PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Equation said:

So the elevators are located on the starboard side (right side) instead of the left like so many others? Interesting to say the least.

Click to expand...

Most carriers including the liaoning's elevators are usuaully located on the starboard side(right side) Only some U.S super carriers with a 3rd or 4th elevators is located on left side.

JayBird said:

This is what some military fan think 002 might look like. (from CD wen98)

Click to expand...

Only two cats.

If the carrier is to be in the 70,000+ range, I think they will have four cats.

Two cats is more fit for a smaller, 40,000 ton carrier like the Charles de Gualle:



I do not see this as being a credible Chinese design personally.

I'm not sure if this deserves its own thread or not, but what do you guys think about the idea that with missiles having ever greater sophistication, maybe the aircraft carrier is now becoming obsolete? It's clear the Chinese are trying to build their CV programme as cheaply and efficiently as possible, but even so, is it worth the expense for them? Why not put the same money into the submarine (nuclear and conventional) and the Type 55 destroyer programmes?





As the article right above suggests, maybe the PLAN shouldn't invest in nuclear super-carriers, but work on smaller, more nimble ones which have more diverse capabilities?

Qi_1528 said:

I'm not sure if this deserves its own thread or not, but what do you guys think about the idea that with missiles having ever greater sophistication, maybe the aircraft carrier is now becoming obsolete??

Click to expand...

This notion has been rehashed over and over again over here and elsewhere for the last ten years.

The best answer is that every single navy that can afford them...is building them. And that includes the major nations of the world with the best naval planners and technologists on the planet.

The US is building a new class of CATOBAR nuclear carriers.

The UK is building a new class of large STOBAR supercarriers.

The Chinese are building (or soon will be) a new large STOBAR supercarrier, and plan on building equally large or larger CATOBAR carriers.

The Japanese are building more and more VTOL carriers.

Korea is planning a new VTOL (perhaps STOL) carrier..

The Brazilians are talking about building a new large STOBAR carrier.

The Indians just launched a new, large STOBAR carrier and are planning to build an even larger CATOBAR carrier.

These nations are not doing this to just keep up with the Joneses. They have their best minds looking at the technologies, the threats, the defenses, and the capabilities they bring...and they are deciding to build. They know what they are doing.
Whenever they can afford it, the Russians continue to talk about a new supercarrier.

So...they are not outdated and obsolete yet...and I expect they will be around and very powerful military tools for the next fifty years...long after I am dead.

You young fellows can continue to debate it then...but short of having orbital bombardment capabilities, particularly with very capable laser, particle energy beams, and pin point capable rail guns in space...I think they will continue to be plowing the waves.

Jeff Head said:

This notion has been rehashed over and over again over here and elsewhere for the last ten years.

Click to expand...

I remember this as the super carrier versus sea control ship discussion in the 1970th, that is a little bit more than 10 years.

Intrepid said:

I remember this as the super carrier versus sea control ship discussion in the 1970th, that is a little bit more than 10 years.

Click to expand...

I was referring mainly to the discussions here on SD.

The arsenal ship was not really meant as a replacement for the carrier at the time. It was thought of as a ship with an arsenal of missiles suited for the purpose. The main intent was to replace the large volume fire support missions of the old battleships. Other uses included being used to defend carriers.

In truth, mainly theoretical people (mostly in universities and think tanks) have been arguing that the carrier is obsolete since the 1970s for sure...but cold pragmatism and reality have time and again shown that they are wrong.

Qi_1528 said:

I'm not sure if this deserves its own thread or not, but what do you guys think about the idea that with missiles having ever greater sophistication, maybe the aircraft carrier is now becoming obsolete? It's clear the Chinese are trying to build their CV programme as cheaply and efficiently as possible, but even so, is it worth the expense for them? Why not put the same money into the submarine (nuclear and conventional) and the Type 55 destroyer programmes?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As the article right above suggests, maybe the PLAN shouldn't invest in nuclear super-carriers, but work on smaller, more nimble ones which have more diverse capabilities?

Click to expand...

Everyone tries to over-apply the lessons from the fall of battleship and the rise of carriers without understanding *how* and *why* that transition happened. It wasn't just that planes were better offensive weapons, but that they made conventional naval platoons at the time completely indefensible. Some fundamentally new technology or arrangements of technology must have a similar impact in order to change the game entirely. It's not enough that missiles get more sophisticated. For missile technology to enable that kind of change, they would similarly have to make it completely impossible to defend carriers and their battle groups. That would have to be one hell of a missile technology.

Jeff Head said:

I was referring mainly to the discussions here on SD.

The arsenal ship was not really meant as a replacement for the carrier at the time. It was thought of as a ship with an arsenal of missiles suited for the purpose. The main intent was to replace the large volume fire support missions of the old battleships. Other uses included being used to defend carriers.

In truth, mainly theoretical people (mostly in universities and think tanks) have been arguing that the carrier is obsolete since the 1970s for sure...but cold pragmatism and reality have time and again shown that they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Or there simply hasn't been a conflict severe enough to test whether those theories are adequate to break the old paradigms. You'd need to wreck a lot of things to create that kind of opportunity.

I'm still holding to the true and tested theory that an 'inundated offense (ASBM) beats an inundated defense (carrier missile defense system) every time'.

Equation said:

I'm still holding to the true and tested theory that an 'inundated offense (ASBM) beats an inundated defense (carrier missile defense system) every time'.

Click to expand...

Hehehe...except there hasn't been a single "'inundated offense ASBM" time.

In addition, despite a lot of white papers and vehicles carrying missiles on ground, there has not been even a single live fire test of an inundated ASMB offense against a maneuvering target at sea. Not one.

Whereas there have been numerous successful tests of ship defensive missiles downing incoming missiles.

So...until the former is shown to be effective...numerous times...and not just in hitting a maneuvering target, but in being able to do so in high EW and defended conditions...it remains just theory and talk.

Equation said:

I'm still holding to the true and tested theory that an 'inundated offense (ASBM) beats an inundated defense (carrier missile defense system) every time'.

Click to expand...

Never that simple. The machine gun was an inundated offense that resulted in highly defense oriented warfare. It turns out there was an answer to the saturation of machine gun fire, which was the trench. What *really* matters is whether the countermeasure to a saturation offense is defensive or offensive in nature. It's offensive if it's about who can kill the other with saturation first. In other words, the offense is indefensible, so whoever can execute the offense better and faster wins. That's what happened with carriers, hence why we have supercarriers that focus on fast launch and sorties. It's defensive if the saturation becomes defensible. For example, if the countermeasure to saturation AShBMs is very quick anti-ballistic DEWs, that would be a defensive countermeasure, and we may see the balance tilt towards more defensive oriented naval combat rather than offensive oriented ones.

EDIT: I should add that it doesn't help that AShBMs are actually rather large objects. Their size both limits the density of saturation and makes them more vulnerable to counter measures. For them to truly have that indefensible quality that's often theorized, you would have to deliver greater payloads in much smaller packages.