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

asif iqbal said:

36 x J15 on what the CV-17? No, big no

36 in time of war crossing all health and safety standards yes even 48, can you actually then sustain air opps ? No

24 it is

Click to expand...

Why not? Very approximately, the airwing capability of carriers ought to scale with approximately square of the cube root of the displacement. Based on this Liaoning ought to be able to operate at least 60% of the airwing of a Nimitz.

Carriers are longer term investments. If there is limit to how much funding for aircraft construction and training for the time being, it is sensible to build more hulls so that they would be available to support the aircraft when investment can be made in aircrafts.

The Nimitz class currently carry about 65 aircraft, but they are theoretically capable of operating over 100. The same discrepancy between how many they can operate under threat of war and how many they are staffed with in peace undoubtedly also apply to Liaoning and 017.

October 1 has come and I don't know if they did anything with this ship. But all the naval ships in the area are setting sail in order to avoid a typhoon.

Stability issues, already inherent in initial Russian project, worsened by design modifications. I take it with a big grain of salt, but it comes from a Russian insider.

yeah totally shocking

serious flaws somewhere

its a ski jump even then they have issues

Richard Santos said:

Why not? Very approximately, the airwing capability of carriers ought to scale with approximately square of the cube root of the displacement. Based on this Liaoning ought to be able to operate at least 60% of the airwing of a Nimitz.

Click to expand...

This is just an assumption on your part. There is absolutely no necessary proportional correlation between an increase in carrier size and an increase in hangar and/or flight deck size. The best you can say is that a larger carrier will get you a larger hangar and a larger flight deck. Any more specific than that and it becomes an exercise in wishful thinking.

A regular update.

Scaffolding again

I'm a bit skeptical about that. An awful lot depends on internal design efficiency. I.e. the UK's new Queen Elizabeth carriers are 65,000 ton, yet at absolute max load can only carry 50 a/c, and a big chunk of them are helicopters - the flight deck in particular is extremely inefficient, but dictated by the somewhat eccentric choice of going with a STOVL configuration on a 65,000 ton carrier with twin islands, while the hangers are compromised by the need to be "multi-use". The old Kuznetsov design was pretty inefficient from an air wing point of view because it carried a lot of offensive missile armament for it's cruiser role. The 001A moved on from that but there's only so much you can do while keeping the same basic hull design before you run into serious issues with hull integrity / rigidity, and stability. (hence the 002)

The real question is not enough J-15 for 2 carriers. No news for 2nd batch of J-15, only 1 air wing for 2 carriers. It is possible we would see a carrier trainer instead of second batch J-15s.

Tiberium said:

The real question is not enough J-15 for 2 carriers. No news for 2nd batch of J-15, only 1 air wing for 2 carriers. It is possible we would see a carrier trainer instead of second batch J-15s.

Click to expand...

What is the anticipated schedule for china’s Indigenous carrier fighter?