asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
No they will defiantly not be using CV-16 and CV-17 for ASW that's why Carriers don't operate alone but rather with Escorts
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
No they will defiantly not be using CV-16 and CV-17 for ASW that's why Carriers don't operate alone but rather with Escorts
I think he means they'll be using CV-16 & CV-17 to carry mainly ASW helicopters to hunt down subs. Yes the escorts can do that too but the STOBARs can send off more and cover more area that way. Also, who sends out carriers without escort, that's a given.
Um, no. That's more like trying to aim for the ISS while flying a normal aircraft, i.e. impossible.
Last edited:
New satellite imagery of the Huangjiahu carrier mockup building at Wuhan, photographed on New Year's Day 2025.
The entire mockup structure has been expanded (flight deck width-wise), with the area circled in yellow being the possible new location for the new island superstructure mockup.
The entire mockup structure has been expanded (flight deck width-wise), with the area circled in yellow being the possible new location for the new island superstructure mockup.
Last edited:
proelite
Junior Member
Looks to be the same length?
I disagree. That is not good enough.
The Chinese economy is global. China is the number one importer of resources. Here are a few examples:
Iron ore from Australia and Brazil
Copper from Congo and Chile
Crude oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia
The Chinese economy cannot survive if its supply of critical resources are cut off. The US navy can starve China into submission by comfortably sitting out at the 3rd island chain and either disrupt these supply lines or outright shut it down. The PLA-navy having absolute control of the 1st and 2nd island chain, although a good start, is not good enough.
The PLA-navy must develop the capacity to fight and win at least up to the 3rd island chain, yes that includes Hawaii and Alaska.
Yes. Though the actual ships would be longer.
I can't remember if they lengthened it between when it was a STOBAR representing CV-16/17, and when it was CATOBAR representing CV-18... I have a feeling that they didn't lengthen it.
If they didn't lengthen it, then it wouldn't be a surprise if they didn't lengthen it for the current/suspected CVN representative conversion either.
edit:
An estimate on GE of eyeballing the flight deck width, based on the extended flight deck width on the starboard side, which looks like it is "in line" with the building near that intersection (circled red).
I am quite comfortably getting 78m, maybe even 79 or 80m, all of which are of course rather large, and puts it in the same flight deck width as Ford. The overall flight deck geometry obviously will determine how much flight deck area it has to work with.
And here's what a Ford looks like next to it, assuming both have the same maximal flight deck width of 78m at their respective widest points, bookended with their bows at the common point.
Edit: also added CV-18, scaled the same way
That aft/rear area with the foundations on the current revised mockup does look reasonably like where a smaller more aft placed island would go, and it also naturally would imply that there is a substantial part of the aft hull and flight deck which is not structurally represented on the mockup (reasonable)
Last edited:
China is self sufficient on all those things by itself and in oil/gas with Russia. It will just be marginally more expensive. And they have the time to embark on a mass buildup even after the war starts.
Sitting outside the 3rd island chain attacking shipping is no smart move, because that's conceding all the wealth and resources in Asia to the PLA. Just by plundering US allies in Asia, China would likely initially massively improve it's economy, not experience a downturn.
Honestly until 6th generation fighters are deployed on a CV, the role of PLA CV will mainly be focused on deterring third world nations, just like US can realistically only use them like that. And for that, China only needs a few. US after all only deployed 3 CVs at a time against Iraq, which China today can nearly match in firepower if they throw in the 076 to boost the 2 STOBAR carriers.
Imo China will find a CVN design capable of well accomandating future 6th gen operation, then use it as their main fleet model. But until then, they aim to have no more than ~5-6 CVs.