CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

My original disagreement was with Blackstone and went back further than that thread regarding more extreme "low" vs "high" (according to others, not just myself) priority predictions for China's carrier program at the time, thereby my 2015 deadline wager proposal.

You and others negotiated the wager to become about a more extreme "low" priority or just "higher" rather than the more evenly balanced but equally extreme "low" vs "high" priority the disagreement was originally about. I agreed to it though so the wager is what it is.

I only entered the wager because I disagreed with what you wrote in this post:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

I.e.: I only disagreed with the "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025" part, which is why I bothered to enter the wager in the first place.
I didn't try to water down the "high priority vs low priority" categorization that you created, because I didn't disagree with that -- I only disagreed with "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025", and I was under the impression the wager was only about that.


However, in that case, I'm wondering if you take back what you wrote regarding the "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025" part, or whether you still believe that it is unlikely for the Navy to rollout 3 carriers by 2025?

 

[PanAsian]

I only entered the wager because I disagreed with what you wrote in this post:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

I.e.: I only disagreed with the "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025" part, which is why I bothered to enter the wager in the first place.
I didn't try to water down the "high priority vs low priority" categorization that you created, because I didn't disagree with that -- I only disagreed with "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025", and I was under the impression the wager was only about that.


However, in that case, I'm wondering if you take back what you wrote regarding the "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025" part, or whether you still believe that it is unlikely for the Navy to rollout 3 carriers by 2025?

At this point I certainly take back or I would rule that I have already been proven wrong about the "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025" position as their building the 001A in a relatively short time, especially since it is a Varyag/Liaoning-based design that I believe can be churned out in numbers, and such a large pool of potential carrier escorts 054A, 052D, 055 since 2015 indicates they are likely to build (and presumably commission) 3 carriers by 2025.

 

[Blitzo]

At this point I certainly take back or I would rule that I have already been proven wrong about the "unlikely to rollout 3 carriers by 2025" position as their building the 001A in a relatively short time, especially since it is a Varyag/Liaoning-based design that I believe can be churned out in numbers, and such a large pool of potential carrier escorts 054A, 052D, 055 since 2015 indicates they are likely to build (and presumably commission) 3 carriers by 2025.

Okay, well that is certainly the major area of disagreement behind my motivation for the wager out of the way.

 

[Gustaf Adolf]

Where did you get that information? (a. 003 started construction and b. 003 is a CVN)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Meanwhile, Beijing’s building two more.

Work on aircraft carrier Type 002 resumed in May last year. It’s also believed first metal was cut for the construction of Type 003 in December.

I cant remember where it was said that the type 003 would be a CVN. It was said many years ago that the type 001A would be the same as their current carrier, the type 002 would be more like a USN carrier while the type 003 would be nuclear powered.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I cant remember where it was said that the type 003 would be a CVN. It was said many years ago that the type 001A would be the same as their current carrier, the type 002 would be more like a USN carrier while the type 003 would be nuclear powered.

Yes it was said here. At this point everything is mere speculation. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is type 002 have had her first steel cut and a couple modules may have even been constructed.

 

[asif iqbal]

The carrier construction is getting boring

CV-16 and CV-17 are now done

It’s the most exciting times when carriers are under construction so let’s see some progress on CV-18

JNCX started construction last year

Where are the modules, get a wall climber in there

 

[Gustaf Adolf]

The carrier construction is getting boring

CV-16 and CV-17 are now done

It’s the most exciting times when carriers are under construction so let’s see some progress on CV-18

JNCX started construction last year

Where are the modules, get a wall climber in there

I think we will see the types 075 before we see the 002.

 

[Jeff Head]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I cant remember where it was said that the type 003 would be a CVN. It was said many years ago that the type 001A would be the same as their current carrier, the type 002 would be more like a USN carrier while the type 003 would be nuclear powered.

Gustav, all US Carrier are nuclear powred.

I believe what you mean to say here, and which we have discussed on these boards for many years is this:

001 and 001A - STOBAR carriers, non-nuclear
002 - CATOBAR carrier, non-nuclear, like US carriers of the 1950s and early 1960s.
003 - CVN, CATOBAR, nuclear powreed, probably smaller than US carriers, but large and powerful nontheless.

 

[Deino]

Gustav, all US Carrier are nuclear powred.

I believe what you mean to say here, and which we have discussed on these boards for many years is this:

001 and 001A - STOBAR carriers, non-nuclear
002 - CATOBAR carrier, non-nuclear, like US carriers of the 1950s and early 1960s.
003 - CVN, CATOBAR, nuclear powreed, probably smaller than US carriers, but large and powerful nontheless.

But please be carefully, since this exactly results n these misunderstandings. Most forums no longer call the new carrier at Dalian 001A but changed that to 002, so by the new designation your list would look like:

001 (CV-16) & 002 (the second one at Dalian) - STOBAR carriers, non-nuclear
003 - CATOBAR carrier, non-nuclear, like US carriers of the 1950s and early 1960s.
004 - CVN, CATOBAR, nuclear powreed, probably smaller than US carriers, but large and powerful nonetheless

So depending what system you use 003 is very much different.

 

[SinoSoldier]

But please be carefully, since this exactly results n these misunderstandings. Most forums no longer call the new carrier at Dalian 001A but changed that to 002, so by the new designation your list would look like:

001 (CV-16) & 002 (the second one at Dalian) - STOBAR carriers, non-nuclear
003 - CATOBAR carrier, non-nuclear, like US carriers of the 1950s and early 1960s.
004 - CVN, CATOBAR, nuclear powreed, probably smaller than US carriers, but large and powerful nonetheless

So depending what system you use 003 is very much different.

According to "pb19980515" China might be pursuing two Type 003 (CATOBAR, non-nuclear) types before moving on to CVNs.