CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
On the contrary, as China’s security environment gets more tenuous from pressure exerted through the Pacific l China will need high endurance carriers more, not less. Without a durable hold on forward projected positions China can’t effectively deter against containment, and China doesn’t have many good options for forward projected land bases around the geography of the 1st and 2nd island chain, so carriers as portable bases are really their only option short of inducing or invading an SEA or Pacific Island country.
Yea, I don't see how China can do a huge fleet of nuclear CATOBARs and 6th gen fighters and hypersonic missiles in meaningful numbers. It would need 3.5% of GDP military spending to do that. Time is on China's side, as China can choose the time and place for war.
It's a fair question. But a lot depends on the threat perception that the Chinese leadership sees. Chinese defense spending is pretty low relative to percent of GDP, compared with other major powers. China spent a lot in defense spending as % of fiscal revenue before Deng's era, then it started to fall quickly and even became lower than Taiwan's defense spending by the '90s (of course it also had to do with depreciating Chinese currency at the time). It quickly bounced back and started a period of 15-20 years of rapid increase at double digits after the 1996 Taiwan Crisis, particularly the 1999 NATO bombing of Chinese Embassy at Belgrade, until the mid-2010's when it settled on a steady pace largely in accordance to the GDP growth.
If the security environment is indeed deteriorating as you say and the Chinese leadership also agrees, then I do see a huge problem in their increasing defense spending significantly. We'll have to see.
IMO, they do and will increase defense spending now, but I suspect that they will not switch to a panic mode or emergency mode right away. The contest with the US is still considered to be a long term one and based on comprehensive national power, and the US is seen scrambling and shooting in its foot often right now. Other things to consider: the Chinese are much more efficient and cost-effective in their defense spending than the American and haven't been making a lot of strategic mistakes in investing in wrong programs compared to the US.
I don't think aircraft carriers are luxury. In fact, the Chinese has sunk a lot of investments into the carrier program in the last two decades and have only started to reap the benefits of a full-blown, competitive, world-class carrier program (003, J-15B, J-15D, J-35, KJ-600). Liaoning and Shandong are really toys in comparison. Besides, carriers will be an important component when contesting with the US in the Western Pacific and over time, Northern Indian Ocean. PLAN doesn't need 12 supercarriers to begin to make a difference. They're not going to patrol the globe in the next two decades.
SSN/SSBN are not mutually exclusive to supercarriers, together with H-20, YU-20 etc, China will have for the first time potent power projection platforms to contest if not control up to the second island chain by 2035.
So given the strategic importance of the carrier program, I don't believe there will be a shortage of funding. If more is needed, more will come. China will still outgrow the US economically considerably in the next 10-15 years. Defense spending can increase both because of the growth in economy and the share of the economy.
I meant to say: "I do NOT see a huge problem in their increasing defense spending significantly"
Lethe
Captain
China may have only just begun to reap the benefits of its previous investments in aircraft carriers, but by the same token China has only just begun to incur the costs associated with aircraft carriers. R&D is cheap compared to production and especially operational costs.
I agree that carriers are useful, but the level of investment required to realise a credible capability is enormous, and the carrier itself is only a minor part. You need all the combat and support aircraft, many thousands of personnel both onboard and ashore, and a robust surface and subsurface escort capability and all their personnel. The cost required to realise a useful carrier capability is probably ten times the cost required to realise a useful nuclear submarine capability. In a benign strategic environment, that would be fine, for in the longer-term China can certainly support those costs. But when you are faced with the credible prospect of conflict against a superior adversary perhaps three or five or even ten years from now, finite resources need to be allocated where they can best serve to enhance the prospects of victory and avert the prospects of defeat. Ironically, the dream of a world-class carrier capability is likely to be fully realised only after the threat of war has already begun to diminish. In the long-term, China will be fine. The challenge is to get through the short- and medium-term. And I don't see how carriers, particularly nuclear-powered carriers, are going to help with that. To be clear, I am not suggesting that China should abandon its pursuit of aircraft carriers, rather that carriers should be de-prioritised in favour of capabilities that can deter potential adversaries more rapidly and cost-effectively over the period to 2035. Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, are at the top of that list.
Two competing shipyards push prices down - a monopoly makes it expensive
Politics are more than Prices
RE: immediate numerical parity vs. waiting for nuclear.
Another aspect is that aside from the Djibouti overseas base, and Gwadar naval port, China lacks many overseas navy bases for refueling/restocking supplies. (I know refuelling complements can escort, but less than ideal since it is one more dependency in the kill-chain to disrupt operational efficiency of conventional carriers, particular at great distances)
IF there is no rush for war, I suspect it would be wise to wait for nuclear-majority CATOBAR fleet, rather than rushing with more Type 003 conventional to "fill-in the gap". Time is on China's side. China doesn't have the luxury of many naval bases to refuel, so range and endurance should be a priority aspect for Chinese CATOBARs, even if it takes longer to achieve numerical parity.
Another aspect is that aside from the Djibouti overseas base, and Gwadar naval port, China lacks many overseas navy bases for refueling/restocking supplies. (I know refuelling complements can escort, but less than ideal since it is one more dependency in the kill-chain to disrupt operational efficiency of conventional carriers, particular at great distances)
IF there is no rush for war, I suspect it would be wise to wait for nuclear-majority CATOBAR fleet, rather than rushing with more Type 003 conventional to "fill-in the gap". Time is on China's side. China doesn't have the luxury of many naval bases to refuel, so range and endurance should be a priority aspect for Chinese CATOBARs, even if it takes longer to achieve numerical parity.
Last edited:
U.S. announces name change - Taipei representative office now Taiwan representative office... U.S. VP makes visit to Taipei...ROC president addresses US Congress... lots of ways, I think, the US can trigger a "robust" China response