USA vs China Aircraft Carriers | Balance Of Power | Insider

From the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford to the Chinese Fujian carrier, a high stakes race is underway between the US and China for aircraft carriers. We compare the two superpowers' fleets, their capabilities and missions.
MORE INSIDER VIDEOS:
How I Laundered Money For Pablo Escobar's Cartel | A DEA Agent's Uncut Story | How Crime Works
• How I Laundered Money ...
How The MS-13 Gang Actually Works | How Crime Works | Insider
• How The MS-13 Gang Act...
How I Trafficked $5 Million Worth Of Cocaine | Posh Pete's Uncut Story | How Crime Works
• How I Trafficked $5 Mi...
00:00 - Intro
00:26 - Carriers
02:06 - Technology
04:31 - Importance
05:28 - Background
06:03 - Future Plans
07:14 - Threats
08:15 - Balance Of Power
09:14 - Credits
------------------------------------------------------
#Aircraft #BalanceOfPower #Insider
Insider's mission is to inform and inspire.
Visit our homepage for the top stories of the day: www.insider.com/news
Insider News on Facebook: / insidernews
Insider News on Instagram: / insider
Insider News on Twitter: / insidernews
Insider News on Snapchat: / 5185974304
Insider News on TikTok: / insidernews
USA vs China Aircraft Carriers | Balance Of Power | Insider

[@tomte47]

Correction both are "Steam powered" the difference being that the Chinese carrier use oil burners to generate the steam while the U.S use a nuclear reactor. A nuclear reactor does not inherently give you more power, The U.S kitty hawk generated more power from it's oil burners then following Nimitz class did with nuclear reactors. The main benefit of Nuclear power is that you do not need to refuel the ship itself, you still need other supplies like jet fuel regularly but it does reduce the logistics burden which is especially important if you are an expeditionary navy fighting far from your home port. If he is talking about the catapults being steam powered then that is wrong, all the info points to the Fujian using EM catapults like the Ford. The Fujian being 2 generations behind is something most analysts would disagree on, on paper it checks all the boxes with modern GAN AESA radars, EM catapults etc. The lack of Nuclear power would be a major drawback if operated far from China, less so in the likely war scenarios over Taiwan or the south china sea. It is still to early to tell, the ship have not even started sea trials yet and the intended aircraft the J-35 is still in testing and it will be several years before the carrier is fully combat capable but on paper it looks like a modern capable carrier, time will tell how it works out in practice.

[@frank-ko6de]

You can talk all the nonsense that you want, but they have no nuclear power. And that's going to affect the effect of their logistics in actual conflict. All you're really talking about is your own projected theory that's clearly not a reality.

[@frank-ko6de]

​@EMEM71it's not. They have no such thing that's demonstrated any such thing. Keep dreaming, you deluded nonsense.

[@feiwang5306]

预计上4月23号进行第一次海试。现在甲板舰载机降落标识线已经划好，如果没有其他工作进行。大概是海军节试航❤。

[@CheekyMenace]

​@@feiwang5306 Are you even supposed to be here? Are you using a VPN?? Better watch you don't get caught and sent to a prison camp or have your social credit score tanked.

[@TelpPov]

@@CheekyMenace I know you are here for your daily propaganda feed so have at it

[@jimmysundberg2376]

US carrier force is a century in the making and maintaining. It went through multiple conflicts and experiences multiple accidents which valuable lessons were learned. A carrier is only as good as what its crew has in experienced.

[@kuanged]

Not in the age of A.I.

[@joet7136]

​@@kuangedNow you're deluding yourself. AI can only do so much. It can't man and run an aircraft carrier without an experienced crew.

[@kuanged]

@@joet7136 Manning and operating an aircraft carrier aren't an issue for any side. Missiles finding the enemy and hitting them are what required skill, and autonomous weapons systems are the great equalizer. You wait and see.

[@CulturalXplorer19]

No it hasn't lol... The modern US navy has never faced an opponent as capable as china. Not even remotely. Even Japan wasn't anywhere close in terms of technological capabilities compared to china. For example... Japan during world war, lacked intelligence capabilities. China on the other hand, has extremely advanced intelligence capabilities that could track US naval assets all over the Pacific and around the world. China's smart satellites have tracked US assets multiple times in real time, using artificial intelligence. Assets as small as a car too. So, this amount of advanced intelligence makes it pretty much impossible for the US navy to hide during war, and they make US naval assets vulnerable. And this is one example out of many. I could bring up many examples, like drone capabilities, electronic warfare, underwater warfare, etc China is highly capable. The US has never faced an enemy as capable as china. Not even close...

[@CulturalXplorer19]

After the conflict with Japan, the US navy has only "fought" against primitive militia that have no ability to actually defend themselves. Militias with no true capabilities whatsoever. Japan was the best the US navy faced, and Japan wasn't anywhere close to the current china in capabilities. Not even remotely. So, a conflict with china would be unlike anything the United States has ever experienced. The so called "experience" would be nothing in a war with china because it would be completely different from anything else the United States has ever faced

[@SmokeyLaBear]

The United States has eleven aircraft carriers. All other navies have no more than three carriers. There's your balance of power - or lack thereof.

[@Compton3clipsed]

The best way I've seen it put is this way. There are 21 aircraft carriers in the world, the U.S. own 11 of them and all of the most advanced 11.

[@jetli740]

@@Compton3clipsed and exactly how many of those 11 Ac in commision? and deploy round the world.... 11 you mean 3-4 actual combat readiness

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@jetli740 US had like 5 aircraft carrier deployed last year at one time, USS Ford, USS Eisenhower, USS USS Ronald Reagan, and USS Theore Rosevelt. Plus USS Harry S Truman had just come of maintenance.

[@lagrangewei]

carrier don't rule the sea, submarine do. a single nuclear sub has enough firepower to wipeout not just a carier but it entire battlegroup. carriers are really what great power use to bully smaller countries now...

[@Gmlscf]

那只是现在而已，按目前速度，中国可以在20年内部署7艘新型航母，我们可是最近20年才开始发展航母的

[@1ycan-eu9ji]

This "expert" says that their catapults are steam powered? so he couldn't even be bothered to do research for more than 5 minutes? they use EM catapults.

[@vennsim71]

And can go into the finer details like it’s using DC based, and not AC based of what US is trying to get into service

[@danhairiheng8462]

有没有可能是故意的，因为中国的正面消息总会被屏蔽，或者，总会选择性报道。 结果就是错误的认知导致战争。 这一直以来我担心的事情， 因为看了很多西方新闻，接触了很多没来过中国的西方人，他们对中国的认知是让人担心的。 世界需要和平。

[@zxt5148]

@@danhairiheng8462 We have the capacity to find news about China. You don't have the capacity to find news about the US. You have a government selecting news for you. Chinas understanding of the west is worrying.

[@DunceCapSyndrome]

@@danhairiheng8462 A Communist, authoritarian regime like the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Chinese Communist Party shouldn't be held to the same regard that a relatively free nation is. We won't weld our citizens in their own apartments when crisis like Covid happens. Yes, America isn't perfect, but the difference between you and I is that I'm not afraid to reflect upon my nations imperfections. I can call my leader Winnie-the-Pooh or any other derogatory term. Our billionaires don't have to worry (Jack ma) about being locked into a little room with government officials for "naughty" words they've said outside of the public eye.

[@nashgas1285]

I learned a crucial lesson in history of warfare. It is to never underestimate your enemy. Carthage underestimated Rome's navy, Napoleon underestimated Russia, Hitler underestimated Ussr.

