What Aircraft Carriers Reveal About the Military Tech Race | WSJ U.S. vs. China

The U.S. has by far the largest aircraft-carrier fleet in the world, but China is catching up on the technology and design with its new vessel-the Fujian. The U.S.’s new Gerald R. Ford carrier holds several advantages over Beijing’s best carrier including a larger range and better ability to detect smaller targets, but the Fujian is catching up in some areas including its launch system for aircrafts.
WSJ compares the two superpowers’ best military ships to understand their strategic goals.
Illustration: Reshad Malekzai
0:00 The race for the most advanced maritime force
0:30 Aircraft carrier history
2:13 Location of China’s Fujian
2:58 Fujian’s size, crew and weight
3:55 Launch and landing system
5:46 How the carriers are powered
U.S. vs. China
This original video series explores the rivalry between the two superpowers’ competing efforts to develop the technologies that are reshaping our world.
#AircraftCarriers #China #WSJ

[@Chemson1989]

The best ship is friendship :)

[@jasonz2916]

good one

[@joeshen2232]

This sentence should be on the white board outside the church

[@typer1911]

Depends. Can jet fighters launch off of Friendship?

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

Friendship is good, but friendships held between multiple countries to create one massive alliance, or friendship to defend against adversaries, using ships, is the *ULTRAFRIENDSHIP*

[@AdoraTsang]

@@yijiequ662 I think this "conflict" is just politicians manufacturing fear for votes. It's an election year this year. 2024 would be real showtime. Nothing makes people more patriotic than (perceived) external threats. Americans is too strong. Needs an imagery enemy. 假想敵。🤷🏻‍♀️

[@royshaul2392]

Speaking as retired US Navy and having spent 8 years on carriers …. there is far more to effective carrier operations than simply specs on a data sheet. The biggest advantage, and most important imo, the US has over China is experience. All of our systems have been tested for decades, new systems are designed with decades of research and experience to draw on, our crews are at sea every day of the year across the globe. Our carrier groups are well oiled machine. We know what works.

[@jjjkkshen2836]

@Mishmash as experienced as old Biden

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

@Mishmash Japan had a lot of carrier experience back then. That is what they used to attack Pearl Harbor. What the US had was manufacturing capabilities beyond Japan’s. That is how the US was able to win; churn out more ships than Japan ever could. When the US sunk most of Japan’s carriers in an ambush, there went the experienced crew. China today can churn out more ships than the US can and the US has more carrier experience than China. See the similarities? Today the US is Japan and China is the US of WW2

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

But if the Chinese are able to sink most of our carriers, will we face Japan’s situation with a lot of our experienced crew going to the bottom of the ocean? And remember China can manufacture more stuff than the US can. Very similar to how the US outperformed Japan in that metric back then. If China sinks most of our carriers, there goes power projection if we don’t include submarines. And all the while China is cranking out more carriers and warships/subs in the meantime. And since we don’t believe in land-based long-range missiles, we might be forced out of most of the pacific. Probably forced back to the mainland.

[@mycommentwilltriggeryou9810]

@@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_ that’s an if. The us navy is much stronger and experienced than the Chinese Navy. All 3 of China’s aircraft carriers would probably be sank before any us ship sinks.

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

@@mycommentwilltriggeryou9810 I agree but I doubt the Chinese will fight any time soon. Chinese technology has grown tremendously as has their economy from 2002 to 2022. What will it look like in 2032? 2042? My guess is that they will fight the US Navy in 2030-2040. I’ve heard people throw numbers in the 2040s.

[@kristinaF54]

How smartly you use what you have (strategy and tactics) will always beat a greater force (like David versus Goliath). That's why greater focus on training in both army and navy academies is SO important. Advanced hardware capabilities are important yes, but without well-trained, strategic, outside-of-the-box thinkers, that advanced capability can be easily lost on the battlefield against a foe who may posses better training (more tools in the mental toolbox). And training is the least cost when compared to the price of military or naval hardware.

[@frilink]

The Taliban has better tactics than the US.........

[@MandoMTL]

Zzzz

[@DrBluefox]

well US have both more military experience and hardware capabilities

[@takebacktheholyland9306]

And for Aircraft carriers *damage control* which the US is also superior at, just listen to the tales of USS yorktown or cs5 Enterprise

[@DaBeezKneez]

Also who has the logistics to keep a war going. Just like the Vietnamese, as long as there is a will, there's a way.

[@vincentyeaman1658]

How well you train your men, and women. From operations, to damage control.. Years of experience in the Navy, operators of equipment, devises.. experience helps, green crew...make my day.

[@TheFlutecart]

Yup, a lot of people don't get that until they see it. I was on Lexington 89-91. I get it. I'm not even sure if a "Carrier Culture" is possible in the Chinese PLA style of military command. Without that, they will be on fire a lot, , if they ever get those cats to work, lol! - Every carrier these commies build seems to be more of an experiment than a useful platform for aviation.

[@tommcallister7647]

Agreed. Look no further than the war in Ukraine, With a well-trained crew, the Moskva might have been saved.

[@cathymartens7478]

Hope they take their cute little rainbow coloured flags into battle.

[@jenghiskhan69]

@@tommcallister7647 lol

[@kennethchou4384]

@@cathymartens7478 why? You’ll just feel dumber when you lose.

[@johnanon372]

Both vessels won't get into head to head combat in the near future. In a Taiwan scenario, Fujian will stay under land-based airforce's protection, and support/guide area denial missiles. Ford is also likely to stay behind Japanese island chain and protect cargos in and out of Taiwan. Neither sides can risk losing one airplane carrier.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

US has 11 modern carriers, China has 3 and only one of them is modern. If China loses the Fuijan, its game over. The other 2 soviet era carriers are so obsolete as to be nearly worthless.

[@Superpooper-2020]

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor US carriers are target practice f0r Chinese hypersonic missiles

[@edgeldine3499]

​@@SelfProclaimedEmperor technically the US has nearly 20 modern carriers we just don't classify the assault ships as such.

[@howardkong8927]

Land-based air cover has its own weakness. For example, if you want to maintain air superiority over a patch of the ocean, doing so with land-based aircraft would require you to maintain a useful amount of fighters over said area. This can be very inefficient, because you need to keep a lot of aircraft in the air. Even worse if that area is far away from your airfields. If you have a carrier, your carrier can sit in that area, and deploy the fighters when needed. The only thing that keeps flying is the early warning aircraft.

[@Rhov9]

@习禁评 okay, but fact is that China still only got 3. Not that the new one isn’t impressive, but it’s still only 1. Plus, I don’t know if you’d wanna fast-track building such a huge machine. If that happened, then guaranteed the newer ones would be lesser quality.

[@whosyourdaddy5719]

the video didn't mention anything about the EMALS system the two ships use. Fu Jian uses DC powered EMALS, whereas Ford uses AC. This is a big difference. These two ships are nothing alike beside basic shapes.

[@CJ-re7bx]

Care to explain the difference?

[@sergeantblue6115]

@@CJ-re7bx direct current and alternating current electrical systems basically

[@whosyourdaddy5719]

@@CJ-re7bx DC power conversion is 90% whereas AC power conversion is 60%. That's why China's ship doesn't need nuclear as it has higher energy conversion rate. But the drawback is that the DC EMALS is harder to maintain and more complicated than AC EMALS. They each have their pros and cons.

[@whosyourdaddy5719]

@@CJ-re7bx think of the DC EMALS As a Japanese car but is as complicated as a Germany car. High efficience but hard and more expensive to maintain.

[@CJ-re7bx]

@@whosyourdaddy5719 Gotcha, thanks. So DC isn't really a game changer as long as the whole system is designed to provide enough power to make up for the inefficiency.

[@c5musicproducer226]

Great video, very well-informed!

[@gabbot141]

3:24 "The larger the hull, the volume inside grows geometrically " *Every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes*

[@TheFlutecart]

Carriers rely on a dedicated and experienced crew for flight ops. It takes decades to build that kind of knowledge and training. You have to build a professional culture around it. That's not the way the Chinese or the Russians do things. It takes one mishap to shut down the deck and the ability to launch and recover aircraft. The US Navy has been in training and development of flight ops since before WW2, I've seen a carrier flight deck crash first hand and it's a nightmare, but our sailors are so well trained for just such an incident. We trained like we meant it, serious business. It took decades and countless mishaps just to get the training right. I guess my point is that you can't just build one of these and put to sea with newbies and expect anything but a horror show.

[@CorePathway]

They will eat losses we would never consider. Well, except for during WWII when we lost something like 10,000 air crew lost in TRAINING.

[@Andsleeter]

" the way the Chinese or the Russians do things”..... To the Chinese and Russians, humans are expendable, like robots. So they dont design things for human safety or comfort.....except for their leaders.

[@TheFlutecart]

@@Andsleeter Yes. That is a big part of it.

[@alanOHALAN]

it will take China more years to be really good at carrier warfare.

[@Redmenace96]

Great comment. The only advantage the Chinese have ever had in combat, is a willingness to sacrifice and die. Their steps toward a modern navy do not concern me in the least. Modern naval warfare is about quality, not quantity, and experience.

[@velavanlaack9134]

It’s not about the capability, it’s about with or without it. The big countries use these ships to bargain for greater interest

[@howardkong8927]

Well, the barganing power depends on the capability.

[@fernandotamon857]

@@howardkong8927 g

[@BlackEagle352]

So when war comes, what are they are gonna launch, paper planes?

[@jout738]

Yes I think China is building these aircraft carriers to prepear for the attack of Taiwan, when it now got it third and fourth aircraft carrier and so I think it will do even more, that one day it can have 10 aircraft carriers and then be a lot bigger rival for US, when I think then China aircraft carriers do want to get in the world sea’s. With support of the aircarft carriers and planes who drop parachute chinese guys in mainland Taiwan to help Chinese tanks and other equiment land in Taiwan. China is then maybe abel to get Taiwan in its control.

[@midnightrider1100]

@@jout738 I think so too. That is about all they are good for with conventional engines.

[@Scriabinfan593]

It's great to see so many expert military analysts in the comments.

[@minerran]

The Chinese Navy has very little experience operating aircraft carriers whereas the USN has One Hundred years experience (since 1922). No comparison. They can throw whatever technology on the deck that they want, but using it to fight the ship effectively requires experience learned the hard way in combat.

[@smashsmash5866]

american car companies also have more than 100yrs experience producing cars and trucks. After so many years they still produce overrated, overpriced and very unreliable products compare to the Japanese who started later and still beat american made cars with excellent reliabilities and very good resale values. Just because americans are slow learners don't assume the whole world is just like you.

[@b0t155]

@@smashsmash5866 Literally nowhere in the world would prio a car made anywhere other than Germany over a U.S car. I've been to Japan and roughly half the countries in the world. One constant, pretty much everywhere, is the U.S auto industry.

[@dreadedsage8630]

@@annarock8966 The U.S has more experience, this is fact.

[@moteroargentino7944]

So? Experience is a test. Not having it doesn't mean incompetence, just that your true capabilities are still unknown.

[@b0t155]

@@moteroargentino7944 It takes a certain type of person to remain composed with death and destruction all around. It's not exactly uncommon for people to completely freeze up when things really pop off. It's estimated the U.S is still 50+ years ahead of any other Naval force in the world. Add that to the fact that they've been shot at by real ordinance. No amount of training prepares you for a 1-2min vacuum of time where every action is life and death.

[@dannydunzo1275]

0:18 dude checking his watch while in formation always cracks me up

[@dapooramericanhomesteadfar7192]

USA does have mini aircraft carrier. It's specialized in drones. It's cheaper, lighter and more mobile. They are supposed to be the first line of defense to the main aircraft carrier because of it's mobility and price.

[@masnokexplorer7180]

Good idea. Mini aircraft carrier by small drone.

[@Andsleeter]

"mini aircraft carrier”.......Even unmanned submarines to launch drones.

[@dapooramericanhomesteadfar7192]

@@Andsleeter I haven't seen one yet, but it's going to be difficult because they are called drones and unmanned doesn't mean that they are small. They are a full size airplane. 😂

[@foxooo]

They are gonna turn every ship into a big drone with no crew on it.

[@dapooramericanhomesteadfar7192]

@@foxooo it's going to be like a video game. No life in the drones. It's coming down to who has more money to build more drones for the other side to blow up.

[@anthavio]

Just note that USS Langley was not definitely first at anything but being first cargo ship converted to experimental carrier by US

[@doge3169]

Still a carrier the first dedicated carrier was built by Japan, also didn’t do much

[@lilysceejeanmoonlight]

All countries urgently need to express peace through diplomacy

[@michaelwoods4495]

In Dec, 1942, the US had trouble getting three fleet carriers together for Midway. In 1945, there were 11 off Okinawa, and another 19 light carriers and escort carriers. All had a full complement of aircraft and pilots. Who supposes we can't do it again?

[@ragingultimate1003]

There's only one shipyard in the US now that can build aircraft carriers. That aside, the time it will take to build Essex-class carriers and Ford-class carriers are vastly different

[@asdfghjkl92213]

and china can do just about the same, and faster, they have 5-times the man power and 30-times the super heavy shipyards

[@jtrooper5771]

@@asdfghjkl92213 they might be able to build faster but they are still bottlenecked on waiting to steal us intelligence then starting to do the building 😂😂

[@TheFlutecart]

@@ragingultimate1003 We could build Essex Class carriers today with angled deck, modern equipment and wipe the ocean floor with about any Navy. Our last WW2 Essex carrier (USS Lexington CV-16) was in operation through 1991 and would still push near 30 knots without a problem, launched and recovered more planes than any other carrier in the world. The new Japanese carriers look a lot like an Essex design. with very similar weight, deck space and displacement numbers. It's a great design actually. Might could even power it with a reactor, not sure why not.

[@palomarjack4395]

@@asdfghjkl92213 ...And fear and intimidation to force their people to pull the party line. If you think they will do their best under those circumstances, you are sadly mistaken.

[@wheeliewheelie1]

We need big planes that can carry lots of boats. They're called boat carriers.

[@simplyyellow6240]

I intoduce tou to LPD.

[@blackwind743]

If you had the technology to make this feasible from a military perspective through something like anti-grav and or creating a localized vacuum you'd probably be better off making multi-environment craft like the tic-tac UFOs. 😁

[@neildavid10]

@@blackwind743 exactly

[@justinholmes1737]

we need cars to carry a LOT of hoes...they be called hoe carriers😀

[@kalui96]

Aigaion do you read me???

[@matthew9402]

Why does everyone forget about the real reason carriers are powerful. It is the ability to launch airplanes and the capability of the airplanes greatly affects it's power.

[@michaelwalton1450]

Interesting but the number, quality, and range of the rest of the ships in the battle group are extremely important. Carriers don’t operate alone…or if the do, they don’t survive very long.

[@donderstorm1845]

China isn't exactly lacking in that department either. their ships are increasing in numbers and quality.

[@AdoraTsang]

The UK drama, "Years and Years" feels more real than ever. "Is this China thing for real?" "It's just Americans going nuts."

[@officialkeanureeves-bc2xw]

Yeah it’s for real How are you doing adora

[@isayusayweallcansay]

China is going NUTS.. They finally got some money$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. so now they want to run with the big guy’s, the big gals.

[@PlayerOblivion]

6:25 Why would you ask a country about the capabilities of their newest gear? 🤣They want to keep things secret for as long as humanly possible.

[@abhishekparmar6702]

Humanly*

[@PlayerOblivion]

@@abhishekparmar6702 I fixed it! xD

[@matheusedwin6144]

Yeah, journalist are unbelievably dumb sometimes. But at least it erases the possibility of someone asking the journalist : "why didn't you ask China military directly of their new carrier capabilities?"

[@jayd2655]

Exactly! China doesn't ask, they just steal it.

[@cheeseninja1115]

sometimes nations will give out some information on capabilities to boast about them, it seems this time that just was not the case

[@timferguson1593]

We have a HUGE advantage over China concerning carriers. We've been operating carriers a heck of alot longer. That's a big advantage!

[@Falconof96]

Plus the aircrafts that are going to be flown from us's carriers are far ahead in tech .

[@hasakeiii4175]

@@Falconof96 nonono

[@sutapasbhattacharya9471]

And the new Chinese carriers are made in China (enough said) - wasn't the deck of one of these new Chinese carriers cracking soon after launch? China has no experience in modern naval nor in modern aerial warfare. China cannot build fully-powered jet engines for its pseudo-stealth J-20. China does not have nuclear-powered supercarriers comparable to the Nimitz and Ford classes. Maintaining and utilizing carriers is not easy - see the video (How Russia Stole and Ruined its Only Aircraft Carrier) exposing the joke Russian Carrier which is pulled by a tug boat and belches black smoke from its engine which keeps breaking down and has hardly spent any time out at sea in all of its years in service.

[@dekaaizer2550]

@@sutapasbhattacharya9471 isnt your Iphone also made in China?

[@sutapasbhattacharya9471]

@@dekaaizer2550 No - I don't have a smartphone! And note that such component assembly by Chinese workers is not the same as stuff designed [or more likely reverse-engineered from stolen IP] and made by the Chinese themselves. iPhone 14 production by Taiwanese Foxconn for US Apple Corp. is now also occurring in India.

[@WTH1812]

Missing here: - enough docks to service a fleet - aircraft complement size and mix of aircraft - open ocean flying experience - operations tactics and training - construction quality - aircraft quality and capability - logistics support, China has none - support ships to resupply fuel, food, ordnance, etc - fleet ships to defend the carrier - and more

[@chancellorasher9417]

Basically they talked bout everything except experience, knowledge, and discipline of running a carrier.

[@michaelsimpson2490]

After your critique, I shall be waiting for your video

[@mistersmacky]

Pilot quality matters too, they fly like they drive. 😁

[@kevinblackburn3198]

@@chancellorasher9417 truth

[@kevinblackburn3198]

@@mistersmacky plus the Chinese Air arm has yet to engineer a reliable aircraft engine for carrier use.

[@renealarcon3970]

Carrier operation experience, in war and otherwise, is again as important as numbers. Refer to Midway in WW II. Cheers.

[@Tealice1]

What has this to do with Midway? The Japanese troops were clearly very well trained and way more experienced than their American counterparts. They lost because of some wrong decisions, and American luck as well as competence.

[@ivojara]

@@Tealice1 The anti american sentiment baffles me. OK, even if incompentent, the US outnumbers the Chinese 10 to 1 in carriers.

[@Tealice1]

@@ivojara Uhhh, I was talking about the battle of Midway in WW2. Not today. And I didn't even mention China.

[@minerran]

Actually, both sides had experience at the Battle Of Midway. It finished the way it did, mainly due to code breaking by the Americans and a bit of luck at the right moment for the USN pilots.

[@renealarcon3970]

@@minerran Actually the US. had fewer carriers in the battle. Luck is when opportunity meets preparation. The US flooded the theater of battle with airplanes. Cheers.

[@Storesdavidal]

Thanks Wall Street People For All Your Informative Videos.

[@officialkeanureeves-bc2xw]

Do you know the best ship is friendship?

[@paulhatala7976]

Logistics is key in a carrier group's ability to extend. Since this ship needs to be refueled regularly, I can't imagine it venturing off into the Pacific very far, seeing as the US would be there waiting with its vastly superior logistics chain. Now when you talk about the aircraft on board each, an F-35 would shred any J-11 to go against it without a doubt.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

And then reality hits in the form of a hypersonic missile, in fact it hits the carriers. No, there is no defence at all. Yes, China have raced ahead and tested and tested and then stockpiled. Meanwhile the us is giving away arms to Ukraine.

[@paulhatala7976]

@@TheLastCrumb. hypersonic missiles are very expensive and can't win against the American Navy or Air Force alone. I'm sure a military with an almost trillion dollar budget has some sort of counter or contingency plan.

