Fujian Type 003: China's Incredible First Aircraft Carrier

[@megaprojects9649]

Head to www.squarespace.com/megaprojects to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code MEGAPROJECTS

[@jamesleate]

The deck of the Chinese carrier broke in half and collapsed. Don't believe anything you hear about Chinese engineering, it is all propaganda. They even paint brown countryside green with big spray trucks to look better for publicity shots. RECAP: This carrier broke in half (the deck at least), I have seen the footage after the sea trial which China has suppressed. All their claims are fake, they just make cheap copies of current tech.

[@thomgizziz]

Trash creator is still trash. You just have a team and you are a content mill that puts out so much misinformation that you all should be prosecuted.

[@minutemanhomestead7214]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... deep breath BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... passes out.. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a joke

[@LordEmperorHyperion]

Bro, you're late the Chinese has launched their new NGAD 6th generation aircraft! I do wanna know your thoughts on it

[@jamesleate]

@@megaprojects9649 The deck split in half, it's a Tofu Dregg Aircraft carrier.

[@jwolf4948]

The Fujian does NOT stand toe to toe with the Gerald R. Ford class. Non-nuclear, half the aircraft holding capability, and lacking a true sea worthy fighter to launch from the deck are all set backs compared to the Ford class. Then add in the fact that they STILL can't figure out how to launch large numbers of sorties before the EMALS warps and needs to be replaced because the boiler system can't produce effective continuous power. It is a great leap forward and they are on the right track, but you don't get to go from re-vamping a 1980s cold war ship to on par with a superpower that has been building and innovating their designs for over 60 years. Also, CATOBAR is not "a launch system that uses electromagnetic catapults". CATOBAR stands for catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery. Any form of catapult such as the steam used on the Charles De Gaulle and Nimitz class still count.

[@pauldueffert2749]

He says that at 8:50.

[@normanmadden]

No doubt American carriers are "better", but so long as there is a fission reaction in their reactor, the reactor can be targeted. /this also includes the submarines too..... All because the US Navy decided to torture people, many US and UK people gave China naval knowledge.

[@Bob_Smith19]

@@normanmaddenThe entire ship is a big target that can be brought down by a single sub. The nuclear reactor doesn’t matter in the least.

[@alostkommando7420]

@@normanmadden this isnt warthunder bro. and that knowledge really hasnt seemed to have amounted to much. they couldnt even copy the f35 right and had to stick Su-27 derived designs in there to make do its plain as day

[@thomgizziz]

@@normanmadden wow you don't know what you are talking about.

[@jorgearmas9310]

Is there no mention of the battle group? A carrier without an effective battle group is extremely vulnerable regardless of how impressive it is.

[@NightPhoenix.Y]

Well the Chinese regularly train out in the Pacific with their battle groups, recently gad one with both Liaoning and Shandong

[@TheBinarygenius]

The battlegroup is in the post but there's some problems with the WishDotCon order so they are using some ships from the bottom of Russian cornflake packets

[@BTM666-t7r]

​@@NightPhoenix.Yeffective is the key word comrade. And they still can't go anywhere without a fleet of tug boats following close behind.

[@VaioletteWestover]

They have Type 055 which is arguably the strongest destroyer in the world right now. But yes, they regularly train with a full service group out in the open seas.

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

@@VaioletteWestover Lol arguably because unlike American destroyers it's not definitive right? You can argue anything but you can't deny that we're still decades ahead despite your best efforts to rip off our designs and tech.

[@doug3512]

The "latest in naval technology" doesn't include a diesel powered ship that maxes out at 30 knots.

[@Storm-zr5qw]

Regardless of not being nuclear powered what’s the problem? British and French carriers have pretty much the same speed

[@raw9973]

when it comes to huge ships be military or civilian 30 knots is already fast, what are you expecting? this ships will evade missiles?

[@cyrusharman1291]

Now everyone knows you don't know anything about carriers.

[@Topgun232]

The fact that it runs on diesel alone means it's a giant floating turd. The carrier has to either go back to shore often or be resupplied by support ships. In the event of a real conflict, all we'd have to do is cut off those resupply ships and the carrier becomes almost useless. The Gerald R Ford can hold up to 90 aircraft, but the Fujian can hold up to 50. I'm no math expert, but that sounds like it's not even comparable.

[@urbancraft2372]

They used the term super carrier very loosely in the description.

[@drudgenemo7030]

My understanding is its sustained sortie rate is one every 10 minutes And it can do around 10 before it has to wait to charge it's cats. That's a hard row to hoe for the Chinese pilots against the US Navy. And it's been detected that it's concrete flight deck has cracks in it, before it even deploys, based on satellite images

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@drudgenemo7030You realize that those "cracks" aren't actually cracks, right? The same thing has been said about every Chinese aircraft carrier during the deck washing phase.

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

To be honest. Running on Diesel doesn't make it a floating turd. Given that the US was doing just fine with similar diesel super carriers back in the 60s. Its lack of capable aircraft, untested designs, and lack of experienced crews and construction quality is whats going to hurt it.

[@drudgenemo7030]

@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent the weights of modern jets means using oil fired launch systems, steam or EMALS, means a very low sortie rate. That's one of the main reasons the US went nuclear

[@dhyde2025]

He said all this with a straight face. That’s the most impressive thing about this video.

[@a.m.9357]

Comments like this shows how terrified you guys are of your ongoing demise. Mocking is the first sign. But it's not going to help. 😅😅

[@keithmoore5306]

definitely shows old hair boy is mental!!!

[@keithmoore5306]

@@a.m.9357 take your meds the delusions are back!!

[@EvaExplores-x2x]

@@keithmoore5306 not sure who is the delusional here. Their 6th gen just came out today and a EM catapult 076 amphib was just launched too. Their shipbuilding dwarfs US capability that can't even churn out a frigate now.

[@pocketfox743]

Just to clarify, AUKUS is not an alliance, it is a strategic partnership.

[@edytha2090]

If France joins it will faukus

[@jaredray7034]

How would you clarify the difference?

[@markc6140]

Whatever, three warmongering Anglo-Saxon gang members, nothing unusual.

[@chengxin2928]

​@@jaredray7034 u just nailed it.

[@ElijahHull-z6z]

the alliance is called blood , Anglo-Saxon ,five eyes ,ANZUS,Commonwealth etc etc

[@mickdanger]

Let's not forget that their planes are so heavy that they can't take off with a full load of weapons.

[@keithmoore5306]

and have engines that think they're grenades!!

[@KinLee919]

note: fujian province is not only close to Taiwan, the taiwan island used to be part of fujian, and under the administration of fujian province. people from fujian and taiwan island share similar culture and language, many pro china taiwannese saw fujian as their ancestor land.

[@vernonkuhns3561]

It is not nuclear powered. Range and persistence will be severely limited in combat. Power for advanced weaponry such as radars, EW, lasers and other energy weapons in the near future is limited.

[@benvaun1330]

It's not designed to project power all over the world. It's designed to project power all over the China sea Micronesia and probably up to Alaska

[@Bramon83]

youre so silly

[@Aaron_Guest]

​@@benvaun1330 It's still farrr weaker.

[@vernonkuhns3561]

@@benvaun1330 Agreed. That conflicts with the glowing remarks of its advanced capabilities in the video. Of course, even there it will have to run the gauntlet of land based missiles and aircraft even if they sink all the opposing navies. With the US assisting in building up defensive and offensive missile systems in S. Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Phillipines, and Australia it had better stay close to home.

[@DivusMagus]

Don't forget it supposedly will have a EMALS catapult system. Powered by diesel. This is like trying to run a bullet train of a single solar panel.

[@darylb5564]

I have a greater fear of gas station sushi than a boat built by China

[@bcf56]

Probably insulated with asbestos 😂

[@abbeyhall4624]

[@navyreviewer]

Heeeey. You leave my rollergrill eggrolls alone. They're tasty, , and perfectly healthy. .

[@Dragons_Armory]

Im sure they'd love the west to keep thinking this way.

[@bricology]

@@itinnyi -- NOPE. We love the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese, and all other Asians *except* the country with the very worst track record in human rights, IP theft, and expansionist ambitions of the past 75 years; i.e., CHINA. Cope.

[@billbostabbins4262]

So it is the ship I was on 22 years ago..... The Temu Kitty Hawk.....

[@badcgi4624]

mr old head just because it looks the same doesn't equate to technological parity, you need to go back to the retirement home and take your pills

[@RadicalFloat_95]

​@@badcgi4624I actually genuinely agree with you

[@thomgizziz]

@@badcgi4624 That is a good point... so just because this chinese carrier looks the part doesn't mean it is actual any good and is very likely trash, right? China isn't sending their best shills and if they are I feel sorry for china.

[@rossh2386]

@@badcgi4624everything China has they stole from real countries

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

@@badcgi4624 "Mr Old Head" way to say you're not an English speaker, such a weird expression. Bruh trash is trash, the PRC built their carriers using tech they bought from the Russians and incomplete tech they stole from the US. Let's be real, you're probably state sponsored right? You guys come to our website, using our internet, on a computer using our windows, mac, or linux OS running an American or British processor (x86/arm) and you act like you're hot shit, well minus the hot you'd be right.

[@treyd3433]

This is thing is not nuclear powered. Also the US has 11 Nuclear powered supercarriers and has over 80 years of experience with carrier based naval aviation.

[@Ben_the_Ignorant]

You are guilty of sedition by means of facts and logic. 😁

[@maximillianmetscher7020]

Not to mention the US is a maritime power and always has been. Going back to the day of John Paul Jones. With some of the greatest naval advances come from the U.S. ironclads. Submarines. Nuclear power. Sub launched ICBM. To name a few.

[@smashsmash5866]

They also have more than 100 years of building cars and trucks. I would never buy american shitty cars and trucks because is overrated, overpriced and very unreliable with no resale value.

[@maximillianmetscher7020]

@ US cars still better than any car built in china. If you think US car suck. Then you must think china are true pieces of $h!t

[@andrean2247]

Is nuclear add damage?

[@jimmalatesta4504]

It will make a nice corral reef soon.

[@tyronebryant9147]

U.S. carriers would be nice feef too lol

[@paxhumana2015]

A corral is a livestock pen that is on a ranch, but a CORAL reef is in the ocean. Honestly, if you are going to say something like what you just said, then you should at least learn how to spell words right!

[@mr.hansholmes2367]

@@tyronebryant9147 After 30-40 yrs of service.

[@danielhenry177]

Converts to submersible easily

[@themaestro3034]

@@paxhumana2015 thanks Mr Pedantic

[@toddkorson6390]

Hey how did the Chinese first nuclear submarine work out?

[@joesheridan95]

If you mean the one that sank on the pier: That wasn´t the first nuclear submarine they build. They already build multiple classes of Nuke Subs. They are basically transitioning on a comparable speed to the US and Russia back when nuclear power became a thing.

[@chrisstratton4569]

What's the over/under on time to first breakdown?

[@roberteytchison556]

Already did. On initial test run or close to it, it had to be towed back to port

[@recondax]

​@@roberteytchison556 Just like it's sister ships. Part of the Chinese carrier group is a tug boat to get it back to the docks.

[@DaveG7920]

They all break down and need maintenance, that's why the US has so many.

[@willythemailboy2]

@@DaveG7920 Not quite. The US does maintenance to prevent breakdowns. That's why each carrier spends roughly a third of its time in dock for maintenance and upgrades, a third of its time in training, and a third in operational deployments. Even if the Chinese tofu dregs carrier was of the same quality as US carries, they can't expect it to spend more than a third of its time in a usable condition.

[@danielh4032]

Packed with cutting edge [US] technology

[@danielch6662]

Yes other Daniel. The US does the R&D, and then China manufactures and uses them.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jackvos8047]

Last time I was this early people thought Ice would make a good aircraft carrier.

[@trailblazer632]

Ice? No. Pykrete? Absolutely 😂

[@jamesleatherwood5125]

Damn. .. Ice Burn!

[@wiphosphophyllite]

Just finished my type 03 donut today.

[@nubitynub1757]

So its basically... 40 years behind current US carrier technology? Almost equivalent to a Kitty Hawk?

[@itinnyi]

Where was China 40 years ago?

[@danielch6662]

003 is far better and bigger than the Kitty Hawk. But yes. Unfortunately, what you're overlooking is their speed. The US took 60 years to get to the Kitty Hawk. China has moved further in 20 years. To be unconcerned is just blithe reckless complacency. It may take China 20 more years to just catch up with the Ford-class, but unfortunately, the US plans to be building Ford-class carriers for the next 40 years. Considering the state of the US shipbuilding and manufacturing industries, I worry that the US does not actually have the capability to stay ahead. The US GDP looks bigger, but in reality is far too reliant on the FIRE economy and other such useless stuff that don't actually produce anything other than paper profits. We are selling burgers to ourselves for overinflated prices, adding steps to obscure that fact, and then calling the economy a success.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@loyalbeaver9402]

Kitty Hawk used Electronic catapult system and equipped with active phased array radar?? WOW. And how many decades the Royal Navy is behind the US technology I wonder in your estimate, given the Royal Navy only has ski-jump carriers?

[@PapaG603]

Temu Kitty Hawk

[@SpentAmbitionDrain]

China has a history of making things that look like a thing you might like but end up breaking on first use. I've seen some videos that suggest this carrier is more of that.

[@thomgizziz]

Dude if this was an oil tanker playing dress up you'd still have people pretending it is anything but just to get those views and the chinese shills would be all over the comments.

[@VaioletteWestover]

Like the Great Wall, North South Canal, or the Forbidden City?

[@smashsmash5866]

If that was the case, washington would not be shitting their pants every time China come up with something new.

[@danielch6662]

@@thomgizziz You've not considered WHY China is spending so much money building all their carriers. You're locked into thinking like an American admiral. _How would I use these? I have 3 carriers, with 2 more coming. And all of them are ... different ... Why?_ China is not the US. They're not using their ships the same way the US would.

[@LITTLEgiiant]

Bros been watching too much China observer 😭🙏

[@kurt6840]

Top speed is 35 knots when towed. The Chinese haven't yet been able to steal all of the technology for their carrier design so it's basically a work in progress. Soon after the carrier was launched, the planes were loaded onto the deck with a crane.

[@GIN.356.A]

Its funny if you are just taking the piss, but its scary if you really believe that in 2024.

[@srg877]

@@GIN.356.A Made in China 😅

[@GIN.356.A]

@@srg877 idk where you are from, but American farmers are all using DJI drones for spraying. Teslas are made in China, and are noted to be the best build quality among the Giga factories. Chinese EVs have scored the highest safety ratings in Europe. All made in China. That's why I'm saying, it's funny if you are taking the piss against wumaos, but it's now a fact that China is building comparable I'd not superior products and platforms.

[@andrestein6022]

@@kurt6840 just like their sunken nuclear submarine they tried to cover up

[@thomgizziz]

@@GIN.356.A They only funny thing is how big of a shill you are and yet you think you are being sneaky.

[@SubjectiveFunny]

1 carrier does not challenge the US Military.. Please...

[@mnrrobinmoens1998]

any country with nuclear vehicles like ICBM's en MERV's can challenge any military. the US does not have a monopoly on apocalyptic nuclear weapons. i wish it was the case but it isn't.

[@SubjectiveFunny]

@@mnrrobinmoens1998 Then that is a mute point, so why ever bother brining it up? On every other metric, America is so far ahead is is not even a competition. Yet they still built an aircraft carrier.. Weird..

[@Aaron_Guest]

It's not even nuclear powered.

[@mnrrobinmoens1998]

@@SubjectiveFunny sure, you would hope so when looking at the defense budget. there is no competition with nuclear powers in direct conflict. so no, the Chinese carrier doesn't challenge the US military but neither do the 11 carries from the US. i would argue nuclear capable submarines play a much bigger role and their the US does have the advantage. MAD makes it unlikely that the US and China would ever go in direct conflict.

[@mnrrobinmoens1998]

@@Aaron_Guest yeah, indeed a weird choice, they have the capability.

[@kennethclark1581]

8 months ago you said the British carriers were a waste of money but this Chinese one is now the best thing ever

[@hiroshi138]

Simon constantly simps for China and Ukraine. Are you new here?

[@urbancraft2372]

The writers make more money if China is right and the West is wrong. 😂

[@Strider91]

Because Chinas a maritime and military super power. The UK isn't. . .they arnt even a major economic player now, why waste money on a super carrier.

[@RampantFury925]

@@hiroshi138 What's wrong with Ukraine?

[@Boomkokogamez]

To be fair, he isn't wrong as UK goverment put up a proposal to mothball HMS Queen Elizabeth as cost-cutting measure and there are problems with the crewing due to small servicemembers.

[@michaelpipkin9942]

That future artificial Reef does look impressive............

[@unclebob540i3]

It will make one impressive reef.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@keithmoore5306]

@@SengpoSatbang and beijing has had 3 subs sink at the dock this year!!! one was a missile boat!!!

[@SengpoSatbang]

@@keithmoore5306 Wow you are so upset with that huh?🤣🤣 I was actually giving the US Navy a (genuine) praise.... good shot! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@keithmoore5306]

@@SengpoSatbang not what it sounded like! it came across as one of Xi's propaganda stooges yacking just to yack!

[@busboy262]

Wow. That was HEAPS of benefit of the doubt. If the CCP said that the carrier itself could also fly, would you list that in your list of technological marvels?

[@thomgizziz]

Yes because he has already done nonsense approaching that. This dude is a part of a content farm with half a dozen channels and just reads teleprompters with stuff written by AI and gone over by his team. It is one big click bait misinformation farm and this dude is just an NPC.

[@HailAzathoth]

Better title would be Chinas New Temu Aircraft Carrier lol

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@danielch6662]

Talk smack about Temu all you want, but can you actually build a company to compete with Temu?

[@adam68756]

so many cheap usa bots

[@DivusMagus]

This ship supportively has a catapult system...on a diesel powered ship. There is no other nation that has such a system on a diesel powered ship. And with good reason. The amount of fuel to either charge a Electric catapult or to make steam for a steam catapult would be immense and slow. An American Nimitz ship can launch 2 planes a minute with this steam catapult system. This ship would be lucky if it can launch 2 an hour.

[@voidtempering8700]

Do you understand how EMALs work? You only need to meet the necessary energy requirements, it doesn't matter what powerplant you use as long as you produce enough power.

[@DivusMagus]

@voidtempering8700 that's the issue a diseal engine will always put it much less energy than a nuclear engine is a similar size not to mention their limited capacity. Ever use of the catapult that's fuel and a lot of it. It's unrealistic for combat operations. It's like if every time a tank fired it lost fuel no one would want it.

[@fordcolin951]

I would beg the difference I was on s fat pig that was diesel an steam catapult the Forrestal class

[@fordcolin951]

Uss Forestall, Uss Independence Uss America ,Uss Ranger

[@DivusMagus]

@fordcolin951 oh my bad I thought this was supposed to be competing with modern aircraft carriers not ones built in the 50s/60s. Those still had limitations but were top of the class in their days. They launched much slower and used steam catapults which they already produced steam so it acted as a battery for the catapults. An EMALS requires a lot of energy to recharge quickly so either you are stealing that from other systems while burning tons of fuel or you need to charge batteries slowly and use that energy. But I can imagine they have gigawatt capacity batteries on board.

[@charlesbryson7443]

One thing China lacks, is experience.

[@JustSumGuy01]

And technology

[@onetwothreefour-s1n]

Imagine not being great at war being a negative? Good lord we Americans are morons.

[@onetwothreefour-s1n]

@@charlesbryson7443 the last time the usa battled a country with a real navy or air force was WW2. We've had special Olympians make up our armed forces for 30 years now. I wouldn't be so cocky, old guys.

[@michaelccozens]

@@onetwothreefour-s1n You mean the US armed forces that have spent the last 25 years fighting America's longest wars?

[@onetwothreefour-s1n]

@michaelccozens yes, the embarrassing ones against countries with no militaries, just dudes living in caves. And we lost Afghanistan. And Korea, and Vietnam. Enemy Dudes didn't even have shoes or uniforms or food or training and we got crushed in Vietnam.

[@thePretendgineer]

This video comes across as a borderline love letter to the chinese navy. The Type 003 is a paper tiger. Technologically, it sounds awesome. What they straight up don't have is things like pilots with carrier training, pilots capable of training carrier operations, experienced deck crew, experienced officers, the ability to train ANY of those things, a working catapult, aircraft capable of catapult and capture, literally a single bit of the support needed for a carrier, etc. You can't just build a carrier and claim to be a threat. China's carrier is 10 years from being a threat to anywhere farther than Japan.

[@benz9063]

A threat to Japan? Laughs in the 2nd best submarine force on the planet.

[@protorhinocerator142]

Even if they had all those things and all that experience (they never will) there's another major problem here they can't overcome. The US military is designed so that people make major decisions at the lowest level possible. This allows for amazing and dynamic pivots in the heat of battle. Especially lacking on their end (and as we've seen with Russia) is an experienced NCO corps. An NCO will step up and take charge and perform some amazing achievements in battle. America was built by rebels. The concept was, we're going to do things the right way and everyone else in the world is wrong. Americans are independent. Our first founding document was the Declaration of Independence. It's right there in the title. With all communications down, and with limited awareness of the battle conditions, the American military will still fight. They will make shrewd guesses as to what they should attack and find targets worth attacking. Once communication is restored and they can coordinate properly, it's a whole nother level. The American military is fearsome in a coordinated attack. We make Blitzkrieg look like a tickle fight. Their military is modeled after that of Russia. The King (President, Premier, whatever) makes all the real decisions and the people below follow like lemmings. It's a lousy way to fight a war. The officers and enlisted become little more than "meat waves" who might slow down the enemy. No amount of technology will overcome this fundamental obstacle.

[@jaredray7034]

@@protorhinocerator142 I think you underestimate just how micromanaging Washington can be. Don’t forget Vietnam or Benghazi.

[@danielch6662]

You're confused. WE are claiming they are a threat. THEY aren't actually threatening anybody. Yet. Got to train those pilots and sailors first. It's gonna take a couple of decades. So long as they're still experimenting and making prototype carriers one by one, each different from the previous, we have nothing to worry about. Once they've settled on a design and start churning them out, then ... I'm not sure what we could do. Can't outbuild them.

[@shinre]

@@danielch6662 They're threatening Taiwan with every move they make. The very name was meant as a threat, being that it is named for the coastal region directly across from Taiwan.

[@kiwishamoo6494]

😂😂🤣😂🤣

[@danielch6662]

That's the thing ain't it. The SCS is next door to China, but nowhere near the US. What's the crew gonna eat? It's far far easier for China to place subs under the ocean at their own door step. The subs don't have far to go to get to their station, they can be easily resupplied and their crew swapped. Or imagine a string of unmanned stations, controlled remotely by undersea cable.

[@stevehayes2922]

Not sure I would use "incredible" to describe the Fuijan 003. I think "copy cat" would be more appropriate.

[@bloodyirishman9155]

And we talking Multiplicity levels of genetic degredation at that.

[@VaioletteWestover]

The Fujian's catapults actually work. The U.S.' catapult is down for 9 months per year. The U.S. wishes China copied their design.

[@Kinkedorpheus74]

​@@VaioletteWestover hahaha Chinese bot

[@danielch6662]

Steve, it is incredible. This was a country that had zero carriers just 20 years ago. And now, they've already clearly overtaken the Italians, British, and French. Only the Americans are still ahead. I think it inevitable that China is going to overtake the US. Every Chinese carrier has been a prototype. While they are quickly iterating and making each carriers better, the US is on this plan to build 10 Ford-class carriers, at a rate of about 5 years per ship, with the last one being finished around 2065. That's 40 years away. The ships would be old obsolete tech before they even plop into the water. The state of the American shipbuilding industry is really awful. You can talk about copying all you want, but it's a good cheap way to catch up when you're behind. Only fools don't copy if they can.

[@jasonhanson6563]

Try not to underestimate those that seek your destruction.

[@alexwilliams9900]

I think we can all agree a us nuclear sub have been flowing it undetected for months

[@Writer-Two]

"following it"

[@TheSMR1969]

Cope

[@jeffsenecal4168]

Naw , it's not nuclear, it needs support ships to stay out at sea, relatively easy to track. This ship is meant for the China Sea.

[@danielch6662]

Alex, it's trivially easy to get rid of that sub. Just go sail around the continental shelf of the East China Sea near Shanghai. Most of the East China Sea is less than 200m deep. Just go very fast in the parts around 100-150m deep. The sub would just give up. Nuclear subs cannot crawl along on the ocean floor. They don't have feet. To avoid running aground, they have to be quite a bit from the bottom. Especially if the ocean floor isn't flat. But if they go too high, especially in day time, especially if moving fast, especially if following a carrier, they'd be seen. Why are we tracking carriers with subs anyway? Are we still in the 1980s? Use satellites. No carrier can outrun all those satellites in the sky.

[@danielch6662]

​@@jeffsenecal4168 It is trivially easy to track every carrier with satellite. First, there isn't that many carriers in existence in the world today. A couple of satellites working together, can probably track hundreds if not thousands of ships 24/7 wherever they go. It's not like there's a shopping mall parking lot they can duck under to loose the all seeing eyes in the sky. Ships are big and easily seen, and have nowhere to hide. And they are really, really, really slow. You could go take a super long 15m cig break, come back, and the ship is still roughly where it was when you left it. Granted, it is almost impossible to find any random ship by satellite in the wide oceans of the planet. But only the most incompetent people can't keep track of them. The trick is to keep track of them all the time from a given known position (like in port), rather than to only look for them in a blind panic when you need find them. There is just too much ocean, and identifying the hundreds of thousands of ships from overhead is near impossible. China already probably have several redundant teams tracking all US carriers and ships down to destroyer size, and the US does the same for everybody else on the planet.

[@xraysteve]

Four words come to mind. Paper tiger and tofu dreg.

[@dallysinghson5569]

It's all fun and games until you find that some of those paper tigers aren't made of paper anymore...

[@andrewdillon7837]

It already broke down, catapult don't go,,engines,,,the whole thing is tofu, and stolen tech..

[@andrestein6022]

​@dallysinghson5569 they still absolutely are lol. Stop watching CCP propaganda. There's a reason their new fighter jet just got proven a garbage imitation of the f-35

[@jeffhatmaker817]

With the exception of Desert Storm, the USA hasn't won a war since WWII. Who's the paper tiger?

[@andrestein6022]

@@jeffhatmaker817 Chyna. Chyna is

[@mikesgarage394]

Looks like the China see will be getting a fancy reef.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@ElijahHull-z6z]

Cant wait to see this reef i might go spearfishing on it catch me sum reds

[@SengpoSatbang]

@@ElijahHull-z6z If the Chinese Navy wants a tip on how to shoot its own fighter jets, it will get in touch with the US Navy.. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 In the meantime, look up and see the wonder of Chinese Tian Gong space station. That beast was put out without a single accident and will last many decades. You can go back and cry to your mama now.. Looser 🤣🤣🤣

[@johnandrewmayne]

So they have 1 carrier , essentially. 10 more to go to rival the US

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@nbamaziokereke8228]

@@SengpoSatbangwumao army we know you

[@shinre]

@@SengpoSatbang Hey how did the Chinese first nuclear submarine work out?

[@SengpoSatbang]

@@shinre Very good.. Thanks for asking.. And "if" we want to learn to shoot our own jet fighter, we'll come and ask you. But don't hold your breath bud 🤣🤣🤣

[@SengpoSatbang]

@@nbamaziokereke8228 Wow.. the anger 🤣🤣 When the Chinese navy want to shoot their own fighter jet, they'll give you a call 🙂🤣

[@Chuck-up7vn]

There's a reason it called 003 for the three major problems problem 1 the Catapult is not dependable problem 2 lack of range and problem number 3 and it's a biggie the material they building it out of is sub quality that has already been reported to have stress cracks under its own weight

[@danielch6662]

And the next one is 004, and you already know it is going to have 4 problems? That's an interesting take. 🤣

[@DaveG7920]

Thank you for your insight, it's rare to have a Chinese ship builder comment on KZbin. You have been involved with it's construction right.

[@willythemailboy2]

Don't make fun of it, they managed to make an aircraft carrier that is no more than 30% tofu by weight.

[@cyrusharman1291]

The biggest problem with this ship is that you weren't invited to be the chief engineer, unfortunately your intellect isn't up to scratch

[@JohnCraig-y6f]

There is one teeny, tiny problem with this vessel. It has to work! The Soviets thought they could do too! Admiral Kuznetzov anyone? 😇

[@Wisconsin_Local_139_Crane_Guy]

Nice!!!

[@randytaylor1258]

The Chinese don't have to battle Arctic ice to protect home base. And the Russians have to have a range if thousands of kilometers just to patrol the home borders. The Chinese seem to think that all they need do is fill up at the local Exxon.

[@LITTLEgiiant]

Their carriers are doing better than the Russians so....

[@danielch6662]

There's nothing wrong with the Kuznetzov design itself. They're just not spending enough on maintenance. We've seen this with 001. Works just fine. It's like Thailand buying a carrier, and then discovering that they have no money for an actual air wing. How long can a country operate an aircraft carrier with no planes on it? Several decades it would seem. Don't see the point though. China may have a severe lack of experienced personnel to run their carriers. But whatever other problems they have, the lack of funds is not one of it. And besides, imagine you're China. Are you going to complain about the lack of experienced sailors and pilots? Or do you just go grab a couple of carriers and start GAINING those experience?

[@jaredray7034]

In fairness, the PLAN doesn’t need to cross the Pacific to fight the US. The USN will come to them.

[@jaybee9269]

I haven’t seen them launch an aircraft off that thing yet.

[@spadeespada9432]

Yay the Commies got a big boat. Congrats. But what they don't don't got is... 1. 90 years of carrier experience. 2. Unlimited Range. 3. A Network of allies. 4. Naval officers w successful combat experience. 5. They also don't have the carrier protection fleet.

[@joesephstylin1577]

1. Absolutely true 2. US Carriers don't have unlimited range, the Aircraft need fuel as do the sailors supplies. The escort fleet and rest of the CSG are conventionally powered too and need fuel. Does being nuclear fueled mean a range advantage? Yes, but Chinese carrier doctrine is to stay close to China, which means they most likely don't value nuclear range as it won't matter. 3. Not much relevance in the context of a CSG. British Type 45s can hardly replace an Arleigh burke in a CSG 4. Absolutely true 5. They do have a top tier carrier protection fleet. Their type 52D Destroyers are comparable to Flight II ABs, and their Type 55s currently outclass the Ticonderogas and Type 3 ABs in everything but radar quality. But the Type 55's power needs are met unlike ABs so their radars have more availability. They also have large numbers of these escort ships. In terms of attack subs, Chinese ones are a generation behind, but in terms of fleet protection that's not a bottleneck. What China has that we don't is ship manufacturing capability, their shipyards represent over 40% of global ship building, ours less than 1%. At this rate, in the time it takes us to build one carrier, they will have completed 6. Remember that during the initial years of WWII Japan had more CVs and much more experienced pilots and sailors, but the US won from technology and sheer manufacturing capability. By the time we started taking pacific islands, all the experienced Japanese sailors and pilots were dead or wounded, by then our troops had more experience. All this because we cloud print Essexes and Bouges like nothing while the Japanese were struggling to cobble together one carrier. What Simon's writer overlooked and stated falsely is that the Fujian is around the same price as the GRF, the Fujian is not nuclear, and if the Chinese can build a Type 55 for 1/3 the price of an Alleigh Burke Flight III then they sure as hell aren't paying 10B USD for the Fujian.

