China: This Carrier is Strange.😲

The new Type 003 Fujian carrier just sailed, and it is amazing!
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/...
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@colinmix8731]

I come from China and was born in the 1980s. When I saw American Nimitz aircraft carriers and F22 fighter jets in magazines as a child, it felt like extraterrestrial technology. But now, when I see my country starting to have warships that can rival the United States, you can imagine my pride. I completely agree with your analysis of the Fujian ship and also agree with what you said in the end. I hope that China and the United States will never engage in war and can work together to make the world a better place!

[@einehrenmann6156]

Too bad all things china builds are stained with all the blood their government has on their hands. This is very much like Nazi-Tech where it's very cool but you can't really be proud of it considering what it was used for and what government it supported. Pride isn't really what anyone should feel in that context.

[@Kayzef2003]

As long as there is a chance of US losing it's number one position to anyone ....there will be war or sanctions. It doesn't matter if it's India, China, Russia or even EU.

[@user-qr5vb3vm6e]

Why don't they have nuclear power engines? To high tech?

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

@@user-qr5vb3vm6e "Why don't they have nuclear power engines? To high tech?" Dunno, ask the Royal Navy :)

[@Hellfox777]

Then tell Xi to chill out and STOP MESSING WITH EVERYONE

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

Nobody can claim that China builds ugly ships. This aircraft carrier is extremely sleek and beautiful. And the most beautiful warship currently in service is type-55 DD.

[@MMA-gb6to]

i agree, but i still think 055 is more beautiful

[@williamblomster2387]

no power,,can only be a hotel

[@JPYouTube2023]

@@williamblomster2387 I don't mind spending a couple of nights on this ship :)

[@Terracotta-warriors_Sea]

It is the most beautiful aircraft carrier in the world today

[@richardmartin8998]

Actually the most beautiful ship is probably the Chilean Navy's Esmerelda, their sail training ship. Beautiful lines, wonderfully fitted out. If you want guns then I would go with the Mogami class FFG from Japan.

[@joey3291]

Made in China is already representing good quality, check their EVs.

[@alexdetrojan4534]

😂

[@Hzx-fk4pn]

That's very true, BYD cars are selling well in Australia.

[@SonuDR007]

Yeah right Chinese EV’s have a high propensity to self combust so don’t park in your Garage in the home😂😂

[@MarcABrown-tt1fp]

Yeah don't buy Chinese Ev's, just dont. Seems like every other week a few is burning up. Better yet don't buy any EV considering the pollution from making the things.

[@pushslice]

I always appreciate good, dry sarcasm ;-}

[@derrychen6923]

so glad you made this video, objective analysis about China are so rare in western media

[@peterlongland6862]

And yet he failed to understand China's complete lack of authentic diplomacy!!

[@directxxxx71]

​@@peterlongland6862 Diplomacy? The one saying either on the table or on the Manu? 😂😂😂😂 So diplomatic of your Westerner

[@user-oe3lo4rq8w]

@@peterlongland6862 I agree! The US just won the war against the Taliban with their authentic diplomacy!

[@peterlongland6862]

@@directxxxx71 You have no idea what you are talking about!!

[@kaleeysmith8801]

@@peterlongland6862 you duimb bro, a true SHEEP.

[@damsb.6078]

What China accomplished in only a few years of time is simply unique in terms of quantity, quality and time. In 20/25 years, China managed to get from a green water navy to a blue water navy, with a huge number of cruisers, destroyers and now aircraft carriers which themselves are close or equal in terms of quality to what you can find in the western fleets. And when you see the recent difficulties encountered by "older" navies with their aircraft carriers projects (the Royal Navy to name it), these are not little achievements. And yes I suppose they don't have the experience yet, but you have to start one time or another. Their soldiers and sailors seem to have the motivation and the discipline necessary to achieve great things in the future. And as you said there is no need for the "West" and China to be ennemies, yes there are indeed some territorial disputes and diplomatic tensions between China and its neighbors but nothing that cannot be sorted out with a good spirit and a little bit of diplomacy. This country never cease to amaze.

[@gowdsake7103]

Except the carrier and the aircraft are little more than junk

[@damsb.6078]

@@gowdsake7103 your expertise sound really deep in the subject....

[@maximusflightymus3892]

Looks tidy and efficient, like their space station. Whether you like the chinese or not they are dragging us all in to the future, their acheivements will be humanities gain. I wish them success.

[@ed15MAus]

hey man, i had to change my microwave twice... in a space of 1 week.. Whats the common denominator? Well its made in China.

[@GreyArea2020]

@@ed15MAus兄弟，中国产的好一点的微波炉你都买不起。你是有多穷啊。有这时间上网还不快去打工赚钱。

[@ryanlu3566]

@@ed15MAus maybe you just need to spend more money for a better one that also made in China🤣. As we know nearly half of your payment is going to pay tax and custom duty, etc

[@HonestYu]

​@@ed15MAus My microwave oven has been used for twelve years and there are no problems at all. It is made in China and only costs 40+ usd... I really want to know what exactly did you buy?

[@user-hk9zc4fz9h]

@@ed15MAus 你确定不是买的100元人民币的微波炉?

[@thelovertunisia]

I believe that the reason why China no longer needs to copy western products is that they have already surpassed them in many areas. Second: China follows Sun Tzu and this is a very different mindset from the west and might say in the long term it will prevail. Greetings from Tunisia.

[@thelovertunisia]

Secrets have always been hard to keep but today, they may not even exist for long before someone puts it on the web.

[@andrefouche9682]

Yes they don't have gender studies and other useless degrees, they produce STEM professionals.

[@gags730]

China made the Carrier for China based on their needs. Like everything they do, they will make the next one not just better, but better for their needs and not the West's needs. It is amazing how fast China is coming up. If this was a Western Country the West would be praising them, but it is not so they are going to tear it apart and compare the carrier to Western uses and needs.

[@maolo76]

i read the 003 is future proof for nuclear power if they decide to refit with a nuclear power plant. The PLAN is base on their current needs. Any future war with US will certainly be in th SCS over taiwan.

[@jjchang6141]

When you have only one, the whole world laughs at you; when you have three, the whole world waits and sees; when you have six, the whole world respects you; when you have 12, the whole world is proud of you. When you have 100 052Ds and 32 055Bs, you will be the world's rule maker.

[@Scott11078]

I was an engineer aboard the USS Kitty Hawk from 1999-2002 and the #1 attack team leader for the ships Flying Squad. The heaviest I weighed her in at was 89,264 tons.

[@ryklatortuga4146]

what a portly pudding!

[@coodudeman]

where's the beef???

[@UsmanSiddiq1]

You are lying cuz if you were the real combat engineer, they would have forced you to sign confidentiality agreement and you would never leak data like this.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@UsmanSiddiq1 *lol* You have no idea how much people talk. Also, i'm fairly sure such a statement today would not fall under NDA's purview.

[@mikeynth7919]

@@DIREWOLFx75 Considering the Kittyhawks are all gone, the total tonnage wouldn't really be much use to anyone.

[@iwantmorenews557]

You look much better. I hope your health is doing well.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thank you.

[@davejob630]

That's quite a tie you're wearing. Or is it wearing you... ? One thing is certain, The Chinese are not going backwards. Thank you for you analysis. Always on point.

[@MykePagan]

I want to redo the knot on that tie, but I like the pattern 😁

[@greggpon7466]

For the record the Chinese are building a navy the size of the UK navy every 4 years.

[@adder88]

One year

[@rtcjaco]

China bisa meluncurkan seluruh armada Inggris dalam satu tahun. Jika diberi waktu empat tahun, mereka bisa meluncurkan 4-6 armada Inggris, karena laju produksi armada mereka meningkat secara signifikan setiap tahun.

