CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[AndrewS]

The "source" about only 4 carriers being planned is from a western mouthpieces with no source at all behind that statement. Its just placating to their home audience.

It does not merit discussion on a serious board.

China doesn't even have public standing plans on a 3rd or 4th carrier. All of that are just guesses from observers. Same for additional carriers. The only thing we can do is to wait and see, the final number is only known to the navy itself.

All we can say is that with the economy booming, the military will also be something that matches it. But the exact size depends on whether spending will be larger or smaller which is a political decision

I wouldn't call SCMP a western mouthpiece per se. It is owned by Alibaba after all.

As for the number of carriers, consider this.

China has 4x the population of the USA.
And most would agree that at some point in the future, China would have an economy twice as large. The Australian government has the Chinese economy growing from 30% larger to twice the size in terms of actual physical output of goods and services in 2030-2035.

And let's say the US continues to spend 3.2% of GDP on the military and split this equally between the Army, Navy and Air Force.

China is already secure on land, so let's say Chinese Army spending increases to match the US.

In the air, the Chinese Air Force has about 2000 combat coded aircraft like the US Air Force. If Chinese Air Force spending increases to match the US, then that would eventually result in a modern stealthy aircraft fleet, which should be more than sufficient to dominate the 1st Island Chain.

Then the main challenge becomes the US Navy, and the goal would be to deter them from even getting involved. If China were to aim for a Navy some 50% larger than the 11 US carriers, that would imply the equivalent of 16 Chinese nuclear supercarriers.

Yet in terms of overall military spending (Army, Navy, Air Force), China only needs to spend 17% more than the US.

If the US is spending 3.2% of GDP on the military, the Chinese figure is only 1.8% of GDP. That is even less than the 2% consistently seen over the past 20+ years.

The implication is that what we've seen so far, is still the early stages of China's military buildup. And that this buildup is easily affordable.

 

[Deino]

Can we stay on topic please!? ... we are already drifting again into politics, economics ...

 

[asif iqbal]

Vesicles the most sensible post so far

I take back what I said

thanks for the reminder we all need one now and again !

Especially since things have been dead so far

 

[nugroho]

I wouldn't call SCMP a western mouthpiece per se. It is owned by Alibaba after all.

As for the number of carriers, consider this.

China has 4x the population of the USA.
And most would agree that at some point in the future, China would have an economy twice as large. The Australian government has the Chinese economy growing from 30% larger to twice the size in terms of actual physical output of goods and services in 2030-2035.

And let's say the US continues to spend 3.2% of GDP on the military and split this equally between the Army, Navy and Air Force.

China is already secure on land, so let's say Chinese Army spending increases to match the US.

In the air, the Chinese Air Force has about 2000 combat coded aircraft like the US Air Force. If Chinese Air Force spending increases to match the US, then that would eventually result in a modern stealthy aircraft fleet, which should be more than sufficient to dominate the 1st Island Chain.

Then the main challenge becomes the US Navy, and the goal would be to deter them from even getting involved. If China were to aim for a Navy some 50% larger than the 11 US carriers, that would imply the equivalent of 16 Chinese nuclear supercarriers.

Yet in terms of overall military spending (Army, Navy, Air Force), China only needs to spend 17% more than the US.

If the US is spending 3.2% of GDP on the military, the Chinese figure is only 1.8% of GDP. That is even less than the 2% consistently seen over the past 20+ years.

The implication is that what we've seen so far, is still the early stages of China's military buildup. And that this buildup is easily affordable.

Just reminding, Softbank Japan and Yahoo are the largest shareholders in Alibaba

 

[Tyler]

Just reminding, Softbank Japan and Yahoo are the largest shareholders in Alibaba

Yahoo sold its Alibaba stake to Altaba, but then Altaba was liquidated last year. With Alibaba's dual class share structure, the founders of Alibaba still have the majority voting rights for the company.

 

[bruceb1959]

What does an aircraft carrier do? It launches airplanes. And those airplanes control the sky, perform surveillance and launch weapons.

So it's more accurate to say that that to counter an aircraft carrier, you need your own airplanes.
But China's situation is that its core objectives are close by in the 1st Island Chain, so can be better covered by airbases on mainland China.

Plus a carrier and its air wing is really expensive and vulnerable.
In comparison, land-based airplanes are cheaper, longer-ranged, and higher performance than their carrier counterparts.

---
But I agree for blue-water operations in the Western Pacific, where there is a lot less land-based air support, you do need your own carriers.

Surely the best way to counter a carrier or carriers, is by platforms firing sufficiently powerful weapons from outside the range of the carriers aircraft. Submarines are ideal for this.

I seriously question @asif iqbal's assertion that the Soviets tried this and failed. Air and sub launched standoff weapons were a major concern to NATO during the cold war. .

Fortunately we never had to find out how successful or otherwise they would have been.

 

[Intrepid]

Aircraft carriers are often a powerful tool in asymmetric warfare. They were not under massive threat in the waters off Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. The Falklands War was an exception.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Aircraft carriers are often a powerful tool in asymmetric warfare. They were not under massive threat in the waters off Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. The Falklands War was an exception.

Keyword is "asymetric".

They expecting that the enemy hasn't got assets to attack them.

In exchange it can deliver extreme amount of cheap bombs, not possible by other ways.


Now ,introduction of expensive stand of missiles to the naval airplanes destroy this equation.

If a 100k ships + 5000 pair hands + airplane required to launch a cruise missile with hundreds of km range ,then why not use 4k ship, with dozens of hands and bit bigger , longer range missiles ?

 

[bd popeye]

If a 100k ships + 5000 pair hands + airplane required to launch a cruise missile with hundreds of km range ,then why not use 4k ship, with dozens of hands and bit bigger , longer range missiles ?

Because that single ship cannot do what a aircraft carrier and her air wing, Strike group can do;

Almost a retired US Navy captain posted this at skyscrapercity in response to a statement.;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Enough stated...Sorry about the off topic post.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Because that single ship cannot do what a aircraft carrier and her air wing, Strike group can do;

Almost a retired US Navy captain posted this at skyscrapercity in response to a statement.;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Enough stated...Sorry about the off topic post.

post not visible.