Construction of the 4th Chinese aircraft carrier has reportedly started

https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/07/06/4-Chinese-aircraft-carriers-construction/

by belter • 2 years ago

23 68 2 years ago

borisk2• 2 years ago

Very interesting. Wonder what does building an aircraft carrier fleet say about China's military priorities. Are they more focused on occupying Taiwan, or on keeping the Malacca Straight open for commerce, or on power projection across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

simonblack4• 2 years ago

Probably more about keeping distant sea lanes like the Malacca Strait open in the short term, until the overland routes are more developed. After which, carriers are a waste of resources.

Otherwise I'd say it's just as silly for China to build obsolete carriers as it is for the US to keep building them.

Missiles outrange carriers which in turn outrange battleships. The battleships became obsolete in 1941. The carriers became obsolete in the early 2000s.

skhunted11• 2 years ago

Why do you think aircraft carriers are obsolete?

actionfromafar3• 2 years ago

Even if we accept the premise, carriers are still formidable force projection against non-peer adversaries. Imagine for instance a chinese carrier vs the Philippines, not vs the US.

daniel-thompson• 2 years ago

carriers can be used to project power in scenarios short of all-out war, which is the common case, at the moment

jowea• 2 years ago

Will overland routes ever be as cheap and used as sea routes?

And I feel the better comparison is does "missile on aircraft on carrier outrange hostile missile?"

unyttigfjelltol• 2 years ago

Carriers outswarm long-range missiles and out-loiter long-range air patrols.

But more to the point if you can't defend a mobile ocean-going fortress, what can you defend?

YZF2• 2 years ago

Missiles out-range carriers but the cost of hitting a target in Yemen with a Tomahawk missile launched from afar (2 million dollars, range 2500km) is much higher than the cost of dropping a bomb (~ 16k dollars) from a jet on said target. Even after amortizing all the other costs. The firepower an aircraft carrier brings with it to any location it gets to is really hard to match with missiles. More than the "bandwidth" and cost of that, there's also latency. Drones are another thing to compare to.

hollerith• 2 years ago

We found out that the battleship had become obsolete because of a world war. We aren't going to know for sure whether the carrier is obsolete till the next major naval war.

wongarsu2• 2 years ago

Taiwan is just 150 miles / 250km from the Chinese mainland. You can just use a regular airfield. When talking about the island chains around Taiwan you get a bit further out, but nothing you can't handle with one midair refueling.

On the other hand if China were to prepare for a war in the South China Sea aircraft carriers would be very useful. They have a couple airstrips there, but they are vulnerable and not as flexible as bringing a couple carriers to the coast of your enemy. It's also a good deterrent as a pure show of force.

Keeping the Malacca Straight open might also be a big part of it.

Andaith• 2 years ago

I think it says they aspire to being a global power, not just a regional power. They want the ability to project power anywhere, just like the USA.

maxglute7• 2 years ago

IMO slow acquisition = still playing around / PLANavy brass + CPC big bois thinks it's nice for dick measuring contest, with some limited peacetime use to wag said dick for diplomacy/"presence"/propaganda.

The reality seems to be that PRC is profoundly not serious about building carriers. They now have ~300x ship building capacity vs US, and outputs in one year as much tonnage as entire US WW2 5-year ship building program, yet is building up carriers at extremely slow rate (2.5 in ~15 years - with 01/liaoning rebuilt from USSR Varyag hull), when they can be spamming 2-3+ carriers PER year. For reference US was laying/building/launching/commissioning a Forrestal class and other large displacement carriers almost every year post WW2. It would be fairly easy for PRC to build 10+ carriers within a few years, but they don't, nor do they seem to be prioritizing building out requisit airwings. Relevant carrier programs are moving along, but it seems far from urgent. This is not the aquisition posture of a force that prioritizes / values carriers.

Compare to say PRC subsurface... they had shit subs until recently, but have consistently tried to close gap and built a lot of boats. Now that latest gen PLAN subs within 1ish generation of USN, they're expanding sub shipyards to build 6-8s simultaneously, i.e. 3-4x than US. Good sign they really care about subs.

TLDR is I don't know if PRC sees expansive role of carriers for future priorities, but it's still worth hedging / building up capability just in case. Real question is, why is PRC building so few carriers, why do most major carrier operators maintain minimal carrier fleet, which includes USN, whose minimum carrier #s are constrained by law (11+10 operational carriers/amphibious assault ships from 10 USC. 8062) and therefore we don't really know what USN priority would be if planners have freedom pursue any force composition. We do know USN insists it needs to build up against PRC but future navy force design is hedging on distributed lethality of more smaller hulls while maintaining the LEAST amount of carries they are legally obligated to operate, which to my knowledge they've never exceeded.

lkdfjlkdfjlg2• 2 years ago

I'm not an expert or anything, but don't modern day drone capabilities mean that aricraft carriers are easy to destroy or incapacitate?

actionfromafar3• 2 years ago

I think it's too early to tell. Carriers can carry drones, too.

lkdfjlkdfjlg2• 2 years ago

What's your point? If I'm going to blow up a carrier with a drone, the fact that the carrier can also carry drones makes no difference.

dmurray• 2 years ago

People keep saying this, but the trend in warfare these days is for limited wars, not superpower against superpower.

A modern carrier group has plenty of air defences and anti-drone capabilities to hold off a small- or medium-sized enemy, and it would still provide a very useful mobile platform to bomb them from.

ianburrell5• 2 years ago

What kind of drones? People keep saying this but they don't specify the kind of drones. The small drones that are being used to drop grenades in Ukraine are useless in naval warfare, they fall into the ocean after few miles.

