J-XDS is quite a bit wider in wingspan than J-15s but probably a bit shorter cause no tail sting.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Makes deck arrangement during taxiing for takeoff a little trickier, but wing-fold should still be roughly same width.
well double the CWIS is double the defense in any given angle. and also redundancy. currently if a single CWIS is damaged the entire arc it covers becomes completely undefended.
for example the 055 has a single CWIS infront and another one in the rear if the fornt one gets damaged the 055 is now completely defenseless in its forward arc at all.
that's true though the fact is CWIS ammo frankly doesn't take all that much more space. and lets say china builds the 004 at 110k t displacement and has 4 CWIS across its 4 corners. would it really be that much costly to have just built a 115k t carrier that could carry 8? barely any cost difference but double the defence capability and redundancy
lcloo
Major
AN aircraft carrier is protected by layer defenses, the outer most layer layers are the fighter jets with PL-12 and PL-10 aam, then there is area defense provided by HHQ9 long range SAM from destroyers that covers layer that reach out to 200 to 300km, closer in is a defense ring covered by HQ-16, any attacking missiles the break through these layers will be intercepted by HHQ-10, 30mm CIWS, 76mm guns and 130mm guns. Then there are soft kills like electronic counter measure and decoy.
Above air defenses are provided by fighter jets, destroyers and frigates.
The number of the remnant of attacking missiles that break through all the outer defense layers would be very small, if they did break through, then the aircraft carrier's own CIWS should be numerically sufficient to do the final interception. Also the aircraft carrier has its own soft kill capability.
The best air defense for the aircraft carrier is not from the ship itself but from the escort ships and the fighter jets.
thats all fine and good but why is anyone risking a multi billion dollar warship on a "should be" when you can double its personal defense with minimal cost increase? any way you cut it the fact is that there is no significant downside to adding more CWIS.
lcloo
Major
Because it is unnecessary, in the CV battle group itself, there are more than a dozen CIWS for final terminal defense. And probably more than 100 HQ-10 missiles ready to fire.
Last edited:
lmfao what? and the us has more than enough airdefence to protect its air bases from iranian missiles.
how tf do you know if its enough? is it enough for the sailors that are onboard the ships when the missiles are inbound? is it enough for their families at home? i wonder if you will think its enough if you were the one standing on the deck of the ships as hundreds of anti ship missiles are flying your way...
here's the facts. there has been no modern naval engagements and nobody knows whats actually "enough". and as recent conflicts show anti misisle defense is woefully inadequate. you will NOT know if its"enough" untill either all the enemy misisles have been shot down or your ships are all beneath the waves. there is no significant cost increase from adding more CWIS so it is better safe then sorry.
lcloo
Major
You are now arguing for arguing sack instead of being rational. Period.lmfao what? and the us has more than enough airdefence to protect its air bases from iranian missiles.
how tf do you know if its enough? is it enough for the sailors that are onboard the ships when the missiles are inbound? is it enough for their families at home? i wonder if you will think its enough if you were the one standing on the deck of the ships as hundreds of anti ship missiles are flying your way...
here's the facts. there has been no modern naval engagements and nobody knows whats actually "enough". and as recent conflicts show anti misisle defense is woefully inadequate. you will NOT know if its"enough" untill either all the enemy misisles have been shot down or your ships are all beneath the waves. there is no significant cost increase from adding more CWIS so it is better safe then sorry.
buddy you have had zero response other than "i think it would be enough" sit down
@Antares545 , first of all it is CIWS, not CWIS.
Generally speaking, the reason most navies do not pursue up arming major combatants with more of these types of weapons is two-fold. They don't think more are necessarily cost-effective for the task at hand, and they also prefer to not have to rely on them anyway.
Large missile saturation attacks is not a new concept or thing, back in the cold war days it was considered a major threat. The soviet navy doctrinally fielded more CIWS systems per ship, but this was done because their accuracy was expected to be much, much lower than comparable western systems. Nowadays, they are back to 1-2 systems per ship in new construction projects.
The idea that PLAN is throwing caution in the wind for not fielding more CIWS systems per ship is in my honest opinion misguided. By doubling the number of CIWS per ship you are not doubling your defense capabilities. That is not how missile defense works.
Lastly, I suggest you consider adjusting and policing your prose, before you get banned for shitting up a flagship thread like this. cheers.
Generally speaking, the reason most navies do not pursue up arming major combatants with more of these types of weapons is two-fold. They don't think more are necessarily cost-effective for the task at hand, and they also prefer to not have to rely on them anyway.
Large missile saturation attacks is not a new concept or thing, back in the cold war days it was considered a major threat. The soviet navy doctrinally fielded more CIWS systems per ship, but this was done because their accuracy was expected to be much, much lower than comparable western systems. Nowadays, they are back to 1-2 systems per ship in new construction projects.
The idea that PLAN is throwing caution in the wind for not fielding more CIWS systems per ship is in my honest opinion misguided. By doubling the number of CIWS per ship you are not doubling your defense capabilities. That is not how missile defense works.
Lastly, I suggest you consider adjusting and policing your prose, before you get banned for shitting up a flagship thread like this. cheers.