CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

[lcloo]

Also, rebuilding CV16 and CV17 to install EMALS would be so complicated that they would occupy the drydock times, shipyard human resouces, times of designers/engineers/planners and budget funds so much that it might cause many years of delay in construction of brand new aircraft carriers with larger hull displacements (and better capabilities).

 

[GiantPanda]

Also, rebuilding CV16 and CV17 to install EMALS would be so complicated that they would occupy the drydock times, shipyard human resouces, times of designers/engineers/planners and budget funds so much that it might cause many years of delay in construction of brand new aircraft carriers with larger hull displacements (and better capabilities).

I don't see the STOBAR as a complete dead end especially for smaller carriers and especially since we have seen aircraft like J-15T and J-35 (in mockup) being able to operate from both. Liaoning and Shandong would be good training vessels well into their twilight years of course but I could see even new STOBAR carriers, say 40-60K tons like the Italian, Turkish and Korean programs, operating alongside the 076s as supplements to the CVs and CVNs.

The PLAN needs to saturate air power all the way to the 3rd island chain without bases. Can they do that with only super carriers? Especially within the first and second island chains where you need numbers against a lot of claimants.

 

[MC530]

I don't see the STOBAR as a complete dead end especially for smaller carriers and especially since we have seen aircraft like J-15T and J-35 (in mockup) being able to operate from both. Liaoning and Shandong would be good training vessels well into their twilight years of course but I could see even new STOBAR carriers, say 40-60K tons like the Italian, Turkish and Korean programs, operating alongside the 076s as supplements to the CVs and CVNs.

The PLAN needs to saturate air power all the way to the 3rd island chain without bases. Can they do that with only super carriers? Especially within the first and second island chains where you need numbers against a lot of claimants.

If the Chinese navy wants to complete its mission of suppressing "other" countries in the first and second island chains, it only needs to remove the United States from the list of opponents.
In the foreseeable future, removing the presence of the US Navy in the waters near Guam does not necessarily require a super aircraft carrier. Sixth-generation fighters combined with a new generation of anti-ship weapons can better complete the task - the same situation may happen to the Chinese Navy

 

[GiantPanda]

If the Chinese navy wants to complete its mission of suppressing "other" countries in the first and second island chains, it only needs to remove the United States from the list of opponents.
In the foreseeable future, removing the presence of the US Navy in the waters near Guam does not necessarily require a super aircraft carrier. Sixth-generation fighters combined with a new generation of anti-ship weapons can better complete the task - the same situation may happen to the Chinese Navy

Navy (along with CG) have a role of establishing presence in waters during peacetime. Persistence over surface area during peacetime is not something air force doctrines really deal with.

Having a lot of surface ships outside air cover from land bases presents a vulnerability. Having ship-borne aircraft alleviate the lack of landbases. The PLAN had given up its land-based aircraft to move to this ship-borne PLANAF.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I don't see the STOBAR as a complete dead end especially for smaller carriers and especially since we have seen aircraft like J-15T and J-35 (in mockup) being able to operate from both. Liaoning and Shandong would be good training vessels well into their twilight years of course but I could see even new STOBAR carriers, say 40-60K tons like the Italian, Turkish and Korean programs, operating alongside the 076s as supplements to the CVs and CVNs.

The PLAN needs to saturate air power all the way to the 3rd island chain without bases. Can they do that with only super carriers? Especially within the first and second island chains where you need numbers against a lot of claimants.

Advantage of CATOBAR is in takeoff weight for strike munitions and AWACs. STOBAR works just fine for air to air oriented fighters.

I can imagine a 2 tier carrier system. I can also imagine there's a reason why they're making all the new planes backwards compatible with STOBAR. it would be strange to design all new planes for something they're phasing out in 20 years.

 

[W20]

"In the foreseeable future, removing the presence of the US Navy in the waters near Guam does not necessarily require a super aircraft carrier. Sixth-generation fighters combined with a new generation of anti-ship weapons can better complete the task"

---

It's exactly the opposite

because the point is not to sink the American fleet on the first move of the game

My turn: I put two large aircraft carriers between Guam and Taiwan and 12 x 055

Your turn

There are no subcontractors to assign to break the blockade, Washington would love to have the Filipinos and Japanese be good Ukrainian pawns; but...

 

[lcloo]

CV Liaoning and Shandong will continue to play their roles despite of not expected to be rebuilt with EMALS catapult. Aircraft carrier's service life is around 50 years, carrier borne aircraft's normal service lives are around 20-25 years. The carrier may see services of 3 generations of combat aircraft and drones during its whole life.

Some of these aircraft are better deploy on EMALS cat carriers to optimise they combat capability, while other may retain their optimised capability regardless of whether they are based on EMALS cat carrier or ski ramp carrier.

One option for CV Liaoning and Shandong in years past 2040 is to reassigned their roles as tilt-rotor aircraft/ helicopter/ drone carrier. The thinking is similar to MLUed early DDGs (Type 051B, 052B, and Sovremmy) to their current states.

After 2040, China can have 6 to 8 EMALS cat carriers.

 

[GiantPanda]

CV Liaoning and Shandong will continue to play their roles despite of not expected to be rebuilt with EMALS catapult. Aircraft carrier's service life is around 50 years, carrier borne aircraft's normal service lives are around 20-25 years. The carrier may see services of 3 generations of combat aircraft and drones during its whole life.

Some of these aircraft are better deploy on EMALS cat carriers to optimise they combat capability, while other may retain their optimised capability regardless of whether they are based on EMALS cat carrier or ski ramp carrier.

One option for CV Liaoning and Shandong in years past 2040 is to reassigned their roles as tilt-rotor aircraft/ helicopter/ drone carrier. The thinking is similar to MLUed early DDGs (Type 051B, 052B, and Sovremmy) to their current states.

After 2040, China can have 6 to 8 EMALS cat carriers.

Little doubt the Liaoning and Shandong have decades of service still left. But I think they could train for future STOBAR carriers in the PLAN's battle line and leave the main helo and tilt-rotor role to the LHDs.

STOBAR afford better load for fixed-wings than STOVL. Judging from the programs of UK, Italy, S. Korea and Turkey, ramped carrier are still very viable. Especially when you are using it for fighters with A2A loadout for air coverage.

Again, China does not have foreign bases in the West Pac island chains. PLAN might want to have a tiered-carrier system of CATOBAR CV/CVNs, STOBARs and catapult-equipped LHAs to saturate green and blue waters.

 

[Blitzo]

Little doubt the Liaoning and Shandong have decades of service still left. But I think they could train for future STOBAR carriers in the PLAN's battle line and leave the main helo and tilt-rotor role to the LHDs.

STOBAR afford better load for fixed-wings than STOVL. Judging from the programs of UK, Italy, S. Korea and Turkey, ramped carrier are still very viable. Especially when you are using it for fighters with A2A loadout for air coverage.

Again, China does not have foreign bases in the West Pac island chains. PLAN might want to have a tiered-carrier system of CATOBAR CV/CVNs, STOBARs and catapult-equipped LHAs to saturate green and blue waters.

I don't see a future where the PLAN will procure any additional STOBAR carriers in the future.

I don't think we need to think too hard about what CV-16 and CV-17 will do in the future when they have a larger fleet of CATOBAR carriers and 076s.
We know J-35s and J-15Ts are backwards compatible on CV-16/17 despite being primarily intended for CATOBAR carriers. They'll likely continue to serve as regular, fully combat capable carriers, but just less capable than the proper CATOBAR CVNs and CVs of the future.

The idea of CV-16/17 being relegated to training role is also unlikely.


The best comparison is to think about older destroyers like 052s, 051B, 052B, Sovremenny etc -- despite being far less capable than modern 052Ds and 055s, they remain as combat capable surface combatants, rather than being training vessels. They're just roundly accepted as being "second rate" and that's fine. For CV-16/17, so long as they remain active, I expect them to be retained as regular in service carriers.
Dedicated training carriers don't make much sense anyway. The training would be done with regular in service carriers of all types as part of their training/operations cycle

 

[GiantPanda]

I don't see a future where the PLAN will procure any additional STOBAR carriers in the future.

I don't think we need to think too hard about what CV-16 and CV-17 will do in the future when they have a larger fleet of CATOBAR carriers and 076s.
We know J-35s and J-15Ts are backwards compatible on CV-16/17 despite being primarily intended for CATOBAR carriers. They'll likely continue to serve as regular, fully combat capable carriers, but just less capable than the proper CATOBAR CVNs and CVs of the future.

The idea of CV-16/17 being relegated to training role is also unlikely.


The best comparison is to think about older destroyers like 052s, 051B, 052B, Sovremenny etc -- despite being far less capable than modern 052Ds and 055s, they remain as combat capable surface combatants, rather than being training vessels. They're just roundly accepted as being "second rate" and that's fine. For CV-16/17, so long as they remain active, I expect them to be retained as regular in service carriers.
Dedicated training carriers don't make much sense anyway. The training would be done with regular in service carriers of all types as part of their training/operations cycle

Can the PLAN afford enough CV/CVNs to cover all of the waters at least up to the second island change? This is during peacetime as well. Six CATOBARs means operationally about two in service at any given time. That would be a lot of water to cover and PLAN/CCG surface vessels to support.

Any more, there is a cost component. Can China support a dozen or more full-sized CATOBAR carriers? The USN only has 11 itself.

Maybe the 076 will have an air-coverage role but it is still mainly an assault ship with a well deck? So even though it will have a cat for some fixed-wings its main focus will be rotary airborne assault.

Maybe there can be an air support variant of the 076. But I do think the PLAN needs an alligator carrier force. More so than the USN because of the lack of bases. For smaller carriers with mainly A2A missions, I think the STOBAR is still worth being an option.

But then again, the 076 or other variants might simply make the EM catapult ubiquitous across the fleet.