The Houthis are using medium range Iranian drones to attack ships, but they have mostly been failures since they are easier to shoot down. Also, being controlled from land limits the numbers and makes vulnerable to jamming. They also don't have range to catch carriers out at sea.

The longer range "drones" that Iranians have developed could change things. They are basically slow cruise missiles, not drones. But they could be used in large numbers because they are cheap. There is no indication they have developed anti-ship guidance which would bump up the price. However, they haven't had much effect in Ukraine, Israel, or Red Sea.

Also, we haven't seen what counters to drones look like. The same guidance for autonomous drone could lead to accurate cannons taking them down. Cheap missiles could mean cheap defensive missiles to shoot down all the drones.

onlyrealcuzzo3• 2 years ago

Wouldn't aircraft carriers be able to shoot down slow cruise missiles extremely easily?

And even a direct hit wouldn't come close to sinking an aircraft carrier. You'd probably need a dozens of direct hits.

Multiple direct hits from torpedoes couldn't even sink an old, decommissioned aircraft carrier.

Cruise missiles were not effective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_United_States_...

wongarsu2• 2 years ago

The most interesting are probably Ukrainian sea drones. Fairly long range remote controlled somewhat stealthy boats with a big explosive payload. In the newer models they are a bit less stealthy in exchange for a bigger payload and a bulletproof roof.

Now one of these would probably do nothing against a carrier. It wouldn't reach it, and if it would it wouldn't get through the armor. But a bigger swarm can overwhelm your defenses and repeatedly hit the same spot to get through armor. They can be mass-produced, and no matter how much firepower and armor you bring your enemy can always spend less money than that on just making more drones.

ineedaj0b4• 2 years ago

No, you can shoot them down or have a destroyer’s smaller guns run defense

Daneel_• 2 years ago

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted for an honest question.

devjab• 2 years ago

We have recently had a few “navy scandals” here in Denmark because our navy has been ridiculously underfunded. They’ve done stuff like lending the cannons capable of fire to the ships that might need them and then pretended the others had working systems… Anyway, one of our destroyers (or whatever we have) which was near Israel at the beginning of the Gaza nightmare was targeted by some of those missile and drone attacks from that Iran proxy group that was shooting at ships. I’m sorry I’m not more informed on this anecdote by the way. To get to the point, our ship had 3 out of 5 defense systems fail completely, and, it still managed to shoot down or jam everything coming at it.

If our basically defunct navy can deal with Iran drones and missiles, then I’m fairly certain an aircraft carrier can.

Ekaros• 2 years ago

On other side something like aircraft carrier is decent solution to launch those drones. And to repair, rearm, refuel them. In the end they are platforms to project air power.

Animats• 2 years ago

Construction of the first new Type 004 Chinese aircraft carrier has been rumored to be under way for years now.

Is this supposed to be a new Type 004, or another Type 003 like the Fujian?

With the Fujian completed and in sea trials, it would make sense to keep the production line going and crank out a few more. The US suffers from on and off warship production. Some years ago, after winning a carrier order, the head of Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock announced, in a letter to Congress, that if the Navy would order two at once, Newport News would throw in a third one for free. The Navy declined.

LargoLasskhyfv• 2 years ago

AFAIK 004 will be larger than 003, having the same general systems like EMALS and IPS, but will be nukular in äddishun.

ineedaj0b4• 2 years ago

There’s credible rumors China is planning to make moves on Taiwan 2028ish.

I feel bad for the Taiwanese, similar to how I felt about Hong Kong. I was hoping we’d offer Hong Kong citizens aslyum (you’d make great US citizens!) but I realize we’d probably also get a few… dissidents caught in our net with that program. I even debated marrying a Hong Kong girl for citizenship but couldn’t find any online, also what a weird offer to make, no one took me up on it (couldn’t find where Hong Kong people posted to advertise even).

Anyhow, I do support strengthening our military. I was younger and thought our military budget was silly but after more reading and more nuance in my worldview, I realize our military is source of consistency - a necessary evil that’s helped to avoid larger wars. Still wish we had better healthcare though.

r00fus• 2 years ago

What are credible rumors?

With all the evidence it seems the “threat of Chinese invasion” may also just be the US imperial coalition trying to increase defense spending again. Just like Ukraine and Israel.

ineedaj0b4• 2 years ago

The rumors started after covid, when Biden was in office (not a political party that wants to increase defense spending). The rumors are from our guys… you can’t really say where you hear credible rumors but I attest it’s from not easily spooked people.

yongjik• 2 years ago

Meh, I've been hearing "credible rumors" that North Korea would start a war (or, alternatively, collapse) any day soon, pretty much my entire life. Somehow, NK has failed to do either.

I'd trust these rumors about China about as much.

ineedaj0b4• 2 years ago

I haven't heard anything about NK, I wouldn't worry about Russia, NK, or Iran - that gets played up in the media for reasons. I've only heard things about Taiwan that seem credible.

skissane• 2 years ago

Personally I think, if PRC was really going to engage in a significant military escalation of the cross-straits conflict, a PRC invasion of Taiwan-controlled islands immediately off the PRC coast (Kinmen and Matsu islands) is most likely. Only 10-20 km from PRC, they would be easiest for PRC to invade and hardest for Taiwan to defend. Taiwan-and other powers such as the US and Japan-would have a very difficult decision to make in terms of how to respond, and Beijing will be hoping they give up rather than fight back hard-which would be a massive morale boost for PRC and a huge loss of face for Taiwan and its de facto allies. It would be a rather risky escalation for PRC, but still a lot less risky than actually attempting an invasion of the Taiwan mainland.

Other conceivable options, falling short of a full scale invasion of the Taiwanese mainland, would be a naval blockade of mainland Taiwan or missile strikes against it.

Construction of the 4th Chinese aircraft carrier has reportedly started

Related Stories