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


kentchang

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
I respectively disagree with you on all your points. Sounds more like what a U.S. Admiral or a neighborhood bully trying to physically intimidate someone. Not China's style. Economic pressure works much more effectively with much less long-term consequences for the bilateral relationship.

I simply cannot come up with a single situation in real life that would change the outcome because China deployed a carrier. If a carrier can make a difference, then chances are you don't need it to resolve the situation more amicably. If a carrier makes no difference, then why bother risking the chance of escalation.

Which country or area do you have in mind? The Malacca Strait? Blockade by which country against which? U.S. against Chinese ships or all ships? How do you think the blockade will be implemented? What is the U.S. motivation or excuse? Is this blockade U.N. authorized? If not, it is technically piracy. What if all ships suddenly changed registry to Panama with Malaysia as destination? Board every ship? Blockades are done with ships (perfect for LCS), not aircrafts. What is the carrier there for? Strafing civilian ships in international waters that don't stop? If carrier is Chinese? You suggest starting W.W.3 by destroying a USN ship? If not, what is the mission objective/rules of engagement for the carrier? So far Chinese carrier construction has been done at a leisurely pace. You don't think China has wargamed the Malacca Strait scenario to death already and decided they can take their time with carriers?

Tactically, the last thing you want a carrier to be is in a confined area. A carrier group needs hundreds of nautical miles of empty sea for self-protection and maneuvering. Any carrier captain (Chinese or American) tries to 'park' near any 'choke' point with military action in mind should be shot on the spot for incompetence and stupidity. Can you imagine all the opposing submarine commanders salivating while shadowing a nearby freighter?

The U.S. will not fight a hot war with another nuclear power for anything less than physical survival. Neither will China. This is why North Korea developed and showed off its SLBM's. In 1996, U.S. informed China before deploying the two carrier group and China told the U.S. about the dummy warheads. U.S. publicly stated the carrier groups were there to show support. Everything else is just for show.

So my view stays the same. Yes, China must acquire a couple 003's followed by serial production of 004's. Great for national pride, job creation, R&D, photo-ops, war movie prop, and of course, show of force internationally. All justifiable reasons and China can certainly afford to do this. One may argue they have 'deterrence' values and they do. I just cannot come up with real world scenario where having carriers is essential and necessary to resolve an actual conflict. Like the two B-2's U.S. used to drop 100 bombs at the cost of over $10 millions in Libya against ISIS, all Chinese carriers' primary reason-to-be is for show ('deterrence' does sounds better).

Aircraft carriers are akin to those extreme-high-end 'Reference' speaker systems or 'Reserve' whiskeys. The companies that make them don't really expect to sell them. Just looking good in showrooms is all they wanted. They made them to say "Hey, look at what I am capable of, so trust me on the cheaper speakers/booze I make".

This is off topic. No more from me as I have said all my brain can muster.
 

kentchang

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
It would be totally foolish for either side to start a fight with a thousand mile long supply line. It is suicidal for the U.S. to fight in the Pacific and suicidal for China to fight in the Indian Ocean. Unless China directly threatens Australia or Japan, both will probably stay neutral to avoid total destruction. Not a realistic scenario. There are no realistic scenarios between the U.S. and China.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
I respectively disagree with you on all your points. Sounds more like what a U.S. Admiral or a neighborhood bully trying to physically intimidate someone. Not China's style. Economic pressure works much more effectively with much less long-term consequences for the bilateral relationship.

I simply cannot come up with a single situation in real life that would change the outcome because China deployed a carrier. If a carrier can make a difference, then chances are you don't need it to resolve the situation more amicably. If a carrier makes no difference, then why bother risking the chance of escalation.

Which country or area do you have in mind? The Malacca Strait? Blockade by which country against which? U.S. against Chinese ships or all ships? How do you think the blockade will be implemented? What is the U.S. motivation or excuse? Is this blockade U.N. authorized? If not, it is technically piracy. What if all ships suddenly changed registry to Panama with Malaysia as destination? Board every ship? Blockades are done with ships (perfect for LCS), not aircrafts. What is the carrier there for? Strafing civilian ships in international waters that don't stop? If carrier is Chinese? You suggest starting W.W.3 by destroying a USN ship? If not, what is the mission objective/rules of engagement for the carrier? So far Chinese carrier construction has been done at a leisurely pace. You don't think China has wargamed the Malacca Strait scenario to death already and decided they can take their time with carriers?

Tactically, the last thing you want a carrier to be is in a confined area. A carrier group needs hundreds of nautical miles of empty sea for self-protection and maneuvering. Any carrier captain (Chinese or American) tries to 'park' near any 'choke' point with military action in mind should be shot on the spot for incompetence and stupidity. Can you imagine all the opposing submarine commanders salivating while shadowing a nearby freighter?

The U.S. will not fight a hot war with another nuclear power for anything less than physical survival. Neither will China. This is why North Korea developed and showed off its SLBM's. In 1996, U.S. informed China before deploying the two carrier group and China told the U.S. about the dummy warheads. U.S. publicly stated the carrier groups were there to show support. Everything else is just for show.

So my view stays the same. Yes, China must acquire a couple 003's followed by serial production of 004's. Great for national pride, job creation, R&D, photo-ops, war movie prop, and of course, show of force internationally. All justifiable reasons and China can certainly afford to do this. One may argue they have 'deterrence' values and they do. I just cannot come up with real world scenario where having carriers is essential and necessary to resolve an actual conflict. Like the two B-2's U.S. used to drop 100 bombs at the cost of over $10 millions in Libya against ISIS, all Chinese carriers' primary reason-to-be is for show ('deterrence' does sounds better).

Aircraft carriers are akin to those extreme-high-end 'Reference' speaker systems or 'Reserve' whiskeys. The companies that make them don't really expect to sell them. Just looking good in showrooms is all they wanted. They made them to say "Hey, look at what I am capable of, so trust me on the cheaper speakers/booze I make".

This is off topic. No more from me as I have said all my brain can muster.
What you’re now discussing is the politics of engaging in such a fight, not the strategic sensibility of using and needing carriers. The job of a military is to prepare for potential strategic contingencies no matter what the best course of politics are, because in international relations sometimes sh*t happens. If the US published white papers about imposing blockades against a “near peer rival in Asia” as a essential strategic contingency then China needs to correspondingly prepare for such a scenario as part of their own military planning. The whole point of military planning is if defending a plausible or likely scenario is currently unachievable, commensurate with the level of risk and exposure you work towards making defense against such scenarios possible. Your personal assessment of believability is not part of that picture.
 

Intrepid

Captain
Not all aircraft carriers are created equal. The Forrestal was constructed for a nuclear war against the USSR, the Nimitz for a war against a country without the possibility to act worldwide like Vietnam.

For which scenario are Ford, Queen Elizabeth or Charles de Gaulle designed? A Gulf war? For which scenario is 004 intended, what should 003 prepare for?
 

MarkD

New Member
Registered Member
003 compared to 004 IMO is sort of like 052C compared to 052D. Just as 052C is China's first Aegis type, 003 is China's first flat top type. Just as 052C is not mass produced, 003 is not mass produced. Just as 052D is mass produced, 004 is mass produced. IMO China will build 004 two at a time, at a much faster rate than building 003.
 

MarkD

New Member
Registered Member
They'll probably only build 2 003. 004 should be build about 4. Assuming 2 055 in each carrier battle group, 16 planned 055 means 8 carrier battle groups. So 1 001, 1 002, 2 003, 4 004 = 8 carriers by the 2030s timeframe.
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
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.

2 issues.

Combined cycle engines are still in the research/development phase.
Whilst they may be technically possible (as with most engineering challenges), there is a big question as to whether they are cost-effective or economically viable.

You also have to separate how weapons are delivered versus the detection platforms.

