CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chinese culture places a greater emotional attachment to many historic figures like Zheng He, Guam Yu, or even more modern day ones like Dr Sun Yat Sen and Mao Zedong etc. Numerous temples have been erected in honor of Zheng He and Quan Yu.

So sinking of a Chinese warship with such name during conflict will have a greater psychological impact on the Chinese populace than say the lost of the Prince of Wales for the British, Bismark for the German or the General Belgrano for the Argentinian. This may explain why PLAN has not named a combat ship after person's name.

Anyway, I am drifting off topic far enough that may merit a warning if not a suspension, So I am going to stop here.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Honestly they should just reconcile with the historical past, then name new ships after famous historical figures.

They're running out of provinces to name ships after anyways.

CNS Liu Bei, CNS Mao Zedong, CNS Sun Yat Sen there are 1000s of possibilities here, enough for a wholly restored navy.

Carriers could be named after leaders of the nation, destroyers/helicopter ships named after famous politicians/generals and anything smaller than that can still be named after cities/towns since they're so many.

I'd prefer them just to use cities/towns.

So every ship is "adopted"
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Not a good start to 2020

delays due to virus and no 4th carrier has been spotted which to be honest I was hoping for

no batch 3 of J15 and no further new helicopters

constrained air wing for both CV-16 and CV-17

add to that the the news that there will be no 5th and 6th CVN

after a short sprint looks like Chinese carrier ambitions have been somewhat dented

carrier programmes are expensive and even china can’t splash out on a CVN

USN has 11 x CVN

China at most with have 2 x STOBAR and 2 x CATOBAR which will not bee nuclear powered

overall a rather dull picture and steam seems to have gassed out on the Chinese carrier programme in this new decade
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
Not a good start to 2020

delays due to virus and no 4th carrier has been spotted which to be honest I was hoping for

no batch 3 of J15 and no further new helicopters

constrained air wing for both CV-16 and CV-17

add to that the the news that there will be no 5th and 6th CVN

after a short sprint looks like Chinese carrier ambitions have been somewhat dented

carrier programmes are expensive and even china can’t splash out on a CVN

USN has 11 x CVN

China at most with have 2 x STOBAR and 2 x CATOBAR which will not bee nuclear powered

overall a rather dull picture and steam seems to have gassed out on the Chinese carrier programme in this new decade

The part about no 5th and 6th CVN comes from Minnie Chan. Nuff said.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The part about no 5th and 6th CVN comes from Minnie Chan. Nuff said.


I agree with you and please @asif iqbal, don't be disappointed or over-hype your expectations. IMO we simply do not know enough, esp. concerning the true PLAN's schedule, plans and ambitions, We have no clue about what major milestone was aimed for what date, so that all disappointment is IMO most of all based on our not-knowing than on delays, technical issues, the PLAN's incompetence and esp. the media hype from stupid reporters like Minnie Chan.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Not a good start to 2020

delays due to virus and no 4th carrier has been spotted which to be honest I was hoping for

no batch 3 of J15 and no further new helicopters

constrained air wing for both CV-16 and CV-17

add to that the the news that there will be no 5th and 6th CVN

after a short sprint looks like Chinese carrier ambitions have been somewhat dented

carrier programmes are expensive and even china can’t splash out on a CVN

USN has 11 x CVN

China at most with have 2 x STOBAR and 2 x CATOBAR which will not bee nuclear powered

overall a rather dull picture and steam seems to have gassed out on the Chinese carrier programme in this new decade

Personally, I think it is good that we haven't seen a 4th conventional carrier and that there is limited spending on carrier aviation.
In the next decade, I think it makes more sense to focus on surface ships, submarines, long-range missiles and land-based aircraft.

These are more useful in achieving Chinese objectives, than a fleet of expensive carriers which would likely suffer a catastrophic defeat in a blue-water confrontation against a much larger carrier fleet. Historically, the side with a smaller navy declines to offer battle and keeps its ships in port, because they know this.

But after 2030, I would expect this strategy to be re-evaluated.

By that point, China should have the ability to impose air/maritime superiority over all of the 1st Island Chain.
Plus Chinese nuclear carrier designs should be mature enough for production.
And the Chinese military would know it has the financial resources to build a large enough supercarrier fleet to win a blue-water battle.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Personally, I think it is good that we haven't seen a 4th conventional carrier and that there is limited spending on carrier aviation.
In the next decade, I think it makes more sense to focus on surface ships, submarines, long-range missiles and land-based aircraft.

These are more useful in achieving Chinese objectives, than a fleet of expensive carriers which would likely suffer a catastrophic defeat in a blue-water confrontation against a much larger carrier fleet. Historically, the side with a smaller navy declines to offer battle and keeps its ships in port, because they know this.

But after 2030, I would expect this strategy to be re-evaluated.

By that point, China should have the ability to impose air/maritime superiority over all of the 1st Island Chain.
Plus Chinese nuclear carrier designs should be mature enough for production.
And the Chinese military would know it has the financial resources to build a large enough supercarrier fleet to win a blue-water battle.

Following on from this.

The implication of such a strategy is that we see more destroyers and frigates being built now, as they can rely on land-based air cover for 1st Island Chain operations. Those same ships could also serve as blue-water escorts for future carriers.

So after 2030, carrier production could ramp up, whilst destroyers and frigates would take a backseat.
 
Top