Hypothetical conventional CATOBAR carriers for export.
- Thread starter proelite
- Start date
Probably time to rename this thread to "Hypothetical Next-generation Conventionally-powered CATOBAR Carriers".
Last edited:
I don't claim to be a naval strategist, but in my opinion a sizable(~10) fleet of these medium/light CATOBAR carriers stationed around the world would allow China to project air power similar to the US but with only a few large bases in somewhere like Central Asia, Middle East, Africa and probably South America in the future for these carriers to dock and resupply unlike the US with its hundreds of airfields and bases around the world. With the larger CVNs for patrolling the world and providing support to these smaller carriers in places of need such as a war zone. Since currently even if PLAN matches the USN's number in carriers, China would still not be able to project power as much as the US simply due to the lack of hundreds of bases oversea IMO building an extremely large carrier fleet with a small number of support bases around the world to resupply them would be a alternative solution to achieve global power projection in the near future.
Of course I might be incorrect in my understanding of power projection so please LMK what you guys think
Of course I might be incorrect in my understanding of power projection so please LMK what you guys think
China has a different strategy, from my point of view.
China is helping other navies to design and then build first rate naval facilities which are capable of hosting large groups of visiting warships for exercises. EG Very large refueling facilities are incorporated. These bases create the conditions and the market for future Chinese naval exports.
Concurrently, China is also building civilian ports that are also suitable for military replenishment in these same countries, sometimes next door.
These are not Chinese bases, these are those countries bases and those countries can easily and cheaply build up their navies because they have a first class base to host them, paid for by China with no debt repayments.
Don’t laugh, but this should mean that a country like Cambodia can have an effective Navy and contribute to a very effective future ASEAN naval force which could include a Chinese export carrier.
Actual Chinese CBG’s would most likely be very welcome to use these facilities, for a price, during peace time and war time.
But China‘s true strategy seems to me to be to help develop Global South navies until they can be responsible and capable of looking after security in their regions without the need for the PLA to help at all. That is what multipolarity means.
A small, poor country with a Chinese built and gifted base could have a small yet powerful navy consisting of exported Chinese vessels, and would be a valuable contributor to security.
Just imagine a future Cambodia vessel that can use EW to keep an AUKUS carrier group away from the Gulf of Thailand to get an idea of this impact.
Last edited:
DIscussion continued here to avoid derailing the original thread.
IMHO, the key to have a carrier fleet which is larger than the US (in terms of number of hulls) while keeping within reasonable budget constrains (i.e. not breaking the bank) would be the simultaneous procurement and operation of fewer but larger CVNs + more but smaller CVs. All CATOBAR, of course.
Personally, I'd propose a ratio of 1x CVN of (~100000 tons full-load displacement, powered by 2-4x nuclear reactors) paired with 1.5/1.65x CVs (~50000 tons full-load displacement, powered by gas turbine engine-based IEPS).
That means we can have carrier fleet arrangements as follows (Option 1):
Or, alternately (Option 2):
Assuming that both the CVs and CVNs follow the 3-3-Rule - This should ensure that China will have 1-2x CVNs + 3-4x CVs = 4-6x carriers in total are always available for mission deployments at any given time.
IMHO, the key to have a carrier fleet which is larger than the US (in terms of number of hulls) while keeping within reasonable budget constrains (i.e. not breaking the bank) would be the simultaneous procurement and operation of fewer but larger CVNs + more but smaller CVs. All CATOBAR, of course.
Personally, I'd propose a ratio of 1x CVN of (~100000 tons full-load displacement, powered by 2-4x nuclear reactors) paired with 1.5/1.65x CVs (~50000 tons full-load displacement, powered by gas turbine engine-based IEPS).
That means we can have carrier fleet arrangements as follows (Option 1):
| PLAN Fleet | CVN | CV | Total |
| NSF | 3x | 3x | 6x |
| ESF | N/A | 3-4x | 3-4x |
| SSF | 3x | 3x | 6x |
| Total | 6x | 9-10x | 15-16x |
Or, alternately (Option 2):
| PLAN Fleet | CVN | CV | Total |
| NSF | 2x | 3x | 5x |
| ESF | 2x | 3-4x | 5-6x |
| SSF | 2x | 3x | 5x |
| Total | 6x | 9-10x | 15-16x |
Assuming that both the CVs and CVNs follow the 3-3-Rule - This should ensure that China will have 1-2x CVNs + 3-4x CVs = 4-6x carriers in total are always available for mission deployments at any given time.
Last edited:
If they do decide to do a 076 mod CATOBAR carrier with like maybe 3 catapults, basically a mini Fujian deck layout but on a hull of a 076. Such a carrier would probably be the weight class of Liaoning, but maybe with some clever layout it could potentially reach the capacity of the larger Shandong. Anyone who is a expert on carriers care to comment on this speculation?
proelite
Junior Member
The CV proposed here? Hypothetical conventional CATOBAR carriers for export.
They don't need 3 cats.
See Charles De Gaulle.
Having 3x EMCATs for a ~50000-ton CV is rather excessive. 2x EMCATs should be sufficient.
Also,
Remove that well deck and everything else associated with amphibious assault operations.
Moreover, considering that CVs typically operate at higher sustained (~23-26 knots) and maximum (~28-30+ knots) speeds than LHDs (~≤20 knots sustained, ~23-24 knots maximum) - It'd be much better to just use a proper carrier hull from the get-go.
proelite
Junior Member
The well deck is already gone. What you see is just a hold for USVs.
As for speed, do we have figures for the top speed of the type 76? You have to be traveling at 30 knots in order to use the cats. I wouldn't be surprised if type 76's top speed is in excess of 30 knots.
That's still a well deck. Otherwise how are you going to launch and embark medium and large-sized watercrafts (including USVs) while on the sea?
As long as the WOD speed is above minimum limits, 30 knots of ship speed is typically not needed to launch aircrafts using catapults.
WOD (Wind Over Deck) speed = Natural wind travelling across the flight deck of ship from bow to stern + Speed of ship sailing into the natural wind.
Even if the natural wind speed is low (0 - 10 knots), the ship can still sail at about 20+ knots to permit catapult launch operations, although this is less ideal. That means a top speed of ~23-26 knots for the LHD would be considered sufficient.
Besides, low natural wind speed conditions don't occur that often - About 5-20% of the time, where the percentage gets larger the closer the ship gets to the equator (of which for China's case, only the southern portions of the 9-Dash Line in the SCS counts as).
Last edited: