CN Technical Problems, Slowing Economy Cut China’s Carrier Ambitions - Plans to build more than four aircraft carriers apparently put on hold.

Technical Problems, Slowing Economy Cut China’s Carrier Ambitions

Plans to build more than four aircraft carriers apparently put on hold.

thediplomat.com

China’s rapidly developed aircraft carrier program – once expected to grow to a fleet of six or more ships in the next decade – may now be limited to four hulls by budgetary and technical constraints.
The PLA Navy has two aircraft carriers afloat, the Liaoning, a re-fitted ex-Soviet carrier, and an indigenously built evolution of the Liaoning design, the Type 001A that launched in 2018 and currently undergoing sea trials. A third larger, more advanced design, the Type 002, has been under construction since 2017 and a second of that type is planned. The South China Morning Post reports that those two Type 002 carriers will be completed, but that a planned fifth carrier and a future nuclear-powered carrier design have been put on hold.

This is a significant contraction of China’s carrier ambitions. Earlier this year, Chinese naval experts claimed that the PLA Navy would have at least six carrier groups by 2035 and that four of them would be led by nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Chinese President Xi Jinping tasked the PLA to complete modernization by 2035.

But internal military sources told the SCMP that engineers were struggling to overcome technical challenges with the Type 002 and also lacked the expertise to translate its experience with nuclear-powered submarines to propel a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier design. “There is no plan to build more aircraft carriers,” the source said.

If this is true, it appears to have been a rapid change in the PLA Navy’s strategic direction. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S. think tank, procured commercial satellite images earlier this year that show China has added massive new shipbuilding infrastructure to the facilities currently building the Type 002 carrier. A CSIS expert told Reuters that “It is hard to imagine all this is being done for just one ship. This looks more like a specialized space for carriers and or other larger vessels.”

China’s carrier ambitions, and the new shipbuilding infrastructure that appears to have been built to support that ambition, may have been products of a more hopeful strategic environment and more generous economic situation. Over the summer, military sources told the South China Morning Post that the PLA Navy was reconsidering its shipbuilding plans in light of China’s slowing economy and the massive costs associated with not only building a large modern fleet, but operating and maintaining it. These decisions would not just affect aircraft carriers, but China’s advanced new destroyers and amphibious assault ships as well.

The spiraling costs of China’s new fleet highlights the uncertain strategic return on its investment. Aircraft carriers are only as effective as the aircraft that can take off from it, and China faces even greater technical barriers to building advanced, next-generation carrier aircraft than it does making the carriers work for them to take off from. “China may need 10 to 20 years to develop a new generation of carrier-based warplanes, meaning the J-15 is likely to be the main warhorse for some time, despite it still having engine and flight control problems,” once source told the SCMP. Without new aircraft, the combat capability of China’s carrier fleet will remain at a significant disadvantage to the United States’.

Further, with the Liaoning and first Type 002, half of China’s carrier fleet will also be beset by so-called “first-in-class problems,” technical and engineering issues that aren’t apparent in new designs until the ships begin to be operated. Some of these problems can never be completely corrected, leading to the first ships of new designs having more limited capability than subsequent ships of the same design. For these reasons, the PLA Navy originally envisioned Liaoning filling only training and testing roles, not an operational combat one.

But If China’s carrier fleet is ultimately limited to only four hulls, having one relegated exclusively to training significantly reduces its capacity to conduct operations. As a result, the PLA Navy says that it is upgrading the Liaoning to be able to serve some combat role. In April, senior officers on the Liaoning told Chinese state media that “The Liaoning is shifting from a training and test ship to a combat ship. I believe this process is going faster and faster, and we will achieve our goal very soon.”

China may also be coming to terms with the challenges that its carrier fleet would face operating within the so-called first island chain. Southeast Asian navies have been rapidly expanding and modernizing their submarine fleets. Singapore is procuring four advanced submarines from Germany, Indonesia is buying and indigenously assembling a new submarine fleet from South Korea, and Vietnam has been procuring a fleet of advanced Russian submarines.

Armed with modern torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, these submarines could severely limit the ability of China’s aircraft carriers to operate freely in the South China Sea in a conflict. Elsewhere in the western Pacific, South Korea and Japan both produce advanced indigenous submarines, and Taiwan is developing its own domestic submarine program. And outside the first island chain, China’s carriers would have to face the United States’ premier nuclear-powered and modernizing submarine fleet.

Faced with greater technical challenges and lower operational effectiveness than expected, an increasingly threatening operating environment, spiraling costs, and a slowing economy, China’s possible decision to truncate it aircraft carrier fleet looks less surprising and more like strategic prudence.

-End of Article-​

While China's Navy is advancing rapidly, we should not believe for one second that they are infallible. The US and regional allies are in the process of countering the Chinese buildup, and it is starting to appear that we may have a little bit more time than anticipated.

 

[Jarolleon]

Yeah, this has been obvious to Naval historians and observers for awhile now. When it comes to Carriers, the US, Brits and French make it look easy. (Of the modern carrier equipped navies). Largely because their navies developed Carriers organically from the days of the converted coal barges, learned the basic baby steps through the piston engine propeller craft, eventually evolving to jets and modern super carriers. Learning, 1000’s of lessons and developing tightly interwoven operational doctrine and technology as they went. Modern Carriers are simply the small visible point of a vast web of skills, technology, resources, doctrine, and most importantly expenses. It’s very very hard to jump right into the advanced carrier jet operations when you have no history of getting there.

The Russian’s are 1000x better at Naval Operation than the Chinese. With enough technological capability to in theory make Carriers work. And it’s been a disaster for them each time they have tried. The Liaoning‘s sister ship the Admiral Kuznetzov is a complete disaster. It’s the only Carrier in the world that can only leave port with a dedicated Sea Tug as part of its Carrier Group. It’s been used in one Military Operation in it’s decades long service. Last Year in Syria. After about two weeks of escalating problems and disasters they sent the ships air wing to operate from a land base and sent the ship home. Rumors are the Chinese if anything have even more problems than the Russians. The second natively built Chinese Carrier is by all reports even worse. It rides so low in the water that it honestly risks being swamped and sunk should it ever encounter a Typhoon. No joke. And that’s before you get into any problems involving aircraft. Because they started building the fucker before they had learned any practical lessons from trying to operate the hand me down Russian Abomination. They basically copied a carrier design that doesn’t work, and made it worse because they didn’t know how and why it doesn’t work. There is several decades worth of operational learning to get from this point, to the point where Carriers are a Strategic Asset that can project massed air power anywhere in the world. What they have is a pair of clumsy ships that can each launch 6-12 lightly armed and half fueled strike fighters at a launch rate of about 10 minutes per plane. They’re not getting good value for money out of these things.

This surprises nobody. You can’t learn how to make carriers work through espionage. Your Navy has to learn how From the ground up. And that’s not easy to do when you insist on playing in “Hard Mode”. It’s like learning how to Vidya Game by starting with Dark Souls. While using a shitty unresponsive MadCatz controller.

China publicly rolling back their Carrier program might also be a sign of just how bad their economy is truthfully doing. Analysts will tell you to never believe what the Chinese say about their economy. Pay more attention to what they do. When you see visible signs of them scaling back massive national prestige projects. Things that would elevate them as a Super Power, that’s gonna be a much better idea of the economic situation.

So the Chinese think that technology works like a game of Civ, once you steal the tech its yours without reservation?

 

[Coldgrip]

So the Chinese think that technology works like a game of Civ, once you steal the tech its yours without reservation?

Yes. Without sarcasm, yes.

 

[RodgerDodger]

?

You realize these things aren't just fired in the dark, right? They have sensors onboard? The Chinese don't have diversity hires in their military?

Oh wow! You mean they have sensors? I never would have imagined that they would do something so clever. Surely that must solve all the inherent problems with controlled hypersonic flight! All those messy elements of physics and aerodynamics and such. you realize that math is involved, right? Oh silly me! I forget Math is simply an oppressive tool of the White Male Patriarchy or somesuch. Magic Hypersonic Cruise Missiles could surely never have problems with moving targets on the ground. Because the slightest course adjustment at Mach 10 results in a massive change in destination point. Look at the turning radius ofthe SR-71. The fastest (admitted) aircraft at a bit over Mach 3.5. At full speed it’s turning radius is roughly the size of the US Eastern Seaboard. Start the turn over Florida and complete it over New York. With the end stage Mach 7-10 Hypersonic Glide Vehicles, they are great for eliminating the easily predictable flight path of a traditional Ballistic Missile, thus they can defeat something like a Patriot Battery, But they still need to be going after a specific fixed point. The only way they could threaten a ship is with a broad radius warhead. A nuke. Something that doesn’t require hitting the ship. They are a Strategic Weapon, not a tactical one. China’s DF-17’s and 21’s are not what the Chinese claim they are. Are they a threat to a Carrier Group? Yes they are a nuke delivery system. But they are a threat China doesn’t dare use for what it would trigger. Hypersonic is a fairly lousy delivery system for conventional weapons.

And this isn’t something new. The US has been flying these fuckers for 30 years. Here’s an example of the X-43 from 2004.

A more recent iteration is the Boeing X51 Waverider. Including a Sub Launched version.

 

[Trig.Point]

So the Chinese think that technology works like a game of Civ, once you steal the tech its yours without reservation?

China is still suffering from the effects of the Cultural Revolution, which didn't just result in the deaths of thousands of their best minds, it introduced a whole generation of orthodox thinkers to academia. It's the reason Chinese undergraduates still flock to western universities.

They do have top notch engineers, and they have a huge skilled workforce that the west could only dream about, but they're missing those high level institutions that can actually manage evolutionary change in technology.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Oh wow! You mean they have sensors? I never would have imagined that they would do something so clever. Surely that must solve all the inherent problems with controlled hypersonic flight! All those messy elements of physics and aerodynamics and such. you realize that math is involved, right? Oh silly me! I forget Math is simply an oppressive tool of the White Male Patriarchy or somesuch. Magic Hypersonic Cruise Missiles could surely never have problems with moving targets on the ground. Because the slightest course adjustment at Mach 10 results in a massive change in destination point. Look at the turning radius ofthe SR-71. The fastest (admitted) aircraft at a bit over Mach 3.5. At full speed it’s turning radius is roughly the size of the US Eastern Seaboard. Start the turn over Florida and complete it over New York. With the end stage Mach 7-10 Hypersonic Glide Vehicles, they are great for eliminating the easily predictable flight path of a traditional Ballistic Missile, thus they can defeat something like a Patriot Battery, But they still need to be going after a specific fixed point. The only way they could threaten a ship is with a broad radius warhead. A nuke. Something that doesn’t require hitting the ship. They are a Strategic Weapon, not a tactical one. China’s DF-17’s and 21’s are not what the Chinese claim they are. Are they a threat to a Carrier Group? Yes they are a nuke delivery system. But they are a threat China doesn’t dare use for what it would trigger. Hypersonic is a fairly lousy delivery system for conventional weapons.

And this isn’t something new. The US has been flying these fuckers for 30 years. Here’s an example of the X-43 from 2004.

A more recent iteration is the Boeing X51 Waverider. Including a Sub Launched version.

I clearly don't follow this stuff as closely as some of you fine folks, but my gut feeling is that the threat of hypersonic missiles has been largely exaggerated by the Rand corporation in order to get more funding to the Pentagon.

 

[The Unbecoming]

I clearly don't follow this stuff as closely as some of you fine folks, but my gut feeling is that the threat of hypersonic missiles has been largely exaggerated by the Rand corporation in order to get more funding to the Pentagon.

That's always the case. It's harder to argue for bigger and better weapons if the actual threat is far more mundane than the hype.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

I clearly don't follow this stuff as closely as some of you fine folks, but my gut feeling is that the threat of hypersonic missiles has been largely exaggerated by the Rand corporation in order to get more funding to the Pentagon.

To put a sightly finer point on it:

Hypersonic missiles (and modern technology in general) are a threat.

A Ballistic Missile that take 30 Minutes to set up and launch, and then only 2-5 minutes to hit the (static) target, is much scarier than a missile that takes 2-4 hours to set up and launch and another 10-20 minutes to hit the target.

That could easily be the difference between a successful decapitation strike and a wash. Additionally the speed does make the missile harder to intercept by virtue of giving less targeting time (but not by actually making it that much harder to hit).

