00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[TK3600]

Speaking of which, post moved here to avoid derailing the original thread.







According to the latest paid podcast of the Guancha Trios (which, unfortunately, I have no access to - Courtesy of @vincent for the news):

1. China is indeed building two proper aircraft carriers simultaneously right now (not including the currently-under-sea-trials CV-18 Fujian);
2. One carrier is conventionally-powered (presumably CV-19), while the other is nuclear-powered (presumably CVN-20); and
3. The CVN-20 will be much bigger in order to accommodate the operations of future 6th-gen carrier-based fighters (presumably naval variant of J-XDS).

(Phrases of my own are in Italic)

---

Given the above development, the CV-19 is likely to be built at Jiangnan, whereas CVN-20 is likely to be built at Dalian's Dagushan (not exactly brand-new developments per se).

As for the CVN-20 - Much bigger relative to Fujian or Ford? I don't think we can know for sure, for the time being...

If true, this has ramification. China is shifting to strategic offense starting 2025. Let me explain.

First we see China build a conventional and nuclear. This is unusual pattern breaks the usual "try stuff out slowly and expand production when satisfied". Why not wait for nuclear? China is rushing the carrier program.

Second, China is expanding carrier quantity faster than expected. All my 2031 eatimation nneds to revise upward.

Third, Chinese 005 nuclear is no long just a bigger nuclear 003. It will be integrated with 6th gen. We can expect naval 6th gen ready up by the time 005 is ready. Maybe as short as 4 year.

In summary China is rushing carrier program to exoand quantity, and soon to equip naval 6th gen. Why so hurry? I think it all ties back to the estimated 2030s Taiwan conflict. If China do start 2 ships a batch today, they have time to get another batch done by early 2030s. So a carrier force of 7.

I believe PLA is aiming to have the upper hand in carriers by 2030s. China will no longer prepare to win the fight around home. They are gearing to win it anywhere around the world. You might ask if 7 carriers can really match USN, my answer is it is entirely possible, if China leads carrier fighter by 1 gen. If China deploy 6th gen in 5 carriers, it is entirely possible to keep up with 11 carriers using 5th gen, possibly having some advantage. If it were 7 carriers using 6th gen, then the advantage becomes reliable.

From US's perspective, NGAD is vital. They need it and they need it fast. If they do not finish it fast, they will lose both naval and air dominance. Which in turn cripple their nuclear deterrance because they rely on submarines for it. Which together would force it on diplomatic weakness and give concessions.

Conversely, because US need NGAD so bad, it become prone to mistakes. If US committ to an immature NGAD as quick as it can, it would concede its future potential. China can then arm race a better plane to overmatch that, delay the fight. So as tempting as it is to save face, US must be very careful to not blow its trump card. Or it will be on backfoot rest of the match.

 

[TK3600]

With the backing of a much larger carrier force, China will shift attention on global offense. No longer will we see effort limited to economic self sufficiency. When China own the sea, trade is possible. Providing security to global ally is possible. The importance of carrier go far beyond just winning a naval fight. It is about winning long term struggle for global supremacy.

 

[asif iqbal]

With the backing of a much larger carrier force, China will shift attention on global offense. No longer will we see effort limited to economic self sufficiency. When China own the sea, trade is possible. Providing security to global ally is possible. The importance of carrier go far beyond just winning a naval fight. It is about winning long term struggle for global supremacy.

no nothing too do with trade China never owned the sea to grow to its current status

Western nations use the excuse of securing trade to bomb other nations

 

[00CuriousObserver]

The timestamp should be at around 01:50 (i.e. very early into that particular podcast), IIRC.

It was around 1:50 but the unit is hours, ie 1:50:00.

Here is the related transcript:

Yankee: 同时呢因为北面跟海军的良好合作关系搞一个新机的时候，它跟海军的通气性也会比较频繁，那么我们知道随著两艘航空母舰，一艘常规一艘核的先后开造，那艘大型核航空母舰在主尺度上将是非常可观的，它能容纳的飞机也绝对不是说歼-15T这么大和歼-35这样的飞机而已，

Ayi: 它就不是说我们传统认为的斗兽棋观念，它反而是一个，就是说我是为一个可能的新的那种可能给什么B25留一空间

Yankee: 对，就我的大升降机我就给大飞机在这留在这了，但是呢大也不能做到大无可大，那么的地步

Ayi: 也不能说就整一B21整一轰20上的

Yankee: 就这样的那种构形下的话，你会出现个什么效果呢，就是它这个机，会是一个大但可控的一个做一个效果，而不是说像南面（CAC）这个一个是我根据我的需求把它做大，反正陆地机场无所谓，这么一个效果。

And here is a translation:

Yankee: At the same time, due to the good cooperative relationship with the navy in the north (SAC), when developing a new aircraft, communication with the navy tends to be more frequent. Now, with the construction of two aircraft carriers—one conventional and one nuclear—underway, the large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will have very impressive main dimensions. The size of aircraft it can accommodate will definitely not be limited to just the J-15T or J-35 alike; it will be capable of much more.

