CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I looked up some numbers for the US as a comparison.
STOVL (can be kind of representative of STOBAR since arrestor wires are likely a small portion of costs):
, 40k tons. Typical airwing (in sea control configuration) of 20 F-35s and 6 helicopters.
~40k USD per ton, ~61M USD per plane.
CV CATOBAR:
, 90k tons. Up to 90 in max loadout, but typical airwing of 44 fixed wing fighters (F-18s and EA-6s), 4 AWACs, 5 helicopters (53 total).
~28k USD per ton, ~47M USD per plane.
CVN CATOBAR:
. So I will use the lowest possible cost (Nimitz) and (75). Nimitz was also built at a comparable time to Kitty Hawk, so the inflation estimate is more accurately comparable to the Kitty Hawk. Both 100k tons.
$110k USD per ton, ~147M USD per plane.
Result: CATOBAR CV is more cost effective than STOBAR or CVN.
I would expect relative costs for the PLAN to be similar. So if the PLAN needed lighter carriers, it is better to just build more Type 003s/improved CVs than to stick with STOBARs.
Great points!
This again? Haven't we already have a discussion about it?
You can't compare these three in the manner that you're doing. The contract value depends more on how the contract is executed than on what is being built. You chose USS Nimitz which was built in Newport News from 1968 to 1975 but the very same shipyard has built USS Enterprise between 1958 and 1961 at the same time as USS Kitty Hawk was being built in New York from 1957 to 1961.
USS Kitty Hawk cost $264 million in 1961. USS Enterprise cost $451 million in 1961. So if in 2023 Kitty Hawk costs $2,5bn then Enterprise costs $4,25bn. That's $42k per ton and $57m per plane. And let's not forget that Enterprise was planned to be first in a class of six but the rest were cancelled due to cost overruns on the lead ship.
No matter how USS Nimitz was priced it was not the same type of contract as these two. Before Nimitz 7 conventional and 1 nuclear carriers were built between 1952 and 1961 in three shipyards. That's 8 ships in 10 years. Over the 10 years of Nimitz just 2 were commissioned and 1 was laid down, and all of them built in Newport. If you don't see how that affects the pricing then you have nothing to say here.
The GAO report is biased. It was written with a specific political agenda at a time when the viability of nuclear fleet was being questioned, nuclear cruisers and submarines were being retired etc. With fleet reduced the cost per item of maintaining nuclear propulsion in the navy was going up and many in the Congress sought ways to get rid of the cost entirely. This battle was (later) won by the nuclear side and as a result the number of carriers was defined in an act of Congress.
GAO report makes its comparison based on Desert Storm which was a completely atypical scenario for a fleet carrier. Nimitz CVNs were designed for a very specific environment at a time when USN movements were increasingly contested by Soviet nuclear submarines and bombers. Nuclear-powered carriers as well as nuclear-powered cruisers and submarines in escort were seen as essential components of a task force that could maneuver at any scale not constrained by fuel supply. The ability to maintain maximum speed was crucial. The concept was not wrong but it proved prohibitively expensive to implement on smaller ships so CVNs were kept because they had the best cost/effect tradeoff between conventional and nuclear powerplant.
The GAO report uses exactly the comparison of CV-67 (John F Kennedy) which was built at Newport News. And they still agree with me. Both in maintenance and in acquisition costs.
if its biased, then where's a refuting report that is more up to date? Otherwise whose to say that a Cold War era report isn't just some hysterical red scare?
I also don't understand why you keep referencing Cold War era US. China isn't the US in the mid 20th century. There's no pretense to a global empire or to attack the shoreline of a strong, hostile and distant rival. China doesn't share the same ideology, geography, economic structure, existing military power, goals, etc of the US in 1960 so why would it have a similar doctrine?
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
no definitely the cost for Chinese warships is lower I don't know why some people try to propose the opposite or even suggest its equivalent to Western warships, its basic maths
I am by no means suggesting the capability is lower
Very much appreciate the analysis, especially the quantitative breakdown of CapEx per launchable aircraft.
However, with that said, I can't help but wonder and ask: how do CVs stack up against CVNs in terms of OpEx?