The Liaoning is the People’s Liberation Army’s sole operational aircraft carrier at present, but Beijing plans to add three more carriers to the PLA naval fleet by 2025 and may also deploy three amphibious assault ships capable of carrying combat aircraft.
That is the observation by Abraham Ait, a military analyst and founder of Military Watch Magazine, who noted in The Diplomat that following the 2012 launch of the Liaoning, three new carriers could already be in various stages of testing or construction.
China’s first homemade carrier is now undergoing sea trials after its maiden voyage in May. It was modeled after the somewhat antiquated Soviet-built Liaoning and is only referred to as Type 001A.
On Monday, China’s state news agency Xinhua, on its official WeChat page, confirmed for the first time that “a new type of carrier” was taking shape at a dock. The third Chinese sea-going airbase, conventionally powered, was widely rumored to have done away with a curved-up bow for a flattop design and would be equipped with electromagnetic catapults to deploy heavier and better-armed fighters as well as fix-wing, carrier-based early warning aircraft.
Ait is of the view that Beijing would be on schedule to have four carriers by 2025 as the PLA vessels are growing quickly in both sophistication and size.
“Combined with the rapid growth in the country’s destroyer fleet and the commissioning of a lethal new destroyer class, the Type 055, China’s ability to project power at sea and contest dominance of the contested and strategically vital South and East China seas appears to be growing apace,” he argues.
Citing unnamed sources, Ait added that there was a considerable chance that a lower profile defense program now underway may see the number of Chinese carriers of various sizes rise to seven by 2025.
That was because Chinese shipbuilders had already started the construction of three amphibious assault ships – 40,000-ton warships approximately the size of the French carrier Charles de Gaulle and bearing a resemblance to the US Navy’s America and Wasp-class amphibious assault ships. These ships would be big enough to deploy fixed-wing, short take-off vertical-landing combat aircraft.
Purpose-built F-35B and other fighters featuring short take-off vertical-landing capabilities are deployable on these amphibious assault ships, allowing them to effectively function as mini-carriers.
Ait points out that the PLA’s Type 075 assault ships, all of which are expected to be in service by 2025 with each carrying up to 30 planes, will function as quasi-carriers, thus bringing the size of the Chinese Navy’s carrier fleet up to seven by the mid-2020s.
As for the development of the Chinese version of the F-35B, China can draw on Russia’s experience in designing short take-off vertical-landing aircraft.
With China’s defense budget growing by more than 7% per year, almost in line with the country’s economic growth, the Chinese navy has room to induct more carriers, both assault ships and conventional larger vessels, after 2025.
“The year 2025 could well thus mark a considerable turning point in the Pacific balance of power, providing the US Navy with the first real challenge to the dominance of its carrier strike groups in Asia since the sinking of the Imperial Japanese supercarrier Shinano in 1944, ” concluded Ait.
Read more: US carrier arrives in Hong Kong, braves choppy China-US ties
If any other country with China’s economic capacity would have built more than 7 carriers already, especially faced with a bully who keeps sailing its carriers in China’s waters.
Any other country with China’s economic capacity would have built more than 7 carriers already, especially faced with a bully who keeps sailing its carriers in China’s waters.
Any other country with China’s economic capacity would have built more than 7 carriers already, especially faced with a bully who keeps sailing its carriers in China’s waters.
“The year 2025 could well thus mark a considerable turning point in the Pacific balance of power, providing the US Navy with the first real challenge to the dominance of its carrier strike groups in Asia since the sinking of the Imperial Japanese supercarrier Shinano in 1944, ” concluded Ait.
LOL!
The former soviet union was a great DISbeliever in aircraft carriers. These are basically big sitting ducks on the wide open sea waiting to be annihilated by swarms of anti-ship missiles of which no CBG can effectively defend against. It was no wonder that the russians never even bothered to advance their aircraft carrier technology.
So, instead of building super expensive and maintenance intensive slow moving tubs with big targets painted on their backs, the russians have progressively upgraded their anti-ship missiles arsenal deployable from the air, land and most importantly undersea. Their submarine fleets are equipped with the worlds best CBG killer anti-ship missile systems. Ask any empire admirals, they dread the task of taking on the russian subs.
As for the pacific balance of power, ever since the taiwan straits incident in 1996 when Bubba sent two CBGs to scare Jiang Zemin, the PLAN had already deployed anti-ship ballistic missiles,i.e.; DF21D, DF26, YJ62, YJ82 and the hypersonic glider DF17 systems, just to mention a few. Just like the russian anti-CBG doctrine, these platforms can be launched from the air, land and undersea. In addition, a big fleet of Yuan class AIP capable subs are always lurking beneath the seas, enough to scare the shit out any any empire admirals who still think that "opium war 3.0" is winnable.
China really doesn’t need CBGs to alter the balance of power in the pacific. It has already achieved this several years ago. Ask Obama why he ordered the two CBGs to retreat from the SCS in september 2016 when XJP decided to send detachments of the north, east and south seas fleets to the SCS "for training". This was after the kangaroo court PCA nullified china’s claims to the SCS and the empire sent the two CBGs there to try to enforce that mickey mouse ruling.
“The year 2025 could well thus mark a considerable turning point in the Pacific balance of power, providing the US Navy with the first real challenge to the dominance of its carrier strike groups in Asia since the sinking of the Imperial Japanese supercarrier Shinano in 1944, ” concluded Ait.
LOL!
The former soviet union was a great DISbeliever in aircraft carriers. These are basically big sitting ducks on the wide open sea waiting to be annihilated by swarms of anti-ship missiles of which no CBG can effectively defend against. It was no wonder that the russians never even bothered to advance their aircraft carrier technology.
So, instead of building super expensive and maintenance intensive slow moving tubs with big targets painted on their backs, the russians have progressively upgraded their anti-ship missiles arsenal deployable from the air, land and most importantly undersea. Their submarine fleets are equipped with the worlds best CBG killer anti-ship missile systems. Ask any empire admirals, they dread the task of taking on the russian subs.
As for the pacific balance of power, ever since the taiwan straits incident in 1996 when Bubba sent two CBGs to scare Jiang Zemin, the PLAN had already deployed anti-ship ballistic missiles,i.e.; DF21D, DF26, YJ62, YJ82 and the hypersonic glider DF17 systems, just to mention a few. Just like the russian anti-CBG doctrine, these platforms can be launched from the air, land and undersea. In addition, a big fleet of Yuan class AIP capable subs are always lurking beneath the seas, enough to scare the shit out any any empire admirals who still think that "opium war 3.0" is winnable.
China really doesn’t need CBGs to alter the balance of power in the pacific. It has already achieved this several years ago. Ask Obama why he ordered the two CBGs to retreat from the SCS in september 2016 when XJP decided to send detachments of the north, east and south seas fleets to the SCS "for training". This was after the kangaroo court PCA nullified china’s claims to the SCS and the empire sent the two CBGs there to try to enforce that mickey mouse ruling.
INTERNATIONAL WATERS….NOT CHINAS!
INTERNATIONAL WATERS….NOT CHINAS!
Americans still have much bigger weapons
Americans still have much bigger weapons
that post will surley get 50c – maybe even a bonus !
that post will surley get 50c – maybe even a bonus !
These 2 carriers are look a ghost ship, a horror ship like those watching at a movie.