00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
The best way to entertain that notion imo is:
1. the CMPR's statement of "9 carriers by 2035" is likely a reflection of incompetence rather than some reflection of garnered intel
2. it's technically not impossible as of present, for them to have 9 carriers by 2035 "in some form" if they surprise us with more ambitious/speedy construction schedules
But what it does mean is that anyone citing the CMPR as a "gotcha" for "they'll have 9 carriers by 2035 and we should accept it be default as reasonable" is silly.
I think we should have the usual disclaimers about rumours and credibility first. But it does seem like some watchers are taking him rather seriously.
Here is what Shilao said: "If we define "003 mod" to be a conventional powered catapult aircraft carrier..."
Couple thoughts
1. Personally I put a lot of weight on Yankee, York, and other hints for their rumours. I think it's what Shilao is hinting at here too: that there will be a conventional CATOBAR constructed simultaneously with "that container ship".
2. If we assume "there will be a 'mass produced' (2+ more) conventional CATOBAR" to be true, then there are a few possibilities:
3. When Fujian was built, the extent of design integration for 6th gens and naval UADFs (yes, there is GJ-21) was certainly much more limited. By now, it would be difficult to justify a design that does not comprehensively account for them, otherwise they may run into a case of "服役即落后" (outdated on arrival).
Here is what Shilao said: "If we define "003 mod" to be a conventional powered catapult aircraft carrier..."
Couple thoughts
1. Personally I put a lot of weight on Yankee, York, and other hints for their rumours. I think it's what Shilao is hinting at here too: that there will be a conventional CATOBAR constructed simultaneously with "that container ship".
2. If we assume "there will be a 'mass produced' (2+ more) conventional CATOBAR" to be true, then there are a few possibilities:
- Type 003 (maybe with some minor changes ) is the "mass produced" model
- They will procure one more Type 003/mod before moving onto a newer model
- They move straight to the new model
3. When Fujian was built, the extent of design integration for 6th gens and naval UADFs (yes, there is GJ-21) was certainly much more limited. By now, it would be difficult to justify a design that does not comprehensively account for them, otherwise they may run into a case of "服役即落后" (outdated on arrival).
Last edited:
3-4 years at least, from 1982 to 1995 (CVN-70-CVN-75，1982-1998)
Fastest laid to launch date was the USS Stennis March 1991 to November 1993.
CV version of PANG makes little sense. 004s and 076s already offer a capable high-low combination.
Full carriers should be as general-purpose as possible and have enough built-in redundancy to accommodate technological and mission-profile changes over the 4-5 decades of their lifespan. Specialized carriers that are tailored for specific contemporary scenarios risk becoming stranded assets when situations change in the future.
Similar logic applies to the hypothetical 003A. Now that PLAN shows it is confident in CVN design, there is little justification for going back to CVs even for cost considerations. A uniform carrier fleet of standardized CVN design, following the tested path of the Nimitz, is the best way to go for optimal full life-span cost-capability balance.
The 003A hypothesis solely based on the Wuhan carrier island model wasn’t convincing to begin with. It would be a highly inefficient design, not to mention the ugliness, if it were to be built. China has proved that it pursues modern and efficient designs whenever possible and 003 proves it is capable of delivering such carrier designs. Going backwards is simply illogical.
I also don’t think there is a rush for China to crank out carriers at all. They should be viewed as just one element of China’s swift but rather steady military modernization and expansion. To date, this expansion has been almost strictly proportionate to its economic growth and growing security concerns as a result its global economic expansion.
In this regard, simultaneously building two carriers is not that necessary or likely either, unless China plans for a full naval war with US and its allies soon, or aims at twenty or more carriers in service eventually, or feels ok to have a lengthy gap in carrier construction after the initial production dash, or intends to send its carriers to scrapyard after just 30 or so years, or something even crazier.
Maintaining the workforce or technical know-how for carrier construction in more than one shipyard is not essential for China either. China, unlike the US, can simply order the state-owned shipyard to send half of its carrier-experienced workforce to another state-owned shipyard and share all its patented or unpatented know-how with the latter to open a second carrier construction line, just as it did during the Third Front Construction campaign of 1960s–1970s.
May not be about cost considerations but rate at which you can do force buildup, especially if they want to take some time to trial their first nuclear carrier before they commit to one design to mass produce. There is present need for more carriers than is currently available that would be better filled sooner rather than later.
Because the 076 is not a proper CV, but an LHD. Its main purpose is to launch and support amphibious assault missions against enemy beachheads, not to go into peer-to-peer high intensity combats with enemy naval forces on the high seas. It will neither become a proper CV, nor it will ever come close in terms of capabilities and performance to be comparable to proper CVs like even the Chinese STOBAR twins.
If the PLAN does see the high-low, nuclear-conventional dual-path to be viable for the foreseeable future, then going for Shandong-sized CVs (~60000-ton category) or Queen Elizabeth/PANG-sized CVs (~70000-ton category) certainly is a viable route.
Last edited:
new satellite picture
