CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)

[asif iqbal]

China will need a minimum of 6 carriers, which should ensure that at least 2 carriers are readily available in case of sudden developments/emergencies.

The number could then be surged to 3-4 carriers once the 1-2 carriers that are on working-up are made ready.

With 2 carriers that are on-station at any time, that means either the 2 carriers can work together as a dual-carrier CBG, or each of the two carriers can form their own CBGs to deal with situations that are separated across vast distances (Diaoyu Islands and SCS at once, for instance).

On the other hand, 9 carriers should be the maximum. Any more and the PLAN risks stepping into the shadows of the USN.

6 Carriers yes and I would say

CV-16 and CV-17 thats 2 x STOBAR with 24 x aircraft each = 48 units
CV-18 and CV-19 CATOBAR with 36 aircraft each = 72 units
CVN-20 and CVN-21 with 48 aircraft each = 96 units

Total Naval fighters 216 available for air operations over area far from home

I think that would be a good Navy

 

[TK3600]

6 Carriers yes and I would say

CV-16 and CV-17 thats 2 x STOBAR with 24 x aircraft each = 48 units
CV-18 and CV-19 CATOBAR with 36 aircraft each = 72 units
CVN-20 and CVN-21 with 48 aircraft each = 96 units

Total Naval fighters 216 available for air operations over area far from home

I think that would be a good Navy

Next one will likely be nuclear. Need 3 nuclear to have 1 be ready at any time.228 total.

 

[vincent]

Next one will likely be nuclear. Need 3 nuclear to have 1 be ready at any time.228 total.

Nuclear anything has low availability and low readiness rate. China’s focus in the near future will stay in the West Pac, thus nuclear carriers do not provide much benefits over the conventional ones, but the costs (monetary, readiness rate, availability rate, etc) are far higher.

 

[by78]

CNY pary held in the hangar of carrier Shandong.

 

[TK3600]

Nuclear anything has low availability and low readiness rate. China’s focus in the near future will stay in the West Pac, thus nuclear carriers do not provide much benefits over the conventional ones, but the costs (monetary, readiness rate, availability rate, etc) are far higher.

I am not saying it should be nuclear. But signs point to most likely nuclear.

 

[by78]

Carrier Shandong's weapons elevator.

 

[charles18]

...China’s focus in the near future will stay in the West Pac, thus nuclear carriers do not provide much benefits over the conventional ones, ...

I agree.
The utility value of a nuclear carrier is over-rated

In fact, if we divide military fixed wing air power into 3 categories:
1) theater air power
2) long range bombers
3) naval aviation aka aircraft carriers

If we measure how many bombs get dropped or the total tonnage of bombs that get dropped...carrier based aviation actually comes in dead last place. It is theater air power that delivers the most tonnage. This is not an opinion. "Tons of bombs" dropped per day can be mathematically derived by multiplying the sorties per day by the aircraft payload.
however...
the "Political value" of an aircraft carrier is 2nd to none. I think this is enough reason for China to build a couple of CVN's

 

[luosifen]

Shandong operations video from CCTV:

 

[Deino]

Cross-posting from the J-35 thread and indeed a mayor development for both CV-16 & CV-17 carriers

 

[Temstar]

We should keep watch to see if KJ-600 model shows up on Liaoning too. If modification to Liaoning are required to handle J-35 then now would be a good time to also add any additional modification required for KJ-600 too if it's also to go STOBAR. There's been quite a few people who's been saying "all the new aircrafts intended for Fujian are also intended for Liaoning and Shandong" or something to that effect, here's Cute Orca just now:


Here's 洞洞, replying and agreeing to Shilao's thread hinting at the same thing: