PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

kroko said:

Points of interest:

6,5 million US dólares just for daily maintenance of a single US carrier. Thats a huge sum. Will china be willing to pay that much for a carrier? (perhabs that sum is due to nuclear propulsion?)

In terms of role, it talks about a symbol of "prestige". Does prestige play a important role in the development of china´s AC program?

Click to expand...

This post and your last ones are making sly references to preserving face/ego. In fact more than a few of your posts on this forum tend towards that. In any case I think you know the answer to your own question here. The merits of a blue water navy and carriers have been discussed to exhaustion.

And Bloomberg? Come on. If you want to rustle a few jimmies you have to find a more subtle source than that... And something more provocative.

Plus a huge porition of that cost is on the sailors salary and I am sure the Chinese wages for sailors is not quite the same as Western navy's so the operational cost will be lower

Wages is the big killer why else did they reduce the crew of the Ford Class because over the life of the carrier it will save $5 billion in all types of cost compared with a Nimitz Class

And yes that 6-7 million dollars is for a full carrier package cost per day

by78 said:

He did visit the hangar bay, but naturally there was nothing for him to see except honor guards and some mockups.

Click to expand...

Great picture not totally irrelevant because it shows us a view of the hanger and two mock ups always good to see

I would like to see pics of the engine room next

Bltizo said:

This post and your last ones are making sly references to preserving face/ego. In fact more than a few of your posts on this forum tend towards that.

Click to expand...

very funny.

Bltizo said:

The merits of a blue water navy and carriers have been discussed to exhaustion.

Click to expand...

im not sure about that. Despite the fact that liaoning right now being possibily the best carrier outside the US, doesnt erase the fact that China cant hope to ever match the USN surface fleet. Even enjoying this superiority, the US is already investing in revolucionary tech that could change the game in naval warfare.





I think that naval warfare is the strongest component of the US armed forces. Lets face it. The US will never let china use its navy against any nation (unless someone wants to block naval routes, but the US will never allow this). If china wants to use its fleet against anyone they will have to go past the USN. china should focus on nuclear submarines and long-range stealth bombers instead of carriers and big destroyers. After all, their sea disputes are not that far from their shores.

kroko sez,

Despite the fact that liaoning right now being possibily the best carrier outside the US,

Click to expand...

Ahem...I think the French,Italians, Spanish & (gulp) Russians would disagree with you where as they have operational carriers with fixed wing aircraft.. Three aircraft plus one helo does not make an airwing.

I do not like to put words in peoples mouth but perhaps you meant potentially??

bd popeye said:

kroko sez,



Ahem...I think the French,Italians, Spanish & (gulp) Russians would disagree with you where as they have operational carriers with fixed wing aircraft.. Three aircraft plus one helo does not make an airwing.

I do not like to put words in peoples mouth but perhaps you meant potentially??

Click to expand...

Well he did say "possibly" so....

Anyway, I do feel that even if the Liaoning gets an airwing and become operational, the French carrier would still be better.

kroko said:

Despite the fact that liaoning right now being possibily the best carrier outside the US.

Click to expand...

Not even possible. Right now it has no airwing and until it does it will not even measrue up to the Spanish or Italian carriers.

But when it does, I believe that the French carrier will still be more versatile and powerful, and that the two Royal Navy carriers will be equally powerful.

Arguably, the Russian carrier will also be in the same league.

kroko said:

...doesnt erase the fact that China cant hope to ever match the USN surface fleet.

Click to expand...

Never say never. History is long and replete with nations that had an unquestioned superiority on the sea, only to see decades later that power be eclipsed. One must remain ever vigilant to maintain such power...and right now, sadly for those of us here in America, the US is showing signs of not maintaining that type of vigilance.

kroko said:

Even enjoying this superiority, the US is already investing in revolucionary tech that could change the game in naval warfare.

Click to expand...

This is true. And actually, very exciting. But there has to be more than the high tech...there also has to be enough numbers and then a willingness to use those forces in such a way as to deter others. Not to mention the commitment to provide enough budget to adequately maintain, and provide training for all of that equiment.

kroko said:

I think that naval warfare is the strongest component of the US armed forces. Lets face it. The US will never let china use its navy against any nation (unless someone wants to block naval routes, but the US will never allow this).

Click to expand...

Again, never say never. We do not know what the long years ahead might bring.

kroko said:

China should focus on nuclear submarines and long-range stealth bombers instead of carriers and big destroyers. After all, their sea disputes are not that far from their shores.

Click to expand...

I think China is going to do both of those, as well as continue to build up a very strong, modern, capable, and large blue water fleet. They will field them all.

Jeff Head said:

Not even possible. Right now it has no airwing and until it does it will not even measrue up to the Spanish or Italian carriers.

But when it does, I believe that the French carrier will still be more versatile and powerful, and that the two Royal Navy carriers will be equally powerful.

Arguably, the Russian carrier will also be in the same league.

Never say never. History is long and replete with nations that had an unquestioned superiority on the sea, only to see decades later that power be eclipsed. One must remain ever vigilant to maintain such power...and right now, sadly for those of us here in America, the US is showing signs of not maintaining that type of vigilance.

This is true. And actually, very exciting. But there has to be more than the high tech...there also has to be enough numbers and then a willingness to use those forces in such a way as to deter others. Not to mention the commitment to provide enough budget to adequately maintain, and provide training for all of that equiment.

Again, never say never. We do not know what the long years ahead might bring.

I think China is going to do both of those, as well as continue to build up a very strong, modern, capable, and large blue water fleet. They will field them all.

Click to expand...

Exactly! You can't built a carrier in one day and certainly not an entire CSG nor one that is operationally effective. If there is one thing I think China and PLAN is good at is long term planning. Clearly PLAN is looking at decades and not years into the future. 20, 30, 40 yrs from now the world will be a very different place from today and CSG/s will be a very useful asset to have no matter what the world will look like then. By the time you need a carrier it would've been already be too late to start building one nevermind operating one even if you have tons of $$$ to throw around.

If you ask me PLAN doesn't really care if Liaoning is the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 10th best carrier in the world NOW (that is just for forum members to argue about )...what they care about is what will my fleet look like in 30 yrs? Will I have enough CSGs to support the nation's reaction to emergencies either man made or otherwise? That is what they are looking at and that is good planning on their part.

By then PLAN will not only have a few operational carriers in their fleet but would also have the experience in building, maintaning and more importantly operating carriers and use them to it's fullest potential.

Two things won't change no matter what. The Earth will ALWAYS be covered by mostly water and population density will ALWAYS congregate close to the shorelines. Heck if anything there will be even more water than land and even more people will continue to migrate to the coasts!

If a nation has a decent shoreline and goods and global trading are moved primarily by sea (which it will for many more generations) it would behoof any nation of significant economic might to have CSG nevermind the current #2 economic power in the world and potentially #1 in GDP. PERIOD! to not do so is simply irresponsible in my mind.

If I am China/PLAN I would also be doing the same exact thing as they are in building and cultivating CSGs. If anything I think they started about 10 years too late but now that they have actually started the ball rolling they will get there very soon.

kroko said:

bloomberg article about china´s aircraft carrier program.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What do you think of it?

Click to expand...

Shortsighted news articles are shortsighted. Going to reiterate what's already been said a bit. It's not the individual carrier that should be grabbing attention, but that the world's second (soon to be first) largest economy has a carrier program, and all indications suggest they've planned very comprehensively and over very long term. It's that fact, and not the Liaoning itself, which is significant. We always assess military capability on two factors; what's on hand, and what's in the pipelines. In China's case, a decade ago, they didn't have much on hand and a lot in the pipeline, so there was some skepticism they could deliver. Now they've managed to deliver most of what was in their pipeline then, so their future pipeline looks that much more serious and credible.

Also, It's pretty silly, especially for a Bloomberg article, to suggest that 13 billion dollars is anything resembling the word crippling for an economy the size of the US.

latenlazy said:

Shortsighted news articles are shortsighted. Going to reiterate what's already been said a bit. It's not the individual carrier that should be grabbing attention, but that the world's second (soon to be first) largest economy has a carrier program, and all indications suggest they've planned very comprehensively and over very long term. It's that fact, and not the Liaoning itself, which is significant. We always assess military capability on two factors; what's on hand, and what's in the pipelines. In China's case, a decade ago, they didn't have much on hand and a lot in the pipeline, so there was some skepticism they could deliver. Now they've managed to deliver most of what was in their pipeline then, so their future pipeline looks that much more serious and credible.

Also, It's pretty silly, especially for a Bloomberg article, to suggest that 13 billion dollars is anything resembling the word crippling for an economy the size of the US.

Click to expand...

Like I said before in regards to China, or anyone else, and it's weapons developments, it's all about the program. If the program is healthy, stable, and well funded, it can accomplish pretty much anything that's needed for the defense of a nation.