00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[00CuriousObserver]

In their recent stream, Yankee and Ayi discussed a hypothetical Type 077 medium sized aircraft carrier at length. Their comments are based entirely on personal analysis and not on any insider information. Essentially, even if a Type 077 is never built, the "mental gymnastics" around it are still meaningful and worthwhile.

• The development of larger gas turbines isn’t just "for fun", but rather it opens up new operational possibilities worth exploring. And it's incorrect to say that only steam turbines are suitable for large carriers; gas turbines are viable as well.
• In certain air wing configurations, an angled flight deck isn't strictly necessary. For example, if the air wing consists solely of J-35s and one type of UAV, a straight-deck carrier could still be effective. It's important to avoid rigid thinking, that the lack of an angled flight deck doesn't gatekeep the ship from being a real aircraft carrier.
• There's also export potential here. If a country is interested in a hypothetical J-35E (not J-35AE), such a small STOBAR carrier, even one without an angled deck, could be very sufficient.
• For the PLAN's surface combatants, having consistent and reliable aviation cover would be a significant advantage.
• Deploying a larger carrier to a region like the Middle East, even a carrier like the Liaoning or Shandong, would carry heavy political implications and is actually far from straightforward. A Type 077 would face far fewer constraints.
• Strategically, there are also clear advantages. Given China's limited carrier fleet in the near term, deploying a Type 077 for distant missions would be far less risky than sending a Fujian or larger vessel, especially if conflict were to erupt in the WESTPAC. A smaller carrier also imposes fewer constraints on shipyard selection and production timelines.
• You can think of the "Type 077" as a kind of "multirole aircraft carrier", in that it is efficient at handling "lower leveled" missions, while still being competitive in the higher end missions.
• The PLAN is currently between major shipbuilding phases. The teams behind the 075 and 076 need a new challenge to explore. The 076 remains highly experimental and far from perfect. Building a second one may not be the optimal next step, as opposed to having it serve as an intermediate step for the next generation of PLAN ships.

 

[dingyibvs]

I think any aircraft carrier below 50k tonnes is a great misuse of resources. With shipbuilding, costs grow slower than the ship displacement (for realistic sizes). The cargo capacity increases at the same rate or faster than the displacement. This is why transoceanic shipping always go for the largest vessels the infrastructure allows.

This is even more true for aircraft carriers because some facilities would have a constant size. The radar and headquarters services would stay the same. Engine maintenance facilities have a minimum size, medical facilities have a minimum size, elevators and catapult equipment have a constant size, point defenses have a constant size... Examples are too many to list. So, mini carriers are even less capable than their displacements suggest compared to larger carriers.

There is also the topic of force concentrations. A carrier needs to be able to generate meaningful air power packages. Imagine a carrier with 6 aircraft generating an anti-ship package. Have 3 aircraft escort the package. Now, that package has just 3 aircraft to launch ASCMs. It also has a horrible survivability because of the very low number of escorts. It has no EW or AEW aircraft, and there is nothing left to defend the carrier. This is still being generous to the mini carrier because a mini carrier may not be able to accommodate appropriate types of aircraft at all. It also won't always have all of its 6 aircraft ready.

Being able to generate sorties from more locations is beneficial. Thus, I don't rule out PLAN going for a high-low mix in carriers. But if that happens it will happen with large carriers. For example a 70k tonne CV would make the low and a 100k+ tonne CVN would make the high. There would be no mini carrier.

How much of such a carrier would actually be spent on shipbuilding? Most of the things you said would scale down drastically. Engine maintenance and medical facilities would be far smaller not just due to a cut in personnel but also a cut in capabilities, you'd have just one catapult and elevator, fewer point defenses. It wouldn't need an anti-ship package because that's not its purpose, as its primary job would be to provide CAPs. Even if it did, it would launch far bigger strike packages because the whole point is to have a greater number of them. It could also be paired with say a smaller DDG like the 052D, maybe 2 of these for one DDG, and EW/AEW/etc. would be provided by the mega carrier farther in the back.

