CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

Gustaf Adolf said:

Any one have any idea on how many type 002 China wants?
The rumour I heard was they were planning for two before starting on the type 003 another article I read said that they were planning on building two carriers at the same time. The article didn't mention which type of carrier though.

Click to expand...

We have aspeculated regarding this on these boards for years.

We do not know for sure...but my own predictions have been:

Type 001 CV-16 STOBAR (Completed)
Type 001A CV-17 STOBAR Launched and ready for trials;

Type 002 #1 CATOBAR building
Type 002 #2 CATOBAR perhaps building but certainly will

Type 003 #1 CATOBAR to build
Type 003 #2 CATOBAR to build.

The two Type 001s (001 and 001A) are both STOBAR carriers built on the Russian Kuznetsov design.

The two Type 002 will definitely be full CATOBAR carriers, potentially conventional propulsion and potentially EMALs cats. Displacement about 80,000 tons.

The two Type 003 carriers will also be CATOBAR and be potentially nuclear powered with EMALS. Displacement potentially 90,000 tons

I still believe this to be accurate.

After this it will just depend on how many carriers the PLAN wants. I expect a total of six operational carriers, with the follow on carriers replacing the fiorst two STOBAR carriers as needed and being newer versions of Type 003.

Jeff Head said:

I expect a total of six operational carriers,

Click to expand...

Why 6?

Gloire_bb said:

Why 6?

Click to expand...

I think 6 is a good number (not including 016) because of the needs in (Indo) Pacific, with 4 active at any time. US has the same number in this area.

In a different thread people discussed the needs for 055/052/054. Those should be calculated based on AC number as well.

They will build every three to four years one fleet carrier, parallel on two shipyards, until they have as many as the US-Navy has. Plus Liaoning and the second ski-jump-carrier - unless technical progress makes aircraft carriers obsolete.

So in 2050 China has a still growing carrier fleet of 8 + 2 carriers, the US Navy then has a shrinking carrier fleet due to economic weakness with only 8 carriers left.

kurutoga said:

I think 6 is a good number (not including 016) because of the needs in (Indo) Pacific, with 4 active at any time. US has the same number in this area.

Click to expand...

Which tasks exactly 4 in active service shall solve? (it's not a rhetoric question)
I mean, say, I can explain how will 4 work for Russia if it will ever be in shape to build them. But Russia isn't China.
US carriers essentially perform police operations.

kurutoga said:

Those should be calculated based on AC number as well.

Click to expand...

Carrier, militarily, is a tool of establishing supremacy on high seas first and foremost!
It has other extremely important uses, but they realistically stop at 2-3 units.
Since China has already moved past this point, 6 units is already too expensive to build not enough.

Gloire_bb said:

Which tasks exactly 4 in active service shall solve? (it's not a rhetoric question)
I mean, say, I can explain how will 4 work for Russia if it will ever be in shape to build them. But Russia isn't China.

Click to expand...

For starters, US sent two carriers to NKorea. How many will there be near Taiwan strait? The political message is quite clear that such a faceoff would happen around 2035. PLAN and PLAAF are progressing toward that goal.

The other scenarios include conflict with Japan (and maybe Australia at the same time) with US backing.

Gloire_bb said:

Which tasks exactly 4 in active service shall solve? (it's not a rhetoric question)
I mean, say, I can explain how will 4 work for Russia if it will ever be in shape to build them. But Russia isn't China.
US carriers essentially perform police operations.

Carrier, militarily, is a tool of establishing supremacy on high seas first and foremost!
It has other extremely important uses, but they realistically stop at 2-3 units.
Since China has already moved past this point, 6 units is already too expensive to build not enough.

Click to expand...

To guard against a blockade by the Hegemon

Gloire_bb said:

Why 6?

Click to expand...

LOL this is not to answer for Jeff, but I'd say to have one deployed 365/24/7; if you're thinking like common Jura it'd be more than one, then you should probably check this:
The US had no aircraft carriers deployed for the first time since at least 2000 — but Russia and China do Jan. 6, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The US operates the most aircraft carriers of any country, but for the first time since at least 2000, and possibly since World War II, not a single US carrier was deployed, the US Navy has confirmed to Business Insider. ..." etc.

Jura said:

LOL this is not to answer for Jeff, but I'd say to have one deployed 365/24/7; if you're thinking like common Jura it'd be more than one, then you should probably check this:
The US had no aircraft carriers deployed for the first time since at least 2000 — but Russia and China do Jan. 6, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The US operates the most aircraft carriers of any country, but for the first time since at least 2000, and possibly since World War II, not a single US carrier was deployed, the US Navy has confirmed to Business Insider. ..." etc.

Click to expand...

Wasn't USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) just operating in SCS? What is the difference between operating and deployment?

kurutoga said:

Wasn't USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) just operating in SCS? What is the difference between operating and deployment?

Click to expand...

the point has been "But for about a week, no US carriers could be found away from port anywhere in the world."
(in "etc." part of my post LOL)