CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

kwaigonegin

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

I think that is quite likely as well. Two 003s CVs before they embark on a CVN. Of course that may cause even more confusion down the road in regards to the 004 nomenclature lol.

I’m of the thought that PLAN is planing on a 6 carrier navy with the 3rd CVN replacing the Liaoning sometime in the 2040s. This CVN could very well be in the same league as the Ford class.

Essentially they will have the lone 002, 2 full decked CVs and 3 CVNs by mid century and perhaps even a 4th CVN coming online and eventually replacing the 002.

If the economy is going gangbusters, I can definitely see Liaoning and even 002 having a relatively short active duty service in the fleet. 25-30 yrs after commissioning.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
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.


The Chinese carrier doesn’t need to be nuclear powered to be more like the layout and capability of late model nuclear carriers in the USN than earlier fissil fueled CVAs.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
I think that is quite likely as well. Two 003s CVs before they embark on a CVN. Of course that may cause even more confusion down the road in regards to the 004 nomenclature lol.

I’m of the thought that PLAN is planing on a 6 carrier navy with the 3rd CVN replacing the Liaoning sometime in the 2040s. This CVN could very well be in the same league as the Ford class.

Essentially they will have the lone 002, 2 full decked CVs and 3 CVNs by mid century and perhaps even a 4th CVN coming online and eventually replacing the 002.

If the economy is going gangbusters, I can definitely see Liaoning and even 002 having a relatively short active duty service in the fleet. 25-30 yrs after commissioning.

Yeah, I can't see the Liaoning or Type 002 operating as an frontline vessel for more than a couple of decades. Not only will their maintenance & overhaul costs go through the roof but the inherent Cold War era hull design might limit the extent to which they can be retrofitted with newer subsystems. I fully expect them to take on secondary training or testbed duties once the Type 003 boats are in commission, the latter likely being the first Chinese carriers to take on serious missions with full combat capability.

I personally predict that we'll see two Type 003s followed by four CVNs, probably all in commission by the early 2040s.
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
Yeah, I can't see the Liaoning or Type 002 operating as an frontline vessel for more than a couple of decades. Not only will their maintenance & overhaul costs go through the roof but the inherent Cold War era hull design might limit the extent to which they can be retrofitted with newer subsystems. I fully expect them to take on secondary training or testbed duties once the Type 003 boats are in commission, the latter likely being the first Chinese carriers to take on serious missions with full combat capability.

I personally predict that we'll see two Type 003s followed by four CVNs, probably all in commission by the early 2040s.

I disagree. My take is that the CVN is only necessary for ocean going fleet. Also as the tension with US is increasing, mass producing 002 would be more efficient & cheaper for South China Sea and the 1st & 2nd island chain. The SEA islands would provide sufficient cover. Survivability would also be be a factor. 2x002 would be better than 1x003. I think there will eventually be 2x003 but between 4-6x002. There may even be an export version. 1x003 for Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean each.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
I disagree. My take is that the CVN is only necessary for ocean going fleet. Also as the tension with US is increasing, mass producing 002 would be more efficient & cheaper for South China Sea and the 1st & 2nd island chain. The SEA islands would provide sufficient cover. Survivability would also be be a factor. 2x002 would be better than 1x003. I think there will eventually be 2x003 but between 4-6x002. There may even be an export version. 1x003 for Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean each.

I expect the Chinese to further their maritime ambitions beyond the currently-prescribed 1st and 2nd island chains. Chinese shipping lanes along the African and Middle Eastern coasts, and perhaps even near the Nicaragua canal, would be areas of operation for future Chinese CBGs.
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
I expect the Chinese to further their maritime ambitions beyond the currently-prescribed 1st and 2nd island chains. Chinese shipping lanes along the African and Middle Eastern coasts, and perhaps even near the Nicaragua canal, would be areas of operation for future Chinese CBGs.
I guess as armchair analysts, we will never know. However I don't see China having those maritime ambitions unless you expect China to behave like the US. A briefing in one of the postings in sinodefence showed a presentation at one US military academies which basically said China will not build to a level close to the US as this would signal a confrontation. But they will demonstrate their ability. So while their ships will sail further, CBG apart from Pacific and Indian Ocean would have to be considered very carefully. They have more priorities than military spending.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
I guess as armchair analysts, we will never know. However I don't see China having those maritime ambitions unless you expect China to behave like the US. A briefing in one of the postings in sinodefence showed a presentation at one US military academies which basically said China will not build to a level close to the US as this would signal a confrontation. But they will demonstrate their ability. So while their ships will sail further, CBG apart from Pacific and Indian Ocean would have to be considered very carefully. They have more priorities than military spending.

