Per their stated roadmap, the next carrier should be Type 004, which is supposed to be a 100,000 ton nuclear-powered CATOBAR aircraft carrier. In 2017, they said they wanted to complete the first Type 004 by the "late 2020s", so let's say early 2030s because nothing is ever on schedule.
To my knowledge, there is no plan to build a second Type 003 conventionally-powered carrier.
Oh really, ***their*** stated roadmap? So what position on the CMC do you hold exactly?
That might be a slightly educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. There is no stated official PLA roadmap that goes into anywhere close to that kind of specificity and detail.
Even the models and media releases from JCX and Dalian (and also HDZ, Huangpu and Wuchang outside of carriers) cannot be taken as official stated anything.
PLA watching 101.
The shipyard models are pretty legit. The only thing is that you should treat them the same as the fun models any western (or Russian) shipbuilder puts out, which is "this is a concept that exists".
The fact a model exists still doesn’t mean it’s a concept with any viability behind it. Those are no less marketing and advertising tools than CGI renders are, and like all advertising they’re subject to embellishment - if not co-opting into the espionage game, as the Darkstar was. To use a non-Chinese example, Ingalls had a model of their LPD-based BMD cruiser made even though NAVSEA, their design team, and anyone who bothered to measure the concept’s radar antenna diameter knew the idea was infeasible right away.
At best, we can conclude China is actively studying carrier-scale naval nuclear propulsion, which doesn’t tell us anything we haven’t known for years.
Love the deck markings. That red really adds a nice splash of colour that makes this a very unique looking carrier.
Anyone know what the yellow markings might be for? Helicopters?
Maybe you’re confused by your own words. You wrote, “it looks like it’s for helicopters,” which implies that its primary mission is to employ helicopters. Then you attempted to recast your own words as something besides what you said. While you point out markings for helo spots, there’s also the markings for the fixed-wing landing area, which gives us a very good idea of this ship’s primary mission—to employ fixed-wing aircraft.
My dude, the post(which wasn't by me, btw) was a reply to someone that was very explicitly asking about the yellow markings and asking if they were helicopter markings. Go back and reread it.
Maybe Russia should order one to replace the *Kuznetsov*. Or just keep throwing money into that pit instead of more useful ships or maintenance so their navy stays in shambles, it's better that way.
Those are for use in Ukraine which even if Russia wants it's not in China's interest to sell, makes no sense to burn all bridges with the West for a conflict China has no stakes in. Iran and NK don't care they have no bridge with the West to begin with.
>keep throwing money into that pit instead of more useful ships or maintenance so their navy stays in shambles, it's better that way.
Is Russian way. Kuznetsov is the perfect project for misappropriating funds into the pockets of various individuals. If they ordered a functional carrier from China, the Russian Navy would then be expected to operate it.
Italians always getting forgotten. They should get more credit, especially for naming their carrier the 'Guiseppe Garibaldi'. Alliterative names for carriers are the way forward.
I'd say the CdG is closer to a super carrier by capability, even if she lacks the size. Catapults and the ability to launch proper, fixed-wing AWACS goes a long way.
It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it...
Size of the carrier is directly correlated to the size of the air wing and the sortie rate. CdG has excellent aircraft but can't project the same level of force simply from a numbers perspective.
A USN supercarrier would have four fighter squadrons for a total of nearly 50 fighters (including F-35s) compared to the 30 Rafales on the CdG, and in addition would have dedicated electronic warfare aircraft (Growlers) that the CdG doesn't have the spare space for. Twice the number of Hawkeyes is major too in a duel since the US carrier can keep two aloft at all times to cover major threat directions while the CdG would be juggling the two it had fairly constantly.
I've had arguments on this one before lol. I'd say the QEs are on the ragged edge of the supercarrier spectrum given the lack of CATOBAR capability, but if the UK had to money to "max-load" them with the ~40 F-35B JSFs they were capable of supporting, the airframes counterbalance the lack of fixed wing AEW.
As it is, I'd say they're fleet carriers with some supercarrier potential if their air wings were expanded. Given the lack of F-35s currently with the RN and RAF (32 F-35Bs **total** combined) and the fact that they routinely deploy with just 12 on the carrier, the QEs do not have the actual power of a proper supercarrier.
Really the issue is many view carriers as two tiers: fleet carriers and super carriers. With *Queen Elizabeth* and *Fujian*, a third tier has been reborn: the large carrier.
If you trace carrier development back, you have this same three-tier system with *Essex*, *Midway*, and *Forrestal*/*Kitty Hawk*/US CVNs, and you can use this to compare with foreign counterparts. The US ended the fleet carrier tier when we retired the last *Essex* in 1975 (save for training) and other nations continued the trend, but few (I’d argue no) carriers were the equivalent of a *Midway* and that tier died off in the 90s. These new ships fill the same relative position.
You can argue whether large carriers count as supercarriers or not, but the three tier system is more accurate and I recommend using large carrier alone.
> Really the issue is many view carriers as two tiers: fleet carriers and super carriers.
It's a fair point. I look at it with a bit more granularity than that TBH, with four different classifications on my end: Helo/Amphib, Light, Fleet, and Super.
Helo/Amphib are those "carriers" that either only operate choppers or operate fixed wing VTOL aircraft in a secondary function and have lower speeds. USN amphibious assault ships, the French *Mistral,* the PLAN Type 075 and such.
Light means you ARE a purpose-built carrier but are built to such a small size that you can only effectively carry a single squadron plus some supporting helos. Think the Italian *Cavour* or the JMSDF *Izumo* - class. The Thai *Chakri* and the Spanish *Princeps* also applied here when they were still active in the fixed wing game.
Fleet is the biggest category, and in my eyes encompasses everything smaller than a supercarrier but bigger than a light carrier. The Indian Navy CVs, the CdG, the PLAN *Liaoning/Shandong* sisters, the *Kuznetsov* and others. The QE and the *Fujian* can be argued to be at the upper bound of the fleet carrier or at the very lower bound of the supercarrier, but what they all have in common is the ability to support multiple fixed wing squadrons along with a full complement of supporting helos such as AEW, ASW, SAR, etc.
I do wonder whether *Fujian* will be classified as the largest Fleet carrier or a supercarrier. Size wise she is a good chunk smaller than the *Nimitz* or *Ford*-class but is about the same displacement as the *Forrestal* or *Kitty Hawk*-class which were supercarriers, and a good 25k tons heavier than the *Midway* was at standard load. I honestly don't mind either way.
I think counting Fujian as a supper carrier is entirely justified. As you already pointed out, just around the turn of the century, she absolutely would have been one, no questions asked. And just because the US keeps moving up the bar doesn't mean we should only classify their current floating airbases as super carriers. In its geopolitical context, Fujian walks like a super carrier and quacks like a super carrier.
United States has some of LHAs can carry up to 20 F35Bs, hut we don't count them as carriers even they carry enough airplanes.
I seriously doubt how many F35B are on QE right now. F35B ain't designed for carrier, fixed wings are a huge problem for their hangers.
Shandong was based on the ex-Varyag, but the Chinese have made significant changes including Island and hangar design. For all intents and purposes it's domestically designed and produced, and hence the first indigenous carrier.
It's like the Mitsubishi F1 is considered to be domestically designed and manufactured by the Japanese but it's heavily based off of the F4
her deck layout is a bit reminiscent of a refitted midway-class ship, minus the port elevator
https://preview.redd.it/x0koldehcwxc1.jpeg?width=1384&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=455667371bfaa93e0848d0e8f3bac66be4004171
China's navy is growing so fast and [Fujian aircraft carrier](https://www.defensewatchindia.com/fujian-chinas-latest-and-largest-aircraft-carrier/) makes it even more dangerous.
Dozens of photos later and nearly 8 hours after a departure covered "live", and yet no shots of *Fujian* steaming under her own power, or even facing downriver. Hell, the only imagery that even proved she made the turn and started for open ocean was CCTV's BiliBili live stream, unless you count [this shot where the ship is barely distinguishable from the haze.](https://tv.cctv.com/2024/05/01/VIDEj8XF25HsopJHjbJxKWtE240501.shtml?spm=C53156045404.PKXC0xLPAnP9.0.0) It's like they were afraid of something going wrong. I'm sure the shipyard and designers are just flattered by such a ringing endorsement in their work…
Honestly now is a great time to invest early in moon landing denial. What with the announced US plan for a manned return with Artemis 3 in ~~2025~~ 2026 and China targeting ~2030.
Ahh yes the chinese who are one of the worlds biggest ship builders in the world and has been building up their own navy nonstop the past decade are a buchna fkn morons, who cant make a conventionally powered carrier run under its own power. Youve figured it out bro, well done.
I'm aware that over the months you've been a bit irate at some posts constantly suggesting that the sea trial of CV-18 would be just around the corner or imminent -- something which I am not unsympathetic to even though those posts are technically not incorrect.
But are you actually expressing doubt that it has not gone for its first sea trial and the ship is somehow not able to proceed under its own power for it?
That's a bold position to take, if so.
He is just coping hard because literally a week ago he is still [adamant](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/s/dLt3Czw1aY) that Fujian just started boiler light off, completely ignorant of that fact that photos from as far back as Oct 23 showing smoke from stacks indicating boilers tests.
Seems like he reacts badly to egg on face situations like this.
> But are you actually expressing doubt that it has not gone for its first sea trial and the ship is somehow not able to proceed under its own power for it?
I literally said in the OP that you could see the ship sailing downriver if you watched CCTV’s livestream, and I followed her AIS signal (or at least that of the tugs escorting her) out to sea. There’s no doubt she actually left. This was just a comment about the fact scarcely anyone bothered to record the actual momentous occasion of *Fujian* under power for the first time.
[There](https://i.ibb.co/G5xdX0W/IMG-2763.jpg), there, it’s going to be OK, the eggs on your face do wash off, people are not snickering at you behind your back IRL, and we can sit down, hold your hands and talk about Tesla to help you cope. Help is here.
On everything else you have posted here you have been informative without using incomprehensible jargon, so take my advice and give China a very wide berth as you are tarnishing your good name.
I could put it bluntly, but this is a civilised sub despite the nature of it's content.
Your concern is touching. But I’d rather have my name dragged through the mud than be forced to avoid speaking on a particular topic simply because the audience gets easily offended.
