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


kentchang

Junior Member
Registered Member
Production is not the bottleneck, see 075. Once the design has been established, several ships could be built in quick succession.

But you will plan your shipyard capacities in such a way that ships always have to be built. When the last ship is launched, the subsequent new building must replace the first ship.
I don't see China building carriers simultaneously in multiple yards. Alternating to broaden the industrial base and test out the supply chain maybe. I simply don't see a requirement for a large carrier fleet especially if nuclear-based.

If China's eventual carrier fleet will be 8 and each has a 40 year service life, the steady state production rate would be one launch every 5 years (#17 was launched in 2017). At this rate, it is neither necessary or economical to build carriers in multiple yards. However, as in a poker game, if you bluff and raise, you just may force your enemy to fold first. That is a good-enough reason to build a second 003 in Dalian just to demonstrate industrial capabilities. A secondary reason is to use the 003 construction qualities to award the 004 contract to promote competition between Northern and Southern yards.

Longer term (2035), how can the U.S. maintain more than 8 big tops in the fleet with a declining budget? China has signaled a clear intention to scale up the submarine force both nuclear and AIP. This may explain in part of the U.S. interest in CVL's which are more defensive and perhaps more ASW-oriented. Counting CVL's as 'carriers' also conveniently circumvents the Congressional Mandate. With a continued buildup of China's DDG surface fleet, it may compel the USN to focus on the submarine fleet to assume much greater offensive roles (SSGN's) and reduce its surface fleet size. One also must question how much longer the U.S. can/want/able to act as the World Police given its ever stronger isolationist feelings.

2020 + 40 is already 2060 when China will be carbon-neutral and largely energy independent. Traditional maritime choke points won't matter much with possible Northern Passage and the overland BRI alliance with the Islamic Arc (Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Malaysia/Indonesia) fully developed. Perhaps the arms race then will be 90% cyber-warfare and combined-cycle this-and-that. How many carrier groups does China need to parade around the world?

In short, the current fascination with big flattops maybe as silly as the French building the Maginot Line or the Japanese completing the Yamato and Musashi. If so many people are questioning the utility and survive-ability of big carriers today, how about 10 years from now? All things considered, I don't see why China would be in a hurry to build up the quantity. Everyone everywhere already acknowledge China's ship building speed. Further demonstration is wasteful, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

#18 launch in 2022, #19 launch in 2027 (100th Anniversary of the PLA, J-XY in LRIP?), #20 launch in 2032-2034 (Name it after Xi's birth place BEIJING as a retirement gift) is a decent pace. There will always be new toys to spend USD$6B a pop on.
 

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
I don't see China building carriers simultaneously in multiple yards. Alternating to broaden the industrial base and test out the supply chain maybe. I simply don't see a requirement for a large carrier fleet especially if nuclear-based.

If China's eventual carrier fleet will be 8 and each has a 40 year service life, the steady state production rate would be one launch every 5 years (#17 was launched in 2017). At this rate, it is neither necessary or economical to build carriers in multiple yards. However, as in a poker game, if you bluff and raise, you just may force your enemy to fold first. That is a good-enough reason to build a second 003 in Dalian just to demonstrate industrial capabilities. A secondary reason is to use the 003 construction qualities to award the 004 contract to promote competition between Northern and Southern yards.

Longer term (2035), how can the U.S. maintain more than 8 big tops in the fleet with a declining budget? China has signaled a clear intention to scale up the submarine force both nuclear and AIP. This may explain in part of the U.S. interest in CVL's which are more defensive and perhaps more ASW-oriented. Counting CVL's as 'carriers' also conveniently circumvents the Congressional Mandate. With a continued buildup of China's DDG surface fleet, it may compel the USN to focus on the submarine fleet to assume much greater offensive roles (SSGN's) and reduce its surface fleet size. One also must question how much longer the U.S. can/want/able to act as the World Police given its ever stronger isolationist feelings.

2020 + 40 is already 2060 when China will be carbon-neutral and largely energy independent. Traditional maritime choke points won't matter much with possible Northern Passage and the overland BRI alliance with the Islamic Arc (Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Malaysia/Indonesia) fully developed. Perhaps the arms race then will be 90% cyber-warfare and combined-cycle this-and-that. How many carrier groups does China need to parade around the world?

In short, the current fascination with big flattops maybe as silly as the French building the Maginot Line or the Japanese completing the Yamato and Musashi. If so many people are questioning the utility and survive-ability of big carriers today, how about 10 years from now? All things considered, I don't see why China would be in a hurry to build up the quantity. Everyone everywhere already acknowledge China's ship building speed. Further demonstration is wasteful, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

#18 launch in 2022, #19 launch in 2027 (100th Anniversary of the PLA, J-XY in LRIP?), #20 launch in 2032-2034 (Name it after Xi's birth place BEIJING as a retirement gift) is a decent pace. There will always be new toys to spend USD$6B a pop on.
I am inclined to agree with you. Other than showing it can do it, there is no incentive for a nuclear behemoth carrier and all its associated problems. It may be an evolutionary progress in time but it doesnt seem to be a priority. There will be a few yards, not only for competition but also for wider access to facilities, looking at the Russian experience. My take is that after 003, China will focus on how to make the others faster and with higher tech rather than larger and nuclear
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
In short, the current fascination with big flattops maybe as silly as the French building the Maginot Line or the Japanese completing the Yamato and Musashi. If so many people are questioning the utility and survive-ability of big carriers today, how about 10 years from now? All things considered, I don't see why China would be in a hurry to build up the quantity. Everyone everywhere already acknowledge China's ship building speed. Further demonstration is wasteful, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

#18 launch in 2022, #19 launch in 2027 (100th Anniversary of the PLA, J-XY in LRIP?), #20 launch in 2032-2034 (Name it after Xi's birth place BEIJING as a retirement gift) is a decent pace. There will always be new toys to spend USD$6B a pop on.

The big issue with your reasoning is that you need some way to project physical military power and obtain sea control, when you are far from bases on the coast.

Remember that China is the world's largest trading nation, and the vast majority of this trade is transported by sea.

Cyber will be a factor, but it's unlikely to completely completely disable a carrier/ship/submarine/aircraft. They can still operate individually.

Surface ships and submarines aren't able to exercise sea control over vast distances.
Their sensors only have a short effective range.

But airborne platforms have:
1. the ability to travel long distances very quickly
2. plus a very long radar horizon because of their high altitude

So you do need airborne surveillance.
Which leads to large numbers of long-range fighters to obtain air superiority.
Which leads to large carriers with lots of endurance.

So carriers still have a purpose.
 

kentchang

Junior Member
Registered Member
The big issue with your reasoning is that you need some way to project physical military power and obtain sea control, when you are far from bases on the coast.

Remember that China is the world's largest trading nation, and the vast majority of this trade is transported by sea.

Cyber will be a factor, but it's unlikely to completely completely disable a carrier/ship/submarine/aircraft. They can still operate individually.

Surface ships and submarines aren't able to exercise sea control over vast distances.
Their sensors only have a short effective range.

But airborne platforms have:
1. the ability to travel long distances very quickly
2. plus a very long radar horizon because of their high altitude

So you do need airborne surveillance.
Which leads to large numbers of long-range fighters to obtain air superiority.
Which leads to large carriers with lots of endurance.

So carriers still have a purpose.
No argument that carriers are very useful TODAY (except during wartime when it is within the range of ASBM's).

Force projection is important and a flotilla with a dozen ships including a huge LHA or two will do just fine. Even better if I let it be known that I can park hundreds of bombs in suborbital space directly above your head beyond the reach of any of your defenses.

I mentioned "combined-cycle" because aeroplanes/drones can deliver munitions far more efficiently from intercontinental range. Carrier-based planes are nothing more than weapon delivery platforms with tremendous self-defense overhead (AEW, CAP). They are only useful today because the delivery cost per bomb is much lower than long range missiles. Carriers are only needed because planes have limited range. I am suggesting precision munition delivery will be much cheaper in the future without risking any casualties.

Just like a good horror movie. it is a lot scarier if you know your enemy can destroy you at any time without any warning. Japan didn't surrender because there were a thousand ships converging on its home island. Japan surrendered because it was helpless in seeing two of its cities completely destroyed out of the blue.

I am not suggesting other types of ships or submarines can replace the role of a CVA. No ship can. I am suggesting for Force Projection and Sea Control purposes, there will be much cheaper and effective means that before the Ford class carriers' planned retirement date, munitions can be delivered cheaply (i.e. in great quantities) from a continent away with a reaction time faster than any ship sailing at 35 knots. U.S. call it "Conventional Prompt Global Strike" and I think reusable delivery platforms will make that concept an order of magnitude cheaper. Something like the Son of the X-37.
 

kentchang

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't see China building carriers simultaneously in multiple yards. Alternating to broaden the industrial base and test out the supply chain maybe. I simply don't see a requirement for a large carrier fleet especially if nuclear-based.

