00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[para80]

I doubt Dalian and JN both will construct two carriers at a time. There are other fish to fry for these yards, both in terms of commercial committments and naval procurement for PLAN. Nor do I think PLAN is really trying to be a nine carrier-force. You also have to find crews and aviation personnel etc to scale with that sort of construction pace. Of course its all just guessing and speculation.

The build pace so far suggests that even if we see the start of module contruction for Type 004 tomorrow, that carrier wont be launched before 2029 and wont be operational before around 2032. A repeat Fujian type carrier may cut some time, maybe from ca eight to five or six years between module construction and a notional commissioning.

 

[AndrewS]

I doubt Dalian and JN both will construct two carriers at a time. There are other fish to fry for these yards, both in terms of commercial committments and naval procurement for PLAN. Nor do I think PLAN is really trying to be a nine carrier-force. You also have to find crews and aviation personnel etc to scale with that sort of construction pace. Of course its all just guessing and speculation.

The build pace so far suggests that even if we see the start of module contruction for Type 004 tomorrow, that carrier wont be launched before 2029 and wont be operational before around 2032. A repeat Fujian type carrier may cut some time, maybe from ca eight to five or six years between module construction and a notional commissioning.

This is my view of what will drive Chinese naval construction over the next decades.
Do you see any holes in the reasoning?

---

Look at the situation today

China is the world's largest trading nation, importing raw materials and exporting manufactured goods
This is essential for the Chinese economy.

The vast majority of this trade is via ships.
Therefore China obtains more economic benefit from seaborne trade than the US.

---

If you ignore the undervalued exchange rate controlled by the Chinese government, then in terms of actual output of goods and services, the Washington-based World Bank purchasing power parity numbers suggest the Chinese economy is actually 25% larger than the US economy.

If you correct for measurement differences (such imputed rent in the US and the undercounting of Chinese consumption figures), the indications are the Chinese economy is somewhere between 50-100% larger than the US.

It means that even today, China has the financial and industrial resources to build a bigger Navy.

---

Historically over the past 500 years, the world's largest trading nation builds the world's largest Navy to protect its global seaborne trade.

---

These statements imply:

1. China has a requirement for a larger Navy (11+ supercarriers or their equivalents)
2. The Chinese economy can support the building of such a Navy
3. In the past, this is what other countries have done previously

This is what will be driving Chinese naval development in the next decades.

---

And as China builds up its military faster, then China-based factories becomes more reliable as any blockade becomes less likely to happen and less effective.

If and when we get to the point where the Chinese Navy is significantly larger than the US Navy, then China-based factories and supply chains are the safe and reliable option. It will be US factories which become the risky option as they are subject to blockade by the Chinese Navy.

 

[vincent]

is that because a more powerful engine is not available ?

Because 076 is first and foremost an LHD, not an aircraft carrier.

 

[para80]

This is my view of what will drive Chinese naval construction over the next decades.
Do you see any holes in the reasoning?

---

Look at the situation today

China is the world's largest trading nation, importing raw materials and exporting manufactured goods
This is essential for the Chinese economy.

---

These statements imply:

1. China has a requirement for a larger Navy (11+ supercarriers or their equivalents)
2. The Chinese economy can support the building of such a Navy
3. In the past, this is what other countries have done previously

This is what will be driving Chinese naval development in the next decades.

The geopolitical/geoeconomical discussion is probably going to derail this thread. FWIW the USN global force posture is a consequence of several factors (notably being the overall clear winner in WW2) and not just owing to protecting global trade. In fact I'd argue thats more a consequence than a motivation.

China over the next two decades will need to carefully balance its various force posture needs. Establishment of a global network of bases supporting a global carrier force (thats what the USN is) is not part of that calculus (as far as we know and observe).

We will be wiser ten years down the road. But again, multi-carrier production at both yards IMO is not plausible (unless we are talking one carrier in assembly and long lead items for another one).

 

[bsdnf]

Medium carrier built on 076 hull.

076 cannot be directly converted into a medium carrier because the dock already makes the center of gravity of the Type 076 very high, and the installation of a angled deck will further reduce the stability of the ship.

 

[proelite]

076 cannot be directly converted into a medium carrier because the dock already makes the center of gravity of the Type 076 very high, and the installation of a angled deck will further reduce the stability of the ship.

To clarify, only the bull that encompasses the engine decks will be kept. The ship will be a 260+ meters, ~50,000 ton conventional CATOBAR.

 

[AndrewS]

The geopolitical/geoeconomical discussion is probably going to derail this thread. FWIW the USN global force posture is a consequence of several factors (notably being the overall clear winner in WW2) and not just owing to protecting global trade. In fact I'd argue thats more a consequence than a motivation.

China over the next two decades will need to carefully balance its various force posture needs. Establishment of a global network of bases supporting a global carrier force (thats what the USN is) is not part of that calculus (as far as we know and observe).

We will be wiser ten years down the road. But again, multi-carrier production at both yards IMO is not plausible (unless we are talking one carrier in assembly and long lead items for another one).

Yes, we'll have to see what happens in the decades ahead.

---

But what is the situation today?

The USA is the only country that has both:
1. threatened a maritime blockade of China
2. and the capacity to do this

A few years ago, President Biden and the previous Japanese Minister both publicly stated (on multiple occasions) that they had the option of going to war with China.

As per public comments from Ray Dalio and the late Henry Kissinger, the rest of the world see America as "overly aggressive" towards China with American military containment and also economic containment policies designed to keep China poor and technologically backward.

So what should the Chinese response be?

---

On China fielding a 9 Chinese carrier force by 2040, remember that this is still fewer than the 11 US carriers.

When combined with the Rocket Force, Air Force etc - that likely means Chinese air and maritime superiority to the Second Island Chain, maybe a little further.

It also likely means US maritime control in the Indian Ocean, which means the US control of the oil flows from the Middle East to China.

---

If China-US relations are still bad in 5 years time, and given that the Chinese economy is already approaching 2x the size of the US economy, why would China be satisfied with a significantly smaller Navy?

The responsible decision for the Chinese government is to continue building more carriers.
So the new plan might be 15 supercarriers, which is significantly larger than the US Navy.

 

[hkvaryag]

A model of new naval fighters????