00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[AndrewS]

Assuming this is true, I wonder if the conventional CV-19 will be a significant iterative improvement (=technical advancement) over the Type-003 or simply a copy to boost numbers in a time of heightened tension (=war preparation), with the concurrent construction of two carriers being a reflection of China's overall economic and industrial growth rather than emergency funding in anticipation of war.

A 2nd carrier doesn't qualify as imminent war preparation, even if it is a doubling of the production rate.

By 2030, it would mean a total of 5 compared to 4 carriers. That doesn't change the overall strategic calculus in the Western Pacific

I see it more as the Chinese Navy getting a bigger slice of military spending pie, whilst building up capacity. If you estimate procurement spending between the Navy and Air Force, you can see a huge jump in Air Force spending which is now significantly higher than what the Navy gets.

i.e., will CV-19 be a Type-003 or Type-004 (with CVN-20 being Type-005 in that case)?

Type-002 was an iterative (and industrially indigenous) improvement over the Type-001, while Type-003 was a generational jump over Type-002. Following that development logic, Type-004 should be a notably improved conventional CATOBAR, perhaps at 90,000 tons (from Type-003's 80,000 tons, coincidentally also mirroring the US' advancement from the 80,000 ton Kitty Hawk-class to 90,000 ton Enterprise-class). The then Type-005 would be a nuclear CATOBAR and the generational jump, estimated at 100,000 tons (or more, if those 150,000 ton rumours are to be revisited). While perhaps far-fetched, this doesn't seem out of line with how close the 5th-gen J-35 was revealed to the 6th-gen J-36.

We know China has a preference for incremental, careful advancement. To produce two carriers simultaneously doesn't confirm a shift in military/political stance more than it could just be a result of the total pie growing big enough that it would be wasteful not to advance faster. However, producing a copy of a matured platform would indeed suggest a shift in stance, moving from a focus on technical advancement ("reaching tomorrow") to materiel expansion ("winning today").

We can see that China's military expenditure hasn't grown proportionally relative to its economic output, even with ever increasing hostility from the Western bloc since at least 2017. A shift in stance from consistent advancement to materiel spam (in the form of an entire additional aircraft carrier of an established/mature Type outside of the predicted procurement plan) would be preceded by a large proportional increase in military funding, no? Unless they can fit an entire aircraft carrier in the unknown "black budget"...

Consider how the strategic environment has changed in the past 4 years.

Japan announced a doubling in military spending a few years ago.

We now have active wars in Ukraine, Russia and the Middle East.

Poland has more than doubled military spending. France has recently announced it will double military spending as well.

So it wouldn't be surprising to see Chinese military spending increase.

 

[TK3600]

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

You think too narrow. Conflict will continue beyond Chinese periphery. NGAD is needed to stand any chance against China in general.

If US let Taiwan go, war ends without fire a shot. The moment a shot is fired by US, it will be global. Every US base is fair game. From Hawaii to Africa.

 

[antiterror13]

A 2nd carrier doesn't qualify as imminent war preparation, even if it is a doubling of the production rate.

By 2030, it would mean a total of 5 compared to 4 carriers. That doesn't change the overall strategic calculus in the Western Pacific

I see it more as the Chinese Navy getting a bigger slice of military spending pie, whilst building up capacity. If you estimate procurement spending between the Navy and Air Force, you can see a huge jump in Air Force spending which is now significantly higher than what the Navy gets.




Consider how the strategic environment has changed in the past 4 years.

Japan announced a doubling in military spending a few years ago.

We now have active wars in Ukraine, Russia and the Middle East.

Poland has more than doubled military spending. France has recently announced it will double military spending as well.

So it wouldn't be surprising to see Chinese military spending increase.

Yeahh, by 2030 I think China's official defence budget may increase to $600B or roughly 2.4% of nominal GDP

I think 2.5 to 3% is ideal during peace time

Also the most important part is the effectiveness of every $ spent... I think China may be 3-5X more effective of every $/RMB spent than the US

 

[00CuriousObserver]

I was thinking about why another CV, then I read this article by Yankee. And well, one reason for another CV might just be that we might lose it in a war.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

后“双航母时代”，我们该想点不敢想的了

想不敢想之事，不仅是建造第4艘、第5艘、第6艘航母，也包括敢于在一场大战中，甘于为了全局胜利，冒着损失不止一艘航母的风险行事。

In the post-dual-carrier era, it is time for us to think about what we dare not think about.

Thinking the unthinkable includes not only building a 4th, 5th, or 6th carrier, but also daring to act in a major war, willing to risk the loss of more than one carrier for the sake of overall victory.

 

[TK3600]

If PLA intend to enter a war, they should up it to 3 ships a batch. Not even about expansions, but to replace losses. Judging by their atitude, I predict 3 carriers a batch once the first 005 is matured. China means business here. There is no point having the 2nd best navy. Either you are best or you concede the ocean.

 

[henrik]

If PLA intend to enter a war, they should up it to 3 ships a batch. Not even about expansions, but to replace losses. Judging by their atitude, I predict 3 carriers a batch once the first 005 is matured. China means business here. There is no point having the 2nd best navy. Either you are best or you concede the ocean.

Building 2 carriers at the same time has always been the expectation. This is not surprising at all. Just by looking at 001 and 002 which is a copy, it is just reasonable to have 003 and then 004 as a similar copy. They are not going to wait for the 005 to mature before building 006. They will start building 006 soon after 004 construction. Even now the 003 has not matured yet.

 

[AndrewS]

Building 2 carriers at the same time has always been the expectation. This is not surprising at all. Just by looking at 001 and 002 which is a copy, it is just reasonable to have 003 and then 004 as a similar copy. They are not going to wait for the 005 to mature before building 006. They will start building 006 soon after 004 construction. Even now the 003 has not matured yet.

Just remember that if:

1. China builds 2 carriers in every 5 year period
2. And a carrier has a 50 years lifespan

That implies a Chinese fleet with 20 large carriers. That's roughly 2x the US Navy.

And we haven't considered the introduction of China's amphibs which have EM catapults and arrestor wires

 

[AndrewS]

If PLA intend to enter a war, they should up it to 3 ships a batch. Not even about expansions, but to replace losses. Judging by their atitude, I predict 3 carriers a batch once the first 005 is matured. China means business here. There is no point having the 2nd best navy. Either you are best or you concede the ocean.

Yes, you get efficiencies when you build multiple carriers at the same time.

And I agree that in terms of a blue water Navy, China should either concede the oceans or go for dominance.
Currently, China is focusing on capabilities within the First and Second Island Chains, and has conceded the oceans beyond.

But come 2030, there should be a mature nuclear carrier design and a quiet-enough Chinese nuclear attack submarine design available. At the same time, China should be able to achieve air superiority in the First Island Chain, and at a minimum, denial in the Second Island Chain.

So the focus can shift to a blue water Navy.

But why 3 carriers in a batch? Previously we saw the US build 4 Forrestal-class carriers in a 5 year period with 2 shipyards

So in a 2030-2035 timeframe, we could see 4 carriers produced by Dalian and Jiangnan

 

[AndrewS]

Also the most important part is the effectiveness of every $ spent... I think China may be 3-5X more effective of every $/RMB spent than the US

My guess is that Chinese military spending efficiency is somewhat lower than that.

Call it 2-3x more effective than the US, on average.

But that is still a huge advantage.

 

[Lethe]

Regarding the prospect of carrier growth to accommodate potential future aircraft, I was reminded of a post-Nimitz carrier study from 1991 that considered various options to accommodate aircraft heavier than the F-14. Fortunately it is still preserved by the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Snippets below: