CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

Lethe

Captain
About usefulness of aircraft carriers- when the USN, RN, MN, IN stop building the aircraft carriers and retire their own- then China can too. Meanwhile, China has to build them as well, and try to build as much as possible and as quickly as possible. At the same time, China must also have secondary focus on submarines, especially nucelar powered ones.

I agree that PLAN should continue to invest in aircraft carriers and carrier aviation, the question is about the relative priority that should be assigned to this field compared to other fields competing for funding, e.g. nuclear-powered submarines, strategic airpower, anti-submarine warfare capabilities, space-based capabilities, etc. Personally I believe that, once China has achieved a competitive level of technology, nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs and SSGNs) should be the highest near- and medium-term priority, certainly for PLAN and possibly for the entire PLA, not least of all because these are the assets that can most effectively threaten adversary carrier groups.
 
Last edited:

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
I agree that PLAN should continue to invest in aircraft carriers and carrier aviation, the question is about the relative priority that should be assigned to this field compared to other fields competing for funding, e.g. nuclear-powered submarines, strategic airpower, anti-submarine warfare capabilities, space-based capabilities, etc. Personally I believe that, once China has achieved a competitive level of technology, nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs and SSGNs) should be the highest near- and medium-term priority, certainly for PLAN and possibly for the entire PLA, not least of all because these are the assets that can most effectively threaten adversary carrier groups.
We already heard that hypersonics is much higher priority, it was said that investment in this area resulted in double the combat strength improvement than things like new ships and aircraft.

As a result, more and more top talent and resources is being shifted to this area.

It makes sense to shift resources from carrier production right now, because hypersonics can destroy carriers while carriers cannot destroy hypersonics.

The next priority after that could be underwater vessels.
 

Lime

Junior Member
Registered Member
The effects of aircraft carriers between China and US are different due to different geographical environment.

PLAN use their carrier mainly to neutralize US's ability to interfere other countries.

Without successful interference, more and more countries will not obey US's rule. This is fatal for US hegemony but good for China.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
The effects of aircraft carriers between China and US are different due to different geographical environment.

PLAN use their carrier mainly to neutralize US's ability to interfere other countries.

Without successful interference, more and more countries will not obey US's rule. This is fatal for US hegemony but good for China.
To neutralize a carriers ability to interfere in another country China can just sell that country ballistic missiles.

Those missiles are very quick to buy and delivery time is short, it’s cheap and very militarily effective, as well as being unmanned and hypersonic.

China recently sold Saudi Arabia ballistic missiles and the means to defend them.

So, almost unnoticed, Saudi now holds Israel at actual risk and any US forces nearby, possibly including ships thousands of miles away, while having the legal, technical and sovereign rights to use those non-US weapons and systems.

Compared to building and deploying multiple CSG groups to have the same effect, It’s kind of a no-brained which option to choose.

PLAN carriers should have a different purpose than what can easily be achieved with far better means.
 

Lime

Junior Member
Registered Member
To neutralize a carriers ability to interfere in another country China can just sell that country ballistic missiles.

Those missiles are very quick to buy and delivery time is short, it’s cheap and very militarily effective, as well as being unmanned and hypersonic.

China recently sold Saudi Arabia ballistic missiles and the means to defend them.

So, almost unnoticed, Saudi now holds Israel at actual risk and any US forces nearby, possibly including ships thousands of miles away, while having the legal, technical and sovereign rights to use those non-US weapons and systems.

Compared to building and deploying multiple CSG groups to have the same effect, It’s kind of a no-brained which option to choose.

PLAN carriers should have a different purpose than what can easily be achieved with far better means.
On the one hand selling ballistic missiles to other countires will violate Wassenaar Arrangement although China not join in. On the other hand it will change the regional geopolitical balance which may cause the disgust of other countries in that region.

I think China began to sell Saudi Arabia ballistic missiles is 30 years ago. They just renew them recently.
 

weig2000

Captain
I agree that PLAN should continue to invest in aircraft carriers and carrier aviation, the question is about the relative priority that should be assigned to this field compared to other fields competing for funding, e.g. nuclear-powered submarines, strategic airpower, anti-submarine warfare capabilities, space-based capabilities, etc. Personally I believe that, once China has achieved a competitive level of technology, nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs and SSGNs) should be the highest near- and medium-term priority, certainly for PLAN and possibly for the entire PLA, not least of all because these are the assets that can most effectively threaten adversary carrier groups.

I'm not sure nuclear submarines have a lower priority than the carrier program for PLAN. Carrier development and activities are difficult to hide and are much more transparent than the nuclear submarine development program. So there has been a scarcity of information. Besides, nuclear submarines are more challenging in general, and their developments are not as directly benefited by China's booming civilian ship building industry. It takes longer for China to catch up with world's best than surface combatant including carriers. On top of that, PLAN is not willing to commit to build large fleet of nuclear submarines before they deem they're adequately competitive in capability.


