Chinese expert: In this century, no country will catch up with the United States in the number of aircraft carriers

Euphoria reigns in the Chinese media over the commissioning of the latest Shandong aircraft carrier. This is the first aircraft carrier that was built in China. Recall that the PRC plans to build five more such aircraft carriers for the needs of the PLA Navy, and two of them, if you believe the messages have already been laid. Type002 is built on the same project as the Shandong Type001, but Type003 will already have a flat deck.

After numerous reports on the introduction of the Shandong aircraft carrier, Chinese experts intensified, some of whom made very high-profile statements. In particular, there were judgments that the technological gap between China and the USA in the field of shipbuilding had disappeared. The essence of these statements is as follows:

If China built its own aircraft carrier, then it actually caught up with the United States in terms of technology in the development and creation of ships for the naval forces.

However, such statements have been criticized by those in China who have a certain relationship with the shipbuilding industry.

Chinese expert Zhang Zhaozhong:

Those who talk about the disappearance of the US technological gap from China and the "reduction" in the number of ships are, unfortunately, far from the truth. The gap is still very large. The United States has 12 aircraft carriers, China - 2. They have worked out many of their technologies in the creation of these ships. We are only at the initial stage of this journey.

The expert makes it clear that he does not share hat-making relationship with respect to shipbuilding:

By 2030, at best, we will have 6 aircraft carriers. Moreover, we do not yet have fifth-generation carrier-based fighters. The USA has various modifications of F-35 fighters.

The expert notes that, in his opinion, not one country in the world will be able to catch up with the USA in the current century in the number of aircraft-carrying ships. True, Zhang Zhaozhong ignored further plans (after 2030) of the Chinese naval forces to equip aircraft carriers.

Comments

[Livonetc]

Somehow not in Chinese thinks
Zhang Zhoujong.

[Siberia 75]

A very strange statement, given that it is almost impossible to predict which countries and within what boundaries will exist in 80 years.
Obviously squinted rabbits are cunning.

[Shurik70]

But the United States needs aircraft carriers in order to demonstrate strength simultaneously across the planet. In all the oceans. Other countries simply do not need it. It is enough for China to defend its territory. Russia - to support their troops in one place, maximum - in two (as in Syria now - such a floating airfield near its coast would not hurt).
So the thought of the Chinese should be read: "No country except the United States needs so many aircraft carriers"

[Sergey39]

Yeah, like the Elusive Joe.

[krot]

And no one will catch them in the number of battleships)) Outdated morale technique -avianosets

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Shurik70

But the United States needs aircraft carriers in order to demonstrate strength simultaneously across the planet. In all the oceans. Other countries simply do not need it.

It may be necessary, but it is technologically difficult, and the construction and maintenance itself are not economically viable. It would be wiser to invest in the development of armaments that would guarantee the destruction of aircraft carriers. Something like that

[GibSoN]

China only needs to defend its territory

Is this a new joke? Or are you 30 years behind the times?

[⁣⁣Geo]

Quote: Siberia 75

Very strange statement

Experts around, distributing comments for the media left and right - this is a cross-border problemma of humanity. In China, this is not nearly better than ours

[bayard]

Quote: Siberia 75

Obviously squinted rabbits are cunning.

Of course they’re cunning, they gain time, while in the USA Russia is considered the enemy No. 1. But in Russia, new aircraft carriers will not be laid for another 10 years, and China will have 6 brand new pieces by then.
And the fleet, especially the carrier one, is an application for expansion, it is a challenge to the United States ... But China is afraid to throw such a challenge, especially ahead of time. He is more interested if the United States clings to Russia, then he is the master of the world ... But Russia does not build an aircraft carrier fleet. Her plans are very balanced and limited ... So, willy-nilly, the US will have to tackle China.
And hold back.
On all fronts.
But China simply moves arrows, pokes toward Russia, they say butt it ... But they’re cunning.

[Siberia 75]

Quote: bayard

Of course trick

As Clint Eastwood used to say in an old western when he walked into the saloon with the Chinese - "What are you doing here, gay, with a characteristic cut in the eyes (from)"

[GibSoN]

Of course they’re cunning, they’re winning time, while in the USA Russia is considered enemy No. 1

You have outdated information. Everything is already completely different, and for a long time.

But in Russia, new aircraft carriers will not lay another 10 years

Observing the development trend of the economy as a whole and in general of everything that is happening around in particular, I dare to suggest that 10 years is too optimistic. Most likely not when. Well, unless of course a lot changes, so to speak a little more than completely!

[bayard]

Quote: GibSoN

Of course they’re cunning, they’re winning time, while in the USA Russia is considered enemy No. 1
You have outdated information. Everything is already completely different, and for a long time.

By no means, the statements from the Pentagon and the State Department are the freshest. So in words - yes, we are still enemy number 1 for them, but here is "De-Facto" ... China is not that toothless sheep at all. Building the fleet at such a pace, testing a ballistic missile with a nuclear submarine capable of hitting the United States from the territorial waters of China ... new ICBMs and an increase in their total number ... a categorical refusal to enter into any negotiations on the reduction / limitation of any types of strategic nuclear deterrence weapons ... it is FORCE the US to enter into a confrontation and undertake "containment" towards China (advanced deployment of medium-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region, the desire to bring the list composition of the fleet to 355 pennants).
No matter how much they both would like, it is up to them to confront. Each other .
And Russia will, in the role of a wise bear, observe from the side the clash of two ... tigers ... and then it will restore order in the forest.

[川 建国]

张召忠 Zhang Zhang Chun, former Rear Admiral of China, the first Chinese military Internet red.

[Aerodrome]

Chinese expert: In this century, no country will catch up with the United States in the number of aircraft carriers

oh yes "expert"! krasava ... that's right "wanga" ... I'll say more ... at the Congo
and Ethiopia, there will definitely not be a single aircraft carrier .... do not believe it - check ...

[Finches]

In this century, aircraft carriers are losing their role - Korolev and Tsiolkovsky were told back in the 20s that there is a rocket, there is no aircraft carrier!

PS A little exaggerated!

[Tuk77]

Who argues ...
If we can’t do something grand, we can only praise what we can.

[Finches]

And why does Russia need aircraft carriers - we are not a US company, which is on the island and which lives by expanding its "democracy" to various oil-bearing corners of the world! This strategy for the development of the fleet was adopted in the early 60s and Russia focused on the manufacture of SSBNs, etc. So do not splash bile on the screen - it will not help! Drive to USA - THE LAND OF DREAMS

[Tuk77]

Russia has focused on what it can do.
More precisely, on the heritage that remained after the USSR.
And nothing more.

[GibSoN]

Why do Russian aircraft carriers

As already tired of this stupid question that they are constantly trying to push through everywhere. If you do not know why the Russian Federation needs aircraft carriers, this does not mean that they do not need them! You still ask why the top leadership of the country, so many residences for such grandmothers ... After all, you also do not know why? Well, that is, it turns out that you don’t know anything at all, but are trying to argue on behalf of the Russian Federation!

[Finches]

What a formidable comrade!

[businessv]

Quote: Tuk77

If we can’t do something grand, we can only praise what we can.

You have no doubt, colleague, that we can do aircraft carriers? If in doubt, type in the search “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” they will tell you everything that happened back in 1985!

[Tuk77]

I don’t have to type in a search.
I already know that our Kuse before the title of aircraft carrier in his classical sense, as I am before the title of count.
And I also know that back in 1985, the USSR existed on the world map, which built similar ships. Alas, for some reason, not on the stocks of the RSFSR.

[businessv]

Quote: Tuk77

And I also know that back in 1985, the USSR existed on the world map, which built similar ships. Alas, for some reason, not on the stocks of the RSFS

And what follows from this? Develop a thought please! Who cares where and how ships were built in a single country? Or do you think that Russia is not able to build an aircraft carrier today? Explain what kind of hay we need it for, if there are still white spots on our map? To collect land? We are not a mattress that lives off wars and the looting of other countries, therefore, we are not building a runway with a runway.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: businessv

Or do you think that Russia is not able to build an aircraft carrier today? .

Today - not capable!

[maidan.izrailovich]

Who argues ...
If we can’t ...

If we cannot (or do not want) build aircraft carriers, then we will create something that can destroy them.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Finches

In this century, aircraft carriers are losing their role

How to say. Rather, who is going to fight and how. Be that as it may, but Soviet military theorists were completely right in calling the carrier groups, weapons of aggression. Indeed, times are changing and what was relevant during the Second World War, or the Cold War, is now not so relevant. Currently, for a technologically advanced adversary, aircraft carriers are not so much a threat as a convenient target. I agree, it’s too early to put an end to them, but Russia, in my opinion, is enough for a pair of aircraft carriers, one for the Pacific region, the other for the Atlantic .. Just in case, any kind of local conflict of low intensity, such as the Syrian. And whoever doesn’t peck at the money, let them build at least dozens of things, what will the Papuans scare.

[GibSoN]

Be that as it may, but Soviet military theorists were completely right in calling the carrier groups, weapons of aggression.

But what about other Soviet military theorists who claim that the best defense is an attack! You really figure it out yourself ..

[orionvitt]

Quote: GibSoN

other Soviet military theorists claiming that the best defense is an attack!