I don't expect China to become the "global policeman" if that's what you're implying, but I fully believe that their military brass finds it important to be capable of launching air operations in those critical geographic junctures should a military conflict break out. Protecting and preserving key shipping routes has always been and will likely continue to be one of the top priorities of the PLAN.

CVNs will allow the Chinese to perform those kind of sorties without having to call into port every few months (with the exception of food supplies), easing the burden on Beijing's geopolitics and the requirement to establish permanent naval/marine bases.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
If I could wager a guess, the strategic planning would call for 6 carriers max.

One for each outstanding fleet, one for the far seas, one for training and one in refit/rotation/maintenance. At least, that is the vibe I get. Only time will tell.
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
I don't expect China to become the "global policeman" if that's what you're implying, but I fully believe that their military brass finds it important to be capable of launching air operations in those critical geographic junctures should a military conflict break out. Protecting and preserving key shipping routes has always been and will likely continue to be one of the top priorities of the PLAN.

CVNs will allow the Chinese to perform those kind of sorties without having to call into port every few months (with the exception of food supplies), easing the burden on Beijing's geopolitics and the requirement to establish permanent naval/marine bases.
Yeah I think to would be a logistics hassle but I think the Chinese would live with it rather than more expensive CVN. Maybe 002 would do the job with the accompanying logistics requirements
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I guess as armchair analysts, we will never know. However I don't see China having those maritime ambitions unless you expect China to behave like the US. A briefing in one of the postings in sinodefence showed a presentation at one US military academies which basically said China will not build to a level close to the US as this would signal a confrontation. But they will demonstrate their ability. So while their ships will sail further, CBG apart from Pacific and Indian Ocean would have to be considered very carefully. They have more priorities than military spending.

US briefings about Chinese strategic thinking are best guesses at best, and pure projection/fantasy a lot of the time.

China has zero interest in persuing the kinds of missions and objectives that the USN does, but the PLAN is not developing in a vacuum.

Much of China’s leadership have always been suspicious of America, and with the US demonstrating such naked disregard for the much vaunted ‘rules based order’ they originally wrote and maintained, in favour of leveraging its economic might for zero sum gains at the expense of anyone not strong enough to resist or fight back, is it really such a stretch to think one needs to also build raw military might to deter the US from trying to achieve its political and economic objectives via the use of military force? I mean, it’s not like anything like that has ever happened to China before has it?

So even though China does not want to pursue similar missions as the USN, it still may need to build up a similar fleet in order to effectively deter, or even fight off American military adventurism.

With Chinese interests increasingly globalising, and China becoming ever more depending on overseas suppliers and markets, simply holding the home turf is increasingly looking like an insufficient hedge. Especially since any American economics driven military adventurism is unlikely to be directed at mainland China.

It’s not hard at all to think of scenarios where the CIA organise some Ukraine/Libya/Syria style regime change black ops in countries of significant economic and strategic important to China as a means of hurting China and/or profiting America.

Even the Russian intervention in Syria is serverly hamstrung by Russia’s lack of a strong navy. So when the US wants to bomb Syria, all they dare to do is shoot down the incoming missiles; when the US calls in artillery and air strikes on Russian irregulars, all they can do is downplay the losses.

Those are lessons China is drawing, and those are not the kinds of limitations the Chinese want to face if they ever have to defend their national interests abroad.

With a fleet able to go toe to toe with whatever the USN can muster, the Americans would have to be far more restrained in their actions. And if they step over the line, China will have far more options to respond without risking inviting a one-sided fight and likely public beating, as any Russian attempts to directly engage US forces in Syria would almost certainly lead to.
 
Top