Carrier Launch

File: PLN CV-001A - 20170426 official launch - XL 3.jpg (768KB, 1793x960px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 1793x960px

>>33768761

File: PLN CV-001A - 20170426 official launch - XL 6.jpg (633KB, 1502x960px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1502x960px

>>33768767

File: PLN CV-001A - 20170426 official launch - XL 2.jpg (512KB, 1496x960px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1496x960px

>>33768775

File: PLN CV-001A - 20170426 official launch - XL 1.jpg (745KB, 1793x960px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 1793x960px

>>33768781

neat/10.

Are there any technical details released about it? It definitely looks like it's based off the Kuznetsov design, though I'm hoping China could make something better than that.

They even gave it a cuck ramp. How cute

I wonder how many treads we will get of this today

File: PLN CV-002 start maybe.png (138KB, 1519x738px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1519x738px

>>33768839
Slightly larger with more room for more planes. Modernized electronics etc.

According to major leakers, the CATOBAR carrier, China's third carrier, will have its keel laid down before end of this year.

File: PLN Type 001 front.jpg (210KB, 2000x1299px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 2000x1299px

>>33768761
Liaoning for comparison.

>>33768761
They take food delivery so seriously.

>>33768856
Fancy. Is this one mostly clean-sheet or more of a "we took the Kuznetsov and built it from the ground up as a real carrier instead of a missile cruiser"?

File: 2237892.jpg (141KB, 751x600px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 751x600px

>>33768861
And the Admiral Kutznesov.

And it still has a ramp. At least they tried

>>33768868
The third will be a clean sheet design.

Kitty Hawk sized conventional carrier with three catapults.

>>33768874
Honest question, why is having a catapult such a big technological achievement?

>>33768898
Deck space. U can land and takeoff more planes in the same amount of time.

>>33768904
And if you don't have the crew or doctrine to have that many aircraft it's a costly irrelevance.

>>33768898
Compared to ramps:
>let you launch a wider variety of aircraft
>let you launch heavier aircraft in shorter distances
>allow you to park shit on catapult when not in use

File: 183808.jpg (104KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x664px

>>33768761

So many flags it reminds me of car dealerships.

I like just one HUGE flag.

Its classy, beautiful, and actually visible from the horizon.

Pic related is nice too. Quite a statement to your confidence in your stealth systems.

File: e-2c-hawkeye_001.jpg (148KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1200x800px

>>33768898
You cannot launch pic related without a catapult.
Actually you cannot launch any fixed wing utillity or transport aircraft without a catapult.

>>33768956
>being shot down by a serbian pig farmer who found a SAM battery in his garden

>>33768868
It's a Kuz with more hanger space because it lacks the Granit missile facilities.

>>33768959
The crockodil has addled your brain.

>>33769098
>actually having your stealth aircraft shot out of the sky by someone who has a picture of a war criminal above his fireplace, which he can't afford firewood for

>>33768958
Well, technically, you can. But you have to design the aircraft especially for ramp-launch. More powerfull engines, stronger landing gears and wings, etc.

>>33768761
Incredible. A country that can create such a sophisticated, cutting edge ship in such a remarkably short time is clearly a world power to be reckoned with. Watching a humble country like China rise to global superpower is breathtaking to behold. What impressive advances will they come up with next that makes the US realize that their time is over?

>>33768958
And nearly everyone extremely undervalues having a ship borne AWACS available. At this point if you claim to have a blue water navy, and can't launch AWACS, you're delusional.

>>33769116
>cutting edge
They bought another country's carrier finished it. Then built another with some slight modifications

>>33769108
[sour grapes intensifies]

>>33769120
Who needs AWACS in an age when you can just launch a bucket full of quadrotor drones with cameras? Having a full sized plane to spot shit for you is fucking stupid and a waste of money.

>>33769152
Yeah it doesn't work like that.

>>33769142
>taking obvious b8

Let's get into the problems with a fresh build of a completely sub par design.

What china has, imo, wasted their time on is a 65,000 – 70,000 ton ship that only carries 30-40 aircraft. The old class design, which is a aircraft carrying cruiser, conceptually made up for it with its 12 granits. They traded 12 granits for 8 aircraft, which is a plus, imo, but still does not make up the tonnage gap with comparable designs.

There is historical precedence for upgrading designs, and the Chinese fell way short of it.

The US redesigned, at large expanse, the straight decked midway class WWII carriers into something more. They took a straight deck carrier, and turned it into a modern aircraft carrier, 65-70,000 tons, added in an angled deck, cats, new landing system, the works. Keep in mind this was not a fresh build, but a refit. (SCB-110/110A)

They also had the ability to carry the E-3's, tested with F-14's (but did not use due to the old deck supports being wore on to much, a fresh build would obviously eliminate this), and carries 65-70 aircraft compared to the 32 of the Type 001a.

Which is my main beef with the fresh build, They did not do enough to take care of the original deficits of the Kuznetsov class sans missiles.

http://chinapower.csis.org/china-aircraft-carrier-type-001a/

>>33769142
>not recognizing bait

File: 2358237654.png (57KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 300x300px

>>33769120
>>33768958

Not only AWACS.
Imagine this one special part breaking for which you have no spare in your carrier group.
Or maybe some medical emergency or technical failure, that requires special personel to fix.
If your carrier group cannot have it delivered by air over long distances, you are pretty much screwed.

>>33769152
You need an antenna of a certain size to work with radio waves of certain wavelength.
This is basic physics and there is no way around that.

>>33769199
Good thing they're right next to China

>>33769175
Not a very good comparison there, really. China's trying to build up it's navy from literally nothing. With no naval tradition to fall back on, and especially no experience with carrier operations or design, they're starting from scratch. The whole point of this first generation of carriers is to help them develop the skills necessary for a true blue water navy while giving them something capable of projecting force. Not something that can necessarily take on any other established navy or first world country yet, but still something to give them a start.

For that, the Liaoning and this new carrier are fairly good. The Varyag/Liaoning gave them a combat-capable training ship that they could use to develop doctrine going forward. This current one is likely supposed to be a follow-on to that, but with the added benefit of helping them develop their skills with regards to construction and design of carriers. Basing it off of their existing carrier allows them to speed up development and apply lessons learned from the Kuznetsov class's flaws while still giving them something familiar to work with as they refine their doctrine and gain experience.

China's focus for the past several decades has been on catching up with the West, which means working to gain the institutional experience necessary to have competitive industries as fast as possible. That's what these first couple Chinese carriers are meant to do for them. Honestly I'd be surprised if even their third carrier is intended to be a real competitive carrier rather than a third training platform/tech demonstrator.

File: China-Carrier.jpg (124KB, 1240x744px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1240x744px

>>33769175
Thanks Mr. Wizard, but it's pretty fucking obvious these aren't meant as a direct challenge to any American battlegroup

They're a stopgap at best, a regional muscle flex so the PLAN has something to show for the next decade until they get the indigenous carrier up and running.

Basically a way of reminding the world they're not stopping with the Liaoning. Beyond that, it's just another training boat.

>>33769241
Last time I checked the indan ocean was 1.500km from the next chinese port and the pakistani sandnigger banks some 4.000km.

What a dog shit carrier. Why copy a failed russian design 1:1 ?

>>33768761
Just in time to get blown up by crazy norcs

>>33769256
They can build their navy up and make a better use of their tonnage and size.

They stuck with a terrible design and made no real improvements.

>>33769257
OK. And as a stop gap, if you are spending the money and manpower on 70k tons, would you rather have 40 planes or 70?

It's a waste of tonnage, time, and manpower. They could have done so much better.

All I am asking for is for them to match the US in the 50s.

>>33769282
Because China's more concerned about maturing their industry and gaining experience right now than trying (and failing) to produce a carrier competitive with the US.

>>33769282
see
>>33769256

>ramp

>>33769292
By working with ramps they will continue to be behind.

>>33769305
Gotta go through training wheels before you enter the Tour de France bro

>>33769290
>They stuck with a terrible design and made no real improvements.

Unless you've seen the actual schematics, I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion. And what other choice do they really have on where to start? Were we planning to lend them a Nimitz anytime soon?

>would you rather have 40 planes or 70?

The Queen Elizabeth class also only holds 40. You're severely overestimating how easy it is to cobble together a supercarrier from fucking scratch.

>>33769313
can't take off the training wheels if it's a tricycle

>>33769290
>All I am asking for is for them to match the US in the 50s.
Is this hyperbole or bait?

>>33769290
You're completely forgetting that time is a factor. China's trying to modernize as fast as possible. They'd prefer to have two sub-par carriers by 2020 so that they can train crews than try to work out all the teething issues for a true mature CATOBAR carrier as their first indigenous design and be lucky to get it in service by 2030.

And you forget that this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because they've built this new Kuznetsov+ doesn't mean that they can't work on a more mature design in parallel. They've got plans to lay down their first CATOBAR carrier this year.

And nobody can seriously make any assessments of this thing's capabilities just yet, because nobody has any technical details. We don't even know for sure its tonnage, let alone anything important like aircraft capacity, radars, or sortie rate.

>>33769327
Unless you know how to unicycle.

>>33769327
You don't take wheels off a trike. You ride it until you can get a bigger and better bike.

Or do you actually go to playgrounds and yell at parents for letting their toddlers ride trikes?

>>33769305
Well lucky for them, they already have plans for a CATOBAR carrier to be laid down this year.

The point of having a Kuznetsov and Kuznetsov+ in service first is to let them gain experience operating a carrier and catch important design elements/flaws so that they don't have to spend half the operational career of their first "real" carrier just figuring out how to use it right.

>>33769367
Are the chinese a culture capable of learning and developing new ideas? Last I checked they seem to be unable to do so.

File: INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015.jpg (114KB, 990x522px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 990x522px

>>33769175
This.

I'd argue that right now, in 2017, India's carrier capabilities are more impressive than China's are. The Vikrant is still a ramp-based carrier, but at least she's a 100% clean-sheet design, whereas the Chinks won't have a clean sheet carrier in the water before 2020, CATOBAR, or not.

Me, I can't wait to see what happens in what's really the first multinational capital ship building rush since everyone cracked the treaty battleship format in the 30's.

Though the Ford class still seems like the Battlestar Galactica compared to anything that anybody else would have before 2030 at the minimum.

>>33769290
>if they don't build the bestest and baddest carrier RIGHT FUCKING NOW, they'll lose against non-immediate threats. Also, don't bother trying to start a space program if you're only aiming for the moon or Mars. If you can't build a warp-capable starship from scratch, you've already lost.

Quite possibly the stupidest post in the history of the board.

>>33769371
>Are the Chinese a culture capable of entrepreneurship or market development? Last I checked, they're still communists. No way they'll ever be a leading economy.

>>33769381
>I'd argue that right now, in 2017, India's carrier capabilities are more impressive than China's are.

And you're basing this off the fact that it's "100% clean-sheet"? That means literally nothing.

>>33769175
You have to take into account the sole reason that 001A is built, is so that PLAN will receive an additional hull before the clean sheet design Type 002 is in service.

By all leaks and speculations, Type 002 is not expected to be launched until at least late 2019-2020, and commissioning will have to be at least 2022-23. While in the mean time this Type 001A will be commissioned by 2020 at the latest.

This means an additional hull is available for 2- 3 years, and also serve as the back up in case 002 project is further delayed in any way.

They are not interested in a deep modification of the Kuznetsov design, as PLAN obviously view the 002 and 003 projects as having far more potential.

Nor do they have the time to modify the existing design anymore than they have.

According to Chinese state media, construction of Type 001A began in Nov, 2013, (meaning the actual design had to be frozen before that date) Type 001 Liaoning (Ex Varyag) was commissioned in late 2012, which leaves just under 1 year for the Chinese to modify the design from any feedbacks they might have received during operations of Liaoning.

Make further alterations and modifications to the plans would delaying the construction of 001A further to a completion/commissioning date after 2021. This would then make this a senseless project, as Type 002 are expected to be in service by then.

Hope this makes a bit of sense.

>>33769417
>as Type 002 are expected to be in service by then.

as Type 002 would expected to be in service soon by then.

I knew I shouldn't write at night.

>>33769325
>I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion.

Tonnage to aircraft carried, comparisons with other designs.

>The Queen Elizabeth class also only holds 40.

QE and PoW has tons of room for growth, but yes as it stands that too is a miss opportunity.

>>33769344
Neither. Midway class post SCP and forestal class both outshine the 001a with similar tonnage.

>>33769348
It does not have to be a cat carrier to have decent capacity.

See my source for tonnage and capacity.

They spent time, and money, resources, on a sub-par design.

>>33769387
Nope, not asking to match a ford or a Nimitz, just match 50s designs. That's it.

File: norway20080120b.jpg (77KB, 700x298px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 700x298px

>>33769408
There's a world of difference in terms of naval architecture capabilities between refurbishing a Russian rustbucket and building a reverse-engineered copy of it and completely rebuilding an aircraft-carrying cruiser into a full-fledged carrier and building a second carrier 100% from scratch.

Coming from a country like India that has an essentially nonexistent commercial shipbuilding industry, that's impressive AF.

It makes me wonder if the Indian navy sends designers to Alang to inspect ship designs and take notes on the structural layouts of some of the more interesting stuff that's found its way there.

You could build one hell of a carrier off of, say, the basic hull design of pic related.

>>33769371
>Be 1980s China
>"Yo Chang we have to step our game up"
>We have all this advanced hardware from the Soviets and the US that we could learn and develop from
>Or we could start from scratch
Really gets my noggin going

File: Fart-man.jpg (116KB, 1200x627px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1200x627px

>>33768761
>>33768761
>>33769417
>>33769408
>>33769387
>>33769381

hey guys its roger posting from my ASUS with Intel Core i7 and SonicMaster sound

....

this thing's got a lot of red flags

...

>>33768958
>le can't launch E-2C without catapults meme

This is actually wrong, a E-2C can actually launch under its own power with a ski ramp, however the problem is recovery.

>>33769501
Naa, you just gotta put up a sturdy volleyball net.

>>33769417
They spent the time building a 001a from scratch, your telling me they lacked the ability to make meaningful alterations to the design?

Not buying it.

>>33769325
>The Queen Elizabeth class also only holds 40

Wong. Has room for 72, but is planned at present with under 50 because of concurrency reasons.

>>33769498

Oh, jesus Roger I thought you were dead. Been a long time since I last seen you post.

What are the red flags you see Roger?

>>33769458
Show me the 50s design w/ air complement that you think would completely decimate this carrier.

>>33769371
>invents gun powder

>>33769542
That wasn't communist china.

>>33769541
any upgraded Essex class.

File: 0.jpg (103KB, 1280x711px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x711px

>>33769498
Shipyard tradition. DL yard was formally called Red Flag Shipyard. They plant all those red flags during all their naval launches, and is the only Chinese naval yard that does this.

Random internet search on their first 052D launch shows the same thing.

>>33769543
Yea but he didn't say "communist chinese" did he?

>>33768868
It's a modernised Kutz. Since they got the blueprints, why pay for a clean sheet ramp design which you're only gong to make 1 out of?

>>33769541
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway-class_aircraft_carrier

Post scp. Here is the coral sea with f-18s. Could also carry e-2s and whatnot, before you try to damage control.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier

>>33769108
at least that one made sense. and was a little bit funny.

inb4
>Milosovitc did nothing wrong.
objectively true but not relevant to Chinese carriers.

Love the fantasy stats of the QE carrier

>>33769168
you'd know all about bait, wouldn't (you)?

The two carrier will make good response units.

Smaller and conventional means reduced port times which means they will be great options for dashing in cases when China needs to respond. For protecting lines of communications and long ongoing missions China will have other carriers soon.

>>33769612
QE was designed for 40 aircraft bur will mostly carry less than 36 aircraft.

We need to wait how both new carriers will do in the wild but the Chinese improved AK class appears to be the better one.

What a piece of shit

>>33769635
>70,000 ton super carrier
>smaller

Kek. The fact that a (tonnage) wise super carrier carries only 40 fucking aircraft is sad as fuck

>>33769711
What is your point?

>>33769535

come on frank its literally covered in red flags

remember on the simpsons when arnold shwartzenberger said thats the joke?

thats the joke

>>33768863
under rated post.

>>33769612

There's no need to be passive aggressive, if you disagree with something or would like to be provided something to substantiate that claim then ask. Don't be a bitch.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/navy-queen-elizabeth-warship

>As Kyd says, it also gives the ship greater flexibility, not just in terms of the number of aircraft it can carry - he says it could carry more than 70 F-35Bs - but also the type of operations it supports (helicopters and Royal Marines for example) and potential innovations: "In the future you may see rack-and-stacking of tens, if not hundreds of UAVs," he says.

Commodore Jerry Kyd, captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

>>33769766
The only guy who ever pulled the 70 F-35B out of his ass.

>>33769775
More than 70!

File: 1478034726092.png (195KB, 417x578px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 417x578px

>>33769775
>f-facts h-h-hurt my feelings!

>>33769802
Facts are of his side though

>>33769743
Only 40 aircraft on a 70,000 ton aircraft carrier is sad. as. FUCK.

File: 165-1961272649.jpg (122KB, 958x788px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 958x788px

There is literally no place to carry more than 70 F-35B on that ship

>>33769787
(disassembled)
F-35F(lat pack)

>>33768898
Flinging big things off the deck is super fuckin neat-o.

File: canon-neige.jpg (40KB, 908x623px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 908x623px

Next step.

>>33769806

Which are what, exactly?

>>33769835
>implying that the F-35 has been successfully modified for naval service

>>33769835
Eh, you could get close at Max density.

>>33769835
Two bridges, F-35B, ramp

UK was too long away from the carrier game. Not even India would pull off that out.

>>33769325

>The Queen Elizabeth class also only holds 40.

It can hold more than 70, confirmed by the captain of the ship itself.

>>33769932
>Can we see it holding 70?
>....No

>>33768898
Additional to what everyone else has said, it allows aircraft to have heavier load during take off.

>>33769501
>This is actually wrong, a E-2C can actually launch under its own power with a ski ramp, however the problem is recovery.
What do you mean by the problem? E-2C lands using something else than regular arrestor cables?

we wont even have 70 f35
so it's a redundant fucking point

>>33768958
Tangwntally related, but how do you keep one of these alive when Russia, and I assume now China, has anti-radiation missiles with operating ranges beyond the AWACS radar range? Aren't they just going to be the first thing shot down?

>>33769967
By having the carrier's fighters spot the massive RCS of the planes carrying the missiles well outside the range that they can see the AWACS.

