Talk:CATOBAR

Russia?

In this article is says only three countries (USA, Brazil and France) use this system. But in this article NAe São Paulo it says that Russia also uses this system. --RenniePet (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Actually, the SP article states "only four (Brazil, France, USA, and Russia) have embarked aircraft of conventional type (CTOL), while the other five operate STOL/VTOL aircraft only." They are including both CATOBAR and STOBAR as "conventional" in that statement, probably referring to arrested landing and no VTO capability. Technically speaking, cat take-offs runs are shorter than the STOBAR types. I'd revise the whole paragraph in the SP article, and just mention that Brazil is one of only 3 nations that use CATOBAR, and leave it at that. That 9 nations operate carriers is probably better left to the aircraft carrier article. - BillCJ (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the acronym "Barrier" or "But"?

Searching on this I have found both usages in references so I am not making a judgement in either direction. Can someone please find a US Navy definitive expansion of the acronym CATOBAR? Note that if we change it to "Barrier" here, it will be inconsistent with STOBAR which also uses "But". Personally, I find "Barrier" to be preferable, since "But" always indicates an assumed logical exclusion "...round, but green". Why should "Catapult" and "Arrested" have a "But" between them? It does not seem logically correct.Pmarshal (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was astounded when I saw Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery! Nobody in the military calls it that. It is Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery. It stems from the first carriers that litrally used a net barrier. Seriously, this needs to be changed as soon as possible. You're all making a laughing stock of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.34.239 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Provenance of "CATOBAR"

Recently, an editor has repeatedly added statements to the effect that CATOBAR is (essentially) a neologism. The most recent edit was much better (in that it felt less like a lecture delivered to a bunch of dull-witted students), but the central argument is flawed. In the Summer 2011 issue of Naval War College Review (volume 64, issue 3), an article by Navy senior analyst Daniel J. Kostecka entitled "PLA Doctrine and the Employment of Sea-Based Airpower" uses the term CATOBAR to describe US Navy aircraft carriers; the first reference, near the bottom of page 17, reads "...ski-jump-equipped carriers are far less capable than U.S. Navy-style catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) ships, which employ powerful steam catapults..." This is a peer-reviewed article from the US Navy's Naval War College, which sounds about as close to an official endorsement of the term as one can come. That was the first academic journal cite I found through my university's search engine; the next one is another NWCR article from Winter 2012, entitled "Beijing's 'Starter Carrier' and future steps". There were six periodical cites (to Aviation Week & Space Technology and its sister publication Defense Technology International) and a pair of newspaper citations (one is an AP article, the other is from Defense News.) This is just the first 10 results, covering the years 2010-2012. What's more, these articles span the gamut of nations, discussing different carriers from different navies. Several of the articles discuss multiple nations, while others focus primarily on single nations (China, Britain, India), one discusses Saab Group's attempt to shop the Saab JAS 39 Gripen to the Indian Navy, and one primarily focuses on searching for ground troops from the air, but mentions that the only nations currently operating CATOBAR-capable carriers are the United States and France. This may be a relatively new acronym for a long-established concept, but the Navy is all about coming up with new terms to describe the same old thing. After spending 20 years on active duty, I found that out for myself.<grin> In any case, it's clear that the word has currency in a wide variety of reliable sources, and the idea that it's not "official" is just wrong. Horologium (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation needed - "more costly"?

The statement "more costly than alternative methods" really needs some explanation here. More costly to build, or to operate? How and why? And what are the "alternative methods" referred to? T-bonham (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the acronym "Arrested" or "Assisted?"

The infographic at this link http://i.imgur.com/FZM2MDP.jpg lists "Assisted," but on the CATOBAR wiki page we say Arrested. Is it worth adding it in parentheses, just as we did for the "Barrier or But" discrepancy? Echoing the talk section on "Barrier" or "But," can someone please find a US Navy definitive expansion of the acronym CATOBAR? Mmpozulp (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of wales

The HMS Queen liz and HMS POW will use this type of launch/recovery method, my recemendation is adding them to this article for future readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truethgamer2013 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, they aren't. - BilCat (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Add List of STOBAR aircraft

I think you should add aircraft to this page as well as STOBAR. Nimitz0vikrant (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to suggest an edit, usually it should be in a "please change 'X' to 'Y'" format. - wolf 08:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)