Featured China's 3rd aircraft carrier 'progressing smoothly'

[Mustang-87]

Yea, but I was referring to a full-out CATOBAR carrier stocked with J-35s, UCAVs, and KJ-600 as one cohesive package. It could be of interest to Thailand, Brazil, and Pakistan. The LHD could work too if China has a STO/VL fighter in the works.

Sir i think you are referring to something like this

it was a concept for the upgrade of japanese izumo class but its not happening now as they have chosen a layout similar to british queen elizebeth class i.e. a ski jump and vertical landing
coming back to the point i have also thought about this and it can be a option for pakistan in 2030s-40s.

 

[UKBengali]

Very soon China will surpass the US in naval inventory, good going our Chinese friends.
View attachment 670865

If you mean before 2040-50, then no way.

USN has 11 supercarriers and China are just about to launch their first.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

If you mean before 2040-50, then no way.

Maybe the US ageing Carriers might not be sea worthy by then Regarding the Subs, Frigates and other Vessels PLAN is definitely going to race ahead in a very short time.

 

[UKBengali]

Maybe the US ageing Carriers might not be sea worthy by then Regarding the Subs, Frigates and other Vessels PLAN is definitely going to race ahead in a very short time.

Ford Class carriers are replacing the ageing Nimitz ones every 5 years.

Let us stay realistic here.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Maybe the US ageing Carriers might not be sea worthy by then Regarding the Subs, Frigates and other Vessels PLAN is definitely going to race ahead in a very short time.

each have a 50 year life span if nimitz is to be counted off... even then with the new gerald class, US will still be ahead until china masters nuclear carrier long term operations and warfare tactics which takes decades... there's a reason even the soviets failed. China plans to not expand on carriers anymore... they intend to make the carrier obsolete and to do that... hypersonics ftw

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

Ford Class carriers are replacing the ageing Nimitz ones every 5 years.

Ok agree good for them, it takes nearly half a decade for US to forge out a mega vessel. US has far more commitments then the Chinese ATM, they need to balance the Russian Fleet, Threats in the Gulf, Countering PLAN in the Pacific and other NATO roles. Very soon PLAN will be the dominating force in the West Pacific regions.

 

[Figaro]

Yea, but I was referring to a full-out CATOBAR carrier stocked with J-35s, UCAVs, and KJ-600 as one cohesive package. It could be of interest to Thailand, Brazil, and Pakistan. The LHD could work too if China has a STO/VL fighter in the works.

Considering the J-35 and KJ-600s are just prototypes, I think it is way too early to offer an export package of that type, especially since it is still some time before the Chinese navy gets it. Regarding STOVL, there was some research done with it in the late 2000s but the navy scrapped it because of the high developmental costs and effort.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

A 1000 feet long aircraft carrier is not "Titan".

Both CV-16 and CV-17 are also 1000 feet long in overall, are they being considered as Titan?

This ship is also 1100 feet long and 134 feet wide in beam just like the US supercarriers.

 

[KAL-EL]

Ford Class carriers are replacing the ageing Nimitz ones every 5 years.

Let us stay realistic here.

This ^^^

 

[Figaro]

Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks.

They cost to much, and are easy targets.

Brother, carriers are literally the most difficult target in the USN (or any navy which operates a carrier). No other asset has that many things protecting it 24/7.

Ok agree good for them, it takes nearly half a decade for US to forge out a mega vessel. US has far more commitments then the Chinese ATM, they need to balance the Russian Fleet, Threats in the Gulf, Countering PLAN in the Pacific and other NATO roles. Very soon PLAN will be the dominating force in the West Pacific regions.

This is indeed true. If the PLAN does really decide make through on their 10 carriers by 2035 plan, then the USN will be on the defensive in the Western Pacific, even with all the assets of PACOM and the military bases. The US unfortunately just cannot match anywhere close of the Chinese buildup due to the operating budget and also the relative state of shipyards, which need modernization, compared to the Chinese. The PLAN has thoroughly outclassed anyone else in their surface fleet buildup ... in underseas, too, they are also building up their nuclear attack sub fleet with much higher quality/capabilities than before. The Chinese advancement in their nuclear attack subs may be even more dangerous than any surface advancement. The 093A is already analogous to the improved Los Angeles class attack sub of the early 90s for quite some years now ... it is very likely the 09V (which is already nearly constructed) will close this gap even further and go into the level of the Seawolf/Virginia class.

 

[zhxy]

This is indeed true. If the PLAN does really decide make through on their 10 carriers by 2035 plan, then the USN will be on the defensive in the Western Pacific, even with all the assets of PACOM and the military bases. The US unfortunately just cannot match anywhere close of the Chinese buildup due to the operating budget and also the relative state of shipyards, which need modernization, compared to the Chinese.

10 is too much. China does not want to challenge American hegemony. 4 carriers are defenseless enough. Another reason is that an aircraft carrier is so expensive, it's a bottomless hole and becomes a maintenance and logistics nightmare. The money to build an aircraft carrier is enough to buy about 7-8 thousand anti-ship missiles.

 

[Figaro]

10 is too much. China does not want to challenge American hegemony. 4 carriers are defenseless enough. Another reason is that an aircraft carrier is so expensive, it's a bottomless hole and becomes a maintenance and logistics nightmare. The money to build an aircraft carrier is enough to buy about 7-8 thousand anti-ship missiles.

But China wants to project power rather than only adhering to A2AD. You cannot project power with ASBMs because they are defensive weapons ... you can only project power through carriers. Given the Chinese OBOR and their strategists' view of needing to control everything within the third island chain, you can start to see why a massive carrier force is needed. Now I too agree 10 is overkill, but considering the current pace of construction, I would not be surprised at all.

 

[LeGenD]

But China wants to project power rather than only adhering to A2AD. You cannot project power with ASBMs because they are defensive weapons ... you can only project power through carriers. Given the Chinese OBOR and their strategists' view of needing to control everything within the third island chain, you can start to see why a massive carrier force is needed. Now I too agree 10 is overkill, but considering the current pace of construction, I would not be surprised at all.

Yes.

Contrary to proliferation of misconceptions about the validity of CSG model of warfare in modern times, it is only these strike platforms which can/will provide PLAN a fighting chance against a well-equipped foe such as the USN in OPEN WATERS.

ASBM is absolutely overrated model of warfare courtesy of sheer hype from ill-informed circles/over-confident theorists. No true naval expert find this model of warfare convincing in standalone capacity. I can write much in relation but I am keeping my post simple and to the point.

In order for enemies to attack a carrier, they must successfully complete a complex sequence of events that the Navy calls a "kill chain." First the carrier must be found; then its location must be fixed; then a track of its movement must be established; then the carrier must be engaged; and finally, the results of the engagement must be assessed. In practice, each of these steps consists of a series of subsidiary tasks. Like broken links in a chain, if any of the tasks in the kill chain is not accomplished in a timely fashion, the entire process breaks down. In the event of hostilities, the Navy plans to disrupt every step in an enemy’s kill chain, from strikes against sensors searching for carriers to jamming of enemy command links to interception of weapons seeking to engage the carrier. Several features of the carrier strike group severely impede any adversary’s ability to execute an effective attack:

◼Carriers are always moving, so even if found they can disappear into hundreds of square miles of ocean within minutes.
◼Carrier air wings can intercept and destroy enemy combat systems long before they get anywhere near the carrier.
◼Carriers deploy with surface, air and undersea escorts that can defeat diverse overhead, surface and submerged threats.
◼Carrier sensors are netted with those of other friendly assets to assure optimum detection and targeting of nearby threats.
◼Carriers are nearly impossible to sink given their extensive armoring and hundreds of watertight compartments.

Source: https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/...-Logic-of-Aircraft-Carrier-Strike-Groups2.pdf

Americans do not fear ASBM and the sort - they are however much concerned about the sheer size of PLAN and its emerging CSG capabilities. Now Americans are contemplating fielding over 500+ naval vessels. Go figure.

 

[PakFactor]

Yes.

Contrary to proliferation of misconceptions about the validity of CSG model of warfare in modern times, it is only these strike platforms which can/will provide PLAN a fighting chance against a well-equipped foe such as the USN in OPEN WATERS.

ASBM is absolutely overrated model of warfare courtesy of sheer hype from ill-informed circles/over-confident theorists. No true naval expert find this model of warfare convincing in standalone capacity. I can write much in relation but I am keeping my post simple and to the point.

In order for enemies to attack a carrier, they must successfully complete a complex sequence of events that the Navy calls a "kill chain." First the carrier must be found; then its location must be fixed; then a track of its movement must be established; then the carrier must be engaged; and finally, the results of the engagement must be assessed. In practice, each of these steps consists of a series of subsidiary tasks. Like broken links in a chain, if any of the tasks in the kill chain is not accomplished in a timely fashion, the entire process breaks down. In the event of hostilities, the Navy plans to disrupt every step in an enemy’s kill chain, from strikes against sensors searching for carriers to jamming of enemy command links to interception of weapons seeking to engage the carrier. Several features of the carrier strike group severely impede any adversary’s ability to execute an effective attack:

◼Carriers are always moving, so even if found they can disappear into hundreds of square miles of ocean within minutes.
◼Carrier air wings can intercept and destroy enemy combat systems long before they get anywhere near the carrier.
◼Carriers deploy with surface, air and undersea escorts that can defeat diverse overhead, surface and submerged threats.
◼Carrier sensors are netted with those of other friendly assets to assure optimum detection and targeting of nearby threats.
◼Carriers are nearly impossible to sink given their extensive armoring and hundreds of watertight compartments.

Source: https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/...-Logic-of-Aircraft-Carrier-Strike-Groups2.pdf

Americans do not fear ASBM and the sort - they are however much concerned about the sheer size of PLAN and its emerging CSG capabilities. Now Americans are contemplating fielding over 500+ naval vessels. Go figure.

The race for 500+ ship navy is good, but I wonder what China's count will be to counter this as well --

China will be able to rapidly pump just about the same amount in quicker time. But main concern will be utilization of stealth to target these behemoths.

 

[LeGenD]

The race for 500+ ship navy is good, but I wonder what China's count will be to counter this as well --

China will be able to rapidly pump just about the same amount in quicker time. But main concern will be utilization of stealth to target these behemoths.

Americans have historically taken their maritime security seriously. These investments enabled USN to be equipped with vastly superior strike platforms and hone its warfighting capability in comparison to other navies. However, USN is working with scores of BEATEN HULLS in the present, courtesy of global footprint and operations, and these should be replaced at a fast pace or else the gap between total count of (mission-capable) strike platforms will widen (versus PLAN) in the coming years.

PLAN have a large number of FRESH HULLS to work with in the present (emerging Blue Water Navy), and Chinese shipbuilding capabilities are now developed to the extent that they will enable PLAN to replace potential losses at a fast pace in a potential conflict. China seems to be looking forward to developing the capacity to cope with pressure of dealing with multiple navies at a time in view of its security considerations in South China Sea and Indian Ocean respectively.

Chinese advances across multiple domains have surprised many around the world, and Chinese shipbuilding capacity have left American shipbuilding capacity in the dust lately. The Americans are feeling the heat and scrambling to bridge this gap in the coming years. Interesting times ahead.