Mostly agree except a technical detail: CVG would be useful to interrupt US bombers to protect PLA amphibious fleet, it's urgently needed in Taiwan scenario considering the geopolitical situation.Would you like to ear my three cents? I know you don't but here it is anyway! It's fun to post unwanted long-winded posts about everything and nothing.
1.
Let's start with the obvious - historia magistra vitae est. And while we're at it let's eat some crayons like the marines do!
July 1951 - USS Forrestal (CV-59) ordered
- nuclear submarines
- conventional supercarriers
- nuclear supercarriers
- nuclear cruisers
August 1951 - USS Nautilus ordered
July 1952 - USS Saratoga (CV-61) ordered
March 1953 - prototype reactor (S1W) operational
February 1954 - USS Saratoga ordered
July 1954 - USS Ranger (CV-62) ordered
September 1954 - USS Independence (CV-63) ordered
December 1954 - USS Forrestal launched
October 1955 - USS Forrestal commissioned
October 1955 - USS Kitty Hawk (CV-64) ordered
July 1956 - USS Constellation (CV-65) ordered
October 1956 - USS Long Beach ordered
December 1957 - USS Long Beach keel laid down
November 1957 - USS Enterprise ordered
February 1958 - USS Enterprise keel laid down
October 1958 - prototype reactor (A1W) operational
July 1959 - USS Long Beach launched
September 1960 - USS Enterprise launched
October 1960 - USS America (CV-66) ordered
September 1961 - USS Long Beach commissioned
November 1961 - USS Enterprise commissioned
April 1964 - USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) ordered
March 1967 - USS Nimitz ordered
There was four years between first naval reactor achieving critical mass and first nuclear supercarrier order and eight years between it and CV commissioning.
There was six years between first supercarrier (CV-61) order and first nuclear supercarrier order and three years between first supercarrier commissioning and first CVN order.
Both the application of nuclear power for naval propulsion and the application of the supercarrier design was done within a decade. At the time both nuclear power and supercarrier design were new solutions and were not tested. All procedures and safety regulations had to be invented.
If we want to use an absurd (but plausible) argument then China could in a very literal sense copy the CVN-65 design and build A2W reactors to have a working nuclear supercarrier.
Nuclear power is not a mystery anymore. If you understand how it works inside a ship then you can replace conventional propulsion with nuclear power.
China has used nuclear propulsion for decades now and has built between fifteen and eighteen working nuclear submarines which is more than the number of SSNs built by USA until CVN-65 order was made.
The 4th carrier being nuclear-powered is a natural and logical choice if everything is working as intended during the development and contruction of the 3rd. To argue otherwise is to claim that what was achievable to the US in the 1950s is not achievable to China in the 2020s. And that's without assuming they can read English and study from all those 1950s historical sources.
2.
Carriers are tools of aerial power projection at naval distance. USA is separated by two oceans from its two areas of engagement (AoE). Because due to its imperial posture US needs constant presence in its AoE to maintain influence it must keep its carriers in rotation and at high readiness. This explains the minimum number of 9-10 carriers that is postulated by USN planners. It's necessary to be able to maintain 3-4 at sea at any time in both AoE and surge 5-6.
This is how USN views its intended deployment:
View attachment 87799
As long as China doesn't require constant presence in the Atlantic it needs half of that to match the USN. Because China has geographical advantage in the Pacific and Indo-Pacific it might not need as many in the region either.
This is a map of distances and travel times I made some time ago - large image, zoom on.
Compare travel time between Ningbo and Guam and Pearl Harbor and Guam. PLAN has 1 day advantage meaning that before USN carriers arive PLAN SSNs are already waiting. This is why USN needs to many carriers and so many forward positions. Neither side can live of the sea and China has more land at closer distance.
Viewed as energy military power is no different than electron orbitals (or any energy system in the universe). You can shift between discrete amounts and as soon as you lose energy necessary to occupy a higher energy orbital you move into the next orbital. Quantum leaps are everywhere. Geopolitics or geostrategy is really about retaining energy and information at a distance from source of energy and information. It is therefore reducible to basic physics.
USN needs more resources just to remain in forward position for the sake of having a forward position.
As long as USN is present in the 1st island chain all the positions between 1st and 2nd island chain are covered. Once it loses the energy to remain there it will perform a quantum leap to the 2nd island chain as a forward position etc etc. There is no point in forcing it out of those positions. Just drain the energy that keeps it in place and the quantum leap will occur spontaneously.
