Quote:
Originally Posted by royamcr
Always wondered about the physics behind the US using flat launch decks vs other countries having a ramp. I mean a plane is either gonna fly or not fly based on speed and lift. Adding a ramp has gotta be hard on the gear.
|
Newtonian mechanics says a ski jump has a better shot at keeping a bird airborne. but wear and tear on mechanical parts is a thing too, so i don't pretend to know the answer.
chatgpt: flat deck wins. it's all about the catapult. no catapult, Newton takes over and ski jump wins. the explanation gets technical, but here goes:
You said:
what's a better aircraft carrier design, ski jump or flat?
ChatGPT said:
Short answer: it depends on what you want the carrier to do—but for a full-power blue-water navy, flat-deck CATOBAR carriers are generally the superior design. Here’s the clean breakdown.
�� Ski-Jump (STOBAR)
Used by: UK (Queen Elizabeth class, with STOVL), India, Russia, China (older carriers)
Pros
Simpler & cheaper: No catapults or arresting gear → lower build and maintenance costs.
Fewer mechanical failure points: Less complex launch systems.
Good for STOVL or lighter fighters: Works well with aircraft like the F-35B.
Cons
Payload penalties: Aircraft take off under their own power → less fuel, fewer weapons.
No heavy support aircraft: Can’t launch E-2D Hawkeyes, large tankers, or heavy ISR platforms.
Lower sortie rates: Slower tempo under sustained combat operations.
�� Best for regional power projection and navies prioritizing affordability and simplicity.
⚙️ Flat-Deck (CATOBAR)
Used by: U.S. Navy, France (Charles de Gaulle)
Pros
Maximum aircraft performance: Full fuel + full weapons loads.
Supports force multipliers: AWACS (E-2D), electronic warfare, tankers, heavy UAVs.
Higher sustained sortie rates: Better for prolonged, high-intensity conflict.
Future-proofing: More adaptable to new aircraft types.
Cons
Expensive and complex: Catapults (especially EMALS) are costly and maintenance-heavy.
Training and logistics intensive: Requires a highly mature naval aviation ecosystem.
Larger crew requirements.
�� Best for global power projection and peer-conflict scenarios.
�� Strategic Bottom Line
Regional / budget-constrained navy → Ski-jump
Global power, high-intensity warfighting → Flat deck
U.S.-style carrier strike group doctrine → Flat deck, no contest
If you’re thinking in terms of China vs. U.S., future carrier warfare, or even drone-centric air wings, the advantage increasingly tilts toward flat decks with EMALS.
If you want, I can also break this down in terms of sortie generation math, survivability, or how unmanned aircraft change the equation.
You said:
yes
ChatGPT said:
Alright—let’s go unmanned aircraft + sortie generation, because that’s where the design gap gets really stark.
�� Unmanned Aircraft: Where Flat Decks Pull Away
CATOBAR (Flat Deck) = Drone Heaven
Flat decks can launch heavy, long-endurance UAVs using catapults—this is huge.
What that enables:
Persistent ISR (24+ hour orbits)
Organic aerial refueling (e.g., MQ-25 Stingray)
Electronic warfare & decoys
Strike drones with real payloads
Catapults let you launch:
Heavier airframes
With full fuel
At higher launch weights
Safely and repeatedly
That’s why the U.S. is all-in on EMALS + UAV integration.
STOBAR / Ski-Jump = Lightweight Drones Only
Ski jumps rely on thrust, not force. That means:
Weight is the enemy
Drones must be small, short-range, or lightly loaded
No heavy tankers
No E-2D-class equivalents
You might get:
ISR drones
Loitering munitions
Loyal wingmen
But not true force multipliers.
�� Bottom line: Ski-jump carriers are capped at “tactical drones.” Flat decks enable “operational drones.”
�� Sortie Generation: The Math Favors Flat Decks
Launch Cycle Comparison (Simplified)
Ski-Jump (STOBAR):
Aircraft must taxi to the bow
One aircraft launches at a time
Longer deck reset time
Takeoff spacing increases as payload weight increases
CATOBAR:
Multiple launch points
Aircraft launched every ~20–30 seconds
Independent launch & recovery cycles
Better deck choreography
Sustained Combat Operations
Metric Ski-Jump Flat Deck
Max Takeoff Weight ❌ Limited ✅ Full
Sorties/day (high tempo) ~60–90 120–160+
Tanker Support ❌ None ✅ Organic
AWACS ❌ No ✅ Yes
Surge Capacity ❌ Limited ✅ High
That tanker piece matters a lot:
CATOBAR carriers can refuel their own fighters
STOBAR carriers burn sortie potential just to keep aircraft airborne
�� The Strategic Implication (This Is the Big One)
A flat-deck carrier is not just an airfield—it’s a floating airbase with its own logistics chain in the sky.
That means:
Longer reach
More time on station
Fewer carriers needed to maintain presence
Greater resilience under missile threat (less need to get close)
This is why:
The U.S. never considered ski-jumps after the 1950s
China is abandoning ski-jumps as fast as it can
France is doubling down on CATOBAR for its next carrier
�� Final Verdict (No Hedge)
If the question is “Which design wins future wars?”
➡️ Flat deck, CATOBAR, EMALS-enabled carriers—by a wide margin.
Ski-jumps are a cost-effective compromise.
Flat decks are a power projection instrument.