[@jakubstrumillo]

USSR were weak, and industry collapsed. Without western Land-Lease support, that includes not only tanks, planes, but also trucks, parts, rubber and roller bearings... Russia will be doomed. Napoleon didnt underestimate Russia, he didnt estimate right weather and supply lines.

[@vanderdik7185]

​@@jakubstrumillo of course it's always the weather! Oh thee great generals, always seem to be too dense to supply army properly, little rapscallions! Also isn't it miraculous how that already collapsed industry managed to outperform german one in military production in just a few years? Damn there had to be whole manufactures shipped to Russia by that USA lend lease. Funny how USA managed that with lend lease to USSR only being about 1/3 of lend-lease to Britain? Damn you polske guys are marvelous historians, great analysis here Jacub dude

[@EbuzzNYC]

I believe that the PLA is underestimating Western forces, the US government does not underestimate China. At this point, is a matter of getting Americans to cut ties off with China, we are literally feeding the monster that wants to eat us for lunch. American corporations are still paying homage to Winnie the Xi, until that stops, we're not going to be able to succeed.

[@QASIMARA]

@@jakubstrumillo 👏🏻

[@badbadbadcat]

​@@jakubstrumillo 🤡

[@edwinpadilla856]

It’s is the carriers crew, and air squadrons personnel that makes a successful operational carrier/deployment. Case in point; I served on CV64 (constellation) during the iraq freedom deployment my F-18 squadron (vigilantes) took over other carriers squadrons missions due to aircraft breaking down, we pushed our aircraft to their limits, the constant maintenance kept them all flying, because our sister squadron and marine squadron F-18 were breaking down too, in addition one of the 3 carriers had boiler issues thus affecting its catapult system. CV64 was a diesel power carrier, it was smaller vs the nuclear carriers but it was the fastest, also held the most flight ups in NAVAL Records. The best lesson I learned in my 8 years in the U.S military forces, don’t underestimate adversaries capabilities, we might have better tech, and more advance systems, but over confidence is what affected aviators in Vietnam, thus resulting in the creation of SFTI.

[@jermainemyles1825]

Thank you well said,

[@feiwang5306]

中美需要合作而不是成为对手。

[@topgunablek]

Iraq freedom? First time to hear, well said👏🏻

[@arcanondrum6543]

Well, since Iraq adopted the dollar, Saddam didn't get to switch to Euros, that's "Mission Accomplished". Did you see what I just did there? As for Nam, who needs their Tin if there's more in Indonesia and who needs their Rubber either? AmIright Pol Pot? By the way is GM gonna supply the trucks for China like they did for us? I mean, their factories are there... Plenty more like them as well.

[@coconutboy8198]

thank you for your service

[@thefals9]

2:19 😮 is.... is that nuclear powered aircraft-carrier drifting like a street race?

[@NOJSIP]

Enjoyed it...thank you for your service

[@ILUVBAKKUA]

China didn't steal it but was given the steam catapult technology when the Aussies sold to them the Hmas Melbourne light aircraft carrier for scrap with everything on it removed except the catapault system arresting equipment and mirror landing not removed.

[@orbitalpotato9940]

And so what if China stole it? That just means their espionage branch is good enough to steal US military secrets. Having good espionage is invaluable during wartime.

[@0bsolete_fps773]

Blunder by the Australians there on many levels. Good thing you pointed this out too because this video is quite biased and doesn't go into detail.

[@derekreardon4427]

@@0bsolete_fps773 absolutely a blunder.. but also when china bought the scraped Carrier I’m sure we all weren’t aware of china’s true ambitions

[@0bsolete_fps773]

@@derekreardon4427 Yeah true

[@user-yj7zn9vb1n]

中国在窃取美国还不成熟的电磁弹射技术🤣

[@nainex52]

well someone forgot to mention that 20%+ increase in sortie rates for Ford carrier is theoretical. The US Navy itself reports lower sortie rates than the old Nimitz as the "modern" catapult is unreliable and breaks down often. The same issue applies to its new weapons elevator.

[@horridohobbies]

Yes, Sam Fellman neglected to tell us the whole truth. Such dishonesty.

[@russell7489]

Sad to hear but not surprised. Well steam catapults and arresting gear wasn't perfected first time out either. Took 2 generations of carriers.

[@KickdpPass]

Under estimated China’s Fujian carrier - not the concurrent equipment - go check the Diplomat magazine.

[@lengthao8424]

Because it's make in the US.........!!!!!!!!!!!

[@LaikaTheG]

Well the Chinese carriers are using the same system so something must be good about EMALs over steam. Steam catapaults weren’t perfect and required two generations of carriers to get to where it is now

[@conea6891]

Thanks a lot!

[@woozskee]

Seems like you can fit fewer planes with an upwards sloping runway

[@critterjon4061]

True the Fujin has a significantly smaller flight deck and still largely relies on the older system of a an angled flight deck to get it’s planes airborne due to the electromagnetic catapult only allowing led to be used in emergencies as it takes around 15-20 minutes to recharge after each use

[@geraldorford8836]

American aircraft carriers have 4 acres of flight deck space, very impressive!

[@datruth66392]

huge waste of money

[@baba-vh7hb]

u made it sounds so much smaller, only 4 acres?

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@datruth66392 It’s not

[@spartan7119]

​@@datruth66392 nope

[@AscendanceForprogress]

Two biggest trade patners tend out to be the two largest military adversaries. Irony in the world is intriguing.

[@SexyUndisputed2All]

Only America and the banks controlling them want a war with China

[@HKim0072]

The consequences of capitalism. Research the China WTO ascension. Had a few sane people, but money won out.

[@rickace132]

It's a love/hate relationshiop. The US hates China more though, I would say.

[@wuyou_]

很简单，两个最大的贸易伙伴如果不是对手，其中一个不强大的话，那会变成单方面的掠夺. 这种事情历史上发生过不止一次

[@zxt5148]

@@wuyou_ The US has been significantly more moral than most nations in history. We have no interest in plunder, contrary to what you've been told.

[@wenkexinzhang3714]

I found that some of the comments are more objective, informative and accurate.

[@dewayneblue1834]

Carrier operations are 90% of the game when it comes to the combat effectiveness of aircraft carriers. There's simply no subsitute for the experience that the U.S. has gained over the past century in that area.

[@jermainemyles1825]

I see then as sitting ducks 😂😂

[@Aamirmhmd99]

I get what you're saying but that kind of logic means that you're seriously underestimating Chinese naval capabilities. Even though experience is a factor, You don't need an equal amount of experience in order to level the playing field. Strategy, tactics, technology, weaponry and command structure play major roles. Add to that China has the late mover advantage and has a much shorter learning curve. Underestimating them would be to your own demise.

[@dewayneblue1834]

@@Aamirmhmd99 Not underestimating anything, I'm just stating the fact that the combat effectiveness of a carrier, is mainly a function of the effectiveness of carrier ops. And experience is decisive in this regard; ops on Nimitz-class carriers today, for instance, are a far cry from what they were even back in the Forrestal era. You simply can't replace the experience, that the U.S. Navy has gained by operating 78 aircraft carriers over its history (and over 50 of those in actual combat ops!).

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

Only "operation experience" matters. Combat experience is useless as war scenarios change after one decade and different nations. This is why China built Liaoning type 001 as a training platform rather than a combat one.

[@dewayneblue1834]

@@ajaykumarsingh702 Sorry, but you obviously have zero experience with this. You've completely overlooked the crucial role of things like running logistics during weeks of combat. And...well, the list is practically endless, so, tell you what, maybe a PLA Navy aircraft carrier XO can get back to me in 2035 and let me know how they're coming along?;-)

[@just.jose.youtube]

Sweet war content... 🤤 I love how war and weapon lobbies and industries so easily normalize killing and conflict. Mankind has advanced so much as a species, greed is like a forgotten anchor slowing our evolution.

[@sanimgurung87]

drones :)

[@user-ez9en7vk2z]

You didn't feature the navy of Cuba who has daily landings in Florida.

[@zkh173]

china definitely has a lot of work to do, but it's a great start, you need to start somewhere, can't just suddenly become great. It's nice to see these progress, US power unchecked for way too long

[@critterjon4061]

The fujin is more comparable to the older uss kitty hawk class of aircraft carrier that it is to the gerald r ford class. It is also worth mentioning that china is still yet to deploy any modern carrier based aircraft with its most modern carrier based aircraft being the j-15 ( the Chinese built copy of the Soviet su-33) which is more suited as ground based multi role interceptor than it is a carrier based fighter due to its immense size and weight

[@babykingkong7010]

The J35 is spotted on the Fujian now while Fijian is doing his sea trials. J35 also under testing.

[@centurymemes1208]

​@@babykingkong7010 I find it funny that the american version is F35 while the chinese is J35. lmaooooo

[@babykingkong7010]

@@centurymemes1208 Letter J is the initial of Chinese character “歼”in Pinyin( Spelling in English Alphabet). “歼”has various of meanings. Mainly used to describe “to kill,to destroy,and to eliminate”. Chinese used it to name their fighters. But J also the initial of another same pronunciation character “奸”. Which means to rape and Fxxk. So J35 in the Chinese slang means the 35(f35)Fxxker. 😂

[@babykingkong7010]

@@centurymemes1208 Letter J is the initial of Chinese character “歼”in Pinyin( Spelling in English Alphabet). “歼”has various of meanings. Mainly used to describe “to kill,to destroy,and to eliminate”. Chinese used it to name their fighters. But J also the initial of another same pronunciation character “奸”. Which means to rape and Fxxk. So J35 in the Chinese slang means the 35(f35)Fxxker. 😂

[@babykingkong7010]

@@centurymemes1208 Letter J is the initial of Chinese character “歼”in Pinyin( Spelling in English Alphabet). “歼”has various of meanings. Mainly used to describe “to kill,to destroy,and to eliminate”. Chinese used it to name their fighters. But J also the initial of another same pronunciation character “奸”. Which means to rape and Fxxk. So J35 in the Chinese slang means the 35(f35)Fxxker. 😂

[@flectz]

was the ominous music really necessary?

[@julienckjm7430]

This is propaganda against China, so they must put a bad guy's music

[@xwyhz]

果然 老外读Liaoning就是读的“利奥宁” 哈哈

[@andrejaleksejev1657]

Who is tjos guy to tree alm strategy?

[@Crooked_Clown]

I seriously doubt that the Fujian would be 100% ready before the 2030. Plus, the US has decades of experience operating Nuclear Aircraft Carriers away from the US Continent .

[@damianodonnell5844]

they claim its gonna be ready by the end of 2025

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

But the US navy has reported several times of issues that overshadowed the Ford class carriers. The US super carrier isn't 100% ready for war either. That's what you get when you try to build a perfect machine. The same thing flawed the F-35b.

[@levelazn]

who wrote the art of war again?

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

@@levelazn Nobody knows. Sun Tzu narrated the content. Who wrote that down is unknown.

[@nashgas1285]

Carthage also had decades of naval experience over Rome. Look who won at the end.

[@sodazman]

Those who doubt how far China can go clearly haven't studied the history of its people. It's not a matter of IF China will catch up, it's a matter of when.

[@levelazn]

2049 is when.

[@EbuzzNYC]

Catch up to what? The world distrust China, all its neighbors hate them because of the intrusions in other country's sovereign borders.

[@DL-fi5cc]

No. The economy is breaking and without Western investment they'll collapse, all we have to do is stop trading with them especially the US and Europe. It's already happening. Cheap labour should have been totally ignored - why make a communist country a world power?

[@GojosBackHand]

2100 is when

[@GojosBackHand]

​@@levelaznbetter there not even close. Chinese ship are made out of scarp metal and bearly fictions

[@oguzsamsa2628]

so lets say some "unknown" missiles destroyed these decks?

[@tjhurson2493]

question how many carriers could the US send out at once. I know a few are in long term maintenance. also how many air wings do we have

[@lagrangewei]

5. and it can only sustain that for 9 month.

[@willeisinga2089]

Real Power is Energy. Solar Wind Battery BEV Chips Communication. Not Carriers.

[@lutherbelle1]

If you non ironically use Solar and Wind in the same sentence as 'energy', you have proven propaganda is real power...

[@willeisinga2089]

@@lutherbelle1 I have Rooftop Solar for 12 Years Now. Made in China. ❤️Thank You China. In the kitchen Inductioncooking, Microwave, Airfryer. And close in Boiler. No Gas in the Kitchen. A Boiler in the bathroom as Aquabattery. No Gas in the bathroom. Shower with Warm Water from my own Electricity from the Roof. A HT Heatpump LG Therma V Monoblock 60 degrees for Heating. Since 2012 no Gas no energybill. Makes me 3000 euro every year. I let a House with Rooftop Solar no Gas. and the Tenant makes 3000 euro a year. That is 6000 euro every year. Real Power. Thank You China ❤️👍☀️☀️☀️

[@lutherbelle1]

@@willeisinga2089 China Bot says what? No it doesn't. If you are getting paid that means you are being subsidized. Govt essentially creating useful idiots that don't have the understanding to realize they are being lied to.

[@lutherbelle1]

@@willeisinga2089 Quick, list as many things as you can that didn't happen...

[@edlee8949]

And also the cheap dollar goods from Aliexpress and Temu, this is what they call China's soft power influencing Americans' daily lives.

[@BlackEagle352]

What chlna gonna do? Shoot water canons?

[@babykingkong7010]

😂There’s nothing you can do against those mighty water cannons 😂😂

[@lololu1426]

其实中国航母是纸做的😂

[@johnc1873]

china is the mighty dragon. China would win in any war easily .

[@lagrangewei]

US cannot make phase array without material from China. no trade = no missile = no ability to continue the war. US can grandstand all it wants, but it is no longer an economic power, and you cannot sustain a military without an economy, sure US can keep borrowing money, but eventually that will lead to hyperinflation. US is ruling on borrowed time... China is not going to do anything. US biggest enemy is itself, it own ego, to spend beyond it means, it is repeating the mistake of the USSR. why should China interrupt the US?

[@GojosBackHand]

Well one works and one doesn't. Can you guess with one😂😂😂

[@Shipspotting_Vietnam]

Great video!!

[@chenrayen]

*BF3 Theme Intensifies*

[@jasonvick55]

China also lacks the fighter jets needed for its Naval fleet. The J-15 is their only Naval fighter jet currently and their numbers (only 60) and effectiveness are very lacking. We have more jets on one carrier than they have across their entire fleet.

[@jetli740]

J35 on trial ......

[@jasonvick55]

@@jetli740 agreed. It certainly is on trial since it’ll be the main rival to the F-35 and new F/A-XX.

[@zxt5148]

@@jetli740 And is already obsolete relative to the F35 it "beats"

[@jetli740]

@@zxt5148 base on what metric? base on sour grape metric?

[@zxt5148]

@@jetli740 Based on sensors. Based on engine. Based on airframe. Based on fundamental design. Sour grapes, funny coming from Chinese.

[@wuyou_]

历史告诉我们，如果实战经验等于一切的话，就不会有被推翻的帝国

[@zxt5148]

History has shown us that the dominant military remains dominant. It takes much to "overthrow" an empire. The real question is why are you so eager to overthrow the US "empire"? What have we done to China but fight your enemies, and support your economy? Must China really be entitled to the mantle of leadership?

[@Alex-ub6te]

​​@@zxt5148发动贸易战遏制中国经济和技术发展，不断派遣军舰和飞机骚扰中国近海，从50年代以来一直阻碍中国的统一，轰炸中国驻南斯拉夫大使馆，编造关于“社会信用分”和新疆的谎言，资助恐怖分子和分离主义者的袭击，煽动颜色革命阴谋颠覆中国政府……我可以列出一长串清单

[@JanoschNr1]

The only flaw this Carrier has is the slingshot itself, breacking constantly down and needin repair and thus regulare controls

[@larukulunaseas]

The most important thing is the fact that the US has 80+ years of active carrier operational experience in combat and China has 0.

[@Kenneth_James]

The most incomparable two Navies. This is akin to saying a squirrel is the same as a rhino, or a scooter is the same as an 18-wheel semi-truck. But it's what happens when navies are compared based solely on their total number of ships.

[@hugopereira80]

One can argue that the US solely relies on its sheer firepower. The US famously lack in combat exercises when compared to much smaller armies from other countries. Maybe that's why they need all that firepower and still don't seem to be able to win a war against any decent adversary..

[@MrBuckman420]

Never underestimate the ability of quantity to beat quality.

[@QASIMARA]

Off topic. The video compares carriers, not navies. Some in the comments have widened the scope of the conversation to navies, though.

[@QASIMARA]

@@MrBuckman420 that cuts both ways

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@MrBuckman420That rarely works in war.

[@SavaGlisic-xu2fb]

Did this guy say the Liaoning is “comparable” to the Nimitz class

[@KieferNguyen]

I know right it should be the other way around, the way he position the comment as if America is copying the Chinese carrier very ignorant from the person making the video.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@KieferNguyen America copying Chinese carriers, US had 3 classes of nuclear powered aircraft carriers before Chinese could get Liaoning in water. Enterprise class, Nimitz class and Ford class. You can add advanced Nimitz USS Bush and USS Reagan in there too, they have some capabilities of Ford.

[@user-iw4fe9fc4g]

The U.S. Navy has more experience in using aircraft carriers than the Chinese Navy. This is an advantage and can also become a disadvantage. The U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier experience comes from World War II against the Japanese Navy and the bombing of the Afghan Slippers Army. The core of the U.S. Navy's fleet is aircraft carriers, at long distances beyond the reach of battleships. Attack with carrier-based aircraft. But today the operational core of the Chinese Navy is the cruiser, 055 launches hypersonic missiles, at a distance of 1500 km, which is beyond the reach of carrier-based aircraft. The Americans need to find a way to crack this strategy, or they will be at a disadvantage. Especially in the case of the failure of several American hypersonic missile projects, perhaps the shipboard refueling aircraft will work.

[@Spartan12317]

The US design is much maneuverable since the command center is not near the catapult. The Chinese design is obsolete, the command center is near the catapult. Which all there jets placed at the back tail of chinese aircraft carrier.

[@horridohobbies]

It's worth noting that the most advanced carriers from Britain and India are also ski-jump carriers. That doesn't invalidate their effectiveness and usefulness.

[@6haha]

😂you believe it , so be it

[@syedhasan2017]

Payload is the problem with ski jump carriers.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

Britain is not using ski jump. They’re a STOVL types of ships.

[@6haha]

@@kordellswoffer1520 so what's the difference

[@horridohobbies]

@@kordellswoffer1520 British carriers have ski jumps. *You can see them in photos.* Whether or not they use them is another question.

[@ethanmac639]

The ford class has the inferior AC emals system while the Chinese field the superior DC emals system

[@United_Wings]

Oh wow

[@victorhuynh4031]

China military modernize to defend China access in the 1st island chain in case of war in Asia.

[@michaelliew88]

Exactly

[@GojosBackHand]

You mean the island that are sinking😂😂😂

[@KrimsonStorm]

Oh, you mean the illegally taken area. Gotcha

[@patrickweaver1105]

One Nimitz class carrier is the combat capability of five PLAN carriers. So do the math.

[@Aamirmhmd99]

How? Your math is flawed

[@MarvinChenFantasy]

Obviously, Chinese does the math better.

[@llkk290]

The electromagnetic ejection technology on the Fujian aircraft carrier is one generation, or 20 years, ahead of the U.S. aircraft carrier

[@patrickweaver1105]

@@llkk290 No it's based on a maglev train technology and doesn't appear to work properly yet. It may never work.

[@patrickweaver1105]

@@Aamirmhmd99 Count the sorties possible with a normal complement of aircraft. If anything I'm overestimating China's carriers.

[@johnjeremiah4111]

If at any point there is a confrontation, between air craft carriers, life as we know it will be over.. because that confrontation will most definitely move to land..

[@willischang6956]

The Fujian has a “homegrown” version of EMALS as its catapult system, it is a very poor imitation of the USS Ford’s one.

[@Leed831100]

Yeah，using DC instead of AC is totally "imitation".

[@Leed831100]

It is facinating how americans always try to simplify things. "Oh those two things all use electricity, so they must be the same."

[@nothingbutchappy]

The Chinese carrier is about 1980 in tech

[@densidste9137]

americans just floating around not even operational atm so who is worst off

[@nothingbutchappy]

@@densidste9137 what they have multiple active carrier groups...

[@joshispro345]

i mean yea one of them is literally a soviet aircraft carrier and the others are just modified versions of it

[@patrickt49]

​@@densidste9137 America spends more on their stuff and actually maintain their military assets. Don't confuse them with the Chinese.

[@Frog-mf5uu]

It's a freaking floating city

[@hyderally8045]

Village

[@derHallen_Ch.]

The big thing about the US is that... we decided that we have no use to put 8 reactors in a single boat (again).

[@patclark2186]

There was a time when the US Navy was willing to send its Carrieres into harms way. (I'm thinking of the USS B Franklin) It's sad that the US politicians have become so risk averse, and Naval officers so timid in their advice to the politicians.

[@inigobantok1579]

This is not WW2 anymore, America has only 21 Advanced and expensive Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships compared to their prime in 1945 with 100 Carriers and 67 Carriers by 1969

[@patclark2186]

@@inigobantok1579 Agreed, this is no longer WWII. The US Navy no longer has the necessary Cruisers Destroyers and Frights to patrol the oceans of the world and keep shipping lanes open for free and safe passage to trade and ensure the rules based world wide economy to function. That's gonna suck for most countries until they can get their own naval forces up to protect their own shipping. The US Navy Carrier Battle Groups are the 5 largest air force on earth and along with its submarines have the ability to take down any country

[@lagrangewei]

US can afford to lose carrier in the past because it has the mean to build new one... it can't do that anymore... what we are seeing is not risk averse, rather it is declining economic power, the media is just afraid to say it.

[@laskey2175]

Comparing China to the US is like comparing a bicycle to a truck. Just because they have two wheels does not mean they can reasonably be compared.

