00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[charles18]

I am of the opinion, articulated here previously, that China should produce a further three conventional Fujian-type carriers at short (3 year) intervals, in order to arrive at six operating carriers at relatively low cost by 2035, which is not to say that I think China will do this.

I agree with your idea.
Diesel powered carriers have a lot of utility value, especially in a defensive war.
In a possible future confrontation, China will be playing defense, Not offense.

Nonetheless I do think that nuclear-powered carriers both should be and are likely to be in PLAN's future. The question, as you say, is when.

I do not doubt China's economic and engineering capacity to build nuclear carriers. However in today's uncertain geopolitical climate, a shooting war might start before China even gets a chance to Lay the keel for its first CVN let alone commission one.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Diesel powered carriers have a lot of utility value, especially in a defensive war.

Defensive wars are for small countries defending themselves from bullying hegemons. That is no longer a suitable concept and doctrine for China.

In a possible future confrontation, China will be playing defense, Not offense.

First, who said? Second, the best defense is a good offense.

I do not doubt China's economic and engineering capacity to build nuclear carriers. However in today's uncertain geopolitical climate, a shooting war might start before China even gets a chance to Lay the keel for its first CVN let alone commission one.

The best "defense" in this sense is an expanded nuclear arsenal - wars are not started against nuclear powers. Building and being stuck with more suboptimal carriers for decades is not something China should choose, it's enough that it already has three. It has better options.

 

[charles18]

Defensive wars are for small countries defending themselves from bullying hegemons. That is no longer a suitable concept and doctrine for China.

I respectfully disagree.
The US air force has 2,000 more aircraft than the PLAAF
The US navy has 2 million more tons of ships than the PLAN
Like I said before, "In a possible future confrontation, China will be playing defense, Not offense."

The US military may be "bigger" now but it is a declining power. China is a rising power.
It is building aircraft and ships at 2 times the US rate. By 2035 the Chinese military will reach parity with the US military.
A) Is the USA simply going to "sit on its hands" and do nothing while China rises?
B) Or perhaps the USA will find a convenient excuse to interfere with China's rise before 2035?

Unfortunately option B) is the more likely scenario.

 

[YISOW]

Defensive wars are for small countries defending themselves from bullying hegemons. That is no longer a suitable concept and doctrine for China.

First, who said? Second, the best defense is a good offense.

The best "defense" in this sense is an expanded nuclear arsenal - wars are not started against nuclear powers. Building and being stuck with more suboptimal carriers for decades is not something China should choose, it's enough that it already has three. It has better options.

Attacking TW needs point to point weapon like missiles and long-range rockets to neutralize TW's AA ability
But the PLAN still needs considerable amounts of CVs to achieve the goal “反介入/区域拒止”(A2/AD)

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I respectfully disagree.
The US air force has 2,000 more aircraft than the PLAAF
The US navy has 2 million more tons of ships than the PLAN
Like I said before, "In a possible future confrontation, China will be playing defense, Not offense."

The US military may be "bigger" now but it is a declining power. China is a rising power.
It is building aircraft and ships at 2 times the US rate. By 2035 the Chinese military will reach parity with the US military.
A) Is the USA simply going to "sit on its hands" and do nothing while China rises?
B) Or perhaps the USA will find a convenient excuse to interfere with China's rise before 2035?

Unfortunately option B) is the more likely scenario.

Agreed.

Even in general without considering urgency, conventional carriers have high readiness. It doesn't matter how many ships you have, only how many you can deploy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For example, conventionally powered carriers spend less time in extended maintenance, and as a result, they can provide more
forward presence coverage.

They also note that in Desert Storm, 5/6 CSGs in theater were conventional, consisting of a 5/9 readiness for CVs, far higher than the 30% quoted for CVNs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As shown in recent exercises, both the Liaoning and Shandong can be deployed simultaneously.

9 conventional PLAN CSGs (1x 001, 1x 002, 1x 003, 6x 003A) with merely Desert Storm level readiness reachable in 1991 would be nearly insurmountable in Westpac.

 

[TK3600]

I respectfully disagree.
The US air force has 2,000 more aircraft than the PLAAF
The US navy has 2 million more tons of ships than the PLAN
Like I said before, "In a possible future confrontation, China will be playing defense, Not offense."

The US military may be "bigger" now but it is a declining power. China is a rising power.
It is building aircraft and ships at 2 times the US rate. By 2035 the Chinese military will reach parity with the US military.
A) Is the USA simply going to "sit on its hands" and do nothing while China rises?
B) Or perhaps the USA will find a convenient excuse to interfere with China's rise before 2035?

Unfortunately option B) is the more likely scenario.

Carriers are offensive weapons. They are not going to bomb the coast of Alaska... Yet. But they will go a long way dissuading opportunistic smaller countries looking to rob China mid chaos. You think countries like Singapore will stay neutral without some power projection to back it up?

