Hypothetical conventional CATOBAR carriers for export.
- Thread starter proelite
- Start date
lcloo
Captain
Still YY on the angle deck?Edited the deck layout and island a bit for improved operations.
Leave Malaysia out of this list, we can't even afford a destroyer, let alone a carrier strike group.
proelite
Junior Member
Read the title.
They did buy from France, but got sanctioned and refunded, and are now building two Project 23900 of their own. Russia at the time was trying to buy Western product in an attempt to be "accepted" as a partner by the West. They were buying turboshafts such as in the case of their Ka-226 and Ansat, but have now developed better engines for both since the divorce. Also worth mentioning that Russia and China intentionally don't cooperate militarily beyond exercises to avoid spooking Western powers into escalating their own cooperation and binge sanctioning everyone.
Russia is still exceptional in that they develop their own attack, transport, recon helicopters, and their subsystems and armaments, their own surface and subsurface combatants to escort these LPDs, so it would make sense for Russia to buy LPDs from a foreign manufacturer. I don't know many countries that posses this infrastructure. This is easily a multi-billion dollar undertaking for the purchasing customer, and that is why I don't think LPDs are a feasible export product.
Until China have allies that are rich enough to pay for big, expensive, complex military items like what the US have with her "allies" (i.e. Japan, South Korea, UK, Australia etc) - It seriously makes very little sense for China to sell an aircraft carrier - All while China has never sold even a DDG-class or a large FFG-class warship before.
If anything, the light/medium carrier designs proposed in this thread should be for the PLAN's own use (who actually stands to benefit much more) than for any other countries beyond the US&LC-circle.
In fact, China actually needs way more flat-tops than anyone else right now, given the present geopolitical realities and development. Hence, I really doubt that China has any capacity to spare for constructing CV(s) for foreign customer(s) at all.
If anything, the light/medium carrier designs proposed in this thread should be for the PLAN's own use (who actually stands to benefit much more) than for any other countries beyond the US&LC-circle.
In fact, China actually needs way more flat-tops than anyone else right now, given the present geopolitical realities and development. Hence, I really doubt that China has any capacity to spare for constructing CV(s) for foreign customer(s) at all.
Last edited:
proelite
Junior Member
Thailand bought a Type 071 LPD from China.
As for flat tops, I interpret the six-carrier goal means having 6 roughly equal capable carriers at once, sort of like how the USN operates 10-11 CVNs.
That means Shandong and Liaoning will likely become dedicated training carriers, retired, sold, or scrapped once the 5th CVN is built. It makes little sense to maintain a mix of CATOBAR and STOBAR carriers, which complicates training operations. I suspect Fujian will eventually become a training carrier when the 6th CVN is built.
When the 7th CVN is built I believe, they'll retire the oldest CVN.
Nuclear carriers are costly to run and limited in avaibility, so they'll be reserved for major extended blue water operations. To improve operational flexibility and increase carrier availability, conventional CATOBAR carriers that share the same hull as the LHAs should complement them. Four to eight of these will be sufficient. They'll be used for your typical anti-piracy / peacetime operations. They're like the USN version of lightning carriers, but far more capable in terms of speed, air wing size, and aircraft weapons range + payload.
So in the hypothetical future where the PLAN reaches its ideal peak size.
5x future CVN
typer 004 CVN
Fujian: Training ship
Shandong: Training ship / Sold / Mothballed / Scrapped
Liaoning: Training ship / Sold / Mothballed / Scrapped
4-8x CVL/CVV (Proposed by this thread)
4-8x LHA
8x LHD
What's your take on such a high-low strategy?
Last edited:
And my point still stands.
LPD is very much a transport platform, meant for ferrying large amount of troops and equipment across the seas onto enemy shores, not a "true-blood" combatant platform which is meant to fight against enemy naval forces on the seas (of which a CV very much is). Meanwhile, the LHD straddles somewhere in between the two.
The same goes with comparing LPD with surface combatants (CG, DDG and FFG).
The differences in complexity and difficulties involved for the construction processes between the aforementioned two warship categories are actually very vast. Trying to equate LPDs with that of LHDs and CVs just because their displacements are in the 5-digit tons of range is like trying to equate an apple to an orange - It makes no sense.
That's why the 071 LPD actually costs largely the same as (if not cheaper than) a 054AP FFG, despite the former being much larger and having a much greater displacement than the latter. The 071 LPDs can also be built rather quickly, compared to the 075 LHDs (let alone the 076 LHD(s) and the proper CVs).
Last edited: