CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations

[gelgoog]

Well. A B-17 Flying Fortress had an empty weight of 36,135 lbs and a max takeoff weight of 65,500 lbs.
A J-15 has an empty weight of 38,600 lbs and a max takeoff weight of 72,752 lbs.
Comparing the performance of old aircraft and new aircraft is apples and oranges as modern aircraft are much larger and have way more capability.

Take a Vietnam War Vought F-8 Crusader as an example, empty weight of 17,541 lbs and a max takeoff weight of 34,000 lbs. Max thrust 80.1 kN. That's like half the payload of a J-15.
The J-15 also has a max thrust of 2x132 kN i.e. 264 kN. That's like triple the thrust.

So yeah, you had more aircraft, but each one was like a downgraded JF-17.

 

[Janiz]

@Interpid: Why do you even bother to talk on the same ground with a guy who wrote

The way a 052 is set up basically makes it invulnerable to Harpoons unless every AAM has been expended.

in the first place? Leave it off.

 

[Blitzo]

As far as I know, neither Kuznetsov nor Liaoning have ever carried more than 14 fixed wing.

I understand where you are coming from, however by my understanding the discussion prior to this has been about what the capacity of the carriers could be by virtue of the aircraft carrier's design rather than how many aircraft they have carried up to this point.

By writing this, it sends us onto a detour because it makes us want to first ask:
1: do the occasions we have seen Liaoning carry the most no. of fighters on deck before represent the highest number of fighters they've actually carried up to now given Liaoning's time in PLAN service? and more importantly,
2: does the number of fighters we've seen aboard Liaoning on occasions up to now represent the the practical functional limit of the carrier's design when considering where the PLAN is at with their developing carrier force (i.e.: in terms of no. of carrier fighter airframes they have, the no. of pilots they have and the jobs they are currently meant to be doing, and what the recent/current tasks of Liaoning has been)?

To the answer of both of those questions I believe is likely "no".

I mean 14 (in words: fourteen).

If you have never practiced with more than 14 aircraft in peacetime, you will not be able to handle more than 14 aircraft during the war.

If they've only practice with 14 aircraft in peacetime, then I certainly do agree with you.
But we have no reason to suspect that the maximum number of aircraft we've seen Liaoning carry up to now represents the practical limit of its airwing size by virtue of the carrier's design.

 

[4channer]

Kuznetsov will never see aircraft again

Dream on.

 

[gelgoog]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Interfax news

April 09, 2019

12:01
Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier's repairs completed at 25%, due to end in 2020 - Shoigu

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

09.04.2019 (12:31)
Russian Defence Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu holds teleconference with leadership of Armed Forces

Today the National Centre for State Defence Control in Moscow hosted another teleconference of Defence Ministry chaired by the General of the Army Sergei Shoigu.

There were two issues on the agenda.

The first one concerned the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.

Defence Minister reminded that in last April last, the Ministry of Defence signed a government contract with the Zvezdochka Ship-building Centre to recover and upgrade the technical readiness of the ship.

At the moment, work is underway in accordance with the master schedule.

Technical readiness of the carrier is 25%.

It will have been repaired and modernised by 2020.

Sergei Shoigu proposed to discuss the progress of work on the ship.

 

[Deino]

Can we leave out the Kuznetsov and its repair attempts in this thread?

The Kuznetsov and its future fate is irrelevant to the Type 002.

Deino

 

[Intrepid]

I understand where you are coming from, however by my understanding the discussion prior to this has been about what the capacity of the carriers could be by virtue of the aircraft carrier's design rather than how many aircraft they have carried up to this point.

The theoretical capacity is more than a geometrical layout of the flightdeck and hangar.

The US-Navy has used their carriers as aircraft ferries with so many aircraft on board that it was not possible to conduct flight operations. The Royal Navy used container ships to accomodate additional aircraft, because the operational value of possible aircraft on board their carriers otherwise would be exceeded. So we have an idea, how many aircraft are the operational maximum value of their carriers.

For Kuznetsov, Liaoning and sisterships we have no idea. We know drawings of a geometrical maximum and we know what we have seen so far. The truth will be something in between.



Hold in mind: in the future the operational maximum will be less than at the time of WW II, Vietnam or Gulf War. Because autonomous flying and automatic functions like magazines needs much more place than conventional handling. Future carriers will be larger with less aircraft and less crew. But they have a higher sortie rate and less casualties in case of a fault/fire/accident/battle damage.

 

[Blitzo]

The theoretical capacity is more than a geometrical layout of the flightdeck and hangar.

The US-Navy has used their carriers as aircraft ferries with so many aircraft on board that it was not possible to conduct flight operations. The Royal Navy used container ships to accomodate additional aircraft, because the operational value of possible aircraft on board their carriers otherwise would be exceeded. So we have an idea, how many aircraft are the operational maximum value of their carriers.

For Kuznetsov, Liaoning and sisterships we have no idea. We know drawings of a geometrical maximum and we know what we have seen so far. The truth will be something in between.

My point is that saying "we've only seen XYZ aircraft onboard up to this point" is not very helpful when the conversation was about how many aircraft the carrier could accommodate by virtue of its design.

Putting it another way, if we are interested in assessing the airwing capacity of an aircraft carrier (or the capability of an aircraft carrier, which is a more complex topic but should abide by the same principles), then it should only be done on a basis where there are no extraneous limiting factors such as the number of carrierborne aircraft that a Navy has, the number of experienced pilots, experienced deck crew etc.

The only fair way of comparing the capacities of designs of different aircraft carriers is of course to have all of those extraneous factors be the same.

 

[Biscuits]

@Intrepid I can’t stop you if you insist on believing in your 14 aircraft Liaoning and 30 aircraft Nimitz delusions.

For the benefit of other readers, I’ll repeat that from the Akagi to the Ford, no carrier has been designed so that it’s max aircraft capacity can be carried on the deck with empty hangars.

Any such thinking is ostrich thinking for an inferior opponent at best, and plain idiocy at worst.

 

[A.Man]

April 12 Image: