Aircraft carrier Liaoning vs Vikramaditya

[shuttler]

INS Viraat have only few Harriers to save the cost IN have deployed the low cost solution and it is an old carrier, and The Vikramaditya will have the latest tech, thanks for your concern.

It is not about the age of the old carrier that I've found most of you people's comments absurd.
It is about the very basic simple knowledge that you people are terribly lacking - including the indian "senior" and "think tank"!

And mind you when you are gloating at the experience and "war-time" victory in operating aircraft carriers, you are not number one in Asia. Japan is number 1.

1/2 of your british made harriers have crashed. The harriers also have a terrible problem of melting the deck during their vertical landing. Also dont boast of your aircraft carriers' expertise at war against a Pakistan which has nothing solid at sea yet. They fought you on land and in the air.

I remember when the Russians let you guys steer the leased submarine home, your navy did not have a clue!

 

[Shinigami]

Maleesh, that ship carrying the tractors have enough firepower to destroy you navy and airforce.

I dont get why these chinese and their cheerleaders cant think. if you have a cheap option that does the required job, why throw it for something more flashy? the indian way of using the tractor is the right way. its cheap and effective.

I remember when the Russians let you guys steer the leased submarine home, your navy did not have a clue!

i remember when the chinese where trying out the carrier for the first time. the sailors were falling on each other. they did not have a clue.

 

[Maleesh]

Maleesh, that ship carrying the tractors have enough firepower to destroy you navy and airforce.

I dont get why these chinese and their cheerleaders cant think. if you have a cheap option that does the required job, why throw it for something more flashy? the indian way of using the tractor is the right way. its cheap and effective.

i remember when the chinese where trying out the carrier for the first time. the sailors were falling on each other. they did not have a clue.

destroy our navy, air fore and then what? harvest on our land with those SUPER EFFECTIVE TRACTORS
oh please

 

[shuttler]

i remember when the Chinese where trying out the carrier for the first time. the sailors were falling on each other. they did not have a clue.

Jeeze! that is nothing for our navy who couldnt find a foothold on high tides even all your comment is bullshitting!

 

[Shinigami]

destroy our navy, air fore and then what? harvest on our land with those SUPER EFFECTIVE TRACTORS
oh please

try to use your brain maleesh. tractors are cheap, easy to replace and they have great pulling power. using them on the carrier is a brilliant idea

Jeeze! that is nothing for our navy who couldnt find a foothold on high tides even all your comment is bullshitting!

If you can bullshit, why cant i?

 

[born]

That maleesh guy is probably a kid or may be a lowlife false flagger. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
He has no idea what a CBG is nor has any idea about how a professional navy work . Its not worth replying to his posts .

@shuttler dude tractors or ferarri ,doesn't matter we fought a war with it . Our new carrier will have better tech.

 

[shuttler]

If you can bullshit, why cant i?

chill out indian cheerleading kid. go smoke some grass in which you are experts

@shuttler dude tractors or ferarri ,doesn't matter we fought a war with it . Our new carrier will have better tech.

I repeat it is not about tractor or ferrari. It is about the stupid bullshitting that you people are bragging about!

All of you people (on this thread at least) dont know about basic PHYSICS - and OMG your navy!

 

[Shinigami]

Tractors are never suitable for carrier ops. Their big size and tall height are posing a danger and occupy far more precious space

tall height? since you chinese have no idea about carrier ops, let me make it simple: the "tall height" does not matter. what matters is the width and the power of the machine. tractors are tall and they are narrow, not to mention cost effective, making them a good choice. IN has been doing carrier ops before your father was born. lets trust them to do the right thing OK?

 

[neytirilover]

Well, I would say that by the Virant time ,using tractors on the flight deck is not a stupid choice since it's cheaper and less tech-demanding, moreover, the STOVL Harrier provides an ease in planning the flight deck space in operation. However, FOR NOW I bet you Indians must have realized how this is out dated and unsuitable for any shipborne flight deck that operates with BAR landing aircrafts, that's why you guys are replacing these tractors with newer type vehicles. So there is no point arguing whether tractors can still do their job now, even human force can do the job, only with diminished efficiency tho, that's the problem exactly.

About the comparison between Liaoning and Vikramaditya. Well ,on paper I see no point arguing about which one is better. But if you talk about experience, you can still mark that India holds advantage. However, one thing is obvious, the flight deck operation of STOBAR Carrier is like 70% different with that of a STOVL one, while you still hold the advantage in "AC Operation", switching from STOVL to more powerfull STOBAR renders much of your experience useless. PLAN is not starting from scratch in this part, simulated operational study has been carried out long before the Liaoning commissioned, in a artificial in-land flight deck duplication in Wuhan.

 

[shuttler]

tall height? since you chinese have no idea about carrier ops, let me make it simple: the "tall height" does not matter. what matters is the width and the power of the machine. tractors are tall and they are narrow, not to mention cost effective, making them a good choice. IN has been doing carrier ops before your father was born. lets trust them to do the right thing OK?

this further seal the conclusion that your are another simpleton who dont have a clue! the only credit to you is you are trying hard to dig out the tiniest cure for you ignorance.

 

[born]

^^ what physics are u talking about. Operating tractors from a Navel carrier violets which law of physics? Please enlighten me..

and what bragging are u talking about .Nobody "bragged" here people here just said IN has more experience with Operating a Navel AC . Its a fact that IN has a good 60+ years of experience with navel AC. Stating a fact is not bragging . Why is it so hard for u to understand that, despite your high IQ ...

 

[shuttler]

Well, I would say that by the Virant time ,using tractors on the flight deck is not a stupid choice since it's cheaper and less tech-demanding, moreover, the STOVL Harrier provides an ease in planning the flight deck space in operation. However, FOR NOW I bet you Indians must have realized how this is out dated and unsuitable for any shipborne flight deck that operates with BAR landing aircrafts, that's why you guys are replacing these tractors with newer type vehicles. So there is no point arguing whether tractors can still do their job now, even human force can do the job, only with diminished efficiency tho, that's the problem exactly.

About the comparison between Liaoning and Vikramaditya. Well ,on paper I see no point arguing about which one is better. But if you talk about experience, you can still mark that India holds advantage. However, one thing is obvious, the flight deck operation of STOBAR Carrier is like 70% different with that of a STOVL one, while you still hold the advantage in "AC Operation", switching from STOVL to more powerfull STOBAR renders much of your experience useless. PLAN is not starting from scratch in this part, simulated operational study has been carried out long before the Liaoning commissioned, in a artificial in-land flight deck duplication in Wuhan.

read the above post by an indian guy. they designed the "tractor" for the aircraft carrier. It was fundamentally wrong. It also shows the indians fundamental concept and tech are lacking. if they could have made a "tractor like' vehicle for the aircraft carrier why cant they change a bit of design suitable for it. It is something very stupid there!

^^ what physics are u talking about. Operating tractors from a Navel carrier violets which law of physics? Please enlighten me..

and what bragging are u talking about .Nobody "bragged" here people here just said IN has more experience with Operating a Navel AC . Its a fact that IN has a good 60+ years of experience with navel AC. Stating a fact is not bragging . Why is it so hard for u to understand that, despite your high IQ ...

at last you stupid people start to ask!

In physics it is called " center of gravity"! You never design and deploy vehicles on deck of an aircraft carrier with such high CG!

Check on net what is the problem with high CG vehicles and understand why our tractors are low to the ground!

 

[Maleesh]

try to use your brain maleesh. tractors are cheap, easy to replace and they have great pulling power. using them on the carrier is a brilliant idea



If you can bullshit, why cant i?

oh yeah a brilliant idea

That maleesh guy is probably a kid or may be a lowlife false flagger. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
He has no idea what a CBG is nor has any idea about how a professional navy work . Its not worth replying to his posts .

@shuttler dude tractors or ferarri ,doesn't matter we fought a war with it . Our new carrier will have better tech.

oh can you teach me about CBS
your country about to get 5 CBGs nah

 

[neytirilover]

Hey bro let's be clear: height is very important on a carrier.

A vehicle that is too tall onboard (like your tractor) will be unable to reach any place under an aircraft (like beneath the nose), a lower profile helps increase the passable area onboard and is also capable to get rid of the traction rod. In this way, the towing power, stability and operational efficiency increases.

 

[born]

Well, I would say that by the Virant time ,using tractors on the flight deck is not a stupid choice since it's cheaper and less tech-demanding, moreover, the STOVL Harrier provides an ease in planning the flight deck space in operation. However, FOR NOW I bet you Indians must have realized how this is out dated and unsuitable for any shipborne flight deck that operates with BAR landing aircrafts, that's why you guys are replacing these tractors with newer type vehicles. So there is no point arguing whether tractors can still do their job now, even human force can do the job, only with diminished efficiency tho, that's the problem exactly.

There finally someone with right sense . Thank u . but our friend shuttler is still shuttling between laws of physics and tractors .
I'll try to make more clear for him .
INS Virat is an old ship hence the tractors INS Viki is a new ship hence no tractors.