CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
@Blitzio , @Kwaigonegin , @Vesicles , @JeffHead

Wow, everyone's jumping my previous post. I am just saying China might be streamlining and slowing down their carrier program, not cancelling it.
....
First of all, don't feel cornered or anything, I think you will not. I think it is just that so many people disagree with you on this one, including me. Actually, I was thinking of jumping on you myself but stopped at seeing that others are "beating" you up. :D

Seriously, China is actually on a tight schedule for her CV program, cancelling is out of the question, even slowing down is not acceptable. This kind of program is a long term thing, slowing down for a few years means capability gap when China need it, turning to a higher gear some time later to compensate today's slowing down is dangerous as nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. CV program was always a high priority, not something the political leadership pressed the Navy (you said that?, ignore it if I am wrong) but rather the other way around. Remember that Liu Huaqing was a staunch supporter of the CV program decades ago, he was the commander of the Navy and later the vice-chairman of the military commission whose seniority was only after Deng Xiaoping within the military.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@Blitzio , @Kwaigonegin , @Vesicles , @JeffHead

Wow, everyone's jumping my previous post. I am just saying China might be streamlining and slowing down their carrier program, not cancelling it.

Just for the record, the part of your post I was saying "wtf" about was your stated belief that China doesn't need any carriers at all...

I don't think the PLAN needs any carriers period, but we've gone through that before.


The rest of your positions that you held about carriers potentially drawing away resources from other domains of procurement, etc, I have no particular opinion about, but I can only say that I think you're interpreting the tea leaves of China's domestic and international demands and missions for the medium term future incorrectly.
 

abc123

Junior Member
Registered Member
Seriously, China is actually on a tight schedule for her CV program, cancelling is out of the question, even slowing down is not acceptable. This kind of program is a long term thing, slowing down for a few years means capability gap when China need it, turning to a higher gear some time later to compensate today's slowing down is dangerous as nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. CV program was always a high priority, not something the political leadership pressed the Navy (you said that?, ignore it if I am wrong) but rather the other way around. .

Fully agreed.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
GUys, we have an old thread regarding Chinese catapult development. It started as just EMALs, but we should have a separate thread for Chinese/PLAN catapoult development.

It is here:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ch...ncluding-tujiatang-emals-test-facility.t5839/

I moved the posts discussing it there, and ask that we make that the place for detailed discussion on Chinese Catapult development and deployment.

Thanks.

Jeff Head
SD Super Moderator
 

bruceb1959

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, if everyone disagrees with you, you might want to rethink your theory...


First of all, they have waited. If you look at the timelines of their weapons development programs, you will see that they patiently waited, studied and planned all their projects based on their financial and technical situations. They started their carrier program way after they started everything else. Heck, they left the CV-16 alone and untouched for almost a decade without doing anything to it (nothing visible to us at least). So they have waited. And based on their assessment of their overall economic, political and military conditions as well as their technical readiness, they feel that it is now a good time to go full throttle on the carrier program. So that's why they are going full steam ahead on the CV-17.

Secondly, China is at a stage of its economic development, where they can afford to do all these things simultaneously. In fact, they have been tackling multiple high-profile weapons development programs without affecting their economic development.



They are doing all these things as we speak. are we not seeing the commissioning of Type 052Ds almost on a bimonthly basis? What about all those 056's? Just take a close look at the SDF's Navy page. You will see how busy the PLAN is.

You cannot emphasize one and ignore the other. All these systems, including the carriers, destroyers, SSNs, etc, must be integrated together in order to maximize their efficacy. You can't focus solely on destroyers and ignore the carriers, just as you cannot ignore the destroyers and focus exclusively on the carriers.

It may look slow at first because they have to develop all these systems simultaneously: one carrier, plus a few destroyers, plus a few SSNs, etc. It certainly won't be as fast as coming up with dozens of destroyers and SSNs within a year's time if they slow down their carrier development. However, those new highly advanced destroyers, which have been designed to escort carriers as one of their most important missions, would be used to only partial of their optimal capabilities. And without carriers, they can also be vulnerable to attacks. And obviously, without proper escort, carriers will also be vulnerable.

So you need all systems integrated together to maximize their offensive and defensive capabilities. It may look slow, but every system commissioned will be maximized to its full capacity and well-protected. then every new addition would be a solid advancement to their overall capabilities. They are building a solid foundation. Every brick added will be as solid as it can be, instead of just throwing bricks to a loose pile.

'Well, if everyone disagrees with you, you might want to rethink your theory...' just because people disagree with a theory, does not necessarily invalidate it. projected build rates for the carriers have been posited on this forum on numerous occasions but who are we to say those rates are correct. The arguments are very subjective, based on our interpretations of PLAN requirements. Now those interpretations may be correct or not. Only time will tell.
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
According i know officially China want same number as India 3, 2 new after...

CV 002 normaly a CATOBAR with EMALS cats and possible based on Ulyanovsk normaly they have plans about 320 m, 80/85000 t full as a Kitty Hawk or Kennedy the more big CV.

More big elevators can be interesting for host 2 J-15.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
'Well, if everyone disagrees with you, you might want to rethink your theory...' just because people disagree with a theory, does not necessarily invalidate it. projected build rates for the carriers have been posited on this forum on numerous occasions but who are we to say those rates are correct. The arguments are very subjective, based on our interpretations of PLAN requirements. Now those interpretations may be correct or not. Only time will tell.

Of course all "theories" or ideas that we come up with are based on our own subjective ways of interpreting information.

In this case, if everyone is disagreeing with the theory/idea that someone is coming up with, then that suggests there is either a discrepancy in the interpretation of information, or that there is a discrepancy of the information that is being interpreted in the first place.


So when vesicles "well if everyone disagrees with you, you might want to rethink your theory" is really just another way of saying "reconsidering how you're interpreting the information". It's all well and good to say all interpretation is subjective, but to paraphrase vesicles, "if everyone is interpreting the information differently to you, you might want to reconsider how you're interpreting the information".


This is no longer 2006, when reliable information about the Chinese programme was scarce and limited and populated by fanboyism careening in all directions into the dark. The reliable rumours and even some photo and physical evidence, along with some official statements that we have to work with, now in 2016 is so much more than what we had in 2006.
Combine that with other aspects of Chinese military and navy modernization that we've seen over the years and how it is expected to continue, as well as China's overall geopolitical and military requirements, then yes I do think there is a consensus which can be reached with everything that we have.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
This is no longer 2006, when reliable information about the Chinese programme was scarce and limited and populated by fanboyism careening in all directions into the dark. The reliable rumours and even some photo and physical evidence, along with some official statements that we have to work with, now in 2016 is so much more than what we had in 2006.
Combine that with other aspects of Chinese military and navy modernization that we've seen over the years and how it is expected to continue, as well as China's overall geopolitical and military requirements, then yes I do think there is a consensus which can be reached with everything that we have.

The main problem is some, severals members going for forecasts for 2050, it is not serious in more with China we don' t get facts, infos, datas enough serious for such forecasts ofc !!!
More safe envisage for around 2030, 3 CV.

According i know officially China want same number as India 3, 2 new after...

CV 002 normaly a CATOBAR with EMALS cats and possible based on Ulyanovsk normaly they have plans about 320 m, 80/85000 t full as a Kitty Hawk or Kennedy the more big CV.

More big elevators can be interesting for host 2 J-15.
Chinese military Zhang Junshe have say China need at less 3, talking for MOD 31/12/2015..
Ofc Liaoning + 001A + 002 and an eventual CVN 003 but for 2030+ and at this time replace Liaoning so 3 aircrafts carrier.

I have never see a 002A.
 
Top