00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
From the way officials word it, the first 2 CV will largely be for training and guarding near the home waters. The Fujian and its subsequent sisters are meant to be high readiness ships that deploy in farther places like Indian Ocean. Based on these, I speculate CVN is far more ambitious politically. It is meant to be a global navy able to go anywhere for extended amount of time, possibly ocean away from the nearest base. I am talking about places like east coast USA, western Europe, Antarctica, Greenland. Places generally you'd never imagine PLAN has any business to be in.
 
Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots

Junior Member
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
From the way officials word it, the first 2 CV will largely be for training and guarding near the home waters. The Fujian and its subsequent sisters are meant to be high readiness ships that deploy in farther places like Indian Ocean. Based on these, I speculate CVN is far more ambitious politically. It is meant to be a global navy able to go anywhere for extended amount of time, possibly ocean away from the nearest base. I am talking about places like east coast USA, western Europe, Antarctica, Greenland. Places generally you'd never imagine PLAN has any business to be in.
Click to expand...
The biggest obstacle to the Chinese Navy's long-range deployment is the lack of military supply bases. The operational range of an aircraft carrier is not the key factor limiting this operation; the daily operational costs of thousands of personnel are the critical factor. Therefore, if China intends to build a global navy, the first step is to establish more overseas military supply bases. Thus, our primary focus should be on whether China has plans to establish new overseas bases to determine the next steps for the Chinese Navy.
 
A

Antares545

New Member
Registered Member
if china continues to not have overseas naval bases would it not make sense to make its carrier escorts nuclear as well? having a nuclear carrier does not do much when all its escorts still need to be resupplied often. The US can get away with it because they have a ton of oversea bases they can rely on but china lacks that aspect.
 
H

henrik

Senior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
If 3 carriers have been ordered, I think it would be a CVN plus two CV

Remember the CVN would be a brand new design, so does it make sense to immediately order more?
In contrast, we already have the Fujian in service, so there is a mature enough CV design, ready to start serial production.

---

Let's assume that a CVN and a CV are being built now, in separate shipyards.

The Fujian module assembly took 2 years before it was launched.

If we go with a notional 2029 launch date for the 1st CV, that means module assembly from 2027-2029.
And the logical plan is for another to follow immediately in the same shipyard. So module assembly for the 2nd CV would run from 2029-2031.

So we could be looking at the following carrier launch schedule

2029: 1st CV
2030: 1st CVN (assuming construction takes an additional year)
2031: 2nd CV

That is 1 carrier per year.

---

And if US-China relations get even worse, they might decide to continue this cadence.
After all, there are 2 shipyards and it should take 2 years to assemble the aircraft carrier modules and then launch.

---

I've said for a long time now that it was a mistake for the US to give up on engagement and go for containment.
Click to expand...

More CV along with more CVN would make sense, as a CVN needs 5-6 years of overhauling every 20-25yrs. More Chinese CV with emals would mean more available carrier groups at any time than the main adversary.
 
B

banjex

Junior Member
Registered Member
Antares545 said:
if china continues to not have overseas naval bases would it not make sense to make its carrier escorts nuclear as well? having a nuclear carrier does not do much when all its escorts still need to be resupplied often. The US can get away with it because they have a ton of oversea bases they can rely on but china lacks that aspect.
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to supply than fuel alone and the propulsion has no effect on most of them (food, water, munitions).
 
P

PeaceKrieger424

New Member
Registered Member
The PLAN is transitioning from "near seas" defense to "far seas" operations, with a focus on protecting overseas interests using it's CVs and future-CVNs.
The ports in Hambantota (Sri Lanka), Djibouti Port, Gawadar (Pakistan), including multiple trade ports in Europe/ Australia (Darwin port) and many others are currently part of the BRI project.

PLAN's role will include to protect these strategic trade routes, hence the West came up with the theory of "String of Pearls".

Only difference: The U.S. Navy built extensive global network of dedicated military bases. PLAN primarily relies on commercial port access, supplemented by its first overseas military base in Djibouti. When/IF push comes to shove converting commerical ports to millitary supply hubs, won't take long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top