China will eventually have 12+ aircraft carriers as a world power

[Akasa]

So Americans cannot reinforce their Pacific fleet with addition ships from Atlantic and Indian Ocean? Did they pass a declaration I don't know about?

"I only need to watch for his right hand, since I don't think he'll slap me with the left."

Then by your theory the PLA-N needs to match the entire US Navy.

 

[S10]

Then by your theory the PLA-N needs to match the entire US Navy.

No, the fortunate thing is China does not need to maintain a global empire. USN needs to keep at least some forms of presence in other places and it's unlikely they'll move all their assets into the Pacific. Another advantage going for China is that it can benefit from bomber/conventional sub coverage not far from mainland, thus shielding its smaller fleet.

With that said, Americans can easily move 7 or 8 CSGs and several amphibious assault groups into the Pacific if needed, thus China need to develop a similar force. Of course, that's my opinion.

 

[Akasa]

No, the fortunate thing is China does not need to maintain a global empire. USN needs to keep at least some forms of presence in other places and it's unlikely they'll move all their assets into the Pacific. Another advantage going for China is that it can benefit from bomber/conventional sub coverage not far from mainland, thus shielding its smaller fleet.

With that said, Americans can easily move 7 or 8 CSGs and several amphibious assault groups into the Pacific if needed, thus China need to develop a similar force. Of course, that's my opinion.

"They are unlikely to move all their assets into the Pacific"

Hence my previous post suggesting that the PLA-N needs only to match the US Navy in the Pacific, whatever quantity of ships that might be.

Even then, the PLA Navy budget would be constrained.

 

[S10]

"They are unlikely to move all their assets into the Pacific"

Hence my previous post suggesting that the PLA-N needs only to match the US Navy in the Pacific, whatever quantity of ships that might be.

Even then, the PLA Navy budget would be constrained.

They have 12 carrier strike groups (CSG), and 10 expeditionary strike groups (ESG) that are mini carrier groups. Even if they maintain minimal presence elsewhere, they can still devote more than 7 CSG not to mention ESGs into the Pacific easily. If you can't match that, you're toast if a naval conflict breaks out.

 

[Akasa]

They have 12 carrier strike groups (CSG), and 10 expeditionary strike groups (ESG) that are mini carrier groups. Even if they maintain minimal presence elsewhere, they can still devote more than 7 CSG not to mention ESGs into the Pacific easily. If you can't match that, you're toast if a naval conflict breaks out.

And even if you match that, they will simply send more ships. There is no point.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

12 Aircraft carrier would be a good strategy
With each craft having 20 fighter jets

I think 3 Aircraft carriers would be able to protect Chinese waters, 2 for open seas , 1 stationed Gwadar port for Joint military excercises with Pakistan now and then.

1 in Africa , and 1 in South American waters

3 in China awaiting order for international Humanitarian missions

The carriers would cost china , 5 billlions / ship
around 60 Billion 1 time cost and it will last for 50 years good investment

Chinas budget surplus is 2-3 Trillion dollars / year

3,000,000,000,000 (money at hand)
##60,000,000,000 (Cost of Carrier one time)

I think the world now looks on China once they land on moon and build a permanent base on Moon

 

[below_freezing]

And even if you match that, they will simply send more ships. There is no point.

No, they won't. They'll be too busy dealing with internal riots, USD depreciation, hyperinflation, a civil war and the breakup of the DisUnited States.

 

[S10]

And even if you match that, they will simply send more ships. There is no point.

They cannot send all of their ships, and doing so would destablize the world order they have maintained. The trick is to have enough ships to counter the maximum number they can deploy to Pacific, which is about 8 to 9 CSGs without counting the ESGs. They don't have infinite number of ships they can send. The world is not a video game and United States is bound by limitations just as China is.

 

[paritosh]

only a force projecting country that has no wars in it's vicinity and is warring by nature would want so many a/c carriers...all of china's potential enemies are in it's neighborhood...why would they waste so much of money?

 

[S10]

only a force projecting country that has no wars in it's vicinity and is warring by nature would want so many a/c carriers...all of china's potential enemies are in it's neighborhood...why would they waste so much of money?

Why don't you ask United States why does it need so many? 12 super carriers plus 10 mini carriers. Since they're bordered by Canada, Mexico and Carribean states, they don't even have real enemies in their neighborhood to speak of.

 

[Black Widow]

Why don't you ask United States why does it need so many? 12 super carriers plus 10 mini carriers. Since they're bordered by Canada, Mexico and Carribean states, they don't even have real enemies in their neighborhood to speak of.

You forget Russia, Russia was not far from USA...

 

[S10]

You forget Russia, Russia was not far from USA...

Except USSR collapsed 20 years ago and United States still maintains a fleet of such size.

 

[Bhairava]

For a nation that prides itself in "Peaceful rise" and which always says its moves are only defensive whats the need for 12 carriers ?

Why don't you ask United States why does it need so many? 12 super carriers plus 10 mini carriers. Since they're bordered by Canada, Mexico and Carribean states, they don't even have real enemies in their neighborhood to speak of.

So China will be taking on the role of US and engage in hostilities around the world ?

 

[S10]

For a nation that prides itself in "Peaceful rise" and which always says its moves are only defensive whats the need for 12 carriers ?

So China will be taking on the role of US and engage in hostilities around the world ?

China does not need 12 carriers. None of the Chinese members here stated China needs 12. You invented that one. On top of that, United States having 12 + 10 is reality, while China has one in construction. Somehow China is the threat to world peace? Indian logic acting up again?

However, China needs at least half the number of US carrier groups in order to form effective deterrance in safeguarding its interest in the Pacific. In addition, the sea lanes in Indian Oceans will need to be looked after.

 

[below_freezing]

For a nation that prides itself in "Peaceful rise" and which always says its moves are only defensive whats the need for 12 carriers ?



So China will be taking on the role of US and engage in hostilities around the world ?

We need at least 9 carriers to defend against US, Korean and Japanese aggression.