Yes. STOBAR is still a capable "medium" carrier.
Two STOBARs as a unit, especially with outside support and relying on the outsized surface component can conceivably (out)fight a supercarrier CSG.
2 such TFs with two singular supercarrier groups(003) - i.e. 4 supercarrier-equivalents overall, - could've reasonably contested against normal day 1 USN in Eastpac head-on. In 2027, not 2037. That's 10 fewer years of uncertainty. 10 very turbulent years, as the geopolitical landscape doesn't exactly calm down.
In 2027, China still won't have a large enough Air Force and Missile Force to achieve something like air superiority over all of the 1st Island Chain.
Given how geographically close Japan and the Philippines are to China, it is more important to build up the Chinese Air Force than to build a larger fleet of aircraft carriers for distant operations. Plus any Chinese carriers have to pass through the 1st Island Chain, so you had better have air superiority over these areas before trying to push carriers through.
This also offers an alternative theory of victory. If China can conduct an indefinite air/sea blockade of Japan and the Philippines, they should collapse in a matter of weeks because they are small island(s), but densely populated, with almost no natural resources and likely have their electricity grids under attack.
In comparison, China is geographically the same size as the continental US and could survive indefinitely.
---
In terms of costs, my guestimate is <$80 Mn now for a J-20.
So for the cost of a Type-002 and 36 J-15s (54 Bn RMB ($7.7 Bn)), you could buy 3x the number of fighter jets based on land.
Plus these are 5th Gen J-20 stealth fighters, so they are far more effective than 4th Gen J-15s on a carrier.
Single 003 + 2 001A just won't be able to be a match, even if you get match (or even overmatch) in surface units.
(1)11 carriers can't be achieved by the US. It's impossible with available facilities from the current state.
6...8 can be done. The former number is realistic and doable on short notice, but is a visible concentration of everything; the latter number can be achieved only after very careful and visible preparation.
It doesn't change the overall analysis in terms of availability over a long campaign.
The US would have significantly more carriers available than China, and each of the US carriers would be more capable as well.
And if such preparation is to be preempted - it's possible to force a battle with the opponent in detail. Or to get aviation forward towards the likely engagement areas using other means, which are getting heavy investment (amphibious operations).
For 3(2 equivalents) it's still impossible whatsoever. For 6/4, with a home region advantage, it's firmly within a realm of doable.
Given that China can already achieve an air and sea blockade of Taiwan - the USN is forced to battle its way right up to China's coastline to relieve Taiwan anyway.
That forces the USN to go up against China's land-based Air Force, which is a losing proposition.
Suppose the USN puts together a large carrier group with 4 carriers. That is essentially equivalent to 4 land-based airbases with 200 aircraft. But there are many more airbases and aircraft located in China. And as noted before, the US would be facing a cost disadvantage of at least 3x when using US carrier fighters against Chinese land-based fighters.
(2)historically in blue-water naval battles, everything happened. What happened very rarely, in fact, was catastrophic defeats.
And last time such catastrophic defeat happened - it just happened to be a carrier battle, where a smaller force, supported from the land, clearly won against a larger one.
I'm quoting from the USN and Royal Navy statements, when I say that naval battles tend to have a catastrophic result for the smaller side.
Where does the Shandong(there is no 002; 001A?) estimate come from?
You're making her twice(!) as expensive as a larger PoW, built in UK economy. That's a...questionable number.
1:5 ratio (Burke being significantly smaller than 055) is a ratio of a bloody CVN-78 class. It's a fantasy.
There was a news article from years ago about the cost of the Type-002 carrier.
And I think you have the PoW cost down incorrectly.
£3.5 Bn = $4.2 Bn = 31 Bn RMB
So the Type-002 would be the same cost as the PoW, not twice as expensive.
---
That is plausible, because if 2 PoW costs £7 Bn, that implies the cost of a single carrier would have been £4.4 Bn ($5.5 Bn or 50 Bn). That is based on the shipbuilding rule of thumb where if you double production, you typically see a 20% cost reduction per unit
So if you were to only produce 1 unit of each carrier, the costs would be
Type 002 = 30 Bn RMB
PoW = 50 Bn RMB
Airwing isn't a module of a carrier, it's part of the PLANAF which is to be procured regardless.
Counting it in is outright wrong.
Of course. That is why I listed the cost of the airwing on the same line as the carrier.
