Continued from above:
Numbers and Nukes
The visible progress on carrier 003 and its impending launch leads observers naturally to wonder what will follow. For many years, it has been speculated that the Chinese Navy will seek to field at least six aircraft carriers, which has gained prominence in mainstream commentary thanks to some
suggesting the PLAN will seek six carriers by 2035. It is also widely accepted in the PLA watching community that the final goal for PLAN carrier development is large, nuclear-powered supercarriers not dissimilar to US Nimitz- and Ford-class CVNs, but the timetable for their emergence is not known.
With two shipyards (Dalian and Jiangnan) proving they are capable of constructing carriers, the question now becomes when the next Chinese carrier will emerge after 003. It is expected that additional carriers adopting the 003 design will be built before the PLAN advances to a nuclear powered design, but it’s not known how many 003 pattern carriers may be built. It is also not known if further 003 pattern carriers will also be designated “003” or if the “00X” designation represents successive carrier hulls rather than carrier designs.
Interestingly, at least one Chinese-language PLA insider with an established long term track record has himself dismissed foreign media expectations of “six carriers by 2035,” remarking that the Chinese Navy’s plans spoke of 10 or more carriers; however, it is unclear when this would occur by, whether by 2035 or later. That remarked carrier count represents proper aircraft carriers, not including the previously discussed 076 assault carrier, which is spoken of as an amphibious assault ship instead. Nevertheless, such numbers for future Chinese carriers can rightly considered as fantastical and speculative at this stage. But with both Dalian and Jiangnan demonstrating their ability to produce carriers, the potential for dual shipyard carrier production now exists – and a decade ago in 2010 the idea of the PLAN fielding some 39 high end Aegis-type destroyers
would have seemed fantastical as well, so only time will tell.
KJ-600, Eye of the Fleet
The much anticipated carrierborne fixed wing airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft made its first flight in 2020 as well, punctuating a fairly eventful year. KJ-600 (also known as H-600) was one of the
aircraft to emerge as part of Chinese carrier development, and initial
– blurry, as per tradition – of KJ-600’s maiden flight emerged in July and August of this year.
As expected, KJ-600 adopts a conventional dual propeller, rotodome configuration similar to that of the E-2 family. The airframe appears to be somewhat different from the Y-7 and the JZY-01 demonstrator derived from it, and may represent a clean sheet design altogether. Naturally, media commentary leapt to comment on its similarity to the E-2 family either as a
or a
. Leaving aside the fact that physics works the same regardless if one is American or Chinese (or
), it should not come as a surprise that the PLAN would adopt a mature and proven airframe and propulsion configuration for its carrierborne AEW&C over a more unique or bleeding edge type, so as to mitigate risk, cost and development time, as part of an already ambitious carrier development program.
Nevertheless, fixed wing carrierborne AEW&C are a vital and essential part to any navy that seeks to field a robust and capable carrier airwing, and their ability to enhance a carrier group’s offensive and defensive capabilities and overall situational awareness and network-centric warfare is unmatched by any other platform type that will exist in the near future. KJ-600 will likely remain in testing for at least another two to three years, but given the Chinese aerospace industry’s extensive experience in developing, testing and building various AEW&C types over the years (KJ-2000, KJ-200, ZDK-03, and KJ-500), it is likely the structural and aerodynamic aspects of the aircraft will present more novelty than its radar or associated control and datalinking systems.
Looming Carrierborne Stealth
The Chinese 5th generation carrierborne fighter has also seen some movement in expectations, with some semi-official remarks from
sources suggesting the FC-31 derived fighter will make its maiden flight in 2021. This aircraft has also been long awaited, and a 2021 maiden flight would comfortably fit within the range of projections made from past years.
Otherwise, pictures of the FC-31 demonstrators (specifically airframe number 31003, also known as the flying “V2” demonstrator) being tested continue to leak out once every few months, which could correspond to work relevant to their carrierborne, PLA-funded variant. As always, it is part of dutiful responsibility to remind readers that the “J-31” designation doesn’t exist for any Chinese fighter, and that the “J-31” is actually the FC-31 export fighter proposal instead. Whether the proper, PLA-funded carrierborne FC-31 derivative will be called “J-31” or “J-35” or some other designation is not yet known.
What’s in a Name?
From mid-2019 to the second half of 2020, many disparate elements of the Chinese Navy’s carrier development have continued to progress and come together.
However, one phenomenon that seems to persist among some
,
, and even
, is confusion surrounding the proper designation of which carriers are “002” versus “003.” Some media outlets continue to describe the 85,000 ton CATOBAR carrier being built at Jiangnan as “002” rather than 003. This likely reflects the previous common assumption that CV-17 Shandong was designated “001A.” However, the designation of CV-17 Shandong was definitively settled on December 17, 2019, when the designation “002” was
in bold red words on a giant plaque at the carrier’s commissioning ceremony.
From the perspective of journalistic, academic and professional accuracy, it is somewhat jarring to see out-of-date and incorrect designations still in use. The names of these carriers might not be overtly consequential, but for the purposes of resolving confusion and creating consistency, it is likely desirable for various commentators and authors to acquaint themselves with the correct nomenclature.
END
