3 Problems for China's New Fujian Aircraft Carrier

[@Taskandpurpose]

Thanks for watching spare parts army! PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at PDSDebt.com/task23

[@Buconoir]

Cappy looks freshly shaved in this. Idk, maybe he's just whiter?

[@ctownskier]

Commenting here so maybe you'll see it. You said the launcher uses a 100M watts of energy. Watts are a unit of power not energy. The unit you're looking for is probably watt-hours.

[@Taskandpurpose]

@@ctownskierthank you for the correction ! ❤

[@lamrof]

Who are you to doubt China, boy?

[@carlthor91]

@@ctownskier Also, I'm thinking super capacitors for energy storage, for the EMLS, and large discharge current. They are starting to show up in semi trucks, to replace 1 or more of the 4 battery pack.

[@nekomakhea9440]

The US has been operating carriers for _over_ 100 years, not nearly 100 years. The first US carrier was converted from a collier USS Jupiter beginning in 1920, and re-commissioned as USS Langley (CV-1) on 20 March 1922. The 100 year birthday of the US carrier fleet was 20 March 2022.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

It depends if you count those early modified battleships as carriers. They catapulted sea planes then pulled them out of the water with a crane

[@stefthorman8548]

yes it counts, it's an air craft carrier@@samsonsoturian6013

[@willlowery84]

@@samsonsoturian6013the Langley was the first of what we would call an aircraft carrier, with a flight deck and operating conventional aircraft.

[@tiberianexcalibur]

In times of war between survival and death, people have a capacity to learn very fast in war.

[@johndoh5182]

@@samsonsoturian6013 "They catapulted sea planes then pulled them out of the water with a crane" And yet they were still aircraft carriers. Just because the technology for aircraft during that time wouldn't allow landing ships on a deck doesn't mean they weren't aircraft carriers.

[@kuma4590]

Did my thesis on this exact subject in 2016. You nailed it all. From tonnage displacement, the Liaonang being outdated, the Malaka straight and 9 dash line. You presented all of this so well in a short amount of time that took me some 120 pages haha.

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

Is your thesis public?

[@Taskandpurpose]

I would be very interested in reading your thesis if you’re able to share it ! Email is in the vid description

[@bananabear009]

@@Cpt_Boony_HatI am very interested in the thesis as well. Any chance to read that?

[@Metapharsical]

Hmm, I dunno about this @bananabear009 aka 'Dick Chan' fellow asking Qs 🤨 His 1st & only post n this channel and his subscriptions are private..hmmm _-Don't tell him anything!-_

[@jimkeats891]

@@Metapharsical honey trap? :D

[@redbaron7486]

Type 001 - get a functuonal carrier Type 002 - build a carrier Type 003 - build a more advanced carrier Type 004 - try to make it bigger and stick in a nuclear reactor

[@VTh-f5x]

It's like Huawei phones. The 004 will be able to perform 95% of what a GRFord class does.

[@fabricemartin5561]

Good summary but according to the planning which would have leaked around 2015 the type 004 should be a sister ship of the Fujian with a shorter construction time and a lower cost than a CVN and a faster increase in capacity. A bit like Shandong improved compared to Liaonning. Their operational capacities would be more than sufficient for the first and second chain of islands. Type 005 and later are supposed to be powered by nuclear reactors.

[@TommyAventador]

Everything they create starts with a “Type” word, like their rifles.

[@janusjones6519]

@@TommyAventadorthe japanese does the dame

[@bobsmith3983]

@@VTh-f5x Or it may leapfrog the Ford.

[@arrjay2410]

I think the point you made about training and experience with regard to the U.S. and Chinese militaries is quite valid. If marching smartly in lock-step was actually worth something in combat, the Chinese would be very impressive. Most images you see of U.S. military, they are sauntering along and chatting casually among themselves. They know what they're doing.

[@ac1455]

Tbf, do they really need spend money to train? What would a war between them and us be anyways but nuke lobbing? For a proxy conflict, they could just go ww2 America mode, build crap faster than they’re lost, lose a measly few hundred thousand, then soak up experience by a proxy war’s next year. Imo they’re at most only aiming for kinmen, else they’d actually try to match our spending and troop ratio.

[@kurousagi8155]

@@ac1455that’s what American thought before the Korean War. Don’t make the same mistake twice.

[@charles8769]

Its called having discipline. Russian conscripts and hamas also saunter chit chat. Imagine thinking chit chatting is what makes a military effective 😂

[@bigearl3867]

@@charles8769 Fall in!

[@jxmai7687]

@@ac1455 What is the point only aiming for Kinmen😂

[@KeithBoehler]

The fact they got the sister ship of the Kuznetzov working is pretty neat on its own. Considering the sibling and all.

[@jakleo337]

The Indians were able to get their ex-soviet carrier working also. Speaks volumes that the ruzzian federation can't get theirs going.

[@major__kong]

It's not just they can't get it going. It keeps catching on fire.

[@KnightsWithoutATable]

@@jakleo337 All the Soviet naval engineers were living in Ukraine around Odessa.

[@mongooserina]

But does the sister ship retain the tofu dreg construction like the buildings and certain tank have?

[@Chainshot91]

I dont think Chinas military corruption is as rampant as Russias. Thats whats keeping the Kuznetzov down, is theres corruption everywhere on it.

[@alanbrown397]

This whole mess has echoes of Germany vs UK from 1860-1910 - which resulted in the USA stepping up in 1946 to say "thank you both for your participation, WE will take over the seas from here" Bearing mind that UK did the same in Spain vs Portugual 100 years earlier

[@dm-rj2zg]

That's a very good point, but there doesn't seem to be a good candidate to be the 3rd party at the moment. Maybe India, they actually had a blue water navy before China, despite not being as modernized they more effectively use what they have and know how to use it. But India I don't think is in an economic position to be able to do that. But given 20, 30 years, who knows

[@The_PaleHorseman]

The issues with these carriers the fuel consumption on a ramp jump is insane compared to catapulting. The other issue for China, US Carriers can put to air double the aircraft two times as fast. These are good if you’re going to pick on a smaller power but can’t go toe to toe with Nimitz or Ford class carriers.

[@Taskandpurpose]

Great point !

[@The_PaleHorseman]

@@Taskandpurpose VF 32/ VFA 32 2004 to 2008, CVN 75 Truman, CAG 3. Call sign Gypsie, give em hell! Buck stops here! Any time Baby 🐱

[@GwynBleys]

Are you implying that 2 carriers are gonna launch jets at each other?

[@JD96893]

How is that possible, to take off from a ramp you use full afterburner, to take off with a catapult you also use full afterburner. So an aircraft would use about the same amount of fuel for either. More importantly, a ramp take off usually requires the aircraft to have a much lower take off weight than otherwise. So less fuel and fewer weapons.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

@@Taskandpurpose Nonsensical. PRC AC aren't meant to "face-off" against U$ AC ... they're meant to provide air-cover for the amphibious landing mission on Taiwan.

[@Goals764]

Chris cappy is my favourite in the KZbin platform, not only just watching his podcasts to get updates but also a lecturer, best military combats, effective weapons, armored vehicles, helicopters, fighting jets, and best Strategy to executes battlefields to the way to deliver Strategic decisive victory. I always appreciates you chris chappy....🙏.

[@Taskandpurpose]

Thanks man ❤️

[@jblob5764]

Agreed, I'm at a solid tie between Cappy and Ryan Mcbeth. Both absolutely fantastic presenters

[@billeppright3102]

I'd like to see him run for President.

[@jonesy279]

It took me a minute to realise that the footage at 7:45 was some sort of simulation. I was really concerned about where this combat footage was coming from, but I was relieved when I noticed that there was some digital trickery going on. Keep up the great work Cappy 😂

[@difficiliscarere9838]

i tell u, thats gotta be some top notch military ai animation 😂

[@DaveBeard-se5go]

After 20+ yeas in the Navy most of that time at sea on several USN Carriers, I can say you have done a great job in your analysis of the Chinees Carriers! Agree that while they are not ready for primetime, they are putting in the work to get there!

[@radiofreealbemuth8540]

yes, complacency is terrible. China has demonstrated an ability to lessen the time for learning on almost every prediction of accomplishing X task, be it training or manufacturing.

[@gregmasters8558]

​@@radiofreealbemuth8540that Chinese space station tells you how advanced china really is. Whats next a freaking Chinese death star?

[@radiofreealbemuth8540]

@@gregmasters8558 I am very confident that the U.S. has very advanced tech that makes the space station look primitive though. The US went from the Wright Brothers to Armstrong. The SR71 was built 66 years ago, the same amount of time between Wright Brothers to the moon.

[@gregmasters8558]

@@radiofreealbemuth8540 USA golden years are over. China being painted as evil globally by the true colonial evil has given the Chinese ammo to become even better.

[@MAHORAGADAOPPSTOPPA]

​@@radiofreealbemuth8540Yet the US wont do anything about it.

[@jwickerszh]

The Chinese Navy is pretty much favoring incremental experimental designs, which is why they have 3 ships that are all different types of carriers. Those are used as tech test beds but also for crew training. It's likely the fourth type will be nuclear, though it is possible China will build another conventional type 003 as it would be a cheaper option while being very useful for training which does not require long range deployments.

[@mikebaggott7802]

China's first two carriers are the same type, the first was an uncompleted hull bought from Ukraine, the second was China's version of the same carrier.

[@331SVTCobra]

I would think China would stick to conventional because their hardest fight would be invading Taiwan, and they would be able to afford more conventional carriers than nuclear. For operations in the Indian Ocean, I'd expect China to just bring tankers for UNREP.

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@mikebaggott7802They aren't the same type, there are some stark differences between the two. The second was made based on understandings gleamed from the first.

[@mikebaggott7802]

@@voidtempering8700 , sure, but it's basically the same ship; ski jump bow, no catapults, deck lengthb is similar. Pilots trained on the either of the first two carriers will have similar experiences. It's the new ship that has created the headaches in their training pipeline.

[@tomhenry897]

Then what’s your take admiral

[@kingwing3203]

The People's Liberation Army is a force for peace, mainly protecting our trade and energy channels

[@deathdrone6988]

The Fujian uses DC for its EMALS system rather than AC for the Ford. Essentially, it is more energy efficient and easier to maintain which is what a conventional carrier needs but is more expensive to operate and build.

[@doujinflip]

More efficient overall if you're able to surge production in the enormous amount of current needed to cycle through launches, which a powerplant short of nuclear struggles to accomplish.

[@reappermen]

​@@doujinflipno, exactly the opposite. Capacitors and batteries both use DC not AC, so using DC for the catapult is a great boon if your power plant can't supply it directly and it has to go through a buffer, as you don't get the conversion loss.

[@luting3]

⁠@@reappermenPower is typically generated using AC but there is very mature technology there to convert to DC.

[@reappermen]

@@luting3 that is mainly done because it is more convenient for grid use. It is actually very simple to make DC generators, so assuming the ship uses DC for lots of stuff they'd use a DC generator not an AC one, and then just convert the DC to AC for the minor uses

[@Skinflaps_Meatslapper]

You really think the US was all "gosh I wish we could make our catapult more efficient, but this DC stuff sounds hard, let's just use a nuclear reactor instead"

[@johngillespie3409]

My dad was on the USS Coral Sea CVA-43 and worked on F-4 phantoms. Army E-4 Mafia for me.😎

[@amunra5330]

K??

[@andycy2226]

Popular Mechanics claimed the Chinese system isn't a true EMALS at all but rather a electromagnetically powered fly wheel which stores energy to pull a cable attached to a transfer bar. This would explain how they can power it because the fly wheel builds up energy over time but this means it won't have the high launch rate of the US system which discards the cable and uses an electromagnetic channel to power the transfer bar directly. If this is true, the Chinese system, although still impressive, is more similar in capability to America's existing steam catapult.

[@evil5150]

You pronounced NUCLEAR powered correctly twice in a row! Dude! I am so proud of you. You are becoming more professional and dignified day by day. Kudos. Keep up the good work. Please brag about this breakthrough to your speech therapist.

[@Zeppathy]

Noook-looo-ur.

[@bladedrain9389]

New Cu Lear

[@darkstar7999]

I honestly do not understand people's fixation on the pronunciation of "Nuclear." Been a lot of places in the US - and different words are pronounced differently in different places. Funny - I never hear anyone complain about the various pronunciations of "ask" that I have heard.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

now if only we can get them to pronounce Fentanyl correctly, instead of calling it Fentanol.....and don't get me started about where all that is coming from....

[@dagttv]

The scariest part to me is not how effective the carrier is in actuality-it’s the speed at which they got to this point. In the 80s China barely had a Navy at all. I foresee this causing some major issues in the future.

[@tiberianexcalibur]

How long did it take other countries to build a formidable navy and thousands of WW2 ships in a short amount of time? China is moving at a snail pace and playing it too safe.

[@ekulerudamuru]

They are a manufacturing powerhouse and they got money and also purpose, any country can do it too, its not hard to believe, but as their economy go down in the coming years, how much more can they maintain their military as it is

[@kinAstrid]

@@ekulerudamuru any country can do it too？There are only three countries that can fully produce their own carrier-based aircraft and aircraft carriers. . . The aircraft carrier is just a carrier, and the United States even needs to import its arresting ropes. There is only one industrial country in the world that has a complete industrial system. .

[@leviathan0556]

⁠@@kinAstridAircraft carriers are more then carriers, its an entire air power group, a city of over 5 thousand sailors and the US Has 11 fully operational with respectable escorts, The US not only has thr numbers but the Logistics, Crew and most importantly experiences. And thats not including Marine corps 31 Amphibious assault ships which also have air wings and marines.

[@daniel_dumile]

@@ekulerudamurulol China's economy isn't going anywhere, even a major depression they'd still be a major powerhouse. Japan has #4 GDP in the world and they don't have anywhere near the capability This will be a major problem for a long time even as US stays on top

[@boxtears]

I love your channel. It always reminds me the best way to win a war is by underestimating one's adversary.

