CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[antiterror13]

Actually, I absolutely can say that it may be better to not have a second CATOBAR carrier than having it.

If they laid down a second carrier last year, it might be launched in 2025, and in service in 2027-2028 yes, but would still need an additional 2 years to reach full operation -- 2030.


Having a second carrier that only achieves proper combat capability in 2030, when 2025-2030 is the most risky and dangerous time, and all of the resources that a second carrier would tie up as part of its fitting out, sea trials, workup and training, is clearly something the PLAN considers unwise, especially if one thinks about the other, more deliverable capabilities and platforms that they can procure in that time which can achieve combat capability in the 2025-2030 period with a shorter time span.


The question that needs to be asked isn't "should the PLAN have bought a second CATOBAR carrier as soon as possible after Fujian".
Rather, the question should be "should the PLAN have bought a second CATOBAR carrier after Fujian, given it would likely only achieve combat capability by 2030".

My view, and it seems the PLAN's view, is that they preferred to buy other capabilities for that time period.

"My view, and it seems the PLAN's view, is that they preferred to buy other capabilities for that time period." ... what are the most likely "other capabilities" in your opinions?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

No, the US does. If China decides, then there will be no war next 50 years.
But, when the US feels that they are ready (and they have to exhaust Russia in Ukraine enough to suffer humiliating defeat, hopefuly followed by regime change), they will prod Taiwanese to declare independent Republic of Taiwan, and the war will start.
China will have US, NATO and Quad+South Korea, Vietnam and Phillipines to fight against.

Russia isn't getting exhausted though. Its not even losing net population thanks to conquering land and taking in Ukrainian refugees. So if they're waiting for Russia to collapse, they're going to be kept waiting. But not waiting and just going for China is politically unacceptable, and would leave them in a potential 2v1.

 

[Alabama]

China will have US, NATO and Quad+South Korea, Vietnam and Phillipines to fight against.

Why would half these countries enter a war with China? I'm sure European NATO members like Poland and the Baltic states have much larger concerns about Russia than China despite Lithuania's insistence on being a nuisance to China. Quad is just a dialogue, and despite India's grievances with China I doubt it wants to go to war against its largest neighbor. Same with Vietnam, doubt it would want to go to war against its next door neighbor and largest trading partner despite their disputes. And South Korea risks widening the conflict and getting North Korea involved.

But all this is getting off topic anyway.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I fully agree with this. Producing more capital ship is actually a peace time procurement strategy. If a war is closing in the best to do is producing more cost effective, high attrition equipment that pay for itself as fast as it can. Things includes frigates for patrolling, conventional subs, and ballistic missiles.

Can we really ensure that the conflict will be short, and break in production won't be a self-inflicted injury?

Japan did just that in WW2 - prepared for maximum achievable fleet by 12.1941 - and only suddenly started thinking about "what's next?" after Midway laying down fleet carriers and all that. To the point that soon factor of loss became determining fleet compositions - commanders knew new ships of this types won't come any time soon. US commanders knew that a ship lost in 1942 will probably be replaced in 1943-44 by a ship laid down in 1941.

Navy building policy shall be continuous.

 

[H2O]

Why would half these countries enter a war with China?

Plan for the worse. Hope for the best.

 

[Alabama]

Plan for the worse. Hope for the best.

I’m not saying that it can’t happen, just that it’s certainly not as concrete as he makes it out to be. I also believe they should plan for the worst case scenario.

 

[Dante80]

Can we get back to the carrier please?

 

[charles18]

Allright, but you can't say that it's better not to have second CATOBAR carrier than having it, because isn't perfect enough.

I think you're completely missing the point.
Money that is Not spent on building another CATOBAR carrier will instead be put to building other platforms for example destroyers, cruisers, or frigates. Nobody is suggesting the PLAN "saves" the money.

Asking, "Do you want 1 CATOBAR carrier or 2" is the Wrong question. A more appropriate question would be, "You must choose 1 of the 4 options (A, B, C, or D): what is it going to be?"

A) "Do you want 2 carriers?"
B) "Do you want 1 carrier and 8 cruisers?"
C) "Do you want 1 carrier and 12 destroyers?"
D) "Do you want 1 carrier and 20 frigates?"

 

[A.Man]

I think you're completely missing the point.
Money that is Not spent on building another CATOBAR carrier will instead be put to building other platforms for example destroyers, cruisers, or frigates. Nobody is suggesting the PLAN "saves" the money.

Asking, "Do you want 1 CATOBAR carrier or 2" is the Wrong question. A more appropriate question would be, "You must choose 1 of the 4 options (A, B, C, or D): what is it going to be?"

A) "Do you want 2 carriers?"
B) "Do you want 1 carrier and 8 cruisers?"
C) "Do you want 1 carrier and 12 destroyers?"
D) "Do you want 1 carrier and 20 frigates?"

None of the above, I want them all. 不在其位，不谋其政，I give an old Chinese wisdom for you to study, better than waste time.

 

[charles18]

"My view, and it seems the PLAN's view, is that they preferred to buy other capabilities for that time period." ... what are the most likely "other capabilities" in your opinions?

question: what are the "capabilities" the PLAN is buying?
short answer: surface combatants

Long answer:

Let's call the Type 055 a cruiser, the Type 052D a destroyer, and the Type 054A a frigate.
The PLA navy is building a yearly average of:
2 cruisers at 12,500 tons each
4 destroyers at 7,500 tons each
2 frigates at 4,000 tons each
That comes out to 63,000 tons per year for "surface combatants"
At best the PLAN is only building 25,000 tons worth of aircraft carriers per year.
Using fleet tonnage as a guide the PLA navy is investing much more heavily into surface combatants then carriers.