00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Exactly. A nation can pump out a ton of carriers and destroyers, but they're basically useless if you have no personnel to maintain them and no area or time to maintain them.
One of the main thorns in China's side for a while was little-no experience in carrier based aviation. They largely have that now, the next problem to conquer is maintaining the carriers and having the crew on the ships in sufficient numbers.
This will not be simple or easy to do. China's projected population decline is one of the largest threats to its military. It isn’t a problem yet, but it has a significant chance of becoming one if it isn't managed. The 004 and future carriers will need to face this threat before they can face external ones.
You haven't really thought this through, have you?
Google "List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel", and check out the "Per 1000 Capita" stat for PRC.
Last edited:
To start: The population of China in 2023 is 1.426 billion, while the population of the US in 2023 is 334 million. Dividing 1426 million over 334 million gives us an answer of 4.27.
That means at present (2023), China's population is 4.27 times that of the US.
Yet, I don't see how people are claiming that the US is suffering from "one of the largest threats to the US military" when the US Navy is operating 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers right now?
While China is only operating 2 conventionally-powered carriers right now, and on her way to operate the 3rd by 2024 or 2025?
Then, here's how the population trends of China and the US are expected to behave until 2100:
While the graph is likely made in the late-2000s or early-2010s, the general trends still resemble what is happening from 2010 until today (2023).
Therefore, here's the point: By 2100, while China's population is edging closer to 1 billion - The US' population wouldn't even crack half of that amount.
So there's that.
Yeah, as others have pointed out, their population declining really has nothing to do with whether they can staff carriers. I'm honestly wondering how you think the Type 004 and future carriers will need to "face this threat" as if it's something that needs to be worried about at all.
Having fewer potential military personnel is clearly not beneficial for any military. It also has the potential to increase the ratio of military to civilians, which comes with its own problems as there are now fewer people to perform other, more important jobs (I view the military as being a necessary evil that takes people away from jobs that are more important to society). But this is starting to derail, so I'll stop here.
lcloo
Captain
Lack of trained crew to man new ships is a hype that has been regularly posted year after years. A worthwhile planner in PLAN, and at higher up CMC level, would have meet, discussed and planned to train full crew of a ship at the time that they approved the bulding of a ship. And for an aircraft carrier, the trainee crew would have ben recruited on the second year after the approval for building of the aircraft carrier.
The whole timeline from CMC approval to the commissioning of the aircraft carrier would take more than 6 to 7 years or even more. Many people simple regard the two "barrack ships" that accompany CV16 and CV17 as just for accommodation purposes, but I always think of them as a floating training collage specifically just for aircraft carrier crews.
If China planned for building the rumoured 6 aircraft carrier 10 years ago, they would have planned and started to train enough number of crews to man these ships when they are commissioned.
Recruitment of fresh seamen is not a problem, they have numerous naval academies and collagesm and several purpose built navy cadet training ships as well as retired navy ships converted to training ships, plus the two "barrack ships".
I don't see any problem with recruitment, and training of able seamen in PLAN. Something about China many people don't see is that they planned long ahead, in decades not just 5 or 10 years in some countries (due to change of government after every election).
The whole timeline from CMC approval to the commissioning of the aircraft carrier would take more than 6 to 7 years or even more. Many people simple regard the two "barrack ships" that accompany CV16 and CV17 as just for accommodation purposes, but I always think of them as a floating training collage specifically just for aircraft carrier crews.
If China planned for building the rumoured 6 aircraft carrier 10 years ago, they would have planned and started to train enough number of crews to man these ships when they are commissioned.
Recruitment of fresh seamen is not a problem, they have numerous naval academies and collagesm and several purpose built navy cadet training ships as well as retired navy ships converted to training ships, plus the two "barrack ships".
I don't see any problem with recruitment, and training of able seamen in PLAN. Something about China many people don't see is that they planned long ahead, in decades not just 5 or 10 years in some countries (due to change of government after every election).
Last edited:
Manning and maintenance is the least of the issues. Naval aviator training and Carrier Group tactics is what really matters. Training to fight in the darkness of the night, in thick fog, in chilly winter with ice particles on deck, in heavy rain, in rough seas... naval aviation skills take time to master. Same goes for Carrier Group tactics. Cruising under strict emissions control, using obscurants to play hide-and-seek with enemy satellites, breaking formation when required, evaluating the constantly changing threat axis, surveying the battlefield around in all three domains (air, surface and sub-surface) at the same time... these are not easy skills to master and something you learn in say a decade.
And then there's the training difference between CV and CVN. CVN is an entirely different beast to a CV and opens up so many tactical possibilities that arrive with unique training requirements of their own.
Last edited:
So long as your enemy has aircrafts and also possesses warships that can deploy aircrafts (fleet, light, escort & helicopter carriers) and you have your ocean-spanning maritime commerce, you are DEFINITELY going to NEED Aircraft Carriers.
Striking targets ashore is among the tertiary missions of Carriers. USN air-bombing defenceless middle-east countries has really warped people's understanding of the roles of a Carrier.