[@MoGumbo_]

Underestimating an enemy isn't a good thing

[@MolkoKillStyle]

@@MoGumbo_ Yea i think he got it mixed :D

[@troy5094]

​@@MoGumbo_he's being sarcastic

[@MoGumbo_]

@@troy5094 True, mb

[@WraithAllen]

I think you are spot on about freedom of navigation vs denying others such freedom of navigation in what they perceive as their "territorial waters." Even though they have deployed ships into the middle east, there have yet to be any reports of them defending ships by intercepting missals or drones, and the bulk of the naval ships they've built are not deep water vessels with extensive, global reach, though they are seeking to build out such capability.

[@johnchiu4560]

China does not interfere with international shipping, especially since they are so dependent on trade. The U.S. has everything (food, oil, etc.) and can close itself off and still survive.

[@WraithAllen]

@@johnchiu4560 Yes, they do, particularly in the South China sea in the territorial waters of other nations which they claim as their own in violation of international law.

[@johnchiu4560]

@@WraithAllen What "international law"? Jazzy expression. But it means obey whatever the U.S. says.

[@宋学民]

international law? Is what the United States passes called international law? Does U.S. navigation in China’s territorial waters count as international law? Will it be considered international law to sail within the United States when China becomes stronger? Isn't this your gangster theory? Just listen to whoever is strong? When the United States bombed our Yugoslav Embassy, ​​was it also required by international law? Put away your gangster logic. Don't talk about those things that are available and not available. As long as it is our own territorial waters, we can go wherever we want.@@WraithAllen

[@迈德尔]

That's just because you didn't see it. Don't take your ignorance as a joke. It is impossible for the American media to report what good things the Chinese navy has done there. They prefer negative news about China.

[@prastagus3]

Chinese carriers are not ready for major war with more experienced US navy yet, but they are learning faster than any previous contenders.

[@rizon72]

So far, not really.

[@prastagus3]

@@rizon72 judging from all they have done in many areas including technological and militarily in recent years, they are fast tracking their progress. Only when view this objectively can US find a way to raise its own bar competing with them. Denial only worsen the situation.

[@rizon72]

@@prastagus3 what they have done isn't that fast realistically speaking. They are already 10 years in and still has a lot of learning to go.

[@prastagus3]

@@rizon72 you must look beyond just carrier ops. What they done in these 10 years are for building and training their carrier supports more since their carrier technology wasn't up to part until 03 carrier.

[@waltz9500]

True... Meanwhile in a decade (probably less), junior officers cannot pull the trigger 'coz their senior officers didn't get their pronouns right... PLA-N has big problems and yet it's the western planes falling off the ships... Even the touted F-35 fell off its ship!! western planes and drones falling from the skies in "freedom of navigation" flights.. heck US submarine got its nose yanked underneath South China Sea... US is slowly dying inside and won't retaliate against CCP 'coz the Chinese will NEVER let the West know they are at war!!! US navy will anchor at high seas and won't move an inch 'coz they cannot hurt civilian fishing vessels...

[@DeafDemoBA]

I think it boils down to this in short: China is still venturing anew in the maritime warfare and starts out with critical flaws- like most pioneers would. The scary part IMO is that China does has the capacity to adapt & learn quickly. The US has been doing this for ca. 100 years, it goes without saying the US Navy is much more refined at this point.

[@SuperCatacata]

The US and others paved the way. So it's only natural a country with as much to spend as China would be able to advance rapidly if they really want to. They have been buying knowledge and expertise from people in the west for decades. And almost all of their old ships were bought and reverse engineered from the Soviets. The same applies for all of their knowledge in jet fighters after years of reverse engineering Soviet designs. The problem with all of this constant copying? You lack the innovation everyone else learned while paving their own ways with this tech for a century. Cutting corners always comes at a cost. And the other top powers know just as much about their tech as they do. Since almost all of it is based on the designs of others.

[@joecool2810]

@Task and Purpose I will admit that the PLAN has more hulls then the USN; however bring those hulls for weighing and you’ll see that the USN is still much larger in the tonnage.

[@hughmungus2760]

because of aging and lack of shipyard space the total numbers of hulls in the US Navy is declining while the total number of hulls in of the PLAN is rapidly increasing.

[@doujinflip]

US is much higher in number of ships that put up credible air defense, whereas most of the PLAN boats are vulnerable to even a cheap guided bomb.

[@tomhenry897]

Yea But more of them then us

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

China can change that quickly too. Don't get too comfy.

[@joecool2810]

@@tomhenry897 Maybe I can put it into perspective then. A ship needs a certain amount of weigh to support all the fun weapons and technology to win. Compared to our Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyers, their Type 052B carries only half the missiles. While you can say they if they have double the hulls they be in more places. It is better to protect the assets you half then more in this cases. The complex equipment required for these very large ships is not cheap and building more ships to lesser standards doesn’t mean it translates into having a better navy.

[@Aamirmhmd99]

It's only natural that the Chinese run into problems because these are massive complex platforms that takes years and decades to master or even get familiar. That said so, their progress has been rapid and much smoother than many anticipated. With their 5th gen naval platforms achieving mass production, they will be even more formidable. For now they only seem to want to be dominant in Asia pacific but we can predict where this is going.

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

And yet china did overcome them all

[@f1aziz]

A lot of Chinese military commentators call these new platforms training, research and development facilities, they are not just learning about combat tactics but also about construction, maintenance, logistics and sustainment. China just started Naval build-up in the last 10-15 years and they are very new to this and have a long way to go. But one thing you can count on is massive industrial scale of the Chinese, they are pumping out new platforms and modifications to these new platforms at a fast click.

[@unclesam8565]

well do you know that the chinese build the ground based training facility 5-10 years ago before china commissioned their first carrier? and the first carrier is just for training purposes which is now upgraded to be fully capable of assault. So do not underestimate CHINESE period. IT's the worlds one of the greatest civilization for a reason. Huawei will destroy apple+ QUALCOMM + tsla soon. ready for the show in 2024 and more exciting 2025 and beyond for chinese complete domination of semiconductor end to end supply chain.

[@TheRealIronMan]

@@jacksmith-mu3ee nobody can overcome "all" problems lmfao, even the mighty US has F-35 dropping in the ocean every other month

[@joelau2383]

@@TheRealIronMan China: hold my moon rock.

[@mythbusterthe6749]

Yes. Although these equipment have already been tested extensively on the land, they need to be tested onboard Fijian AC for verification which IMO will not be a problem. Unlike USAF F-35 or USN USS Gerald Ford where the development is performed in concurrency, I believe the PLAN are quite meticulous in the testing procedures. They won't rush the approval process. As for AC pilots, PLAN have been recruiting and training these new recruits for years, using the CV-16 Liaoning which is designated as a training and testing Aircraft Carrier. That is why CV-17 Shandong went ao smoothly. Look at their Shenzhou 18 spacecraft luanched a few days ago, it all went so routinely without any hitch. The same is true with their military hardwares. But successful testing of CV-18 will accelerated the construction of more AC which two will be build simultaneously at once with a new nuclear powerplant. These are interesting time for enthusiasts like us.

[@zsombokiorinc]

21:24 haha his little brest pockets flipping up in the wind so cute

[@stephenallen4374]

The deck is lifting it has power issues it takes 48 hours for the engines to be operational and logistical Hull testing has not being completed it is a death trap

[@u2beuser714]

Why does it take 48 hours for the engines to be operational?

[@Metapharsical]

​@@u2beuser714..just time it takes to collect enough gutter oil to fill the tank, my guess Say, U2beuser, you're not considered a Wumao , are you!? You seem so interested in channels discussing China..😂 Do you denounce the CCP?

[@gregoryschmitz2131]

A nuke plant has to stay hot, it also does not take 48 hours for a oil to steam plant to get on line. @@major__kong

[@CurtisCT]

I agree with everything said in this video, HOWEVER...who remembers the old "Made in China" toys and cheap trinkets from the 80's? They were of poor quality and easily fell apart. But they were cheap, so no one minded. Fast forward 40 years later to the present. Now China makes high-tech products every good as those produced in the West. And they make them faster and cheaper than any Western country ever could. Just the other day I read an article about how they've outdone us in EV and EV battery production. They've gotten so good that the Chinese are no longer interested in cars from the West now that their locally manufactured cars outperform their Western counterparts. As a result, Western car makers are having to leave China one after the other as they no longer have a market there. My point is, we can laugh at China's attempts to build fighter jets and aircraft carriers now, but I wouldn't be so sure in 30 or 40 years. I think China's well aware of their inexperience and shortcomings. That's why I don't think they're aiming for supremacy over the West at this point. I think their current goal is simply to gain experience while ironing out all the bugs. But trust me, no one will be laughing at Chinese fighter jets and aircraft carriers in 40 years, and I say this as a proud and patriotic American!

[@GetMoreU-gogogo]

I am a Chinese. 感谢所有人的评论(无论是何种评论)。在所有的评论中，如果是我们有的问题，我们会改进的，如果是不存在的问题或者已经解决的问题，我们会想办法更好地去应对。我真诚地希望各位能来中国旅游，看看真实的中国，它有好的地方，也有不好的地方，眼见为实，至少不应该是被各种抹黑。我的祖国有14亿人，发展起来非常地艰难，我们中国人一直努力地向前奋斗，真诚地希望有意愿的外国友人来中国帮我们发展进步。

[@hxy8586]

That's what I was planning to say. Everything takes time, and it's true for China as well, but China takes less, often far less. The Chinese space program speaks for itself. As a Chinese, I warned my American friends ten years ago about Chinese innovation but no one believed me. While everything said in the video is technically too, I also sensed arrogance, just like the reaction from my American friends ten years ago.

[@dougmoore6612]

I figured out what their integrated power system is! It really will allow them to power an EMALS. They integrate their aircraft carrier with the local power grid of whatever city they are ported in (Shanghai for instance). Then they can indeed show their EMALS working… while it’s plugged in to land! 😂😂😂

[@ronalddavis]

just need a long extension cord

[@bixudiwon6363]

your high school teacher will give you a C for physics.

[@Petidani0330]

I don't know... For the last half a century, the world has been saying "China can't", "China won't". And yet here we are. China is the world's #2 economic power (as fragile as it is), and we're debating whether their military even in its current state would be a match for the US that is (allegedly) trying to defend Taiwan. Noone would even dream of having this conversation only 10 years ago. This fact alone is already an indication that whatever our views may be, China is not to be underestimated. And its military (especially its navy) is rapidly developing. Of course, nothing guarantees that their development is sustainable. Hell, the recent rumours of rampant corruption in the army (rumours supported by the sudden dismissals of high ranking officers last year) is a clear evidence that the Chinese military capibility is not as mighty and invasion-ready as they say. But still, we wouldn't want surprises, would we? Surprises that would cost valuable human lives, and maybe the independence of a de facto country.

[@QwertiusMaximus]

19:59 "The aircraft carrier was spotted 89 ft away from its berthing place."

[@raynegomez2756]

big fan of the channel, keep up the good work! & thank you for your service!

[@hankent]

I like your analysis. You have collected way more data than other posters. I am here to address the power questions in your video with some new data. The Ford aircraft power output from its 2 A1B nuclear reactors is 280k horsepower. For comparison Fujian is 260k horsepower, slightly less then Ford, but sufficient for its catapults. The benefit of nuclear reactors is its sustainability but not necessarily power output. The idea of using aircraft carrier is way different between China and US. US needs long commission time and more jets to "complete versatile missions" at "multiple hot zones", so nuclear power and mid-sized F35 are best suited (so a carrier can carry more). China on the other hand, does not have that many "interested zones" so nuclear power is not very needed, besides even if China want nuclear power, it has to take it step by step. The next point is 【very important】: there are very few situations/targets that would require China to deploy its aircraft carriers. Actually, there is only one possible opponent and that one has a big fucking navy, so for this kind of navy battle, you may not want lots of jets, but instead bigger and heavier jets that flies longer and can carry bigger missiles----you only need one shot. For China, its super speed missile, the 21D navy version is way too big to be carried by mid-sized jets, so that's why J15 is needed. The type 055 destroyer/cruiser also carries such missile, and that's why 055's silos are 9m deep. Its US counterpart's ---- USS Ticonderoga---- silos are 6m deep (the Zumwalt? Err...I've never seen a warship that cost so much and cannot do serious sea battle before). In short, the US aircraft carriers are like Swiss tools, they can battle with many nations. China's carriers on the other hand are like screwdrivers, they only servers one purpose. 【In the end】, I have to emphasize, for peace loving people, nobody wants a war, nobody wants to trade a warm night with a nice......(anyway, nice) for a cold night in a trench. But the world is just not so fancy as we think. Someone wants money, to buy a mansion, maybe to trip to a distant island loaded with girls......and many more pervert, low, and despicable purposes, they would call you a demon and start a war. Stop that from happening, I hope.

[@jimmylam9846]

.........but your ac is just like an old Ford car......it is nothing but troubles

[@andywang2207]

Are you Chinese?It is difficult to see rational analysis in this kind of video commentary, without ideological analysis

[@hankent]

@@jimmylam9846 Ford is the pride of US. For China BYD is more suitable.

[@hankent]

@@andywang2207 I used to be a weapon/war fan, until the wars and bombarding throughout the world these years hit me in the knee.

[@raidenshougun9663]

i believe that the type 03 carrier is more of a jumping platform for the type 04, since it's chinas first time making a aircraft carrier of this shape they simply don't want to make another zumwalt and do it step by step

[@gups4963]

It sounds like the Zumwalt is getting to be pretty badass. You might want to look into the changes going on. Though yeah it was a farce for a long time

[@SaylerT]

"At any ship speed" sounds like cutting off all screw power (and lights) to put all of it into the catapult... despite the fact that a head wind helps with lift.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

No evidence to back-up that claim by Cappy ... only speculation.

[@lawrenceleverton7426]

Brown out on the Carrier. Coffee Pots stop working.

[@SaylerT]

@@lawrenceleverton7426 Proof that there is no justice in this world, my man.

[@sergeantblue6115]

Im very impressed that Chris can manage to get these nearly half an hour videos of quality from such a small pool of info, China doesn't usually release all that much stuff and even for people that are directly chinese its hard to come by. I have some theories and new info that could answer some of the questions in the videos. - DCs are usually more efficient in short term distances and could be the reason why they managed to get it running on the carrier and mitigating the annoying properties like extremely high energy loss over distance. Also consumes a lot less energy for that. - As of recently (July 2024), the J35 has now undergone testing on the carrier from recent satellite footage. Also some fair warning on using modern warships as a guide for what a ship will be armed with, the game usually replaces decoy launchers(notably the type726-4) for anti submarine rocket launchers or air defense slots so that might confuse some viewers why a type055 has 6 ciws. Keep doing what you do man, people need to know stuff like this.

[@jamesschardt]

Let me correct something: China has recruited 30 British spies with naval aviation experience because MI-6, which doesn't exist, sees an opportunity to get an inside scoop on the People's Liberation Army Navy that can't be missed.

[@markpukey8]

Sneaky, very sneaky. Very British now that I think about it.

[@drops2cents260]

@@RaveYoda Well, as the Tory muppets have gotten rightfully spanked in the elections two weeks ago (as well as having been rightfully thrown out of the UK government for their abysmally bad performance in the last 14 years), maybe the UK will at long last come to its senses again and start the process of getting back into the EU. BTW: I'm a European from Austria, and I absolutely wouldn't mind welcoming the UKies (or to be more precise: the English - because back in 2016, the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh voters overwhelmingly voted *against* Brexit) wanted back into Europe - _IF_ they have grown up, learned from their past mistake, and are now willing to participate in a constructive way instead.

[@80PercentAshamedOfU]

My immediate thought was that western intelligence would’ve intercepted that recruitment process long before any former pilot with no morals jumped onboard. I knew they likely sent spies that gave them very generic “training” that they would’ve figured out soon on their own anyway, and used the opportunity to gather way better intel from inside.

[@tangoleftist7792]

Hey! I have that shirt! All these aircraft carriers run on steam, the difference is that they use nuclear reactors to produce steam instead of coal or oil. Great video!

[@gooner72]

You're absolutely spot on about naval air power pilots..... .we gave up naval aviation in 2014 when we retired the Illustrious and the loss in capability meant that our crews had to get retraining from the USN and French Navy to bring our crews and pilots back up to speed as we're all senior NATO members and close partners. Thank you USN, USMC and French carrier crews and pilots.🇬🇧🇺🇸🇲🇫✌️

[@davidwebster2616]

This is interesting watching this, just yesterday I read a news article talking about how China has about 40-50 days of oil/fuel. I can't help but think how all of this would just sit around due to a fuel shortage.

[@pjburges]

The EMAG step was bold. The rest of the carrier design makes a lot of sense to me. They are progressing. But the biggest challenge will be crew and experience. I wish the US would focus on the crew and experience factor more than building the super-carrier Ford and its future siblings. A modest carrier even coal-powered carrier of the Kitty-Hawk class with a great crew is a formidable projection of power. We would probably get more bang for our buck building smaller carriers and getting more pilots and seamen with real seat time. my 2c

[@TravellingAllen]

I agree. And from a force protection standpoint: multiple smaller aircraft carriers are drastically more survivable than 1 supercarrier. The US Navy should be distributing its firepower as widely as possible in the Pacific, not concentrating it. This is even more obvious with the growing proliferation of anti-ship ballistic missiles and offensive drones.

[@daxlucero2437]

Laughable. And-16 with a great pilot isn’t jack shit compared to any f-35 pilot. It’s simply overwhelmingly better. A t-34 cannot beat a t-72

[@robriot6882]

Coal powered? lol

[@jaybee9269]

It was diesel-powered.

[@thesovietshark8945]

@@daxlucero2437but it’s a bit different for a carrier, which only needs to launch planes, and isnt meant to engage in direct combat unlike tanks and aircraft

[@aviationist]

We should train, plan, and strategize as if those threats are fully capable. They should be taken seriously, underestimating the enemy is an excellent way to lose a fight. If we train this way and they prove themselves incapable then it will be an easy win with low effort and hopefully no losses. If we set our standards so that the enemy is viewed as incapable it'll be a more difficult win regardless, or in the worst case we can lose. The titanic was supposed to be unsinkable, but we all know how that turned out. Yes, having good intelligence on capabilities is good, but being prepared to meet an equal or more powerful adversary is always the better route. Never underestimate your enemy.

[@drachenschanze1]

It´s build with Chinesium

[@u2beuser714]

Ironically it was chinesium that the vietnamese used in the war that defeated the U.S

[@anthonywarren4207]

Using Democratic Party rules of engagement. But it was actually supported by the Soviets. Mao was too busy starving millions of Chinese people to death at the time. The Soviets spent about $500 million on aid to the North Vietnamese. The spent a billion bucks supporting the students peace movement in the U.S.

[@anthonywarren4207]

Is Chinesium fake Unoptainum?

[@TommyAventador]

He only wants it to have a Electro Magnetic Gun because he can say “we are so good and smart, we did it first!” And that their carrier is better. Same situation as the J20, looks good from far, but far from good! After making a carrier, they need to create a aircraft that can handle the multiple stress on the landing gears and frame from breaking in half.

[@billalumni7760]

Not sure it will work but the ambition to jump right into a large aircraft carrier is impressive.

[@Warmaka]

Only surpassed by the ambition to promote agriculture and health by hunting the four pests. Well, I guess there is the entire Great Leap to consider as well...

[@altrabodyltd7328]

time will tell, it will work and it is just a matter of time that Chinese Navy surpass the US Navy.

[@Farweasel]

I blame us Brits 🙄 Instead of failing to stop our abused & very understandably hacked off RN & RAF pilot 'advisors' go to China *We should have let their agents smuggle out the entire plans for our latest Prince Charles AirCraft Carrier* . It would have held China back AT LEAST ANOTHER DECADE

[@grumpyoldretiredcop8382]

Did I see a brief flash of a diesel-generator system for their EMALS? That dead load test looked pretty weak as well, no surprise. Good luck with that! Good, clear presentation that ties together well. I'd be surprised to see this ship operational before I die of old age.

[@danialgorgutz94]

that video test is from gerald r ford AC, no chinese video only picture of deadload splashing infront of carrier

[@上官锦]

😂

[@truthful3777]

They use BYD blafe batteries to power the EM launcher. Its more powerful than your steam catapult. Its a mag lev technology. Can steam trains travel at 500km/h compare to mag lev???

[@HaoWang-yt8vo]

哈哈，真酸！

[@Eidolon-jc4kv]

Never see anyone who curses himself about short life in the way before😂

[@GEM_MAX]

Lets not forget the Chinese New carriers have to come back 2 weeks later for repairs after leaving dock because the deck is to heavy for the base of the ship in open Ocean waters causing the ship to start to buckle because A cruise ships base is different from what a Navel Aircraft Carrier should be.

[@graffitijungle2072]

It is really "appropriate" to guess China's intentions using the American way of thinking. Not to mention in the absence of any specific data. That's why the United States has never guessed correctly about China in the past few decades.

[@markpukey8]

Sure we did. Hell, NIXON figured out that you're a bunch of Capitalists at heart and conned you into abandoning Global Communism and the USSR and joining into the global free trade economy instead. Mao would have shit himself sideways at the very idea! But America figured you out real quick.

[@SuperCatacata]

Bot

[@theinnerlight8016]

At the rate you put out these good videos I have to ask: do you ever sleep? 😅

[@paulbrooks4395]

If this 003 is merely a tech development and testing platform then that's concerning. Their rate of growth and development is what we're looking at strategically. It's the "where will they be in 10, 20, and 30" years. I suspect this unit is a compromise based upon limited current capabilities with expectations of growth for the next generations. It will likely not see active service beyond training, but as a training aid...having a full size, half capable carrier is alarming. I expect this means the type 004 will be nuclear, be part of a ship family and have next generation developments of their current aircraft as CATOBAR units.

[@billwhitis9997]

7 commercials in 20 minutes. Google is looking desperate.

[@TeethToothman]

Now _this_ is the correct way to complain about ads! Nice job! 🚀🪐🚀

[@petecoupon3814]

If the US Navy has been struggling with EMALS for ten years, so will China. There is no substitute for experience. Great channel.

[@MAHORAGADAOPPSTOPPA]

Never know.

[@ngc35ster]

Thx for the video, great job and it’s very informative. But I want to mention two other two very important factors, 1st the cost. Even converted to USD, the total cost of China’s first aircraft carrier Liaoning is 21 billions, 13 billions for Shandong, vs the total cost 13 billions of most advanced Gerald Ford class. 2nd, damage control, which I don’t think you can master unless you did it in a war.

[@PurpleFrogHigh5]

In short, the so called "problems" are either: A. You have no evidence that some "part" works B. China's lack of experience of operating the carrier. A means they are doing a good job to prevent the "others" gaining the information. B, technically is not a problem for the carrier itself but can be challenges or learning curves for any Navy acquiring such a big aircraft carrier.

[@SuperCatacata]

Paper Tiger 😂 C: China keeps it secret because it's much less impressive once it gets out.

[@MrJacobst]

You think China, who regularly shows off faked technology, wouldn't show off something that actually worked. Hilarious

[@nQthing33]

I don't see it in the comments enough - Thank you Chris. Always so much thought and research in your videos. Thank you

[@Bigdangleebles]

Notice the “Farley Laserlab” laser cutting machine? Supplied by Australia. Wonder if they’re still supplying the Chinese?

[@fabricemartin5561]

Apparently, with its 4th sea trials, the Chinese actually have a functional catobar aircraft carrier with EMALS catapults, a planned air wing which will be composed of single-seater J-15B and two-seater J-15D (growler) modeled with AESA radar and avionics updated, stealth J-35, KJ-600 AEW&C and probably GJ-11 attack drones. The expected rotary wing aircraft are the Z-18 ASW and SAR/COD. At this stage it seems complete, efficient and comparable to Western catobar aircraft carriers and they will benefit from the pilots and embarked personnel trained on the Liaoning and the Shandong. Escorted by type 055, 052D destroyers, 054B frigates and type 093b submarines, it will be more complicated to attack than the Houtis.... 🤔

[@allo-other]

Why am I put in mind of high school students who relied on ChatGPT, yet imagine they know it all?

[@freezonechannel8639]

No problem with your opinion buddy. China will go on.

[@rbrown335]

A great point on the diesel generation of electricity to power EMALS. As an engineer I believe this would be difficult and the sortie rate will go down.

[@MrPathorock]

too old school. the world is changing

[@ramrod9556]

China has been running the world's fastest mag-lev trains for over two decades. The mag launch system is basically a down-sized version of it so it is highly likely that China will have their launch system sorted out.

[@stefanblagojevic8616]

@ramrod9556 Don't worry, this YT channel is pure copium propaganda. Just look at his first video about how he tried to justify the Secret service how they did a great job as best as they could, only to change his tune when extra videos surfaced about Trump's head and chest sticking out from a female Secret service female operative, that was so small she couldn't proect/shield Trump, not to mention the sniper team how he tried to apply more copium about how they had to re-adjust their sights because of the shooter was so close only to change his tune about that in later videos as well. This dude is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the State Department/Deep State. China has plenty of room (manpower, know-how and resources) to workout and adapt to situation. I laughed my a$$ off when he made a video about how superior the U.S. Navy's Aegis system is, while in real life Uncle Sam was running for their lives outta Afghanistan, leaving millions upon millions of taxpayer money in weapons and logistics for the allohasnackbars. I just enjoy watching his ArmA 3 videos, this on the other hand, is just pure Lallaland comedy to realx and enjoy while listening. Moral of the story, never take info on this channel for granted and if you wanna be certain of something, always check other sources as well. Kind regards.

[@pabcu2507]

Do a video on their upcoming type 004 aircraft carrier

[@joecool2810]

Why? China has enough problems as is with their military development. A ship that’s planned to made in a decade and a half is not worth for coverage. It’s supposed to based on the 003 yet, the 003 has even reached sea trials. The Chinese could completely changed the design three times within the design portion allotted. Speculation, on a ship that based on a ship that hasn’t even let her home port yet is a exercise in fiction.

[@pabcu2507]

@@joecool2810 maybe because we wanna know any info about the ship and his take on it?

[@jwickerszh]

@@pabcu2507 why is insight relevant? he's an "infantry man" ... but if you want coverage of the 004 check out Eurasia Naval Insight which does cool coverage of most Chinese ship developments.

[@howiescott5865]

That's some heavy tofu. Personally, I like the ski jump. They should have kept that and improved it with a ski lift and an artificial snow machine.

[@stuarthamilton5112]

Just 3 problems? Damn, they’re doing good!😂

[@Rug0s]

​@@levelazn why can I see the current gen us aircraft salivating on those carriers and the hellcats giving them a nodding approval...

[@jxmai7687]

and all those 3 problems are everyone can think off, just watch the beginning, disappointed. 😂

[@imperiumgrim4717]

LOL

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

Supposedly 3 problems ... By the time it enters combat service... all the "problems" have been solved . 👍

[@lawrenceleverton7426]

And they only traveled 85 feet. They are on a roll only because the tide was going out.

[@ctakitimu]

So an EMALS system is like a rail gun/gauss gun that uses a plane instead of a slug?

[@onebridge7231]

The Fujian is more like a testing prototype. They will eventually go to a full Blue Nuclear Navy to challenge the U.S. Navy. Their modernization efforts have been impressive and they have been excellent at espionage.

[@seeknova69]

Was stationed on the Ford for 2 years, we would go out to sea expecting to be out there for a week or two just for us to pull back in the next day because of the EMALs being down. There was even some rumors that Big Navy will just scrap the whole EMALs project for the newer carriers. I can't see China's new carrier having a functioning EMAL system.