Here are some angry circles:
China doesn't need the carriers for defense of the 1st island chain line but it doesn't have the capability to project power onto the 2nd island chain in any meaningful way. The waters between the two are empty, contested area that is better suited for "A2/AD" than sea control. Until China has ability to put troops on the 2nd island chain it doesn't need the carriers.
More carriers will follow an established amphibious capability which will require a minimum of 8 LHDs with a trained complement of both crews and marines. Once that is in place there is a reason for more carriers. Until then only so many are necessary as is required to train crews and develop knowledge. That is a much longer and complex process than building any ships.
Rhetorical questions:
From this it follows that PLAN should develop (1) surface fleet, (2) SSN fleet and (3) bomber fleet before moving on to expanding carrier fleet beyond what is necessary for training. Firstly because (1-3) will provide the necessary power projection within its AoE to drain energy base from USN. Secondly because they will provide the foundation for carrier escorts (1-2) and a large portion of future carrier wing (3) - drones, software, space infrastructure, ISR.
- Why build more supercarriers without air wings?
- Why build more supercarriers without escort, including SSN?
- Why build air wings if current 4gen/manned structure is different from future 5gen/unmanned structure?
- How many supercarriers are necessary to train air wings and escorts?
If the construction of Type 004 is followed by 09V and H-20 then it means I'm smart enough to work for PLA strategic planning department and make mediocre coffee because I can't speak Mandarin and would be of no other use no matter how many crayons I ate.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Mostly agree except a technical detail: CVG would be useful to interrupt US bombers to protect PLA amphibious fleet, it's urgently needed in Taiwan scenario considering the geopolitical situation.
It is exactly what you said. Unlimited range and more space for stores like weapons or aviation fuel.
It decreases the need for oiler ships. Even if your oilers get attacked you at least can go back home.
The lower cost of acquisition of a conventional carrier is why I think China should have built two 003 carriers.
In the short term China won't need to go far away from their own waters anyway.
But in the future China will want to have further power projection capabilities. Hence the so called Type 004.
Some nations actually even use the nuclear carrier as a temporary replacement for the oiler in case of emergencies.
The USS Kitty Hawk stored 2000 tons of ordnance and 1.5 million gallons of aircraft fuel. A Nimitz stores 3000 tons of ordnance and 3.5 million gallons of aircraft fuel. Of course, the Nimitz is a bigger and newer class of ship but the difference is disproportionate. Nuclear propulsion almost halves the frequency the carrier group needs a replenishment which is still high. During the invasion of Afghanistan three US carriers were launching aircraft 7/24. They were getting replenishments every other day despite nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion simplifies logistics a lot.
Couple of comments
If we're talking about transit times to Guam from Ningbo/Hawaii, I don't see a 1 day difference as being significant from a strategic perspective.
And I would use a GO analogy rather than an energy one. Namely that China already has more pieces on the board in an advantageous position, ready to surround and capture "territory". At the moment, China has overall fewer pieces than the US, but they are concentrated in the Western Pacific. Plus China is adding more pieces every year than the US.
Some of the islands in the Second Island Chain are completely undefended and pretty far from Guam or any other US base. So you only need a token amphibious force (say 500 men) to take them. Holding them is still another question however.
Otherwise I think it's spot on.
Another thing I heard some people say before, and I forget to mention here, with nuclear power you can run the aircraft carrier propulsion at maximum speed for prolonged periods. With oil you can run at maximum speed but you will quickly run out of fuel and then need to stop to refuel. Try looking at the distance of patrols the US typically engages in and you will figure out why this is a problem. In case the US needs to send a carrier into the other side of the ocean, nuclear can get the carrier to the destination much more quickly. Being able to run at higher speeds also allows the carrier to evade enemy surface fleets more easily. Only faster ship would be a nuclear attack submarine.
That is not much of a factor, since you need to move the rest of the group at said speed, or the advantage is moot.
The real reason for high speed endurance is the need for constant "wind over the deck" in all flight operations. Nuclear propulsion supports the primary mission with no penalties, time constraints or downtime considerations.
How much extra benefit does "wind over the deck" offer when you have EMALS?
Intrepid
Major
There is no difference to steam catapults.
But you don't need to resupply the carrier, which is a massive consumer of fuel. You can massively reduce a major portion of your logistics.
Don't need to *refuel* the carrier, I believe is what you meant.
It will still need resupply of other consumables, including jet fuel.
But yes, not needing to refuel the carrier for its own propulsion is a major benefit