Intrepid
Major
This is self-censorship.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Actually it is not. dimensionally their flight decks are almost the same in terms of length, flight deck area, beam etc. Ford is just redesigned different with smaller island and placement further aft, elimination of an elevator and of course externally the biggest different would be the expansion of aft modules for workshops etc.
The idea behind Ford class is not just incorporating new technologies but to increase sortie rates w/o any big increase in actual hull dimension. It other words make it more efficient w/o much increase in size.
Big is good but efficient is better. Personally I do not see carriers getting any bigger than these because there is a point of diminishing return after that.
these photos are amazing. for a country that hasn't built an aircraft carrier before, or any military vessel of this size, they sure look like they know what they are doing! the speed, the efficiency and their shipyards are impressive.
I think I is an attempt to mask details is all.
As I said, the Ford class is about 4ft wider on the flight deck...which given the entire width, is slight.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I always rolled my eyes whenever people brought up the "never built a ship like it before" factor as some lame pretext to put down China.
Would they ever think that a factor for when a western country says they are going to build something entirely new, or something bigger/taller/longer/whatever than anything before? Of course not.
So why must it always be a factor for China? Despite the countless real life recent examples to the contrary? Only those wilfully blind cannot see it for what it is.
The point of diminishing return will probably also depend on available technologies in a country and on strategic considerations and will be lower for China than for US.
Can you elaborate on that? I doubt it and strongly question the assertion. I suppose we're talking about construction and operation cost and efficiency, and battle field effectiveness. How is the optimal tradeoff point different between China and the US?
By the way, I always question the notion that all China aims for is 4 - 6 carriers and anything beyond is excessive and China has no need for them, unlike the US. I don't think the Chinese leadership and navy planners are seriously thinking anything beyond six carriers now since that's still far into the future, but to rule out the needs and possibilities of more than six carriers in the longer term (beyond 2030) is irresponsible.
Most NATO nations build their armament to complement the US, not to compete with; outside NATO, most nations can not even hope for nor can afford it to build to the same scale.
China stands on its own, has increasingly the national interest and strategic needs to develop the military capabilities that go with it. It will also have the resources to fund them. It will take time, for sure.
Fortunately, the Chinese leadership and PLA leadership have the right vision. Even at this early stage, we're seeing China plans to build a 12,000 ton class destroyer (055), not limiting it to under 10,000 tons just because Burke is; we're also seeing the 901 class supply ship under construction likely to exceed 50,000 tons; we've also heard and are seeing signs that China's first LHD will be around 40,000 tons, far exceeding all other nations and approaching the Wasp-class.
At this point, China still has considerable technology gaps and may not need the same quantity as the US in many armament, but that doesn't mean China aims or should aim for less quality.
Intrepid
Major
In thirty years, China is world power number one, and for adequate military equipment the foundation is now laid. I call this farsighted.
In thirty years, China has the same need for aircraft carriers such as the United States now, assuming no other technology replaces these expensive vessels.
In thirty years, China has the same need for aircraft carriers such as the United States now, assuming no other technology replaces these expensive vessels.
- Status