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

[Deino]

 

[Iron Man]

If Queen Elizabeth can be considered advanced because of its non-existent F-35, Liaoning can be considered advanced with its non-existent J-31.

This is a total non-argument. The F-35B is starting trials on the QE NEXT YEAR, and a full air wing of F-35Bs will be on the commissioned QE by 2020. Tell me again when the PLAN accepted the J-31 for its carriers? Oh, that's right. It's still being shopped around by SAC, it's not even in production, and neither PLAAF nor PLAN have accepted this plane or have ever publically stated that they were even entertaining the idea.

Truth is , neither Charles de Gaulle nor Queen Elizabeth is state of the art. Even Nimitz is not.

But each of them can claim advanced in some aspects, so does Liaoning. It's a capable platform that many countries can only dream of, with state of art sensors.

Except that we're not talking about "state of the art", but rather overall capability, which is not the same thing.

Case is closed for me

I'm glad the case is closed for you. As I said, there are 9 classes of actual aircraft carriers in this world. Your LHDs and LPDs don't belong to any of them. Neither of them are "STOVL carriers" if that's what you are being so happy about. According to your strange definition of "literally aircraft carriers", ships like the Iowa class battleship should rightfully be considered an "aircraft carrier" because they certainly did carry fixed-wing aircraft and even launched them directly off the deck. They literally carried aircraft. So they must be aircraft carriers. Or not. Maybe the ship's role should actually play a part in deciding what kind of ship it is rather than the fact of whether or not it carries any aircraft.

Except I don't agree with you to in thinking that CdG is superior to CVF or CV-17.

I consider the USN CVN classes to be in a close category of their own, followed by another close category of CdG, CVF, and CV-17, and then followed by Kuznetsov, Vikram, Vikrant as another cluster, and then followed by the smaller carriers like the Italian ones.

I have no idea why you can somehow rationally separate CV-17 from Kuznetsov and then go on to try and equate CV-17 with CdG. They're not even in the same league. They may carry approximately the same number of aircraft, but that's where the similarities end. CdG carries 2 squadrons of 4.5 generation Rafales, fixed wing AEW/C, is CATOBAR, and has nuclear reactors, none of which CV-17 has. These are large advantages compared to what the CV-17 has over Kuznetsov. And remind me again, what does CV-17 have over Kuznetsov? A more modern electronics suite. Probably more reliable engines. Though both may be nullified after Kuznetsov comes out of refit. I'm struggling to think of more....

 

[delft]

and CV-17 does not outmatch QE at all, and may in fact be worse in overall capability, who knows.

Look at British practice:
Re QE: the decision to build two flattops designed to use EMALS but not fit them, then change to fit them and find out that it would cost billions of pounds extra and back again to NO EMALS, no landing wires, the decision to use both ships alternately, then decide to commission both ships but without having enough escorts to protect them.
Re other RN matters: Type 45 was not designed to function in warm waters, is not fitted with all weapons it was designed for. UK cannot maintain maritime patrol aircraft. It has lots of trouble with its new submarines.
Re other public matters: UK is unable to maintain an adequate National Health Service, prison service, infrastructure.
Seeing that what is the chance that UK has spent enough to adequately develop the systems of the QE flattops.That even without wondering if these could be near the level of CV17.

 

[foxmulder]

I'm glad the case is closed for you. As I said, there are 9 classes of actual aircraft carriers in this world. Your LHDs and LPDs don't belong to any of them. Neither of them are "STOVL carriers" if that's what you are being so happy about. According to your strange definition of "literally aircraft carriers", ships like the Iowa class battleship should rightfully be considered an "aircraft carrier" because they certainly did carry fixed-wing aircraft and even launched them directly off the deck. They literally carried aircraft. So they must be aircraft carriers. Or not. Maybe the ship's role should actually play a part in deciding what kind of ship it is rather than the fact of whether or not it carries any aircraft.

According to Ironman,

Carrier:

Not a carrier:

 

[Iron Man]

Look at British practice:
Re QE: the decision to build two flattops designed to use EMALS but not fit them, then change to fit them and find out that it would cost billions of pounds extra and back again to NO EMALS, no landing wires, the decision to use both ships alternately, then decide to commission both ships but without having enough escorts to protect them.
Re other RN matters: Type 45 was not designed to function in warm waters, is not fitted with all weapons it was designed for. UK cannot maintain maritime patrol aircraft. It has lots of trouble with its new submarines.
Re other public matters: UK is unable to maintain an adequate National Health Service, prison service, infrastructure.
Seeing that what is the chance that UK has spent enough to adequately develop the systems of the QE flattops.That even without wondering if these could be near the level of CV17.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the QE's capability as a STOVL carrier. What are you doing here is trying to make some kind of argument via nothing more than mere insinuation. "UK is broke so the QE is obviously going to be no good" is essentially your argument.

According to Ironman,

Carrier:

Not a carrier:

Your facetiously superficial comparison of these ships is amusing, but you have failed to understand the intended roles of these ships. One is a small (by carrier standards) CVE while the other is an amphibious assault ship that can carry fighters. Can you turn that LHA into a light carrier in a pinch? Sure, just remove most of the helos and sub in some more F-35s, and you will have something like the picture on top (which I assume is the Giuseppe Garibaldi). But perhaps you can ask yourself before you go to sleep tonight why the USN classifies this ship as an LHA instead of a CVL or CVE. Maybe it has something to do with role. Or not. It's up to your personal opinion, really. One man's battleship is another man's aircraft carrier, after all.

 

[delft]

Not sure what any of this has to do with the QE's capability as a STOVL carrier. What are you doing here is trying to make some kind of argument via nothing more than mere insinuation. "UK is broke so the QE is obviously going to be no good" is essentially your argument.

Not obviously, just very likely. The quality of management of the British state is clearly below par.

 

[Iron Man]

Not obviously, just very likely. The quality of management of the British state is clearly below par.

You need to demonstrate directly that the QE carrier is sub-par, not claim that it is sub-par because the British NHS or prison service is poorly funded. I mean, seriously? LOL

 

[Jura The idiot]

Not obviously, just very likely. The quality of management of the British state is clearly below par.

LOL last month I asked in
Aircraft Carriers III
what the RN would use against enemy ships (the RN will be without an over-the-horizon AShM effective 2018), a guy (apparently British) gave me an already delayed, 30-kg-warhead, 20-km-range, helicopter-launched

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at first I wanted to say something about very special WW2 Japanese units, but I didn't

(Norwegian

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

won't fit into the bay of F-35 STOVL variant)

 

[Jura The idiot]

I'll pick this:

You need to demonstrate directly that the QE carrier is sub-par, ...

up by asking you if you know what's the speed of her internal network (as in X bit per second)?

(in the meantime I'll find the link to the answer)

 

[Iron Man]

I'll pick this:up by asking you if you know what's the speed of her internal network (as in X bit per second)?

(in the meantime I'll find the link to the answer)

No idea.