Looks like this is just a ‘national prestige’ object, and not a realistic force projection weapon.
“Looks like this is just a ‘national prestige’ object, and not a realistic force projection weapon.”
Agreed, the PLAN has already lost aircraft and crew during their initial workups and training conducted on their two ski-jump STOBAR carriers. When they get the Type 003 CATOBAR carrier in operation, look for losses to soar. They do not have to recreate and relearn all of the lessons that the US Navy endured in establishing its unequaled Naval Aviation capabilities. However, the Chinese Naval aviation effort will suffer losses and setbacks that they do not envision.
US Navy Jet transition - 1954
The US Navy and Marines lost 776 aircraft and 535 aircrew in this single year. These were not combat loses but mishaps; are the PLAN ready for even a portion of this level of loses as they attempt to establish squadrons and integrate them into a functioning carrier Air Wing?Cold War 1949 - 1989
The losses of US Naval aviation, both Navy and Marines during this time period is surprising when looking back from the year 2021. The total loses of aircraft to include helicopters, trainers, and land based patrol planes, in addition to carrier based jets - came to just under 12,000 aircraft and 8,500 aircrew over 40 years, price the US was willing to pay to dominate the USSR at sea.China is not a historical Naval power, will they be willing to pay the price to establish, maintain and upgrade their Naval aviation force structure so as to be an important and credible component of the PLAN force projection capabilities? Or, is it as you said rather a ‘national prestige’ ship to show the world that China (and its population) want to display a bit of that “Top Gun” international glamour by possessing a few big deck carriers. It also might take them a while to build and test capable CATOBAR fighters, AEW, COD, airborne tankers for an Air Wing as they figure out UNREP for their new thirsty carriers.
dvwjr