[@earthwizz]

China has a couple of other advantages. Education is highly valued and, unlike the west, teachers across the board are honoured and rewarded, so it's no surprise they're catching up and, in many ways, surpassing the west. Additionally, China's state controlled M/IC is far less expensive by some orders of magnitude than the privately owned US M/IC. One is primarily dedicated to providing military infrastructure for the state whereas the other's primary object is shareholder profits from the state. Since those corporations have enormous influence in the finest democracy money can by, those profits are extortional.

[@TheSaturnV]

Part of that is the planned demolition of the US education system for the last 30 years or so. We are being shipwrecked by "teachers" with pink hair who force students to pledge allegiance to the alphabet people flag.

[@gowdsake7103]

They cannot even make good jet engines

[@earthwizz]

@@gowdsake7103 Not true, they still make good jet engines. They're just gradually, and in some areas quite rapidly, being overtaken by the Chinese.

[@qichen85]

The Chinese energy storage system will most likely to be much smaller than the US counterpart. This is because Ford uses a AC-AC system with a flywheel energy storage device to provide additional power, so it is a mechanical energy storage device. Fujian uses the AC-DC-AC system with super capacitors attached to the DC bus and it is a high density electrical device and by default it is going to be much smaller than a flywheel.

[@jakleo337]

Large capacitors are notorious for going bad.

[@qichen85]

@@jakleo337 In US, yes. But that’s the consequence of having a decaying power infrastructure. Technology and manufacturing dont just appear out of thin air. The Chinese power industry is the current global tech leader for a good reason and super capacitors are just one technology out of the many from that particular industry. The batteries of EV also benefit from a large power industry.

[@truthful3777]

​@@jakleo337They use BYD lithium batteries to contain huge amount of energy to launch the jets, then the strain on the generators can be reduce. The generator can slowly charge back the bank of Reservoir for the next launch.

[@maolo76]

@@truthful3777 maybe they will use lfp batteries.

[@timcowden3513]

I am a former Naval Aviator with 450 carrier landings in F-14s. This is a pretty good ananlysis of the carrier, considering what is available from open sources. Certainly the ship won't generate the kind of 24/7 operational tempo in it's first few years that an American carrier can. That being said, they are esssentially leaping ahead of every other carrier in the world except the American carriers in one giant jump. Everyone in western navies tasked with studying this ship will have to take it seriously.

[@СергейСердюк94]

US navy needs to catch up to china, its navy is the most powerful

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Thanks for your honest, unbiased and professional opinions and reply. It was refreshing to read. ex-RCN here

[@СергейСердюк94]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 hes wrong though, the ship is just as capable as any American ship and they have the same carrier technology as the USA which is EMALS

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@СергейСердюк94 hmmmmm, I would say she has the potential to be just as capable as any RN, MN or USN carrier, however both she and her crew have yet to gain the necessary operational experience of those afore mentioned navies. After all, the PLAN has only been in the carrier game for only 12 years now. As she sits, she is arguable the 2nd most powerful class of carrier out there, surpassing even the newish Queen Elizabeth class carriers of the RN in terms of potential capacity and capabilities. But she and her crews are inexperienced, which the PLAN leadership is well aware of. That is why her main focus and function for the time being are to be a training platform so her crews can gain the experience and knowledge to reach their true potential. And more importantly, she is a technology demonstrator and test bed. She is chock a block full of very new technology that the PLAN needs to master and mature in order to get the maximum utility out of. As well, they are also developing the required operational doctrine she and her follow on sisters will need to become a viable force to be reckoned with. Basically she was the next logical step towards the PLAN goal of developing and fielding a capable and viable force projection carrier fleet. Any and all lessons learned operating her will no doubt be funneled directly into improving the forthcoming Type-004 class and their follow up classes of carriers. It will be interesting to watch where they go with their carrier development programme.

[@СергейСердюк94]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 this is just false. I have no idea where people get this idea that aircraft carriers are the be all and end all, 1. The Chinese Navy is the most powerful navy there is. 2. She is not a technology demonstrator, there is no evidence of this anywhere, she is a full fledged carrier for their fleets to join the 001, 002 and their Type 075 and upcoming 076 and offcourse their drone carriers. 3. Chinese Navy is vastly experienced, they hold regular drills with their allies and have real world navy experience is based from their fights from WWII, Chinese civil war and the Korean war. I mean who is the US navy experienced against? They've never fought a near peer navy, heck the only navy they fought post WWII was Iran's at a time when it was a shell. Britain and Russia probably have the best experience with Russia facing Georgia's and Ukraines and UK facing Iraq's and Argentinas 4. Right now, the Type 003 along with the Gerald R Ford class are the most technology advanced kit out there, using advanced EMALS and have sophisticated C5 capabilities with future implementing to include possible rail guns and other electro optical weapons although tbh a fleet carrier is a fleet carrier, Chinese Navy already have over a decade worth of naval experience in carriers. Naval power is defined in 5 areas. 1. Capabilities of Vessels 2. Logistics 3. Number and Variety of Warships 4. Production capabilities 5. Maintenance Capabilities china wins in all 5 areas

[@larscelander5696]

It's a common myth that the type and number of catapults are connected to the propulsion system of the carrier. It's not. Some quick math: Assume 60 MJ launch energy and 60s cycle time. That is 1 MW average power. These are high numbers for both launch energy and tempo of operations. In practice, a truck engine could well supply all the power needed. The number of catapults depends on other factors. Three catapults is still plenty.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

Your assumption on power is wrong. US EMALS can launch with up to almost 500MJ of energy.

[@irimeyilmaz956]

Ford carrier uses a fly wheel energy storage for its em cat. This method is also now being used in the Fujian

[@lagrangewei]

@@matthewhuszarik4173 you are wrong about that, that the energy capacity of the flywheel. it theoretical maximum output, not it actual output. if you read it carefully it say "UP TO" not that it uses that. those are just marketing speak, you inflat the number so the congressman feel they are getting their money worth. furthermore this energy capacity is share by 4 catapult, meaning each only recieve 121MJ max. not that it uses that much but what the flywheel can supply. the energy capacity is clearly designed to be higher than what the EMALS need. it like buying a 1200w power supply from your PC, it doesn't mean your PC is using 1200w. that just what the power supply can do, not what the computer actually uses. you don't look at max output, you look at max load.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

@@lagrangewei Wrong each rotor is 121MJ up to all four can be used on each launch and it only takes 45sec to recharge to launch the next catapult. The design takes all 484MJ to launch a 100,000 aircraft to take off speed. The F-18 Super Hornet’s maximum take off weight is about 66,000lbs so it could take up to two thirds the output of all four rotors depending on ship speed, wind speed, and F-18 load out. Remember the idea is to accelerate the planes as gently and minimally as safe to reduce airframe wear. Obviously the system was designed to take out one rotor for maintenance while still maintaining full launch capability.

[@larscelander5696]

@@irimeyilmaz956 My guess is that they use some variation of batteries and super-capacitors. This technology wasn't good enough when Ford was designed but now it is.

[@wgehu]

China loves peace and never initiates a war, but as we have an old saying: good wine comes when friends come, and hunting rifles come when jackals come

[@user-ji6wb7ki8g]

American steam catapults suffer from insufficient steam, electromagnetic catapults face issues such as insufficient load and failure rates, so Americans like to have an additional backup design.. The technical route of Chinese people may not encounter the problems encountered by Americans at all, so Chinese people do not need more backup catapults or elevators.. Just like the difference in size between the Chinese space station and the International Space Station, especially the International Space Station with huge solar panels, while the Chinese space station is much smaller, the total power supply of the two is similar, which is a local advantage formed by China's different technological routes.

[@FloofyMinari]

The ISS is also 2 Decades older than then the Chinese SS.

[@dzonikg]

@@FloofyMinari USa wanted to screw Chines by banning them off using ISS but in few year CHina will be only country with space station.ISS will have to retair ,its already very old

[@RealJeep]

Tofu Dreg space station made by the CCP. It'll fall from space soon. By the way...Taiwan is NOT part of the CCP and never will be.

