We don't know what China will have in mind for its carrier fleet when it has had enough time to make more definite plans. In view of the very different political circumstances it is not a given that China will in say eight years decide that it will imitate the carrier fleet structure of US.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
China have surprised us in many things in many ways, personally I think they have done a good job planning their military growth based on their economic capability. But I do believe they have the capability to have 6 CBGs by 2035 if they are pushed by whatever situations. For US and her aliance in Pacific Ocean, they probably rather prepare for China having 6 CBGs by 2035 than 4 CBGs by 2035 after watching what have happened to PLAN in last decade.
But we aren't talking about carriers. We are talking about CBGs, which are vastly different entities. Even if CV-17 commissions in 2019, it only means the carrier is completely fitted out with the intended hardware and software by then. But the chance of it being ready and able to fight and operate as a carrier and as the leader of a task force in 2019 is 0%. The crew and air wing train-up time will lag by several years after that, so that a more realistic operational date for CV-17 is more like 2023-25. CV-18 2028-2030. CV-19 2033-35. That's 4 ready to go by 2035. If the PLAN wants to put carriers into the water sooner than every 5 years, then you could push it to 5 ready to go by 2035.
Jura The idiot
General
I'd be interested to know your guess regarding the number of major surface combatants by that time (2035), basically what I asked in the other thread Jul 28, 2017
(you've already handled the number of aircraft carriers, of course)
Lethe
Captain
I agree that CV-17 will not be at "full operational capability" when it is commissioned in (probably) 2019, but the subsequent "warm-up" period is difficult to assess and quantify. Hence, I would prefer to stick with the commissioning date as a definite milestone that provides a clear basis for comparison going forward.
I would also expect CV-17 to "warm up" significantly faster than CV-16. PLAN is undoubtedly far better prepared for CV-17 in terms of institutional and logistical support, training regimens, etc. than it was for CV-16. Additionally, I would expect PLAN to make direct use of trained crew, pilots, etc. from CV-16 in crewing CV-17. The resulting inconsistency in the length of the "warm-up" period is one of the reasons I prefer to stick with the commissioning date.
Lethe
Captain
If PLAN commissions two destroyers (055/052x) and two frigates (054x/057) each year to 2035 and only retains vessels <32 years old, by 2035 PLAN would have 55 destroyers and 65 frigates for a total of 120 major surface combatants (including the final two 053H3s commissioned in 2005).
This method has the advantage of avoiding most debates about force structure. However, I do expect PLAN to field a larger successor to 056 at some point, in the ~2500 ton range. To pull numbers out of the air, if the first such vessel (Type 058?) is commissioned in 2024 and production proceeds at two units per year, 22 such vessels would join the fleet by 2035. PLAN would therefore have ~140 surface combatants displacing >2000 tons in 2035, or a little under 200 missile-armed surface combatants total.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
thanks for your opinion
They will also have to look at technological change, which may move away from carrier aviation.
Since we are talking about CBGs and not carriers, if you stick with the commissioning date, you would be 100% wrong each time coming out of the gate. I think 4-6 years from commissioning for full carrier effectiveness is a more than reasonable number.
More sophisticated, expensive CATOBAR again more CVNs one all 5 years the plan can be for 5 - 6 but not before 2040's according my crystal ball
