Equation
Lieutenant General
It's not China's job to prove doubters or their need to "observe" for themselves to prove otherwise.
CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
It's not China's job to prove doubters or their need to "observe" for themselves to prove otherwise.
I seem to recall guessing last year that this new carrier would be launched as soon as late March 2017. I was off... but not by much. Too bad there wasn't a pool.
She looks good.
I see the Liaoning and this new carrier as sea control ships on steroids. These ships will have great utility deploying organic naval aviation over vital Chinese SEALOC's. They can also provide cover for Marine expeditionary forces at sea.
And-perhaps most importantly-they can provide distant cover for SSBN's and complicate efforts of P-8's keeping them from roaming from SSBN areas of operations... while at the same time providing cover for long range friendly ASW.
Okay how exactly can they do do that? The J-15 has limited range and weapons capability since it utilizes a ramp to takeoff. They use helicopters for airborne early warning vice fixed wing aircraft which have have much better on station time and capabilities due to senor payloads, distance from mothership, altitude and so on.
CV-16 and the J-15, even if and when they get a full regiment aboard, (24 aircraft) has yet to demonstrate any serious blue water capapility, always operating within range of divert airfields on the mainland. When she does that then I might begin to take them seriously. And I do recognize their carrier programs still in its infant stage, but realistically they aren't quite there just yet.
I think the better question one should ask is first what is the max weight that a fighter can safely take off from a ski jump under normal conditions, and then from there assess whether that weight would be able to fulfill the kinds of missions that cirvine described.
I personally think the entire "no heavy payload from ski jump" idea has been rather dumbed down and is a bit more nuanced than that, but even if we hypothetically said that a Su-33/J-15 taking off from Kuz/Liaoning could only carry 2/3 of their max fuel or payload from land (or even only a half!), that is still enough fuel and payload capacity to provide a respectable combat radius and a few AShMs/stand off missiles along with some MRAAMs and SRAAMs.
I don't think cirvine said that Liaoning is able or meant to conduct those missions now, but rather that they will be capable of providing those capabilities (aka in future, probably in the not so distant future).
Hardly an over-ambitious claim, I think.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Intrepid
Major
This picture shows the forward end of the hangar:true ... and also there is no evidence that the hangar was the same as Liaoning
It is from *this* posting. It is the same frame than on Liaoning. This has been observed and can be considered a fact.
The aft end is unknown. But with an extended hangar there is less space for workshops. I guess (my opinion, not a fact), the hangar has the same aft end as on Liaoning.
Conclusion: the size of the hangar is unknown, the construction of the forward end has been observed. If somebody tells the hangar has been enlarged to the place where the big missiles have been removed, than this is an unfulfilled wish and throws a bad light on the one who claims that.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It doesn't proof anything the front module is pixalated So who knows if there continuing of the hangar in the next module. Or dimension, or side to side compariosn with Kutnetzov module
Your guess is as good as anybody else . So NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF Once again lay it off We will know soon Everybody on theChinese side said there will be enlarged hangar
Last edited:
Intrepid
Major
No, of course not.
Absolute!
And until then, I hold my opinion against the just as little proved opinion of others - which can not show any pixelated images of an enlarged hangar.
The pictures, which I linked, were pixelated. At the same time there were SketchUp drawings, which should show what could be seen in these pictures, if one had not had to pixelate them.
Even if the hangar were enlarged by this much I don't see how it could add enough space for more than 3 or 4 additional J-15s.
According it 2 in more in the hangar - ofc aicraft to numerous on this graphic to consider but 2 in more are visible - after for the total in general, in average carriers have 50 % of their aicrfats in hangar so 2 x 2 + 4 than the Liaoning in this case 28 seems reasonnable right now.
Almost certain a little more but 36 i don' t think.
I have my doubts about the Liaoning being able to fit all 24 fighters into its hangar. I think this CGI is somewhat more reasonable:
IMO it's far more likely that on a routine operating basis they will probably keep 12 in the hangar and 12 topside at a time and rotate in and out of the hangar by squadrons.
IMO it's far more likely that on a routine operating basis they will probably keep 12 in the hangar and 12 topside at a time and rotate in and out of the hangar by squadrons.
Last edited:
- Status