_
However, (non-nuclear) Hypersonics are not a war winner. If you can't take advantage of your strike to overpower the enemy on the ground, where they live. Then the possible brief confusion means nothing. You just used up your single use weapon, and the enemy will recover relatively quickly.

In a War of Attrition (as apposed to a War of Annihilation), which is what the war between China and the USA would be (if nuclear weapons are disallowed), Ballistic Missiles are not very useful beyond targeting the occasional High Value Target. This is due to the inherent cost of the Ballistic Missile which is immediately consumed upon use.

 

[armoreddinnerjacket]

In a War of Attrition (as apposed to a War of Annihilation), which is what the war between China and the USA would be (if nuclear weapons are disallowed), Ballistic Missiles are not very useful beyond targeting the occasional High Value Target. This is due to the inherent cost of the Ballistic Missile which is immediately consumed upon use.

Besides, it's pointless to only hit one carrier group in the long-term. You'd have to hit multiple carriers within a short time-frame.

 

[MrTickles]

Where to begin wading into this swamp...

Even a graze on a carrier by a conventional missile or some minor damage would serve as outright area denial in that limited context; Rendering Us carriers useless in such a limited/measured conflict, no admiral would risk his ships after that if he absolutely didn't have to. This isn't a country you can park a fleet off the coast at and conduct bombing sorties. Getting within battle-group weapons range would be a potentially lethal risk.

Beyond limited confrontation, conventional weapons in great power context count for little. They will always result in total escalation. Nuclear bombs can end entire fleets in minutes. Ultimately this discussion is as stupid as it is moot. On top of this, you don't build carriers with which to confront carriers in the open. You build attack subs and destroyers.

Even the US navy follows this doctrine. Guided missiles and torpedoes run circles around aircraft in terms of expend ability and stand off offensive access with least risk to deployment platform. They are always going to be the first go-to weapons in such a conflict. This is why the US navy uses thousands of tomahawks before a single aircraft takes off even when bullying hapless little states with 60's era defensive systems. However big countries like China or Russia posses coastal anti-ship defenses that exceed or match the range of something like a tomahawk. No safe way to hit without being hit.

I think this should be blatantly obvious after North Korea with their piece of shit yugo midget sub sunk the shit out of a brand new US-sensor systems equipped South korean air warfare frigate/corvette and got to enjoy total deniability afterwards. That's something even a $3 billion B-2 spirit can't do.

As for specifics regarding anti ship ballistic missiles, in China's case they have a pacific sensing constellation set up, designed to track US ships in real time from the moment they leave port or enter the region. Coupled with Beidou, the tandem system can guide multiple self propelled objects to anywhere within 10cm (encrypted accuracy), moving or stationary, with 2-3 seconds of lag. Hell, let's assume their missiles are 100x less accurate than their sensing capabilities due to the velocities and maneuvering forces involved (they're not but let's). That's still a 10mx10m area of guaranteed carnage.
A carrier is considerably larger than that and such an explosion even without major penetration (let's face it; at mach 20 even a block of butter would penetrate steel-but lets pretend in this case it won't) would at least disable most of its surface operations.
Warheads involved are not comprised of less than 750kg HE. Typically up to 1000kg.

Any conventional war between the two would begin in Space. Dismantlement of each others sensing capabilities. Both countries have the capability to blind one another completely. A blind admiral would not even want to leave port, I guarantee it. Unless he was fucking stupid or ordered to do so by an even bigger idiot.

Spoiler: Radical content, Caution Advised

Sigh. Why do I even. Why. There's an undersexed 20 year old Chinese girl lying on my bed. And here I am. Fuck you guys I'm out. I have taken down her defenses and will do some more penetration attacks. This is how you win over your perceived enemies long term. Make love not war. For this reason the west's future is Muslim. Pumping out dem brats in the name of allah. The west is lost. Let's make China's future a little western. Breed you autistic fucks. And before you mention it, no, I won't. Western women are lost. 3rd wave Feminism has destroyed them. I am improvising. Gooks are the next best thing.

 

[millais]

Where to begin wading into this swamp...

Even a graze on a carrier by a conventional missile or some minor damage would serve as outright area denial in that limited context; Rendering Us carriers useless in such a limited/measured conflict, no admiral would risk his ships after that if he absolutely didn't have to. This isn't a country you can park a fleet off the coast at and conduct bombing sorties. Getting within battle-group weapons range would be a potentially lethal risk.

Beyond limited confrontation, conventional weapons in great power context count for little. They will always result in total escalation. Nuclear bombs can end entire fleets in minutes. Ultimately this discussion is as stupid as it is moot. On top of this, you don't build carriers with which to confront carriers in the open. You build attack subs and destroyers.

Even the US navy follows this doctrine. Guided missiles and torpedoes run circles around aircraft in terms of expend ability and stand off offensive access with least risk to deployment platform. They are always going to be the first go-to weapons in such a conflict. This is why the US navy uses thousands of tomahawks before a single aircraft takes off even when bullying hapless little states with 60's era defensive systems. However big countries like China or Russia posses coastal anti-ship defenses that exceed or match the range of something like a tomahawk. No safe way to hit without being hit.

I think this should be blatantly obvious after North Korea with their piece of shit yugo midget sub sunk the shit out of a brand new US-sensor systems equipped South korean air warfare frigate/corvette and got to enjoy total deniability afterwards. That's something even a $3 billion B-2 spirit can't do.

As for specifics regarding anti ship ballistic missiles, in China's case they have a pacific sensing constellation set up, designed to track US ships in real time from the moment they leave port or enter the region. Coupled with Beidou, the tandem system can guide multiple self propelled objects to anywhere within 10cm (encrypted accuracy), moving or stationary, with 2-3 seconds of lag. Hell, let's assume their missiles are 100x less accurate than their sensing capabilities due to the velocities and maneuvering forces involved (they're not but let's). That's still a 10mx10m area of guaranteed carnage.
A carrier is considerably larger than that and such an explosion even without major penetration (let's face it; at mach 20 even a block of butter would penetrate steel-but lets pretend in this case it won't) would at least disable most of its surface operations.
Warheads involved are not comprised of less than 750kg HE. Typically up to 1000kg.

Any conventional war between the two would begin in Space. Dismantlement of each others sensing capabilities. Both countries have the capability to blind one another completely. A blind admiral would not even want to leave port, I guarantee it. Unless he was fucking stupid or ordered to do so by an even bigger idiot.

Sigh. Why do I even. Why. There's an undersexed 20 year old Chinese girl lying on my bed. And here I am. Fuck you guys I'm out. I have taken down her defenses and will do some more penetration attacks. This is how you win over your perceived enemies long term. Make love not war. For this reason the west's future is Muslim. Pumping out dem brats in the name of allah. The west is lost. Let's make China's future a little western. Breed you autistic fucks. And before you mention it, no, I won't. Western women are lost. 3rd wave Feminism has destroyed them. I am improvising. Gooks are the next best thing.

I was with you up until you advocated the racemixing. That is a little too far.

 

[MrTickles]

I was with you up until you advocated the racemixing. That is a little too far.

Censored on behalf of your snowflake sensibilities.

 

[usernames can change now!]

I can't think of anything more French than "Artisanal Aircraft Carrier". If they had the will or the reason France probably could comfortably operate 2-3 Carrier Groups. At least in terms of resources. But it's France so priorities can easily be sidetracked. At least they aren't sacrificing their operational know how the way the Brits did. The Brits are having to relearn a lot with the QE and POW.

This is how France has always done capital ships.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

I've been saying this for years. The rise of China is the greatest threat to world peace and Western dominance. Aircraft carriers are by design projections of power. No country builds an aircraft carrier to protect their borders, they build them so they can influence weaker countries and bomb strategic targets. I wouldn't be surprised if they were building 4 of them so they could plop one down right in the middle of the South China Sea, and the others in front of Kyoto, Sydney, and the straight of Ceylon

Most likely scenario is one on station, one in transit, one in refit, and that old one in reserve/training. That's typically how it goes in carrier ops. You can surge two out there in a pinch for a limited time.

The Frenchies learned this lesson when they decided to get involved in toppling Gaddafi and then realized the CD'G was in refit. The US had to handle things during the preamble no-fly-zone period from the USS Mount Whitney while they got their shit together. Once it showed up the US peaced the fuck out and it became pretty much the Euro-NATO babyflattop show with the US just handling logistics and support while all the minor NATO members blew shit up.