (at the moment) is STOVL.

Guy

CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off
and
vertical landing ?

Christophe



CTOL, STOL, VTOL, VSTOL all refer to land-based ops.

Carrier launches are anything but 'conventional' - hence the CATO
bit.

I guess you have to add BAR to differentiate it from a VL - as in a
Harrier.

That would be STOVL ??

So, for carrier ops you can CATO or STO to launch and BAR or VL to
recover - and mix-and-match to suit ....

CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??

I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??

Ken


What did they call the Royal Navy's Harrier Carriers? I thought it was
V/STOL. (Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing.)

"Ken Duffey" a écrit dans le message
news: ...
(snip)

CTOL, STOL, VTOL, VSTOL all refer to land-based ops.

Arf. And Invincible is not a STOVL ship ?

(re-snip)
I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??

Ken


I don't either, as I wrote, that's why I don't see why there is one B in
CATOBAR. Catapult take-off BUT arrested recovery ?

Christophe