Besides dueling 2000 aircraft US has Chinese carriers can cover the sky for ASW works. You dont need carriers to sink American carriers to pay for itself.

Lastly, I am speaking of long term future here. Why can't China catch up? China has fewer carriers than US true, but they wont magically get 20 carriers overnight. You gotta start somewhere. Not building any carriers will not change that fact. Building more will. China has robust defensive network and carrier program is not coming at cost of it. It is enhancing the defense. AShBM can deny enemy carrier from entry, but it cannot do ASW away from land airport coverage. A carrier can.


By all means China deserve to out number US carriers. China has vastly superior ship building infustry. Later on vastly higher gdp. By whose divine rights does American think China can only play defense instead of a vastly larger offensive force.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Carriers are offensive weapons. They are not going to bomb the coast of Alaska... Yet. But they will go a long way dissuading opportunistic smaller countries looking to rob China mid chaos. You think countries like Singapore will stay neutral without some power projection to back it up?

Besides dueling 2000 aircraft US has Chinese carriers can cover the sky for ASW works. You dont need carriers to sink American carriers to pay for itself.

Lastly, I am speaking of long term future here. Why can't China catch up? China has fewer carriers than US true, but they wont magically get 20 carriers overnight. You gotta start somewhere. Not building any carriers will not change that fact. Building more will. China has robust defensive network and carrier program is not coming at cost of it. It is enhancing the defense. AShBM can deny enemy carrier from entry, but it cannot do ASW away from land airport coverage. A carrier can.


By all means China deserve to out number US carriers. China has vastly superior ship building infustry. Later on vastly higher gdp. By whose divine rights does American think China can only play defense instead of a vastly larger offensive force.

If you read the post, he was advocating for a massive buildout of conventional CVs immediately and NOT waiting for a 'perfected' CVN before building out.

This I 100% agree with. The US did the same with the 41 for Freedom program where they actually built 41 SSBNs (!) in various classes within just 8 years, and did the same with their conventional CV program where they built 4x Forrestal and 4x Kitty Hawk within 10 years.

But carriers are indeed a good defensive and offensive weapon. You need them to provide air cover for subs. Soviets did that when they could afford carriers, and had ground based airpower as a backup since the Arctic coast is long/narrow. PLAN needs carriers since the Pacific is not long/narrow, it is just big.

 

[MwRYum]

If you read the post, he was advocating for a massive buildout of conventional CVs immediately and NOT waiting for a 'perfected' CVN before building out.

This I 100% agree with. The US did the same with the 41 for Freedom program where they actually built 41 SSBNs (!) in various classes within just 8 years, and did the same with their conventional CV program where they built 4x Forrestal and 4x Kitty Hawk within 10 years.

But carriers are indeed a good defensive and offensive weapon. You need them to provide air cover for subs. Soviets did that when they could afford carriers, and had ground based airpower as a backup since the Arctic coast is long/narrow. PLAN needs carriers since the Pacific is not long/narrow, it is just big.

Build up to the number China can realistically operate and maintain is still the goal that China adheres to.

Besides, Type 003 is an intermediate design from the beginning, and China knows that they will move beyond that.

 

[Hitomi]

I think the PLAN is waiting for the sea trials of Fujian to complete first to work out any kinks and improvements to the next CV before proceeding as they are still in the rapid iteration phase, so no real construction until at least a few months after the sea trials are completed. The decision to build a conventional or nuclear aircraft carrier next for the PLAN will depend on their view on the maturity of the technology of a nuclear carrier. (Which I think is ready)

 

[Cuthalin]

I find it strange that people here keep talking about a defensive war without even bothering to define what’s is this defensive war, let alone reconcile the arguments.

IMO if anything it is unthinkable that the war will be fought in the East or South China Seas, these are simply too close to the mainland and any American ships will simply be overwhelmed by the A2/AD. It is also unthinkable because this positioning would not help to defeat a landing in Taiwan by defeating the Chinese CSGs that will be positioned east of Taiwan.

If anything the war would be centred around Japan (ie south of Yokohama) to Guam and to Australia ie the 2nd to 3rd island chain. It would be an offensive war for China strategically because it will look to eject the Americans from Taiwan and subsequently Japan, to Guam, and to Australia. Any element of “defence” is simply by virtue of relative distance from both homelands (and therefore not a valid concept) as both forces would look to expel each other from the 2nd island chain. How aggressive would China be tactically speaking would depend on the tonnage China can bring at that point, and not after the war has broken out. As quick as they have been, it took 30 months each for the Liaoning and Shandong from launch to being commissioned. Therefore, mass and “good enough for the second island chain” must matter the most instead of a few better weapons that will take longer to research, build, and reach IOC. In this sense, perhaps 055s and 003s are on the same priority level ie more urgent than a CVN.