You know they can address multiple maintenance issues at the same time at pierside, right? Your argument for cat maintenance only works if its maintenance requirements are longer than the rest of the maintenance needs put together. Not to mention maintenance is typically 1/3 or less of a (CATOBAR) carrier's deployment cycle, so you won't save much time at all (if you can even prove you save any). And even then your math doesn't work out. Even if STOBARs have 50% availability it just means the PLAN would only have 2-3 total carriers available at one time, not 4.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I expect ultimately the PLAN will have six carriers.
At first this will be:
2 x STOBAR
2 x CATOBAR COnventional
2 x CATOBAR Nuclear
it will still be quite few years years before they reach this operational capability. 2025 at the earliest...probably later.
At that point they will probably maintain 3 carriers operational at all times with one in maintenance, one working up out of maintenance and one working /preparing for maintenance. But in an emergency they could make 4 and perhaps even five avaiable if they had to.
Also, at that point, the will begin preparng to work up to six CATOBAR nuclear carriers as the forst four reach their end of life...but that will even be more years down the road. Probably starting in the 2042 time frame
At first this will be:
2 x STOBAR
2 x CATOBAR COnventional
2 x CATOBAR Nuclear
it will still be quite few years years before they reach this operational capability. 2025 at the earliest...probably later.
At that point they will probably maintain 3 carriers operational at all times with one in maintenance, one working up out of maintenance and one working /preparing for maintenance. But in an emergency they could make 4 and perhaps even five avaiable if they had to.
Also, at that point, the will begin preparng to work up to six CATOBAR nuclear carriers as the forst four reach their end of life...but that will even be more years down the road. Probably starting in the 2042 time frame
The USN requires 11 carriers in order to maintain 3 actively deployed at the same time. With their current 10 carriers they have significant gaps in coverage and have resorted to extending deployments to bridge some of those gaps, likely to the detriment of morale and warfighting capability. 3 out of 11 available comes to a 27.3% availability rate.
Nuclear carriers have significantly lower availability rates due to the need for a multi-year midlife refuel. Plus when you have 11 carriers there is less of a need to be efficient.
Nah, there is no evidence at all that the USN is somehow slacking on deployment efficiency because they have more carriers. You would definitely need to prove that one with citations. Also, there is always only one carrier out of 11 in MLU at a time. Even if we pretend that this carrier doesn't exist at all in this universe for the duration of its MLU, you would still only have 3 out of 10 available for deployment. That's an availability of 30%, not anywhere near 50%, to speak nothing of 67% availability.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Not sure why you keep thinking only small % deployments can be achieved
Currently as of now USN out of 10 has
CVN-70 7th fleet area near Philippines
CVN-71 is in Persian Gulf
CVN-75 is off coast of Carolina
CVN-77 just departed Norfolk
And few months ago they had 5 deployed out of 10 that’s 50% ready rate
This is actually routine in war easily 7-8 out of 10
Let's try to be more intellectually rigorous here, hmmm? CVN-75 is NOT on active deployment; it is currently in COMPTUEX which is a training exercise. CVN-77 is NOT on active deployment; it is in its maintenance cycle. The fact that either of these carriers are not tied to pierside does NOT make them actively deployed or capable of being immediately deployable; their crews are either untrained, or the carrier itself is minimally manned. That makes TWO out of 10 carriers currently on deployment, NOT four. And no, there were not 5 carriers deployed 5 months ago, unless you are using some kind of definition of "deployment" that radically differs from the USN's definition of deployment.
In wartime, carriers can indeed be surged, but "easily" is not a word any admiral would use. I cannot recall any time in recent memory where 8 carriers were surged at once, and I don't think you can either. 7 has been the maximum, and it was a major and majorly pre-planned event. That was Summer Pulse 2004, and it was not all to one theater, it was several theaters. Months of preplanning went into this event, and it has not been repeated since (or before, for that matter).
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Iron man you have a very narrow field of view sorry to say
First you say only 3/10 then when it’s pointed out it’s 5/10 you start going on about how some are on training ?
You are now clearly just trolling something I really don’t have time for good luck
First you say only 3/10 then when it’s pointed out it’s 5/10 you start going on about how some are on training ?
You are now clearly just trolling something I really don’t have time for good luck
You clearly are talking about things you have no knowledge of. You "pointing out" "5/10" means nothing since there was and is no such "5/10" that existed to begin with. "3/10" means 3 out of 10 carriers "actively deployed" in their designated theater of operations, i.e. these carriers are NOT IN TRAINING, NOT IN MAINTENANCE, and NOT IN MLU. This is the definition that the US Navy uses for "deployment". I don't think they've ever heard of your personal definition of deployment, whatever the hell that is. It would be helpful for you in the future to understand the terms as understood by the organizations which actually use them before you start laughably accusing others of "trolling".
plawolf
Lieutenant General
We should also not blithely assume that the PLAN combat availability will follow the same trend as western navies because of the vast and fundamentally different ways the PLAN treats and uses its warships compared to the west.
The western navies generally have this ‘policemen of the seas’ mentality and unspoken mission statement. Whereby their ships are pretty much out on development(patrol) whenever they are available.
You need a 3 times multiplier to be able to know how many ships are on the ‘ready for, or already deployed’ roster at any one time when you are on such a perpetual deployment cycle.
The PLAN does not burden itself with such continuous and open-end commitments.
While the western media and analysists tend to sneer to the sight of the bulk of the PLAN fleet tied up at port, the other side of the coin is that all those warships are pretty much ready for immediate deployment within 24-48h max.
Because the PLAN typically only send their warships out on short training missions (excluding it’s Aidan anti piracy missions and irregular one-off goodwill tours), those ships need correspondingly less repair and refit time once they return to port.
Similarly, their crews won’t be released on long rotational breaks since there isn’t the same hardship of long term deployment that they need to be ‘compensated’ for, that elemates the recall period, and also should vastly reduce re-training needs, since those crews would have been on near constant training while their ships were tied at port, and would not need to be brought back up to speed as those who have just returned from months off would.
The western navies generally have this ‘policemen of the seas’ mentality and unspoken mission statement. Whereby their ships are pretty much out on development(patrol) whenever they are available.
You need a 3 times multiplier to be able to know how many ships are on the ‘ready for, or already deployed’ roster at any one time when you are on such a perpetual deployment cycle.
The PLAN does not burden itself with such continuous and open-end commitments.
While the western media and analysists tend to sneer to the sight of the bulk of the PLAN fleet tied up at port, the other side of the coin is that all those warships are pretty much ready for immediate deployment within 24-48h max.
Because the PLAN typically only send their warships out on short training missions (excluding it’s Aidan anti piracy missions and irregular one-off goodwill tours), those ships need correspondingly less repair and refit time once they return to port.
Similarly, their crews won’t be released on long rotational breaks since there isn’t the same hardship of long term deployment that they need to be ‘compensated’ for, that elemates the recall period, and also should vastly reduce re-training needs, since those crews would have been on near constant training while their ships were tied at port, and would not need to be brought back up to speed as those who have just returned from months off would.