[@xuzhan1031]

ford only cerified 29 tons for the catapults. Chinese version will be 34 tons + for running fully payload flankers.

[@FloofyMinari]

@@xuzhan1031 where did you find that the Ford Catapult is certified to 29 tons?

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

She is a very pretty ship, very pretty indeed. As I've said before, if she performs as well as she looks, then the PLAN have ship they can rightly be very proud of. I appriciate your analysis and insights, very refreshing to see one which is neither pro nor anti Chinese for once. Keep up the good work as I've now just subscribed.

[@gowdsake7103]

BIG if

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

@@gowdsake7103 no really, she seems to be coming along nicely and it is suspected that she has already test out her and her crews ability to both launch and recover aircraft. Considering she is only the 2nd indigenious Chinese carrier design and is a quantum leap from the preceding Type OO2 Shandong class, I'd say they do have a lot to be proud off. I am looking forward in seeing their continued evolution in carrier design with Type 004 class that is under development.

[@trumanhw]

I'm sorry ... but diplomacy is dead. (For the US). It seems like all we do is try to intimidate. And if that fails? Resort to sanctions (always fails), lots of threats ... and then military.

[@x--.]

Whoa.... I can't claim to speak for the whole of the United States Government (or, well, any part) but it's clear that many in the State Department and even some members of Congress understand the importance of diplomacy. It tends to be in the form of establishing and respecting the 'rules based international order.' Clearly, some don't believe in bilateral and rules-based regimes but that is not everyone.

[@user-yl9em9xj2v]

@@x--. 是的，我们完全不相信“基于规则的国际秩序”，说到底这里所谓的“规则”是美国的规则，是服务美国利益的规则。我们希望遵守的是联合国的规则和国际法的规则。

[@JefferySmiley]

Bad take. The US state department is so large and so effective you don't even realize what they do. That is the definition of success. What the news capitalizes on isn't really the full story or in the case, most of it. US citizens can travel pretty freely abroad, English is recognized as the trade language, and the US is still considered a very desirable place to migrate to. US has its problems, of course, but there is major success there in diplomacy.

[@JefferySmiley]

​@@user-yl9em9xj2vThose rules are actually responsible for much of China's growth. Won't deny the US benefits but that is primarily because it is a champion of the rules. The US has rather weak ideology outside of chasing the dollar and the pursuit of happiness. This puts it at odds with China's historical ideology.. Which is more top- down noble focused. I'm not saying one is better than the other... But.....US is friends with its neighbors and even if the world was multi polar I don't think China's neighbors would want to align themselves with China

[@dzonikg]

I can bet that USA will now want EU to put 100% sanctions on Chines cars like USA did few days ago .So what happens if EU refuse,will USA sanction EU

[@MASMIWA]

The Chinese now have the world's largest merchant fleet and the largest ship building industry in the world. They have raw material interests in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, South East Asia, and Russia. Their fleet is two fold. One protect against an attack/invasion by the US and its allies and the protection of its resources supply line. China has only one overseas base in Djbouti and the US is said to have 800. If the US has 800 bases scattered around the world, makes one wonder why they need aircraft carriers. I would also add that China's supply lines are not only by sea. Their BRI project is a network of land and sea routes that encompasses the above mentioned areas to China. One thing to watch is the BRICS organization that is growing by leaps and bounds. BRICS will soon economically, population wise, and maybe politically overwhelm the G7. BRICS strength will be in its energy and mineral resources. The SCO is a political, trade, and anti-terrorism alliance that seems to be growing in parallel with the same members as the BRICS. The SCO has an MOU with ASEAN that further integrates both organizations. Most ASEAN nations also appear poised to join BRICS.

[@verypleasantguy]

The Chinese had had complete analysis on the American carriers, especially the newest version of the "Ford Class" They came to the conclusion that, although the "Ford Class" aircraft carriers are equipped with 4 catapults, only 3 can be fully operational at any given time The 4th is there as a standby, just in case one of the other three is down, then the 4th can be powered up as a backup That's why when the Chinese designed their "Fujian", they only put three catapults on it Additionally, this is the very first time they are testing their electronic version of the catapults on sea, so they need to know how long it'll last (before breakdown) and how tough situations (such as huge waves, salts, and whatnots) could do to the delicate electronic components on board So, 3 is enough, for now

[@k53847]

Apparently the Ford catapults can't be individually isolated from power per multiple reports. I have no idea what genius came up with that, but considering the many layers of fail in the Little Crappy Ship program, I certainly don't discount it.

[@YongLi-np3wg]

​@@k53847Agree. From what has been reported the Ford catapult design looks like a premature birth. I wonder what happened during land testing.

[@k53847]

@@YongLi-np3wg Well, apparently they didn't do lot of land testing on the new systems on the Ford. I know the ammo elevators never had a land testbed, which might have something to do with why it took 7 years to get them working.

[@chokwoo5720]

One important point missing，China catapult is DC vs US AC, in addition, 3 independent power system for each catapult, where else US 4 catapults are sharing one power supply. Basically US carrier Ford was designed in 1990s, after USSR imploded, and China per Capita was even lower than India, without competitor, US had not being vigilant with carrier development

[@maolo76]

makes sense to have independent power system. If the power system fail on the ford.. all the catapults will not work.

[@user-yl5fc9ll2l]

Sincerely hope everyone can go to China for a trip! Seeing is believing

[@gowdsake7103]

Ummmm all the fake food the green sprayed grass the buildings and infrastructure falling apart no thank you

[@Nikolay_Grigoryev]

I have two years of sea time on 4 different carriers. Rarely did I see both aft elevators being used. The port elevator is rarely used during flight ops. Most of the time during flight ops that is used for extra parking. Much easier to use the two starboard elevators as there are no flight ops to interfere with.

[@jamesz5816]

I think the port elevator is designed as a backup when the starboard ones are damaged during battle.

[@dazhuhou6710]

@@jamesz5816 The fault in this argument is when both starboard elevators are damaged, it almost certainly means the carrier has already sustained very significant damages elsewhere that renders it mission dead. Having the backup elevator won't mean anything at this time as it won't be able to launch anything.

[@lspcnb3747]

@@dazhuhou6710 太对了，升降机如果损坏了，首先先检查航母还能不能用而不是找多余的升降机，第三个升降机的安全冗余的性价比并不高

[@Nikolay_Grigoryev]

@jamesz5816 you may be right in your thinking that it is a holdover from Ww2. I don't know about the damage being an issue. I think it's a way to quickly swap the aircraft from strike to fighter. As I remember, during that time, they stuffed as many aircraft as possible, and you wanted to get all the strike craft off if you are attacking or all the fighters if you are defending. Lunching half of each would mean you would be outnumbered in one on carrier battle. That seems correct, but I could be wrong...

[@briannewman6216]

It is objective analysis that is valuable.

[@leapdrive]

Objective analysis of a copy on the outside but still junk on the inside.

[@jiangjing3374]

@@leapdrive hast du mal drine sehen? Gerüchtmacher! Loser😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@alan6832]

My advice to carrier operators, especially newer and smaller ones, is that they don't attempt to operate manned supersonic aircraft off the carriers, but use them for supersonic drones and subsonic manned aircraft, the latter being primarily carrier launched tankers intended to refuel land based supersonic manned combat aircraft, and secondarily subsonic manned combat aircraft developed on the A-10 and SU24 models, with versions optimized for both carriers and primitive airstrips. Such carriers would have a limited ability to project power far beyond the range of land based aircraft, but secondary powers don't need to do this in the initial stages anyway.

[@acoustic5738]

You can call thus objective especulation.

[@leapdrive]

@@alan6832 , those A-10s and Su-24s are heavy airplane because of their amor. It would be impossible taking off from a carrier unless you build it 10,000 feet long.