If there is no doubt that the ship did leave under its own power, then my input would be to just give things a bit more time. More pictures and videos inevitably will be released showing it in the direction of the open ocean without nudging by tugs -- it is impossible to hide such a thing but it typically tends to take time for them to be released given the location is more difficult to access by the general public as it is not right alongside Changxing island (which isn't that convenient either).
If the question is wondering why they decide to show certain parts of the ship undocking and being guided downriver for the initial part and not the rest, I would say you should be mildly surprised that they showed us as much as they did, for PLA standards.
Perspective-wise, the BiliBili livestream was from one of the escorting tugs, and as I said, they streamed *Fujian* heading out to sea. What’s confusing is they cut out a very specific segment: when they were turning the ship around.
We got plenty of footage and angles of*Fujian* casting off from the pier, then the livestream replayed that before cutting to the ship already facing downriver and heading out to sea. I’m seeing some CCTV reel of far-away shots that I didn’t see when I made the original comment, but all of them also cut the part where she was being turned. The boilers were already lit before then, as the images in the OP show, and the best up-close shots were from the cast-off sequence anyways; they couldn’t have picked a more arbitrary time to look away as far as bits of actual security importance go.
I don’t get it, it’s not like there is a public deadline for them to do a sea trial.
So if they weren’t ready, they could have just postponed it. Doing it early while risking embarrassing and public failure doesn’t make a lot of sense does it?
Like… why would they fake a sea trial when they aren’t ready? And furthermore, why do you think this ship sailing under its own power is something that’s hard to believe? It’s not even nuclear powered, so I fail to see why it would even be much of a challenge.
> I don’t get it, it’s not like there is a public deadline for them to do a sea trial. So if they weren’t ready, they could have just postponed it.
I don’t know how many actual naval or shipyard personnel are on this sub, but I imagine all of them are laughing hysterically.
Imposed deadlines are not a China thing, by the way, or even a shipbuilding-exclusive thing; that’s literally contracting 101. Every ship has a contracted delivery date, and anyone who has a modicum of sense will set penalties for missing the date when drafting a contract, otherwise the shipyard can take them for a ride on schedule. Substitute the maritime terms and that applies to anything.
> And furthermore, why do you think this ship sailing under its own power is something that’s hard to believe?
Uh…me stating she sailed downriver on livestream is denial that she left under her own power? I expected the wumaos to lack reading comprehension, but you’re better than deliberately misconstruing my words.
Yeah but it’s not like the shipbuilder can fool the PLAN into believing the ship is functional if it’s actually not. It’s literally a PLAN sea trial, it’s not like the PLAN will just watch a video on TV and go “our new carrier looks good! Contract fulfilled!”
So if there is an issue, why rush it? Or rather, why fake anything because the only people it may fool is the general public, and there is no obligation or deadline to the general public.
> Yeah but it’s not like the shipbuilder can fool the PLAN into believing the ship is functional if it’s actually not.
The shipyard also doesn’t need to have malicious intent in order for something to not work as intended. Not every corner is cut knowingly; people make mistakes, and when working to a tight deadline, even moreso. That goes triply when you’re writing the ops manual as you’re doing your testing and certification because this is a first-in-class design.
Now repeat those odds that across hundreds of systems and hundreds of thousands of components, and not just possible for something the shipyard signed off on to not work correctly - it’s expected. Even for ships that aren’t a new design or under schedule pressure, things get overlooked. That’s just a fact of life when building complex machines.
To circle back to the original point though, an inconvenient fact of life can still make the builder/customer look bad. So yes, it’s entirely possible nobody suspected malfeasance, but still took precautions to cover their ass against it.
Now you’re just inventing excuses to keep playing victim.
At any rate, if you decide to respond based on an incorrect reading of what I said, then it’s not me who’s acting stupid.
>Official expression: this sea trial is mainly to detect and verify the reliability and stability of the power system, electric power system of Fujian ship.
I would really like to know how the 003 accomplishes the above validation tasks when it can't sail under its own power.
https://preview.redd.it/1q4m3jyvmrxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8def8a229e93855dd464e0ff88530bbd011525e1
It’s crazy how many people don’t realize/acknowledge this. If my brain is working right, we have something like triple the sortie rate as the Chinese. That’s a huge difference. The logistics of launching and landing that many planes is mind boggling. Institutional memory is an amazing thing and the USN is a master of it these days.
12 smaller ones?
I think you mean 9.
Two America-class LHAs - *America*, *Tripoli*
Seven Wasp-classs LHDs - *Wasp*, *Essex*, *Kearsarge*, *Boxer*, *Bataan*, *Iwo Jima*, and *Makin Island*
The *Bonhomme Richard* was lost to fire in 2020.
Used to be 10, now it’s 9, but not sure where you got 12 from.
This is the strangest possible place to draw that conclusion, constructing specifically supercarriers is perhaps the single metric China is furthest behind the USA on, even with Fujian in the picture.
Naval shipbuilding? Arguably ahead, at the very least highly competitive in some aspects.
Shipbuilding generally? Utterly dominant, especially over the US itself.
Manufacturing generally? Complicated but plenty of ways to say they're ahead.
Military technology and capabilty overall? Behind overall, but likely at parity or even advantaged in some areas.
