CV-XX (003 carrier) Thread I ... News & Discussions


asif iqbal

Brigadier
Not a good start to 2020

delays due to virus and no 4th carrier has been spotted which to be honest I was hoping for

no batch 3 of J15 and no further new helicopters

constrained air wing for both CV-16 and CV-17

add to that the the news that there will be no 5th and 6th CVN

after a short sprint looks like Chinese carrier ambitions have been somewhat dented

carrier programmes are expensive and even china can’t splash out on a CVN

USN has 11 x CVN

China at most with have 2 x STOBAR and 2 x CATOBAR which will not bee nuclear powered

overall a rather dull picture and steam seems to have gassed out on the Chinese carrier programme in this new decade
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
Not a good start to 2020

delays due to virus and no 4th carrier has been spotted which to be honest I was hoping for

no batch 3 of J15 and no further new helicopters

constrained air wing for both CV-16 and CV-17

add to that the the news that there will be no 5th and 6th CVN

after a short sprint looks like Chinese carrier ambitions have been somewhat dented

carrier programmes are expensive and even china can’t splash out on a CVN

USN has 11 x CVN

China at most with have 2 x STOBAR and 2 x CATOBAR which will not bee nuclear powered

overall a rather dull picture and steam seems to have gassed out on the Chinese carrier programme in this new decade
The part about no 5th and 6th CVN comes from Minnie Chan. Nuff said.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
The part about no 5th and 6th CVN comes from Minnie Chan. Nuff said.

I agree with you and please @asif iqbal, don't be disappointed or over-hype your expectations. IMO we simply do not know enough, esp. concerning the true PLAN's schedule, plans and ambitions, We have no clue about what major milestone was aimed for what date, so that all disappointment is IMO most of all based on our not-knowing than on delays, technical issues, the PLAN's incompetence and esp. the media hype from stupid reporters like Minnie Chan.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Not a good start to 2020

delays due to virus and no 4th carrier has been spotted which to be honest I was hoping for

no batch 3 of J15 and no further new helicopters

constrained air wing for both CV-16 and CV-17

add to that the the news that there will be no 5th and 6th CVN

after a short sprint looks like Chinese carrier ambitions have been somewhat dented

carrier programmes are expensive and even china can’t splash out on a CVN

USN has 11 x CVN

China at most with have 2 x STOBAR and 2 x CATOBAR which will not bee nuclear powered

overall a rather dull picture and steam seems to have gassed out on the Chinese carrier programme in this new decade
Personally, I think it is good that we haven't seen a 4th conventional carrier and that there is limited spending on carrier aviation.
In the next decade, I think it makes more sense to focus on surface ships, submarines, long-range missiles and land-based aircraft.

These are more useful in achieving Chinese objectives, than a fleet of expensive carriers which would likely suffer a catastrophic defeat in a blue-water confrontation against a much larger carrier fleet. Historically, the side with a smaller navy declines to offer battle and keeps its ships in port, because they know this.

But after 2030, I would expect this strategy to be re-evaluated.

By that point, China should have the ability to impose air/maritime superiority over all of the 1st Island Chain.
Plus Chinese nuclear carrier designs should be mature enough for production.
And the Chinese military would know it has the financial resources to build a large enough supercarrier fleet to win a blue-water battle.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Personally, I think it is good that we haven't seen a 4th conventional carrier and that there is limited spending on carrier aviation.
In the next decade, I think it makes more sense to focus on surface ships, submarines, long-range missiles and land-based aircraft.

These are more useful in achieving Chinese objectives, than a fleet of expensive carriers which would likely suffer a catastrophic defeat in a blue-water confrontation against a much larger carrier fleet. Historically, the side with a smaller navy declines to offer battle and keeps its ships in port, because they know this.

But after 2030, I would expect this strategy to be re-evaluated.

By that point, China should have the ability to impose air/maritime superiority over all of the 1st Island Chain.
Plus Chinese nuclear carrier designs should be mature enough for production.
And the Chinese military would know it has the financial resources to build a large enough supercarrier fleet to win a blue-water battle.
Following on from this.

The implication of such a strategy is that we see more destroyers and frigates being built now, as they can rely on land-based air cover for 1st Island Chain operations. Those same ships could also serve as blue-water escorts for future carriers.

So after 2030, carrier production could ramp up, whilst destroyers and frigates would take a backseat.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
You cannot counter a carrier with a SSN or DDG simple

Soviet’s tried it and failed

you need a carrier
What does an aircraft carrier do? It launches airplanes. And those airplanes control the sky, perform surveillance and launch weapons.

So it's more accurate to say that that to counter an aircraft carrier, you need your own airplanes.
But China's situation is that its core objectives are close by in the 1st Island Chain, so can be better covered by airbases on mainland China.

Plus a carrier and its air wing is really expensive and vulnerable.
In comparison, land-based airplanes are cheaper, longer-ranged, and higher performance than their carrier counterparts.

---
But I agree for blue-water operations in the Western Pacific, where there is a lot less land-based air support, you do need your own carriers.
 

Intrepid

Senior Member
China need aircraft carriers in about twenty years. They need them with long experience in carrier aviation. The experience is the reason, why they have a small number of carriers already now.
 

Top