PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Obi Wan Russell said:
At 65,000tons Varyag could not be described as a 'light carrier', a term more usually used to refer to ships around the 20,000ton or less mark. At the very least Varyag is in the upper reaches of the 'medium sized carrier' range, with the US CVNs in the super carrier range obviously.
Click to expand...
I would even put the Varyag and the Kuznetrzov at the low end of the Supercarrier range...particularly if they had cats. QE class will be the same IMHO.

De Gaulle, Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant are mdeium sized carriers in my mind.

Invincible, Asturias, Garibaldi, Cavour are light carriers.

Just my opinion if they had to be broken out by super, medium and light.
 
A

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.
 
A

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.
 
A

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:
Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.
Click to expand...
Good points. Still, particularly if the Kuznetsov class had cats, and if more room for aircraft was made (which may well happen with the Varyag), I'd still put them in the very low end of the supercarrier range...knowing that the De Gaulle is just as capable in terms of air ops at a much lower tonnage.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:
Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.
Click to expand...
Good points. Still, particularly if the Kuznetsov class had cats, and if more room for aircraft was made (which may well happen with the Varyag), I'd still put them in the very low end of the supercarrier range...knowing that the De Gaulle is just as capable in terms of air ops at a much lower tonnage.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:
Just my $0.02.

IMO the primary task of an aircraft carrier is to operate aircraft. But the Russians had a slightly different philosophy and packed their carriers with lots of SAM's and SSM's. This makes comparring western CV to Russian CV a little bit like apples to oranges.

For example the FS Charles de Gaulle is 40,600 tons loaded and operates 40 aircraft. The Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class is 67,000 tons loaded but also operates about 40 aircraft.

If we were to use the "aircraft' standard, then the Russian CV can only be classified as a medium, or possibly large carrier, but no where near the same scale as an USN super carrier with 90 combat aircraft. If you remove those SSM silos, it may be possible to increase aircraft capacity slightly (like Kiev -> INS Vikramaditya), but it's still not the same as a CV built for maximum hanger space.
Click to expand...
Good points. Still, particularly if the Kuznetsov class had cats, and if more room for aircraft was made (which may well happen with the Varyag), I'd still put them in the very low end of the supercarrier range...knowing that the De Gaulle is just as capable in terms of air ops at a much lower tonnage.
 
B

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

My understanding is that normaly the Kuznetsov can have all her aircraft parked in the hangar- but if need be their # may be increased with some planes staying on the flight deck at all times, like on the USN carriers. Apparently they felt no need for this, but the Chinese may decide to push the envelope, and get their smaller
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
navalized in addition to using Su-33s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
B

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

My understanding is that normaly the Kuznetsov can have all her aircraft parked in the hangar- but if need be their # may be increased with some planes staying on the flight deck at all times, like on the USN carriers. Apparently they felt no need for this, but the Chinese may decide to push the envelope, and get their smaller
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
navalized in addition to using Su-33s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
B

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

My understanding is that normaly the Kuznetsov can have all her aircraft parked in the hangar- but if need be their # may be increased with some planes staying on the flight deck at all times, like on the USN carriers. Apparently they felt no need for this, but the Chinese may decide to push the envelope, and get their smaller
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
navalized in addition to using Su-33s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top