[@user-hi6hl5pz5t]

是的，世界上第一个工业国家是自行车，呵呵。既然这么简单，那美国为什么不敢在西太平洋再大动作呢？害怕吗？

[@HaoWang-yt8vo]

​@@user-hi6hl5pz5t风声雨声读书声声声入耳，家事国事天下事事事关心，发没发现英文圈青蛙特别多，所以这幅对联代表了咱们的世界观，知道天外有天，人外有人，从不妄自菲薄，也不高人一等，低调才是王道，哈哈！

[@Nabil-ef7lo]

Then why you guys so afraid of China lately lol

[@cashflownpv]

I think a lot of people are missing the point here. China knows that they are not equal to the US now but in the future they will be or at least close. The Chinese are a very ancient and forward thinking race. They may be inadequate now, which I don't think anyone can say objectively but for the sake of argument lets say they are however in 25-50 years look out. You can already see their incredible infrastructure, HS trains, even AI and Space endeavours among others-just a matter of time. If I remember correctly China had 100 km of highway in 1980 and now 180,000 Km more than the US total. Hypersonic missile technology is also getting better there. Look at the incredible rise in their economy and civilization from the 70's to now. China was precluded from the ISS Space Station so they built their own. Now their Jade rabbit 2 is on the far side of the moon Look at their economy in 1970's=essentially a 3rd world nation. Now number 2 by GDP and number 1 in PPP. It's actually quite remarkable to be honest. The point I'm making is that the Fujian may suck now (I surmise that it's just for learning/training for maritime ops and a stepping stone-walk before you run) but the next one will be better and by leaps not just tiny incremental improvements and so on. Look at their first Type 001 Liaoning to the Fujian-that is a big jump. They are learning and catching up not to mention the sheer number of STEM grads that comes out each year which fuels all the high tech industries including the military. In the 70's one could argue that the US military was 1000 and China was 10. Now it's more like 1200 to 750 maybe higher. I wouldn't be surprised if they are ahead in a few fields and a true peer competitor in some areas in regard to the military. So while the Chinese aircraft carrier may be far behind the US now give it some time and I bet they won't be in the future. Never bet against China they are a studious hard working and intelligent people.

[@BlownMacTruck]

I didn’t know Chinese is now a race. Amazing!😂

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

The point is here that right now they have become strong enough to dismantle the US navy easily. If the US navy wants to win then they have to throw everything they have and maybe then they might come out victor with acceptable losses. But that is not possible in reality as US cannot risk it's 2/3 navy sunken just to defeat China as China is not the only adversary of the USA and the US navy cannot leave many borders unguarded just like that

[@CheekyMenace]

Sounds like we got a shill here. Take your BS propaganda elsewhere. Anyone that believes this garbage, go watch the the channels Serpentza, Laowhy86 and The China Show to see the truth that China doesn't want you to see. There's many reasons why the CCP keeps their internet separate from the rest of the world and censors everything to only show what they allow. They are lying to the world and driving opinions and divide in the US with huge campaigns of misinformation and propaganda, don't let them fool you to!!

[@CheekyMenace]

Sounds like we got a shill here. Take your BS propaganda elsewhere. Anyone that believes this garbage, go watch the the channels Serpentza, Laowhy86 and The China Show to see the truth that China doesn't want you to see. There's many reasons why the CCP keeps their internet separate from the rest of the world and censors everything to only show what they allow. They are lying to the world and driving opinions and divide in the US with huge campaigns of misinformation and propaganda, don't let them fool you!!

[@CheekyMenace]

Sounds like we got a shill here. Take your BS propaganda elsewhere. Anyone that believes this garbage, go watch the channels Serpentza, Laowhy86 and The China Show to see the truth that China doesn't want you to see. There's many reasons why they keep their internet separate from the rest of the world and censors everything to only show what they allow. They are lying to the world and driving opinions and divide in the US with huge campaigns of misinformation and propaganda, don't let them fool you to!!

[@churblefurbles]

Its all a bit irrelevant as the large expensive platform is now a sitting target for ever cheaper smart munitions.

[@antonnurwald5700]

Excuse me, i was under the impression that the Fujian does have electromagnetic catapults. Edit: i checked. Public information is that it does have them. Is this information wrong? Also it was in outfitting as if January 2024, i.e. slightly before sea trials.

[@breveth]

There is no evidence of the electromagnetic catapults in action. Probably, because it doesn't actually exist. Which is standard CCP operating proceedure: steal a technology that's twenty years old, claim you innovated or invented something, and lie about its performance.

[@uselesstable2058]

the info is wrong... The moment I heard that Fujian is 2 gens behind because of "steam" powered catapult or it is "steam powered altogether", I just stopped watching...

[@APDM_OSINT]

The "US navy guy" is wrong. Fujian is powered by steam turbine, but the catapults are powered by electromagnetic source. The carrier left the port last year, but sea trials haven't started yet.

[@v12tommy]

It has electromagnetic catapults, but the ship itself is conventionally steam powered. What I've heard in the past is that the Chinese keep struggling with the catapults because the conventional power plant can't seem to produce enough power for them.

[@levelazn]

​@@v12tommy thats the u.s Ford has trouble with the EMAL system. China was able to solve that issue

[@richardhill5792]

How does the British HMS Queen Elizabeth compare to China's?

[@user-us6pj2jw1h]

Badly. I mean it’s the Brits…China quietly owns a quarter of their country

[@richardhill5792]

@@user-us6pj2jw1h The Brits that would kick your arse if the numbers were the same. Americans, all the gear, no idea! Also, you might want to check out the "GREAT" USA's debt level to China, probably more than you can afford!

[@lucasokeefe7935]

If the numbers were the same? What a short straw you're grasping at lmao

[@zangrygrapes4571]

@@richardhill5792 Bros mad that his country no longer has an empire.

[@Sheepheadz]

Good

[@edwingan1988]

The Fujian is steam powered? Go back and do your homework Sam!

[@niweshlekhak9646]

PLA itself said Fuijan is steam powered.

[@shiv9655]

Analyse all you want...these things are redundant for near future warfare. If you want to pour billions.. you might as well create a couple of smart drone squadrons.

[@AniKayode]

Did the State Department make this video? (Hint: yes)

[@SpruceWood-NEG]

Correction: 003 aircraft carrier=Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier 004 aircraft carrier=Nimitz class aircraft carrier 005 aircraft carrier=Ford class aircraft carrier

[@garrettfulks2932]

It can’t carry as many planes as a Nimitz on the type 003 or 004

[@lagrangewei]

​@@garrettfulks2932 you have to remember that US carrier airwing are "attached" to their carrier, they don't always operate on the carrier, this can inflate the idea of how many plane is actually in the hangar, most of the time the extra plane just hangout in the flightdeck. the chinese do not include those in their numbers, their numbers are pure hangar space numbers... this give the illusion that they carrying fewer planes when they just have different doctrine in counting. for example the Nimitz can only carry 34 fighter in it hangar, 36 if you remove the E2s. yes that is still bigger than Liaoning's 22, but it alot less than people think. the 003 is much bigger than Liaoning...

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@lagrangewei The Nimitz is bigger than both the Liaoning and Shandong and the Fujian is also smaller. Also Nimitz and Ford hangars can hold up to 64 aircraft not 36. At max a Nimitz can carry up to 130 F-18s.

[@b21raider27]

1960 USS Enteprise, first nuclear powered carrier, 1100+ feet. US has 84 years of experience. China’s newest carrier can’t get its electromagnetic catapult working yet, not enough power.

[@arvinaguila2156]

It's a suicide when they confront the us navy

[@Aamirmhmd99]

With that kind of logic means that you're seriously underestimating Chinese naval capabilities. Even though experience is a factor, You don't need an equal amount of experience in order to level the playing field. Strategy, tactics, technology and command structure play major roles. Add to that China has the late mover advantage and has a much shorter learning curve. Underestimating them would be to your own demise.

[@arvinaguila2156]

@@Aamirmhmd99 they don't need to be underestimated they don't have the naval battle experience to go toe to toe with the U.S navy

[@Aamirmhmd99]

@@arvinaguila2156 You don't need an equal amount of experience in order to level the playing field.

[@llkk290]

The electromagnetic ejection technology on the Fujian aircraft carrier is one generation, or 20 years, ahead of the U.S. aircraft carrier

[@mcc9102]

China catapult last 4000 shots vs American catapult only good for 300. Chinese use medium voltage direct current technology which will only be used by American navy in their next generation aircraft carrier according to the plan. American medium voltage direct current technology is 20 years behind. Chinese integrate all kinds of radar and find the way to overcome interactions, yet American is still using tower from last century to keep the radars apart from each other, but sacrifice the stealthy.

[@floatingrabbit3556]

You ever notices it always the IS talking about how big and powerful its army is. Meanwhile the goat be out there watching in silence.

[@ColoradoGuitarMan]

There are several examples of excessive confidence in any war is not a good plan. The Japanese were hugely confident against Americans in the battle of Midway. The destruction of America’s battleships by the Japanese in 1941 were part of the reason for Japanese over-confidence. Before Pearl Harbor, the battleship was considered the most effective naval ship on the seas. After Midway the aircraft carrier was the dominant force because of their remote attack ability via airplanes. Yamamoto and Imperial Japanese Navy never recovered from Midway. The fairly recent Afghanistan war demonstrated that the use of inexpensive IEDs could take out technically superior ground troops. The Ukraine war clearly shows that FPV drones (which cost little compared to their targets) are very effective against the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. Now the Russians have embraced the use of drones. This promises near future wars fought entirely by remotely-operated systems like drones. So over-confidence in war is deadly because of the relatively inexpensive devices that are used to destroy military ships and any ground forces. Except for aircraft carriers which are expensive the tools of war don’t have to be.

[@wallace6228]

China's aircraft carriers are only for offshore defense operations, not for building military bases all over the place like the U.S. Don't forget that China has the most advanced undefendable supersonic missiles

[@anthonyk423]

Russia said their super sonic missiles couldn’t be intercepted but the Patriot missile system didn’t get the memo.

[@loadingnewads]

Basically a giant potent invincible turtle that has the best defense and a moderate offense ability

[@Macsim-rs1dg]

@@anthonyk423 If I were Ukrainian, I wouldn't agree with your point , so I'd like to see more and more people think the same like u.

[@anthonyk423]

@@Macsim-rs1dg weather you agree or disagree doesn’t matter the fact that it’s true is all that matters.

[@Compton3clipsed]

That's hilarious. Almost every single missile in existence is supersonic, and most of those are also actually hypersonic because it's just a speed classification and missiles move very fast. You meant to say hypersonic, by the way. They are also incredibly defendable, for reasons that probably won't be declassified for another 50 years.

[@luckarl]

Having the MOST expensive aircraft carrier does not turn into having DABEST.

[@gcyalbert]

Every empire eventually crumbles from within, no matter how militarily powerful.

[@poop-um6qo]

你在说美国吗！！！🤣🤣🤣👉🇺🇸💩🤡

[@saijujiwara]

all these talking about fight btw China / usa and bs. nuclear country cant fight nuclear country. point finale.

[@CreachterZ]

I’m totally surprised that China hasn’t successfully stolen our launch mechanisms.

[@ensh888888]

Cause it will be obsolete by the time their Aircraft carrier becomes operational 😂

[@ensh888888]

Cause it will become obsolete by the time their new carriers becomes operational😂

[@ensh888888]

Cause it will become obsolete by the time their new carriers becomes operational😂

[@MK-iy2nl]

If China wants to have an aircraft career battle group that's no joke but blue ocean capable, they have to lose 100 plus pilots in accidents. That's how tough it is to build a fullfledged naval battle group with an aircraft career.

[@Adityabikramnayak]

So nobody knows what's a counter for a carrier ?

[@lukasbauer586]

Unprecedented hypersonic missile strike

[@jeshkam]

Where's the russian one? 😂🤣😁

[@Oblivisci........]

Like the rest of the russian navy it is either mostly broken or is a submarine that used to be a ship.

[@v12tommy]

The Kuznetsov is "undergoing refit" in Murmansk, where it has been sidelined for 6 years now. It is basically a joke of a ship. It is a sister ship to China's Liaoning carrier, which China purchased 68% complete from Ukraine, following the collapse of the USSR.

[@emanuelcerqueira8660]

O Geraldo Ford é o mais caro do mundo. O mais gostoso. Do maior país do mundo: os Estados Unidos

[@noco7243]

The US is the 3rd largest country on earth. Not the largest.

[@bowenfan4489]

The largest is Russia, 2nd is canada, 3rd is US, 4th is China

[@reis1185]

There's so many wrong here. Type 003 is now nuclear-powered. Type 004 will be launch this year along with J-35 platform with next generation nuclear-reactor and electromagnetic catapult system.

[@jetli740]

type 003 is not nuclear power.

[@Pridesu]

Balance? We have 12. And ours dont have cracks in the deck.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

It's actually like 15-16, because some old carriers are still in the reserve fleet.

[@gobindpreetrai2525]

@@niweshlekhak9646actually it could be 30 since America has 19 “aircraft carriers” which is basically the same size or bigger than aircraft carriers in most countries. And then America has 11 “super carriers” which, being the largest and most powerful carriers plus combined with their fleets, are larger than most literal navy’s in the world.

[@rickace132]

That was water streaks. The reason why the US has so many carriers is because they are so spread out everywhere, they have to make sure the dollar is the center of trade(although the dollar power is now declining). China doesn't need that many. China only needs enough to defend their homeland and interests abroad.

[@lvjinbin28]

cracks in deck? hahaha, you must watch too much Fa Lungong media

[@alokranjan2814]

There are two and various types of priorities of US Navy,1, best in A .Inteligence inventive technology,2, ammunition takes perfect targets,3,Air squadron leader of the world 🌎.

[@daning9764]

The presenter is somewhat biased, and his tech. knowledge seemed limited in spite of his background

[@TelpPov]

the Fujian is not 2 generation behind just because it is smaller and none-nuclear that's called different configuration and spec. It's pretty much equivalent to the Ford since it uses all modern systems like the EMLS. If it still used steam launch, or used 1-2 gen older nuclear reactor for example, then you might call it generations behind the Ford.

[@tdawg5742]

Wrong. The Chinese carriers are 2+ generations behind in multiple facets from design to operations. Just because the Fujian has EMALS doesn't mean it's on par with the Ford. American carriers have been through dozens and dozens of battles against other enemy carriers and each generation of US carrier has improved based on what went wrong during the battles such as the fire suppression to department placement to combat operations. The Russians and Chinese have NEVER been in a engagement where their carriers have been tried and tested in actual combat and are building carriers blindly believing what might work as oppose to what actually works. An example of this is when Russia's Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov caught fire in 2019 and caused 1 death and dozens more injured. The reason for the death and injury was because of fire inhalation injuries. The Admiral Kuznetsov wasn't equipped with a proper fire suppression and exhaust system because the Russians have never had to deal with damages occurring on their carriers so their Designers didn't know how to adequately design their systems to protect the ship and crew. The Chinese are building their carriers on what they are learning from Russian designs, not American designs. American carriers were getting bombed on a monthly basis during WW2 so American engineers have had plenty of insight and knowledge on how to adequately design and protect the ship and crew. The Ford Class is even more indestructible after what was learned during the SINKEX operation of super carrier USS America in 2005 where it took them 4 weeks to sink a Kitty Hawk class super carrier. Even if the Chinese get their EMALS system to work, the Chinese don't have a jet that was designed to be catapulted. During the 50s, 60s and 70s, the US Navy was scrapping hundreds of jets because the jets weren't designed properly to handle the shear amount of stress the catapults were putting on the jet's frame and the jets were getting damage so badly after only a few launches. American designers realized they had to build and get their catapult system corrected first, and then they could build the jets after the catapult system was perfected. It still took multiple decades for the Americans to finally design a jet that was truly a carrier based jet which is now the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Even then, you still need the experience for carrier flight operations which the Chinese vastly lack which is why the Chinese are trying to buy ex-US carrier pilots as instructors for the PLAN.

