I am not here to compare D to say that the Chinese doesn't incorporate changes after operating Liaoning for 4 years is ridiculous
First of all nobody including me is saying that CV-17 "doesn't incorporate changes" after operating the Liaoning (for TWO years, from 2012 to 2014). Please link and quote ANYWHERE that I claimed this. Go ahead. I'm waiting. This is a blatant straw man right here.
Second, it is not the fact of design changes but the extent of design changes that I am referring to. Two years of operational experience may give you SOME degree of familiarity with the inside of the ship and how well the internals of the ship facilitate this, but I have no doubt there are many aspects of carrier operations that you don't learn in two short years, subtleties of efficiency and practice that elude the greenhorn (every last person on the Liaoning was still a carrier greenhorn in 2014).
Third, I'm referring to operational experience only. There is certainly at least some design experience to be gained from just looking at Liaoning's blueprints and thinking up ways to improve/streamline the design without having to gain operational experience.
I don't want to go into the detail just looking at the island we see difference in design, The different positioning of Sponson Or the number of arresting wire 3 instead 4
Many more we can't see because it is the system that will experience most changes . The computer, The radar, The control system, the boiler, the steam turbine etc
The sponsons are in the same place. The only difference is that the Kinzhal VLS launcher platforms that were designed into CV-16 (but not used), are simply deleted from CV-17. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to delete them. As for the arrestor wires this design change most certainly benefited from dry land arrestor landings that had been taking place for years before any J-15 landed on CV-16 where they realized that 3 were sufficient and 4 were unnecessary. The Wuhan mockup contributed to the island changes including the new 4 panel arrangement of the AESA radar, and required no operational experience of any kind. The control system, boiler and steam turbines don't require any operational experience to change, especially if the Russian ones were deficient to begin with, as we already know they were/are on the Kuznetsov.
The operating procedure like sortie rate, recovery rate, speed endurance,replenishing time, refuelling time EW, Radar coverage,ASW etc. Out of it they create doctrine that dictate the equipment design or requirement
Before Liaoning China doesn't have those data Now they do and know the limitation of Liaoning
Let's be perfectly honest here, you don't know whether any of these doctrines changed with operational experience from the Liaoning, and if they did, to what extent they were changed and to what extent they have resulted in any significant modifications to the design of CV-17's structure.
When we say US has decades of experience doesn't mean the experience progression is linear It is more stop and start. US hasn't fought carier battle since WWII
At the onset of WWII the Japanese has more carrier more experience than US Yet their tactic is so complicated that it defeat the purpose. They got creamed at the end
So paper comparison is useless!
This is not only just your own personal opinion, it is also totally irrelevant since Japan's industrial base could not possibly compete with that of the US over the course of the war. US victory had nothing to do with carrier experience, whatever little advantage if any Japan had over the US (again, just your own opinion). The US simply outspent them in everything from carriers to planes to destroyers to battleships.
