CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[4Tran]

When it comes to the size of the carrier air wing, the main questions are going to be what you want the carrier to be able to do and what roles are going to be covered by the rest of the carrier battlegroup's escorts. Chinese needs and ships are different from American ones so the latter can only serve as a basic guide for setting up air wings.

As a point of reference, American supercarriers have a typical air consisting of 4x fighter squadrons, 1x EW squadron, 1x AWACS squadron, 1x search and rescue helicopter squadron, 1x ASW helicopter squadron, and a couple of transport aircraft.

Overall, I don't think even the PLAN knows for sure what they want their supercarriers to do. They're pretty conservative so I imagine that they're going to do a lot of experimentation before finalizing on anything.

 

[lcloo]

When it comes to the size of the carrier air wing, the main questions are going to be what you want the carrier to be able to do and what roles are going to be covered by the rest of the carrier battlegroup's escorts. Chinese needs and ships are different from American ones so the latter can only serve as a basic guide for setting up air wings.

As a point of reference, American supercarriers have a typical air consisting of 4x fighter squadrons, 1x EW squadron, 1x AWACS squadron, 1x search and rescue helicopter squadron, 1x ASW helicopter squadron, and a couple of transport aircraft.

Overall, I don't think even the PLAN knows for sure what they want their supercarriers to do. They're pretty conservative so I imagine that they're going to do a lot of experimentation before finalizing on anything.

We can use a few scenario for our imaginations, such as

1) South China Sea conflict with-out US intervention.
2) South China Sea conflict with US intervantion.
3) Taiwan AR without US intervention
4) Taiwan AR with US and Japan intervention
5) Second island chain scenario
6) Malacca Straits blockade by India
7) Malacca Straits blockade by US, NATO, Australia and Japan.
Each scenario would demand different Air wings on aircraft carrier, also the number of aircraft.

 

[4Tran]

We can use a few scenario for our imaginations, such as

1) South China Sea conflict with-out US intervention.
2) South China Sea conflict with US intervantion.
3) Taiwan AR without US intervention
4) Taiwan AR with US and Japan intervention
5) Second island chain scenario
6) Malacca Straits blockade by India
7) Malacca Straits blockade by US, NATO, Australia and Japan.
Each scenario would demand different Air wings on aircraft carrier, also the number of aircraft.

You forgot: "Run exercises past the Second Island Chain to scare the bejeebers out of Japan and Philippines!"

China isn't interested in expeditionary warfare so their carriers won't have to perform as many ground strike missions so it'll need fewer fighters in general. Also, Chinese warships are going to be better at ASW (China has actual frigates), and anti-ship warfare so its combat aircraft can better focus on air superiority. Which really suits their doctrine as pretty much all Chinese fighters, even multirole ones, prioritize air superiority to begin with.

I have no idea how how any of this impacts the fighter strength on current and future Chinese carriers. But I suspect that it means that there will be more emphasis on AWACS and EW as these can only operate from carriers. The PLAN expects forseeable combat to take place close to China's coast so the ASW and search and rescue roles can be mostly performed by land-based aircraft. Also, Chinese frigates and destroyers can carry a good number of helicopters so there's less need for the carriers to do so.

 

[Inque]

The "old" estimate of 40 was never "solid" to begin with.

The correct estimate is "we don't know" especially considering we don't know what the make up of its airwing would be, which will influence the footprint/deckspace they take up.


The problem with your previous post and your current post now is:
1. You think that being "up with the times" is reflective of "airwing size"
2. You have, either unknowingly or deliberately conveyed the idea that a modern aircraft is equal in effectiveness or capability to an aircraft of "over half a century ago"
3. You've omitted to consider ship size, deck space, hangar size, and aircraft size/footprint in your overall assessment of what constitutes a reasonable "airwing size"

Apologies for not making myself clear. I wasn't insinuating at anything but wanted to compare the 003 to the USN Nimitz and Ford carriers in terms of aircraft carried. The USN and PLAN's planes shouldn't be different in size.

 

[Blitzo]

Apologies for not making myself clear. I wasn't insinuating at anything but wanted to compare the 003 to the USN Nimitz and Ford carriers in terms of aircraft carried. The USN and PLAN's planes shouldn't be different in size.

I hope I have explained in my last post why the basis for your comparison was flawed to begin with.

 

[GiantPanda]

The USN and PLAN's planes shouldn't be different in size.

The J-15 is much larger than the Super Hornet and J-35 will be much larger than the F-35.