[@hubpaq]

You cannot buy experience. and the USA has this experience with its aircraft carriers, having used them since 1922 on all oceans and fought wartime in all conflicts without defeat.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

​@@tdawg5742 You must be seriously stupid to even think that the Chinese are idiot enough to build an EMALS carrier without testing out its practicality and a jet developed exclusively for its operations (J-35, J-15). They didn't spend billions and wasted years just studying it. It is a well tested platform that surpasses everything the USA has. They have shown the world that they can achieve far more advanced technology in very less compared to what the US navy spends.

[@TelpPov]

​@@tdawg5742 we are talking about technological generation not human experience. You went completely off topic and unable to address what i wrote. Someone who is inexperienced could choose to adopt to the latest technology quickly and this is what china did since the 2000s. Also, modern carrier operation is a completely different ballgame compared to ww2 era. So China can quickly catch up to US's modern carrier operation within 2-3 decades since they have closed the technological gap and both country's modern generation of naval experience came from peace time operation overwhelmingly. The US has never faced a near peer adversary in open blue water conflict for half a century. In conclusion: Having 100 years of carrier history is not a pre-requisite for being capable in modern carrier operation since modern carrier aviation only need 2-3 decades at most at the Chinese level of efficiency and shipbuilding. At least half of the US's long carrier aviation history are so long ago it doesn't contribute to modern carrier operation. Its years of experience plateau out and has diminishing returns vs China because china had leap frogged through several generations of carrier technology. In the future, with 6 carriers of 3-5 thousand crews operating at the same time, China's 2-3 decades carrier experience by mid century has pretty much zero gap with the US carrier operation.

[@TelpPov]

@@hubpaq at least half of the experience is irrelevant to modern carrier operation, it's not a pre-requisite. It's like saying just because a university is 100 years old, a 30yr old university cannot surpass it and become a better one, which is far from reality.

[@Tarquin2718]

China has nothing compared to the US. If someone tells you otherwise, they might be Chinese or have stock in the US military industrial complex

[@jj2jj295]

Knowing Strong military with weak broader is sad 😔

[@qwill8254]

Flight ops experience matters the most ....after US only Indian , French Navy , royal Navy has the more 40 + yrs of experience in modern era . China can roll out infinite number aircraft carrier but it still needs 25 + yrs of hand on experience

[@jetli740]

you behind time, modern warfare it technology that count.

[@user-sv1xl3so9b]

I would like to see the CAP {combat air patrol ) that the new comers manage. I assume that they would fly 3 aircraft each hour for 12hours. making it 36aircraft that are in the battle zone and 36 a/c being maintained or ready to launch. Some evolution and if you are the new kid on the block you better get your sh1t together. cause it is a bad world out there.

[@user-un7yu1oo5y]

There's no comparison at all. In 2020 or 2021 or something when Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan the Chinese didn't know the US carrier strike group was there until the US announced it😂😂😂 I doubt the Chinese will use even 1/10 of its military budget on actual military projects if not all embezzled. If their navy, naval aircrafts, and airforce are any capable as they claimed to be in their propaganda, they would've attempt to take Taiwan by force already. Their politicians are very hyped but non of their generals even dare to start a war, cuz they know how weak they actually are😂😂😂

[@wallace6228]

By your stupid logic, then why did the Chinese army fight the Allies in 1950 with even more outdated weapons?

[@user-me4tj9re7m]

Have you forgotten that China has the most advanced Beidou satellite system in the world?

[@connorgolden4]

@@wallace6228They weren’t outdated back then as it was largely Soviet weaponry and US weaponry taken from the defeated nationalists. And they entered the way as they didn’t want a US ally on their border like that .

[@michaelf7093]

All a Chinese carrier does is reinforce the necessity to defend Taiwan. And while carriers are useful in any war for the island in either attack or defense, a war for it can be won without them. China is a century away from being able to challenge AUKUS control of the global ocean, which is a goal it will never achieve.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

Control of global oceans is actually a delusion. No one truly controls it. Yes, there is dominance of the West in sea passes but that is due to its superior trade routes not the military prowess.

[@TelpPov]

It's mainly US, other members of AUKUS are micro sized fleets not even in the same league who can barely defend their own home island. And one major conflict with China may destroy the Chinese fleet, but it will cripple US navy sacrificing 3-4 carriers in return thus effectively ending its global reach and the US led global order.

[@velqt]

@@TelpPov The US could lose 3 carriers and still have 8 more and 2 under construction

[@MarvinChenFantasy]

America does not neccessary live for another century

[@TelpPov]

@@velqt at any given time 4-5 U.S. carriers are refueling or refitting. that makes 4 left which effectively reduce U.S. global reach by half. Think about why some people want 12 carriers instead of 11. Some regional powers will start doing whatever they want with US no longer able to sustain long term intervention

[@johnsilver9338]

Fujian is NO supercarrier. Sure it’s large but it only has 3 catapults compared to 4 on either Ford or Nimitz. And NO portside elevator, meaning aircraft will have to cross the deck to get to the portside catapult which is not only time consuming but would also impede the landing of other aircraft. Total of only 2 elevators unlike 4 on Nimitz meaning aircraft and munitions will have to line up longer to travel to and from the flight deck and hanger. So YES Fujian is slower in terms of sortie rate. It even has less power than the older non-nuclear powered Kitty Hawk class. It’s more comparable to QE class carrier. Similarly matched to the number of aircraft both can carry. Though QE has a more efficient propulsion. So in terms of capabilities Fujian sits in between a small “lightning” carrier and a Ford or Nimitz class supercarrier.

[@randymarine]

Did you do any research for this video? For a Sailor, you seem to be doing a lot of guessing, assuming, and making generalizations on a topic you should be by far, more well versed at. Semper Fi

[@xiaiyu-ql8iz]

Tragically, the Ford took 10 years to build, and the 003 aircraft carrier only took 1.8 years, even less than two years. When the war broke out, China was the largest industrial empire in human history. They would build aircraft carriers and countless destroyers in one year, and the US Navy would face 20 or more aircraft carrier fleets in two years.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

That’s not true and it how naval warfare or production work.

[@garrettfulks2932]

China’s major ports that produce surface combatants are on the coast and would likely be targeted by U.S. bombers (B-1,B-2, B-52).

[@jetli740]

@@garrettfulks2932 ha ha B1,B2 B52 all old craft yes they would success only if cn dont have any missile or jet

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@jetli740 “all old craft,” so is China’s H-6 bomber which makes up their bomber fleet which doesn’t carry as much as a B52, B1, and B2. Also all of those aircraft have been upgraded and are highly advanced. As for “they will succeed if China has no missiles and jets,” they can launch standoff JASSM and LRASM missiles at long range and could hit Chinese ports from a long distance.

[@jetli740]

@@garrettfulks2932 dont matter how u upgrade them, they are ww2 bomber it slow, easy take out

[@team3am149]

As expected, brain-numbingly bad and inaccurate content and research.

[@ensh888888]

Don't under estimate the Chinese....they're are powerhouse when it comes to mega infrastructures...and they possess over 200X the ship building capacity than the US ! Their building capacity in Shanghai alone has exceeded the entire US ship building capacity.

[@jskim8418]

Like they can make 200 times more fake Nike t shirts😂 Don’t talk if you don’t know about the ship building. They can’t build a proper single LNG tank that doesn’t leak mid ocean. In term of quality they are still miles away. In terms of air craft carriers. Yes they are 3 generations away. But they are gaining and gaining fast as well all know.

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@jskim8418Their industrial capability would be destroyed by sanctions, blockades, cyberattacks, U.S. airstrikes on ports, etc.

[@ensh888888]

​@@jskim8418 Like you know anything about China ship building capacity and its industry...I suggest you go back and do your research !!! Obviously you're still thinking about the Nike days when they can build their own space stations. Times have changed..go back and educate your self.

[@jasonmareno5394]

What you also are not aware of..is the strike force convoying the USA carriers multiple destroyers frigates and submarines. Which all together have 1,000s of anti-missile defenses that will shoot down any incoming surface to air or air to air missiles at a carrier

[@user-me4tj9re7m]

I think you're forgetting that China has the world's number one supersonic missile. This is why for nearly 20 years, American aircraft carriers have not dared to enter China's coastal waters.

[@HKim0072]

US ends up with massive cost overruns with military projects, but quality equipment. Chinese cut corners (pocket the cash) and end up with substandard equipment. That will be the saving grace.

[@adassdawdad]

Boeing：？you are correct

[@user-cn2ny1zz4h]

China nunca superará la tecnología y poder de la armada De EEUU

[@user-me4tj9re7m]

People who pretend to be asleep will never wake up.😂

[@babykingkong7010]

Put down your weed and go to sleep 😂

[@ChandanMishra-ql1bi]

It already has, unfortunately

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@ChandanMishra-ql1biIt has not keep dreaming

[@garrettfulks2932]

@@user-me4tj9re7m”people who pretend to sleep will never wake up,” people who copy other people’s stuff will never surpass them.

[@wpc57225]

中國海軍的戰略是「區域拒止」，不需像美國海軍一樣擁有十一艘航母戰鬥群，並超越本土防禦所需。

[@gravenguan]

这哥们不会是战忽局的同志吧？这种真的越多越好啊

[@whatswhite110]

美国人还是挺认真在看这个视频然后留言。。。笑死我。好事，好事。

[@hisenlau8603]

海权代表国际话语权，影响海上贸易。所以打压中国海军形象是有利于维护美国利益的。如果想要避免战争误判，最好的方式就是把肌肉漏出来。其实仅仅一艘055的144个垂发单元以及1200公里的超视距打击能力，足够团灭美航母了。打的远飞得快才是现代战争的关键。

[@bodhranlowd]

Anglo Saxons shall rule for another thousand years

[@yuejiang4601]

The Anglo-Saxons are all black now. The Anglo-Saxons are all a group of pirates. They will be abandoned by history.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

😂😂😂 Look what happened to the British Empire.

[@Slattatronnn]

⁠@@cr77702maybe you want to check how their economy is doing right now.

[@zackwang9314]

@@Slattatronnn 4.9% vs what? 2.3 % US gdp growth? lol

[@brucelee5576]

The problem with Carriers made in China is that it’s made in China.

[@jermainemyles1825]

Funny thing half of what used daily in America made in China 🇨🇳 😂😂😂

[@user-no8or5ls4v]

中国人在欧美日韩台眼里就是有原罪😊

[@johnnytran800]

China may be lower quality but it could build 3 for the same price.

[@Aamirmhmd99]

But no problems with iPhones made in China. So why cry now?

[@arvinaguila2156]

​@@Aamirmhmd99 is iphone gonna be used in the aircraft carrier

[@MALayden]

Not even close in the space of the United States Navy, they’d be foolish to even try anything

[@Gasanwu]

Fujian Steam powered? lol, must be the American education system.

[@unbreakable7633]

Here's the comparison: US has 11 carriers that work. China has no carriers that work.

[@TelpPov]

wrong, China has 2 carriers that work, while US has 5-6 because they other half are always under maint or refit.

[@velqt]

@@TelpPovLiaoning very likely suffers from similar issues to Kuznetsov, and I wouldn't be surprised if Shandong did too

[@TelpPov]

@@velqt liaoning came to China as empty husk with no systems installed. The deal was China gets the carrier with zero technology inside. Everything inside the Chinese carrier are domestic modern systems. For example Kuznetsov uses mazut fueled steam boilers and has no AESA radar. The inside of the Liaoning is totally unrecognizable from Kuznetsov even the compartments were totally rearranged.

[@unbreakable7633]

@@TelpPov Their lame 2 carriers are tiny, can't operate at sea for extended periods (ours do and that's why they need repair and refitting, which any ship needs after extended voyages at sea doing what blue water navies do and that China's navy can't do), can't fly planes off fully loaded with munitions and fuel, pilots crashing on landing as often as not, fully 1/5 of China's planes can't fly at any one time ... yeah, right those little weenie carriers don't count.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

​@@TelpPov Exactly. Even Liaoning is a serious threat if left un-countered during the battle.

[@peach3276]

What a fun piece of propaganda.

[@cyanidensadness]

It’s the truth though. It’ll take decades for China to create a fleet of aircraft carriers comparable to that of the U.S’ fleet. It’s simply another factor that will play a role in a potential firefight between the two nations.

[@andrewlim7751]

You know u.s. have the world's biggest propaganda machine, good at boasting their military might but defeated by militants with ak47 running around in slippers. 😂😂

[@alphateam3326]

@@andrewlim7751Yes, they fought people with guns in a place where civilians and terrorist look the same. They didn’t lose, rather they lost the will to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq. Oh and the terrorists also charged straight into battle. Shot some people, then ran. Because that’s the truth of war. And why if China also fought the same war they wouldn’t even last a week.

[@andrewlim7751]

@@alphateam3326 You got it wrong mate, there're clips of marines fleeing from militants but also clips of them using drones to target civilians, women and children, absolutely disgusting. 😁😁

[@andrewlim7751]

@@alphateam3326 If you're still ain't convince, ask Snowden. 😁😁

[@ethanmac639]

The type 004 supercarrier will be bigger than the biggest American supercarrier, ie; ford class, and it will be the biggest supercarrier ever built and the biggest naval ship ever built, and it will be the start of nuclear powered Chinese supercarriers, the type 004 supercarrier will be 110,000 tons, 1200 feet long and almost 300 feet wide, ie; 280 foot beam, and then the next supercarriers China is building will be a single design of the same class from type 005 to type 008, so 4 supercarriers, they will be nuclear powered and 1200 feet long, 280 foot beam and slightly heavier than the type 004, ie; 120,000 tons....plus China is still making type 071 amphibious landing dock ships and type 075 landing helicopter docks, themselves almost as big as the American America class lhd's, then china will surpass the America class lhd class with the type 076 LHD/aircraft carrier class, which will be 50,000 tons and be over 900 feet long and feature an angled flight deck, this is on top of China continuing to build more of their superior destroyer class, ie; the type 055, and more of their smaller but just as lethal as the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, ie; the type 052 destroyers, and more of their type 054 frigates and type 056 corvettes