CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[latenlazy]

yes, the idea of "minimum capability" in those two contexts are more related to trying to understand how most of the western defence establishment thinks of China's military strategy.

For the Chinese military itself, I imagine their goal is most definitely to try and reach a level of capability where they are quite comfortably the top dog in the western pacific at large. However, I think this has only become a realistic goal for them to seek and achieve in the last five years or so, and of course depending on how the economic fortunes of the world occurs the prospect may or may not be achievable in the medium-long term, as it will of course be a medium-long term process.

Right, but that's *explicitly* what they're building towards is the point, and if that's not factored into the analysis then surprises are going to be in store. Without a shift in thinking the US will probably be blindsided.

 

[Intrepid]

For the Chinese military itself, I imagine their goal is most definitely to try and reach a level of capability where they are quite comfortably the top dog in the western pacific at large.

First, the political / strategic discussion is interesting but off-topic.

Second, why limit the target to the Western Pacific? China becomes a world power.

 

[latenlazy]

First, the political / strategic discussion is interesting but off-topic.

Second, why limit the target to the Western Pacific? China becomes a world power.

Unlike the US, China has neighborhood rivals.

 

[Blitzo]

First, the political / strategic discussion is interesting but off-topic.

Second, why limit the target to the Western Pacific? China becomes a world power.

Western pacific because that's the extent to which China's high intensity warfare goals will likely be limited to for the foreseeable next few decades. Global goals on that sort of scale and intensity will likely take quite a bit longer.

After all this discussion arose due to the question basically about what the high intensity role of Chinese carriers including 002 would be in a westpac contingency.

 

[Intrepid]

Western pacific because that's the extent to which China's high intensity warfare goals will likely be limited to for the foreseeable next few decades. Global goals on that sort of scale and intensity will likely take quite a bit longer.

The Chinese carrier force needs two or three decades from now to be fully developed. The ships that will be build in the next ten years, will serve into the 2060s. Then China is the world power number one.

China will achieve this status without any war. And China will be recognized as the world power number one because China then has the navy that is capable of enforcing the interests of a world power.

 

[Blitzo]

The Chinese carrier force needs two or three decades from now to be fully developed. The ships that will be build in the next ten years, will serve into the 2060s. Then China is the world power number one.

China will achieve this status without any war. And China will be recognized as the world power number one because China then has the navy that is capable of enforcing the interests of a world power.

While I do not disagree necessarily with what you've written, that is quite a separate topic to what was previously being discussed.

We were not suggesting that a war was likely or that China or anyone else sought war, only discussing the way in which Chinese carriers would be used in a specific hypothetical conflict in the foreseeable to long term future.

 

[Pmichael]

In any conflict China's near future carrier force would outmatch any standing navy forces in the area around China. There aren't four super carriers sitting in Okinawa and Singapore and despite all rhetoric one can't just move a carrier strike group in a hostile area.

People also have the tendency of ignoring that China's large and increasing submarine fleet would possible push aircraft carriers to their main objective of protecting sea lines of communication instead of being used for force projection and air support in hostile areas.

 

[antiterror13]

In any conflict China's near future carrier force would outmatch any standing navy forces in the area around China. There aren't four super carriers sitting in Okinawa and Singapore and despite all rhetoric one can't just move a carrier strike group in a hostile area.

People also have the tendency of ignoring that China's large and increasing submarine fleet would possible push aircraft carriers to their main objective of protecting sea lines of communication instead of being used for force projection and air support in hostile areas.

and also the role of sea drone will be bigger and bigger .. also have you heard of great sea wall?

 

[FORBIN]

and also the role of sea drone will be bigger and bigger .. also have you heard of great sea wall?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

The ships that will be build in the next ten years, will serve into the 2060s. Then China is the world power number one.

China is, and will at that time still be a great world power.

But number one?

I do not believe they will have surpassed the US Navy in numbers or technology in that time frame.

In fact, I do not believe China has plans to build 11 carriers and 11 large flat deck LHA/Ds that can act as carriers too.

Or, that they plan to build upwards of 100 Type 052Ds and Type 055s combined, or a force of 55 nuclear attack submarines.

So, it is arguable that they will, with their current plans, not surpass the US Navy at all.

Time will tell.