[@spartanonxy]

@@levelazn Because they routinely show themselves to be a clown show even more then the US.

[@keystonekabes]

@@levelaznwho’s underestimating? Given the extensive history the PLAN has with catapult launched aircraft I’m sure they will have no issues implementing a brand new technology on a capability they have never fielded.

[@kyosokutai]

@@levelaznMostly because nothing they've done outside of stealing and copying technology they do not understand, has been impressive or novel.

[@libertyman3729]

​@@levelaznExcept for gun powder they never invented anything. They are programmed to remember but not to be creative.

[@damondiehl5637]

@@levelazn Because freedom of thought is not in their repertoire. Just like the Russians. Officers make all the decisions, no one does anything unless the boss says to. And they are Asian on top of it. No one can admit failure because of face. Who is going to tell Xi Jingping something won't work? He has been consolidating power under himself. He wants to be the next Mao.

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

From other videos (esp. China Observer), apparently the Chinese EMALS was based on technology from its Maglev train systems, and not stolen from the US Navy. Most likely that's a much lower power technology since the rails would not have to accelerate the train to 100+ knots within 2 seconds, and so upscaling that technology into higher power levels is probably their biggest hurdle.

[@lollymanna]

China obersver 😆

[@Thorium_2600]

This is just the beginning of the chinese carriers. Already , the US is feeling the heat. Give it another few years.

[@PomegranateChocolate]

The map of China is wrong. South Tibet is part of China but is gobbled up by India under the CCP watch (1951). The CCP has been keeping people in the dark so most Chinese in the mainland didn't know that a chunk of their territory larger than the size of South Carolina was carved out from them and is occupied by India (so-called Arunachal Pradesh).

[@troy5094]

So you're pro China taking back that land?

[@Foenem521]

You can buy them in China town for $6.99 a piece.

[@anthonywarren4207]

I found a source the sells them for a buck less

[@chatter4427]

Buy me one

[@anthonywarren4207]

@@chatter4427 We can get them two for 10 bucks, do you have a slip big enough for them? Mine in Vancouver is really tight with my yacht.

[@zacksmith5963]

​@@anthonywarren4207 then why are u so scared

[@anthonywarren4207]

@@zacksmith5963 Nice non-sequitur

[@l.a_e_j5894]

Historically, only two countries ever operated AC for wars: US and Japan. The UK used an AC in the Falklands war, but it didn't engage in any naval battle. Under the Ming Dynasty, China's navy couldn't even fight against the Okinawa pirates. The Qing didn't have much of a navy as it didn't care for anything beyond its shores. But in its biggest naval war, 1894-1895, its fleet was annihilated by Japan navy.

[@十四弟少侠]

I also want to tell you that when China included the South China Sea on its map in the early 20st century, the Philippines did not yet exist as a country. And it was recognized by Europe and America at that time, which was Chiang Kai shek's 11th route

[@唐伯虎-g9d]

他们压根不尊重历史，甚至都不愿意去了解历史

[@JoeParkerAndThePower]

Here in the UK, the RN Queen Elizabeth-class uses IEP, but was initially specced for EMALS... so it's not impossible, in theory. But it gets murkier: that _was_ the ambition, but then BAE owned up that it was too much of a tech risk to deliver on time, so that was downscoped to a vague aspiration that 'at some point' an EMALS and or directed-energy weapon system might be retrofitted (because 'the IEP massively stronk'). No-one here's holding their breath on that, not least because you'd have to remove the ski-jump.

[@PjRjHj]

And solve the conventional power energy issue like the Chinese

[@fooveyron3080]

In another incident, the Philippines Navy has reported an increase in electronic interference affecting its vessels in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). These disruptions include cyber interference, electronic jamming, and other communication disruptions. While the source of interference remains unclear, it coincides with China’s statements about repelling Philippine vessels in the area. The impact on sea-based operations has been minimal, but land-based communication equipment has been affected1. Additionally, intense electronic warfare battles near the northern Philippines have led to American warships experiencing total GPS signal loss and communication disruption

[@楚逸揚]

I would like to ask why I don’t see the video of the USS Ford aircraft carrier ejecting a plane online? Is the US military hesitating whether to adopt President Trump's suggestion in 2019 and change electromagnetic ejection back to steam ejection? Weakness and ignorance are not obstacles to survival, arrogance is!

[@georgesikimeti2184]

….you’re going backwards!

[@truthful3777]

US don't have MagLev technology. They are having a lot of problems with the MagLev just as how the Boeing space craft is having problems now.

[@danb2529]

Not sure I get the point about 'limited range' because it's not nuclear powered. You can refuel at sea. Ships do it all the time. Also American Nuclear powered carriers don't operate alone, they operate in groups of ships that aren't nuclear powered and therefore need refuelling. Your range is limited by the shortest range ship within the group. I suppose by having the carrier nuclear powered you can probably have a much smaller oiler (refuelling ship) as part of the group, but you still need it.

[@peta333]

You are the dopest KZbinr on your topics.

[@CHINESE_PRIDE]

We need highly motivated individuals who are willing to do more than just complain online. It's why I started my own local chapter of ADV. Every freedom loving country needs people willing to form Grassroots Organizations/Movements. 1) To ensure that our politicians aren't putting the interests of the CCP above our own countries. 2) To support human rights, and preserve freedom & democracy around the world; from the CCP-PLA's undue influences and harm. 3) To elect politicians who will be on the right side of history. 4) To develop tough on China legislation. 5) To expose and weed out CCP corruption abroad. 6) To foster the fraternity of NATO friendly Nations. 7) To stop China stealing land & resources. And take them back. 8) Require the CCP to pay reparations for the pandemic 9) ....anything else necessary This is a conversation we should all be having with each other, friends, and neighbors.

[@jesse89625]

who do you think you are, this nation belong to rich oligarch, rather than random immigrant

[@CHINESE_PRIDE]

@@jesse89625 Which nation are you talking about? I'm being general... you're being specific. About which?

[@johnrock7255]

taiwan?

[@CHINESE_PRIDE]

@@johnrock7255 Taiwan is a beautiful country

[@yeusean]

😂

[@josephveksenfeld5344]

The Fujian has a poor flight deck layout that will not allow her to sustain a high sortie rate. The jet blast deflector for the Number 1 catapult impedes movement of the aircraft off the forward elevator. The jet blast deflector for the Number 2 catapult is in the landing area, so both Number 2 and 3 catapults is unusable for simultaneous launch and recovery, leaving only Number 1 catapult to launch aircraft. However, the aircraft lining up for launch on Number 1 will block the landing aircraft when they exit the landing area. The planes that just landed park on the Number 2 catapult, but there it looks like there is room only three or four planes there. There is no room to taxi past the aircraft parked at the junkyard, the area next to the island, without encroaching into the landing area. During recovery, the bow can quickly become jammed with planes, and with only two elevators, and both of them on the starboard side, it will take too long to move the aircraft to and from the flight deck. I don't see them conducting launch and recovery at the same time, like the USN does, other than, in a pinch, launching a pair of Alert 5 fighters while conducting landing operations. They are really at risk of getting caught with a fully armed strike on deck, just like the Japanese did at Midway.

[@ciditan1615]

From 0 to 1, that's a step you can criticize as long as you need. No harm.

[@Mrwhomeyou]

Yeah the deck design has been criticized inside china too

[@robertwricksjr4451]

By the way, thank you for your service for the men and women that support freedom around the world. I love it. Thank you and Good Night and keep us safe. I appreciate it. We appreciate it. All the freedom loving people

[@jpmangen]

Depending on speed it needs to be Resupply within 7 days and takes 48hrs to get up to full steam.

[@anthonywarren4207]

I guess they have to tow other ships with food aboard.

[@powershift2024]

It has a coal fired power supply ship that floats behind it for extra "stealth." 😂😂😂

[@anthonywarren4207]

😛@@powershift2024

[@pauljanicek1872]

This wonderful analysis lasted longer than the carrier will in combat.

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

But it lasted not a long as chinese development.. china still rising and this guy lost wars

[@jesse89625]

this is why yanks always lost war

[@richardbell7678]

At 10:37, your use of 100 million watts for three seconds is a little vague. If you meant 300 megajoules, say 300 megajoules. An EMAL system is not wired directly to the CV's main electrical bus. Electrical power from the CV's turbo-generators will be added into an accumulator for the 42 seconds between cat shots, and then the accumulator will dump that energy into the cat, in 3 seconds, for one launch every 45 seconds. If the accumulator is dumping the power at 100 megawatts, for the three seconds, the energy must be filling the accumulator at, roughly, 7.5 megawatts (300 megajoules every forty seconds). Running all three electric catapults is a bit more than the sum total of the USS Texas' main engines (22.5 MW vs. 21 MW). The USS Kittyhawk had boilers rated for driving 210 Mw worth steam turbine propulsion, so driving the accumulators for three 300 megajoule EMAL shots is less than one ninth of rated power.

[@robertgarcia217]

Training isnt a challenge, theyll learn. Opertionand reliability are...if history is any indication the carrier will suffer from design and material deficiencies.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

How can you talk so much but say so little?

[@hughmungus2760]

what history? Can you even name any incidents where the chinese navy had problems with materials or design flaws in their ships? I can't find a single instance this side of the century where brand new ships suffered major problems.

[@MB-nn3jw]

@@hughmungus2760Look harder. There’s plenty of examples with all 3 Chinese carriers. The Type 002 pretty much hasn’t been able to anywhere without its tugboats.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@MB-nn3jw what do you mean? In any military excercise none of the chinese carriers have tugs. The only times they're seen with tugs is when they're in port. You've got Russia mixed up with china in your head.

[@johnsilver9338]

If they want to compete with the west in terms of sortie rate, then they've designed Type 003 wrong. 3 catapults and only two main elevators none of which are on the portside. Small "lightning" carriers may even be faster as multiple F-35Bs can be launched and recovered near simultaneously. However against smaller AEASN nations it is dangerous enough.

[@bmreck]

These Aliexpress carriers are nothing to worry about they’ll fall apart as soon as they hit open Atlantic or Pacific

[@hughmungus2760]

sure if it helps you sleep. just remember that the large chunk of the world's commerical shipping is now built in china

[@SteveSun89]

why hate on aliexpress? Don't pretend you haven't bought anything from there

[@kanlu5199]

@@SteveSun89 I bought a phone there and then was stolen on the way. Theif knows where the good parts come from.

[@jayvhoncalma3458]

​@@hughmungus2760 Wumao

[@FrostbiteDigital]

Never underestimate the opponent

[@inCawHoots]

“US has been using carriers for almost 100 years…” That feeling when you see or hear something that was felt was recent, only to be older than 10 years old. From one dingy ship with a makeshift wooden flight deck, to ships with nuclear reactors.

[@fencserx9423]

It’s gonna be very funny if they used an electric catapult idea they stole from the Ford… 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@l0lzor123]

idea? lol the chinese has hacked the navy several times even getting blueprints for nuclear submarines, without a doubt they got their hands on the carrier especially when we know one of their destroyers was a halted US destroyer that got axed because they didnt have the funding to make it.

[@bignug137]

Why is that funny?

[@jxmai7687]

Any other idiotic statement, Chinese is using a totally different and more advance and reliable technology.

[@NikeHM69]

The J-15 looks like an A-5 Vigilante had love child with a SU-37, and neither one wanted to raise it.

[@ashog1426]

But will it be effective?

[@hughmungus2760]

j15s are actually pretty decent fighters now that the engine issues have been sorted. its one of the few heavy carrier based fighters in the world and serves the same purpose the F14 did.

[@cliffordphillips1733]

Dam, man! That is FUNNY! You are so right! LOL.

[@HubertofLiege]

I get letters every month from my J-15, telling me what they’ve done, etc. as long as I send my support.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@ashog1426 its got a large payload capacity, long range and a powerful aesa radar, its about as good as you can expect a 4th generation fighter to be.

[@TT-dp8qh]

Those magnet bars properly take a lot of spaces under that first deck too!

[@waldenlaker]

It will be good if the US army is as "smart" as you.

[@knightnight1894]

You need to update your info, Fujian has published video showing successful test of its catapult.

[@andygerali2940]

They build lots of warship, but they call it "paper tiger" hahahaaaa... Nice one

[@tedwang906]

Keyboard expert,

[@lgflanang]

In high tension environment, fujian will be lucky to decouple from its pilot barges.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

PRC AC are assigned with escorts of Destroyers and Submarines .

[@J_X999]

COPE

[@DittersGustav]

Its powered by a new kind of steam, pipedream steam

[@sophisthemlock246]

100% efficient power source, infinite range (on paper), unmatched capabilities (on paper), and unheard of reliability (until constructed). Pipedream steam is proud to announce partnerships with the following programs: The Su-57, the Littoral class frigate, the T-14 Armata, the Aerogavin, the Wunderwaffe (contract has been cancelled), and now the Fujian!! Thank you for using pipedream steam

[@CJ-Giddyup209]

If you'd like to see the U.S.'s ElectroMagnetic launch system in action, you can catch it at the fair next year with a pack of Greyhounds chasing it. I heard the track got a great deal on the parts at auction.

[@GilbertAltoveros-u8u]

That's why I don't buy imitation. That carrier?? Is like a fake Nike shoes.. 🤔🤦👎👎👎👎🙄🙄🙄

[@Foenem521]

😂😂😂😂

[@31869]

American arrogance will be it downfall China is unstoppable

[@RaHorakthi33]

training the pilot of your enemy must be a whole new level of stupidity.

[@Taskandpurpose]

True sell outs

[@onlyfacts4999]

@@Taskandpurpose Maybe they just wanted to be friends? We're not at war so there's no reason to not work with them

[@reallouie-q7t]

China never plan attack US or any western world,

[@williamwadsworthwilliams]

Love your work🎉.