Obviously building 10 of these carriers would cost more than building one that carries 60 aircrafts, but the distributed nature of it may be worth the advantages. For example, it sure would be efficient if the entire Chinese MIC is concentrated in one city, but that would certainly be a rather unwise move. Such a carrier would operate under the principal of distributed defense (provided by the picket line mini carriers in the front) but concentrated offense (provided by the mega carrier in the back). I don't know exactly what size would make the most sense, perhaps the theoretical 077 size would be better, but it seems that distribution would be the key in countering the high personnel and construction time cost of losing a super carrier.

Also, as a side note on another poster's battleship comparison: it's been 80+ years since the last great naval battles. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked, if a great naval battle erupts now that we won't see major fundamental changes more than just longer range strikes. It's only been 30 something years since Iraq and we've already seen a sea change in Ukraine. As Ukraine is showing that force concentration on land may not be viable without air supremacy, it may very well be the case in sea as well.

 

[Vinhvietnam]

How much of such a carrier would actually be spent on shipbuilding? Most of the things you said would scale down drastically. Engine maintenance and medical facilities would be far smaller not just due to a cut in personnel but also a cut in capabilities, you'd have just one catapult and elevator, fewer point defenses. It wouldn't need an anti-ship package because that's not its purpose, as its primary job would be to provide CAPs. Even if it did, it would launch far bigger strike packages because the whole point is to have a greater number of them. It could also be paired with say a smaller DDG like the 052D, maybe 2 of these for one DDG, and EW/AEW/etc. would be provided by the mega carrier farther in the back.

Obviously building 10 of these carriers would cost more than building one that carries 60 aircrafts, but the distributed nature of it may be worth the advantages. For example, it sure would be efficient if the entire Chinese MIC is concentrated in one city, but that would certainly be a rather unwise move. Such a carrier would operate under the principal of distributed defense (provided by the picket line mini carriers in the front) but concentrated offense (provided by the mega carrier in the back). I don't know exactly what size would make the most sense, perhaps the theoretical 077 size would be better, but it seems that distribution would be the key in countering the high personnel and construction time cost of losing a super carrier.

Also, as a side note on another poster's battleship comparison: it's been 80+ years since the last great naval battles. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked, if a great naval battle erupts now that we won't see major fundamental changes more than just longer range strikes. It's only been 30 something years since Iraq and we've already seen a sea change in Ukraine. As Ukraine is showing that force concentration on land may not be viable without air supremacy, it may very well be the case in sea as well.

How much of such a carrier would actually be spent on shipbuilding? Most of the things you said would scale down drastically. Engine maintenance and medical facilities would be far smaller not just due to a cut in personnel but also a cut in capabilities, you'd have just one catapult and elevator, fewer point defenses. It wouldn't need an anti-ship package because that's not its purpose, as its primary job would be to provide CAPs. Even if it did, it would launch far bigger strike packages because the whole point is to have a greater number of them. It could also be paired with say a smaller DDG like the 052D, maybe 2 of these for one DDG, and EW/AEW/etc. would be provided by the mega carrier farther in the back.

Obviously building 10 of these carriers would cost more than building one that carries 60 aircrafts, but the distributed nature of it may be worth the advantages. For example, it sure would be efficient if the entire Chinese MIC is concentrated in one city, but that would certainly be a rather unwise move. Such a carrier would operate under the principal of distributed defense (provided by the picket line mini carriers in the front) but concentrated offense (provided by the mega carrier in the back). I don't know exactly what size would make the most sense, perhaps the theoretical 077 size would be better, but it seems that distribution would be the key in countering the high personnel and construction time cost of losing a super carrier.

Also, as a side note on another poster's battleship comparison: it's been 80+ years since the last great naval battles. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked, if a great naval battle erupts now that we won't see major fundamental changes more than just longer range strikes. It's only been 30 something years since Iraq and we've already seen a sea change in Ukraine. As Ukraine is showing that force concentration on land may not be viable without air supremacy, it may very well be the case in sea as well.

 

[Vinhvietnam]

The war pacific not yet begin, wait doctrine naval china or usa win.

 

[HailingTX20]

We did get HD images after all:

 

[HailingTX20]

New picture from the dry docks. Seems like there's an interesting addition of a new module. We'll have to wait for new satellite pictures to confirm:

 

[BoraTas]

How much of such a carrier would actually be spent on shipbuilding? Most of the things you said would scale down drastically. Engine maintenance and medical facilities would be far smaller not just due to a cut in personnel but also a cut in capabilities, you'd have just one catapult and elevator, fewer point defenses.

Most would be spent on shipbuilding. This would be even more significant for a small carrier because it would need most of the same electronics a bigger carrier would need. The cost of propulsion doesn't decrease much with size too. Look at surface combatants to see how much a small warship costs. DDGs have the highest cost of any ship type relative to their weight. Because, as said, the cost of electronics and propulsion scale slower than the vessel displacement. This is true for the hull too, just to a less significant level. But it still is significant enough that civilian shipping is opting for the largest vessels possible.

The said facilities wouldn't be far smaller. The USS Ford already has a single operating room and just two emergency beds. There aren't many opportunities to scale down most things without losing the capability altogether.

It wouldn't need an anti-ship package because that's not its purpose, as its primary job would be to provide CAPs. Even if it did, it would launch far bigger strike packages because the whole point is to have a greater number of them. It could also be paired with say a smaller DDG like the 052D, maybe 2 of these for one DDG, and EW/AEW/etc. would be provided by the mega carrier farther in the back.

Yes, it would need to act in groups or need a bigger carrier to back it up. It would also need the same escorts a large carrier would. These are all extra reasons to not to build it.

 

[Vinhvietnam]

We did get HD images after all:

View attachment 155952

View attachment 155953

The pic shipyard Dalien very so good,my see the ship is seeming behind schedule.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Another, simpler addition to the explanations by @BoraTas and @ENTED64 in response to @dingyibvs:

All the costs and performance effectiveness considerations aside - Bar some rare, exceptional circumstances, larger warships are always going to be comparably better at sustaining wartime damages of similar magnitudes + Be able to make it out alive than smaller warships. This isn't just true for aircraft carriers, but applies for all surface warships.

Just take a look at WW2, which is when the latest large-caled naval battles were fought to date.

Speaking of the navies of the Allied Powers - While there have been some escort carriers (which mostly displace about the 10000-ton ranges at full load) that were lost to enemy actions, there have been no full-fledged fleet carriers (which displace at least 25000 tons at full load) commissioned after the start of the Pacific War that were lost to enemy action.

This is because larger fleet carriers have greater reserve buoyancies than smaller escort carriers (which is directly related to their larger hull volumes), meaning that they can actually take in more seawater before losing enough buoyancy and sink than their smaller counterparts. Their larger sizes also meant that damages caused by enemy munitions are always effecting smaller portions/regions of the larger warship (of which damage control teams can better isolate and control the damages) than smaller warships, where hits by the same munitions would result in damages to larger portions/regions of the smaller warship.

Other equally important factors include compartmentalization (e.g. watertight bulkheads and doors), distributed systems that are crucial for the basic operations of the ship (e.g. steering), and built-in redundancies are always going to be implemented to a greater degree in larger warships than in smaller warships too are fundamental towards ensuring their higher chances of survival.

This holds true during WW2 (and the same for WW1 as well for surface combatants), and is still very much holding true today. Moreover, compared to the unguided dumb bombs and rockets back then, current and future warships today are facing guided subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic missiles with pin-point accuracies today and going forward.

Therefore, the suggestion of "building smaller carriers that field only single-digit fighters for better attrition sustainment and distributed warfare" makes no sense. Building multiple such carriers just to have them easily sunk by only one or couple enemy hits is not smart - That's called needlessly sending men to die and material to be lost for no attainable gain, plus unnecessarily wasting finite money and resources which would otherwise be spent for better and more effective options.

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

Speaking of the navies of the Allied Powers - While there have been some escort carriers (which mostly displace about the 10000-ton ranges at full load) that were lost to enemy actions, there have been no full-fledged fleet carriers (which displace at least 25000 tons at full load) commissioned after the start of the Pacific War that were lost to enemy action.

Should still count USS Yorktown (CV-5) as the only US fleet carrier lost?

Having said that, if you look at Battle of Midway and subsequent battles, the US was simply able to track down every single majour IJN capital ship. The US clearly had superior coding/decoding capabilities, intel gathering, and simply better and more numerous carrier-based aircrafts.