[@TheMyopicFed]

we can also note that US carriers have effectively infinite range because they're all nuclear-powered

[@royhuang9715]

@@TheMyopicFed nope your crew need food, your escort destroyers is not nuclear. so the range is not unlimited and is very much dependent on your supply ship which is not ran on nuclear power and need to go back forth transport supply. US navy calculate a carrier battle group at most could fight on its own for 2 weeks then it would ran out of supply. Get educated please.

[@royhuang9715]

Why do you think Chinese navy need to move its carrier afar? Taiwan is 80 miles off their coast, Chinese carrier is most likely used to establish a blockade around Taiwan. It doesn’t need to go far. US need their carrier to travel long distance cause Taiwan is at least 7500 miles away from California.

[@draganslehta415]

Bravo...

[@jonronaldflores3007]

this guy being interviewed at around 0.20sec clearly forget about one important thing when he said that when china's Fujian aircraft carrier will be commissioned, numbers will be the only US advantage over china's carrier force. This guy forgets that the US navy operated aircraft carriers since the 1920's when USS Langley became the 1st operational US aircraft carrier. The experience and expertise gained by the US from those long years operating these carriers are the most important advantage that they have over any adversary that now come to possess this technology.

[@danman6358]

how much experience do you need to get destroyed by torpedos & missiles tho

[@-p2349]

@@danman6358 it would take a nuclear torpedo to destroy an aircraft carrier there 1000 feet long also the us is heavily investing into anti hypersonic laser weapons

[@danman6358]

@@-p2349 investments are all good but unless or until they're working & deployed they're not much use. I dunno exactly what it takes to sink a carrier but I imagine a bunch of non-nuke torpedos could at least disable a supercarrier.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

US carriers have technological advantages, like being nuclear powered also, they don't have to refuel for decades, while China's carrier has to refuel oil every week.

[@RKarmaKill]

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor this is an overrated capability in the expected theater of conflict. US carriers need nuclear power to maintain parity with proximity advantaged/conventional power

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

I think they are both cool. But remember China doesn't specialize in aircraft carriers, they specialize in missiles and rocket systems which are made to sink them.

[@grandcrowdadforde6127]

D M >>> absolutely! hypersonics fly at several thousand mph s!! Carriers are now as obsolete as dreadnoughts were!

[@donaldmaxie9742]

@@grandcrowdadforde6127 Obviously the Chinese don't think so.

[@peterlim1972]

@@donaldmaxie9742 Nothing wrong with having insurance as China's wealth of $5 trillion can easily build another 50 carriers.

[@donaldmaxie9742]

@@peterlim1972 Remember it's not just a carrier, there are a lot of support ships involved. Tankers for example, the carrier may be nuke powered but the aircraft aren't

[@desmond89]

@@grandcrowdadforde6127 can they actually hit the target lol Putin has the most hypersonic. Missiles Yet he can’t even capture Ukraine 🤣😭😭

[@sblack48]

You are forgetting the competence of the pilots and ground crews. The whole purpose of a carrier is to launch and recover aircraft and to have them capable of fighting. You can have the best carriers in the world, but it will only as good as the pilots. Can they land at night? Can they land on a pitching deck? Can they combine both? Can they fight? The Americans can

[@naturetruth5218]

China is fighting USM in its doorstep. Entire China is a unsinkable carrier with thousands of fighter jets, bombers and missiles. With experience gain, Chinese pilots can do as well as US if not better. In WWII and Korea war, Soviet and US trained Chinese pilots had proven their quality. Chinese aveIQ=107, well above US subpar 98. Carriers are for power projection against small country with no means to retaliate, like Iraq and Libya. You have watch too much Tom cruise Hollywood movies.

[@olusolasoretire6524]

...thank you Rv4 Guy - YES WE CAN and are battle tested too! They're comparing their 'latest carrier' to 'the Ford'; don't trust anything made in China when it comes to durability!

[@lunacatt]

Why can't the Chinese?

[@lunacatt]

What is this racism?

[@sblack48]

@@lunacatt because they haven’t been doing it for 70 yrs. They don’t have 100s of senior pilots with 10 cruises under their belts to teach the newer pilots. Nothing to do with race.

[@dannovikoff8454]

Congrats China. You’ve fitted a EMALs system to an American Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier. The Fuijian would’ve been world class in the early 1960s

[@k.k.c8670]

OK. nothing to worry about then.. You can be on your way now. Shoo

[@MooMoo-lw2vw]

China has 10 years history in operating aircraft carriers. Any comparison should only be made come 2030 or post that. 🤯

[@vincentdesun]

China's official plan is to become a global naval power by 2045. So it's not like the Chinese are in a rush to compete against the US. After all, their military spending as a percentage of GDP is only half of the US. China is on chill mode.

[@yihaoliu426]

Naming of Chinese carriers: Liaoning (甲午辽宁旅顺海战 Battle of Lüshunkou), Shandong (甲午山东威海卫海战 Battle of Weihaiwei), Fujian (福建马尾海战 Battle of Fuzhou). They are named after locations (of the province) of the naval battles that China fought in late-modern period. The following ones would be named Jiangsu or Guangdong (江阴海战，虎门海战)

[@mickkrever4084]

*Their stealthy itegrated masks made the Ford Class "cloth hangers" look like from WWII*

[@sharequsman596]

@@mickkrever4084 how?

[@jaymaloney8321]

Aircraft carriers are one thing; Carrier Groups are a completely other thing. This analysis failed to discuss the carrier group. it also failed to note that the US in the Pacific War had laboratory upon laboratory from which to develop the succeeding generations of carriers. Comparing ships without explaining context is amateurish. And presenting the content with a young girl's voiceover made the whole presentation seem lightweight.

[@xidada666]

Very lightweight and incredibly high level with very little depth.

[@urikayan2368]

She makes such basic notes of the true value. Completely skips the majority of the largest difference makers, which puts the US miles ahead of China.

[@Tysca_]

I thought the same thing. Not to be presumptuous about her general abilities or intelligence, but that's not the voice of an experienced naval analyst lol.

[@tonyvan8688]

@Jay Maloney thank you! Thank you! For saying this! I’ve seen so many dead brain comment about missiles can sink a carrier.

[@NYRM1974]

My monitor underwater drone has completed all sea trials with flying colors. The Chinese Navy has no chance against my drone

[@user-me4tj9re7m]

I can only say that you know nothing about the development of China.😂

[@ALWH1314]

The two countries have very different strategic goals. US carriers are offensive to extend power globally and Chinese carriers are obviously built for defending territory like South China Sea, East China Sea and potential guarding the trade routes. US operates carriers way longer than China and has superior airplanes. Chinese carrier has a long way to match US carriers, then again maybe China doesn’t need to as there is no need to extend global power. 003 uses DC electric magnetic catapult and Ford uses AC electric magnetic catapult, very different technology. Radars are different too, 003 has dual band active array scan and Ford is single band passive array scan because Ford has strong protecting fleet for air defense and nobody in the right mind would attack it, 003 on the other hand wants very large and defensive awareness to detect air strikes like F35 even with 055 destroyer near by.