We already heard that hypersonics is much higher priority, it was said that investment in this area resulted in double the combat strength improvement than things like new ships and aircraft.

As a result, more and more top talent and resources is being shifted to this area.

It makes sense to shift resources from carrier production right now, because hypersonics can destroy carriers while carriers cannot destroy hypersonics.

The next priority after that could be underwater vessels.

I don't see how there is any competing relationship between hypersonic and carriers and how you can shift talents between them.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure nuclear submarines have a lower priority than the carrier program for PLAN. Carrier development and activities are difficult to hide and are much more transparent than the nuclear submarine development program. So there has been a scarcity of information. Besides, nuclear submarines are more challenging in general, and their developments are not as directly benefited by China's booming civilian ship building industry. It takes longer for China to catch up with world's best than surface combatant including carriers. On top of that, PLAN is not willing to commit to build large fleet of nuclear submarines before they deem they're adequately competitive in capability.




I don't see how there is any competing relationship between hypersonic and carriers and how you can shift talents between them.
Resources, mainly money I suppose and the talent pipeline.

The point is that if China wants to increase their military strength by spending money then the most effective way to do it is on hypersonics, according to them it’s more than twice as effective.

China is prioritizing scientists to work on this over other programs, maybe this means new graduates going into those programs at a much higher rate than others, like supercarriers. It doesn’t mean taking resources away from development of other programs.

This fact should manifest itself when making decisions on production (not design or development), for example there has been a lot of speculation about whether there will be a second 003, but knowing what we now know about PLA hypersonic spending effectiveness it’s obvious there should not be another 003 and the next carrier should be 004, and maybe even that won’t be mass produced, at least not until China has developed some credible hypersonics defenses.

In the meantime the money that would have been spend on a second 003 now can go towards a hypersonic global strike ability, which is much more effective. Global strike is also one of the main roles of potential second 003, so they don’t even lose that aspect by not building it.
 
Last edited:

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
About usefulness of aircraft carriers- when the USN, RN, MN, IN stop building the aircraft carriers and retire their own- then China can too. Meanwhile, China has to build them as well, and try to build as much as possible and as quickly as possible. At the same time, China must also have secondary focus on submarines, especially nucelar powered ones.
I disagree.
It took the US-navy about 40 years to build 10 Nimitz class CVN. Building a large fleet of carriers is what you do when you have a lot of time on your hands. The PLA - navy does not have time as a luxury.

The PLAN needs to mass produce a weapon system or systems in sufficient numbers within 10 years that can roughly duplicate the capacity of 10 aircraft carriers. What is this weapon system? I don't have a good answer.
The only thing I am certain, is the PLAN will make no attempt to equal the US-navy in the number of carriers.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Carriers are the major force projection platform any significant force projection endeavour requires. Strategic bombing and cruise missile lobbing doesn't count. I mean fight anywhere and stay around kind of force projection.

China's only real necessity in any serious force projection is simply to keep trade and supply routes and sealines open for itself. On the energy front this is actually more secure than it is for Europe and even the US. As long as China has money (that's worth making for producers) and industrial capacity to supply energy producers with products, it will remain even more important a customer than the US.

It also doesn't only rely on sea routes to access energy and it is on neutral to great terms with Iran, KSA, Russia, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Latin America. China itself has been weaning off coal but has one of the world's largest reserves of coal for military situations and backup.

What China lacks is raw material like iron ore which it needs to but from Australia but there are various sources for raw materials. Keeping supply and trade lines open during war is the purpose of China's required power projection. Carriers do indeed play a massive role in this. It is also why they are increasingly necessary for PLAN and China in the era of hostility form the US. This wasn't necessary in the past as trade lines aren't threatened.

Food security China excels in these days. Manufacturing and technology actually China is far more self dependent than many realise but in many fields they are not entirely self dependent. Though even in those fields, cutting all ties now hurt the suppliers just as much if not more so unless global supply chains totally move away from China. Doing that require many years to decades and cost an economic price that will collapse entire nations. So they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Smart money is planning or putting hedge into action. Some will jump onboard with China beneath the facade to redeem and keep as much as they can while paying lip service to the clearly already dead empire.

Without geniuses constantly migrating and working in the west, they are done for. The numbers for this have declined so dramatically it's nearly criminal how much of it is ignored and understated.

The concern is that China is gaining too much ground at a faster rate than its blue water navy forms. Right now, PLAN is no match for USN outside of first island chain where it is at least within cover of land based HGV and missiles, much of plaaf, supporting industries, and military supply lines. If the US cuts off many sea routes as a last ditch effort, China would not challenge it unless it is daring to use long range HGVs and ballistic missiles essentially opening the war. It may simply choose to let the US shoot everyone in the foot. Such a supply issue would certainly collapse entire nations including ones like Australia, at the very least economically. Sorry but India is not even going to be buying 10% the value of what China buys from Aus, they are already buying at capacity. Not going to suddenly become a developed 10 trillion dollar economy with the same industrial output as China not even in 20 years.
 
Top