>>33769098
it's spelled krokodil you mongoloid

File: 1486599255216.jpg (916KB, 4619x2816px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 4619x2816px

>>33769381
>India's carrier capabilities are more impressive than China's are.
Yeah nah, fuck outta here
>1 Refurbished Kiev+
>INS Viraat (refurbished centaur-class) was just decommissioned
>Vikramaditya's airwing is 16 MiG-29Ks, 4 of which are trainers
>Sea trials were basically done by the Russians, including the air wing
>New carrier is half the size of the Liaoning and isn't even completed
>China has a massive shipbuilding industry and a steel industries that supplies a lot of other shipbuilders, namely Japan and Korea.
>China is already doing trials of their second Kuznetzov+ while India is still working on their first.
India is a shitshow, don't even deny it.

File: F35 on QEC.jpg (159KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1440x960px

>>33769943

There's already imagery showing it can fit 55 F-35B and 4 Merlins on it, thats 59 aircraft. Pic related. All of the hanger space is purely for storage of aircraft, as QE's machine shops, parts bays and maintenance sites are build into the walls of the hanger rather than on the hanger floor itself.

Dropping the F-35B to 48 for four squadrons would easily allow the other aircraft on board to raise it to above 70. The point is 70 AIRCRAFT, not 70 F-35Bs. Kyd has only ever said "aircraft", it's just shitty reporters keep misquoting it. His distinction was that when carrying the standard deployment wing of 24 F-35Bs, a QE could "more than double that if it had to", which fits with the measured details of 55. Again, because the surge force brings to 36, people thought that meant 70+. Once again, just a lot of confusion by people who don't keep track of the TAG details.

But saying it can only carry 40 F-35B is comprehensively wrong. It maxes out at around 55 planes + 4 helos in full plane/AEW only mode. However no large carrier in the world carries only fixed wing/AEW. They always have helo squadrons. Each F-35B takes the space of 2 Merlins when stored, and the Merlins can store in places the F-35B can't. So that frees up around 14 Merlins spaces worth by reducing the 7 F-35Bs from the full maximum, plus whatever misc space that only Helos can take in certain patterns.

Most likely what you'll see based on the measurements is the maximum deployed load being around:
- 48 F-35B
- 4 Crowsnest Merlins
- 10 ASW Merlins
- 8-10 Misc Helicopters from Merlins, Wildcats, Apaches

>>33770010
That's still not 70 F-35s though

File: 1475078059299.jpg (16KB, 416x304px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 416x304px

>>33769835
>>33769943
>here look at this CGI model that's not to scale which is stronger evidence than the captain of the ship itself saying so

I knew some people were retarded, but oh man.

>>33770028
>didn't read the post
The claim was 70 aircraft, not 70 F-35s.

>>33770028
Maybe it can fit them [spoiler]in the ramp[/spoiler]

>>33770052
See
>>33769766

File: IMG_0601.jpg (29KB, 400x355px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x355px

>>33769116

>>33770010
but how many scaneagles could she hold

>>33770070

Did you miss the part where >>33770010 explicitly explained why you shouldn't pay attention to that specification and that it's just a mistake of media on hearing Kyd talking about aircraft because the mass media thinks carriers only carry one plane?

More likely you willingly ignored it to continue trying to shitpost.

>all this chink shilling on so many boards

should have just nuked them

>>33768839
>China could make something better than that.

They couldn't possibly have made it any worse though.

>>33770096
Did you miss the part where I'm supposed to make shit up to force a statement to make sense?
>Uh, he REALLY probably meant any aircraft
Why do that?

He said something.
It's WRONG
End of story.
No apologies

>>33769363
D-do you not?

>>33770131
Except he didn't say that.

Good job taking wired as a credible newsource, you idiot. Go quote vanity fair next.

>>33770151
And what exactly is a "credible newsource" then?

What's something you read and have zero doubts about?
I want to know so I can be perfectly informed, as you evidently are

>>33769988
I thought that both countries had high velocity planes with internally carried munitions though? Although a quick google shows those ranges at just over 100km, so maybe those are more of a risk to refueling.

Where would someone go to get a relatively objective (i.e. neither China strong nor America fuck yeah) primer on this type of thing?

