PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

AndrewS said:

Well, let's have a think about how China would use a carrier.

For a low-end conflict where the other side can't shoot back, it doesn't really matter whether how large the air wing is. What matters is having enough carriers to always have one on station. Plus China is unlikely to start foreign wars in distant theatres like the USA.

For a high-end conflict, this is likely to occur in the Western Pacific close to mainland China.

Large, expensive nuclear powered carriers have the advantage of range, endurance, large airwings. But these attributes aren't all that useful when Chinese ports and Chinese airbases with bombers and tanker aircraft are closeby. In fact, carriers aren't all that useful given the presence of Chinese airbases on the mainland.

Click to expand...

I think that this is a dangerous assumption to make, to guess at how or where China would field her carriers. China's ultimate goal is to establish its own sphere of influence to contest the United States' in the Western Pacific. Remember, you can't use SSBN's effectively in shallow waters, which is why China needs unfettered access to the Pacific, so they can field a submarine-based nuclear deterrance.

By the time Chinese aircraft carriers reach a fair level of maturity, it'll be well into the 2020's or even the 2030's. The one very important consideration to make is this: By 2030, will China still be confined to conflicts in regional waters, or will they have broken out of the first island chain to rival the US directly?

2017 to 2030 is 13 years, and 13 years is a long time, so personally I would bet on the latter. I think that by 2030 China would have started to operate in the Pacific Ocean, and if they are to challenge the United States in terms of military power, they will need equipment that is close to or on par.

I believe that the PLAN has this long-term vision in mind. I feel that, by the end of China's game of carrier catch-up, they will not settle for any CV less capable than one of 80,000+ tons displacement.

kroko said:

He makes some interesting remarks. He talks about how the 002 displacement shouldnt exceed 68000t due to the power limitations of the rumored 200000 hp (which is the same as liaoning AFAIK). He also talks about the fact that, for the 002 carrier, the chinese military choose a design is that is derivated from 001A design, rejecting another, totaly new, design. IMO, all this points to a smaller and conservative carrier that people may have thought otherwise. Of course, this is all rumours AFAIK.

What do you think of it?

Click to expand...

I don't believe the power plant is limiting the size of the carrier.
China has been building power plant like crazy in the last 20 years with domestic component and engineering, construction. So much so that now there is so much surplus in electricity than they know what to do with it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— China added

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3 gigawatts more than it added in 2013. That is equivalent to three 1,000 megawatt units every four weeks.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added about two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years. And, China is expected to add the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for the next 10 years. These new coal plants that China is constructing are more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

than their old coal-fired plants.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The power industry base is well developed. And building A frame boiler is not big deal and so do the steam turbine and other accessories like feedwater heater, water treatment plant etc.

It more of expediency they want to build the carrier fast. And capitalizing on experience renovating Liaoning, reduce the uncertainty of new design and shorten time from design to commission

f

FORBIN said:

And justely no, coz one the main advantage of US CVN is they are able to catapult and receive/landing in the same time, ofc only 2 front cats available, make sense China want it and with cats of 15 m in more i don' t see enough room for a futur CV presumably more small or to max same length...

Design matters but with ridiculous qty infos we have in more a futur and nothing sure right now impossible to say.

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

And justely no, coz one the main advantage of US CVN is they are able to catapult and receive/landing in the same time, ofc only 2 front cats available, make sense China want it and with cats of 15 m in more i don' t see enough room for a futur CV presumably more small or to max same length...

Design matters but with ridiculous qty infos we have in more a futur and nothing sure right now impossible to say.

Click to expand...

Meantime other thing not only design, employment, operations on the deck with aircrafts to consider and with a cat of 106 m ! when cat are used less space for aicrafts, even with only 2 cats used several aircrafts in less and definitely will hinder near the elevator close to front cat.

To consider also the size of the stricke, number of fighters to launch and or these Air Naval tactics quite sure US are the best from WWII they know do...

Higgle said:

I believe that the PLAN has this long-term vision in mind. I feel that, by the end of China's game of carrier catch-up, they will not settle for any CV less capable than one of 80,000+ tons displacement.

Click to expand...

In 30 years Chinese aircraft carrier will protect the freedom of sea routes from China through the Nicaragua Canal to Europe.

AndrewS said:

Well, let's have a think about how China would use a carrier.

For a low-end conflict where the other side can't shoot back, it doesn't really matter whether how large the air wing is. What matters is having enough carriers to always have one on station. Plus China is unlikely to start foreign wars in distant theatres like the USA.

For a high-end conflict, this is likely to occur in the Western Pacific close to mainland China.

Large, expensive nuclear powered carriers have the advantage of range, endurance, large airwings. But these attributes aren't all that useful when Chinese ports and Chinese airbases with bombers and tanker aircraft are closeby. In fact, carriers aren't all that useful given the presence of Chinese airbases on the mainland.

Anyway, if China were to standardise on 67000ton carriers, an airwing of 36 jets should still be able to conduct AEW, air superiority operations and ISR missions.

And it is the ISR sensor missions which are key.

==

Plus if a Liaoning sized aircraft carrier only costs $2-3B, does it mean China could spend $9B for 3 carriers with an airwing of 108 aircraft?

That compares to $10B for a Ford-class carrier with 60-odd aircraft.

Click to expand...

=

Totally agree. I think that the only signal China will send in developing a nuclear powered super carrier is to show intention in other theatres. That would not seem to be the priority right now. So more small carriers would suit China's needs. And with the much maligned Spratly islands, and planes stationed there, they would have effective coverage over the whole region without large blue water fleets. But they will continue to develop their technologies and EMALS should be a feature in the next carrier. Maybe even a nuclear powered mini carrier just to show they can do it.

AndrewS said:

Plus if a Liaoning sized aircraft carrier only costs $2-3B, does it mean China could spend $9B for 3 carriers with an airwing of 108 aircraft?

That compares to $10B for a Ford-class carrier with 60-odd aircraft.

Click to expand...

A Ford (or Nimitz) class carrier can easily carry in excess of 90 aircraft. That the Nimitz class currently carry 60-70 aircraft is only indicative of the types of conflicts they face now.

In any major war scenario they would most probably be carrying the 90 aircraft loads seen during the cold war.

In addition, they are (particularly the Ford class) designed for sustainability and maximizing air operations and sortie rates.

90 aircraft operating off of a Ford would be far more effective and sustainable in terms of sortie rate.

fatfreddy said:

=

Totally agree. I think that the only signal China will send in developing a nuclear powered super carrier is to show intention in other theatres. That would not seem to be the priority right now. So more small carriers would suit China's needs. And with the much maligned Spratly islands, and planes stationed there, they would have effective coverage over the whole region without large blue water fleets. But they will continue to develop their technologies and EMALS should be a feature in the next carrier. Maybe even a nuclear powered mini carrier just to show they can do it.

Click to expand...

They will not build such a carrier "just to show they can do it."

The PRC planners, and particularly the PLAN planners are much more forward thinking and dediated to the long term than that.

I expect we will see China ultimately maintain probably six carriers, starting like this:

001 Liaoning STOBAR 65,000 tons
001A STOBAR, 70,000 tons
002 Conventional Power, Steam Cat, CATOBAR 80,000 tons
003 Conventional Power, Steam Cat, CATOBAR 80,000 tons
004 Nuclear w/EMALS CATOBAR, 90,000 tons
005 Nuclear W/EMALS CATOBAR, 90,000 tons

And then continuing on with Nuclear carriers as they replace the first four over the years.

Here is my own speculation:

001: STOBAR; conventional power; 65,000 tons; 2012
001A: STOBAR; conventional power; 65,000 tons; 2019
002: CATOBAR (EM cat); conventional power; 75,000 tons; 2024
003: CATOBOAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 90,000 tons; 2030
004: CATOBOAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 100,000 tons; 2035
005: CATOBOAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 100,000 tons; 2040
006: CATOBAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 100,000 tons; 2045
007: same as above, replaces 001; 2050

A long term goal of 7 carriers would allow a constant 2 carrier on-station presence anywhere in the world.

Iron Man said:

Here is my own speculation:

001: STOBAR; conventional power; 65,000 tons; 2012
001A: STOBAR; conventional power; 65,000 tons; 2019
002: CATOBAR (EM cat); conventional power; 75,000 tons; 2024
003: CATOBOAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 90,000 tons; 2030
004: CATOBOAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 100,000 tons; 2035
005: CATOBOAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 100,000 tons; 2040
006: CATOBAR (EM cat); nuclear power; 100,000 tons; 2045
007: same as above, replaces 001; 2050

A long term goal of 7 carriers would allow a constant 2 carrier on-station presence anywhere in the world.

Click to expand...

Properly maintained, six carriers can easily allow two on station at all times too...and have a surge capability to four.

But, looking out to 2050 as you are, who knows. They could certainly field seven by that date easily if that was their planning.

Jeff Head said:

Properly maintained, six carriers can easily allow two on station at all times too...and have a surge capability to four.

But, looking out to 2050 as you are, who knows. They could certainly field seven by that date easily if that was their planning.

Click to expand...

Having 6 carriers then they'd have the capability to maintain a smoother turnover cycle (on duty-maintenace-training) while having 2 carriers on duty at any one time, but by then Liaoning will be in a situation that it can no longer serves as dedicated training vessel anymore, as by then the PLAN already moved on to CATOBAR operation. Thus it'd be interesting as to what will they do with it.