It's slightly larger than a 1960s vintage Kittyhawk class carrier, non-nuclear-powered (= needs frequent/occasional refueling), and estimates of its complement are around 40-50 fighters (half or less the complement of a Kittyhawk class carrier). It is ~50% larger than the HMS Queen Elizabeth, with ~25% greater aircraft complement. It is double the size if the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, and again, with ~25% greater aircraft complement.
So Fujian is roughly the size of the USN's last conventionally powered aircraft carrier class, but with half the capability (in terms of number of aircraft carried). The nuclear-fueled Nimitz class (=no tankers needed) is a bit larger and has double or more the aircraft complement. As the Russians and French have learned, very expensively, in recent decades, aircraft carriers are very complex systems. The Admiral Kuznetsov and Charles De Gaulle both have had serious reliability problems. The Fujian is a big unknown in this regard.
There are two huge, highly relevant unknowns. Launching and recovering aircraft imposes stresses greater than those experienced by land-based aircraft. Does China, whose engine producers struggle to produce engines of thrust similar to Russian or US engines, have designs able to handle the stresses of carrier usage?
The USN has developed its plane handling and combat doctrines over the period of a century. Launching and recovering multi-plane strikes and single-plane missions is a highly skilled and choreographed process. Planning and carrying out missions is similarly complex, and not the same as for land-based air squadrons (whose major mission and training traditionally has been defending home territory). Does China have the multi-faceted doctrine and trained personnel to use this new weapon?