If China's eventual carrier fleet will be 8 and each has a 40 year service life, the steady state production rate would be one launch every 5 years (#17 was launched in 2017). At this rate, it is neither necessary or economical to build carriers in multiple yards. However, as in a poker game, if you bluff and raise, you just may force your enemy to fold first. That is a good-enough reason to build a second 003 in Dalian just to demonstrate industrial capabilities. A secondary reason is to use the 003 construction qualities to award the 004 contract to promote competition between Northern and Southern yards.

Longer term (2035), how can the U.S. maintain more than 8 big tops in the fleet with a declining budget? China has signaled a clear intention to scale up the submarine force both nuclear and AIP. This may explain in part of the U.S. interest in CVL's which are more defensive and perhaps more ASW-oriented. Counting CVL's as 'carriers' also conveniently circumvents the Congressional Mandate. With a continued buildup of China's DDG surface fleet, it may compel the USN to focus on the submarine fleet to assume much greater offensive roles (SSGN's) and reduce its surface fleet size. One also must question how much longer the U.S. can/want/able to act as the World Police given its ever stronger isolationist feelings.

2020 + 40 is already 2060 when China will be carbon-neutral and largely energy independent. Traditional maritime choke points won't matter much with possible Northern Passage and the overland BRI alliance with the Islamic Arc (Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Malaysia/Indonesia) fully developed. Perhaps the arms race then will be 90% cyber-warfare and combined-cycle this-and-that. How many carrier groups does China need to parade around the world?

In short, the current fascination with big flattops maybe as silly as the French building the Maginot Line or the Japanese completing the Yamato and Musashi. If so many people are questioning the utility and survive-ability of big carriers today, how about 10 years from now? All things considered, I don't see why China would be in a hurry to build up the quantity. Everyone everywhere already acknowledge China's ship building speed. Further demonstration is wasteful, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

#18 launch in 2022, #19 launch in 2027 (100th Anniversary of the PLA, J-XY in LRIP?), #20 launch in 2032-2034 (Name it after Xi's birth place BEIJING as a retirement gift) is a decent pace. There will always be new toys to spend USD$6B a pop on.
Opportunity cost question: One carrier (hull-only) or 6 Type 055 or 100 J-20's or 1,200 T-99A or 2 billion McDonald Happy Meals?
 
Last edited:

boytoy

New Member
Registered Member
I don't see China building carriers simultaneously in multiple yards. Alternating to broaden the industrial base and test out the supply chain maybe. I simply don't see a requirement for a large carrier fleet especially if nuclear-based.

If China's eventual carrier fleet will be 8 and each has a 40 year service life, the steady state production rate would be one launch every 5 years (#17 was launched in 2017). At this rate, it is neither necessary or economical to build carriers in multiple yards. However, as in a poker game, if you bluff and raise, you just may force your enemy to fold first. That is a good-enough reason to build a second 003 in Dalian just to demonstrate industrial capabilities. A secondary reason is to use the 003 construction qualities to award the 004 contract to promote competition between Northern and Southern yards.

Longer term (2035), how can the U.S. maintain more than 8 big tops in the fleet with a declining budget? China has signaled a clear intention to scale up the submarine force both nuclear and AIP. This may explain in part of the U.S. interest in CVL's which are more defensive and perhaps more ASW-oriented. Counting CVL's as 'carriers' also conveniently circumvents the Congressional Mandate. With a continued buildup of China's DDG surface fleet, it may compel the USN to focus on the submarine fleet to assume much greater offensive roles (SSGN's) and reduce its surface fleet size. One also must question how much longer the U.S. can/want/able to act as the World Police given its ever stronger isolationist feelings.

2020 + 40 is already 2060 when China will be carbon-neutral and largely energy independent. Traditional maritime choke points won't matter much with possible Northern Passage and the overland BRI alliance with the Islamic Arc (Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Malaysia/Indonesia) fully developed. Perhaps the arms race then will be 90% cyber-warfare and combined-cycle this-and-that. How many carrier groups does China need to parade around the world?

In short, the current fascination with big flattops maybe as silly as the French building the Maginot Line or the Japanese completing the Yamato and Musashi. If so many people are questioning the utility and survive-ability of big carriers today, how about 10 years from now? All things considered, I don't see why China would be in a hurry to build up the quantity. Everyone everywhere already acknowledge China's ship building speed. Further demonstration is wasteful, unwarranted, and unnecessary.

#18 launch in 2022, #19 launch in 2027 (100th Anniversary of the PLA, J-XY in LRIP?), #20 launch in 2032-2034 (Name it after Xi's birth place BEIJING as a retirement gift) is a decent pace. There will always be new toys to spend USD$6B a pop on.
I think you have severely misread the situation if you think China is building carriers to show off or "demonstrate industrial capabilities" and that carrier building is somehow a game of "bluffs, raises, and folds."