Are you delusional? What attack? Please name the "Soviet theoretician". Or is it one of those who were shot in 1937. Then it was clear why. Maybe you confused the military doctrine of the Soviet Union with a chess game, namely the "Sicilian defense"?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: orionvitt

Quote: GibSoN

other Soviet military theorists claiming that the best defense is an attack!

Are you delusional? What attack? Please name the "Soviet theoretician". Or is it one of those who were shot in 1937. Then it was clear why. Maybe you confused the military doctrine of the Soviet Union with a chess game, namely the "Sicilian defense"?

Why did tanks break through to the English Channel?

[orionvitt]

Quote: SovAr238A

Why did tanks break through to the English Channel?

Another "theorist", Before you ask idiotic questions, try to start thinking, why? Yes, it was a fig for the Union of Europe. Tank armies breaking through to the English Channel appeared as a result of a situation simulation. Namely, in the case of aggression by the West against the USSR. Including the use of nuclear weapons, for which all Soviet tanks were equipped with anti-nuclear protection. Like you liberoids, knowing nothing, you love to spoil our past.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: orionvitt

Quote: SovAr238A

Why did tanks break through to the English Channel?

Another "theorist", Before you ask idiotic questions, try to start thinking, why? Yes, it was a fig for the Union of Europe. Tank armies breaking through to the English Channel appeared as a result of a situation simulation. Namely, in the case of aggression by the West against the USSR. Including the use of nuclear weapons, for which all Soviet tanks were equipped with anti-nuclear protection. Like you liberoids, knowing nothing, you love to spoil our past.

Why were hundreds of nuclear mines deployed in Germany?
And tens of thousands of large-format mines to mine all possible bridges. embankment viaducts, etc.
I read this back in the early 80s in the journal Foreign Military Review.

Maybe because. What did the General Staff plans really know?
Or are you one of those rabid X who believe that in Soviet times there were no spies in our general staff?
It’s not liberalism, but your stupidity. denial of all that was - but you do not like.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Finches

Korolev and Tsiolkovsky back in the 20s of the last century said - there is a rocket - there is no aircraft carrier!

Chinese expert: In this century, no country will catch up with the United States in the number of aircraft carriers

And in the light of the above, Eugene (I greet the classmate! ) I'd like to note:
The main thing is that in this century some sort of confusion does not begin, so that at least something survives from the US carrier group.

[cost]

In this century, no country will catch up with the US in the number of aircraft carriers

It depends on what aircraft carriers mean. Both China and the Russian Federation and the United States are already fully engaged in the concept of mini-drones carrier ships. And huge vessels are not required for this. There was already material on this in

[Finches]

Welcome And with the upcoming !!!

[cost]

And you, Zhenya holiday greetings!!!
China already has a whole folotil of boats armed with mini UAVs. What are not carriers?

[Yaro Polk]

They are no longer relevant when the hypersound appeared, and these that they have 2 \ 3 are on the joke, they are rotting.

[Pessimist22]

How does he know what will happen at least in 30 years?

[Oyo Sarkazmi]

While the Chinese are building, the Americans are blown away. Already by the number of operating aircraft carriers - parity And time is running out!

[YOUR]

In this century, no country will catch up with the United States in terms of the number of aircraft carriers - but is it necessary?

[knn54]

China has planned no more than 7 aircraft carriers. It is clear that the Yankees will have an advantage, even if they do not build new ones and write off a couple.
Hindus believe that they do not need more than three. Well, the rest (France, Great Britain) do not need them. An expensive pleasure. However.

[Tsoy]

Quote: knn54

Well, the rest (France, UK) do not need them. Expensive pleasure. However.

So it’s not necessary that France has the second after the Nimitz nuclear carrier Charles De Gaulle, and in Britain the Prince of Wales and the second Avik are on the way.

[voyaka uh]

China has canceled the last two of the 6 planned so far. Will be 4.
This is tactically correct.
1) they need to run-in take-offs, gas stations, weapons and all the logistics of aircraft carriers. Stuff your hand to keep things cool like Americans
2) they began to develop their vertical - an analogue of the F-35B. And when they develop it, maybe the concept of an aircraft carrier will change. There will be light aircraft carriers with vertical lines.

[Thrifty]

So buy their aircraft carriers from the Yankees, so to speak, troughs for candy wrappers

[Alien From]

Chineses are rich guys, now let them play with the mattresses in the arms race) we have our own sober, calculating head!

[Woland]

In my opinion, aircraft carriers are basically weapons of attack on countries with access to the ocean. For those countries whose defensive military doctrine, aircraft carriers are not really needed, especially since their importance and effectiveness in the world today is falling

[Alexander 3]

That would have brought their aircraft carriers to Kiev along the Dnieper, then I would have appreciated.

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

Do we need aircraft carriers? My personal opinion: aircraft carriers are the MILITARY AND POLITICAL WEAPONS of the last century. Military-technical thought has gone ahead, while political thought is slowing down, trying to see the world through the eyes of the 20th century.

