did he said anything about 002 displacement, if its going to be around 80000t or not?
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
did he said anything about 002 displacement, if its going to be around 80000t or not?
Building 2 destroyer is one thing. Building 2 of something the size of aircraft carriers to see how it goes in my opinion is too much.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Kunetsov is not what PLAN needs. Yes they made incredible modification to it but despite all that I think PLAN will not have more than t 'liaonings'. As someone has stated earlier they didn't want the 2nd one but probably from political pressures and wanted to play it 'safe'.
I don't think there will be 3 'liaonings'.
I agree 100%.
But I do think t very pssible that they will build two conventionally powered CATOBAR carriers before moving to nuclear.
Anyhow, that was my meaning.
I wouldn't say that Kuznetsov is what the PLAN doesn't need, rather that STOBAR conventional carriers are less than ideal for the PLAN's eventual ambitions. I think nuclear CATOBAR has always been the PLAN's eventual goal, but 100,000 ton supercarriers may or may not be. While I personally feel that the PLAN will eventually head towards parity with the USN in terms of individual carrier capability, the PLAN itself may have always had more modest goals, perhaps with medium-size nuclear CATOBAR carriers in the 70-80,000 ton range. Nobody knows at this point except for the higher ups within the PLAN and the CMC. We may find out in about 15-20 years.
I tend to agree.I think nuclear CATOBAR has always been the PLAN's eventual goal, but 100,000 ton supercarriers may or may not be. While I personally feel that the PLAN will eventually head towards parity with the USN in terms of individual carrier capability, the PLAN itself may have always had more modest goals, perhaps with medium-size nuclear CATOBAR carriers in the 70-80,000 ton range. We may find out in about 15-20 years.
I think those first two conventional CATOBARs are apt to be something like the Kitty Hawk class in size...or about 85,000 tons full load.
They may keep their ultimate nuclear carriers in that same range.
At the same time, the PLAN recognizes and respects the US knowledge base...and understands full well that the Nimitz, and now the Ford, in terms of their deck layout and hangar size, munition stage, elevators and handling, etc. represent the apex in terms of sortie rate and benig able to bring ordinance on target.
They may settle for something in between...or they may go all out and try and replicate or even better it eventually.
But as you say...that's a good 15-20 years out, and by that time you younger chaps will be getting old.
I don't think the PLAN needs any carriers period, but we've gone through that before. For all we know about the political leadership "forcing" a second Liaoning on the PLAN "to play it safe" could indicate that the political leadership wants the carrier program's belt tightened and/or de-prioritized while throwing it a bone. This would also mean no 3rd Liaoning type carrier or even no 3rd carrier of any type at all for some time.
Very apt observation. With all the impressive growth and naval modernization in the last decade, PLAN really started from a very low base and still has a long way to go. If we just focus on carriers, the first carrier is not even fully operational now. The first indigenous carrier (really an improved Kunetsov clone) is not yet launched. We've only seen pictures of the steam catapult, the presumed EMALS, and the catapult J-15 demonstrator. We have not got any definite information of the nuclear reactor that will power the future generations of the carriers.
In other words, what we're seeing is the beginning of the journey, although we've some glimpse of what future might look like. From 2020 to early 2030, we will see explosive growth in capabilities, sort of the fruits of development efforts in this decade. After that, the growth will become more linear and incremental, in all likelihood.
Are you seriously out of your mind? I'm all for "out-of-box" or independent thinking and all that, but this? I don't even know where to start to refute these assertions. Let's start with some big pictures.
China is the world's second largest economy, and will very likely become the largest in the next decade. China is currently the world's largest trading nation. For many years, China has been world's largest or second largest destinations of foreign investment. Since last year, China's outbound investments has surpassed inbound investments and are set to grow rapidly in the future years. Chinese nationals are everywhere globally; since 2014, China has become the largest tourist originating country in the world. In other words, China's interests are global and it needs a blue-water navy to safeguard and support those interests, and the growing economy pays for it. The central pieces of that blue-water navy are carriers. Not just any carriers, but nuclear-powered super-carriers, eventually.
And those are not just PLAN's dreams and wishes. They're also part of the Chinese leadership's announced national maritime objective, with broad support from Chinese society. In November 2012, then president Hu Jintao declared that China’s objective was to become a strong or great maritime power. Xi Jinping further reinforced the objective. Here are a couple of background readings in case you're interested:
, Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, USN (retired)
, Dr. Thomas J. Bickford, China Studies Division of CNA
The circumstance of China's blue-navy ambition and objective are quite different from those of Imperial Germany or Soviet Union. They are the natural results of growing national power, and are justified by the trade, investment, maritime and national security. Furthermore, China's geography is much more favorable than Germany and ex-Soviet Union for developing a global blue-water navy (See by Robert D. Kaplan for some discussion). It's therefore a more sustainable national strategy. PLAN pays close attention to the USN and tries to emulate them as much as possible (really the only model PLAN wants to emulate).
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Completely agree. All the superpower of the past are also naval power . The Spain, then the Portugal, Then the Holland , England.
about the same time the western power improve their naval power.
Didn't CCTV just commission a TV serial about the origin of the past great power ? And their conclusion is that naval power is a must!
Looking back to the recent history all the invader are coming from the sea.If they don't want to repeat the history they better shape up
A growing engagement and trade with the world is necessary if china want to be prosperous.
That will required foreign investment and trade that need protection.They need to protect those SLOC less they will become victim of blockade
And I agree China still has a long way before she catch with the west They need to put their money where their mouth is. Double the budget allocation for defense to 2.5%! Double or triple the size of the navy. And do it fast there is no more excuses
Thanks for the reference
about the same time the western power improve their naval power.
Didn't CCTV just commission a TV serial about the origin of the past great power ? And their conclusion is that naval power is a must!
Looking back to the recent history all the invader are coming from the sea.If they don't want to repeat the history they better shape up
A growing engagement and trade with the world is necessary if china want to be prosperous.
That will required foreign investment and trade that need protection.They need to protect those SLOC less they will become victim of blockade
And I agree China still has a long way before she catch with the west They need to put their money where their mouth is. Double the budget allocation for defense to 2.5%! Double or triple the size of the navy. And do it fast there is no more excuses
Thanks for the reference
Last edited: