Not 2015. First steel cut in June 2017, first modules observed a year later. And don't forget the hefty input of COVID restrictions.
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter AETHER
- Start date
Intrepid
Major
The Nimitzs are optimised to fight wars like Vietnam. They are already post cold war carriers.
Doubtful. The Nimitz-class got their designs finalized in the 1960s at the latest, i.e. during the height of the Cold War.
Last edited:
Soviets and British tried that idea. Kiev carried heavy P-500 ASMs while Invincibles carried a VLS for long range Sea Dart SAMs.
It wasn't considered very good. it seems that fighter flight decks and long range missile requirements conflict with each other. I think one way is that for example, VLS go deep into the hull, so a VLS battery will reduce space for a hangar.
Even if you need to build a faster carrier, just build a smaller flattop like a Type 075/076 or even another Liaoning/Shandong, and if you really need to combine aviation and missiles, a helicopter destroyer is still better than a fighter launching flattop with missiles.
Also note that both Invincible and Kiev had STOVL planes, which China does not have.
We aren't in the WW2-era anymore.
The closest example to the "cruiser-sized" flat-deck ship would be the Giuseppe Garibaldi at 180 meters long, 33 meters wide and displaces around 14000 tons after her 2003 MLU. But that ship is only capable of carrying at most 16x AV-8Bs, and the AV-8B is definitely smaller in size and weight compared to all other carrier-based fighters in service today (F/A-18, J-15, MiG-29K, F-35).
Besides, trying to cramp not just 20x modern fighters, but also helicopters, VLS cells, alongside all the necessary systems required for both simultaneous aviation and surface combat in a hull with less than 20000 tons of displacement... I don't think any further elaboration is needed to show how bad that idea is. @FairAndUnbiased has also dived into this side of the discussion.
Unless, either your fighter jet is derived from JL-10 or Tejas, or that your cruiser in the "cruiser-sized" phrase is that of the Kirov-class - 20 fighter jets on a "cruiser-sized" ship is pretty much impossible today.
Invincibles had a twin-arm launcher for Sea Dart not a VLS. And Sea Dart was removed during MLU for all 3 of the class.
Both the 075 and 076 are LHDs. They will never be used for naval combat operations on the high seas against peer enemy forces.
In the meantime, if Beijing really does want to expand her carrier fleet massively and rapidly without furiously ramping up supercarrier production, then a CATOBAR variant of Shandong CV would be the only viable option to pursuit.
Last edited:
Twin arm is even worse as it takes up more deck space and can't launch all missiles.
It was 2015.
Even if it did begin in 2017, that's still 6 years. This is similar to the Nimitz class, which took around 6 to 7 years from being laid down to being commissioned.
Gerald R. Ford classes take even longer.
China is skilled at building ships, but 100,000 ton, 300 meter ships will always take years for anyone to complete.
Really? (Carrier) Captain Scott Shuger in late 1980s;
"Even a 28-carrier fleet would not ensure the success of wartime operations involving carriers. The navy's scenarios for those operations are unrealistic. For example, they fail to allow for degradation of carriers' defensive capabilities as hits accumulate, imperfect weather conditions, conflicts between the power projection and air defense missions, and potential changes in the composition of Soviet bomber and submarine forces.
[...]
Carriers and their battle groups are awesome instruments of war, but they are not juggernauts, as their supporters claim; the amount of offensive power they can wield would be unlikely to affect the outcome of an attack on the Soviet Union. Furthermore, their financial cost is staggering, and their cost to the navy in both resources consumed and other ships not built is considerable.
Carriers have rendered enormous services to the nation and still have a role to perform. But in view of the above considerations, that role does not consist of lingering off the coast of a country deemed hostile for the purpose of signaling that the United States has menacing intentions. Procuring additional large-deck carriers with that purpose in mind would be unwise
From the 1970s onward aircraft carrier could not defend against missiles from that time. Aircraft carriers from the 1970 onward were also vulnerable against submarines including SSK. This is one of several reasons why Soviet Union did not build aircraft carriers but submarines and advanced missile systems. With today´s long-range hypersonic missiles there is no doubt aircraft carriers are extra-ordinary vulerable. China and Russia are the only countries with hypersonics missiles and they built them to destroy American ships and in particular aircraft carriers. I do not dismiss aircraft carriers but as many naval officers point out - the U.S. supercarriers are to some extent obsolete as a strike-weapon against a peer-enemy such as Soviet Union in the past or the China and Russia today.
In a potential war between China and the United States I promise you that China will not send out any of it´s aircraft carriers or for that matter it´s other flat tops. China would send out it´s aircrafts, submarines and rated ships - and launch long range missiles at the American carrier groups. What I know the chinese cruise missiles do hit their targets. It´s one of the best in the world and better than anything the United States ever had in it´s BS pantry. The only way for the United States to conduct a respectable naval war against China would be through it´s massive and very capable submarine fleet. The carriers may join but they will stay outside of the second island chain.
You need aircraft carriers but they are not as powerful as strike weapon against a peer-enemy with modern weaponary. The reason why the United States build carriers is to project power - show force and strike against lesser powers that cannot defend themselves. China and Russia are in terms of military not "lesser powers" in the sense that they have the weaponary to keep the U.S. Navy away from their shores.
So why do I argue for aircraft carriers? Well, because I believe China ought to have the ability to conduct missions on a global scale. More importantly, to deter the gangsters in Washington DC and in particular it´s Western lapdogs to shy away from their wild hegemonic dreams. The West and the rest of the world need to grasp who is the biggest dog in the kennel - and it´s not the people who cannot distinguish between girls and boys.