4 ms·

Interesting insights, but regarding carriers I have to wonder why the PRC invests in having them, when they are moot/mostly obsolete? They have 2 of former sovi

Interesting insights, but regarding carriers I have to wonder why the PRC invests in having them, when they are moot/mostly obsolete? They have 2 of former soviet origin in operation, a 3rd of completely indigenous origin just went for its maiden voyage on the first of May. Which is notable, because it has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launc... relying on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion which it also has. Arguably better than that US Ford thing, though slightly smaller. A 4th is already under construction, even larger, and will be nuclear powered. All that effort just for showing 'W(h)e(e) too!' ?

maxglute 3y ago
>PRC invests in carriers >showing 'W(h)e(e) too Basically. Would not discount prestige and desire to dick measure when every other large power has them. Technically on paper, carrier still good for projecting against non peer powers. But looking at numbers, I would say relative to PRC ship building capabilities, they're not really investing in carriers. Adoption very slow: 2.5 carriers (with 60 J15s) in 15+ years with PRC's ship building is unserious. 2.5 (not 3) because Liaoning hull was rebuilt Varyag from UKR/USSR. For reference US was launching a carrier every year/other year post WW2, with comparable/larger displacement. Even considering PLAN starting from 0 for carrier ops, they're not waterhosing resources/bodies at problem, i.e. they were spamming submarines/subsurface fleet despite tech gap being even larger. IMO overall carrier investment pretty minimal/conservative, enough to build up institutions, training etc to test waters. Still slowly prototyping fc31/j35 and kj600 when already churning out 100+ J20s per year. Not saying they're not aiming for many more carriers groups eventually, but so far not urgently expanding when they could be laying down 2 per year. Nor are they zerg rushing big replenishment fleet to sustain operation outside theatre. IMO, apart from glamour shots and training platform, I don't think anyone in PLAN seriously expects their carriers to survive vs US in full spectrum war. Or much of the surface fleet, but need grey hulls to navy stuff during peacetime, hence have many of them. I think gamble is making sure PLA has ability to ensure no USN surface ships survives either, which breaks US expeditionary model, meanwhile PRC likely will retain stupendous industrial capacity to rebuild fleet after war. And if they can sink USN with land based long range strikes, whose going to mess with PRC shipping in the interim. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/oj9bcx6vuj16j8cilxks2tmtvgsvpfz.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/oj9bcx6vu...
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> All that effort just for showing 'W(h)e(e) too!' ? Maybe having a few carriers gives them useful capability? Cruise missiles are pretty binary - you can't exactly fly the flag with them, and even shooting one past some target as a warning would be read as declaration of war. Having a mobile airfield you can park near someone else's water gives more flexibility in applying pressure without shooting.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
  One could paint them accordingly, also advertising some funny messages via ADS-B, and going for pulverizing self-destruct in the air instead of impacting somewhere. Maybe even with colored smoke in national colors like they do in air-shows.

maxglute 3y ago

>PRC invests in carriers >showing 'W(h)e(e) too Basically. Would not discount prestige and desire to dick measure when every other large power has them. Technically on paper, carrier still good for projecting against non peer powers. But looking at numbers, I would say relative to PRC ship building capabilities, they're not really investing in carriers. Adoption very slow: 2.5 carriers (with 60 J15s) in 15+ years with PRC's ship building is unserious. 2.5 (not 3) because Liaoning hull was rebuilt Varyag from UKR/USSR. For reference US was launching a carrier every year/other year post WW2, with comparable/larger displacement. Even considering PLAN starting from 0 for carrier ops, they're not waterhosing resources/bodies at problem, i.e. they were spamming submarines/subsurface fleet despite tech gap being even larger. IMO overall carrier investment pretty minimal/conservative, enough to build up institutions, training etc to test waters. Still slowly prototyping fc31/j35 and kj600 when already churning out 100+ J20s per year. Not saying they're not aiming for many more carriers groups eventually, but so far not urgently expanding when they could be laying down 2 per year. Nor are they zerg rushing big replenishment fleet to sustain operation outside theatre. IMO, apart from glamour shots and training platform, I don't think anyone in PLAN seriously expects their carriers to survive vs US in full spectrum war. Or much of the surface fleet, but need grey hulls to navy stuff during peacetime, hence have many of them. I think gamble is making sure PLA has ability to ensure no USN surface ships survives either, which breaks US expeditionary model, meanwhile PRC likely will retain stupendous industrial capacity to rebuild fleet after war. And if they can sink USN with land based long range strikes, whose going to mess with PRC shipping in the interim. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/oj9bcx6vuj16j8cilxks2tmtvgsvpfz.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/oj9bcx6vu...

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> All that effort just for showing 'W(h)e(e) too!' ? Maybe having a few carriers gives them useful capability? Cruise missiles are pretty binary - you can't exactly fly the flag with them, and even shooting one past some target as a warning would be read as declaration of war. Having a mobile airfield you can park near someone else's water gives more flexibility in applying pressure without shooting.

LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
One could paint them accordingly, also advertising some funny messages via ADS-B, and going for pulverizing self-destruct in the air instead of impacting somewhere. Maybe even with colored smoke in national colors like they do in air-shows.