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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
For a ship +310 meters long, with a displacement of 70 000 tons, I have to say that 40 aircrafts is quite low, notably when only 30 of them are actually fighter aircrafts...
I have to believe that that number is simply an effort to keep other nations from being concerned or something.

CV-16 is said to be able to carry a total of 50 aircraft. I do not believe CV-17, which was built totaly to China's specs and would have improved on both deck spotting of aircraft and the hanger, would only carry 30. To me, such a claim is almost laughable.

It surely can carry up to 50.

Now, in a time when there is very little chance for any combat operations, they will probably carry less aircraft. The US has been doing that for years now.

In the 70s and 80s when there was an ongoing chance for combat with the Russians, the US carriers would carry over 80 aircraft regularly, close to 90. Now they carry about 60 or even less. If they need to, they can increase those numbers.

I suspect China will do something similar.
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Again an update from the finishing work on the Type 002 carrier at Dalian: Deck coating continues - seems as if the ramp is nearly done - and whereas yesterday still some scaffoldings were seen on the island, they are now removed.

PLN Type 002 carrier - 20190412 - 1.jpg PLN Type 002 carrier - 20190412 - 2.jpg
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
For a ship +310 meters long, with a displacement of 70 000 tons, I have to say that 40 aircrafts is quite low, notably when only 30 of them are actually fighter aircrafts...

CCTV several times quoted Liaoning as carrying 36 airfraft (planes and helicopters combined). It's air wing is thus likely 24 J-15 and 12 helicopters. While a few more aircraft could be embarked, cramming the deck may also lower overall effectiveness when moving them around the deck in need of sorties preparation. That's in part why US doesn't use (not train with) 90 aircraft anymore.

Some stats:
Charles de Gaulle 11300 m2, hangar area 4200 m2 (140*30m), Rafale 74 m2

Nimitz deck 18500 m2, hangar area 7100 m2 (34*209m), Superhornet area when wings folded: 90 m2

Liaoning 14600 m2, hangar area 4000 m2 (153*26m), J-15 area when folded: 99m2

Rafale on CdG 209 m2 per plane.
Superhornet on Nimitz 284 m2 per plane.
J-15 on Liaoning 188 m2 per plane.

Now, of course, that's not how it really works, as there are other factors in involved, but as a very rough illustration - it shows there's least parking space per plane when it comes to J-15 and Liaoning combo. (one doesn't really park planes in the middle of the deck nor on the landing strip for example, so edge of the deck space is more important) When one would take into account take off surfaces Liaoning might suffer even more, as it needs those two forward stations to get two planes in the air in a relatively short time period. Using just one forward space and one rear launch station in combination is possible but is not as time efficient and isn't really practiced often. On the other hand, sometimes the rear stations needs to be used for range/payload reasons of the plane. Both Cdg and Nimitz can launch 2 planes at same time with having part of the bow reserved for extra parking space. Liaoning lacks that bow parking space if it wants to launch planes. So in effect it has even a little less.

Here's deck areas when two launch stations are clear for CdG and Liaoning (and 3 for Nimitz)

Cdg 7900 m2

Nimitz 11100 m2

Liaoning 8500 m2 (one forward, one rear launch station) or 10500 m2 (two forward launch stations)


Ratios then become:
163 m2 per Rafale (if 2 launch stations are used)
202 m2 per Superhornet (if 3 launch stations are used)
126 m2 per J-15 if 1 forward and 1 rear launch station used
146 m2 per J15 if 2 forward launch stations used

So then it's no wonder that CdG often carries 28 Rafales, sometimes even 30. Or that Nimitz carries 50+ Superhornets. And it's no wonder that the optimum figure for Liaoning is some 24 J-15s. Even though in theory one probably might cram 26, if needed.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
I think there are other motivations than
As far as I know, neither Kuznetsov nor Liaoning have ever carried more than 14 fixed wing.

24 I think you mean.

During low alert, there are solid reasons for not filling the carrier to the brim with planes. Extra food and fuel for example. Makes life easier for those onboard as well.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
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.

Then you spotted wrong. 14 aircraft on deck =/= 14 aircraft in the whole thing. These ships come with a hangar.

Good thing for them that they have practiced with as many aircraft as the ship can hold then!

But when conducting low alert level patrols, other things will be prioritized.
 

Intrepid

Major
Then you spotted wrong.
You may believe that, I do not believe it.

The maximum number of airplanes on board was shown for a photo on the flight deck. There were never more than 14 airplanes on board.

The PriFly of the Kuznetsov is not designed to be able to monitor and control the movements of many aircraft.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
You may believe that, I do not believe it.

The maximum number of airplanes on board was shown for a photo on the flight deck. There were never more than 14 airplanes on board.

The PriFly of the Kuznetsov is not designed to be able to monitor and control the movements of many aircraft.

So it doesn’t have any hangars then? If it could sail around with every single plane on it’s deck and still be at full capacity.

I’ve never seen a Nimitz with more than 70 Hornets on deck either. Most I’ve seen is like 30ish. Guess that’s their capacity then...

Given that the Liaoning was received in a gutted state with only the severely rusted hull, I doubt that it’s flight control can be compared in any manner to the Kuznetsov’s. Also there’s no proof that the Kuznetsov can’t handle it’s own max loadouts (who would design it that way??) in planes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top