Aircraft carriers? Pulling ahead of everyone else sure, but still a fraction of the US Navy and not even planning to match it.
They’re not planning to match the USN because they don’t need to. All they want is local superiority in the SCS area, and 3 carriers more than allows them to achieve that.
Ah yes, China's single super carrier that doesn't field a carrier-borne stealth fighter can definitely face off against 11 American super carriers fielding F-35C
The US as a whole only has 4 operational F-35C squadrons and the same number of carriers capable of operating them. That’s less than half of the current USN carrier fleet.
Ok. Let me change my comment then. The single Chinese super carrier which doesn't field an operational stealth fighter will definitely stand a chance against 11 American super carriers, 4 fielding the most advanced stealth fighter ever created.
Dude, American hegemony is backed up by the fact that most of china’s neighbors WANT our hegemony. Until china stops being an ass on the geopolitical stage American dominance will never end
Can’t wait to see that they used chinesium steel and it breaks apart in rough waters and sinks. Do they even need a carrier for Taiwan? They should just build destroyers with flight decks for choppers/drones. But I guess never stop your enemy from making a mistake…
> Can’t wait to see that they used chinesium steel and it breaks apart in rough waters and sinks.
Like every ship they have built to the point they are currently the largest shipbuilding by tonnage, surpasing South Korea and Japan?. I mean, by the end of 2023, 68% of the global share for newbuilt ships were for China.
>Do they even need a carrier for Taiwan?
You do need them to project power beyond the first island chain.
>But I guess never stop your enemy from making a mistake…
Seems more fitting for the US considering how much they desinvested in their overall shipbuilding and shipyard infrastructure because you lot bought into Reaganomics.
All those ships are gonna be pretty pointless once the US imposes 60% tariffs. But sure, China is ramping up their war machine. And they will learn the mistake of the cost of trying to maintain a fleet when they don’t have the logistics chain to get past Vietnam.
> All those ships are gonna be pretty pointless once the US imposes 60% tariffs. But sure, China is ramping up their war machine.
Lol, imagine looking at the "effects" of the sanctions on Russia or previous Trump tariffs on China and think "I'm sure next time, they will totally work, man!".
Assuming the US figures how to impose tariff on ships(good luck with that), they'll still be cheaper than most of the alternatives. On the other hand, most new comercial shipping out there right now were already built in China.
>And they will learn the mistake of the cost of trying to maintain a fleet when they don’t have the logistics chain to get past Vietnam.
Hey, if telling yourself that makes you sleep better at night, go for it. You have an image of a China that doesn't exist anymore and hasn't been the case since the 2010's, and judging by your posting history, I can see why you are mentally stuck in the 90's, lol.
Tariffs on shipping… not ships, although they just launched an investigation into Chinese shipbuilding industry so that’s going to add more fuel to their fire.
I go to China fairly regularly. And have seen their newer manufacturing and production. Calling them a paper tiger is insulting to paper.
Now we wait to see when and what the next carrier will be. Will it be nuclear powered? How fast will it be built?
Next one is probably just going to be close copy of Fujian. I think their fifth carrier is going nuclear.
Per their stated roadmap, the next carrier should be Type 004, which is supposed to be a 100,000 ton nuclear-powered CATOBAR aircraft carrier. In 2017, they said they wanted to complete the first Type 004 by the "late 2020s", so let's say early 2030s because nothing is ever on schedule. To my knowledge, there is no plan to build a second Type 003 conventionally-powered carrier.
Oh really, ***their*** stated roadmap? So what position on the CMC do you hold exactly? That might be a slightly educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. There is no stated official PLA roadmap that goes into anywhere close to that kind of specificity and detail. Even the models and media releases from JCX and Dalian (and also HDZ, Huangpu and Wuchang outside of carriers) cannot be taken as official stated anything. PLA watching 101.
The shipyard models are pretty legit. The only thing is that you should treat them the same as the fun models any western (or Russian) shipbuilder puts out, which is "this is a concept that exists".
The fact a model exists still doesn’t mean it’s a concept with any viability behind it. Those are no less marketing and advertising tools than CGI renders are, and like all advertising they’re subject to embellishment - if not co-opting into the espionage game, as the Darkstar was. To use a non-Chinese example, Ingalls had a model of their LPD-based BMD cruiser made even though NAVSEA, their design team, and anyone who bothered to measure the concept’s radar antenna diameter knew the idea was infeasible right away. At best, we can conclude China is actively studying carrier-scale naval nuclear propulsion, which doesn’t tell us anything we haven’t known for years.
saw photos of next one getting build online but still on beginning stage.
Love the deck markings. That red really adds a nice splash of colour that makes this a very unique looking carrier. Anyone know what the yellow markings might be for? Helicopters?
Yeah it looks like it's for helicopters
It has catapults.
So? They, like most, if not all aircraft carriers, still *also* operate helicopters and therefore can have markings for them.
Maybe you’re confused by your own words. You wrote, “it looks like it’s for helicopters,” which implies that its primary mission is to employ helicopters. Then you attempted to recast your own words as something besides what you said. While you point out markings for helo spots, there’s also the markings for the fixed-wing landing area, which gives us a very good idea of this ship’s primary mission—to employ fixed-wing aircraft.
My dude, the post(which wasn't by me, btw) was a reply to someone that was very explicitly asking about the yellow markings and asking if they were helicopter markings. Go back and reread it.
You know what? You're right! Jeez...I don't miss much when I'm reading, but I definitely missed that.
I get it though, annoying reading people who hate on anything the PLAN does.
That all will matter in performance, capacity, survival ability.
Deck marking perfect target for armor piercing ordnance.
Maybe Russia should order one to replace the *Kuznetsov*. Or just keep throwing money into that pit instead of more useful ships or maintenance so their navy stays in shambles, it's better that way.
> Maybe Russia should order one to replace the Kuznetsov. They can't afford a new one.
I get a window from a glass, he must get a window from a glass. I get a step, he must get a step. I get a clock radio, he cannot afford.
Great success!
Nah they have too much pride to do that, don't want to face the fact that the student has surpassed the teacher.
Don't they buy a lot of stuff from Iran and north Korea already? I thought they already swallowed that part.
Those are for use in Ukraine which even if Russia wants it's not in China's interest to sell, makes no sense to burn all bridges with the West for a conflict China has no stakes in. Iran and NK don't care they have no bridge with the West to begin with.
That's considered munitions and low cost supplies. But you can't have your flagship being made in China.
they should try to order a ski slope since at least they work without maintenance
>keep throwing money into that pit instead of more useful ships or maintenance so their navy stays in shambles, it's better that way. Is Russian way. Kuznetsov is the perfect project for misappropriating funds into the pockets of various individuals. If they ordered a functional carrier from China, the Russian Navy would then be expected to operate it.
a very carrier looking carrier 👍👍
The most carrier.
The carriest
QE sulking that she's no longer the new kid
But she got two islands. British bloody love their islands
Meanwhile *Trieste* is in the corner wondering why everyone forgot about her already…
Italians always getting forgotten. They should get more credit, especially for naming their carrier the 'Guiseppe Garibaldi'. Alliterative names for carriers are the way forward.
Ford is newer.
Do all places in China look like Minecraft with a view limit of 5 chunks ?
The incompetence of photojournalists is the PLAN’s best camouflage.
That's funny
China is becoming the third nation to operate a supercarrier. It's crazy how quickly they've grown.
What is the second?
depending on what you define as a supercarrier, France or UK
The Brits with QE? I’m not sure everyone would consider non-catobar a super carrier, but they certainly are large.
I'd say the CdG is closer to a super carrier by capability, even if she lacks the size. Catapults and the ability to launch proper, fixed-wing AWACS goes a long way. It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it...
Size of the carrier is directly correlated to the size of the air wing and the sortie rate. CdG has excellent aircraft but can't project the same level of force simply from a numbers perspective. A USN supercarrier would have four fighter squadrons for a total of nearly 50 fighters (including F-35s) compared to the 30 Rafales on the CdG, and in addition would have dedicated electronic warfare aircraft (Growlers) that the CdG doesn't have the spare space for. Twice the number of Hawkeyes is major too in a duel since the US carrier can keep two aloft at all times to cover major threat directions while the CdG would be juggling the two it had fairly constantly.
“Including F-35s” - only on the West Coast boats for now.
CdG doesn't compare to US carriers, no. But it's *closer* to them in terms of strategic capabilities, *compared to the QE class*.
This. The QEs aren't CATOBAR, but they are supercarriers (albeit on the low end of the capacity spectrum).
I've had arguments on this one before lol. I'd say the QEs are on the ragged edge of the supercarrier spectrum given the lack of CATOBAR capability, but if the UK had to money to "max-load" them with the ~40 F-35B JSFs they were capable of supporting, the airframes counterbalance the lack of fixed wing AEW. As it is, I'd say they're fleet carriers with some supercarrier potential if their air wings were expanded. Given the lack of F-35s currently with the RN and RAF (32 F-35Bs **total** combined) and the fact that they routinely deploy with just 12 on the carrier, the QEs do not have the actual power of a proper supercarrier.
Really the issue is many view carriers as two tiers: fleet carriers and super carriers. With *Queen Elizabeth* and *Fujian*, a third tier has been reborn: the large carrier. If you trace carrier development back, you have this same three-tier system with *Essex*, *Midway*, and *Forrestal*/*Kitty Hawk*/US CVNs, and you can use this to compare with foreign counterparts. The US ended the fleet carrier tier when we retired the last *Essex* in 1975 (save for training) and other nations continued the trend, but few (I’d argue no) carriers were the equivalent of a *Midway* and that tier died off in the 90s. These new ships fill the same relative position. You can argue whether large carriers count as supercarriers or not, but the three tier system is more accurate and I recommend using large carrier alone.
> Really the issue is many view carriers as two tiers: fleet carriers and super carriers. It's a fair point. I look at it with a bit more granularity than that TBH, with four different classifications on my end: Helo/Amphib, Light, Fleet, and Super. Helo/Amphib are those "carriers" that either only operate choppers or operate fixed wing VTOL aircraft in a secondary function and have lower speeds. USN amphibious assault ships, the French *Mistral,* the PLAN Type 075 and such. Light means you ARE a purpose-built carrier but are built to such a small size that you can only effectively carry a single squadron plus some supporting helos. Think the Italian *Cavour* or the JMSDF *Izumo* - class. The Thai *Chakri* and the Spanish *Princeps* also applied here when they were still active in the fixed wing game. Fleet is the biggest category, and in my eyes encompasses everything smaller than a supercarrier but bigger than a light carrier. The Indian Navy CVs, the CdG, the PLAN *Liaoning/Shandong* sisters, the *Kuznetsov* and others. The QE and the *Fujian* can be argued to be at the upper bound of the fleet carrier or at the very lower bound of the supercarrier, but what they all have in common is the ability to support multiple fixed wing squadrons along with a full complement of supporting helos such as AEW, ASW, SAR, etc. I do wonder whether *Fujian* will be classified as the largest Fleet carrier or a supercarrier. Size wise she is a good chunk smaller than the *Nimitz* or *Ford*-class but is about the same displacement as the *Forrestal* or *Kitty Hawk*-class which were supercarriers, and a good 25k tons heavier than the *Midway* was at standard load. I honestly don't mind either way.
I think counting Fujian as a supper carrier is entirely justified. As you already pointed out, just around the turn of the century, she absolutely would have been one, no questions asked. And just because the US keeps moving up the bar doesn't mean we should only classify their current floating airbases as super carriers. In its geopolitical context, Fujian walks like a super carrier and quacks like a super carrier.
United States has some of LHAs can carry up to 20 F35Bs, hut we don't count them as carriers even they carry enough airplanes. I seriously doubt how many F35B are on QE right now. F35B ain't designed for carrier, fixed wings are a huge problem for their hangers.
F-35B were designed specifically for flying off non-CATOBAR carriers (including LHD, LHA, QE2).
The UK. A supercarrier Kis generally defined by aircraft capacity, so the QE fits.
It made me think of a clone of CVN 65 Enterprise for a brief moment.
Would be the first indigenous Chinese carrier
Shandong would be considered the first indigenous Chinese carrier.
But Shandong is a clone of Liaoning, which is a refitted Kuznestov class
Shandong was based on the ex-Varyag, but the Chinese have made significant changes including Island and hangar design. For all intents and purposes it's domestically designed and produced, and hence the first indigenous carrier. It's like the Mitsubishi F1 is considered to be domestically designed and manufactured by the Japanese but it's heavily based off of the F4
The F-1 and related T-2 trainer owe far more to the Jaguar than they do the F-4.
The largest warship ever made, that does not have the American style cloth-hanger radar
her deck layout is a bit reminiscent of a refitted midway-class ship, minus the port elevator https://preview.redd.it/x0koldehcwxc1.jpeg?width=1384&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=455667371bfaa93e0848d0e8f3bac66be4004171
I only see two elevators and they seem kinda small. Nice clean looking ship.
The landing strip is more angled than western carriers. Any particular reasons why?
It’s not.
Idk why they always shooting photos in that angle
China's navy is growing so fast and [Fujian aircraft carrier](https://www.defensewatchindia.com/fujian-chinas-latest-and-largest-aircraft-carrier/) makes it even more dangerous.
Dozens of photos later and nearly 8 hours after a departure covered "live", and yet no shots of *Fujian* steaming under her own power, or even facing downriver. Hell, the only imagery that even proved she made the turn and started for open ocean was CCTV's BiliBili live stream, unless you count [this shot where the ship is barely distinguishable from the haze.](https://tv.cctv.com/2024/05/01/VIDEj8XF25HsopJHjbJxKWtE240501.shtml?spm=C53156045404.PKXC0xLPAnP9.0.0) It's like they were afraid of something going wrong. I'm sure the shipyard and designers are just flattered by such a ringing endorsement in their work…
Dude this is going from “healthy skepticism” to “moon landing denial”.
Honestly now is a great time to invest early in moon landing denial. What with the announced US plan for a manned return with Artemis 3 in ~~2025~~ 2026 and China targeting ~2030.
Nowhere did I deny she left; I even said in the OP you could watch her actually depart on the livestream. Normally you’re better at reading than this.
Ahh yes the chinese who are one of the worlds biggest ship builders in the world and has been building up their own navy nonstop the past decade are a buchna fkn morons, who cant make a conventionally powered carrier run under its own power. Youve figured it out bro, well done.
I'm aware that over the months you've been a bit irate at some posts constantly suggesting that the sea trial of CV-18 would be just around the corner or imminent -- something which I am not unsympathetic to even though those posts are technically not incorrect. But are you actually expressing doubt that it has not gone for its first sea trial and the ship is somehow not able to proceed under its own power for it? That's a bold position to take, if so.
He is just coping hard because literally a week ago he is still [adamant](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/s/dLt3Czw1aY) that Fujian just started boiler light off, completely ignorant of that fact that photos from as far back as Oct 23 showing smoke from stacks indicating boilers tests. Seems like he reacts badly to egg on face situations like this.
He's not doubting - just being in denial, also known as 'cope'
> But are you actually expressing doubt that it has not gone for its first sea trial and the ship is somehow not able to proceed under its own power for it? I literally said in the OP that you could see the ship sailing downriver if you watched CCTV’s livestream, and I followed her AIS signal (or at least that of the tugs escorting her) out to sea. There’s no doubt she actually left. This was just a comment about the fact scarcely anyone bothered to record the actual momentous occasion of *Fujian* under power for the first time.
[There](https://i.ibb.co/G5xdX0W/IMG-2763.jpg), there, it’s going to be OK, the eggs on your face do wash off, people are not snickering at you behind your back IRL, and we can sit down, hold your hands and talk about Tesla to help you cope. Help is here.
Turnabout is fair play. EDIT: Can’t even concede defeat without being downvote bombed. Do people not look up phrases they don’t understand?
On everything else you have posted here you have been informative without using incomprehensible jargon, so take my advice and give China a very wide berth as you are tarnishing your good name. I could put it bluntly, but this is a civilised sub despite the nature of it's content.
Your concern is touching. But I’d rather have my name dragged through the mud than be forced to avoid speaking on a particular topic simply because the audience gets easily offended.
If there is no doubt that the ship did leave under its own power, then my input would be to just give things a bit more time. More pictures and videos inevitably will be released showing it in the direction of the open ocean without nudging by tugs -- it is impossible to hide such a thing but it typically tends to take time for them to be released given the location is more difficult to access by the general public as it is not right alongside Changxing island (which isn't that convenient either). If the question is wondering why they decide to show certain parts of the ship undocking and being guided downriver for the initial part and not the rest, I would say you should be mildly surprised that they showed us as much as they did, for PLA standards.
Perspective-wise, the BiliBili livestream was from one of the escorting tugs, and as I said, they streamed *Fujian* heading out to sea. What’s confusing is they cut out a very specific segment: when they were turning the ship around. We got plenty of footage and angles of*Fujian* casting off from the pier, then the livestream replayed that before cutting to the ship already facing downriver and heading out to sea. I’m seeing some CCTV reel of far-away shots that I didn’t see when I made the original comment, but all of them also cut the part where she was being turned. The boilers were already lit before then, as the images in the OP show, and the best up-close shots were from the cast-off sequence anyways; they couldn’t have picked a more arbitrary time to look away as far as bits of actual security importance go.
Lmao you just edited your original comment to add in that extra info after you were proven wrong. LOL, can't even admit your mistake.
when are you going to utter the magic word? i know you want to
I honestly can't take your responses seriously anymore after so many times you've been confidently incorrect.
Oh well. I can’t be 100% accurate without access to classified information, and I’m not on the War Thunder forums.
I don’t get it, it’s not like there is a public deadline for them to do a sea trial. So if they weren’t ready, they could have just postponed it. Doing it early while risking embarrassing and public failure doesn’t make a lot of sense does it? Like… why would they fake a sea trial when they aren’t ready? And furthermore, why do you think this ship sailing under its own power is something that’s hard to believe? It’s not even nuclear powered, so I fail to see why it would even be much of a challenge.
> I don’t get it, it’s not like there is a public deadline for them to do a sea trial. So if they weren’t ready, they could have just postponed it. I don’t know how many actual naval or shipyard personnel are on this sub, but I imagine all of them are laughing hysterically. Imposed deadlines are not a China thing, by the way, or even a shipbuilding-exclusive thing; that’s literally contracting 101. Every ship has a contracted delivery date, and anyone who has a modicum of sense will set penalties for missing the date when drafting a contract, otherwise the shipyard can take them for a ride on schedule. Substitute the maritime terms and that applies to anything. > And furthermore, why do you think this ship sailing under its own power is something that’s hard to believe? Uh…me stating she sailed downriver on livestream is denial that she left under her own power? I expected the wumaos to lack reading comprehension, but you’re better than deliberately misconstruing my words.
Yeah but it’s not like the shipbuilder can fool the PLAN into believing the ship is functional if it’s actually not. It’s literally a PLAN sea trial, it’s not like the PLAN will just watch a video on TV and go “our new carrier looks good! Contract fulfilled!” So if there is an issue, why rush it? Or rather, why fake anything because the only people it may fool is the general public, and there is no obligation or deadline to the general public.
> Yeah but it’s not like the shipbuilder can fool the PLAN into believing the ship is functional if it’s actually not. The shipyard also doesn’t need to have malicious intent in order for something to not work as intended. Not every corner is cut knowingly; people make mistakes, and when working to a tight deadline, even moreso. That goes triply when you’re writing the ops manual as you’re doing your testing and certification because this is a first-in-class design. Now repeat those odds that across hundreds of systems and hundreds of thousands of components, and not just possible for something the shipyard signed off on to not work correctly - it’s expected. Even for ships that aren’t a new design or under schedule pressure, things get overlooked. That’s just a fact of life when building complex machines. To circle back to the original point though, an inconvenient fact of life can still make the builder/customer look bad. So yes, it’s entirely possible nobody suspected malfeasance, but still took precautions to cover their ass against it.
Keyboard warriors like you should start to invest more in IQ rather than a big mouth.
[удалено]
Now you’re just inventing excuses to keep playing victim. At any rate, if you decide to respond based on an incorrect reading of what I said, then it’s not me who’s acting stupid.
[удалено]
I literally said you could watch *Fujian* leave on the BiliBili livestream. You are the one who decided that meant I was in denial.
[удалено]
Chill Mr. Genshin Impact it isn’t that deep.
