00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
May I suggest naming the first 004 'Hong Kong' and have it sailed as her first overseas voyage to the UK to show our "friendship" or the appropriate finger to the Brits?
after the shitshow in 2019, they don't deserve their name on such a prestigious and advance ship.
They are a city not a province. Call it Taiwan instead. Go big or go home.May I suggest naming the first 004 'Hong Kong' and have it sailed as her first overseas voyage to the UK to show our "friendship" or the appropriate finger to the Brits?
I'm going to play devil's advocate and assume you are 100% correct.
Wikipedia says the Ford carrier can "sustain 160 sorties per day for 30-plus days". That sounds impressive.
But...
An argument can be made this is irrelevant in a near peer confrontation. If two carriers go to battle against each other (one nuclear / one conventional) after 40 sorties somebody is going to sink or probably both. Let's assume 1 aircraft can carry 2 ASCM's. Therefore 40 aircraft can carry 80 anti-ship missiles. It does not matter if a carrier is nuclear or conventional powered, if it gets hit by 80 missiles it's going to sink.
Being able to sustain a high sortie rate for 30-plus days is good for bullying weak countries that cannot hit back. In a real fight between near equals, a naval battle will be over by the end of the day. Conventional carriers can be built cheaper, faster, and they can deter nuclear carriers. I believe it is to China's advantage to build 5 more Type 003 Fujian carriers as an insurance policy against possible future aggression, before embarking on a CVN program.
You need carriers for more than just combat with other carriers. In fact it’s probably not even the main mission profile they should be used in. For example, if China wanted to permanently take Guam or Okinawa off the table for the US, you’ll want to maintain a persistent presence and do mop up campaigns to prevent US assets from regenerating, and in order to do that you need to occupy territory, which means you need a carrier. Or perhaps you want to maintain permanent presence around the Malacca Strait to have control and initiative over the geographic chokepoint. Maintaining persistence in those kinds of scenarios is crucial, and having a nuclear powered carrier would probably help you many times more than a conventional carrier that will need much deeper and more frequently tapped supply lines, which will be far more vulnerable to having its operations disrupted, etc.
Why do people assume just because the U.S. and China both have carriers, the carriers must be used against each other?! just MAD!
Carriers are great force projection instruments, best deterrents/intimidations against defenseless countries like Syria or Libya or the Philippines or Vietnam or be used to provide CAP for a surface task force or protecting SSBN bastions. These uses will still be there decades from now so both China and U.S. can continue to justify building new carriers but not against each other.
The U.S. did put all its eggs in one basket but now the USN wants to put long range missiles on the next generation platforms like the DDG(X), re-purposed Zumwalts, and SSN(X)/VA boats.
There won't be another Midway.
Intrepid
Major
That is the main mission profile of aircraft carriers ... at least since ~ 1944.
NONONO, HK SAR and Macao SAR are "Provincial-level administrative districts"(“省级行政区”) just like Shanghai or Beijing（they are Municipality directly under the central government——“直辖市”）
According to the 《PLAN Naval Vessels Naming Regulation》CV/CVN/LHD/BB/CC will be named after Provincial-level administrative districts
So both HK and TW are OK theoretically
Okay can we all stop discussion about the naming of future carriers.
It's not that interesting and is barely tangentially related to the actual carriers themselves and is essentially just a form of cultural and historical analysis more than anything.
Further posts on this topic will be deleted.
It's not that interesting and is barely tangentially related to the actual carriers themselves and is essentially just a form of cultural and historical analysis more than anything.
Further posts on this topic will be deleted.
Because it's one, single most straightforward use case.
After almost 80 years of uncontested US superiority on seas (the Soviet navy, as powerful as it was, always aimed at sea denial only!), it once again is moving towards 'contested'.
The main value of the sea is the sea itself. If and when sea superiority is questioned - everything else comes second.
Almost for sure there will be another 'Midway'. And probably not one, unless someone seriously believes in Fukuyama.