CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Richard Santos]

CATOBAR operation does not impose substantial additional difficulties for the pilots compared to STOBAR operation. The particular difficulties of carrier operation, the arrested landing, is common to both. So 001 and 002 can train 003 pilots and give qualified 003 pilot room for practice almost as effectively as 003 herself can.

the 003’s AWACS most certainly confer additional capability that 001 and 002 can’t possibly match, it can also launch longer ranged strikes and escorts using essentially the same aircrafts as the 001 and 002. So 003 enhances the capabilities of the Chinese fleet in a way no amount of additional 002 design can. If the Chinese feel its likely combat scenario requires long range carrier borne strikes with extensive AWAC support, more 002 simply Can’t deliver it.

 

[james smith esq]

There was a US study looking at the historical costs of a nuclear supercarrier (Nimitz) versus a conventional equivalent (like the Kitty/003)

It came out as the conventional carrier being cheaper to operate overall.
Of course, a conventional carrier has a lot less endurance and needs more frequent resupply.

But for the next 15 years, China realistically won't have enough carriers to win a blue water battle beyond Guam in the Western Pacific.
So if conventional Chinese carriers only operate up to 3000km from the Chinese mainland (with land-based air support), the resupply issue is manageable.

Plus I don't see the Chinese Navy flogging its carriers on 6-9month deployments out of every 24months.
That further pushes down the operating costs of a conventional carrier, because the cost of nuclear propulsion is fixed.

Rather than build a nuclear carrier, I suspect it may actually be cheaper to build additional resupply ships with a 003 conventional carrier.
So you get the same sortie rate and endurance overall, but with more frequent resupply operations.

Agree 100%, here,

 

[shandong]

China and the United States can never fight directly. The real enemy of Chinese aircraft carriers is likely to be other countries.

 

[Richard Santos]

China and the United States can never fight directly. The real enemy of Chinese aircraft carriers is likely to be other countries.

I would think a chinese CATOBAR carrier would be far harder for F-35 STOBAR carriers in the Japanese or other regional navy to handle than a Chinese STOBAR carrier. For one thing, the Chinese carrier’s strike range advantage would be vastly magnified With 003. The 003 would also enjoy a great real-time battlefield surveillance advantage over any regional fleet centered on a STOBAR carrier.

002 might be considered stronger peer to regional f-35 STOBAR opponent. 003 would be a distinct league above.

Against US CATOBAR carriers, 002 can only hope to compete if acting in almost pure defensive role. 003, given J-15 range advantage over F-18 and F-35, are in some ways superior to US STOBAR carriers in mutual offensive capability.

 

[Kvim]

China and the United States can never fight directly. The real enemy of Chinese aircraft carriers is likely to be other countries.

Nuclear countries should not have large-scale wars

 

[AndrewS]

China and the United States can never fight directly. The real enemy of Chinese aircraft carriers is likely to be other countries.

Unfortunately, many in the USA still think they can win a conventional war against China without it going nuclear.

 

[AndrewS]

Nuclear countries should not have large-scale wars

I agree, but that is not how the US currently thinks.
That will only change once China's nuclear arsenal expands significantly.

Look at how US decision makers know they cannot get into a conventional war against Russia which does have a large nuclear arsenal.

 

[asif iqbal]

I agree, but that is not how the US currently thinks.
That will only change once China's nuclear arsenal expands significantly.

Look at how US decision makers know they cannot get into a conventional war against Russia which does have a large nuclear arsenal.

conventional or non-conventional

Big ticket naval items like Carriers, SSN and SSBN and to a lesser extend LHA/LHD/LPD give nations a capability of power projection

Russia does not have power projection

 

[Ndla2]

conventional or non-conventional

Big ticket naval items like Carriers, SSN and SSBN and to a lesser extend LHA/LHD/LPD give nations a capability of power projection

Russia does not have power projection

I think power projection is good to have during peacetime or for small-scale war. But for a peer level enemy to even consider fighting the ultimate battle/war, the size of one's nuclear arsenal plays a very, very important role in the enemy's calculus. By having large nuclear arsenal, the enemy might end up avoiding the war altogether.

 

[Deino]

Guys … lets stop discussing war-scenarios

Latest update: