CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations

Status
Not open for further replies.

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Whole propose for cats is that it gives fixed wing AWACS

Fixed wing AWACS gives situational awareness

Situational awareness gives advantage in engagement

CATOBAR is always a good idea
 

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
To be the devil's advocate here, a single catapult would not have significantly increase the Liaoning's capability by much. And even then, the time and cost spend retrofitting them means that it would only be done under the most extreme of circumstance. In which case, you might as well build a CATOBAR to replace it.
It would have enabled to launch AEW.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Unnecessary back and forth. Apparently there are 2 camps here. One who thinks Liaoning will be refurbished at a later date to retrofit cats while the other not. I myself am in the second camp for reasons already stated however I also respect the opinions of those who believe in the former.
 

Yodello

Junior Member
Registered Member
You are very naive if you don’t think there is an undeclared new Cold War happening as we speak.

This is a singular time for China, when the risk of conflict is at its greatest between China and the US.

In that broader strategic context, having as many and as capable warships as possible ready as soon as possible matters a hell of a lot more than a few billion here or there. And the main purpose of having those carriers is not to fight a war, but hopefully prevent one by making the odds too long for America to risk it.

You are also pretty arrogant to scoff at the power of two medium weight CATOBAR carriers, especially if they are carrying stealths. That’s more carrier than the French or British or Russian navies have at the moment. And it will be a hell of a lot of combat power you will be needlessly throwing away to save pennies while risking everything you have. That’s a poor bet in anyone’s book.

I wound say that only well into 2040s or 2050s, when the balance of economic and military power has fundamentally and irrevocably changed in China’s favour would cost effectiveness become a top concern for the PLAN.

Before that time, cost effectiveness comes a distinct second to building up raw combat capabilities.

I hope the PRC leadership follows your train of thought. China has an urgent need to bulk up its military strength. Military acquisition, planning and preparedness should be prioritized for the next 30-35 years, if the PRC leaders so wish to maintain the stability and sovereignty they hols so dear to their hearts. It is their bounden duty to protect China and its people at this most crucial transition period.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Unnecessary back and forth. Apparently there are 2 camps here. One who thinks Liaoning will be refurbished at a later date to retrofit cats while the other not. I myself am in the second camp for reasons already stated however I also respect the opinions of those who believe in the former.

I am going to vote for the former and the same thing for Carrier no. 2. Not going to happen for a long time though but they may have already provisions for it. These ships aren't made for the short run.
 

Icmer

Junior Member
Registered Member
I hope the PRC leadership follows your train of thought. China has an urgent need to bulk up its military strength. Military acquisition, planning and preparedness should be prioritized for the next 30-35 years, if the PRC leaders so wish to maintain the stability and sovereignty they hols so dear to their hearts. It is their bounden duty to protect China and its people at this most crucial transition period.

Fortunately, they do.

Recognizing that “problems” have emerged under “new circumstances,” Xi said China is at a critical juncture of developing itself from being “big” to “strong.”

“We are now facing a historic opportunity that happens only once in a thousand years,” he said. “If we handle it well, we will prosper. But if we screw it up, there will be problems, big problems.”

While recognizing opportunities, Xi said that there are also “unprecedented risks and challenges.”

Shifting to economics, Xi said some politicians in the West have declared they are against globalization merely for political reasons, while pinning the blame for problems at home on China, which has been branded as the biggest beneficiary of globalization.

Some countries are likely to be driven by their economic woes to “make a reckless move in desperation” or “flex their muscle overseas as domestic pressure heightens,” he said.

On international strategy, Xi said some Western countries have lost their long-standing dominance in international affairs and found their international status in real danger of slipping.

Yet at the same time, some emerging markets and developing countries are on an ascending path, especially China, whose overall national strength is rising, he said.

“The international community increasingly thinks highly of us and wants to hear what China has to say and see what China wants to do,” he said.

As for development models, Xi criticized Western democracy, saying many Western countries promote “democratic expansion” and see themselves as the “world savior,” while their institution creates not only societal divisions, but also infighting among parties and endless political scandals.

“It’s like the real-life version of the House of Cards,” he said, referring to the now-canceled hit U.S. political drama. “People are gravely disappointed in the Western ruling apparatus.”

By comparison, Xi said the leadership of the Communist Party of China is supported by a majority of the people and socialism with Chinese characteristics is “full of vigor and vitality.”

“Many leaders of developing countries I’ve talked to told me that they are doubtful about the political system of the West and expressed hope to learn about how China has developed itself,” Xi said. “It’s a trend to ‘look east.’ “

In short, Xi said China’s military must beef up its efforts to resolutely safeguard state sovereignty, security and the national interest to realize the dream of “two 100 years” and rejuvenation of the “great Chinese nation.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
You are very naive if you don’t think there is an undeclared new Cold War happening as we speak.

This is a singular time for China, when the risk of conflict is at its greatest between China and the US.

In that broader strategic context, having as many and as capable warships as possible ready as soon as possible matters a hell of a lot more than a few billion here or there. And the main purpose of having those carriers is not to fight a war, but hopefully prevent one by making the odds too long for America to risk it.

You are also pretty arrogant to scoff at the power of two medium weight CATOBAR carriers, especially if they are carrying stealths. That’s more carrier than the French or British or Russian navies have at the moment. And it will be a hell of a lot of combat power you will be needlessly throwing away to save pennies while risking everything you have. That’s a poor bet in anyone’s book.

I wound say that only well into 2040s or 2050s, when the balance of economic and military power has fundamentally and irrevocably changed in China’s favour would cost effectiveness become a top concern for the PLAN.

Before that time, cost effectiveness comes a distinct second to building up raw combat capabilities.
As much as the talking pundits and bobheads like to crow about it, the possibility of a Cold War turning hot happening in the next 10-20 years is just about as likely as man forgoing war as a means to an end. For the justification of a dated carrier design to be so radically out fitted would require China to be embroiled in a long distance off shore conflict with a somewhat capable foe over a strong enough interest.
Such a combination of issues is not to be found the continents of Europe, Africa and the American Continents. Not until China has build up a sufficient network of investments and interests, and that will not happen in the next 20 years at best.
Future more, any possible conflict between China and the US is going happen at the immediate periphery of Asia. In that area, China's home field advantage of land based air assets will much more important than any retrofitted carrier. Going any future beyond their immediate turf would mean that both country can only rely on their navies's assets. In which case a Type 001A with just one catapult will be crushed by even a decommissioned Kitty Hawk.There is a difference between having a lot of ships and having a lot of "capable" ships, having a fleet of 6 Type 002s will be much more potent than 5 Type 002s and 2 Type 001s
And yes I am dismissive of the limited utility that the CV-16 and CV-17 can bring, as at best a standard retrofit proposed would only give them just one catapult to work on. Trying to put more would entitled reworking or removing the ski-ramp entirely to accommodate the forward catapults. This would require even more time, money and dock space to make work. Why would the PLAN consider such a venture when the Type 003 are most likely to be commissioned in numbers already by the time CV-16 and CV-17 are due for an overhaul, which would be in the 2030-2040s.
No matter how you look. the geopolitical and economical climates both present and future are not in favour of the CV-16 and CV-17. At present China simply does not have the need or the means to wage a far off conflict while a conflict close to home can be handled by other assets, and in the future new carrier designs and numbers will mean that the potential utility that CV-16 and 17 can bring if retrofitted would be seriously limited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
I agree with Vktor. The financial cost and opportunity cost of ship yard capacity make it unlikely that the Chinese will retro-fit a ski jump carrier, especially once they have a working model of something like a Ford class carrier. The several months of valuable dock space and money just to buy one catapult. Don't forget, these are still carriers with some capability, so the incremental increase is small compared to the cost.
 
As much as the talking pundits and bobheads like to crow about it, the possibility of a Cold War turning hot happening in the next 10-20 years is just about as likely as man forgoing war as a means to an end...

That is not a valid assumption, specifically in the China-US context with a Taiwan scenario. China's military modernization is clearly being conducted with that in mind and China's ski-jump carriers are plenty useful as is when it comes to operations up through the 1st island chain given their other complementary naval, air, and ground capabilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top