But yet which they are obviously not routinely using in actual practice.
But yet which they are obviously not routinely using in actual practice.
That was the point: air groups becoming smaller so they do not need the deckspace. But they can use it, for example when vertical replenishment is in progress or they would like to put a bigger air group on board (in case of a polical crisis somewhere on this planet).But yet which they are obviously not routinely using in actual practice.
Surging extra fighter squadrons is a valid possible use for those extra tie down points, though I doubt the Liaoning itself could surge in a similar manner given how much smaller it is compared to a Nimitz.That was the point: air groups becoming smaller so they do not need the deckspace. But they can use it, for example when vertical replenishment is in progress or they would like to put a bigger air group on board (in case of a polical crisis somewhere on this planet).
I think that was the point that @Richard Santos wanted to address.Surging extra fighter squadrons is a valid possible use for those extra tie down points, though I doubt the Liaoning itself could surge in a similar manner given how much smaller it is compared to a Nimitz.
I think we differ in our views on the Liaoning's potential "surgeability". He seems to be implying that it is limited by doctrine whereas I think it is limited by physical capacity. Not only is the Nimitz much larger, it is also nuclear and this opens up all kinds of extra space for aviation fuel and munitions instead of taking up space for the carrier's own bunker fuel. Even if the Liaoning's flight deck could physically hold the extra fighters, its actual capacity to use them is far more limited than a Nimitz. Going back to the original point, I suspect this was likely the issue the designers of the Kuznetsov class probably recognized and therefore did not bother to put extra tie down points in those high-traffic areas.I think that was the point that @Richard Santos wanted to address.
I think its internal arrangement will be more important regarding whether or not it could support extra fighters. Not so much the hangar size but how much more efficiently it is able to rearrange its other internal compartments compared to the Kuznetsov/Liaoning. Was it able to squirrel away more internal space for fuel, missiles, pilots, and maintenance equipment, or is the internal arrangement practically the same, in which case we shouldn't expect anything significant to come of the redesign, at least in terms of additional fighter capacity. Unfortunately the internal space is something we have the least access to. As for the smaller island, I think that extra space constitutes room for maybe one more J-15 or Z-18 on the deck at most, which would free up some hangar space for easier maneuverability slightly, maybe. But it certainly wouldn't be something to write home about.Type_001A gets a bigger Pri-Fly and a smaller island for more deckspace. Perhaps it gets additional tie-down-points, too?
And you are right, topweight is an importand point. The carriers of the world-war-II area lost their guns for heavier aircraft on deck.
On its way to Syria I saw a video of Kuznetsow showing the hangar opening of the aft elevator from below. I saw a wall dividing the aft part of the hangar. That means, they cut space and the hangar is smaller now. The Chinese could do the same and use hangar space for other things like storage or accomodation.Was it able to squirrel away more internal space for fuel, missiles, pilots, and maintenance equipment ...