Talk:STOBAR

Users section contradictoin
This line is contradicted by the following table, which says that India built the Vikrant, and that the USSR built the Kuznetsov and Vikramaditya. The origin column in the table has no Russian-built carriers. Either the paragraph or the table should be updated. 140.186.62.49 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

E-2C
Artyom.beilis (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) actually E-2C is capable of operating from Ski-jump:, , additionally it isn't only about T/W it is also about the stall speed.

@Artyom.beilis,thank you Artyom.Nicky mathew

Limited Payload
@Nicky mathew

It is actually something that isn't correct but rather a misconception. US Navy tested ramps and found them efficient - there are many articles about ramp takeoff testing by the US Navy not available to public, some are, but with partial information (as they didn't go all the way though):. In reality the limitations are less severe but the information isn't publicly available as neither Russian or Indian navy publish the exact limits on the payload.

I created a model myself: http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/ and had actually shown that even fully loaded F-18E/F can takeoff from a ramp. I can't include it to the Wikipedia article due to "self-published source" restrictions, but many "experts" just don't really understand how ramp works and that's why there are many "limited-payload" articles. Indeed it is easy to conclude that only a light aircraft takeoff from 180m runway even with good wind over deck because in normal conditions fully loaded aircraft need ~600-~1000m or something like that forgetting that an effective runway is much longer...

Another important hint for the STOBAR capability is buddy refueling of MiG-29K... it is meaningless unless you can takeoff heavily loaded.

Artyom.beilis (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Artyom.beilis Interesting, i never seen any article in detail explaining STOBAR configurations.I found it very difficult get any reliable citations on the subject so as just like you said most people does not know much about STOBAR probably because u.s navy does not use any stobar carrier. whats your opinion about C-2 Greyhound size Aircraft operating from a stobar carrier ? and please check that Table,advantages and limitations in talk ..what do you think should we add back two tables or not ?    Nicky mathew (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Nicky mathew follow the link I had given, there are some navy articles describing ski-jump operations/simulations.
 * About Grayhound size aircraft. First of all Navy simulated E-2 and found it possible to operate them. C-2 and E-2 are variants of the same airframe. About the "size" - it isn't question of size even C-130 can takeoff and land on a carrier without a ramp . Actually before jet age every carrier was sort of STOBAR but without a ramp. Catapults were rarely used during WW2. B-25s took off to attack Japan from carrier without catapults. The question is question of control-ability, stall speed and of course payload. Artyom.beilis (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Artyom.beilis thank you so much, lets come back to the article .... what do think about the Table,advantages and limitations down in talk...should we add back the two tables ? Nicky mathew (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me who removed the tables... no opinion. Artyom.beilis (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Artyom.beilis i know that you didnt remove the tables. i saw that you had also contributed to that table so i asked your opinion on the matter    Nicky mathew (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like he is right... Table isn't the best option there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Appropriate_use Artyom.beilis (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

=Table,advantages and limitations=

@BilCat,i understand your concern Bilcat. the reason why i made the table is because it makes the article very easy to understand for people who are not familiar with Aircraft carriers and all information inside the table are all linked to its main article within wikipedia and regrading the advantages and limitations in which all i did was modify the article but i should have given additional citations for my claims which in my mistake and i am sorry about it .hope you will understand thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Restored advantages and limitation with citations. please go through the citations and verify. i didn't restore the tables back. i think tables should be added back because they makes it easier for readers to understand the article better.thank you Nicky mathew (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3 August 2018
STOBAR is NOT limited to aircraft carriers; that's merely the common use. You can also use STOBAR on land. To call STOBAR a combination of STOVL with arresting gear was nonsense. None of hose Russian MiG and Suchoi aircraft and their Chinese copies that fly on STOBAR carriers were STOVL aircraft - one doesn't even call them STOL aircraft, for they have no extraordinary lift aids, just a good thrust/weight ratio that normally allows them to take off after few hundred metres if not near MTOW. Another edited-out error was about supposedly necessary high thrust/weight ratio. This is incorrect. See the study here www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf which proves that low t/w aircraft like A-10 and A-7 benefitted greatly from ski jumps as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk)


 * STOBAR, Short Take-Off But Arrested Landing, is by definition a system for carriers. Yes, a ski-jump can be used on land, but so can catapults. However, neither are commonly used on land other than for testing carrier aircraft. The combination of STOVL with CATOBAR part could be reworded somewhat, but removing it all is not helpful. - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)