>>33769381
No Indian-built carrier is due till 2023 anon.

>>33770165

>Someone posted a nice, calm, detailed writeup clarifying the thing for everyone
>You still shitpost relentlessly

How long before we need to break out the "I was only pretending" image?

>>33770165

The Captain of the carrier as a direct quote, as I explained above in my post. He's said it enough times, and my post was to just explain where some of the unknowing comes from in posts like one far above where the guy clearly forgot to include that information, or didn't know it.

>>33769290
>40 aircraft

This anon has no sources for this but keeps spamming it.

>>33768761
Honestly I feel like they should have made this one CATOBAR, its one thing to learn how to operate a carrier and another to deal with the changes in logistics and doctrine with a more capable carrier.

>>33770186
>Clarifying
You mean changing the statement so it makes sense?
If someone says "I can run 100 yards in 7 seconds", they're just wrong
You can't go "Well, I guess they really meant 100 feet not yards" to force them to be right.

>>33770199
Well do you have that direct quote?
Because the WIRED interview is as close as we have

>>33770216
I posted it many times before.

http://chinapower.csis.org/china-aircraft-carrier-type-001a/

>>33770254
>hurdur just completely change the design

If they tried to go CATOBAR on the 001 they'd have India's situation.

>>33770167
>Where would someone go to get a relatively objective (i.e. neither China strong nor America fuck yeah) primer on this type of thing?
Best option would seriously be less news-y Western sources. Avoid places like Ausairpower and any news site. Places like Janes or US military reports are probably your best option, though they tend to steer clear of discussing scenarios specifically because it's far too easy to manipulate results in hypothetical scenarios.

That being said, the "AWACS-killer" missiles always memed about aren't nearly as good as the state media sources claim they are. They're massive missiles (K-100 is 25 ft long and 1,600lb), meaning that you're limited to carrying them externally in very small numbers on just a handful of planes (K-100, for example, can only be carried on Flankers and the PAK FA). Though they have listed ranges anywhere from 2-400km depending on the source, the actual range in a combat situation would be significantly lower (as with any AAM), and in all likeleyhood deploying those weapons even from a stealthy platform like the PAK FA would require the launch aircraft to get close enough to be detected by the fighter screen in front of the AWACS.

That's not to say that an AWACS killer missile is a bad idea, or that current iterations wouldn't be a serious threat. Even if they can't reliably hit an AWACS, it could force the USAF to devote EW assets to protect the AWACS, drawing resources away from the battlespace.

>>33770257

You're really just interested in trying to astertain who wrote what rather than whats accurate, aren't you? The guy clearly forgot to clarify it from that statement, I can't see any post in this thread saying in text written by the poster directly that it can carry 70 F-35B.

If you're more interested in just bickering like a child because of a small thing in one post that was since clarified by someone else, then thats your issue.

>>33770266

No, as its buried in Parlimentary questions, but the wired one has the direct quote from the man that it can take 70. The ship cannot take 70 F-35B, that is a known fact, so when he says 70 he'll be referring to the fact it can carry 70 aircraft, as has been shown through imagery and measurements of the ships themselves. See the above post demonstrating the size allowances when maxed out.

So there's a direct source on the captain himself saying "70", and there's imagery proving from measurements it can handle 70 aircraft space wise. Thats solid evidence there.

>>33770311
Except the Liaoning has been confirmed with picture evidence to go up to 40 aircraft at least, and your CSIS source states "+8 more aircraft" on Shangdong.

So doesn't this mean that, no matter what, Shangdong can carry more than 40?

>>33770311
Nowhere in this source does it state the number of aircraft on the 001A. I already explained this to you yesterday.

All it states is "airwing slightly larger, about 8 aircraft more".

>>33770311
>Airwing: TBD

hmmmmmm

>>33769835
>Hanger
LOL

>>33770447
Literal definition of TINY

>>33770505
IT'S HANGAR NOT HANGER

>>33770363
>Except the Liaoning has been confirmed with picture evidence to go up to 40 aircraft at least,

Big ole citation needed. I always read 24-32 aircraft.