[@knoahbody69]

They can't build their own jets. They need to import jet engines from Russia.

[@paulnicolaparua300]

Spratly islands are not their territory.. FYI.

[@knoahbody69]

@@paulnicolaparua300 That doesn't make sense, but whatever.

[@paulnicolaparua300]

@@knoahbody69 It does make sense because they are stealing the territory of the Philippines. So their aircraft carriers are built to extend their claims

[@baikaage6855]

@@paulnicolaparua300 That's why China built aircraft carriers, isn't it? They have aircraft carriers, and the the Spratly islands are their territory. If the Americans want to stop it, they have to start a war in the South China Sea. It's really uncertain who wins and loses here. As for whether the Pacific Ocean belongs to the United States or who, the Chinese people don't care, it has nothing to do with them

[@zjschulling]

"numbers will be our only advantage" Is this guy serious? The U.S has 100 years of carrier experience. That is our greatest advantage. It's going to take China at least a decade to hammer out all the kinks and figure out of to launch and reciece planes efficiency

[@dannovikoff8454]

Also, the most important thing about an aircraft carrier is the aircraft it carries, and the US is decades ahead of China in tech and sheer quantity in that regard.

[@tonyvan8688]

@@Myanmartiger921 probably even 4 decades ahead even

[@alusnvetvegas5092]

I served on US carriers for 9 years. Our training and experience are very good. China have no idea how strong the USN is.

[@simonyip5978]

Even though the PLA Navy has only had carriers for 10-11 years, they have been studying and developing designs and doctrines for much longer. They've already had 10 years of operating carriers, and the first pilots were being trained to operate from mock up carrier decks since the 1990's and they have been buying up foreign decommissioned carriers since the 1980's and studying them before scrapping them. The PLA Navy has been planning for carrier operations for about 40 years.

[@ObliviousPenguin]

American media military commentators will often overplay the capabilities of their adversaries and downplay their own in order to secure more funds and prominence for the U.S. military.

[@pauldegregorio6432]

If our carriers had big yellow smiley faces on them…the Chinese carriers would do the same.🙂

[@loljk1991]

Nimizhu. And Fordzhu ship names

[@zedwpd]

just because a radar is phased array doesn't mean they have caught up. mechanical radars have been old technology for decades. I'm a mission crew commander air battle manager on AWACS and we still use mechanical rotating radar. Doesnt mean we are in the stone age. It means my platform still performs its function while the enemy still doesnt have a comparable asset.

[@user-hs9xf2me4w]

Maybe you don't believe it. In fact, China's radar technology is more advanced than that of the United States.😁😁😁

[@JohnG44]

@旅人途见 maybe you don't believe it, but china is still trying to catch up to usa, and two china lies usually🤷.

[@GodsDad98]

@@user-hs9xf2me4w 😏😏

[@abellseaman4114]

@@user-hs9xf2me4w Thank you for that Soviet Socialist PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@jerrydiver1]

Part of a carrier's survivability is measured by its ability to stay far out at sea, far away from patrolling land-based air-power. A carrier that does not have the ability yet to replenish her task group at sea and instead has to visit ports for the purpose can not stay hidden. When she visits port, everybody knows where she is, for targeting purposes. And another thing. Entering and leaving port is the most vulnerable time for a carrier vis-a-vis attack from either mines or torpedoes. She has to run that gauntlet just to get out onto the missile target range. Every surface ship, submarine and USAF bomber for 1,500 miles around is within firing range just waiting for the order to pull the trigger. Which carrier would you rather be on?

[@ShepherdMao]

That's where the supply ship comes in. Nuclear-powered carriers that want to avoid docking at port need supply ships for other supplies even though the carrier itself doesn't need refueling. Moreover, other ships in the battle groups are not nuclear-powered.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

This is the age of satellites. Nothing is hidden. Every corner of the world is covered. Carriers are useless now.

[@Hans-gb4mv]

In this modern day and age, it has become impossible to hide your capital ships at sea. Doesn't matter if you are China or the USA. I always have to laugh at that statement that because the US carriers are nuclear, they can stay powered for years. Yes, the carrier can, but the carrier also has a crew. They also need to eat and drink. Sick and injured need to be treated and if necessary, evacuated. A US carrier rarely travels without the carrier group, that's a lot of ships, and not all of them are nuclear powered, in fact, most aren't. So you still have the exact same issue.

[@francejosephfrancisco7586]

its like comparing original products vs imitations.

[@TheFlutecart]

Just imagine the novice crew.. manning up a Chinese Supercarrier. - lol! They should have learned the basics first. Sad.

[@Redmenace96]

Yeah, U.S. is sporting a Gucci bag. China is making a Guuccci bag. Ha,ha!! We got ours at Macy's, they bought theirs from a blanket spread on the sidewalk.

[@mickkrever4084]

@@Redmenace96 @Redmenace96 Sure 🤣 but seems *their stealthy integrated - masks made the Ford Class "cloth hangers" look like from WWII* tho 🤭 (specifically on World War II junkyard selling old US cassettes and vantage discs)

[@gorgontown]

When it kicks off….expertise will prevail. It comes with experience.

[@cathymartens7478]

US is finished then

[@nekopop8159]

I am quite skeptical about China’s new aircraft carrier. Compared to the known and battle tested capabilities of the US carriers, I’m guessing China’s will be performing quite under the US ones.

[@mattlestermatel7748]

You got me at the fuel part

[@stephenfitzgerald7450]

The US has 70+ years of blue water tactics, strategy and operations. This is a decisive advantage that cannot be overcome in our lifetimes.

[@vibhanshuchauhan3328]

Even india has more experience in aircraft carrier operation

[@kentershackle1329]

As if human cant learn n innovate.

[@jasonshen7600]

@@vibhanshuchauhan3328 India also have more experience in burning their carriers, it seems

[@vibhanshuchauhan3328]

@@jasonshen7600 Chinese talking about fire incident that rich

[@vibhanshuchauhan3328]

Isn't Liaoning just a training ship

[@mooglemy3813]

How can you compare the type 003 to even a Nimitz class carrier based on supposition? Once the 003 is commissioned and in active service and if All its operation specifications are known or understood then you can say what you like. That's my KZbin opinion for what it's worth!

[@Cheesecake99YearsAgo]

It seems like you have just stumble upon a propaganda video haha

[@Redmenace96]

That is the only news and analysis that exists today: hype, supposition, more hype, and then misrepresentation out of context. Bonanza! You are writing a news story!! (the WSJ should feel shame for ignoring their former high standards for journalism)

[@Markus117d]

Can it provide a stern section that isn't threatening to break off the ship?

[@moneyall]

Hopefully we can see some carrier on carrier action soon.

[@Hairyparrot]

3 Chinese aircraft carriers powered by "Diesel" compared to the nuclear powered US carriers... that's a problem unto itself...

[@andrewzhang985]

Yet most US aircraft carriers are in bad shapes and needed to be constantly repaired or maintained, which results in only one or two are in ready service.😂

[@kairosik]

@@andrewzhang985 Where did you hear this? A carrier strike group just got deployed into the South China Sea.

[@mfg8129]

If hit, the nuclear powered will lit up like fireworks 🎇

[@kairosik]

@@mfg8129 That's not how nuclear reactors work..

[@limcheating1]

A Nuclear powered AC does not need to refuel, but it still need other supplies like Food and Water, also some amount of fuel is needed as back up. So, given that China only plan to use their AC in East and South China Sea, where they can get their supplies very easily as close to their shore, this seems not to be very problematic

[@goodluckokereke]

Wow, 20 years without needing to refuel . Why TF is nuclear energy not mainstream.

[@tianyicai6482]

Without refuel doesn’t means the ship don’t need maintenance. In fact , with a nuclear engine always cost more and longer time on maintenance 👨‍🔧.

[@FanOfKOTOKO]

In the non-military sector it's because people generally vote against nuclear. There's a mix of both the fear of potential disaster as well as a lack of proper education on the subject and that generally pushes nuclear off the table for many communities.

[@addisyehasab1097]

@@tianyicai6482 Nuclear-powered carriers need maintenance every 3-4 days?

[@phased-arraych.9150]

Because it is expensive, requires immense technical expertise, and needs specialized facilities for refueling and decommissioning.

[@victoriameyers5870]

mainstream? Nuclear waste?

[@dickiewongtk]

The latest batch of Chinese navy ships’ superstructure design is quite handsome IMO.

[@jonyisoneto4328]

Crazy vid

[@maximuschow6610]

what they didnt mention is support vessels, china does not really have capability to do sea refuelling but the us does for food supplies and av fuel so techinacally theus does not need to stop

[@levelazn]

china only wrote the art of war. It has had 5000 years of facing adversaries.

[@jasonshen7600]

"reaching out to state council for their newest technology's specs" I mean, what did WSJ expect? "Oh hey here's our new supercarrier's info, make sure you don't leak it to the internet" lol

[@nulnoh219]

Never ask never know. lol. What if they were feeling generous, or for propaganda purposes provide over inflated figures.

[@goldeagle8051]

WSJ was just trolling the Chinese, I like it.

[@advancedmilitary3427]

I really like this show

[@bodhranlowd]

The Type 003 is just another stepping stone.

[@onebridge7231]

Lol! Once Type 3 is commissioned the numbers is our only advantage. Get real buddy. Just because you build a shiny new military toy in the image of the U.S. Navy does not mean you can use it strategically or even tactically in an efficient and effective manner. This was a hard lesson Russia just learned by taking on Western Military kit used by the Ukrainians. The U.S. Navy has 100 years of carrier operation experience and we still muck it up once in a while. China is not going to go from zero to 200mph over night.

[@huas5350]

@Watcher The same principle applies to China's hypersonic nuclear missiles.

[@boriskoblents8586]

@WatcherWhy are you comparing infastructure to the military? Whole video and comment is on the carrier and your over here talking about rail lol... Stay on topic fam.

[@maclain728]

@Watcher Bruh there is such a huge difference between laying down some tracks compared with conducting successful and well planned carrier operations. If war were to break out and all china’s carriers are trapped in the South China Sea, well no more carriers😈🤣

[@samthesuspect]

@Watcher The US is different thats why no high speed rail. For Cali for example the company needs approval from each county the high speed rail goes through and every county didn't allow it unless their was a stop in one of their towns. Increase the number of stops, increasing costs, increasing build time.

[@tissohann8457]

@Watcher its not like Chinese high speed rail is a great success either. China overextended it and correct me if im wrong but every year it brings losses not to mention the debt. Not that high speed rail is bad. USA is still horrible when it comes to public transport but to me presenting chinese high speed rail as a success is a bit misleading.

[@willh2739]

oh yeah, the launch system is totally the tense area of innovation here

[@christiantaylor3877]

yeah, more aircraft in the sky means you can have air superiority. Which is one of the most critical areas of a conflict to have control over,

[@daniellarsontwitch9674]

Cool

[@lukeecle117]

Make a video about the indian aircraf carrier, INS Vikrant' , please

[@99cya]

the carrier is one thing of many. the carrier is surrounded by lots of different ships with different capabilities. also many different planes support the carrier and its fleet. plus key is that all is working together, especially when it gets hot. the US is the only force that has this capability. all others are kinda clueless how to successfully operate all these things in combat. the training simulations they run are not the whole thing.

[@protorhinocerator142]

Correct. A carrier on its own in the ocean is called "a target". The US carriers travel in a pack called a Carrier Battle Group. Short of a nuke, there's not much that can get through this layered defense system.

[@NazriB]

Lies again? AMWF CAR MR BEAN

[@hifinsword]

Long range drones and unmanned aerial vehicles are a new wrinkle to the equation. Let's hope the U.S. Navy is exploring and incorporating their place in multiple combat scenarios. I'm almost sure the Chinese are. Their appearance is as new a paradigm shift in warfare as the aircraft carrier was.

[@tbone7353]

You need to understand that China makes cheap knockoffs of US technology they have no original designs everything is stolen tech and they make it the best they can always falling well short china has no advantages at all they have bad versions of our technology

[@user-mn3qp3rx8z]

no they are not. a slow and unmaneuverable drone will change the equation, but not by much. they are easy targets for midrange sams. the most interesting drone developments will be the new missile trucks and refuelers, which will be mostly integrated with the new 6th gen fighters (of which the US has already test flighted)

[@hifinsword]

@@user-mn3qp3rx8z Your statement seems to assume drones will be slow and not maneuverable. Presumably you think they all will be flying high enough for midrange SAMS. That is only part of the total picture. No doubt there will be a role for such slow and easy shot drones, as diversionary targets to overwhelm SAM systems. While the SAMs try to target and shoot the diversionary drones, the primary threats will be flying either under the radar, or electronically shielded by ECM equipped drones, and approaching a target independently from multiple vectors for a simultaneous time on target. It will be a new wrinkle to current tactics but, without endangering human pilots. Such drones do not have to be connected to outside nav or control. They can be programmed before launch to a target without a need to update via GPS. Updates can happen as they do now, with multiple visual geographic points of reference all contained on an internal digital map. The main threat to these new battlefield drones will be the 6th gen fighters/interceptors, but it will be a numbers game until the 6th gen are equipped with laser type weapons that are basically unlimited loads. Current missile and bullet constraints will be overwhelmed with false targets to shoot at.

[@deriznohappehquite]

Drones don’t really do much that conventional aircraft don’t already do.

[@Mehwhatevr]

That Ford vessel looks magnificent

[@peteplayer3]

20 years without refueling!!!!!! That’s nuts

[@kensmith8152]

They haven’t even launched the Fujian, it takes a long time of trials to work out any problems

[@ramesseum3188]

It take years my friend the US didn't commission J.F.K Ford carrier although it launched in 2019 with all US experience imagine what will take China to deploy it maybe in 2030.

[@defencebangladesh4068]

@@ramesseum3188 true. but by then China will have two more aircraft carriers.

[@inthasonekhounborine7887]

not even close Fujian is paper aircraft carrier lol

[@112313]

People should remember that type 003 is but a prototype... There will be a 4th and 5th type...

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@defencebangladesh4068 when china starts the war all Chinese carriers will immediately be sunk in a night raid by B-2 stealth bombers

[@lipingrahman6648]

When I was with the Navy the officers I talked to reconned that the Chinese were building a large but otherwise cheap and disposable fleet for one large mission. Three guesses as to where this fleet is headed for.

[@frederickmiles327]

Clearly the PLN fleet is for intimidation and use against Pacific soft targets, not for use against a fleet with significant any ship SSN nuclear submarines. These carriers would be smashed easily by multiple hits by modern torpedoes or overwhelming saturation missile attacks like all aircraft carriers. They might be useful against unprotected or distant Pacific Islands or even Taiwan. Mainly they serve as a theoretical or possible threat like Tripitz or Scharhorst in Norway or Yamato and Mushari in Japan in 1944.

[@lipingrahman6648]

@Brasti Taiwan, it’s being built for one massive assault on Taiwan.

[@loljk1991]

@Brasti headed to Davy Jones Locker.

[@jam1087]

That's just how they build everything

[@MasterIceyy]

Bottom of the ocean hopefully

[@ziaulmonsur]

What is the safeguard of a carrier if enemy launch for example 12 anti ship high precision missiles targeting the carrier from different locations at the same time? I think it is quite impossible to avert the carrier from hitting the missiles and complete destruction of the carrier is almost certain. So, in practical combat with a strong opponent use a carrier has no use but a chance of losing the entire carrier and aircraft int it.

[@tonyvan8688]

That’s the reason why Carriers don’t go alone, they travel with destroyers and cruisers… they will never ever go alone because their anti-missile capability isn’t very good.

[@mosesla1861]

Hi baby how are you doing now i hope you are really doing good you are awesome looking at you baby makes happy when I look at your picture it is beyond my imagination that a creature like you really exist like a rose you make the garden so beautiful You are a diamond to any man that have eyes to see goodness of a womanhood Baby am Ben easy going person very understandable Am a civil engineer and a contractor I work at so many places like Asia Europe and Africa I love art craft and I write music I like ideal people when I see your picture am impress I want a good woman that understand what real love is all about who will understand me and perfectly be for me So we can build our world strong enough to care for each other I want you to be mine and I hope to hear from you soonest thanks

[@ziaulmonsur]

@@tonyvan8688 : It's nice to have the carrier guard with cruisers and destroyers but these are i think not enough as the enemy's launch a flock of anti-ship missiles targeting the carrier. Practically not all the missiles are taken down by any anti-missiles system. Just a one or two missiles out of many could hit the carrier and destruction of the carrier and air crafts in it is highly likely.

[@lucanoyz7876]

Italy have 3 aircraft Carriers G.Garibaldi, C.Cavour and new Trieste. Trieste sobstitute old G.Garibaldi but G.Garibaldi transormed in Drone carrier or lunch sistem for italian spaceship

[@kingsteven7]

I've never understood the thought process of we can make a ship that can go all around the world but build a small one for just local defense. Always build one that can everywhere. Bc then they can defend and attack. Filling both roles

[@TheArtikae]

Money. Maintaining a global military presence is really expensive. You need massive, world spanning supply chains. If you only need to operate locally, your money will go a lot further.

[@pynkfloyd8105]

So you want nuclear everything

[@kingsteven7]

@@pynkfloyd8105 no. I was speaking in context of making ships. Back in late 1800s an early 1900s some nations made small coastal battleships that were for coastal defense but the problem is if your enemy has control of the sea and can send its full size capital ships to your coast unopposed. Then your smaller ship has no realistic chances. I don't like the base thinking that's all

[@MrHashisz]

With hypersonic missile technology, aircraft carriers are sitting ducks.

[@darkchocolate3390]

6:07 That's a crazy difference.

[@jenniferstewart3834]

“Catch up” is the key phrase.

[@cadennorris960]

“Numbers will be our only advantage”. So sick of these “subject matter experts” who have no clue what they’re talking about. The Gerald R Ford class is the culmination of over 100 years operating carriers. No amount of money China can throw at a carrier will beat experience. The GRF class also has 4 catapults unlike 003s 3 catapults. Pretty sure there are more elevators and ordnance elevators on the GRF. No carrier operates alone, US carrier strike groups are objectively better. The Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class with their AEGIS radar system, provide protection for the carrier that is unmatched by any navy. There’s also the air wing itself which once again favors the US. The US has been doing high tempo sorties on catobar carriers since Vietnam and we have learned a lot from aircraft like the A4 and F4. The USN took it upon themselves to set the standard for safe and effective carrier operations for the entirety of NATO to benefit from. Again, no amount of money is going to make China catch up to the USN in quality and efficiency.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

China already have more massive and efficient defense system than AEGIS. AEGIS is old news. China 700+ naval vessels compare to 480 US naval vessels. The Chinese strike group and defense group already dwarfs entire NATO and it still keeps growing. With that much numbers equipped with supersonic and hypersonic missiles, entire US navy is just canon fodder against the might of the Chinese navy.

[@cadennorris960]

@@ajaykumarsingh702 It takes talent to type as many words as you did and still say nothing

[@cadennorris960]

@@ajaykumarsingh702 April of 2021 was the first time a type 055 destroyer has ever accompanied a PLAN carrier. You expect me to believe 1 year of little experience is gonna compare to the USNs decades of experience? You really are naive. PLAN has one strike group, the US has 11. You also forget all of the LHAs with F35Bs and AV88Bs.

[@ajaykumarsingh702]

@@cadennorris960 The Chinese navy doesn't follow the doctrine of the US navy. They replicate the US strike group just for sending a message that they can do it too. In reality, the Chinese navy is not centred on carriers but missile ships. And this is the age of missiles. Tanks, jets, carriers are just sitting ducks in modern warfare. USA might use them on 3rd world nations but not against Russia and China.

