CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Richard Santos]

The Unryus were a belated war emergency program to match anticipated US carrier flight deck numbers using a far smaller industrial and ship building capacity, and requiring the program to deliver the results in the shortest time. How long these carriers would remain valuable after the end of the current war was also not a major concern.

The constraints the made the Japanese adopt the Unryus are not applicable to the two great carrier building powers in the world today, either in terms of industrial and ship building capacity. Nor in terms of the urgency of the construction program, nor for that matter in terms of how long these ships are expected to serve and how adaptable they should be to future changes in requirement.

I am not sure Nimitz were lavish designs. Sure, no one else has yet matched their size, but they were constrained designs because the USN didn’t prioritize expanding the capacity of the graving docks it had built just prior to WWII. So they were shorter and fatter than the navy would have preferred.

 

[Blitzo]

Significant and slightly are subjective. Many view American 100'000t supercarriers as products of era w/o challenge in a carrier domain.
For example, if we rule out peacetime usage, will those thousands of tons make for a qualitatively different unit?

We aren't talking battleships here, in strategic calculus, all 3(75 and 90 conventionals, 100 nuclear) will be in the supercarrier category and will be counted as such. If, however, lesser units can ultimately give you more hulls in a calculus - that counts for something.

Just for an additional measurement point - nuclear(i.e. noticeably less weight-efficient) Ulyanovsk, in spite of full Soviet array of missile weapons, was intended to carry up to 64 fixed-wing a/c, including 60 heavy fighters(Su-33/S-37, read - J-15) and 4 AEWs. At 80'000t.

It can be reasonably expected that conventional 003 will be able to provide more.

Uhh, do you have a source for 60 Su-33s on Ulyanovsk?
I find that difficult to believe.

I've seen 44 fixed wing combat aircraft listed before but even that was split between Su-33 and the smaller Mig-29K

 

[styx]

Many people do not realize the CVNs are rarely at full complement. 85k tons EMALS loaded with 50 for the airwing is very good. The US needs CVN because they have to travel across the Pacific.The Chinese do not have such operational requirements.

in case of war it will be wise for china to use carriers against hawaii and for threating us continental forcers

 

[aubzman]

If a 001/002 carrier accompanies a 003 carrier, that should mean the operational effectiveness of the CBG is equivalent to one "full carrier".

Beyond the initial benefits of training and experience in the formative years of PLAN carrier aviation, is that the residual utility of continuing to operate the 001/002 carriers?

Lets consider whether the existing Chinese carriers really are just a waste of resources.

The two new Royal Navy carriers have smaller air groups than the existing Chinese carriers, launch their aircraft over ski jumps and rely upon helicopter anti submarine and AWACS capability. Does it follow that the Royal Navy ships are rubbish?

Lets also consider just how the F35 measures up to a Flanker when operated off a carrier with a ski jump. I note that the British seem to operate their F35 aircraft with wingtip missile launch pylons which will destroy any stealth capabilities the aircraft have. The F35 internal payload is very small in both space and weight capacity so again, to operate with a useful load, external storage of weapons will be needed, no more stealth. The F35B has less internal fuel than the A or C versions so its range will be less and it has only one engine. If we disregard the F35 stealth capabilities, if they are even useful anymore, then the Flankers twin engines, massive internal fuel storage and its large weapons load-out look pretty good to me. And of course the British are proposing to operate an air group of 14 F35 fighters from their 75,000 ton carriers which is smaller then the existing Chinese carriers airgroups . So I think the capability the Chinese have already fielded is quite impressive and deserves more respect than it seems to get.

 

[Silkworm]

Lets consider whether the existing Chinese carriers really are just a waste of resources.

The two new Royal Navy carriers have smaller air groups than the existing Chinese carriers, launch their aircraft over ski jumps and rely upon helicopter anti submarine and AWACS capability. Does it follow that the Royal Navy ships are rubbish?

Lets also consider just how the F35 measures up to a Flanker when operated off a carrier with a ski jump. I note that the British seem to operate their F35 aircraft with wingtip missile launch pylons which will destroy any stealth capabilities the aircraft have. The F35 internal payload is very small in both space and weight capacity so again, to operate with a useful load, external storage of weapons will be needed, no more stealth. The F35B has less internal fuel than the A or C versions so its range will be less and it has only one engine. If we disregard the F35 stealth capabilities, if they are even useful anymore, then the Flankers twin engines, massive internal fuel storage and its large weapons load-out look pretty good to me. And of course the British are proposing to operate an air group of 14 F35 fighters from their 75,000 ton carriers which is smaller then the existing Chinese carriers airgroups . So I think the capability the Chinese have already fielded is quite impressive and deserves more respect than it seems to get.O

Oh I don't think 001 and 002 are rubbish at all. I think they are wonderful. I just pondered if they had utility beyond a training/doctrine role... if they would actually be a complement to or be a force-multiplier to a battle-group centered around a 003.

 

[Blitzo]

There will be a great need for training capacities for the next 30 years. I don't expect Liaoning and Shandong to be released from their role as training ship. Unless 003 takes over this function.

I agree that CV-16/17 are certainly far from the "final standard" of carriers that the PLAN would like, but I think it's also fair to say that into the future they may very well not be incapable, and I'm not convinced they will continue as "training" carriers in the longer term.

For example, if the future carrier 5th gen J-XY is designed to be able to crossdeck between the CATOBAR carriers (003 and future) and STOBAR carriers (CV-16/17), I think it would be fair to say that CV-16/17 would be among the most capable non-CATOBAR carriers in the world, helped by the fact that such an aircraft would likely be capable of taking off with a "stealthy loadout" (i.e.: far below its MTOW) under most conditions even from a ski jump. Not to mention that the smaller size of the J-XY compared to a J-15 would also enable CV-16/17 to carry more of them.


I would not be surprised if in the future, once the PLAN reach a medium sized carrier orbat of some 5-6 carriers, that the CV-16/17's training/maintenance/deployment roster just becomes that of a "normal carrier" rather than being on some kind of dedicated training operational cycle.
After all, CV-16/17 are outfitted as fully combat capable aircraft carriers, and are not dedicated training ships by either design or construction.

Now, what is possible is that as the PLAN likely seeks to continue expanding their overall carrier fleet (perhaps up to the double digits), that their overall carrier fleet will be more oriented for training/expanding the number of personnel, pilots and officers for an expanding carrier fleet.... but I don't think that necessarily needs to be done by CV-16/17 exclusively once they have some 5-6 carriers (say, CV-16, CV-17 and 3-4 x 003 pattern carriers in service).
Instead, I think it would be the case that each of the carriers as part of their normal training/maintenance/deployment cycle will have a part of the cycle where they take on a greater number of training billets.

 

[Intrepid]

I think, with the number of crewmembers of Liaoning or Shandong two carriers of the final design could be operated. So when the last new carriers are ready, the old ships will be put out of service, srcrapt or sold.

 

[Kejora]

I think, with the number of crewmembers of Liaoning or Shandong two carriers of the final design could be operated. So when the last new carriers are ready, the old ships will be put out of service, srcrapt or sold.

Any countries who might be interested in buying used STOBAR carrier?

 

[Blitzo]

I think, with the number of crewmembers of Liaoning or Shandong two carriers of the final design could be operated. So when the last new carriers are ready, the old ships will be put out of service, srcrapt or sold.

I do agree that when the last of the new carriers are ready, that CV-16/17 would likely be retired.

However I don't know what that "last" number/desired number will be and how long it'll take to get there.
I.e.: I think they'll only retire CV-16/17, once they've built enough CATOBARs (003s, and eventually CVNs) such that the number of CATOBARs + CV-16/17 has reached their final "desired number" of carriers -- at which point they'll continue building additional CATOBARs to replace CV-16 and CV-17 so that they have an all CATOBAR fleet... and in the much longer term, eventually an all CVN CATOBAR fleet.

I've written a few pages back that if they sought a fleet of some 11-12 carriers, potentially such a number could be reached by the late 2030s (including CV-16/17), in which case if they continued construction of CATOBAR CVNs at that point, CV-16/17 would only be retired by those new builds by the early/mid 2040s.

 

[Tam]

Nimitz was intended to last for 50 years. The lifetime of a warship averages about 40 years and there are many ships that last beyond that. We know that a PLAN replenishment ship was retired only after 40 years, and 053s that were retired only lately. A German WW1 dreadnought serving in the Turkish Navy was only scrapped in the 70s', and Taiwan still has refitted Guppies.

So Liaoning, Shandong lasting for 40 to 50 years would be a good bet.