>>33770375
See above.

>>33770416
>8 more than current

Hmmm

Regardless, the base point remains the same. 48 to 70, same tonnage, which is better?

>>33770642
24-36 aircraft*

>>33770660
>>33770642
Source for claims.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20160824.aspx

>>33769835
>people think a 70K tonne vessel will have 4 decks.

This bares no resemblance to the inside of QE - Babcock employee

>>33770060
jej

>>33770008
Adorable

Funny how their only carrier will not see operational service until the mid 20s.

>>33770010
That's not even realistic.

Even ignoring the QE wouldn't be able to supply them.

Ship was designed for 40 aircraft in a flexible mix, while it will operate less in most real world scenarios

>>33770096
So long the guy doesn't deliver a video or a transcript of the interview.

Reporter > random anon

>>33770375
An airwing "slightly larger" would be about 40 aircraft.

He is 100% right.

>>33770747
A reporter without proof for bold claims is pretty much equal to anon

>>33769313
>not just roiding your way into the tour de france

>>33770755
Well he is the guy who talked with the captain.

The anon is just trying to save his ass.

Even the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov with its massive additional missile load is able of carry 40 aircraft.

And most inet national sources just copied the AK specs for the Liaoning.

>>33770783
Due to the MIG 29 being far smaller than the j-15

>>33770783
China reported 36 aircraft

>>33770737

Except the captain stated that it can operate more than 40, as was linked above.

>>33770803
China never stated anything.

>>33770855
Chinese media run by the Chinese government stated 36. Better?

>>33770838
This is not a hill worth dying on.

All official documents stating 40 aircraft. There is nothino to discuss about it.

>>33770864
Not a confirmation.

>>33770875
Do you have any citation stateing otherwise?

>>33770866

So you're saying that the captain is lying?

so does that mean they've got a People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force?

>>33770904
It's People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force, but yes kek.

Could it take a US carrier in a fight?

>>33770864
>Chinese media run by the Chinese government stated 36
Meh, they get told not to say things and they get told to push certain lines but they don't necessarily get facts and figures.

They're still journalists, they just lack independence.

>>33771039
>70 aircraft to 40 aircraft


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>33768761
>ramp

I had to ride a fucking greyhound off the Roosevelt once. (NCTS Bahrain decided they needed the ship's EKMS staff more than the ship did) and I swear to god my butthole went inside out when they catapulted that metal piece of shit into the air.

I bet taking off from a ramp would be comfier. Still fucking gay and a joke of a ship, but neverless I wanna ride a ramp launch.

>>33771070
To be fair, most people's assholes are inside out when you launch in a greyhound, period. Those things are old as fuck mail truck with some sheet metal for wings.

>>33771080
meant for >>33771071

File: 1379307400781.jpg (106KB, 850x637px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 850x637px

>>33771039
Ha! No. Not even the most brain-addled, Chinese jingoist claim that.

>>33771133
Because they don't have to. Why waste fuel and logistics for ship to ship combat when a glorious DF-21D can simply be fired into near orbit and descend on the CBG with the speed of an asteroid and the maneuverability of a wild horse?

Sorry bro but 50 cents is 50 cents. I got a family to feed.

>>33768956
>and actually visible from the horizon.

Check out this faggot who thinks it's still 1912 and the only method we have for finding ships is to visually locate them from the bridge of your own ship

>>33770864
b-but uk media run buy kikes stated 40 for queen elizabeth class. Better?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/10723462/HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Britains-new-aircraft-carrier-in-detail.html

>>33771697
That's fine. As I have stated many times, as it stands the QE is a missed opportunity like the kuntz+

>>33769110
You have to design aircarft specifically for catapult launch too, youi know.

>>33769988
That would make AWACS redundant.