Yes, heavy powered missiles are best delivered from the ground (from cheap trucks/ships) rather than from expensive aircraft or submarines.
But for the initial detection of opposing ships and mobile land targets - you can't beat an airborne platform which has a lot more range.

There's a few CBSA papers on future carrier doctrine which go into a lot more detail, which have been discussed in previous threads.

Hence I still think large nuclear carriers will still be required - if you want to obtain air superiority and acquire targets deep into the oceans.
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
I respectively disagree with you on all your points. Sounds more like what a U.S. Admiral or a neighborhood bully trying to physically intimidate someone. Not China's style. Economic pressure works much more effectively with much less long-term consequences for the bilateral relationship.

I simply cannot come up with a single situation in real life that would change the outcome because China deployed a carrier. If a carrier can make a difference, then chances are you don't need it to resolve the situation more amicably. If a carrier makes no difference, then why bother risking the chance of escalation.

Which country or area do you have in mind? The Malacca Strait? Blockade by which country against which? U.S. against Chinese ships or all ships? How do you think the blockade will be implemented? What is the U.S. motivation or excuse? Is this blockade U.N. authorized? If not, it is technically piracy. What if all ships suddenly changed registry to Panama with Malaysia as destination? Board every ship? Blockades are done with ships (perfect for LCS), not aircrafts. What is the carrier there for? Strafing civilian ships in international waters that don't stop? If carrier is Chinese? You suggest starting W.W.3 by destroying a USN ship? If not, what is the mission objective/rules of engagement for the carrier? So far Chinese carrier construction has been done at a leisurely pace. You don't think China has wargamed the Malacca Strait scenario to death already and decided they can take their time with carriers?

Tactically, the last thing you want a carrier to be is in a confined area. A carrier group needs hundreds of nautical miles of empty sea for self-protection and maneuvering. Any carrier captain (Chinese or American) tries to 'park' near any 'choke' point with military action in mind should be shot on the spot for incompetence and stupidity. Can you imagine all the opposing submarine commanders salivating while shadowing a nearby freighter?

The U.S. will not fight a hot war with another nuclear power for anything less than physical survival. Neither will China. This is why North Korea developed and showed off its SLBM's. In 1996, U.S. informed China before deploying the two carrier group and China told the U.S. about the dummy warheads. U.S. publicly stated the carrier groups were there to show support. Everything else is just for show.

So my view stays the same. Yes, China must acquire a couple 003's followed by serial production of 004's. Great for national pride, job creation, R&D, photo-ops, war movie prop, and of course, show of force internationally. All justifiable reasons and China can certainly afford to do this. One may argue they have 'deterrence' values and they do. I just cannot come up with real world scenario where having carriers is essential and necessary to resolve an actual conflict. Like the two B-2's U.S. used to drop 100 bombs at the cost of over $10 millions in Libya against ISIS, all Chinese carriers' primary reason-to-be is for show ('deterrence' does sounds better).

Aircraft carriers are akin to those extreme-high-end 'Reference' speaker systems or 'Reserve' whiskeys. The companies that make them don't really expect to sell them. Just looking good in showrooms is all they wanted. They made them to say "Hey, look at what I am capable of, so trust me on the cheaper speakers/booze I make".

This is off topic. No more from me as I have said all my brain can muster.

There's all sorts of scenarios involving Taiwan where Chinese carriers would come in useful in sealing off the Western Pacific.

For one, suppose the US believes that it can still successfully resupply Taiwan in a conventional war, because it has more carriers and can push forward from Guam. Control of the waters beyond the 2nd island chain means the US Navy could perform a maritime blockade of China.

On the other hand, if China has a larger blue-water carrier fleet, then it is the Chinese Navy which has the ability to control the sea lanes and ensure global trade continues.

China needs a larger carrier fleet to successfully deter the US from intervening with Taiwan.
If China has a smaller fleet, it's not enough of a deterrent as the US could believe it can win a conventional war.

Who has sea-control is also part of the calculation that smaller countries will make in deciding where they stand between China and the USA.
 

Top