CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[ashnole]

There is a thing called Naval rock-paper-scissor.

Submarines, especially SSNs, are the rocks. Airborne ASW assets, whether surface combatant-based ASW helicopters or land-based fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft are the paper. Carrier-based tactical aviation is the scissor.

'Rock' Submarines smash every kind of ship including 'scissor' carrying Aircraft Carriers. 'Paper' Airborne ASW assets cover submarines and prevent them from acting like rocks. 'Scissor' Carrier-based tactical aviation cut through slow-flying & defenceless 'paper' airborne ASW assets.

To be a *proper* maritime power capable of controlling the world's seas & oceans, you need the trio of rock-paper-scissor in your arsenal. If you lack in any one of the department, an adversary/enemy possessing the trio will eventually ruin your maritime dominance dreams!

 

[ansy1968]

There is a thing called Naval rock-paper-scissor.

Submarines, especially SSNs, are the rocks. Airborne ASW assets, whether surface combatant-based ASW helicopters or land-based fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft are the paper. Carrier-based tactical aviation is the scissor.

'Rock' Submarines smash every kind of ship including 'scissor' carrying Aircraft Carriers. 'Paper' Airborne ASW assets cover submarines and prevent them from acting like rocks. 'Scissor' Carrier-based tactical aviation cut through slow-flying & defenceless 'paper' airborne ASW assets.

To be a *proper* maritime power capable of controlling the world's seas & oceans, you need the trio of rock-paper-scissor in your arsenal. If you lack in any one of the department, an adversary/enemy possessing the trio will eventually ruin your maritime dominance dreams!

bro good analysis and I enjoy the discussion we had BUT at present with threats looming at the horizon the best way to threaten the US is by submarine warfare Just like the US plan to do to China.

 

[ashnole]

bro good analysis and I enjoy the discussion we had BUT at present with threats looming at the horizon the best way to threaten the US is by submarine warfare Just like the US plan to do to China.

China has invested in an Anti-Shipping Rocket Force to keep US Navy's 'scissors' at a distance.

For purely defensive needs in the near-term, China now needs to invest in its own 'paper' first & foremost because USN SSNs are still the biggest threat to the Chinese Navy. A large number of airborne ASW assets is where the next round of investment should go. Equip all Surface Combatants with modern ASW helos. Come up with a large fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft that can patrol large distances. Perhaps even try practicing ASW Hunter-Killer Ops using Type 075 LHDs as an ASW Helo Carrier escorted by Type 054 ASW frigates.

 

[Nilou]

A key part of why carriers will become more important is due to how the USA are developing longer ranged weapons and aircraft to counter China’s successful Area Denial strategy. To counter them sufficiently at ever longer standoff ranges (which can be expected to continue to increase) carriers are the only reliable long term option.

 

[ChinaShill]

This may be a bit off topic, but does anyone know whether steel cutting has begun for the next CV/CVN? For some reason everybody's been quiet on that topic since Fuijan launched.

 

[ashnole]

I think CVN is just a prestige project for now due to both requirements (mostly within 2000-3000 km of China) and technical capability (higher availability, more short maintenance, lower long term maintenance).

Not until there's 4-5 003 style conventional CATOBAR carriers should a higher risk CVN be produced. US also agreed: they built 8
Forrestal and Kitty Hawk supercarriers first, and used them extensively. These were far cheaper than the Enterprise and Nimitz.

Kitty Hawk cost $1.7 billion in 2021 money.

Compared to Nimitz, costs $10 billion.

If you're building a costly fleet of Carriers only to restrict them to operating within 1000 or so nautical miles of your coastline, all you are doing is wasting your money. You should also, at the same time, forget about dominating the oceans that surround your coastline.

Also, good luck building a modern-day Kitty Hawk for something around the ballpark of $1.7B-2B unless of course you are settling for cheap, commerical standards.

 

[henrik]

China isn't dependent on maritime supply for food. China is a net food exporter in many years, and even assuming 0 exports, it's $20 USD worth of food imports per person, which is basically just missing 1 meal per year, hardly starvation inducing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

$32 billion exports

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

$28 billion imports

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So a sea denial strategy still isn't that bad.

China imports a lot of soy beans, corn and wheat, for feeding its pigs and chickens.

 

[sndef888]

I think CVN is just a prestige project for now due to both requirements (mostly within 2000-3000 km of China) and technical capability (higher availability, more short maintenance, lower long term maintenance).

Not until there's 4-5 003 style conventional CATOBAR carriers should a higher risk CVN be produced. US also agreed: they built 8
Forrestal and Kitty Hawk supercarriers first, and used them extensively. These were far cheaper than the Enterprise and Nimitz.

Kitty Hawk cost $1.7 billion in 2021 money.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Compared to Nimitz, costs $10 billion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't think it's a prestige project per se. It's more like gradually building up a carrier force for the post-american hegemony era. Once taiwan is reunified and american presence in korea and japan is weakened china can freely send its carriers to far off places to protect all its trade routes, which it can't really do now.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

If you're building a costly fleet of Carriers only to restrict them to operating within 1000 or so nautical miles of your coastline, all you are doing is wasting your money. You should also, at the same time, forget about dominating the oceans that surround your coastline.

Also, good luck building a modern-day Kitty Hawk for something around the ballpark of $1.7B-2B unless of course you are settling for cheap, commerical standards.

Kitty Hawk was not limited to 1000 nm. It had range of 10000 nm. But it is the most realistic use case.

Are you a subject matter expert in naval architecture and can you articulate a key, high cost difference between naval surface ship building standards and commercial ships? What do you think the cost is in?

 

[Gloire_bb]

If you're building a costly fleet of Carriers only to restrict them to operating within 1000 or so nautical miles of your coastline, all you are doing is wasting your money. You should also, at the same time, forget about dominating the oceans that surround your coastline.

Within 1000 miles of coastline carriers are perfectly viable. 1000 miles is one hell of a distance to work with.
Point of viability of carriers as ships begins there where coastal aviation starts losing the ability to respond in time. That point begins somewhere around ~150 miles from air bases(not coast).

Also, good luck building a modern-day Kitty Hawk for something around the ballpark of $1.7B-2B unless of course you are settling for cheap, commerical standards.

Kitty Hawk is probably a stretch (that's a super carrier), but an acceptable fleet carrier for x3 price of the corresponding heavy frigate/destroyer is very much doable.