CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

by78

General
An exciting development. One of the catapult coverings has been removed, specifically the one for the right bow catapult.

52130480072_3d37e075b9_o.jpg

This is from an old satellite image.

Indeed, I stand corrected. That was an old satellite image. Below is the most current one (from yesterday), and it still shows all the coverings in place.

52133434884_1bb31ef40e_o.jpg
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
EMAL covers might stay on after it's launched. I saw a picture of the Ford being launched still with covers on.

It is normal for a carrier to be launched with covers still over their catapults, because work on a carrier's catapults rarely are completed prior to launch, and usually substantial work on the catapults is done during the post-launch fitting out period.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
It is normal for a carrier to be launched with covers still over their catapults, because work on a carrier's catapults rarely are completed prior to launch, and usually substantial work on the catapults is done during the post-launch fitting out period.
Indeed.

Here's the bow photos of the Gerald R. Ford during her launch ceremony.
ford-class-aircraft-carrier-03.jpg
ford-class-aircraft-carrier-02.jpg
Notice the two "tents" located on top of the flight deck towards the front.
 

abc123

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
Well, if not, than what else to do than just build carriers? Or else, why did you build so many escort ships? Without carriers, you can put frigates and destroyes in a Coast Guard as well.
 

abc123

Junior Member
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.
Coal is nice, but how many plants for turning of coal into oil China has operational?

Also, China imports how many, 2/3 of it's oil/gas? She will replace that with what? When one day USN put's a cork in Strait of Malacca.

Also, Russia also thought that she is irrepleacable as a market and commodity exporter, and now? Embargo and sequestering of Russian equity abroad.
 

charles18

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, if not, than what else to do than just build carriers? Or else, why did you build so many escort ships? Without carriers, you can put frigates and destroyes in a Coast Guard as well.
I read somewhere that a 100,000 ton carrier has the firepower equivalent of 3,000 missiles. A 10,000 ton destroyer has about 100 missiles. So 10 destroyers would equal to 1 carrier in total tonnage. However with only 1,000 missiles that is only 1/3rd the firepower equivalent. Furthermore 10 destroyers probably costs the same as 1 carrier. If 10 destroyers had to fight 1 carrier, there is enough firepower to sink the carrier. Not all 10 destroyers is guaranteed to survive, but it would still be a victory for the destroyers.

It is possible to build an average of 10 destroyers per year, while it is next to impossible to build 1 carrier per year. If it was up to me, I think building six Type-055 and four Type-052D destroyers per year is doable. As for the carrier program I would leave it at 1 carrier per 4 years and I would NOT build a nuclear carrier until maybe after the year 2034.
 

henrik

Senior Member
Registered Member
I read somewhere that a 100,000 ton carrier has the firepower equivalent of 3,000 missiles. A 10,000 ton destroyer has about 100 missiles. So 10 destroyers would equal to 1 carrier in total tonnage. However with only 1,000 missiles that is only 1/3rd the firepower equivalent. Furthermore 10 destroyers probably costs the same as 1 carrier. If 10 destroyers had to fight 1 carrier, there is enough firepower to sink the carrier. Not all 10 destroyers is guaranteed to survive, but it would still be a victory for the destroyers.

It is possible to build an average of 10 destroyers per year, while it is next to impossible to build 1 carrier per year. If it was up to me, I think building six Type-055 and four Type-052D destroyers per year is doable. As for the carrier program I would leave it at 1 carrier per 4 years and I would NOT build a nuclear carrier until maybe after the year 2034.
The method of building more CV sooner is to build two at the same time. They can do it now instead of waiting for the next better design.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Coal is nice, but how many plants for turning of coal into oil China has operational?
Also, China imports how many, 2/3 of it's oil/gas? She will replace that with what? When one day USN put's a cork in Strait of Malacca.
Also, Russia also thought that she is irrepleacable as a market and commodity exporter, and now? Embargo and sequestering of Russian equity abroad.
China imports over 1 million barrels of oil per day through ESPO pipelines from Russia.
Between that and the Chinese strategic petroleum reserve it would be more than enough to keep the military going.

China made massive investment into electric rail, including high speed rail, and electric metro systems. In addition things like electric buses and electric cars. In metro systems alone China has 9 of the top 10 largest metro systems in the world by track length. Most of these metros did not even exist 20 years ago and most of it was built over past 10 years.

China would handle an oil shock a lot better than most of the world.

Trade through the Strait of Malacca is still important and quite likely one of the reasons to build the carriers. China will eventually seek to secure trade from China all the way to the Horn of Africa and maybe beyond.
 

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
I read somewhere that a 100,000 ton carrier has the firepower equivalent of 3,000 missiles. A 10,000 ton destroyer has about 100 missiles. So 10 destroyers would equal to 1 carrier in total tonnage. However with only 1,000 missiles that is only 1/3rd the firepower equivalent. Furthermore 10 destroyers probably costs the same as 1 carrier. If 10 destroyers had to fight 1 carrier, there is enough firepower to sink the carrier. Not all 10 destroyers is guaranteed to survive, but it would still be a victory for the destroyers.

It is possible to build an average of 10 destroyers per year, while it is next to impossible to build 1 carrier per year. If it was up to me, I think building six Type-055 and four Type-052D destroyers per year is doable. As for the carrier program I would leave it at 1 carrier per 4 years and I would NOT build a nuclear carrier until maybe after the year 2034.
lol come on, one CV is equivalent of 3 YJ12 to be written off map. War and strategy is not a game. Vietnam war showed that CVs are just expensive toys
 
Top