[@kesai119]

Hehe, we Chinese people like to take one step at a time. I won't be like some countries who like to boast and exaggerate in their work. What we are currently working on is a conventional powered aircraft carrier with electromagnetic ejection, and the next step is nuclear power. What's so strange about this? Then the stealth aircraft is deployed onto the aircraft carrier. This is just a normal thing for us. We always do it step by step. Some countries like to boast that they will surpass China by 20XX, and they have no idea of their industrial level or whether they have the money in their pockets to do this. There are still some people who can't do anything in their own country and then come to accuse us. I don't understand what these people think. Probably due to intellectual disability. The matter of nuclear power is really not difficult for us. We already have technological reserves, but our experience is not very sufficient. We need more platforms to conduct experiments. In fact, as you can see, we basically do things this way. It's best for someone to verify the correct technical route, and then we can use it. This is very reasonable and can avoid us taking many detours. When all our scientific categories are solid enough, we can slowly innovate. This may take a long time, but we Chinese people have enough patience. In 100 or 200 years, if our generation cannot complete it, the next generation will take over our work. We have been doing this since ancient times. What we expect is for neighboring countries to ignore us and let us develop slowly. We also don't like to boast everywhere, we only like to develop slowly on our own. When it grows strong enough, then strike the enemy hard... Hehe...

[@obesetuna3164]

What a load of bollocks...Hehe.

[@user-xs1no3ij6u]

I am an overseas Chinese, and I understand the Chinese government's mentality very well. They have mentioned Taiwan's core interest as belonging to China countless times in various meetings, talks, statements, and announcements with Americans. I have seen that the Chinese government almost pleaded with Americans not to interfere with their sovereignty claims. However, Americans have their own plans, and they find that the Taiwan issue is a perfect weapon to hurt China's development. Therefore, I am pessimistic that China's demands will not be accepted by Americans. The stronger the Chinese demands, the more Americans will use Taiwan, because Americans have their own assessments of the strength of both sides. I hope that Americans will not make the same mistakes as the Vietnam War. At that time, Americans also invested in the Vietnam War based on their assessment of strength, and we all know the results. I don't like some of the Chinese government's practices, but there is no problem with Taiwan belonging to China. Please take a look at the national map of Taiwan. That map includes the entire China now. The national map of mainland China also includes the entire China, which explains the problem very clearly. Therefore, mainland China has always emphasized that the Taiwan issue is a product of the fact that the Chinese civil war has not ended.

[@WangHungLo]

Let's not forget how the United States also lost to Korea

[@jiokl7g9t6]

The PLAN will use the carriers for fleet air defence and drone recon for the kill chain; long range hypersonic missiles will be the main strike weapons.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

Probably yes. Or at least, that will be ONE primary way they will set up to do it. They're not going to risk having just ONE method of fighting, in case USA comes up with some way to counter it.

[@williamkunte5361]

And they already have over 500 DF-41! 😳

[@jimtaylor294]

USA & UK: *laughs in Trident II*

[@raymonddon8875]

bravo chinesca from viva mexicoo!

[@Gongolongo]

And unguided nuclear ballistic missile? ​@@jimtaylor294

[@desmondho9567]

During the Qing dynasty, they made the biggest mistake of not building up its military mights. That's why those Imperial Colonial pirates have taken the opportunity to push opium and used it military to try to break up China, after the opium war, China has to lease Hong Kong and Macau for 99 years. China deem it as century of humiliation. Built up China militarily to deter those Imperial Colonial pirates. So, Taiwan province is the important for China to reunification peacefully.

[@seanlcs]

This is a non-biased video which is informative. Thank you for sharing. Unfortunately, less subscribers. The channels that ridicule China garnered much more subscribers and also more trolls in the comments. I think many will think combat experience is one of US advantage. IMHO, there 's other option to counter this advantage. Through experience, we will know what are the best actions and what are the possible outcomes or reactions ( sort of proven with records). The way to counter is strategy and training. A good strategist will study previous records to know what are expected and how to overcome. A good strategist will know the weaknesses as well. the strategist need to plan the attack and defense . The next step is comprehensive trainings. China won't start a war; but, only with war they can prove to the world who they are

[@coderma430]

中国兵源丰富，国家会挑选最优质最富有海航经验的兵源组成航母的最佳舰队编制，而且是与航母舰队的建造同步进行的，而且训练强度也要强于美军，所以成军时间会比预期短很多。

[@scottmcdonald5237]

We 🇺🇸 generally limit ourselves to 3 CAT ops: Keeps more a/c parking spots available; dont have to man-up a full 4th CAT crew; easier management so quickly stop using CAT 3 and start fighter recovery; stuff the bow & stern w/airplanes & put the #1 Alert-5 F-18/35 on the waist CAT.with the other A-5/15/30 behind it as you clear the stern parking area for the Alert recovery. Etc. 4 CAT ops are generally photo opportunities for the "Cruise Book".

[@icu17siberia]

you have to remember then US has 100 years experience in carrier operations. China started with Russian design and training so it's going to take them a while

[@jinye6222]

The Chinese CATOBARS system is DC powered (not AC). In this respect, it more advanced than the US by 10 years.

[@jimmielin1141]

I don’t understand why they put that power regenerating thing on the catcher cables isn’t it (FORD CLASS)a nuclear powered carrier?

[@sleepyancient6655]

​@@jimmielin1141 They've changed how they're catching the aircraft and want finer control so there's less damage to aircraft. If you've ever had the opportunity, try hand cranking a generator without a load and then with one, the bigger the load, the more resistance. I suspect the regeneration is a positive side-effect of how they fine-tune the resistance of the catching cables. Even if power recovery was the goal, that means there's a plan to use that energy, so they have their reasons. I know the reason they didn't just build more Nimitz class carriers is because they lacked the power generation and infrastructure to handle future technologies they want to put on aircraft carriers.

[@sleepyancient6655]

​@@jinye6222 Not really. "Advanced" is a tenuous word in this scenario, as the US and China both looked at both technologies and tested their development. Heck, the US had been testing a DC version of that system through other projects for weapons and such, and decided the AC system was the way to go. Based on what I learned, both are doable, but the AC system is preferable for what the USN wants. China didn't think they could produce the required rare earth components (for whatever quality and/or quantity reason) and tried to make the DC ones work. Which, they do, just not at a launch every minute.

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Fantastic tie Sir. Very stylish. Thank you for the update.

[@digitalpostman]

i was about to say that 😄

[@rickace132]

Do a video on China drone carrier. I heard it's a worlds first.

[@PaleBlueDot-bi9pm]

type 076？

[@hpw-ws6bj]

No ship is more strange than the zumwalt and no car stranger than the cyber truck. Two of many iconic American piece of sh.t! 😂😂😂

[@Terracotta-warriors_Sea]

Can’t help noting, it’s a very beautiful ship uncluttered clean well thought out design and good quality construction!

[@user-qr5vb3vm6e]

Coal powered navy must be high tech to them.

[@donderstorm1845]

@@user-qr5vb3vm6e 🧂

[@Terracotta-warriors_Sea]

@@user-qr5vb3vm6e It does set some on 🔥

[@messagesystem333]

Will make a nice reef some day.

[@tangbesitangbesi7009]

Totally agree, one look and I'm already in love with the ship, it's spit and span

[@rongwu-sj9ws]

When I saw the host struggling to pronounce the "nan" in "Jiangnan" correctly, using all their might, I couldn't help but burst into laughter. As a Chinese person, I know that distinguishing between the initials "l" and "n" can be a bit challenging for people from the southern regions. This is a historical issue stemming from the promotion of Mandarin, primarily based on northern dialects, especially the Beijing dialect, after the founding of the People's Republic of China. In most southern regions, the differentiation between "l" and "n" isn't as clear-cut. In fact, you could argue that there are around 300 or more extremely subtle pronunciation differences. Despite living in the north for nearly 35 years, I still have some apprehension about "l" and "n". While I can perfectly distinguish and produce both sounds, it requires a bit of subjective effort on my part. For me, the more natural pronunciation is "Jiang lan" rather than the standard "Jiangnan". And considering that "Jiangnan" literally means "south of the Yangtze River" in Chinese, the situation becomes even more amusing. By the way, Fujian is a province in China. It got its name from the initial characters of its two major cities, Fuzhou and Jianzhou. The name of this region underwent several changes since the Zhou Dynasty (around 2000 BC). It wasn't until the 21st year of the Kaiyuan era in the Tang Dynasty (733 AD) that the title of "Fujian Jilongshi" (Military Commissioner) was established, marking the beginning of the usage of the name "Fujian". One of my ancestors served as the governor of Fujian Province around 400 years ago. :)

[@CJ-re7bx]

It was cringe. You can tell he is just a shill. Anyone that has spent any time studying Chinese would not have any issues pronouncing Jiangnan. Either he doesn't believe anything he is saying, or he is braindead, or both.

[@amardeep5821]

PLAN does not need to have expeditionary capabilities now. That can come later on. Further it is not a insurmountable hill to climb. PLAN only need to make sure that their carriers can prevent USN and USAF assets being deployed from Atlantic and Indian Ocean to Pacific Ocean. And they need to defeat USN in the Western Pacific around their waters just like the smaller British fleet did against the mighty Spanish Armada. Once PLAN does that then they will be able to rule the waves of Pacific and Indian Ocean just like the British Royal Navy ruled the Atlantic and Indian Ocean post the decimation of Spanish Armada.

[@tony37068]

For those think made-in-china equals bad quality, I'd say we chinese like what you think, and prefer you keep thinking that way. Elon used to laughed at Chinese, now he is asking US gov for help. For years, US market barely have 2-3 EV producers (laterally just one), versus There are tens of that in China, the competition in china created the best EV producers. Whereas the monopoly hindered the development in the US-- ironically, the market principle works better in China. The US EV producer Ravin, for example, they issued stock, got tons of investment, yet for year and years, they never produced a single car, funny, it does not take IQ100 to see it is total scam, yest people keep pouring money into it.

[@m.a3914]

And when the Chinese started making EVs with acceptable quality and safety? When they started buying European designers. Elon never laughed at the Chinese. He laughed at a question asked by a reporter if BYD and Tesla were competitors. Back then, BYD was strictly focused on the lower market while Tesla was at the high-end. The amount of EV producers don't matter. There are so many EV producers because every time when the CCP announces subsidies, dozens upon dozens of companies suddenly spawn and apply for these subsidies.

[@shawnhe6180]

​@@m.a3914 keep considering like this. Two systems,China and US,it is fine.

[@benahaus]

As long as your country keeps millions of N Koreans in misery, subjugates Tibet and Uyghurs and claim ridiculous maritime borders, you remain a POS country with pretty weapons.

[@dragicadjuric3635]

Only facts,he doesn't talk bad about Chinese technologie like some another channels. I'm not Chinese but I don't like when someone refuse to give a credit to the country who were able to switch from cheap plastic stuff production to high advance technologie. Have nothing but respect for this man,nothing but RESPECT. You have a new subscriber.

[@albertloxton4520]

One possible answer of why 003 has only 3 catapults and 2 elevators is they have their own deck rotating logic. Think about 001 and 002, those ski-jump carriers have three take off points and two elevators too. So you may look at 003 this way: a larger and more advanced 002, with the ability to allow fighter jets with heavy load to take off from all three of its take off points, while on 001 and 002 only point 3 allows the heavy load take off. In this way, they will be able to apply a deck rotating logic on this new carrier similar to the one they are familiar with, so they don't need to spend a very long time on groping a new one.

[@user-tz8kj6zb1w]

For the fact that there are only three catapults, according to publicly available data from the US military, the utilization rate of the fourth catapult is much lower than the first three, so canceling it will not have a significant impact

[@opticandersonopticanderson3364]

Fujian class carrier is world's first to utilize nuclear and gas turbine hybrid propulsion/ power system. 2x 125MW gas turbine generators and 2x 350MW gen 3 reactors. Utilize supercritical CO2 turbine generators, and that's why no boilers were ever tested during fitting.

[@iwantyourcookiesnow]

The Chinese cadets are watching the 80’s Top Gun movie and taking fervent notes…They are all buying distressed brown leather jackets with flight patches and sunglasses.

[@cam35mm]

F-18 Hornet is an older airplane and super Hornet is 1999. And the F35 is a flying pig. The new J-15 is now lighter and eventually get upgraded engines. As for the Chines not knowing how to be sailor. LOL, Before Columbus and his 3 little boats, a Chinese Admiral was sailing around the world in a ship 20X bigger than the Mayflower. In America we have a lot of behind the curve people with a chip on their shoulder.

[@caspermilquetoast411]

Grow up.

[@cam35mm]

@@caspermilquetoast411 still won't make the Flying pig any better. LOL

[@RealJeep]

Thanks for your input Little Pink. Go tell Xinnie the Pooh you done good.

[@Dordord]

There is a country has the most dumb people within its border. And those dumb cows can not even point out where their country is on a map without country names, yet they believe they know everything😂😂😂

[@FinestaGang]

The growth of the Chinese navy since 2008 has been phenomenal to say the least. They have built capacity equal to the world combined and more in such a short time. The only thing missing is combat experience. But looks like emporer Xi seems to have clear plans

[@user-gk4wz2ql9l]

造这么多，不过是为了震慑，现在谁敢跟中国干仗？！

[@shaundudley4576]

Clear plans? Please inform us of them. I don't know of any such declarations or even intimations never mind specific (which is how I understand "clear") plans

[@yzy8638]

Xi has not involved in numbers of war and open support of modern day nazi, the USA's senate is structure like that of roman senate and the senate grant alot of power to the dictator, which is like the president, which is what become emperor, they have the pax roman period and we have the pax american period, Emperors of USA in the past decades has started, continue wars after wars, killing innocent after innocent, flatting cities after cities.

[@SYL7Tube]

It's sad to see how your country is feeding to you with those BS!

[@user-yz1zt1nq1p]

Looking sharp mate!! Love the flair

[@SilverforceX]

People talk up US experience as if its actually good. I think its the reverse. They have had 3 decades of military experience fighting Jihadists and ragtag rebels. It in fact made their military weaker against potential peer rival.

[@siberiantiger3917]

Sukhoi designed the finest 4th generation fighter airframe in the Su-27. F-15 fans may argue otherwise. But, the vast number of Russian and Chinese variants of this airframe makes its case. The Russian navy's decision to develop the MiG 29, instead of the Su-33, was foremost a financial decision. Even with the introduction of the J-35 - 5th gen air-superiority fighter, the J-15D will be PLAN's primary carrier-based strike fighter for decades to come.

[@m.a3914]

Finest? No AESA, less advanced avionics, no integrated EW capabilities... How is it the finest?

[@JA-pn4ji]

Totally agree with you on your comparison of China to Russia. Russia is very fixed and inflexible in its military doctrine. China is flexible it incorporates both Western and Russian doctrines where it sees advantage!

[@chriscain7333]

Nope, its all about money, russia will do the same if it had money, naval warfare is particularly money hungery, and given russias conditions, its not wise to waste money into navy

[@chriscain7333]

And china doesn't do weatern doctrine either, or it is high time for the west (the us) to adopt new doctrine (aka hypersonic missiles and long range uavs) for naval warfare but unable to, again, due to having no money.

[@georgegao1202]

China is a civilization of 10x the US/west.

[@Jimpassarotri]

Very interesting and intelligenct report. And your use of the English language is very impressive. Profit driven military procurement and confirmation bias I think are the two hardest things for the American Military to overcome

[@年青人]

腐败和组织力还有战争正义性。我不觉得美国军队和同级别的军队竞争能赢

[@yojimbo3681]

China's DC Emag catapult is a lot more energy efficient than the Ford's AC system. Every time the Ford uses its EMALS, the lights onboard the carrier actually dim a little. The Fujian doesn't have this issue.

[@tritium1998]

The Sukhois are still Russia's best carrier-capable fighters in use and are bigger than US ones so Russia obviously doesn't see them obsolete.

[@voidtempering8700]

Russia also doesn't have an operational carrier. So it doesn't really matter.

[@cashflownpv]

IMO all the people are missing the point. The Fujian is R & D and a trainer for them. China knows the US reigns supreme but that doesn't mean forever and let's be frank-the Chinese are a smart and intelligent race that thinks in the long term. The Fujian may suck now but Type 004 and beyond won't. The Chinese strides in economy, military, infrastructure, manufacturing, tech, and so on since 1990 has been absolutely incredible. They have come an amazingly long way in a short space of time.

[@ALWH1314]

Chinese carrier uses DC power which means it has a battery system than stores electricity, therefore it doesn’t need large output nuclear generator, China purchased prototype from Ukraine to develop the J15 not from Russia.

[@kandise2004]

11:00 i think we really underestimate Chinese ability to copy our tech and innovate on top. The Asians are very good at this.

[@horridohobbies]

Typical of the Chinese, they've innovated the EM catapult to use DC instead of AC electric power. Apparently, this offers advantages.

[@JoaoFranciscoFigueiredo]

I miss Otis ❤ Thx Mister Millennium really informative. Know let's pray to the flying spaghetti monster that the diplomacy between USA and China never get tired

[@coodudeman]

lol outstanding sir!! my imaginary friend is BIGGER than yours!! lol

[@TurboHappyCar]

I hear that. During the video I was thinking about how devastating it would be to both economies if we went to war. Where are we going to get cheap stuff from, and who are they going to make the cheap stuff for?

[@kamranmediacenter]

This is the first western channel that is fully unbiased.

[@jk3jk35]

A few features and weapon placement probably seems odd because halfway through development of this carrier they switched from steam to EMALs

[@steelrad6363]

Thank you for your video! The three catapults are for exploring and mapping carrier operations, and not for combat operations. Why pay extra. As to the data thefts of the F35 platform, During the cold war the KGB and GRU Were mainly interested in program management and quality control systems, far more useful.

[@coodudeman]

yes... knowing how to produce efficient production lines is key... never mind knowing how to make something to start with... those are definitely superfluous details!!! very wise...

[@paulelder9488]

A fair appraisal of the hard ware choices of the type 003, it's fair to say that the current state of the pla navy is not building for dominance supremacy rather than good enough. In a age of tech hand over from manned to unmanned war fare we will see if good enough can handle the challenges comming chinas way.

[@user-ji6wb7ki8g]

As the starting point of China's super aircraft carrier, the 003 with over 80000 tons is strong and excellent enough.. 003A may range from 85000 to 90000 tons, while the more powerful nuclear powered version of 004 may range from 90000 to 110000 tons

[@joosiekawk]

actually it is offially stated at 80-85,000 tons, but sources say it is more closely 90-100,000 tons when compared side by side with the US Ford carrier.

[@user-wr8sm6jp6j]

Similar to the USS Enterprise, Enterprise was also Nimitz's predecessor ship.

[@ELMS]

Where else could I go to get this information? An excellent, precise presentation. Thanks.

[@williammagoffin9324]

"It looks like >insert Western plane

[@FinestaGang]

Which communism??😂

[@anthonyy5982]

this comment without bias.

[@RectalRooter]

What are you talking about ? You sound short minded and trendy too me. Look at the past's examples of the different aircraft company's designing and building different looking aircraft and ideas to the same asked for government proposals

[@williammagoffin9324]

@@RectalRooter Anyone can propose something, doesn't mean the proposal will work. Cite examples of production aircraft post 2nd computer revolution. I don't mean minor variations in air intakes or control surface locations, I mean totally novel design concepts for the same mission and performance. You might be able to name one or two, I doubt you can get to five, and you're not getting to ten. Which is significantly different from slide rule era designs or even the early computer era.

[@RectalRooter]

@@williammagoffin9324 Mr Parrot. I will defer your attempt for me to do your homework for you. History is a simple to learn subject. Hell - there is many books and documentaries about it it

[@tobinsarttrading1733]

Carrier warfare described in this video is becoming obsolete and China is copying a system that is soon to be too expensive, complex and outdated. Just as Battleships were overtaken by airpower in dramatic fashion during the early weeks of the Pacific War, the future of carriers as a platform for fighter jets with pilots is also declining. The future of carriers are now as drone assembly factories. Current plans are a thousand drones a day making the US Navy capable of producing more drones than are necessary to overwhelm any air force in the world even China's! Eventually they are capable of producing more complex jet powered drones to take down fighters and missiles before they can indict navy vessels.

[@lagrangewei]

I agree that the spec are still very much unknown, we have some chinese media numbers, but are those speculation we don't really know. this is as factual and accurate description as we can get now. probably the best video I have seen on youtube, covering a wide number of topic too. opting for 3 catapult is reasonable since UK had designed single catapult, it not really a power thing since catapult actually do not draw as much power, they just have a high peak power. the reality is for most carrier ops you will not need to rush to sortie since you will rotate operation of your airwing for coverage. to not repeat the mistake of the japanese in midway where most of their planes is caught on the carrier and failed to defend the fleet from US attack. using the side catapult would also mean aircraft could not land, so they are not ideal for full operation use where you will want to be able to receive aircraft. as for the elevators, the USN had consider deleting the elevator on the other side since it utilization was very poor. they only kept it as you say for redunancy in the event that there is a fire in the hangar of the elevator on one side is immobilized. PLAN probably saw it unneccessary to add the weight. while for USN, the carrier are the main fighting force and much be keep in operation. for PLAN, carrier are a supporting element of the fleet. so it more of a doctrine thing. PLAN does not believe carrier will be decisive because of their anti ship ballastic missiles.. if they build a larger carrier, maybe weight would be less of a concern, but I am not certain they will add a elevator even then, afterall french and british design also do not have portside elevators. reality is US and China has no direct conflict of interest, they talk about Taiwan, yet US has recognize Taiwan is not a country for 50 years already. they talk about China being a threat to Japan when China is Japan's largest trading partner, if the Japanese feel comfortable enough to do business with China, do they really feel threaten? they talk about SCS but that really an issue for us in ASEAN to decide, and most of us including Vietnam are already in support of the COC. it really why Philippines is trying to pick a fight right now, they are trying to convince the rest of ASEAN to oppose it if they can, and if they can't, at least delay it. they then talk about India as a replacement to China in the trade order, without realising US tarriff for Indian product are higher than Chinese product because India doesn't allow free trade of US goods. people should really look at policy and not narrative. they claim China "support Russia in Ukraine when China does not even recognise Crimea belong to Russia despite it being occupied since 2014. in the UN, China really only voted against the West on Syria, and seeing how Syria has evolve, I feel it a justified call, it would have been overran with ISIL if we created a power vaccum there. reality is I don't think the West and China are as confrontational as the media makes them out to be, Macron would not have invited Xi Jinping if they really see each other as rivals. it is totally normal for countries to have differences. we all know why the media is bias, the US government has a fund to pay journalist to write negative narrative on China, but is it really about China? or is it because people around the world is losing faith in US leadership after Trump and Biden, and US fear the world will turn to China for leadership? to me the problem is never with China, it in US being unable/unwilling to lead. saying someone else is not fit to lead would not correct the problem of why US leadership is failing.

[@lmn6335]

I agree with you

[@seanlcs]

Well said. I see the same way you are. China just work hard to have better life for the people. they not interested to invade or expand; but, will aim to take back every single inch of the lost territories. the border with india which was 'mistakenly" drawn by UK. They want Taiwanese to re-unite willingly. But, they have to use force if Taiwan fight for independence or there is foreign interference. It won't be long since the Taiwanese with be enticed with prosperity on the mainland. The Scarborough and Second Thomas shoal is more of strategic need to prevent US presence in Philippine to come closer. China never threat any countries no matter how small or weak they are. Top officials in USA like Blinken, Harris, Nicolas Burns and many others openly called China a threat or adversary; in the US senate meetings as well. China learnt without military might, they will be sitting duck even though being a peaceful country; Opium war and Japanese genocide. When you didn't attack doesn't mean you won't be attacked. China must have military might to defend and deter other country from getting the idea to attack. They already learnt the lesson and are prepared

[@robertdavis100]

japan had no naval history when it sunk the royal russian fleet or 2

[@johnwe4431]

if you compare Fujian aircraft carrier superstructure on the starboard with it on Ford class, you will see a big difference, why? that's is because China has much advanced 5G and phased array Radar system.

[@m.a3914]

5G 😂😂... Just to let you know that your phone is not running on Chinese 5G modem. In fact, no Chinese phone is running on Chinese 5G modems except for Huawei and their are years behind. The superstructure of the Ford class is a smaller than the one on Fujian. From Kennedy onwards, the combination of radars would be SPY-6 and SPY-3 radars. Those are newer than the Chinese equivalents.

[@kentriat2426]

The gap between navies is getting far more narrow because the western navies are loosing large numbers of experienced sailors particularly in senior NCO’s and junior officers who hold the greater experience. Top that with shortages in recruitment numbers and the fact over 75% only do one term of engagement there is an expanding issue

[@chanahyingchan5070]

The Air Craft Carrier here is the forth, 19 (Guangdong) If it's the 18th, it will be shown and painted on Bow and Topside

[@khurrammustaqeem8194]

As usual very informative and unbiased

[@Splattle101]

Good analysis. It's going to be very interesting to see how Chinese doctrine evolves with these new toys, and how it all fits into their strategic posture as a continental power. They've got a lot of threats at their geographic doorstep, and it's not safe to assume all this effort is made with the US in mind. The horizon of their thinking is potentially very, very long.

[@user-tu3dz7pd2k]

Some of my best friends in business are Chinese nationals and are very important to me. Additionally, China's incredible history and rich culture makes it a gem, if not the crown jewel, in the world's cultural historical context. I also hope we can get our governments to quit using the people, me and you, as pawns for various factions to stay in power in whatever manner. Nevertheless, from my military background China's biggest obstacle is operating an air raft carrier. The US has decades and close to a century of flying in bad weather, night operations, under fire, a huge bucket of highly skilled pilots to fly the machines and Admirals that have grown up on Aircraft Carriers. From reading and studying and just knowing, China has decades to catch up operationally. I hear they often cancel day operations during inclement weather and often practice takeoffs close enough to shore to land on solid ground. If we could learn to better trust each other the US could transfer some of our best practices to accelerate their learning curve but right now I don't see that happening anytime in the future. I am aware of China''s take on Taiwan going as far back as the civil w that was interrupted by WWII that finally resulted in the loosing side fleeing to Taiwan. These points are huge obstacles, but if our two countries could become allies the entire world could live and sleep so much easier. It's complex but it's not like Iran or NJ where we are eye to eye on zero. Let's hope. We could then focus outward as partners and if needed as a tradeoff help explore the stars. We could pool our many smart minds and truly advance mankind beyond the arguments that hinder us here on earth.

[@huangsam00]

Nice comment. But unfortunately you forget china is possessed by communists and USA is almost possessed by spector too. Evil spirit won't let us human being go. We should take care of ourselves human. Hope you understand what I am talk8ng about.

[@rockingrouge7050]

I am an Overseas Chinese and like your commentaries, which you are not prejudiced or condemning the Chinese Technologies. China may be lacking behind or maybe on par with the US. Anyway, the Chinese are catching up and can challenge the US anytime if provoked. US dont push or bully China to the extreme, which the Chinese can retaliate severely anytime. That's All.

[@MarkLandrebe-ef5yd]

@roc... China is incapable of retaliating, adequately.

[@sabian8700]

Not a fan of china when it comes to their internal and geopolitics but somehow I'm interested in their defense industry and equipment

[@re-nz3sk]

I do agree with your comments on diplomacy. If peace is possible diplomacy needs to be used.

[@davidz7858]

Peace only is for a country which has the strong military, otherwise you have to bend your body or knee down for peace. If Japan had the strong military as China, Japan would hadn’t accepted the Plaza Accord.

[@peterlongland6862]

I suggest you go study Chinese diplomacy. Old mate showed a total lack of understanding of Chinese diplomacy. Loke it or not, china is preparing for military action. Best we be ready!

[@re-nz3sk]

@@peterlongland6862 Yep, we should get ready. That's why we pay a military and generals--to get ready. But what is paying all these politicians about? What the eff are we getting for our money in that direction? Will they say later "hey, we did everything we could and got on planes and talked trying to avert a crisis?"

[@peterlongland6862]

@@re-nz3sk I'm not sure what you are talking about politicians. Every world leader outside of china, Russia and Iran is trying to talk china down. It Xi who wants to be the world most powerful leader. There is another possibility on the table. China could collapse into civil war. Xi keeps deposing his own military leaders, example the resent purge in the rocket force, subosibly for corruption. It's a well known fact the entire ccp is corrupt. How long before a well armed but corrupt military reacts against a well known corrupt government? Get them before they get us, scenario.

[@chenfan2130]

@@peterlongland6862是美国把航母开到了中国沿海。中国保卫自己，抵抗美国，意味着准备战争吗？

[@scroopynooperz9051]

30 Years ago the Chinese also couldnt build a good car to save their lives... things change lol just the way it is

[@thetreekeeper143]

Rubbish. China had their first indigenous made car in 1958. It was called the dongfeng CA71.

[@scroopynooperz9051]

@@thetreekeeper143 i said "good car", dumbo. I didnt say their first car

[@scroopynooperz9051]

@@thetreekeeper143 i said "GOOD car", not first car 😂

[@alexdetrojan4534]

...still can't build good cars...and if we're talking about EV's, they have a problem with their cheap batteries catching fire...

[@stupidburp]

They can build good cars. They choose not to. Because it is a scam and bribery based economy.

[@joosiekawk]

it's also 175.7 MW (235,600 hp) , but we actually dont know the official numbers

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

US has 12, still struggles with commitments. Underscoring that one carrier, is about as usefull, as one shoe.

[@johnaikema1055]

never underestimate your potential opponents. foreign policy should take into account this new operation capability. reducing "heat" with China while still reducing China's influence should be our foreign policy push.

[@m.a3914]

Basically a smaller version of the US carriers. This is not a bad thing. China is still learning how to operate these sailing cities. No reason to jump directly on something more advanced, more expensive and would take longer to develop and built just to learn how to operate it. I have no doubts that 004 would be a similar size to the Nimitz/Ford

[@stupidburp]

They are limited by the dry docks available right now to about this size. But they also may choose to keep this size as a cost saving measure. This way they could afford to build more carriers as fast as they can build them. It also allows spreading out available assets over more vessels within the available production capacity limits. This creates more vessels for a more dispersed naval force that should be more tolerant of battle losses.

[@wzk921109]

Words are 003 is still a compromised design, the frame was designed for steam catapult system, however electric system became ready just prior production, it is decided to go with electric instead. However, deck layout is not changed, which limits landing/ airborne capacity. Also it’s mentioned the carrier is still a minor design improvement from Soviet designs rather than ground up modern design.

[@josephluscavage8162]

China is facing several challenges into and beyond the 2nd half of this decade. Projecting power beyond the first island chain has always been an elusive geopolitical goal. As globalization breaks down, they know that 80% of their energy is imported (and it passes the first island chain). As they see the world, they have a long supply chain coming out of the Persian Gulf. Any of the worlds blue water navies can stop that trade in the Indian Ocean basin, the Chinese are not dumb they know that and are trying to create a blue water capability of their own so they can project power out and protect their supply lines. Japan has a blue water navy, India (the first stop out of the Middle East) has 2 aircraft carriers currently in operation. Just those two countries have been none to happy with China in the past decade.

[@horridohobbies]

What does it matter if China "copies" military tech from other countries? The only important thing is the final outcome. Does China have effective military tech? It most certainly does. Is China capable of using this tech effectively to fight in combat? It most certainly is. It would be a grave mistake to underestimate China's military capability.

[@m.a3914]

We don't know that. We also thought that the Russians had powerful military but the reality turned out to be a little bit different

[@horridohobbies]

@@m.a3914 Russia has effectively defeated Ukraine. The West has already acknowledged this. You are behind in the news.

[@lealinglo8641]

I’ve been waiting for this kind of comment for a long time. At last I have found one.

[@rudyalfonsus686]

@@m.a3914 Russia is fighting the entire NATO and still advancing. That is the reality

[@m.a3914]

@@rudyalfonsus686 Yeah, I hear that argument a lot. In reality Russia is really fighting some spare, outdated equipment from NATO that's not even in large quantities

[@antoniohagopian213]

The usn cv cannot use 4 lunchers at the same time. It barely can use 2 at the same time. There isn't enough place to put all the planes under the deck so the catapult number doesn't affect the rate at which you can launch planes unless one of them is defective. If the Chinese decide to put as many planes as the hangar take+10 they could use the 3 cats at the same time. Kuznetsov puts all it's airwing under the deck when not in use since it has so much firepower even without the plane element for exemple. As for carriers, they are obsolete and have no use other then annoying and bombing kids that don't have a air defence. The most effective naval asset in the future will be battlecruisers that have both missiles, guns and armor. Think of a Stalingrad class battlecruiser with missiles instead of 40mm AA guns and a VLS system instead of the 3rd turret in the back. It would have immense firepower against ground targets with the front 6×305mm guns for much cheaper then cruise missiles and with a bigger capacity. And it would keep it's VLS missiles in case it needs to use them on another ship or a target outside the gun range. It would be the perfect attrition naval ship.

[@adamtedder1012]

Usn battleships with missiles and rail guns.

[@antoniohagopian213]

@@adamtedder1012 no it doesn't work like that. You need a brand new ship that is designed like that from the beginning. Transforming a old ship to be this kind of hybrid is not worth it when the hull is only scrap worthy. It will take as much time as making a new one but it has all the downsides and restrictions of the old design. It's also for that same reason I said battleCRUISER and not battleSHIP. Not as practical.

[@coderma430]

去看下中国的055万吨大型驱逐舰，拥有近100个垂直发射单元

[@peterchindove7146]

As we speak, China is advancing in telecoms and missiles. China is at the cutting edge of both. And indeed, may even lead in both. A carrier stocked with quantum comms and hypersonic missiles is formidable by any measure. We need diplomacy. But l think that some countries have become unaccustomed to diplomacy.

[@brianpreval5602]

could not do more than 10 knots, thick black smoke was seen coming from the stack and had to have a tug standing by, and still can't launch aircraft - another Chinese success!

[@rodrigoachabal2732]

Your moustache is looking great mate

[@lifefun1987]

005 could be nuclear. 004 is a bigger 003

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

The propulsion has been tendered with the code 004

[@verypleasantguy]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Rumor has it that the 003 is already equipped with a 'test' version of nuclear reactor Jiangnan was scheduled to set sail in 2023, and then they pulled back the date for more than one year in order to retrofit that 'test reactor' on board During the time Jiangnan was alongside the shipyard, a lot of things have transpired, including full powered test run, in which they torture tested the 'test reactor' in order to have more understanding of its potentials and limits

[@tildarusso]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech The max speed during the first trial was recorded 35 knots. Also If you pay attention to the tail trace you will realize something amazing.

[@lil__boi3027]

And what is this amazing thing?​@@tildarusso

[@YongLi-np3wg]

Type 004. Not number 004. The next ship of type 003 will have a haul number 019, sistership to the current one 018.

[@leisurefulmadrigal8187]

Steam turbine + electromagnetic catapult, center-mounted island + angled deck + internal elevator, this design is too confusing

[@petrosros]

Modern planes use an alloy of Aluminium called duralumin, Titanium for joints and composites mostly carbon fibre, all knuckle and moving joints are usually Titanium. Alluminium stress hardens and fractures far too easily.

[@MarkVrem]

needs more drunk Yunnan elephants

[@hermanmoore3301]

Excellent video - Nice to see something Positive about Chinese achievements in last few years. Great that China is spending its money on producing World Class [Even Better] Space Station and general Products. China has taken Western Products and made tenfold improvements on it.

[@garynew9637]

China has the same advantage that russia has, a government controlled production line without the us of asholes wasteful MIC.

[@richardmartin8998]

I'm actually surprised that the 2 ex-Soviet era Kiev class carriers (now hotels/theme parks) in China weren't pressed into service by the PLA-N and then get refitted like the Indians did. They could have served as test beds and training carriers, allowing Liaoning to be used in the fleet role.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I'm not surprised at all. Easy. Think of the catapult discussion in the video. Want to spend time and resources on a technology that's outdated? They probably did make some analysis and then concluded it wasn't worth it.

[@B5669]

Because the final goal is to match US navy, the Soviet strategic is not proper for counter US navy, as you know Soviet was kind of abandoned blue water navy( at least for the purpose of counter US navy) and they were lack of money and time in that time(late 80s), but we have both now, however we have a lot to learn from Soviet navy, actually Soviet had some great creativity and technology.

[@B5669]

@@FrancisFjordCupolaYes, the goal is nuclear powered catapult takeoff vehicle, like Nimitz class

[@richardmartin8998]

@FrancisFjordCupola you may be correct on the cost vs benefit front. However, the history of Chinese naval development since the 1980s has been to acquire a "test bed" class of 1-4 ships to integrate new technology before doing a subsequent class of many vessels to embed the capabilities. The Han SSN, Xia SSBN, Luhu, Luhai and Luyang classes all are examples. They also did foreign acquisitions of Kilo SSKs, Sovremenny DDGs (Soviet era as well), Flankers, and Kamov helos, so again a Kiev conversion program wouldn't have been a surprise. I suspect the reasons it didn't occur could have been both cost, perceived complexity, and most likely political competition inside their military system.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

​@@richardmartin8998 Kiev was inadequate even as a training ship for helicopter operation. They can train onboard it's Amphibious ships .

[@kwonekstrom2138]

A good analysis. While I don’t believe that China will become superior the US Navy, I understand that their A2AD policy is focused elsewhere. A quick look at China’s economy and the maritime trade routes that supply them can provide much insight on their fleet composition. While they are producing more blue water ships, there isn’t a major increase in blue water support. Anyone preparing to fight against the US would be developing that capability.

[@YongLi-np3wg]

They are making their economy less dependent on sea routes.

[@kwonekstrom2138]

@@YongLi-np3wg Yeah… Given the geography, that’s not as helpful as you’d think. Except for former soviet states, China doesn’t share a land border with major trade partners. Those over land routes would be close to hostile nations and have required a substantial investment to construct and maintain. The belt and road initiative is very useful for trade, but would become an expensive pile of rubble in a war.

[@henli-rw5dw]

Correct, they are looking to dominate regional water and control local sea lane. The war, if it happens will be in their backyard.

[@dzonikg]

@@kwonekstrom2138 in case off nuclear war international trade is last what you would had in mind .Also China holds 58% off all world commercial ship building ,in USA now commercial ship building is almost no existing, its all just military ,China if it want could easily pop up production off military ships

[@kwonekstrom2138]

@@dzonikg We’re talking about China here, not Russia. Hyperbole is a rather weak argument. Yes, many nations have nuclear weapons. China’s official policy is nuclear response, as is the US and all nuclear equipped allies. Logistics are very important for all other forms of warfare.

[@lmn6335]

Haha, I love the way your tongue sticks together when you post "Gangnam", it's not easy to analyze a new weapon without much data, well done