PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

MwRYum said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've always maintained the belief that it is misleading to think of Liaoning as a dedicated training vessel or a dedicated training carrier.

Rather, I think it is far more accurate to say that it is the Chinese Navy's "seed carrier". This means it is meant to initially operate as a carrier whose primary mission is to train and familiarize as many crew and pilots as possible with most aspects of carrier operations, and to allow the Navy to develop operating procedures and doctrine. During this early stage, the Navy will likely only have Liaoning in service (i.e.: the present), and will maintain the ability to be deployed for combat operations if urgently required but would not be sent for such missions normally.
Later on, once more carriers enter service such as 001A and 002, Liaoning should have familiarized and trained enough crew and pilots to allow the Navy to more confidently operate multiple carriers in a more regular way where they no longer need a seed platform to develop the key knowledge and initial procedures and doctrine, and by then Liaoning will probably operate as a standard carrier as it was always meant to be.


I think a good comparison for Liaoning's seed role is the initial two 052C class destroyers -- they were the Chinese Navy's first aegis type warships and likely provided an immense advancement in capability over previous combatant classes.

There was also a significant gap in construction between the first pair of 052Cs and the subsequent four 052Cs and eventual 052Ds -- part of this reason was likely because JN's move to a new greenfield shipyard, but another contributing reason was likely because the Navy wanted some time to familiarize itself with the new capabilities of the 052C, work out the kinks, and to develop doctrines and procedures for operating such a warship and to get as many crew aboard the 052C so they can adequately crew future larger numbers of aegis type warships.
Of course, as more 052Cs and 052Ds have entered service, DDG 170 and DDG 171 have now become regular destroyers in the Navy's overall order of battle, having fulfilled their early seed role as the Navy's only first two aegis type warships.

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...

7 carriers gives you 1 in long term refit at all times while rotating 2 on station, 2 undergoing refueling/routine maintenance, and 2 in training/en route to station. The last two could be surged on demand on short notice.

By way of a comparison, the USN requires 11 carriers to maintain 3 on station at all times. In the last several years since the retirement of the Enterprise, the USN has had to make due with 10 and has been complaining (loudly) that it cannot constantly maintain 3 on station (and also that it is a Congressional mandate to have 11 carriers), and that there have been frequent gaps in coverage during this time. So it seems that you need somewhere between a 1:3 and 1:4 ratio for carriers, and other larger ships. It's a similar ratio for SSBNs, which is why France, UK and China all have 4 SSBNs so that at least one is on station at all times.

Personally I think in the long term the USN needs to downsize to 7 or 8 carriers at the most, for a 2-carrier presence, one in the Middle East and one the Western Pacific. The US military in general needs to similarly downsize (i.e. by about one-third), because we are heading full-speed towards a fiscal deficit cliff that will implode the US economy; this has to be done in addition to capping/cutting entitlement spending like Welfare and Medicaid, and closing tax loopholes for the ultra-rich. Unfortunately, I think Congress is too cowardly to do any of this and we will soon experience a dollar crisis or even collapse such as never seen in modern US history. /rantoff

Iron Man said:

7 carriers gives you 1 in long term refit at all times while rotating 2 on station, 2 undergoing refueling/routine maintenance, and 2 in training/en route to station. The last two could be surged on demand on short notice.

By way of a comparison, the USN requires 11 carriers to maintain 3 on station at all times. In the last several years since the retirement of the Enterprise, the USN has had to make due with 10 and has been complaining (loudly) that it cannot constantly maintain 3 on station (and also that it is a Congressional mandate to have 11 carriers), and that there have been frequent gaps in coverage during this time. So it seems that you need somewhere between a 1:3 and 1:4 ratio for carriers, and other larger ships. It's a similar ratio for SSBNs, which is why France, UK and China all have 4 SSBNs so that at least one is on station at all times

Click to expand...

I personally think that in the 2030-2040 time scale, China should seek to have enough carriers (and escorts) so it can deploy one carrier for "blue water operations" (say Gulf of Aden and around Africa/Middle East) and another for "local water operations" (aka westpac), while having the capability to surge to 2-3 carriers for "local" operations if needed.

For such a requirement, I think a 6 carrier fleet would be relatively sufficient, because only 1 carrier would be truly deployed in blue water at any one time, while 1 carrier is operating close to friendly waters, and that leaves 4 carriers to be in refit, training, etc, and of those 4 carriers only 1-2 of them would be expected to be able conduct operations in local waters in a "surge" scenario.

Iron Man said:

Personally I think in the long term the USN needs to downsize to 7 or 8 carriers at the most ...

Click to expand...

... and the Chinese will grow up until the day, they are equal. Since 2005 with Varyag becoming Liaoning we are watching this development, that will last fifty years from now and is planned so from the beginning (1985 with R21 Melbourne going for scrap to China).

so, if China and the US would cooperate (co-leadership) ... lets say in 2030 when both countries would be roughly the same economically (nominal GDP) and Chinese military roughly 60% of the US strength ... they would be able to joint PATROL ..., perhaps together with India and Russia, UK and France (junior partners). If it is the case (hopeful), resources can be shared and saved ..... so the US wouldn't need 11 carriers ... perhaps 7 carriers would be enough and China would need 6-7

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...

Liaoning presumably yet retired, Varyag initialy "stored" in Ukraine during 15 years... and definitely don' t have a life time very long, in more not quality than a US.

7 seems right now very optimistic, in majority of reports i see max 4 same as India, for 2030/35 about.

antiterror13 said:

so, if China and the US would cooperate (co-leadership) ... lets say in 2030 when both countries would be roughly the same economically (nominal GDP) and Chinese military roughly 60% of the US strength ... they would be able to joint PATROL ..., perhaps together with India and Russia, UK and France (junior partners). If it is the case (hopeful), resources can be shared and saved ..... so the US wouldn't need 11 carriers ... perhaps 7 carriers would be enough and China would need 6-7

Click to expand...

Many assumptions.... and i don' t see by ex a Chinese CV help against ISIS with NATO, too isolated of others in more exist always Arms embargo.

For to be considered as other China need change as she have do for economy but not for politic, no election etc...

China does not need the same ratio of total:deployed carriers (and other vessels...) as US does because likely theatres of operation are closer to home. A 1:2 ratio would suffice for operations within the Asia-Pacific region, i.e. four carriers to maintain two deployed. Deployments further afield would require the 1:3 ratio that US uses, but such will comprise only a minor part of Chinese strategic planning for the forseeable future. In the long-term (i.e. 2040 and beyond) I think China's requirements could be serviced by a half-dozen supercarriers.

New favorite pics of J-15s on deck on the Liaoning:

...more: