Future PLAN naval and carrier operations

chain smoker said:

I heard that 2 nuclear powered carriers are cancelled.

Click to expand...

Extremely unlikely. It's possible schedule might be adjusted depending upon the availability dates of key subsystems or components (read: nuclear reactor), but nuclear-powered carrier is a long-term, strategic program for PLAN and China. If anything, they should be accelerated.

From time to time, one reads from western media that due to the economic downturn, Chinese defense spending growth might be slowed down or even cut and expensive programs such as carriers would be affected. This is missing the forest for the trees. China's defense spending is pretty low compared with other major nations, no matter what statistics one uses. Furthermore, the strategic environment that China is facing and will be facing calls for strong deterrence (think Taiwan). I expect all the strategic programs such as nuclear-powered carriers, next-gen nuclear-powered submarines, and strategic stealth bombers will proceed as planned. If there is any economic impact on defense spending at all, it would be on the scale and speed of the roll-out, for example, instead of 4 planned launches nuclear-powered carriers by 2035, they might postpone the construction of the 3rd & 4th nuclear-powered carriers while the first two would not be affected.

weig2000 said:

Extremely unlikely. It's possible schedule might be adjusted depending upon the availability dates of key subsystems or components (read: nuclear reactor), but nuclear-powered carrier is a long-term, strategic program for PLAN and China. If anything, they should be accelerated.

Click to expand...

As I suggested previously, it is plausible that nuclear-powered carriers may be delayed or cancelled specifically because of the heightened threat environment and the need to maximise capability in the near/medium-term. Nuclear-powered vessels are much more capital intensive than conventional ones, offset by fuel cost savings that accrue only gradually over the >30yr service life of the ship. With a given budget, China could probably build two conventional carriers for the cost of one nuclear-powered carrier, and that may well be preferable if the aim is to maximise near/medium-term capabilities.

Lethe said:

Nuclear-powered vessels are much more capital intensive than conventional ones, offset by fuel cost savings that accrue only gradually over the >30yr service life of the ship.

Click to expand...

Cost savings is actually not the main reason you build nuclear powered vessels. Logistics is. In the case of a carrier, now the only thing you need to supply fuel for is aircraft.

Lethe said:

As I suggested previously, it is plausible that nuclear-powered carriers may be delayed or cancelled specifically because of the heightened threat environment and the need to maximise capability in the near/medium-term. Nuclear-powered vessels are much more capital intensive than conventional ones, offset by fuel cost savings that accrue only gradually over the >30yr service life of the ship. With a given budget, China could probably build two conventional carriers for the cost of one nuclear-powered carrier, and that may well be preferable if the aim is to maximise near/medium-term capabilities.

Click to expand...

Given China's economic capability, I can see her stretches out the schedule for the nuclear carrier but not cancel it.

However, if China does cancel the program, it can mean only one thing, IMHO, - that China is so confident of her carrier killer capability that PLA military planners expect the US to have similar capability at about the same time frame. This render the use of carrier against a superpower obsolete.

subotai1 said:

Cost savings is actually not the main reason you build nuclear powered vessels. Logistics is. In the case of a carrier, now the only thing you need to supply fuel for is aircraft.

Click to expand...

I very much doubt a significant gain, from a logistical point of view, since the combat group has conventional propulsion. The fleet remains dependent on robust logistical support.

Lethe said:

As I suggested previously, it is plausible that nuclear-powered carriers may be delayed or cancelled specifically because of the heightened threat environment and the need to maximise capability in the near/medium-term. Nuclear-powered vessels are much more capital intensive than conventional ones, offset by fuel cost savings that accrue only gradually over the >30yr service life of the ship. With a given budget, China could probably build two conventional carriers for the cost of one nuclear-powered carrier, and that may well be preferable if the aim is to maximise near/medium-term capabilities.

Click to expand...

The original basis of the entire "nuclear powered carrier cancelled/delayed" narrative was from our favourite Minnie Chan over at SCMP, and when one read that article its content itself was rather illogical and presumptuous to begin with.

We don't know what China's near term carrier procurement is going to look like beyond the first 003 and we also definitely don't know if there's been any changes in it as suggested by that ridiculous article either.

Bltizo said:

The original basis of the entire "nuclear powered carrier cancelled/delayed" narrative was from our favourite Minnie Chan over at SCMP, and when one read that article its content itself was rather illogical and presumptuous to begin with.

We don't know what China's near term carrier procurement is going to look like beyond the first 003 and we also definitely don't know if there's been any changes in it as suggested by that ridiculous article either.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, I don't see the need for China to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, unless one of two things happens:
1. China adopts a US-like global military strategy.
2. China develops a new nuclear propulsion technology that make it extremely cheap, such that it would significantly reduces the overall coat (procurement cost plus usage cost plus disposal cost) by going nuclear.

So far, I see China only adopting an East-Asia-only (or indo-west-pacific only) military strategy, in which it has no intention to extend its capabilities beyond the East-Asia (or Indian ocean plus west Pacific ocean). I see this as extremely potent and clever grand strategy.

Nuclear powered super carriers are not just weapons or war, but also ships of prestige that signifies a certain status of superpowerhood.

China sending out naval ships
China sending out conventional carriers
China sending out CATOBAR nuclear powered 80,000 tonne carriers

are three different levels of statement.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

In my opinion, I don't see the need for China to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, unless one of two things happens:
1. China adopts a US-like global military strategy.
2. China develops a new nuclear propulsion technology that make it extremely cheap, such that it would significantly reduces the overall coat (procurement cost plus usage cost plus disposal cost) by going nuclear.

So far, I see China only adopting an East-Asia-only (or indo-west-pacific only) military strategy, in which it has no intention to extend its capabilities beyond the East-Asia (or Indian ocean plus west Pacific ocean). I see this as extremely potent and clever grand strategy.

Click to expand...

I think even if China adopts an "East asia only" or "indo-west-pacific" military strategy, there are still significant marked benefits that a nuclear powered super carrier offers beyond a conventional carrier.

These benefits, IMO are primarily in relation to endurance.

Endurance matters in terms of not only the ship's ability to stay at sea, but also the ship's ability to carry more aviation fuel as a part of its overall tonnage, both of which can significantly reduce the ship's frequency for replenishment.
There is also the kinetic factor where a nuclear powered super carrier will be able to maintain top speed for much longer than a conventionally powered super carrier, which even in a high intensity regional war can be very important for entering and exfiltrating a theater of operations in the western pacific.
And even during peacetime, the ability to allow a carrier to be at sea in the western pacific with significantly reduced refuelling requirements offers greater redundancy and flexibility than a conventionally powered carrier.


... Whether the PLAN will eventually procure nuclear powered carriers or not is obviously going to depend on the balance of those factors versus the opportunity costs of procuring other systems that are relevant for their overall national and naval strategy.

But personally I think the PLAN are still intent on nuclear powered carriers as an eventual end goal.

xiabonan said:

Nuclear powered super carriers are not just weapons or war, but also ships of prestige that signifies a certain status of superpowerhood.

China sending out naval ships
China sending out conventional carriers
China sending out CATOBAR nuclear powered 80,000 tonne carriers

are three different levels of statement.

Click to expand...

That is true, however nuclear supercarriers are sufficiently costly and complex and demands national resources to an extent that no nation would procure them without having self assessed military requirement for them.

If the PLA decides that they want nuclear powered carriers, it will be because they have a firm and clear military requirement for them first and foremost. Any benefits in terms of geopolitical signalling would be secondary or tertiary.

Bltizo said:

The original basis of the entire "nuclear powered carrier cancelled/delayed" narrative was from our favourite Minnie Chan over at SCMP, and when one read that article its content itself was rather illogical and presumptuous to begin with.

We don't know what China's near term carrier procurement is going to look like beyond the first 003 and we also definitely don't know if there's been any changes in it as suggested by that ridiculous article either.

Click to expand...

I make no comment on the rumour or China's actual carrier roadmap or any revisions that may or may not have occurred to it on the way. I only suggest that it is plausible that there may once have been a plan to progress quite rapidly to nuclear-powered carriers, which has subsequently been modified in light of the changing threat environment (i.e. deteriorating relations with the United States) leading to more emphasis being placed on short-term return on investment, i.e. fielded combat power.