So except for the superstructure no structural difference between Liaoning and Type 001a?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Same hull body, different bulbous bow, different radars and subcomponent , different compartment designs and possibility of different power plant.So except for the superstructure no structural difference between Liaoning and Type 001a?
Same hull body, different bulbous bow, different radars and subcomponent , different compartment designs and possibility of different power plant.
Liaoning Is an experimental testbed and training ship for crew and pilots. 001A is combat missioned.
I don't understand why the Chinese are still stuck with the skip jump design! It's an inferior design, it has too many drawbacks.
Not neccessary, it has no mechanism, meaning no additional space require below deck for catapult power plant. More precious space for storing fighter available.I don't understand why the Chinese are still stuck with the skip jump design! It's an inferior design, it has too many drawbacks.
Some extract which might interest you.I don't understand why the Chinese are still stuck with the skip jump design! It's an inferior design, it has too many drawbacks.
Baby steps, pal, baby steps.I don't understand why the Chinese are still stuck with the skip jump design! It's an inferior design, it has too many drawbacks.
Not neccessary, it has no mechanism, meaning no additional space require below deck for catapult power plant. More precious space for storing fighter available.
No mechanism means less chances of breakdown. Easy to maintain and faster to launch fighter jet since it don't require to lock onto catapult.
You must remember CV-16 Liaoning is based on old varyag design , large number of space below deck is not used for storing aircraft. And Chinese did not really major overhaul it.If we are talking of saving precious space why is it that this type of AC can carry only 15-20 fighter jets? The US carriers accommodate 70-80 aircraft, now isn't that a major drawback?
ski jump can't allow that jet can take off with full weapon load lots of disadvantages as wellNot neccessary, it has no mechanism, meaning no additional space require below deck for catapult power plant. More precious space for storing fighter available.
No mechanism means less chances of breakdown. Easy to maintain and faster to launch fighter jet since it don't require to lock onto catapult.
disadvantage or not, depends on whom you are fighting against.ski jump can't allow that jet can take off with full weapon load lots of disadvantages as well
here it is
One major limitation of STOBAR configuration is that it only works with aircraft that have a high thrust to weight ratio such as Su-33 or MiG-29K and thus limits the kind of aircraft that can be operated from the carrier. In order to become airborne, the aircraft may be required to limit its weaponry and fuel package in order to reduce the launch weight of the aircraft.[1][5] Short take off using ski-jump leads to more stress on the airframes of the aircraft, thus limiting the ability to conduct sorties faster on STOBAR aircraft carrier.[6] STOBAR carriers must maintain a speed of 20kn-30kn in order to generate wind speed required on deck which is essential for conducting aircraft launch operations.[7]
This asessment is based on old Su-33 which is heavier and lesser thrust. J-15 using 3D printing and newer metallurgy shelve more weight , more powerful engine and can launch with more load. As for AWACS, it is possible to launch from the aft launch pad.ski jump can't allow that jet can take off with full weapon load lots of disadvantages as well
here it is
One major limitation of STOBAR configuration is that it only works with aircraft that have a high thrust to weight ratio such as Su-33 or MiG-29K and thus limits the kind of aircraft that can be operated from the carrier. In order to become airborne, the aircraft may be required to limit its weaponry and fuel package in order to reduce the launch weight of the aircraft.[1][5] Short take off using ski-jump leads to more stress on the airframes of the aircraft, thus limiting the ability to conduct sorties faster on STOBAR aircraft carrier.[6] STOBAR carriers must maintain a speed of 20kn-30kn in order to generate wind speed required on deck which is essential for conducting aircraft launch operations.[7]
This asessment is based on old Su-33 which is heavier and lesser thrust. J-15 using 3D printing and newer metallurgy shelve more weight , more powerful engine and can launch with more load. As for AWACS, it is possible to launch from the aft launch pad.
As for carrier to maintain 20-30knots for launch is also a requirement for all carriers to generate enough headwind for lift.
First of all, we have to take into account size of Liaoning, against size of US carrier. US carrier is about 2 times that of Liaoning, thus US carrier's hangar space and top deck are far larger.If we are talking of saving precious space why is it that this type of AC can carry only 15-20 fighter jets? The US carriers accommodate 70-80 aircraft, now isn't that a major drawback?