00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[lcloo]

Excuse my ignorance: which drydocks are capable of building a 150kt carrier? Will deck width impact the ability for otherwise-capable shipyards to complete construction?

They have been building ships larger than "150K tons carrier" like 200,000 plus metric tons containerships and crude oil carriers, there are quite a few dry docks large enough for World's largest ships, be it civilian or military.

Both Shanghai and Dalian shipyards drydocks are capable of building 150,000 tons aircraft carrier. Guangzhou longxue island also is capable of building large ships of this size.

 

[Dante80]

That’s how they came to the conclusion that 150kt is their sweet spot.

When and where?

 

[Blitzo]

That’s how they came to the conclusion that 150kt is their sweet spot. Similar, I expect that they would have also decided what range, payload and other attributes their 6th gen carrier fighter needs, and is happy to design their carriers around that fighter to maximise its potential. Which likely also dovetails with the 150kt displacement number.

I think it's really important to emphasize that we have no credible indicators the next Chinese carrier or any future Chinese carrier will displace 150,000 tons.

At most we can say that it is not fully outside of the bound of reality, but speaking of it as if it is fully confirmed, imo is very very dangerous and presumptuous.

 

[Deino]

Excuse my ignorance: which drydocks are capable of building a 150kt carrier? Will deck width impact the ability for otherwise-capable shipyards to complete construction?

I would even go a bit further and change the question into: "Excuse my ignorance: why - especially when the heaviest US super-carrier, the USS Ford has a rough displacement of 100,000 tonnes (full load) - and regardless if the Chinese have a drydocks capable of building a 150kt carrier, should / would such a monster even make sense?"

 

[kentchang]

I would even go a bit further and change the question into: "Excuse my ignorance: why - especially when the heaviest US super-carrier, the USS Ford has a rough displacement of 100,000 tonnes (full load) - and regardless if the Chinese have a drydocks capable of building a 150kt carrier, should / would such a monster even make sense?"

For sake of argument, US carrier are limited to Panamax beam so China has more room to play with dimensions. Not that I see any merit for a 150KT ship.

 

[sheogorath]

For sake of argument, US carrier are limited to Panamax beam so China has more room to play with dimensions. Not that I see any merit for a 150KT ship.

Until the new Neopanamax canal was oppened, modern US supercarriers couldn't use the canal anymore. The original canal is around 36m wide while the Nimitz class's beam at the waterline is 41m

 

[AndrewS]

- There are sayings (source undetermined) where while a 150 thousand-ton supercarrier is likely to have slightly/moderately higher price tag than a 100 thousand-ton supercarrier, it is expected to have the combat effectiveness that is likely to be 1.8 or even 2 times that of the latter (namely, greater cost-effectiveness).

This is very interesting.

Presumably slightly/moderately more expensive is in the region of 10-30%.

And an increase in combat effectiveness of 1.8-2x is presumably measured by (sustained/surge?) sortie rate.

So a larger 150,000 ton supercarrier definitely makes sense over a 100,000 ton carrier.

---

But it does represent a huge concentration of aircraft and risk. A notional airwing would presumably comprise 90-100 fixed wing aircraft worth $10 Bn

 

[Miyayaya]

I think the "1.8x effectiveness" needs to be argued and shouldn't be taken as a given.

 

[AndrewS]

I think the "1.8x effectiveness" needs to be argued and shouldn't be taken as a given.

Well, the quote is "it is expected to have the combat effectiveness that is likely to be 1.8 or even 2 times that of the latter (namely, greater cost-effectiveness)"

So 1.8 would be the lower or medium case.

But remember this is an estimate given that such a carrier doesn't exist yet.
And it assumes the source is accurate as well

 

[AndrewS]

I would even go a bit further and change the question into: "Excuse my ignorance: why - especially when the heaviest US super-carrier, the USS Ford has a rough displacement of 100,000 tonnes (full load) - and regardless if the Chinese have a drydocks capable of building a 150kt carrier, should / would such a monster even make sense?"

Well, if you can get almost 2x more sorties with the carrier costing up to 30% more, then yes, a 150,000 ton carrier would make sense, assuming you have a large enough production run and fleet size.

Assume there is a requirement for x number of sorties in a notional blue-water battle in WestPac.

So you could get this from:

Ten 100,000ton supercarriers (roughly equivalent to the entire US carrier fleet)
or
Five 150,000ton supercarriers (or should we call this a megacarrier?)

---

But just 5 carriers seems like too much concentration of military capability and therefore risk.

Consider how 1-2 carriers in a 5 carrier fleet will always be in planned maintenance.

Then suppose 1 of these is lost in battle or is unavailable due to unplanned maintenance.
That represents 25% or 33% of your carrier fleet planning.

But with a ten carrier fleet, losing one carrier represents about 15% of your theoretically available carriers, which is manageable.

---

So if the Chinese Navy go with 150,000ton "megacarriers" - I still see them with an eventual fleet of at least 12 supercarriers/megacarriers, given that:

1. Observed Chinese military procurement rates being or expected to be higher than the US in most other areas (ie. surface ships, submarines, fighter jets, other aircraft).

2. Previously China was ok with the US Navy controlling global sea lanes but that is no longer the case with a hostile US containment policy.

And given that China is the world's largest trading nation and derives the most benefit from global trade, it makes sense for them to build a Chinese Navy that can defeat the US Navy and allow China's trade to continue.

3. From a resourcing perspective, the Economist (below) recently reported that the current Chinese military buildup only represents about 2% of GDP, whereas the US is at 3% of GDP. So China isn't really even "breaking a sweat" - which I've noted previously on SDF.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---

And to reiterate, the worse that US-China relations get, the more that China spends on military capability.