[@recondax]

​@@joesephstylin1577 On your reply for #2, not exactly true. There are resupply ships that can resupply the entire carrier task force group. Any thing beyond that can be brought in by the Greyhound or Osprey.

[@jaredray7034]

America thought it was superior to the IJN even after Pearl Harbor. We must not let arrogance be our downfall.

[@Rowdmi341]

It's going to make a very nice reef

[@user-hk9ny7qk9u]

Fuj -Simon is what it should be called.

[@hiroshi138]

How you list the similarities of the onboard tech for this carrier and the U.S. Navy's without a hint of irony 🤌

[@danielch6662]

Are you also surprised that Chinese EVs also tend to have 4 round wheels, just like American ones?

[@MysteryInc01]

This is a statement, in what world. How is this even comparatively close to the US carriers. Its just like comparing the J-20 with the F-22 or F-35. Didn't expect this from Simon.

[@trailblazer632]

China has an extremely limited blue water navy. The us navy out classes the chinese military in every aspect. The us navy is nearly 3 times the tonnage of china. 😂

[@andrean2247]

What is this? Pillow fight? Smacking others with tonnage?

[@recondax]

​​@@andrean2247 The Chinese do have larger count of ships but when you compare the overall tonnage, the US wins hands down. A bigger part of the weight is in the 11 carriers. Beyond that, US ships are built to take a beating and survive. Can not say the same for China.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@trailblazer632]

@@SengpoSatbang it also shot down a satellite. Twice. From ships.

[@jaredray7034]

You’re forgetting that the USN has its fleet spread out over every ocean on the planet. China can muster its entire navy in its own backyard (which is where they will need it).

[@tonysu8860]

Welk, the Fujian isn't China's furst domestically built carruer. But is the first indigenously designed carrier The Shanding was the first 100% domestically built carrier based on a Russian design and tweaked

[@BravoCheesecake]

Incredible. So incredible it's never actually launched planes from its deck LMAO

[@andrestein6022]

@@BravoCheesecake so nice that the comments are correcting Simon's Harcore CCP kink. I hate when he goes full shill

[@mokulashi]

you really think China builds this thing just for a show? I mean come on , grow up

[@BravoCheesecake]

@@mokulashi Yes

[@whateves5369]

​@mokulashi yes. I have not seen their mock cities that replicate European cities like Paris. And no one lives there

[@RadicalFloat_95]

​@@mokulashiI actually genuinely agree with you

[@Kevin-x4p4y]

They couldn't even trap aircraft until a retired US Marine helped them out 2-years ago and who is now being extradited from Australia to US for trial xD

[@passthetunaporfavor]

After watching a few videos on carrier operations that have been sharpened by decades of deployment I have no doubt that the Chinese are in for a world of hurt just trying to operate a real aircraft carrier. Just watching flight operations and one realizes just how many individuals are choreographed into a dance to make safe operations possible. You don't learn this overnight but over decades of experience on what works and what does not.

[@danielch6662]

You are right. And you are also wrong. Nobody can gain experience by simply standing aside and NOT going in to get that experience. Everybody is new at some point. Today, they are noobs playing with very expensive shinny new toys. Give them 20 - 30 years, they wouldn't be noobs anymore.

[@boatymcboatface666]

Not CIWS! PDC'S! If you know, you know 😂

[@stc2828]

Imagine releasing this video, China release a new carrier and 2 6th gen fighters in hours 😂

[@robertschmidt9584]

I wonder where China got the idea for their catapults….?

[@recondax]

China got the idea from a Chinese research paper according to one report.

[@danielch6662]

From the US. The first catapults were used in the US over a hundred years ago. It isn't new tech. Some people are just sore that China didn't spend 80 years working through all the outdated steam catapults we no longer want to use, but instead jump straight to EM cats. This cut the lead the US had from a hundred years down to just a couple of years. China is still behind, but they're damned close.

[@JDs_RandomHandle]

As a prior engineer for the US Navy my work wasn't specific to the Ford (I worked on specific systems for the entire fleet and have been on over 50% of the ships the US Navy has). From my work I spoke with counterparts on other systems and the Ford had it's problems but they weren't as bad as the issues with the Fujian. The Fujian is not fast, it's not powerful, and it can't launch planes so it's just a great future contribution to the ocean floor.

[@danielch6662]

Come on. Are you a real engineer or a 13-year old kid? I would love to hear your engineering based reason why you think it can't launch planes. Is it because the testing hasn't reached that phase yet? Look at it like this. The 003's main task is not to go toe-to-toe against the USS Ford. It's to train Chinese sailors and pilots. Their biggest problem is they don't have enough experienced crew. And there's just no other way to gain experience. You need to operate carriers. And it takes time. Meanwhile, the 003 is also a test bed for their equipment and engineers. They will iterate and evolve their stuff to 004, to 005, and so on. The mere fact that they're not whacking out 10 copies of the same design tells us that they're not done with their R&D. They are working on their tech and training their crew at the same time. Do you think there is a better way?

[@FreeThePorgs]

Its not close to the ford class, not even close. More to a US Forrestal class, the processor to the nimitz class from the 1960’s. That doesn’t mean its not a threat however. A 30 year old weapon can still kill a 3 year old ship. When compared to the ford it would get its ass kicked, now the ford is still being developed itself and not fully combat ready.

[@jaredray7034]

Particularly when it’s backed up by dozens of destroyers, hundreds of land based aircraft, and hundreds more land based ASMs.

[@ejmproductions8198]

Nice clean lines on that ship

[@cA7up]

Lmfao c'mon Simon you buying that bull💩 😮😅

[@tenormdness]

Imagine how many plans and blueprints they had to steal to make this.

[@jaankuus3063]

Russians had an aircraft carrier near Ukraine. I hear that the drone that did the job didn't cost more than 10 000.

[@thomgizziz]

A drone didn't do anything to the carrier. We have enough chinese shills in here we don't need other shills.

[@jimstern4244]

Sounds like he’s a salesman trying to get a sales commission

[@jonbaker3728]

Based on their construction methods for building, I question if that ship will still be floating and functioning in 5 years. Tofu Dregg

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@danielch6662]

Careful there Jon. China is actually better at building ships than the US today. Not saying that will last forever. But right now, they are ahead. Why do you think half the biggest commercial ships in the world are being built over there today? It's not China's warships that are cracking and unable to go out to sea when the wind is blowing stronger than a breeze. After 3 consecutive failures, the USN had decided _we really need to replace those old destroyers and cruisers. We'll just buy an off-the-shelf design from Europe to fast track everything._ And then they managed to screw up even THAT !!! By tinkering with a known working design. 🤣 Go look for Sal's channel you YT. It's a complete 💩show. It'll be a hoot, if it were not so serious. Please do not fall for the CCP propaganda. The commies are smart and devious. All those "American patriots" proudly proclaiming the US is far ahead, China is not capable of doing anything. They aren't patriots. Or Americans. If they are such patriots, why are they telling us to be complacent and let China catch up?

[@toxico1152]

My freezer was unplugged right before leaving for the holidays. Got back and lost hundreds of dollars of meat. I’m broken right now

[@GolfBattleMastery]

It looks like an expensive paperweight to me.

[@SpangGaming]

I believe you mean an expensive coral reef

[@billwhitis9997]

The Fujian is a sitting duck.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@danielch6662]

All carriers are. But the original Fujian also is. Being land, it can't move. And there's so many missiles aimed at it from the island.

[@criminalfailures2977]

Congrats they finally found enough of our trash to make a carrier

[@JustSumGuy01]

Pretty much

[@DeaconBlu]

Lol! Right?! 😆😆

[@DarkKatzy013]

yup and simon is saying its something other than floating trash lol !!!

[@LITTLEgiiant]

Hilarious but maybe it's time to stop living under a rock no?

[@ignitionfrn2223]

0:50 - Chapter 1 - Fujian type 003 2:30 - Mid roll ads 4:05 - Chapter 2 - Groundbreaking technology 7:25 - Chapter 3 - Toe to toe 9:15 - Chapter 4 - The role of the fujian in china's military strategy 10:55 - Chapter 5 - Challenges & limitations 12:40 - Chapter 6 - Global naval dynamics

[@putuharris]

tofu dreg trizzash

[@Linkwii64]

One day there will be a drone carrier. Just imagine launching a swarm of drones anywhere in the world.

[@randytaylor1258]

The USN are already using unmanned drones for refueling. Unmanned attack aircraft can't be far behind in view of the cost of training pilots -- >$1 million -- and the physical limitations of the human body --

[@danielch6662]

And that day is here. The 076 just launched. I'd previously thought they still had several months to go.

[@joem0088]

The fact that Chinese has all the power train, inclduing propelling, and generation engines for such a vessels is amazing. That it's builds all its own air wing and air-defense missiles on the carrier is even more of a statement.

[@Daginni1]

Tofu Aircraft Carrier.

[@chriskola3822]

The impressive/troubling thing is that they can probably knock out another 20 of them in the time it would take other countries to create two.

[@speedingoffence]

That's true. Would you rather 1 US Supercarrier or 10 of these? I'm not sure I have an answer to that.

[@mattywanders]

This thing is a gigantic piece of floating crap. You ever seen anything made in China that was better than its western analogue? Sleep easy friends.

[@wh0_am_152]

Let's see how it handles combat. Carrier design is paved in bllod and flames, were they able to actually construct a ship that can handle the rigors of combat and accidents or is this a ship that shares the fate of the IJN Taiho.

[@martinstallard2742]

0:46 fuojam type 003 4:02 groundbreaking technology 7:25 toe to toe 9:10 the role of the fujian in China's military strategy 10:53 challenges and limitations 12:39 global naval dynamics

[@vernonkuhns3561]

...for China.

[@RadicalFloat_95]

You actually dropped this king 👑

[@giff74]

The Fujian may be a substantial front line carrier. However, the US has 5 carriers... just in the Pacific

[@toki_-_wartooth]

is it made in the style of the tofu dreg style of architecture?

[@JosephHolness-u2m]

A Submariner's DREAM! 😂

[@patricioiasielski8816]

Would it float or sink like their latest sub?

[@Wisconsin_Local_139_Crane_Guy]

Fo sho!!!!

[@danielch6662]

Subs sink. That's normal. Subs that can't sink, that's a whole different can of worms. Ask Malaysia about THAT problem.

[@echomande4395]

Personally I consider Fujian either a proof of concept (or several) or at best a prototype. I would consider it more the general equivalent of a Forrestal or even enlarged Midway rather than something that could go toe to toe with a Nimitz or Ford. The EMALS and the (presumably) electric propulsion system are likely only some of the things being tested and in due course EM, laser and railgun weaponry might also find their way onto this ship before spreading more widely in the PLAN, assuming that the PRC survives that long. My assumption is that Fujian is conventional powered only because the PRC is currently incapable of designing, building and operating a naval reactor powerful and dependable enough for them to install in it.

[@danielch6662]

Too many new techs all at once increases the risks to such an unacceptable level, the entire project could fail. Just ask the USN about it. The inclusion of the EM cat into the 003 instead of delaying it until the 004, that decision itself was already an enormous risk. This is only their 3rd carrier. Twenty years ago, they had nothing.

[@DZsky]

More like barely credible aircraft holder.

[@alexneff]

* flips it over * ... yup made in china

[@urbancraft2372]

I think their ships flip over all on their own... They call that "automation" 😂

[@richiesilva4077]

LMFAO😂😂😂

[@RoriArchives.]

You must be America or Australian

[@Frizzleman]

Love to see it

[@bloodyirishman9155]

This thing is a floating Temu ship; second rate and a broken laughing stock.

[@SengpoSatbang]

You are right, the US navy is incomparable. It even shot, not 1 but 2, its own F 18 That is a really superb navy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@bloodyirishman9155]

@SengpoSatbang I mean when you have both the 1st & 2nd largest air forces in the world you're going to have some random accidents by shear volume, but you keep thinking you're superior, lol.

[@SengpoSatbang]

@@bloodyirishman9155 "1st and 2nd largest airforce", "shear volume" Dude.. what school did you go to?🙂

[@notyouraveragegoldenpotato]

The fish are going to LOVE chinas new artificial reef program

[@TheUltimateOpportunist]

Looks similar to what the Americans were operating... in the 1960s.

[@badcgi4624]

em catapults in the 1960s? idk bro time travel hasn't been invented yet

[@TheUltimateOpportunist]

​@@badcgi4624 I'm not talking about those. It's just that the Nimitz class would make me more nervous if I saw it off my coast.

[@badcgi4624]

@@TheUltimateOpportunist don't judge a book by it's cover?

[@TheUltimateOpportunist]

@@badcgi4624 people shouldn't, but we all do sometimes. I'm not calling it a "paper tiger" like others, though 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@RadicalFloat_95]

​@@TheUltimateOpportunistthen why did you actually make that comment?

[@wenjunliu1663]

FYI, China has just lanched its first em catapult equipped landing carrier, type 076, and maiden flew two 6-gen fighters in two days back to back.

[@danielch6662]

The 076 is in the water already? I'd thought it'd be still under construction for a couple more months. I still doubt they few 6-gen fighters off it though. For one thing, they don't have any 6-gen fighter yet. Binkov just released a video about a possible candidate 6-gen fighter from Chengdu, but that one is so gigantic, it doesn't look like even the USS Ford is big enough to launch it, nevermind the 076.🤣

[@EAWanderer]

02:04 - Ooh nice! You dont see that kind of slick feature on any American carrier 😅 When its launched 04:20 - Nice

[@thomgizziz]

You mean EMALS? Which is already on US carriers and has been for a long time. The original version of it was made in the US in 1946. God you are a terrible shill, go away.

[@Jayjay-qe6um]

I'm not concerned with Type 003, its successor, the Type 004 it's what I'm concerned about, since its going to be powered by nuclear.

[@a.m.9357]

Exactly. These are their trials, their learning vessels. Without nukes they are cheap and easy to maintain. They will eventually sell these to other countries that will want to flex their military muscles i.e Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi, UAE, etc. It's the next version after this that will make the Ford class needing a nappy!

[@sydryi3086]

Literally everyone else who talks about China's military is always saying how bad it is, nice to have a video with an unbiased opinion.

[@ppp-ti1iz]

unbiased? every bit of information we get about this is baised

[@fathertimegaming17]

Why do you think the outlier is correct?

[@TinyBearTim]

People say it’s bad because it is . We don’t know anything about china or what it makes but most of it is worse than the western equivalent

[@beauvrt]

Yeah America's sleeping for sure

[@Daisy_human]

Its a mixed bag they are untested they clearly are technolicaly very advanced but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that when it comes to maintance coruption is the name of the game this may be changing after Xi Xing Ping removed severel key generals from the rocket core and similar for replacing fule with water and selling it on russia had a similar problem with its tanks as you may remeber

[@wikyWargaming]

Couple of well-placed torpedos from a stealth sub and there goes that problem.

[@joshandkorinna]

People dismissing China as incompetent and not a real threat are very foolish. Either that or they're coping. Never underestimate your enemy. China needs to be taken very seriously.

[@jaybee9269]

Indeed. But they do copy a lot. Like Islamic countries, they invent nothing.

[@danielch6662]

Or they are actual CCP bots. I mean, who else wants us to be complacent?

[@ntrgc89]

Besides holding up the range, the diesel fuel will also limit aircraft operations. The energy from the catapults needs to come from somewhere, obviously it's going to be the diesel generators. A nuclear ship also has a finite amount of energy at any given time, but at least you don't have to balance fuel reserves as part of your operational logistics calculations.

[@mirroredchaos]

"made in china"

[@urscreamin4it]

it's baffling to me that the US has been doing aircraft carriers for how many decades? The Chinese just started doing it maybe a decade ago and all of a sudden everyone is impressed. What is their weapons of war that have been proven in war? None. So why is this so impressive?

[@lamegame420]

Congrats, china. You got into the carrier game right at the end. About as obsolete as battleships anymore, and mostly just a symbol of military bloat of their respective country. Sure, big ships are scary, but little drones are as scary to big ships as mice are to elephants..

[@randytaylor1258]

Elephants' fear of mice is irrational. It's not as if mice have effectively developed nickear-tipped cruise missiles that have brought down elephants approaching water holes! There's nothing "force multiplier" about a well-armed mouse.

[@danielch6662]

I agree completely with you. But even so, if I was China, I would still have built these carriers and continued building them. The risk of being wrong (no matter how sure we are) are just too great to bet the entire country on. So, if only for insurance, China needed to build these carriers.

[@lamegame420]

@@randytaylor1258 there is nothing irrational about fearing a small rodent running up your 4ft snout. There is no irrational fear of a container ship with a cargo of half a million drones. I find the most irrational fear here is the big, slow moving behemoth, that has dedicated tracking satelites and needs a billion dollar a day escort to keep itself safe. Obsolete.

[@JH-zo5gk]

This is incredibly impressive seeing as how they cant make 2 tape measures that are the same

[@danielch6662]

I don't know man ... maybe they're just deliberately sending us tape measures that are all slightly off just to make our life difficult.

[@jaypusha5554]

Well, we cannot compare the costs of building a carrier in America and China, defence contractor corruption means the US government is often paying extremely inflated prices. 13 billion dollar carrier in America could cost 3 billion dollars in China where corruption is a lot less and consequences are severe.

[@jaybee9269]

“Corruption is less in China,” are you joking? China is known for its corruption.

[@trailblazer632]

😂😂😂 you think corruption in china is less than in the us?

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

It's not corruption actually we all know what's happening and accept it. We keep the defense industry fat so when it's needed it's able to ramp up.

[@jaypusha5554]

@@trailblazer632 yes it is, have you been living under a rock? Do your research.

[@trailblazer632]

@jaypusha5554 using chinese state media? Tell me how often has communist state media been reliable about corruption? Juat because corruption that doesnt pay the right bribes is punished doesn't mean there is less corruption you goof.

[@eineperson9849]

This feels like when you let AI write your essay: You get quick results that, at first, seem impressive, but in the end just aren't quite the same as the original. I wouldn't read too much into this. A step forward to be sure, but not a leap.

[@ArefRichardForster-mr2qj]

They can maybe start Airplanes but can they land on this ? I think not.

[@MikeBaxterABC]

6:05 ... It's often overlooked by the general population .. Nuclear Powered Aircraft carriers still need to be refuelled at least monthly in peace time, as all the airplanes need fuel AND, the crew is powered by canned beef and powdered potatoes .... they can only carry a linted supply.

[@recondax]

The one thing about the US Navy is its ships can be resupplied at sea; fuel, food, and munitions. China does not have capacity down yet.

[@danielch6662]

@@recondax No need to. They can just sail back to port. Seeing as they would likely be operating at most, only a couple hours away.

[@ciarand2823]

@00:57 entierly from scrap 😂

[@philiplee1980]

In order to have an effective carrier, you need 3. 1 in service, 1 in refit/repair and 1 ready to go. With only 1 main carrier it has limited use atm for operational readiness

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

From what I've seen in various reports, this new Chinese carrier is closer to the Forestall than to the G. Ford. Keep in mind that China is more interested in waters close to their shores.