00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[Maikeru]

If you look at the investments PLAN has made in carrier aviation, it only makes sense if they intend to go big:

EMCATS
J15T/DT
J35
KJ600
JL-XX
New and expanded bases
GJ21 + other CATOBAR UAV

I think 6 more CV(N) by 2035 is doable and more likely than not will be done, albeit the last 2 built likely still fitting out or in trials at 1/1/35.

 

[Totoro]

With two built simultaneously, and with 004 still far from launch and another 003 not even laid down, laying down of 5th and 6th seems unlikely before 2028. Then an optimistic cadence of 3 years per ship to launch gives 2031 for 7th and 8th. And 2034 for 9th and 10th. So at best 8 launched by 2035. And even that is a very aggressive schedule leaving zero room for delays. More realistically 6 in service by 2035.

 

[Maikeru]

With two built simultaneously, and with 004 still far from launch and another 003 not even laid down, laying down of 5th and 6th seems unlikely before 2028. Then an optimistic cadence of 3 years per ship to launch gives 2031 for 7th and 8th. And 2034 for 9th and 10th. So at best 8 launched by 2035. And even that is a very aggressive schedule leaving zero room for delays. More realistically 6 in service by 2035.

Who says each of the yards can only do 1 CV at a time?

Just look at them. How many 100kt+ DWT merchant ships are they building simultaneously?

The yards don't need to wait until 1 CV is completed before starting the next in the same drydock - they can use a different drydock and build concurrently.

 

[4Tran]

I can see China having the capability of building that 9 carrier fleet, but constructing the air wings and training all the crews will be a significant challenge. What makes more skeptical though is that I just can't see a use case to justify all this expense. The US needs a lot of carriers because it wants to permanently station multiple carriers all over the world. This has a significant toll on the ships - making only about a third of them available at any time, and a significant toll on the crews. I have a hard time envisioning a world where the PLAN would want to have a carrier battlegroup in the Indian Ocean and another one in the Eastern Pacific at all times, so what would all these carriers be used for?

I think that there's only a use case for having about 6 carriers total. If we limit the STOBAR carriers to a purely training role, then that would bring up the total to 8, but that's going to be a fairly hard limit outside of a wartime scenario. Another thing to note is that the PLAN isn't in a hurry to build up to this number. Training the crews is going to take a long time anyways, and getting it right is a lot more important than getting them quickly.

 

[Maikeru]

I can see China having the capability of building that 9 carrier fleet, but constructing the air wings and training all the crews will be a significant challenge. What makes more skeptical though is that I just can't see a use case to justify all this expense. The US needs a lot of carriers because it wants to permanently station multiple carriers all over the world. This has a significant toll on the ships - making only about a third of them available at any time, and a significant toll on the crews. I have a hard time envisioning a world where the PLAN would want to have a carrier battlegroup in the Indian Ocean and another one in the Eastern Pacific at all times, so what would all these carriers be used for?

I think that there's only a use case for having about 6 carriers total. If we limit the STOBAR carriers to a purely training role, then that would bring up the total to 8, but that's going to be a fairly hard limit outside of a wartime scenario. Another thing to note is that the PLAN isn't in a hurry to build up to this number. Training the crews is going to take a long time anyways, and getting it right is a lot more important than getting them quickly.

A high and increasing % of the air wings will be unmanned, which ameliorates the aircrew training problem considerably.

 

[bsdnf]

Don't forget, the PLA's target to have nine CVs was proposed by the Americans, they did not provide supporting evidence or analysis.

 

[mack8]

Who says each of the yards can only do 1 CV at a time?

Just look at them. How many 100kt+ DWT merchant ships are they building simultaneously?

The yards don't need to wait until 1 CV is completed before starting the next in the same drydock - they can use a different drydock and build concurrently.

Some years back there was theoretical talk about how many carriers (possibly CVNs) China could built simultaneously and they were talking about 4 of them, 2 at Dalian and 1 each at Jiangnan and Hudong. Presumably this was taking into account necessary specific equipment/facilities at the respective drydocks.

To get back to large drydocks for 100,000 tons plus DWT ship and the required length/width at the 3 main yards mentioned above, do we know how many are there? I've looked at the subject in the past and while the information online is confusing, there seem to be at least two each at DL and JN, possibly significantly more. Last i recall at Hudong there was work in progress on a giant 650 meters drydock too.

PS: sidenote, am i behind with my info about that giant 650 meters Hudong drydock, was it completed several years ago and they already built the 076 Sichuan in it, or Sichuan was built at a different Hudong drydock?

 

[Tomboy]

Who says each of the yards can only do 1 CV at a time?

Just look at them. How many 100kt+ DWT merchant ships are they building simultaneously?

The yards don't need to wait until 1 CV is completed before starting the next in the same drydock - they can use a different drydock and build concurrently.

Cuz DL only has a single drydock capable of handling nuclear ships while IIRC JN doesn't have any

 

[Maikeru]

Cuz DL only has a single drydock capable of handling nuclear ships while IIRC JN doesn't have any

And who says all the CVs will be CVNs? AFAIK DL will built CVN and JN will build 003As.

 

[AndrewS]

I can see China having the capability of building that 9 carrier fleet, but constructing the air wings and training all the crews will be a significant challenge. What makes more skeptical though is that I just can't see a use case to justify all this expense. The US needs a lot of carriers because it wants to permanently station multiple carriers all over the world. This has a significant toll on the ships - making only about a third of them available at any time, and a significant toll on the crews. I have a hard time envisioning a world where the PLAN would want to have a carrier battlegroup in the Indian Ocean and another one in the Eastern Pacific at all times, so what would all these carriers be used for?

I think that there's only a use case for having about 6 carriers total. If we limit the STOBAR carriers to a purely training role, then that would bring up the total to 8, but that's going to be a fairly hard limit outside of a wartime scenario. Another thing to note is that the PLAN isn't in a hurry to build up to this number. Training the crews is going to take a long time anyways, and getting it right is a lot more important than getting them quickly.

The use case should be obvious.

Take a scenario where the US military decides to intervene because of Taiwan.

With 9 carriers, the Chinese Navy would likely be able to deploy more naval aviation in the Western Pacific than the US Navy.