[@cadennorris960]

@@ajaykumarsingh702 Honestly hilarious that you are naive enough to believe they would spend billions of their smaller defense budget, on carriers, MBT, and fighters all just to prove a point. That is just unrealistic, did you think at all about what you were told or do you just accept everything at face value?

[@shikharsrivastava1]

Recently India made it's 2nd Aircraft Carrier and Commissioned it today and started preparing it's 3rd Aircraft Carrier.

[@watermirror]

Hopefully India shifts to nuclear. Partner w/ France to reduce costs in each other's carrier program. And also contribute big time in reducing consumption of petroleum. If only UK went nuclear

[@teamtryxgg281]

@UCqr09Ne-XPXSgDWH8JQYWxg Sorry

[@dexorne9753]

Indians always have to insert themselves when China is being talked about lol

[@supanchakma3905]

India need more and more build toilets

[@thomaszhang3101]

Finally about time… it took like 20 years to make that second carrier lol.

[@nicolamastascusa8173]

I really like that in the first 10s, Beijing has an 'arsenal', while the US merely has a 'fleet'. Classy. Professional. No bias there.

[@user-ce1dh9lq9x]

did you forget the Chinese underwater orchestra ( chaines submarine) ? Fujian is also the same category 😁😁

[@hongleongooi2559]

Fujian is also where the ancestors of the great majority of Taiwanese came from.

[@achak74]

China has no war time experience with Aircraft carriers USA has vast experience using

[@abettertomorrow5928]

not against super sonic missiles

[@xupaolo3820]

then why wester say “ china is a threaten”

[@RackHasAttacked]

@@abettertomorrow5928 super sonic missiles are overrated and there are already ways to combat them

[@davidwei7797]

Vast experience of attacking weaker countries lol

[@RackHasAttacked]

@@davidwei7797 Iraq in 1991 was the 5th largest and most heavily equipped nation on the planet and were defeated in least than a week. Also they have carrier and island hopping experience in ww2 and have masterd the carrier doctrine

[@PyGorka]

“The Fire needs to refuel after 20 years while the Fujian needs to refuel every 4-6 days” oh yeah, they are catching up🙄

[@EggBoxingFactoryManager]

😂

[@user-lp3zn8mk9g]

Thanks for comparing Fujian with Ford, but we know that there is still a long way to go.

[@Valeron5]

You forgot to add that China has no fighters for the Fujian. As of today the J-15B and the J-35 are in the prototype stage. Also the Fujian still needs years of fitting out.

[@5414vivek]

Dammm nuclear power is so cool. 20 years! Wow

[@AAAAAA-tj1nq]

the emals catapult on ford carrier is plagued with problems and they still haven't figure it out

[@karlphillips3259]

Old age, experience, strategy and treachery will always beat youth, shiny objects, impetuousness and exuberance.

[@Agent77X]

Rumor on the catapult is from U.S. defense contractor’s design schematics and specs after it was fully operational and tested!😮

[@haroldrhodes2610]

China's YJ-21 has a range of 1000km to 1500km. Roughly 20 minutes from launch to impact. Today's Navy's are vulnerable to modern conventional and hypersonic missle technology. Decades old Harpoon tech has proven this in 2022.

[@mycommentwilltriggeryou9810]

Still can’t beat the us tho

[@danielvilliers612]

It goes both ways, taiwan has bought a ton of harpoons. China will have lost a quater to half of its navy fleet even before any landing.

[@TheMyopicFed]

nice YJ-21 missile, sure would be a shame if an SM-6 interceptor decimated it mid-flight

[@user-wm5tm6uj8k]

@@mycommentwilltriggeryou9810 请问你是美国人吗？哦天呐！美国黑人除了会嘲讽别人还会干什么？每天生活在美利坚被歧视的环境里面，我可以理解你这种被压榨久了的黑人内心已经变态了

[@user-wm5tm6uj8k]

@@TheMyopicFed 你要快一点哦h

[@VBH8888]

A ships most vulnerable moment is docked. If theirs has to dock more, it is out often fight more and easier to takeout or sabotage.

[@jonathanwilliams4348]

Asap, either during sea trials, or if more effective, after the Fujian is armed and full of munitions and is at sea, she needs to have multiple "accidental"(unable to pinpoint what/who was responsible) explosions in a non-recoverable manner that sends that ship to a non-recoverable depth, period.

[@prasanth2601]

Dear WSJ, you need to check the subtitles before uploading the video.

[@MithunOnTheNet]

Those are auto-generated

[@dustoff499]

If China wants to keep their Carrier fleet (the whole fleet) then it's not wise to tangle against one our Carriers.

[@mariecherement3834]

CHINA WILL NOT HAVE A FLEET LEFT. OR THEIR OWN COUNTRY LEFT.

[@jenny2329]

f the US wants to keep its own fleet, it is unwise to fight against China in the second island chain

[@nutty_tv2967]

People don't understand the biggest and most important battles will be underwater whoever's Submarines force dominates will most likely will the war.

[@dorianboss9387]

Y’all act like USA isnt upgrading their military so what China is catching up they gonna have to work 10 times harder to catch up to the U.S which is also upgrading their military

[@ivojara]

Just remember a low flying B2 spirit or an F117 can hit any enemy aircraft carrier without being seen.

[@minerran]

Our stealth aircraft are not invisible, that's a misconception people have. Some older radars can't see them, it really depends on frequency band. Modern radars can pick them up but the signature is small and can be misinterpreted by the operator.

[@Blox117]

you mean the f117 that got shot down?

[@msd835]

Dude are you still live in 1990s? F117 was long gone, long long gone.

[@chronus4421]

The expert for this video has large limitations in his knowledge. Real Large.

[@mingyuansun4075]

Agree

[@MeowyBrigade]

Elaborate?

[@defencebangladesh4068]

Agree

[@mgboltstwitch6921]

I know it's probably a dumb question but why is there like these rectangle houses across the Chinese vessel? Is it permanent there or just while they build

[@PaliAha]

Hawaii Pacific College doesnt even have a campus. They simply rented office space in a downtown building. To go there, a private for-profit school, you must be high on pakalolo.

[@mcrazza]

Don’t bet against the U.S. Navy.

[@JW-ku7nn]

China isn't betting to fight US Navy, its betting on our leaders to self destruct. This is probably just a backup plan

[@whitemoon5752]

Hold my beer , The 4 the aircraft’s carrier will be launched in 2026 and it will be bigger and using nuclear not diesel.

[@defencebangladesh4068]

yep

[@jathebest2835]

Will they come from the US? What do you mean?

[@threathy]

Aircraft carrier is basically a steel coffin that bury you underwater when defeated. And thats scene is actually heroic according to rules of navy. 😌

[@iamthemedici]

The DC EMALS is one generation ahead of the AC EMALS