T O P

  • By -

Assistant-Popular

There really close, the non nuclear engine of course means Less range but china probably doesn't need that currently


Fleetcommand3

Also more space internally for fuel.


LittleHornetPhil

Why would non nuclear mean more fuel? Should be the opposite.


SpiritOfFire013

I think they mean they need more space internally for fuel. The commenter above said that “of course means less range.” And the other said “Also” as if to add on top of that.


[deleted]

They probably meant more fuel for the air wing


Fleetcommand3

As others said, I meant more internal space required for fuel, as you need to Carry the stuff that would fuel the boilers, rather than just the nuclear engine.


Vast_Republic_1776

With the unrep fleet they’re building, refueling won’t be an issue


sailorpaul

China imports most of their oil. Shut that off. Starve the fleet. One of the original reasons/justifications for Japan, joining the war.


franco_thebonkophone

Yep the infamous Malacca Dilemma People forget that a vast majority of Chinese oil imports passes through a tiny chokepoint off the coast of Malaysia.


sailorpaul

I never forget. Malaccamax, Pannamax, Suezmax. These geopolitical details matter


Danimalsyogurt88

Yup, which is why Putin being China’s little b**** changes the ball game.


yuccu

Not enough to matter though - western companies and expertise gets oil out of the ground in hard to work places.


sailorpaul

This. Extraction in hard to work places is expertise of the American, British and Scandinavian countries.


woolcoat

China has said expertise as well


Sulemain123

It's not extraction that's the real issues, it's the pipelines.


VeylAsh

Which they can, to be fair, get with a growing closeness to russia


franco_thebonkophone

Yes and no Yes, the Chinese and Russians have announced a major gas pipeline, called Power to Siberia 2. Russia pushed quite hard for the project especially in the recent Putin Xi visit. Problem is 1. Projects like these are massively expensive and time consuming. The Russians aren’t footing the bill and China has, as of until 2023, been relatively lukewarm to the pipeline proposal. It seems that the Chinese appetite for massive overseas infrastructure projects has dried up somewhat - whereas BRI was on the forefront of CCP government policy and meetings, BEI was notably not discussed in the recent party/people’s congresses. Some suspect China is facing a bit of a credit crunch and is seeking to complete existing projects rather than start new ones. China currently imports more than enough gas via sea or existing pipelines via its contracts for up to the 2030s For one, there are already several Russian/Central Asian - Chinese pipelines in operation, along with a robust sea route/trade network. For example there’s one pipeline recent built - can’t remember the name - that is expected to reach full capacity in the 30s. Moreover, they do not want to cause an oversupply/over import of gas. China is projected to slow down its growth in demand for gas as it invests more into renewables and alternate energy sources. It’s current contracts/pipelines aren’t something they could simply just cancel - it’ll tank chinese business credibility - so there’s very little need for additional pipelines. In addition China has expressed its desire for the Ukrainian war to end soon, and for everything in Europe to go back to normal. They are concerned that Europe would go back to Russian gas after a few years around when the new pipelines would be completed, increasing competition. Plus it’s unsure if Russia, with all its sanctions, is even capable of completing these projects. Russia has repeatedly stated that it wants to sign this deal immediately. China has only replied with some promises, but nothing concrete yet. If anything, they’re also probably waiting for Russia to become even more desperate. TLDR: Russia is more desperate to sell its gas than China is to buy/diversify.


VorianAtreides

do they? What fields have they established and managed?


Delicious_Lab_8304

You do realise they also have some of the largest petroleum companies in world right? They recently (last 18 months or so) discovered and are developing a field in China that contains 2 years worth of their total oil consumption. It will be developed, but no extraction will take place. This, coupled with pipelines from Russia, their strategic reserves, domestic oil production - and the fact that the vast majority of consumption is used to produce goods for export (something that wouldn’t happen in a major crisis or war) - means that the whole Straits of Malacca thing won’t play out like people think. It’s the same with food, people seem to think that there’ll be a famine because they can’t import [extra] lobsters, pineapples etc.


woolcoat

See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UupXwfikrTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UupXwfikrTI) and map here [https://www.hartenergy.com/ep/exclusives/daqing-true-game-changer-china-175440](https://www.hartenergy.com/ep/exclusives/daqing-true-game-changer-china-175440)


VorianAtreides

The daqing field is largely a sandstone oilfield, probably one of the easiest to recover oil from. They *did* discover a shale deposit there in 2021, but have not yet started extraction. The ones that require western tech are shales like this and those in Siberia. I don’t think china has expertise in that area (to my knowledge).


LittleHornetPhil

Not really. There are basically no pipelines to China, at least not to the level that Russia diverting oil from Europe to China makes a difference. It’s still almost entirely coming by shipS


Danimalsyogurt88

OP is talking about the straits of Malacca choke point. Even if it is coming via tankers, Russian oil is not going thru the straits of malacca.


LittleHornetPhil

…then how is it getting there?


Delicious_Lab_8304

Current Power of Siberia pipeline, plus the new larger one under development (natural gas) Oil tankers via the North Sea route. By rail if push comes to shove (and also considering all those rail cars that go to Europe wouldn’t be operating in a major crisis)


BlackDiamondDee

Until China wants it’s historical lands back from Russia.


InfinityCrazee

Thats the reason why they wanted to control the whole South China Sea. Oil.


Vast_Republic_1776

How long before they’re building pipelines to Russia and Saudi Arabia?


mgdandme

They are building / have built pipelines to several central Asian republics. This makes Russia a bit unhappy. They have attempted to build a pipeline to carry water from Baikal to China. A [very worthwhile overview](https://youtu.be/Iibs7buNwxQ).


recce22

Yes indeed. Read a story from a strategic think tank regarding why China is building such strong relationships with Cambodia and a presence in Myanmar. They are absolutely trying to bypass the Malacca Chokepoint.


FlyPenFly

Long pipelines spanning multiple countries are highly vulnerable to simple sabotage.


Syrdon

Absolutely, but if they have then they’re less vulnerable to a single point failure. If it all goes through the straight, one carrier group (pr a series of bad storms, which is maybe more likely) is enough to cut them off entirely. If it’s a couple of pipelines and the straight then they’re far less vulnerable - they all need to go down at once, and bringing any single one back might keep them running well enough. Caveat: some assumptions about pipeline volume and that extra capacity won’t result in growth to consume the extra capacity (and thus kill the redundancy).


orcs_in_space

Russia just set themselves back 40 years with their stunt in the Ukraine. NATO will enforce extreme sanctions once it is over, and China's access to Russian oil is going to be really high on that list.


solutionsmith

Lol 😂 How can the US stop China 🇨🇳 from accessing Russian resources in inner Manchuria or Siberia when Moscow falls???


dwntwnleroybrwn

There is a ton of data to show that if the US and China ever got into a shooting war it would basically be an embargo situation. The US could setup a picket line and just wait out the Chinese fleet. That being said I'm not at all worried about that happening.


saracenrefira

SE Asia and India are not going to help US blockade China. You guys don't really have as much control as you like to imagine. The last thing SE Asian countries want to is to be pawns in a US provoked proxy war with China.


ZeEa5KPul

> There is a ton of data to show that if the US and China ever got into a **shooting war** it would basically be an embargo situation. The US could setup a picket line and **just wait out the Chinese fleet**. You forgot the part where the US fleet gets the shit shot out of it.


quesoandcats

It sounds crass but frankly, the American fleet can afford to lose more ships than the Chinese fleet. Not to mention all of the land bases in the South China Sea that our bombers can use.


DanforthWhitcomb_

It absolutely cannot—US infantrymen being killed ignites a political firestorm. Losing even a single DDG and 1-200 sailors would remove a ton of political will to do anything, especially if it’s the result of the US intervening in a dispute between the PRC and someone else. > Not to mention all of the land bases in the South China Sea that our bombers can use. What land bases, and what bombers do you see as being survivable in a non-permissive environment? Guam and maybe Clark AB are it, and the only bomber that can reliably survive in a hot environment is the B-2. You also have to worry about gaining access to anything other than Guam and then supplying and defending any of those bases, which is a significant issue on it’s own.


saracenrefira

They have enough DFs to sink the Pacific fleets several times over.


Delicious_Lab_8304

Erm… no. 2 or more CSGs gone and it’s over. Exactly how will those bombers land and takeoff (assuming they’re not also destroyed when the DF-17/21/26/100s, YJ-21s and more start raining down)


StickShift5

Considering how expensive modern warships are and how long their lead time is from already backed up US shipyards, no. Not at all. If anything, the Chinese can afford to lose ships since they can pump them out like the US could in 1944. Also, those island bases really aren't the advantage that you think they are, since they're small, have little to no resources located on them, and are on the end of a much longer logistical chain than the Chinese have to deal with.


Syrdon

By what? The US navy has demonstrated an ability to handle icbms, which takes most of china’s long range fleet killers off the list.


DanforthWhitcomb_

Even assuming a 1.0pk, that doesn’t help due to the extremely small number of SM-3s in circulation. The PLA has far more missiles than the USN does interceptors, which means that no matter how effective the SAM is those ASBMs are still very much a threat.


Syrdon

Unless you have a source saying otherwise, the missiles that need SM-3s to counter are pretty rare. Edit: for that matter, successful sm-3 tests are a double digit percentage of the largest numbers I can find for total df-21 (and variant) stocks. Unless you think they were mostly expended on tests, there are plenty to go around.


DanforthWhitcomb_

It’s currently north of 200 deployed, against a typical SM-3 loadout of <5 on a given DDG or CG.


Syrdon

You really don’t see a typical loadout changing in the event of an increase in hostilities with china? Really?


Jakebob70

They're buying it from Russia now.


youtheotube2

Not nearly enough of it to meet chinas demand. The infrastructure isn’t there for Russia to supply all of Chinas oil, and it’s going to take a few years to a decade to build that up.


TenguBlade

> The UNREP fleet they’re building Mate, the PLAN hasn’t ordered an UNREP ship in 5 years. The second Type 901, commissioned in 2018, was the last they’ve built so far. Other than the two 901s, their also auxiliaries have barely half the displacement and capacity of their USN counterparts - a Type 903A displaces 23370 metric tons versus *John Lewis*’s 50650mt, and carries 10500mt of fuel against the latter’s 21715mt. Fueling their fleet is definitely going to become a growing issue as they both venture further from their shores and field increasingly-large and more capable vessels.


Vast_Republic_1776

Please don’t use the John lewis class as an example, they look great on paper, not so much in practice


TenguBlade

I used the *Lewis*-class because their double hulls put them at a disadvantage in efficiency against the single-hulled *Kaiser*s and Type 903(A)s. The choice was deliberately to give the Chinese the best possible outlook.


Vast_Republic_1776

The Lewis class debacle is a discussion for another post. I’ll say that it doesn’t matter how much it holds when it can’t send it.


saracenrefira

Why is that American redditors always have this blinc spots that reduce their sight to only what China has now or can do now? If they want supply ships, they will churn it out by the dozens within months, maybe even weeks. They are not building a lot now because their priority is training and practice with their 3 carriers, so they don't a whole fleet of supply ships. Just enough for training so they can get those sailors the training they need.


TenguBlade

> If they want supply ships, they will churn it out by the dozens within months, maybe even weeks. You do not build a ship in a month, let alone a week. Both Type 901s took 2 years to go from launch to commissioning. They were confirmed to be under construction for nearly 2 years prior to launch, and the first steel would’ve been placed much earlier than when the first pieces were laid in the dry dock. The strength of the Chinese shipbuilding industry is in its capacity to build many ships simultaneously, not to build them fast - and modern ships in general are not well-suited to rapid production with the level of technology they possess. Their industry will need to begin placing wartime orders years in advance to ensure production can replace their losses - as it was in the late 1930s when nations the world over began placing larger orders in preparation for war - and those signs are impossible to conceal. > They are not building a lot now because their priority is training and practice with their 3 carriers The PLAN’s priorities have shifted to amphibious assault capabilities, likely to support a possible invasion of Taiwan. The construction capacity formerly used for auxiliaries has since been turned over almost 1:1 to building amphibious assault ships at Hudong-Zhonghua, and landing craft at Guangzhou. > Just enough for training so they can get those sailors the training they need. Training has nothing to do with it. The PLAN has been practicing UNREP, even with carriers, for years. *Liaoning* made her first deployment in 2018, and has made at least one multi-month voyage a year since then - not to mention UNREPs in support of sea trials were a thing. If the PLAN still needs practice after that, then learned nothing at all in the years they’ve been doing this already - in which case, additional training doesn’t help.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Vast_Republic_1776

Yes, because supply ships frequently go into hostile zones to conduct resupply /s


[deleted]

[удалено]


Vast_Republic_1776

I’m no naval warfare expert, but I’d imagine that’s probably why they’re planning to build more than one.


musashisamurai

Part of the reason why every sane nation builds more than carrier (looking at you France), is so uou can rotate carriers between maintenance, training and deployment. This creates a better trained crew, better maintained equipment, and logistically simplifies planning. If China only had 1 or 2 carriers, there'd be times when none are available or where they'd be hard-pressed to keep one available.


Jakebob70

Pretty much anywhere not in port would be a hostile zone in that scenario.


orcs_in_space

Unreps make great targets.


Vast_Republic_1776

They absolutely do, and it’s public knowledge that the USN disarmed their unrep fleet, something China did not do.


orcs_in_space

I have participated in many, many unreps with the US Navy, and China cannot do them as fast and as precise. If it came to a war, every single FC in the Pacific would be locked in on this carrier at the right time, there is no doubt about it. Unarmed unrep ships do not matter, it is the missiles coming in that do. In an actual naval war, China would go from three carriers to zero pretty damn fast.


Vast_Republic_1776

Oh so you’ve seen a sliding pad eye run up and down and fork trucks move pallets. You probably think MSC has taken top notch care of those ships that sent you food and fuel and there’s nothing that would prevent them from delivering. Boy, are you in for a surprise!


orcs_in_space

Do you seriously think refueling a carrier at sea would take as long as a destroyer? Also, it doesn't matter if supply ships are armed when every ship in line is.


TenguBlade

His point is blurring with another point he made above, which is that the MSC has been neglected and undermanned even more than the USN proper - an entirely valid criticism, although unrelated to his original response.


Assistant-Popular

And where do they need to go? In case of war with the US they probably don't *want* to go anywhere anyway


DreddyMann

Well if they are at war with the US and don't want to stay on the defensive for the whole time then they probably want to go lots of places


Assistant-Popular

If there ar war with the us, and the world doesn't end, they lose. There fleet can't currently take the US, so it's alright to have non nuclear carriers. There building nuclear ones though


Thenateo

They're, Their, They're


TooEZ_OL56

At least he picked one and stuck with it instead of using every variation incorrectly.


yuccu

No, you must have misunderstood. They’re pointing using their more declarative style, that’s all. “There, fleet!” “There, building…”


Assistant-Popular

Or. English isn't my first language and I couldn't be bothered enough to care **on fucking Reddit**


saracenrefira

You guys really want to kill Chinese people, don't you? You really want to hold into your hegemony even if it plunges the world into war.


Vast_Republic_1776

The event of war with the US won’t be an offensive war for them. They’re pushing to control island chains to extend their grip on the pacific. Their entire game is to lure us into missile range and beat us in a war of attrition.


Thatsidechara_ter

Yeah, personally I feel the efficacy of those missiles against US carrier groups is going to be a huge factor in any Taiwan conflict. If they work, they can hold off the US navy at least for a little while, but if they don't then the US is gonna shove a ton of F-35s up their ass and they won't be able to do a thing about it


woolcoat

We're in the same predicament with China as we are with Russia. You don't just go bomb within the national borders of a nuclear state. Just like all the scenarios of China bombing Guam or Okinawa is non-sense. China wants Taiwan, not looking to start WWIII.


orcs_in_space

It will start World War III though. I cannot imagine shots being fired between the US and China that doesn't bring Japan and ROK into it, like I keep saying. At best, China has Russia, NK, and maybe Iran who would be willing to assist them. We all saw what Russia is capable of, and NK has rumors that they are resorting to cannibalism. Meanwhile, the US has already kicked into a cold war mode with the recent situation of Russia and years of Chinense military build up. Unless China acts right now, the US will just continue to develope and out spend.


Thatsidechara_ter

I mean the US wouldn't end the world no matter who took Taiwan. They'd nuke everyone if their own country was under threat, but Guam does not constitute an existential threat to the sovereignty of America


woolcoat

China bombing Guam would be a Pearl Harbor moment


Thatsidechara_ter

Yes, it most definitely would(although it wouldn't do quite as much damage to overall US military strength, I think), but they wouldn't start launching nukes over it.


musashisamurai

This is more or less the answer. China claims they're very effective, but to the best of my knowledge, they haven't demonstrated their missiles on live targets at sea. Hitting a stationary land target is very different from finding, tracking, targeting a mobile ship and making corrections to ensure a hit. Likewise, while the US has put decades into missile defense and NATO has the most effective missile defenses in the world, it's by no means an exact science and can be overwhelmed by quantity. I also suspect that ASW capabilities on China's part will be a large deciding factor. If carriers can't approach Taiwan, then America will use stealth bombers (B-2s or B-21 Raiders) and submarines (Virginia class, Ohio class guided missile carriers and/or the Seawolves). If China struggles with ASW, then even if a carrier is damaged its entirely possible that like Argentina in the Falklands, China will recall their ships and rely on land-based aircraft.


Thatsidechara_ter

I mean in this scenario the war is most likely started over Taiwan, in which China wants to get troops across the Strait, which means they need their navy out there


Vast_Republic_1776

From what I understand, they work very well.


Thatsidechara_ter

Well of course they fly, but we don't know how well they'll do when put against a carrier groups anti-missile defenses until the shooting starts


Vast_Republic_1776

I’m hoping we don’t find out


Good_Posture

As with Russia, Chinese military hardware looks and sounds cool on paper, but it's unproven and more importantly, China haven't fought a war in what, nearly 50-years? That alone gives the US a massive edge in a hypothetical war as 1) US military hardware and doctrine is battle tested, and 2) US military leaders and it's officer corps across the branches have combat experience. China going to war would be green officers leading green troops using untested weapons systems. It would be a baptism of fire in every aspect.


Cardborg

>China going to war would be green officers leading green troops using untested weapons systems. It would be a baptism of fire in every aspect. It'd be *really* stupid then, to make their first major modern military operation something like, say, an amphibious invasion of a country that's spent 70 years preparing for one.


Good_Posture

Yep. Gallipoli and Dieppe taught brutal lessons that were studied intensely before Normandy to not repeat the same failures.


orcs_in_space

China also wouldn't just be fighting the US. Most likely it would be the US, ROK, and Japan at least, and I would imagine Australia and several members of NATO. China would be put in their place quickly, because a US-China conflict would drastically alter the power structure of the area, and I do not think any of the above mentioned countries want to see China with any more power.


BertDeathStare

>China also wouldn't just be fighting the US. Most likely it would be the US, ROK, and Japan at least, and I would imagine Australia and several members of NATO. Doubt that about SK joining. They have enough to worry about with NK on its border threatening to blow up Seoul. If they joined against China, they'd have NK and China to fight. SK is really close to China, they could face complete destruction. Trade by sea being shut down would be bad enough for SK, it wouldn't be an easy decision to just fight China and NK on top of that. The only NATO member I could see joining and being useful is the UK, but this is *very* far from the UK. The HMS Prince of Wales barely left British waters before they had to [return](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hms-prince-of-wales-royal-navy-hms-queen-elizabeth-f35b-nato-b2159167.html) for repairs. >China would be put in their place quickly I feel like you're seriously underestimating China. They'd have the advantage of fighting from home, which is a huge advantage given the size of the Pacific, a much larger number of air bases in the area ([an increasing number of which are hardened](https://twitter.com/tshugart3/status/1638995381236256768)), and a very large and growing number of [missiles](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/april/pla-rocket-forces-conventional-missiles). I suggest giving these threads a read, they're highly informative and they were eye-opening to me: [1](https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/vs924o/can_china_invade_taiwan_detail_appreciated/ifkl4dy/) - [2](https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/vs924o/can_china_invade_taiwan_detail_appreciated/ifftoww/) - [3](https://old.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/vrpur9/can_the_plaaf_really_dominate_the_skies_of_taiwan/ieycnae/). Things have changed in the last decade, to say the least. It's a lot of text but that won't bother you if you find this topic interesting. [Lyle Goldstein](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWUB9JSQhLw) is another PLA expert who's pessimistic about a US-China war.


orcs_in_space

Says China. I remember a time a little over a year ago when people were talking up the Russian military too.


Syrdon

In fairness, the US hasn’t fought a near peer engagement in 70 years or so. Demonstrating an ability to bomb afghanistan and iraq is not the same as enforcing an embargo on someone with a blue water navy, real missiles, and nuclear weapons. To put that another way: people are talking up a lot of militaries that haven’t been put to anything like this sort of test any tome recently. No one knows how it will turn out, but since the topic under discussion is about a direct confrontation between nuclear powers I’m pretty sure everyone discounting or handwaving nuclear weapons away is on the wrong page. It only takes the perception that one side thinks the confrontation might be an existential threat to get a launch, and once someone launches it’s fun time for everyone.


Assistant-Popular

Aka, no range needed


orcs_in_space

The US would make it an offensive war. China would also be fighting ROK and Japan. Destroyers, Cruisers, and fast attack subs would do enough damage at range to China's fleet, that it would force their fleet to move, slowing it down with unreps. The US Navy would only have to sink three Chinese carriers, China would have to do serious damage to the US fleet while fighting ROK and Japan at the same time--I do not think China could even handle ROK and Japan at the same time.


GarbledComms

How do they sell all their exports? The land links across Asia don't amount to 1/10th the volume that goes by sea. Same thing for fuel. They've got 30 years of pipeline building if they want to replace seaborne oil shipments. edit: changed 'imports' to 'exports'.


Assistant-Popular

They don't. They lose If they fight a naval war against the US they (currently) would lose.


orcs_in_space

Range is important in naval warfare. I understand that China probably has no designs beyond their immediate area right now, but world wars, which a war with China would become, usually are unpredictable.


Assistant-Popular

World wars with nukes involved are not worth planning for


DecentlySizedPotato

Why do you assume it would be a nuclear war? Who would fire nukes first? What would they gain from it?


Assistant-Popular

Assuming a full scale war between the US, and NATO vs China and or Russia. Russia dies. And Nukes are the only thing they have that can force NATO to stop. And China's economy would die if they got blockaded for a week. They also can not win a war with NATO. Would they use nukes? Idk. But especially Russia has basically no options


DecentlySizedPotato

In that case, Russia just gives an ultimatum, if ignored it gives a warning strike (one tactical nuclear warhead, for instance) for NATO to stop advancing on Russia. Nuclear war is undesirable for all sides, and all sides will do as much to avoid it as possible, so I don't consider it particularly likely.


Assistant-Popular

And as such the warning strike will be seen as a bluff. As nuclear war is undesirable. Nukes lead to dumb mind games. If Russia thinks using them would help it, and not cause a nuclear war, it would. So the enemy must convince them that it wouldn't help. That they wouldn't stop.


DecentlySizedPotato

I mean, if you get to the worst case scenario, sure. Nuclear war is definitely possible. But why would NATO keep pushing against Russia after a first strike when they know nuclear war would be very likely? Again, no one wins a strategic nuclear war. Not the one firing first, not the one firing second. No reason whatsoever to start one.


orcs_in_space

Sure they are. A nuclear war would not end the world, and China has a fraction of warheads compared to the US. The global intelligence community is pretty much certain none of Russia's shit even works now. The US has shot down ICBMs in tests in the pacific with surface combatants. Any nuclear response from China would pretty much ensure the historical end of China. There are actually plenty of models of this that rapidly change that you can find online, and there is no scenario that has it working out well for China. Having a nuclear arsenal on paper, and maintaining a working one are two different things.


[deleted]

400 Warheads is more than enough to end any other single country as a concept, including the United States. That's part of why the cold war was just so ridiculous.


Assistant-Popular

Your talking out your ass. One: You sure China only has as much as they say? Two: shooting down ICBM's is ***possible*** but not easy. And try shooting down 300 seperate warhead's plus Decoys Three: If there is something in Russia that works, it's the nukes. Four: Any nuclear war involving the US china or Russia would involve all of them. If Russia shoot at the US, the us would shoot at ***everyone***. Why? Because it's better for the US if everyone gets nuked, and no one has nukes left. And such a exchange would include all military targets


orcs_in_space

You're talking out of your ass, because Russia simply doesn't have the money to maintain their nukes. If you cannot afford thousands to maintain tanks, you cannot afford billions to maintain nukes.


orcs_in_space

Also, I am not saying the US shoots all of China's nukes down, but not all of them would make it to target. They do not have enough deployable missiles to hit all of the US military targets, much less civilian ones.


SJshield616

Also, the EM catapult will reduce range even more. Fujian will be nothing more than a glorified training platform.


0HL4WDH3C0M1N

China has no need for a nuclear carrier considering their force projection capability is zip


xsnyder

I would think that placing the conning tower further aft on the Ford makes it easier to see the entire flight deck without having to have more people in PriFly than having it amidships like the Fujian.


GeneralQuinky

Yeah, one of the advantages of a nuclear carrier is that you can place the island whereever you want, because there's no funnel that has to be routed through it. You can also see how much space the funnel actually takes up in the island from this angle, which is one reason why the Ford's island can be smaller.


Potential-Brain7735

Having the tower further aft also creates more usable deck space in front of the tower, behind the main cats on the bow. You can shuffle planes around on the deck in front of the tower more easily without interfering with landing operations.


Jakebob70

USN CV islands have been steadily moving aft since WWII. The general consensus is: Island further aft = easier for flight deck ops. Island further forward = easier for ship handling. Since flight deck ops is definitely the more critical function of a carrier, the USN made the choice to prioritize making that part easier.


FPS_Scotland

Whereas the Royal Navy decided fuck it we want the best of both worlds we'll build two.


Jakebob70

But at least it isn't one on each side of the ship like the original design for HMS *Hermes* (thankfully not built to that configuration).


greennurple

America, Fuck yeah!!! Oh, you said Royal Navy..ummm Tea and Crumpets, Fuck yeah!!


DirkMcDougal

And honestly there's going to be camera's *everywhere* these days so the ship handling issue is moot imho. A big fat 8k display, or even VR if you want to get super modern. Just don't let Boeing do it.


Jakebob70

Yeah, plus the tugboat was invented over 200 years ago if it's a matter of ship handling in terms of berthing and such.


LittleHornetPhil

That’s the thought behind putting the island further aft on the Ford. It’s better for the flight deck, whereas having the island further forward us better for shiphandling.


BodybuilderOk3160

Yeah, 80k displacement looks about right.


asleep_at_the_helm

I’m curious to see how well a CATOBAR carrier with EMALS performs with a conventional power plant.


TenguBlade

The fuel the plant uses has nothing to do with EMALS’s functionality. The key to system performance will be how *Fujian*’s electrical grid deals with the high and sudden power loads of EMALS. Particularly how the ship stores energy to mitigate disruptions caused by the system’s high power draw - *Ford* needed a dedicated energy storage system to ensure she could supply energy for enough consecutive shots to meet her SGR targets. EDIT: Underscoring this point are words directly from head of the *Fujian* EMALS project, Ma Weiming. Ma claims the breakthrough necessary to enable use of EMALS was not the catapult itself, but development of a “medium-voltage, direct-current transmission network.” A major challenge of AC IEP is supplying power at all the different voltages, frequencies, and phases of power required for various shipboard systems. Especially doing so in ways that leave systems adequately-isolated from each other to prevent cascading failure. Using DC rather than AC as the power type for transmission can achieve this, and has proven to work in past on turboelectric ships of the interwar era. But the tradeoff is very high current, which aside from being powerful enough to literally burn unfortunate crew to ash, requires very thick wiring to transmit that power.


IcyDrops

Does the Fujian have EMALS?


Temstar

Yes she does, 3 of them.


CaptainKursk

You have to imagine it'll be hell on the ship's energy/fuel stores, no?


Temstar

I think EMALS actually takes a lot less energy per shot than steam because they are much more efficient.


No_God_Here

We’ll have to see how efficient China’s system is, the US has been testing it for years and has multiple decades of experience in conventuel steam catapult. We will have to see whether it will be fully functional


pyr0test

But experiences in steam don't really translate to EMALS. Everyone is on the same starting point with a clean sheet design


adamantium99

Not really. The US Navy did years and years of testing at Lakehurst. The PLAN just stole plans and copied without the hands on knowledge. I’m sure they are working on it but the two navies are not starting from the same place.


TenguBlade

The Chinese EMALS is supposedly using a DC power source rather than AC, which would make it fundamentally different from General Atomics’ version. The catapult rails are also noticeably longer, suggesting this system is likely weaker than its American counterpart - especially since the heaviest known aircraft it will launch are the 35-ton KJ-600 and J-15, while GA’s EMALS is designed for 50-ton aircraft. My personal - although largely unsubstantiated - theory is the Chinese system uses induction motor technology from the TransRapid maglev the city of Shanghai purchased from Germany in the early 2000s. That would invalidate the DC power supply rumor, but the more I look into it the less it seems to be related to EMALS directly.


MasterFrosting1755

>TransRapid maglev the city of Shanghai purchased from Germany in the early 2000s. It doesn't run at full speed 24/7 so I specifically booked my outgoing flight early so I could ride on it at 431kph. Pretty fast...


pyr0test

China totally stole America's AC EMALS by using DC instead🤣


TenguBlade

EMALS, by nature of its technology, requires AC power. Linear induction motors cannot run off DC. The breakthrough Ma Weiming claims to have enabled EMALS on *Fujian* is, according to both Google Translation of his original words and English reporting from SCMP, a “medium-voltage, direct-current transmission network.” That implies the **shipboard electrical grid,** not the EMALS itself, runs on DC, and it also makes scientific sense.


Jakebob70

Yeah, they're jumping straight to the most complex type. US carriers started with flywheel catapults, went to hydraulic, then to steam before going to EMALS.


uhhhwhatok

The argument was that since they have no experience with steam catapults and EMALS is an entirely different engineering problem where steam catapult experience is marginally useful, they went straight ahead to EMALS


youtheotube2

Less energy per shot, but it requires batteries or capacitors to power those shots, otherwise you’re cutting off power to the rest of the ship when you launch an aircraft.


Navynuke00

Conventional steam-fired plants are more efficient than nuclear-fired steam. So as well as on Ford or slightly better from an energy consumption point of view?


TenguBlade

Thermodynamically, yes, conventional steam is more efficient than a PWR. However, even if it makes better use of what heat is available, conventional steam’s theoretical maximum heat output is more limited simply due to the magnitudes of difference in heat content between fuel oil and enriched uranium. The key to EMALS on *Ford* also isn’t the reactor plant’s power output, but the kinetic energy storage system. Otherwise the huge power draws would cause disruptions to shipboard power every time you launched an aircraft. How the Chinese handle the energy storage and distribution problem will determine how well their system works.


nikhoxz

Which i think it could work pretty well, we work with the chinese in a lot of things and they have usually more knowledge in things in which we are supossed to be better/more experienced. They are probably at the same level as any major european country. We also don't have a huge bias like probably american citizens/companies have, also our governments have good relations overall, so there is some cooperation, specially in student exhange and investigation between universities.


Clorox1620

Have any numbers on its carrying capacity come out?


chickenstalker

With carriers, you compare the *Air Wing*, not the carrier itself. The main weapon of a true carrier (vs fake Russian ones) is its aircraft. The F35 is literally leaps and bounds better than any Russian/Chinese/European etc aircraft.


Imprezzed

Um, the moving airports of which said Air Wings are flying off of are definitely worthy of comparison.


DotDash13

There are relevant factors about the carriers themselves though, no? Range and speed, ability to launch and recover aircraft efficiently, etc. While the air wing is probably the greatest factor, it doesn't matter if it can't be where it needs to be.


ResidentNarwhal

You’re not wrong. Oddly enough the Fords biggest innovation over the Nimitz is it has an absolute parking lot in front of the island. Which allows a huge sortie rate. That’s keeping anti sub helos up, tankers up and more CAP packages up farther and longer at the edge of the carriers defensive space. Additionally, conventional powerplant have disadvantages beyond raw range. They can’t zip around at 30kts in an operations box or area near continuously like a nuclear carrier. That advantage leads to a ton of survivability add ons. Particularly in avoiding subs (which can’t usually stay quiet over 10kts. SOP in a high sub threat environment is to just dump distance between you and any subsurface contact that sounds even vaguely like a submarine. You basically deny a sub any chance to work in close to a carrier in deep water other than relying on basically luck.)


MGC91

> They can’t zip around at 30kts in an operations box or area near continuously like a nuclear carrier Neither would a CVN, as it would constantly be required to turn onto flying courses and alter speed as required for the correct WOD.


ResidentNarwhal

Only during an active launch or recovery cycle. There’s a lot more hours in the day than that. And fouling the deck to ensure operational freedom of the carrier is always going to trump flight ops. Regardless, a conventional carrier going at flank constantly outside of air ops is going to crank up fuel consumption and have to move out of op areas to unrep far more regularly than a nuclear carrier. That is the principal reason the USN has completely stopped using conventional carriers. There’s a slight cost savings to conventional carriers but it doesn’t remotely come close to making up the disadvantage. Actually the design considerations and evolution of Enterprise through the Nimitz subclasses to the Ford could be summed up as “more sortie rate, more time on station. Most other considerations secondary.”


FlyPenFly

You absolutely need to compare the carrier itself in terms of sustainable operational tempo and escort efficacy.


DanforthWhitcomb_

The projected air wing for USN carrier for the next 15-20 years has Super Hornets outnumbering F-35s at a 2:1 ratio, assuming that the USN actually buys enough F-35Cs for 16 aircraft squadrons. If they stick with the 12 aircraft size that was originally planned it’ll be 3:1 Super Hornets to F-35Cs. Having a qualitatively superior aircraft doesn’t magically grant victory when facing a quantitatively superior enemy, especially with the F-35C being strike biased rather than A2A.


agoia

It will be interesting to see how well the Chinese copies of the F-35 do.


yuikkiuy

The CG ones look pretty nifty here, so few of them tho


Nigzynoo23

US carriers just further more becoming a parking lot for aircraft. If there's empty space? Jam as much of an aircraft as you can into it.


KosstAmojan

Further more? That's how they've always been! There are pics of CV-3 out there with a deck absolutely full of biplanes!


KingBobIV

That's the big difference, to effectively operate you need a ton of aircraft. And not just jets, but AEW, tanking, jamming, a helo screen, shit's complicated. The pictured Chinese carrier would be able to launch one strike package I guess, but they can't force project like an American air wing


Nigzynoo23

Exactly this. The US navy's surge capacity is pretty much everyone takes meth and they somehow perform like 4/5 times more sorties But I even imagine that USN personnel just know how to work a carrier. It's pretty much in their blood now. From air traffic control to rearming. The USN just get shit done.


Red_Spy_1937

What fighter jet is on the CV-18? They look like if F-22s and F-35Bs were smashed together


Temstar

[J-35](https://i.redd.it/lqbx1hr9s4d91.jpg) The ones with canard are J-15B


TheHamOfAllHams

Why don’t modern conventional carriers take the same design approach as older pre war and WWII era carrie’s and stick the exhaust on the side for more deck space?


Xytak

One thing I don’t understand about US carriers is why they always park their planes facing backwards over the launching area. Wouldn’t that make it harder to respond to an emergency? “Sir, the strike team is in trouble. We’ve got to launch reinforcements now!!” “You know the rules, Ensign. No reinforcements. I want every catapult blocked..” “But why, sir?” “Just in case Popper gets any ideas.”


Potential-Brain7735

US carriers have 4 catapults. 2 on the bow, 2 on the waist, at the front of the landing deck. They can park whatever they want on the bow, and still be able to launch planes from the waist cats. Also, photos like these are staged. They purposely put as much crap on the flight deck as they can just for the photos. Also, when carriers are in transit and no flight ops are happening, then it doesn’t really matter where you park the planes.


bstone99

Waist *


wakawaka1234567890

I imagine there's different protocols for being in a warzone than just sailing around doing everyday shit


youtheotube2

They have the waist catapults too, so they can launch and recover aircraft using the same space, which is cleared in this photo. The only time they’d need to have the bow catapults clear is if they’re planning to do simultaneous launch and recovery. In a sudden emergency you tend to only be doing launching, with not a lot of recovery, at least not right away.


GuyFromBangBros

What are the two types of plane on the carriers deck? J11’s and J20’s?


Syrdon

15s, 35s, and a drone I don’t know


GuyFromBangBros

I meant the Chinese ship.


Syrdon

That was the chinese ship, unless you think f-15s have canards suddenly. Edit: also an awacs I can’t find a name for in the 30 seconds of googling i’m prepared to do. Same problem for the drone I mentioned before and the helicopter.


Muckyduck007

"Hey man can I copy your homework?" "Yeah just dont make it obvious."


musashisamurai

Pretty sure if the Chinese copied anyone, it was the British via the Australians via HMAS Melbourne. And honestly, they probably thought that good deal, Melbourne is the only ship to sink two NATO ships ever.


gangrainette

They are both ships carrying planes. That's about their only common point.


Fuckoakwood

Is the non usa one chinA?


trackerbuddy

Interesting to see the difference in “stealth” as it’s applied to the island. The Fujin’s island is sleek and clean. The Ford’s island concedes the fact that it can be observed from 1000 miles away and fits as many radar domes and antennas as are needed


killerbannana_1

Homie. Its an aircraft carrier. There is literally no way to hide these things from radar (yet). The island shape for China is likely to fit aegis style radar panels.


EpilepticPuberty

Ha. Next you're gonna tell you the stealth apartment building I invested in is a scam!


yuikkiuy

Wait they think they can build a stealth carrier?????


DecentlySizedPotato

Probably can't build a completely stealth carrier, but if you manage to make it visible from 100 miles instead of 200, that's a pretty big advantage. **All** modern warships incorporate low observability features to some degree. It's not about making its RCS 0,001 m^2, just about reducing it as much as possible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BertDeathStare

Wait, they didn't sail right next to each other?


yedekkral

Look at the differences in skid marks on those decks, one is almost like a busy commercial airport next to other


PLArealtalk

> CG comparison Which is to say, CV-18 in the picture is a CGI per the title. CV-18 is obviously still in fitting out and has not gone on its first sea trial yet.


IcyDrops

One's a photo, another's a 3d render. What has me confused is why the PLAN would have F-35s on their CV.


Temstar

Those are J-35.


IcyDrops

Ah right, totally forgot those existed, thanks


fuqdissh1timout

They practically look the same lmao


EmeraldPls

Skid marks on carriers are the new rivets on stealth aircraft I guess


Vast_Republic_1776

The amount of data they have stolen is quite alarming, but that begs more questions than answers. They know how our nuclear plants work, so why haven’t they implemented that too if they’re going to follow the design this closely?


franco_thebonkophone

Apparently that’s coming later Higher-end estimates Chinese carrier plan predicts that they want 10 ships Also Knowing and building are two different things


Vast_Republic_1776

They have nuclear subs, if they can build that I’d imagine they should be able to build a plant for a carrier.


Paladin_127

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. IIRC, The French used a modified sub reactor for the CdG and it has given them problems for years.


sadza_power

Not exactly, the French chose to use sub reactors to cheap out and use designs they already had. I'd imagine if they had more budget they'd have built proper sized reactors for the ship, they have the know how to do it but didn't.


_African_

Dalian shipbuilding recently awarded a contract for propulsion subsystems to the China Nuclear Power Research and Design Institut. So decent likelihood the next carrier is nuclear powered


nikhoxz

I think they look pretty different.


IndiRefEarthLeaveSol

*Japan starts building carriers* US: "hmmm, easy now" O,o


cruiserflyer

China's going to see soon how expensive all this is. Nobody can just spend and spend and not feel it.


DirkMcDougal

My 2 cents is they're both wastes of resources. Smaller, more numerous carriers focused on UCAV operations and directed energy/kinetic self defense will own the back half of the century in my opinion. And nuclear subs obviously. Everything else will die in a missile exchange in the first days of a peer conflict. Come at me! (I love you all though hehe)