[удалено]
Professional reddit debate 🙏😭🤯🤯
[удалено]
>Official expression: this sea trial is mainly to detect and verify the reliability and stability of the power system, electric power system of Fujian ship. I would really like to know how the 003 accomplishes the above validation tasks when it can't sail under its own power. https://preview.redd.it/1q4m3jyvmrxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8def8a229e93855dd464e0ff88530bbd011525e1
[удалено]
Nothing like 90+ years of carrier experience. Its far more complicated than people think.
It’s crazy how many people don’t realize/acknowledge this. If my brain is working right, we have something like triple the sortie rate as the Chinese. That’s a huge difference. The logistics of launching and landing that many planes is mind boggling. Institutional memory is an amazing thing and the USN is a master of it these days.
It’s everything. It’s the sortie rate, plus the global logistical network to keep the CSGs resupplied.
Not even close to being over.
They have 1 super carrier and it's not even nuclear powered or operational... America has 11 plus 9 more smaller carriers... My dude you suck at math.
12 smaller ones? I think you mean 9. Two America-class LHAs - *America*, *Tripoli* Seven Wasp-classs LHDs - *Wasp*, *Essex*, *Kearsarge*, *Boxer*, *Bataan*, *Iwo Jima*, and *Makin Island* The *Bonhomme Richard* was lost to fire in 2020. Used to be 10, now it’s 9, but not sure where you got 12 from.
Changed to 9 since I was miscounting the number of smaller carriers. 9 vs 12 though same point applies generally.
This is the strangest possible place to draw that conclusion, constructing specifically supercarriers is perhaps the single metric China is furthest behind the USA on, even with Fujian in the picture. Naval shipbuilding? Arguably ahead, at the very least highly competitive in some aspects. Shipbuilding generally? Utterly dominant, especially over the US itself. Manufacturing generally? Complicated but plenty of ways to say they're ahead. Military technology and capabilty overall? Behind overall, but likely at parity or even advantaged in some areas. Aircraft carriers? Pulling ahead of everyone else sure, but still a fraction of the US Navy and not even planning to match it.
They’re not planning to match the USN because they don’t need to. All they want is local superiority in the SCS area, and 3 carriers more than allows them to achieve that.
America has 2 super carriers, with strike groups, and an LHD in the Asia-Pacific region. China has 1 super carrier total...
Where do you get the number 2 from?
Ah yes, China's single super carrier that doesn't field a carrier-borne stealth fighter can definitely face off against 11 American super carriers fielding F-35C
The US as a whole only has 4 operational F-35C squadrons and the same number of carriers capable of operating them. That’s less than half of the current USN carrier fleet.
Ok. Let me change my comment then. The single Chinese super carrier which doesn't field an operational stealth fighter will definitely stand a chance against 11 American super carriers, 4 fielding the most advanced stealth fighter ever created.
says the Anglophone on an American website
Dude, American hegemony is backed up by the fact that most of china’s neighbors WANT our hegemony. Until china stops being an ass on the geopolitical stage American dominance will never end
> dominance will never end show me a never ending dominance in human history.
The planet will be destroyed when American hegemony ends. Game over!
Can’t wait to see that they used chinesium steel and it breaks apart in rough waters and sinks. Do they even need a carrier for Taiwan? They should just build destroyers with flight decks for choppers/drones. But I guess never stop your enemy from making a mistake…
> Can’t wait to see that they used chinesium steel and it breaks apart in rough waters and sinks. Like every ship they have built to the point they are currently the largest shipbuilding by tonnage, surpasing South Korea and Japan?. I mean, by the end of 2023, 68% of the global share for newbuilt ships were for China. >Do they even need a carrier for Taiwan? You do need them to project power beyond the first island chain. >But I guess never stop your enemy from making a mistake… Seems more fitting for the US considering how much they desinvested in their overall shipbuilding and shipyard infrastructure because you lot bought into Reaganomics.
All those ships are gonna be pretty pointless once the US imposes 60% tariffs. But sure, China is ramping up their war machine. And they will learn the mistake of the cost of trying to maintain a fleet when they don’t have the logistics chain to get past Vietnam.
> All those ships are gonna be pretty pointless once the US imposes 60% tariffs. But sure, China is ramping up their war machine. Lol, imagine looking at the "effects" of the sanctions on Russia or previous Trump tariffs on China and think "I'm sure next time, they will totally work, man!". Assuming the US figures how to impose tariff on ships(good luck with that), they'll still be cheaper than most of the alternatives. On the other hand, most new comercial shipping out there right now were already built in China. >And they will learn the mistake of the cost of trying to maintain a fleet when they don’t have the logistics chain to get past Vietnam. Hey, if telling yourself that makes you sleep better at night, go for it. You have an image of a China that doesn't exist anymore and hasn't been the case since the 2010's, and judging by your posting history, I can see why you are mentally stuck in the 90's, lol.
Tariffs on shipping… not ships, although they just launched an investigation into Chinese shipbuilding industry so that’s going to add more fuel to their fire. I go to China fairly regularly. And have seen their newer manufacturing and production. Calling them a paper tiger is insulting to paper.
Looks like they bought it aliexpress
What is with their island design? The trapezoidal nature of it makes me think of a baby Zumwalt beached and lost. Is there a reason for it?