[cniza]

If we are going to occupy someone, then yes, and so for the demonstration ...

[evgen1221]

Well, my opinion is that the Chinese do not need in the medium term a lot of Aviks - what they planned is quite enough to firmly cover their trade and commodity routes in Africa and Panamerica. After all, Amam also needs to hide behind Aviks all over the world, but there is no reason for China to do so far. So you can only envy the Chinese and not be fools learning while there is an opportunity.

[aybolyt678]

Mattresses, like a sea power, received a signal about the availability of appropriate weapons from potential opponents. The presence of an aircraft carrier implies the possibility of warfare on enemy territory! This is about the same as Chkalov’s flight through the North Pole. Well, the alignment is good for Russia.

[Gennady Fomkin]

1 Nimitz-type nuclear aircraft carrier. The cost of construction is about 11 billion (previously 5 billion) dollars. The cost of operating the ship itself (excluding the wing) is $ 10 million per month. Overhaul once every 20 years 1-2 billion dollars. The cost of an air wing is about 3-5 billion. An hour of F-18 flight is about 20. There are 000 such aircraft in the AUG (total 48). Taking into account the support aircraft at least 960. In general, about 000 million are spent on the maintenance and operation of aircraft carriers by states. Despite the fact that the sea is not more than three.

With boats, the truth is also cheaper.

Do you have extra money? RUSSIA EARS EACH CENT, AND AMERICA EVERY DOLLAR DRAWS.

[voyaka uh]

"AND AMERICA DRAWS EVERY DOLLAR. Laughing" ////
-----
Stop repeating this stupidity.
If they drew dollars as much as they wanted, then:
1) the dollar would continuously fall in price in relation to other currencies. And he is growing.
2) they would have closed their huge
domestic debt.
---
New dollars are issued, as well as new euros or new rubles, exactly as much
needed to balance economies. Neither the dollar nor the ruble more.

[businessv]

The United States in this century in the number of aircraft carriers can not catch up with any country in the world.

Like Russia, the development and putting into service of complexes and missiles for their destruction.

[PIXY_117]

Quote: businessv

The United States in this century in the number of aircraft carriers can not catch up with any country in the world.

Like Russia, the development and putting into service of complexes and missiles for their destruction.

Check out:
https://topwar.ru/166107-raketa-agm-158c-lrasm-sereznaja-ugroza-dlja-korablej.html

[cniza]

The expert notes that, in his opinion, not one country in the world will be able to catch up with the USA in the current century in the number of aircraft-carrying ships.

That is the question, is it necessary to drive there?

[Lord of the Sith]

Chinese expert: In this century, no country will catch up with the United States in the number of aircraft carriers

So what? World wedged on them?
The news is about nothing.

You could write:
"In this century, no country will catch up with the US in the number of SSBs"

[Nikolay Shestakov]

And why the heck they are needed. Only to deal with weak countries. And the superiority in the number of combat aircraft is also not needed. Firstly, the aircraft carrier is drowned by one Russian missile. And secondly, the combat radius of the aircraft is not more than 1600 m. Well, who will allow them to get together on an aircraft carrier to dance with bombs and missiles close to the Russian coast?

[Stone]

Tell me, what single missile can sink an aircraft carrier?

[AU Ivanov.]

Anyone, provided that it has a special warhead.

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

Do not mind Moscow exchange for an aircraft carrier?

[AU Ivanov.]

Moscow is not exchanged for an aircraft carrier. Only to Washington.

[Stone]

Whether it will fly, that’s the question.

[Ros 56]

And to catch the striped horseradish, efforts must be made so that they have no aircraft carriers left at all. Strange Chinese, nowhere to get the money?

[PIXY_117]

Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)

Do not mind Moscow exchange for an aircraft carrier?

It seems to me that he will not understand what you mean.

[PIXY_117]

Quote: Ros 56

And to catch the striped horseradish, efforts must be made so that they have no aircraft carriers left at all. Strange Chinese, nowhere to get the money?

Americans and Chinese - it turns out that the Aviks are building, and only the Russians are moving from victory to victory, justifying the inability to build at least one aircraft carrier.

[Smith]

Zircon will catch up

[Gennady Fomkin]

Quote: voyaka uh

"AND AMERICA DRAWS EVERY DOLLAR. Laughing" ////
-----
Stop repeating this stupidity.
If they drew dollars as much as they wanted, then:
1) the dollar would continuously fall in price in relation to other currencies. And he is growing.
2) they would have closed their huge
domestic debt.
---
New dollars are issued, as well as new euros or new rubles, exactly as much
needed to balance economies. Neither the dollar nor the ruble more.

Cheer the people on about "effective managers"