I am inclined to agree with you. Other than showing it can do it, there is no incentive for a nuclear behemoth carrier and all its associated problems. It may be an evolutionary progress in time but it doesnt seem to be a priority. There will be a few yards, not only for competition but also for wider access to facilities, looking at the Russian experience. My take is that after 003, China will focus on how to make the others faster and with higher tech rather than larger and nuclear
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
The big issue with your reasoning is that you need some way to project physical military power and obtain sea control, when you are far from bases on the coast.
Remember that China is the world's largest trading nation, and the vast majority of this trade is transported by sea.
Cyber will be a factor, but it's unlikely to completely completely disable a carrier/ship/submarine/aircraft. They can still operate individually.
Surface ships and submarines aren't able to exercise sea control over vast distances.
Their sensors only have a short effective range.
But airborne platforms have:
1. the ability to travel long distances very quickly
2. plus a very long radar horizon because of their high altitude
So you do need airborne surveillance.
Which leads to large numbers of long-range fighters to obtain air superiority.
Which leads to large carriers with lots of endurance.
So carriers still have a purpose.
No argument that carriers are very useful TODAY (except during wartime when it is within the range of ASBM's).
Force projection is important and a flotilla with a dozen ships including a huge LHA or two will do just fine. Even better if I let it be known that I can park hundreds of bombs in suborbital space directly above your head beyond the reach of any of your defenses.
I mentioned "combined-cycle" because aeroplanes/drones can deliver munitions far more efficiently from intercontinental range. Carrier-based planes are nothing more than weapon delivery platforms with tremendous self-defense overhead (AEW, CAP). They are only useful today because the delivery cost per bomb is much lower than long range missiles. Carriers are only needed because planes have limited range. I am suggesting precision munition delivery will be much cheaper in the future without risking any casualties.
Just like a good horror movie. it is a lot scarier if you know your enemy can destroy you at any time without any warning. Japan didn't surrender because there were a thousand ships converging on its home island. Japan surrendered because it was helpless in seeing two of its cities completely destroyed out of the blue.
I am not suggesting other types of ships or submarines can replace the role of a CVA. No ship can. I am suggesting for Force Projection and Sea Control purposes, there will be much cheaper and effective means that before the Ford class carriers' planned retirement date, munitions can be delivered cheaply (i.e. in great quantities) from a continent away with a reaction time faster than any ship sailing at 35 knots. U.S. call it "Conventional Prompt Global Strike" and I think reusable delivery platforms will make that concept an order of magnitude cheaper. Something like the Son of the X-37.
Opportunity cost question: One carrier (hull-only) or 6 Type 055 or 100 J-20's or 1,200 T-99A or 2 billion McDonald Happy Meals?
Last edited:
I think you have severely misread the situation if you think China is building carriers to show off or "demonstrate industrial capabilities" and that carrier building is somehow a game of "bluffs, raises, and folds."
I don't know where you're from, but you maybe right that for smaller nations, carriers are unnecessarily expensive toys. But for China it's very necessary, and it's not that expensive.
This is also no evidence that U.S will reduce its carrier fleet to 8. Yet, China's need for 6 carriers is not because the U.S has 8 or 11 or 12 carriers but due its own strategic considerations. I think this conversation will lead the thread off-topic. If we want we can open a new U.S vs China Strategy thread and continue over there. Mods can move these posts there as well.
Nuclear carriers would be mighty useful if China wanted to park a mobile air base around the Malacca Straits during a counter-blockade scenario.
The primary value of carriers aren’t that they’re an air power delivery system, but that they project *territorial control* by their direct *physical presence*. Trying to exert area control through air power without being physically present is both strategically inefficient and ineffective. Projection is not simply the ability to throw your power across long distances, but to *defend* and *hold* the areas you’re projecting into. Carriers confer massive offensive power, but their *actual* value is about defensive persistence long after you’ve taken territory over a geography in a way that is not land dependent. This kind of capability is *especially* crucial for China to have strategically because China doesn’t have many foreign bases, most of all in the geographies it is most strategically vulnerable in.
Last edited:
Someone pointed out before that while you wont need fuel for the ship, you would still need fuel for the planes. So it is still tethered. In the South East Asia, they can operate from "friendly" supply bases so while yes, a nuclear could park longer, I feel that other carriers still have a viable presence specially you cant park in Melaka Straits anyway. Its too narrow, China would need to either park in South China Sea or Indian Ocean. If in South China Sea, resupply from Sprately Islands are feasible or even though agreements with Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand or even Cambodia.
Your fuel stores for the planes will last a whole lot longer if that fuel doesn’t need to be shared with the ship. A nuclear carrier can’t be parked indefinitely without resupply and support, but neither can a base on land. The point is that your persistence will nonetheless be significantly lengthened compared to a conventional carrier, and for those kinds of strategic scenarios that’s a major benefit relative to the limitations that would be imposed by a conventional carrier.
I respectively disagree with you on all your points. Sounds more like what a U.S. Admiral or a neighborhood bully trying to physically intimidate someone. Not China's style. Economic pressure works much more effectively with much less long-term consequences for the bilateral relationship.
I simply cannot come up with a single situation in real life that would change the outcome because China deployed a carrier. If a carrier can make a difference, then chances are you don't need it to resolve the situation more amicably. If a carrier makes no difference, then why bother risking the chance of escalation.
Which country or area do you have in mind? The Malacca Strait? Blockade by which country against which? U.S. against Chinese ships or all ships? How do you think the blockade will be implemented? What is the U.S. motivation or excuse? Is this blockade U.N. authorized? If not, it is technically piracy. What if all ships suddenly changed registry to Panama with Malaysia as destination? Board every ship? Blockades are done with ships (perfect for LCS), not aircrafts. What is the carrier there for? Strafing civilian ships in international waters that don't stop? If carrier is Chinese? You suggest starting W.W.3 by destroying a USN ship? If not, what is the mission objective/rules of engagement for the carrier? So far Chinese carrier construction has been done at a leisurely pace. You don't think China has wargamed the Malacca Strait scenario to death already and decided they can take their time with carriers?
Tactically, the last thing you want a carrier to be is in a confined area. A carrier group needs hundreds of nautical miles of empty sea for self-protection and maneuvering. Any carrier captain (Chinese or American) tries to 'park' near any 'choke' point with military action in mind should be shot on the spot for incompetence and stupidity. Can you imagine all the opposing submarine commanders salivating while shadowing a nearby freighter?
The U.S. will not fight a hot war with another nuclear power for anything less than physical survival. Neither will China. This is why North Korea developed and showed off its SLBM's. In 1996, U.S. informed China before deploying the two carrier group and China told the U.S. about the dummy warheads. U.S. publicly stated the carrier groups were there to show support. Everything else is just for show.
So my view stays the same. Yes, China must acquire a couple 003's followed by serial production of 004's. Great for national pride, job creation, R&D, photo-ops, war movie prop, and of course, show of force internationally. All justifiable reasons and China can certainly afford to do this. One may argue they have 'deterrence' values and they do. I just cannot come up with real world scenario where having carriers is essential and necessary to resolve an actual conflict. Like the two B-2's U.S. used to drop 100 bombs at the cost of over $10 millions in Libya against ISIS, all Chinese carriers' primary reason-to-be is for show ('deterrence' does sounds better).
Aircraft carriers are akin to those extreme-high-end 'Reference' speaker systems or 'Reserve' whiskeys. The companies that make them don't really expect to sell them. Just looking good in showrooms is all they wanted. They made them to say "Hey, look at what I am capable of, so trust me on the cheaper speakers/booze I make".
This is off topic. No more from me as I have said all my brain can muster.