I guess its the same pattern of developing destroyers/frigates, they are all built by more than one shipyard to ensure productivity, equilibrium and backup. The construction of Navy system depends on huge amount of manpower and relevant infrastructures for a long time. Therefore spare ability is the most critical issue.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
In reality China already has at least 3 "unsinkable carriers" in the form of the island bases in SCS which, needless to say, serve their exact role of patrolling those waters that would've been the purview of CVs if those islands hadn't existed in the first place.
Where China needs her CVs is the flexibility of sailing into theatres where the PLAN doesn't have offshore bases to fully cover the 1st and 2nd island chains, and, of course, to eventually conduct power projection beyond those lines.
So strictly speaking standing up and deploying multiple CSGs aren't entirely necessary, if at all, in your typical regional hotspots in SCS and the Strait.
So in that context the PLAN can afford to take their time in construction and development instead of churning out carrier after carrier like so many fanboys/watchers/pundits are clamouring for at the expense of proper understanding, refinement and sense of maturity on running a carrier programme - a deliberate and methodical approach that's clearly favoured by the PLA's top brass, even to the chagrin of elements within the PLAN as hinted at by pop3... if that is indeed true.
Last edited:
Canada? I know they made a fuss about hosting American nukes in the early 70s.
My analysis is that an arms race is counterproductive for China.
A Chinese drive to rapidly surpass the US military (now) would invite a US counter as they think they could still win such an arms race.
Remember that the Chinese economy is not that much larger than the US in PPP terms and is still smaller in nominal terms.
And the US will continue to think that it can win any arms race until China has a much larger economy. Call it twice the size of the USA which could be in the 2035-2040 timeframe.
But in that scenario, it will be obvious that China can continue with a modest level of military spending and still watch the US flounder if it tries to match China in an arms race.
Intrepid
Major
The Chinese have plenty of time. And they use this to lead in technical and experiential terms. As far as quantitative superiority is concerned, it is sparing to simply wait until the US economy is no longer strong enough to maintain such a large armed force. Only then will the Chinese rearm heavily (from around 2040 to 2050).
The problem is China won't probably be allowed the benefit of waiting.
And I don't need to remind you the issues China had historically whenever they decided they didn't need to spend money on the armed forces.
I doubt the carrier program was started with Taiwan in mind. Probably more suitable for operations in Singapore or the like to unblock a possible US blockade there.
And I don't need to remind you the issues China had historically whenever they decided they didn't need to spend money on the armed forces.
I doubt the carrier program was started with Taiwan in mind. Probably more suitable for operations in Singapore or the like to unblock a possible US blockade there.
I think naval blockade would be an act of war and also not realistic to carry out.
And U.S. hasn't initiated a blockade against Russia right now even its navy is much more inferior than US's.
The EU is Russia's largest trade partner and they are refusing entry of Russian ships and trucks. That is an effective partial blockade.
As for doing it in the high seas, just give it time. I think even the US knows doing it right now would break the world economy. And the US oil price, as their own oil still is traded worldwide, would go to the moon. I think you will start seeing them stop Russian merchant vessels with dry non energy cargo on their "inspections" first.
The whole reason China started their naval buildup was because of an incident where the US blocked transit of a Chinese merchant vessel in the Persian Gulf. I think they were carrying paint to Qatar or something like that. The US claimed they were carrying weapons for Iraq. The US stopped the ship, I think in the Emirates, the crew was impounded and they spent ages inspecting the cargo to find it was exactly as what they had in the manifesto. But you know what, the US never made an official apology. Because "they had reliable intel". Right.
As for doing it in the high seas, just give it time. I think even the US knows doing it right now would break the world economy. And the US oil price, as their own oil still is traded worldwide, would go to the moon. I think you will start seeing them stop Russian merchant vessels with dry non energy cargo on their "inspections" first.
The whole reason China started their naval buildup was because of an incident where the US blocked transit of a Chinese merchant vessel in the Persian Gulf. I think they were carrying paint to Qatar or something like that. The US claimed they were carrying weapons for Iraq. The US stopped the ship, I think in the Emirates, the crew was impounded and they spent ages inspecting the cargo to find it was exactly as what they had in the manifesto. But you know what, the US never made an official apology. Because "they had reliable intel". Right.
Last edited:
The EU is Russia's largest trade partner and they are refusing entry of Russian ships and trucks. That is an effective partial blockade.
As for doing it in the high seas, just give it time. I think even the US knows doing it right now would break the world economy. And the US oil price, as their own oil still is traded worldwide, would go to the moon. I think you will start seeing them stop Russian merchant vessels with dry non energy cargo on their "inspections" first.
The whole reason China started their naval buildup was because of an incident where the US blocked transit of a Chinese merchant vessel in the Persian Gulf. I think they were carrying paint to Qatar or something like that. The US claimed they were carrying weapons for Iraq. The US stopped the ship, I think in the Emirates, the crew was impounded and they spent ages inspecting the cargo to find it was exactly as what they had in the manifesto. But you know what, the US never made an official apology. Because "they had reliable intel". Right.
I would say that the display of US naval might during the 1996 Taiwan crisis was a far bigger driver for the development of the Chinese Navy. That was followed by the 1999 bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.