CV-16 Liaoning (001 carrier) Thread II ...News, Views and operations

[Anlsvrthng]

I think here many forgot the basic geometry.

Based on the public endurance of the Hawkeye and Ka31, one nimitz can secure 800 km radius sea area around the carrier ( defined as area where the Hawkeye can detect another ship) , the three kuz type with ka31 can secure 1000 km radius of area. ( 10600 m altitude vs 80 meter , 3000 m altitude vs 80 meter)

Now, for air interception missions the situation same , the fact one of the three carrier closer to the target will negate all advantage of catapult.

The only case when it will be different will be the case of sustained , high tempo attack operations, when the carrier has to launch a lot of sortie in short period of time with full load.

But securing area, provide targeting data, hunt P-8 or other anti submarine aircraft the more carrier is better, even without catapult.

So, the decision about the type of the carrier OR the mixture of carrier types will be centred around the expected mission types.

 

[Brumby]

Plus a back of the envelope calculation suggests aviation fuel isn't a constraint for a 7day sortie by a Kuznetsov.

Care to share your calculations? According to the French, a nuclear carrier needs to refuel its tanks of aviation fuel every 10 days, while a conventional carrier needs to replace its own fuel every four days.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Care to share your calculations? According to the French, a nuclear carrier needs to refuel its tanks of aviation fuel every 10 days, while a conventional carrier needs to replace its own fuel every four days.

let me try:

10000 gallons per flying hour
times
100 flying hours daily (LOL I admit I'm using this number to be able to multiply in my head later)
times
0.8 density conversion
times
3.8 gallon-to-kg-through-water
___
3.04 million kilos, about 3 kt
times 7 = about 20 kt, oops

(would mean about one-third of her full displacement)

 

[Anlsvrthng]

let me try:

10000 gallons per flying hour
times
100 flying hours daily (LOL I admit I'm using this number to be able to multiply in my head later)
times
0.8 density conversion
times
3.8 gallon-to-kg-through-water
___
3.04 million kilos, about 3 kt
times 7 = about 20 kt, oops

(would mean about one-third of her full displacement)

You made a magnitude error, 10000 gallons/flying hour equal to approximately 30 000 kg/hour, that is 30 tons/hour.

The F-18 internal fuel mass is 5 tons , and can last for more than two hours.

so, it is more likely 2000 tons/week for 100 hours/day flying hours rate.

 

[Jura The idiot]

You made a magnitude error, 10000 gallons/flying hour equal to approximately 30 000 kg/hour, that is 30 tons/hour.

The F-18 internal fuel mass is 5 tons , and can last for more than two hours.

so, it is more likely 2000 tons/week for 100 hours/day flying hours rate.

LOL! this time you're not trolling me, I even have to give you 'Like' now LOL

yes, I was wrong, now realized what had happened: I was thinking about "pounds" of fuel at first, but nonsensically used the same number of "gallons"

and yes, to carry 2kt of fuel per one week of flying operations shouldn't be a problem for her

 

[AndrewS]

LOL! this time you're not trolling me, I even have to give you 'Like' now LOL

yes, I was wrong, now realized what had happened: I was thinking about "pounds" of fuel at first, but nonsensically used the same number of "gallons"

and yes, to carry 2kt of fuel per one week of flying operations shouldn't be a problem for her

That is a bottoms-up look.

But on a top-down estimate:

a) a Nimitz displaces 97000 tons and has 14days of aviation fuel.
b) a Kuznetsov is about 60% of the displacement and has an airwing around half the size.

So even though the Nimitz has compact nuclear reactors for propulsion, and a larger hull is generally more efficient in terms of space and cost, a Kuznetsov should still be able to operate its airwing for at least 7days.

@Brumby

As for the French carrier airwing only having enough fuel for 4 days of flight operations, what on earth were they thinking?

It's essentially useless in a contested environment, because it will be tethered to a slow and vulnerable supply ship.
Either a supply ship has to sail into a high-risk A2AD environment to resupply, which means it has a minimal escort.
Or the carrier has to resupply outside of A2AD range, then sail to its target, and therefore have almost no time to conduct actual combat operations

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Without being able to verify its validity, we are talking about the Liaoning aircraft carrier route in red line and the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier in green. To confirm.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Via JSCh
Chinese aircraft carrier passes through Taiwan Strait
2019/06/25 15:38:12
Chinese aircraft carrier passes through Taiwan Strait | Politics | FOCUS TAIWAN

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CNA file photo

Taipei, June. 25 (CNA) Taiwan's military said Tuesday it closely monitored the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning (遼寧號), as it passed through the Taiwan Strait earlier in the day.

Having completed its mission in the South China Sea, the aircraft carrier, accompanied by a number of other combat ships, sailed north through the Taiwan Strait before returning to its home port of Qingdao in Shandong province, according to the defense ministry.

The Liaoning is China's first aircraft carrier and is named after one of its northeastern provinces. The 300-meter-long vessel was refurbished and upgraded from an unfinished Soviet carrier and commissioned in 2012.

The Liaoning was observed passing through the Miyako Strait in the East China Sea earlier this month on its way to the Pacific Ocean, where the People's Liberation Army Navy conducted training operations, according to Japan's defense ministry.

The last time the Liaoning is confirmed to have taken this route was in December 2016.

(By Joseph Yeh)

 

[by78]

Re-posting some high-resolution images of Liaoning and her task force... These images were lost by my image host (Flickr).

 

[by78]

Continued... The last image is from the naval parade a couple of years ago.