I don't know where you're from, but you maybe right that for smaller nations, carriers are unnecessarily expensive toys. But for China it's very necessary, and it's not that expensive.

This is also no evidence that U.S will reduce its carrier fleet to 8. Yet, China's need for 6 carriers is not because the U.S has 8 or 11 or 12 carriers but due its own strategic considerations. I think this conversation will lead the thread off-topic. If we want we can open a new U.S vs China Strategy thread and continue over there. Mods can move these posts there as well.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
I am inclined to agree with you. Other than showing it can do it, there is no incentive for a nuclear behemoth carrier and all its associated problems. It may be an evolutionary progress in time but it doesnt seem to be a priority. There will be a few yards, not only for competition but also for wider access to facilities, looking at the Russian experience. My take is that after 003, China will focus on how to make the others faster and with higher tech rather than larger and nuclear
Nuclear carriers would be mighty useful if China wanted to park a mobile air base around the Malacca Straits during a counter-blockade scenario.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
No argument that carriers are very useful TODAY (except during wartime when it is within the range of ASBM's).

Force projection is important and a flotilla with a dozen ships including a huge LHA or two will do just fine. Even better if I let it be known that I can park hundreds of bombs in suborbital space directly above your head beyond the reach of any of your defenses.

I mentioned "combined-cycle" because aeroplanes/drones can deliver munitions far more efficiently from intercontinental range. Carrier-based planes are nothing more than weapon delivery platforms with tremendous self-defense overhead (AEW, CAP). They are only useful today because the delivery cost per bomb is much lower than long range missiles. Carriers are only needed because planes have limited range. I am suggesting precision munition delivery will be much cheaper in the future without risking any casualties.

Just like a good horror movie. it is a lot scarier if you know your enemy can destroy you at any time without any warning. Japan didn't surrender because there were a thousand ships converging on its home island. Japan surrendered because it was helpless in seeing two of its cities completely destroyed out of the blue.

I am not suggesting other types of ships or submarines can replace the role of a CVA. No ship can. I am suggesting for Force Projection and Sea Control purposes, there will be much cheaper and effective means that before the Ford class carriers' planned retirement date, munitions can be delivered cheaply (i.e. in great quantities) from a continent away with a reaction time faster than any ship sailing at 35 knots. U.S. call it "Conventional Prompt Global Strike" and I think reusable delivery platforms will make that concept an order of magnitude cheaper. Something like the Son of the X-37.
The primary value of carriers aren’t that they’re an air power delivery system, but that they project *territorial control* by their direct *physical presence*. Trying to exert area control through air power without being physically present is both strategically inefficient and ineffective. Projection is not simply the ability to throw your power across long distances, but to *defend* and *hold* the areas you’re projecting into. Carriers confer massive offensive power, but their *actual* value is about defensive persistence long after you’ve taken territory over a geography in a way that is not land dependent. This kind of capability is *especially* crucial for China to have strategically because China doesn’t have many foreign bases, most of all in the geographies it is most strategically vulnerable in.
 
Last edited:

fatfreddy

New Member
Registered Member
Nuclear carriers would be mighty useful if China wanted to park a mobile air base around the Malacca Straits during a counter-blockade scenario.
Someone pointed out before that while you wont need fuel for the ship, you would still need fuel for the planes. So it is still tethered. In the South East Asia, they can operate from "friendly" supply bases so while yes, a nuclear could park longer, I feel that other carriers still have a viable presence specially you cant park in Melaka Straits anyway. Its too narrow, China would need to either park in South China Sea or Indian Ocean. If in South China Sea, resupply from Sprately Islands are feasible or even though agreements with Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand or even Cambodia.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
Someone pointed out before that while you wont need fuel for the ship, you would still need fuel for the planes. So it is still tethered. In the South East Asia, they can operate from "friendly" supply bases so while yes, a nuclear could park longer, I feel that other carriers still have a viable presence specially you cant park in Melaka Straits anyway. Its too narrow, China would need to either park in South China Sea or Indian Ocean. If in South China Sea, resupply from Sprately Islands are feasible or even though agreements with Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand or even Cambodia.
Your fuel stores for the planes will last a whole lot longer if that fuel doesn’t need to be shared with the ship. A nuclear carrier can’t be parked indefinitely without resupply and support, but neither can a base on land. The point is that your persistence will nonetheless be significantly lengthened compared to a conventional carrier, and for those kinds of strategic scenarios that’s a major benefit relative to the limitations that would be imposed by a conventional carrier.
 

Top