Ask anything Thread

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
what ever catapult you installed, you always need deck wind to save your deck from catapult length. That will be 25 knots at least I think.

There is actually a limit to catapult length, because the airplane tires are only rated for certain speeds

For heavily laden fighter jets, airspeed over the wings is a big issue. An F/A-18E typically has a takeoff speed of 305km/h

But an E-2D (and presumably the KJ-600 / GJ-11) has lower takeoff and approach speeds, so theoretically they wouldn't need any deck wind?
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
We will never know...

The military spending figures for the US and Russia are fairly solid at 3.5%-4% over the past 20 years
IIRC, even the high Pentagon estimates for Chinese military spending top out at 2.5%, which is substantially below this level
So I'm happy to go with SIPRI's estimate of 1.7% for Chinese military spending

The conclusion is that China isn't in a serious military arms race
But if China did double military spending to 3.4%, we'd be seeing military procurement running at twice current levels

Eg. In the next 5 year plan (2021-2025), naval shipbuilding could look like this

40 Type-054 Frigates
40 Type-052 Destroyers
16 Type-055 Cruisers
2 Supercarriers (85k tonnes with EMALs)
etc etc

I'd also see them building up to 6 SSNs per year. That would would mean 30 SSNs just in this period
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
They have to obtain a targeting position on the carrier first
And that will likely come from satellites or aircraft, which can be shot down
I'm quite skeptical that we see China/US shooting each others satelites down (there's so many up there), and it will most likely also result in a lot more tensions (less able to get first warning of the other party firing nukes).
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
What do you think about the idea of a rechargeable battery powered submarine?

It could recharge at wind turbines, or from power lines on the bottom.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
What do you think about the idea of a rechargeable battery powered submarine?

It could recharge at wind turbines, or from power lines on the bottom.
Underwater charging stations? It may be a good idea, but I guess they'll be very difficult to maintain.
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
They have to obtain a targeting position on the carrier first
And that will likely come from satellites or aircraft, which can be shot down
So you mean satellites and aircrafts can be shot down but CVs and other US ships can't be sunk?
Since you mentioned satellites, PLA actually has an advantage in rapid launching capability with their mobile solid rockets.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
Underwater charging stations? It may be a good idea, but I guess they'll be very difficult to maintain.
Not if it’s civilian infrastructure, civil-military fusion. China is taking marine development very seriously, from huge fish farms to offshore power stations to fossil fuel exploration and utilization.

I think we will see a huge amount of marine infrastructure being built in the years ahead, all of which needs clean power.
 

Lime

Junior Member
Registered Member
The military spending figures for the US and Russia are fairly solid at 3.5%-4% over the past 20 years
IIRC, even the high Pentagon estimates for Chinese military spending top out at 2.5%, which is substantially below this level
So I'm happy to go with SIPRI's estimate of 1.7% for Chinese military spending

The conclusion is that China isn't in a serious military arms race
But if China did double military spending to 3.4%, we'd be seeing military procurement running at twice current levels

Eg. In the next 5 year plan (2021-2025), naval shipbuilding could look like this

40 Type-054 Frigates
40 Type-052 Destroyers
16 Type-055 Cruisers
2 Supercarriers (85k tonnes with EMALs)
etc etc

I'd also see them building up to 6 SSNs per year. That would would mean 30 SSNs just in this period
I don't know how much PLAN's budget accurately, maybe 80~100 bn USD or more every year.
In the 13th five year plan.
1 type-003 7.3 bn
8 type-055 7.3 bn
16 type-052d 8.6 bn
10 or more type-054A 2.1 bn

I think the total cost of ship building is no more than 10bn every year.

So the cost of ship building is not the major expenditure of military budget. So I think if the rate goes to 3.4%, at least the tonnage will be more than 4 times than today. We can see 4 carriers under constuction at the same time.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don't know how much PLAN's budget accurately, maybe 80~100 bn USD or more every year.
In the 13th five year plan.
1 type-003 7.3 bn
8 type-055 7.3 bn
16 type-052d 8.6 bn
10 or more type-054A 2.1 bn

I think the total cost of ship building is no more than 10bn every year.

So the cost of ship building is not the major expenditure of military budget. So I think if the rate goes to 3.4%, at least the tonnage will be more than 4 times than today. We can see 4 carriers under constuction at the same time.

I've got 1.8 Billion RMB as the cost of a Type-054A
But I see you have 1.3-1.4 Billion RMB for them?

Also, where the did the Type-003 cost come from?

Also note there are more auxiliary and other ships being built

Plus remember that each Type-003 airwing (based on 60aircraft) is going to cost more that $5 billion
You've also got ongoing maintenance and operations costs which will start increasing rapidly with more ships and aircraft

---
If both Dalian and Jiangnan were to dedicate one slot for carrier assembly, I think they could each produce a proven carrier design in 30 months. The John C Stennis carrier previously took 32months for the blocks to be assembled at Newport News. The first of the Roosevelt carriers took 36months.

But if you have 4 carriers simultaneously under assembly as suggested, you're looking at 4 carriers in 3 years
Then another 4 carriers in the following 2.5 years
That just seems too high to me, particularly since the KJ-600 AWACs and J-35 stealth fighters need at least 5 more years of development

---
With a higher Chinese military budget, I reckon a vast expansion in nuclear submarine construction is the way to go
That is based on the 2 new assembly halls, plus the strategic benefits of a brand new SSN fleet for distant power projection and sea denial at maritime chokepoints

Given the Astute submarines cost $2 Billion, let's say Chinese SSNs cost $1.5 Billion each.

If China did end up doubling military spending because of deteriorating relations with the USA, then Chinese SSN production could be ramped up to 10 per year. But that still would only cost $15 Billion per year in construction costs
There would also be about $50M per year in operating costs per submarine, based on the Virginia SSN costings

So after 5 years, you'd be looking at 50 new Chinese SSNs. And after another 5 years, there could be 100 new SSNs in total. But I reckon construction would slow down to something more sustainable.

But anyway, the current situation looks like China will continue with a modest level of military spending at 1.7% of GDP
After all, there are still many priorities in terms of domestic economic development
 
Top