Ayi: It’s not like the traditional concept of a "fighting animal game" where pieces are pitted against each other. Instead, it’s about leaving space for a potential new thing, such as something like the B25.

Yankee: Right. My large elevators are designed to accommodate large aircraft, but it doesn’t mean they should be made excessively large to the point of impracticality.

Ayi: It doesn’t mean we’ll go so far as to fit something like the B21 or H-20 on it.

Yankee: Under such a design configuration, what kind of effect will it create? It means the aircraft will achieve a balance of being large but manageable, rather than just expanding it arbitrarily as is done in the south (CAC), where the approach is based on specific requirements, and land-based airfields make size less of an issue.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It was around 1:50 but the unit is hours, ie 1:50:00.

Here is the related transcript:



And here is a translation:

Yankee: 同时呢因为北面跟海军的良好合作关系搞一个新机的时候，它跟海军的通气性也会比较频繁，那么我们知道随著两艘航空母舰，一艘常规一艘核的先后开造，那艘大型核航空母舰在主尺度上将是非常可观的，它能容纳的飞机也绝对不是说歼-15T这么大和歼-35这样的飞机而已，

nothing about whether the CV has novel systems or is same as Fujian, but very interesting statement that the CVN will be very different and not merely be for holding existing fighters.

 

[AndrewS]

If true, this has ramification. China is shifting to strategic offense starting 2025. Let me explain.

First we see China build a conventional and nuclear. This is unusual pattern breaks the usual "try stuff out slowly and expand production when satisfied". Why not wait for nuclear? China is rushing the carrier program.

Second, China is expanding carrier quantity faster than expected. All my 2031 eatimation nneds to revise upward.

Third, Chinese 005 nuclear is no long just a bigger nuclear 003. It will be integrated with 6th gen. We can expect naval 6th gen ready up by the time 005 is ready. Maybe as short as 4 year.

In summary China is rushing carrier program to exoand quantity, and soon to equip naval 6th gen. Why so hurry? I think it all ties back to the estimated 2030s Taiwan conflict. If China do start 2 ships a batch today, they have time to get another batch done by early 2030s. So a carrier force of 7.

I believe PLA is aiming to have the upper hand in carriers by 2030s. China will no longer prepare to win the fight around home. They are gearing to win it anywhere around the world. You might ask if 7 carriers can really match USN, my answer is it is entirely possible, if China leads carrier fighter by 1 gen. If China deploy 6th gen in 5 carriers, it is entirely possible to keep up with 11 carriers using 5th gen, possibly having some advantage. If it were 7 carriers using 6th gen, then the advantage becomes reliable.

From US's perspective, NGAD is vital. They need it and they need it fast. If they do not finish it fast, they will lose both naval and air dominance. Which in turn cripple their nuclear deterrance because they rely on submarines for it. Which together would force it on diplomatic weakness and give concessions.

Conversely, because US need NGAD so bad, it become prone to mistakes. If US committ to an immature NGAD as quick as it can, it would concede its future potential. China can then arm race a better plane to overmatch that, delay the fight. So as tempting as it is to save face, US must be very careful to not blow its trump card. Or it will be on backfoot rest of the match.

I don't see NGAD making that much difference.

The NGAD is currently specified as operating to 3000km
But the US only has 1-2 bases available 9such as Guam which can usefully use an NGAD.

And given that the Chinese can likely put more J-36 into the air at a 3000km distance, we're still looking at a situation where the Chinese Air Force can achieve air superiority over Guam, and take out that single airbase.

---

Alternatively, there's no point basing NGADs in the 1IC, as it's too close to China where there will be a significant Chinese advantage in airbases and aircraft.
And if the US has to retreat from Guam, then they're trying to operate from Hawaii, Alaska or Australia, which is simply too far

 

[dingyibvs]

It was around 1:50 but the unit is hours, ie 1:50:00.

Here is the related transcript:



And here is a translation:

I think a key part of the translation that's missed is that he didn't just say that it won't only be able to carry the J-15T, but that it won't only be able to carry something the size of the J-15T. Given the J-XDS appears to be similar in size to the J-16, I wonder if he's referring to the J-36 here.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

I think a key part of the translation that's missed is that he didn't just say that it won't only be able to carry the J-15T, but that it won't only be able to carry something the size of the J-15T. Given the J-XDS appears to be similar in size to the J-16, I wonder if he's referring to the J-36 here.

Edited it a bit

 

[Kich]

Speaking of which, posts from Shenyang's J-XDS thread moved here to avoid derailing the original thread.







According to the latest (or one of the latest) paid 察话会Au podcast by the Guancha Trios (which, unfortunately, I have no access to - Courtesy of @vincent for the news), particularly from Yankee:

1. China is indeed building two proper aircraft carriers simultaneously right now (not including the currently-under-sea-trials CV-18 Fujian);
2. One carrier is conventionally-powered (presumably CV-19), while the other is nuclear-powered (presumably CVN-20); and
3. The nuclear-powered carrier will be much bigger in order to accommodate the operations of future 6th-gen carrier-based fighters (presumably naval variant of the J-XDS).

(Phrases of my own are in Italic)

---

Given the above development, the CV-19 is likely to be built at Jiangnan, whereas CVN-20 is likely to be built at Dalian's Dagushan (not exactly brand-new developments per se).

As for the CVN-20 - Much bigger relative to Fujian or Ford? I don't think we can know for sure, for the time being...

I was off but I assumed more than 2 years ago that PLAN would build 2 CATOBARS simultaneously.

While Fujian is going through with fittings and trails for the next two years, I think PLAN needs to start building two more 003s instead of just one. And they can do it simultaneously; one at Dalian and the other at Jiangnan. The timeline for the introduction of 004 will be too long; 2030 or early 2030s.

It will allowed both shipyards to retain more skills instead of allowing those skills to fade away in time. Prefabrication and steel cutting can start this year or next.

Although PLAN shouldn't try to rush things into service, the way geopolitical plates are shifting, it will be smart to have enough numbers to bolster things. Having 3 CATOBARs is better than 3 CVs with only one being CATOBAR. And PLAN can have 3 Type 003s in service by 2030; 5 total if we count CV-16 and CV-17.

I thought it would be 2 Type 003 and not 1 more Type 003 and the first Type 004, but this also makes sense.

I'm a little surprised Dalian would be the one building the CVN and not Jiangnan, since Dalian doesn't have the experience of building a CATOBAR CV. I thought they would try their hands at a CV first.

But now that I think about this, maybe the brass want to spread the prestige among the builders. There's precedent before.

Type-002 was built by Dalian.
Type-003 was built by Jiangnan

so the first CVN goes back to Dalian?

 

[AndrewS]

If true, this has ramification. China is shifting to strategic offense starting 2025. Let me explain.

First we see China build a conventional and nuclear. This is unusual pattern breaks the usual "try stuff out slowly and expand production when satisfied". Why not wait for nuclear? China is rushing the carrier program.

Second, China is expanding carrier quantity faster than expected. All my 2031 eatimation nneds to revise upward.

Third, Chinese 005 nuclear is no long just a bigger nuclear 003. It will be integrated with 6th gen. We can expect naval 6th gen ready up by the time 005 is ready. Maybe as short as 4 year.

In summary China is rushing carrier program to exoand quantity, and soon to equip naval 6th gen. Why so hurry? I think it all ties back to the estimated 2030s Taiwan conflict. If China do start 2 ships a batch today, they have time to get another batch done by early 2030s. So a carrier force of 7.

I believe PLA is aiming to have the upper hand in carriers by 2030s. China will no longer prepare to win the fight around home. They are gearing to win it anywhere around the world. You might ask if 7 carriers can really match USN, my answer is it is entirely possible, if China leads carrier fighter by 1 gen. If China deploy 6th gen in 5 carriers, it is entirely possible to keep up with 11 carriers using 5th gen, possibly having some advantage. If it were 7 carriers using 6th gen, then the advantage becomes reliable.

From US's perspective, NGAD is vital. They need it and they need it fast. If they do not finish it fast, they will lose both naval and air dominance. Which in turn cripple their nuclear deterrance because they rely on submarines for it. Which together would force it on diplomatic weakness and give concessions.

Conversely, because US need NGAD so bad, it become prone to mistakes. If US committ to an immature NGAD as quick as it can, it would concede its future potential. China can then arm race a better plane to overmatch that, delay the fight. So as tempting as it is to save face, US must be very careful to not blow its trump card. Or it will be on backfoot rest of the match.

If US-China relations remain bad, I can actually see them building 4 nuclear carriers in a 2030-2035 timeframe.
So at the end, that would be 9 carriers in total, plus presumably drone carriers. That would likely win a blue-water naval battle against an opposing BlueFor Navy in the Western Pacific.

As for the hurry, I agree a continuation of the previous measured pace of military modernisation would have just 1 nuclear carrier under development right now.

---

But now there are definite economic and geopolitical benefits to China building a bigger military faster.

The bigger the Chinese Navy gets, the more capable it is of protecting its overseas seaborne trade from blockade by an opponent. It means China-based factories and supply chains become a safer option (because the Chinese Navy can protect this trade). Conversely, if the Chinese Navy gains control of the seas, then US-based factories and supply chains are the risky option.

Geopolitically, we can now see Chinese naval procurement running at 2x the US rate. That applies to every category of naval vessel, from large aircraft carriers, amphibious ships with flight decks, destroyers, frigates and also nuclear submarines.

Once that becomes apparent to a country, their decision-making will shift.