CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
In , PLAN might only build two Type-002 carriers (CV-18 and the next one). Meaning 4 carriers in total is planned for the foreseeable future. Not 6 or 8 as many claimed.
In summary, faced with economic slowdown, technical challenges in nuclear propulsion for carriers, lack of an effective aircraft to operate on carriers, neighbors all acquiring modern SSKs, and of course US, SK, Japan navy and submarine forces to contend with in Pacific, PLAN is cutting back on ambitions.
Another question is if this will translate to a slowdown in other PLAN projects, Type-055, Type-054B, or maybe reduced numbers in Type-075. Also wonder if Type-095 and 096 subs will face slowdown.
In summary, faced with economic slowdown, technical challenges in nuclear propulsion for carriers, lack of an effective aircraft to operate on carriers, neighbors all acquiring modern SSKs, and of course US, SK, Japan navy and submarine forces to contend with in Pacific, PLAN is cutting back on ambitions.
Another question is if this will translate to a slowdown in other PLAN projects, Type-055, Type-054B, or maybe reduced numbers in Type-075. Also wonder if Type-095 and 096 subs will face slowdown.
Chinese count 10000 as (wàn).
He meant 8(bā)-10(shí)x 10,000(wàn) tons..
Probably 80k ton light load, 100k ton full load?
Last edited:
Irregardless of the veracity of the report listed, the plan from the start was for PLAN to build ONLY two Type-002 carriers. In what way could this be considered a slowdown? (let alone use said info to speculate on other PLAN projects that are moving full steam ahead right now?)
Moreover, if the reason for a delayed 003 roll-out is TRL problems for EMALS/nuclear propulsion as reported, in what possible way would or could this affect other programs that are not dependent on them?
Can't edit original post but the source for this article came from SCMP by a fellow name Minnie Chan. Some of you may regard her as an unreliable source. Makes me wonder whether this is an act of disinformation.
Last edited:
Can't answer your question. Just summarizing the article. The quote in question from the article.
"These decisions would not just affect aircraft carriers, but China’s advanced new destroyers and amphibious assault ships as well."
this is nothing more than wishfull thinking from China haters, the Chinese economy is suffering from no crisis at all, this is the new norm & it's growing at 6% or more just as the government planned even before the trade war, furthermore China only spends 1.3% on military so they have alot of room to maneuvre, the US calls it's allies who spend less than 2% as free riders, the US considers countries that spend less than 2% to be severly careless about defense, so by NATO standards if China was a member of then China would have been considered as being a free rider.
it is safe to say China will get at the very least 6 CVNs, and after few decades they can easily achieve parity with the US carrier force tonnage wise & numbers wise while still keeping their mitary spending below 2%.
Don't quote Minnie Chan here, please.