by78
General
Already shared on the last page. Also, please refrain from posting content from that Youtube channel.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Already shared on the last page. Also, please refrain from posting content from that Youtube channel.
by78
General
Could we please go easy with making country comparisons and sharing fanboy CG animations, stupid PSed images, idiotic Youtube content, and random opinions from Quora, Reddit, Twitter, and everybody's grandmother?
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Are you the self appointed police of this forum? Shut up!
Please sit down chill. 003 is a major milestone for the PLAN and PLA watchers. Everyone's excited about the progress and accomplishments. During the times when there are a lack of new information, I'm not against posting high quality CG and other fan content, as long as they follow the forum rules:
Sinodefence forum rules of behavior
Jeff Head with the approval of other active SDF MODs and myself has streamed lined the rules of this forum..making them easier to read and understand. Great job Jeff, the next two posts inform all users what SD is about: PREAMBLE AND BIASES There has been a lot of discussion about bias...and...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
You can’t fight the rise of the stupid, dude; it’s generational!
Lethe
Captain
Well, I wouldn't describe as a "random", but in the linked tweet he's pushing a well-worn argument (the vulnerability and obsolescence of the aircraft carrier) in a rather odd direction. Even just looking at current funding and procurement levels, the US remains more invested in carriers than China is, and therefore will remain more exposed to their vulnerabilities for the forseeable future.
I don't pretend to know the "reality" regarding the current and near-term viability of the aircraft carrier, but I do not exclude the possibility that those declaring its obsolescence may be correct. This is one of the reasons why I am less enthusiastic than many posters here about the prospect of China pushing in the near-and medium-term for a fleet of nuclear-powered supercarriers akin to USN. Such a path would require an extraordinary level of investment that, by definition, must come at the cost of alternatives that may serve China's strategic objectives more efficiently and/or be less vulnerable to block obsolescence.
Last edited:
I'm aware of who they are, but from the PLA watching point of view, they most certainly are "randoms" whose opinions are not immediately worthwhile to be held in high esteem or gravity.
If it's a discussion about the opportunity cost of carriers vs alternatives, in a future prospective PLA procurement strategy, that's very different to what that chain of tweets was suggesting.
So I somewhat stand by my remarks
I wholeheartedly agree. Carriers are mobile air fields that allows cheap munitions to be delivered. With TBCC/SSO global strike aeroplanes coming in the 2040's, the combat utility of carriers is greatly reduced and even becoming a military/political liability (like the Russian cruiser that was lost). Prospect can only get much worse for big carriers when countries come up with even more disruptive and effective AA/AD tactics in the next few decades.
Nevertheless, I do see China having a mostly nuclear carrier fleet (6?) in the 2050's but with the understanding that they are strictly show pieces for force projection and national prestige like their honor guards and marching bands. Also not a bad way to bleed the USN dry in an arms race where China is in a position to splurge on these toys while is also the low-cost producer. In other words, CVA's fture role is more similar to that of SSBN's where if you have to use these platforms, you need to think thrice and still wouldn't. I do think HEU is the way to go like EMAL so I hope China won't rush. Another pair of 003's in the interim (Zhejiang then Fujian)? So long as they are domestically produced, cost is a non-issue with great economic multiplier effects. Despite the latest USN 30-year projection/posture, I don't see how the USN can afford to keep more than 6 - 8 carriers by 2050 (all Fords). By then, China's economy should be more than 3x as big so American public would have lost all appetite to compete.
I guess I am trying to say that I cannot rationalize super carriers on military terms but that is completely unimportant. If I have a Ferrari Purosangue, I'll drive it to Costco or Walmart because I can. Catching babes just as useful as luggage space or speed.
Last edited: