USN CBG v PRC CBG

**chakos** · 09 Feb 12,, 02:36

Originally Posted by ace16807

for China the golden number for modernization is 2049.

Its interesting to see a country with a long term strategic plan. At a time that most western politicians long term outlook is 'get reelected' and 'dont let the economy collapse under my watch' its almost refreshing to see a country working on a strategic plan that none of the politicians and few of the underlings will ever live to see. To steal a line that i read in another forum 'China has a long term plan, the West has ADHD'

Back on topic, the assumption here is that China is trying to skin a cat the same way the West is. The Chinese government has proportionally less money and more people than the West. Why not build many medium carriers around the size of the one they have now with airgroups between 30-40. It gives you more operational flexibility for when you do not need a full sized carrier and when paired up gives you an airwing thats the equivelant of a US carrier but with a lot more tactical flexibility as well as the ability to launch and/or land more aircraft at a time than a full sized US carrier. Im sure the Chinese could build and man 2 medium sized carriers for far less than it costs the US to build and man 1 supercarrier.

**HKDan** · 09 Feb 12,, 03:21

Chakos,

When you say build "many" medium sized carriers, are you suggesting that China build more than 11? More than 20? My first reaction to that is that the cost involved in that plan, when you include the infrastructure, escorts, and associated investments necessary to operate a fleet that size would be absolutely enormous. When the more ambitious estimates of a future PLAN carrier fleet guess at 4-6 medium sized carriers, I wonder if boosting it so significantly is even within the realm of possibility. Remember, as of yet, they haven't built a single carrier on their own. A fleet of Chinese carriers that outnumbers the USN even regionally is not something that we will see anytime soon. I still maintain that Chinese carriers are not about the USN as much as they are about Japan, South Korea, or India.

**chakos** · 09 Feb 12,, 03:29

Im talking in 20 years minimum, maybe even till the 2049 timeframe. Im arguing that there may be more than one way to skin a cat.

**ace16807** · 09 Feb 12,, 03:43

The relation in terms of cost and no. of sorties a carrier can conduct is not linear relative to the displacement of the vessel. A 65,000 ton carrier does not cost 65% of a 100,000 ton carrier. In fact, the difference is rather marginal (something along the lines of 10% less I believe). You also have the issue of two fleet carriers requiring around 100 aircraft while something like the Ford Class only carrying 75, yet still being able to match the number of sorties.

Operating two fleet carriers as opposed to a single supercarrier is also a logistical nightmare. Again, the relationship between ship size and logistical support is not linear. Not only do you have to support in the case of the Chinese, two conventionally powered carriers, but also more planes and personnel as well.

**chakos** · 09 Feb 12,, 03:59

Ace,

My argument is that the Chinese can operate 2 65k carriers for less than the cost of a 100k carrier. They won't have the bells and whistles of a US supercarrier but they would be much cheaper to build and maintain. Cheaper to build and man due to cost of labour, cheaper to build the powerplants, cheaper to buy the air wing. I believe it's economically viable at the very least

**HKDan** · 09 Feb 12,, 03:59

Originally Posted by chakos

Im talking in 20 years minimum, maybe even till the 2049 timeframe. Im arguing that there may be more than one way to skin a cat.

I think that the PLAN is also of the opinion that there could be more than one way to skin the USN superiority in carriers cat, but that they are not trying to do so with their own carriers. I think that one could argue that through the threat of ground based aircraft, anti-ship cruise missiles, the legendary DF-21D threat, and large numbers of SSKs that China has already made the environment inside the first island chain a complex operating environment for the USN's carrier fleet. The ex-Varyag and whatever may follow dont really bring anything special to that table.

On the other hand, the list of nations that China doesn't have great relations with is pretty long. A couple of PLAN CVBGs might prove especially to them in the future if they felt that their SLOCs in the Indian Ocean were under threat during a dispute with India. There are a bunch of other scenarios with nations other than the US where the Chinese would find some carriers useful.

**ace16807** · 09 Feb 12,, 04:08

Originally Posted by chakos

Ace,

My argument is that the Chinese can operate 2 65k carriers for less than the cost of a 100k carrier. They won't have the bells and whistles of a US supercarrier but they would be much cheaper to build and maintain. Cheaper to build and man due to cost of labour, cheaper to build the powerplants, cheaper to buy the air wing. I believe it's economically viable at the very least

But as I noted it isn't actually cheaper to build and maintain two fleet carriers as opposed to one supercarrier. The cost of constructing two fleet carriers is more than producing one supercarrier. Two fleet carriers is much more of a logistical nightmare to maintain. Two fleet carriers require more aircraft while providing the same number of sorties as a supercarrier. The point is that if you have the ability to produce supercarriers, it isn't efficient in any sense, both operationally and fiscally.

**Dreadnought** · 09 Feb 12,, 17:18

Originally Posted by chakos

Ace,

My argument is that the Chinese can operate 2 65k carriers for less than the cost of a 100k carrier. They won't have the bells and whistles of a US supercarrier but they would be much cheaper to build and maintain. Cheaper to build and man due to cost of labour, cheaper to build the powerplants, cheaper to buy the air wing. I believe it's economically viable at the very least

*A critical point here. You wont get the 50 hull life that the USN does by cheaper this, cheaper that. Think long run, not short gains. You get what you pay for.
Not only must a carrier be budgeted, but also must be functional and flexible.

What would be interesting to see is what is the budget for one of their planned carriers and how much they will overshoot it once you encounter problems during building. A learning curve that China cannot escape like everyone else.

**JRT** · 10 Feb 12,, 19:23

I think you could extend the logic in that (pursuing various economies of scale) to using a CGN to escort the CVN, both sharing similar hull design, nuke plant, drives, and as many shipboard systems as is practicable, shared spares, similar training, etc.

**Gun Grape** · 11 Feb 12,, 01:42

We tried that Nuclear task force. It was too expensive in the cold war. No way we would do it now.

Task Force One.

USS Enterprise (CVN)

USS Long Beach (CGN)

USS Bainbridge (DLGN)

**USSWisconsin** · 11 Feb 12,, 01:59

One of the things making a CVN more economical is the lack of stack gases to corrode the billions in airframes on its decks. For modern surface combatants, the trouble of adequately sheilding the reactor on a narrow beam adds to the cost, and vulnerability of the ships to battle or collision damage is increased. Radiation embrittlement of the high strength steel needed inside the containment because of the reactor being so heavy and wide, is more of a problem on cruisers and destroyers than it is with the carriers which can use low alloy steel around the reactors because they are big enough to put the high strength steel outside the shielding. Subs have a nice thick HY 130 cylinder on the outside for structural strength.

Of course the radiation problems can be addressed, but not cheaply - so there would be fewer nuclear escorts for the same expense that bought a larger fleet of gas turbine/diesel ships.

**Stitch** · 13 Feb 12,, 05:30

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Subs have a nice thick HY 130 cylinder on the outside for structural strength.

Here I am quibbling again . . .

All modern US subs up to and including the 688i's were made using HY 80; Seawolf and newer (which would include the Virginia-class) are built using HY 100. HY 130 was investigated when the Seawolf was being designed (including the use of titanium-alloy), but was determined to be economically unfeasible (higher carbon content, increased suceptibility to embrittlement, difficulty in welding, requirement to pre-heat, etc.). Future subs may or may not be constructed using composites, but the reactor structure would still require steel.

Thread: USN CBG v PRC CBG

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions