Why Are U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers In China's Desert?

China is building elaborate naval targets thousands of miles from the sea. It's all about anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). A new category of weapon, these 'Carrier Killers' may give China an advantage in future wars.
Original article on US Naval Institute news news.usni.org/...
Unscripted and unedited, just a guy talking defense analysis

[@americanknow8232]

The US carrier's model is on a railroad and it can move at the speed of actual carrier in the sea. A good target practice for hypersonic missile.

[@zhoubaidinh403]

Yeah but can it wiggle?

[@americanknow8232]

@@zhoubaidinh403 It is multi-head. No need for wiggling.

[@truthful3777]

@@zhoubaidinh403 Why need to wiggle? It dead right centre at the blink of the eye. ...

[@zhangyi5145]

@@zhoubaidinh403 wiggling track is actually computable though

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@zhangyi5145 that hypersonic missile might not work.

[@andrewjvaughan]

I might be biased, because this is my field, but this could be AI training to identify US ships in the future visually. Being able to do so at speed or realistic to battlefield conditions provides much better training data than anything simulated.

[@jwickerszh]

Technically yes, and it wouldn't need to be US specific (how often would you have a friendly carriers that close to a target carrier) but it may be impered by weather conditions. It might have sensors and AI to avoid hitting an escort ship though or provide resistance to jamming and counter measures.

[@ChiefCabioch]

I don't believe anything considered hypersonic in the Mach 5 region or higher is going to be able to maneuver to hit a ship that's moving and turning

[@HappyDuude]

I think you're overthinking that to be honest. With satellites, carrier battle groups are not hard to find. The target is literally the biggest ship in a co-ordinate set. There wouldn't really be an overfitting or misclassification problem here. This leaves aside that of you really did want this for training, you would want it moving to get a variety of angles and aspects for your training data -- but even that wouldn't allow for any lists or similar. Edit: to clarify, yes there would be AI training benefit, but I doubt these are exclusively for AI visual recognition training

[@andrewjvaughan]

@@HappyDuude I don't know enough about the weapons systems to know that, but my guess would be identification of certain areas of the ships would certainly be beneficial and more important for a warhead camera, not just which ship is largest

[@MrCastodian]

@@ChiefCabioch Why? This is nothing new, the first Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle were active in the 70s, it’s just a fast missile with some form of guidance, in the 80s the first true guided ballistic missile entered service, it was guided by an imaging radar, it was an American Pershing missile, it’s been 30 years since that and billions of dollars spent, it’s obvious they work.

[@ActionPanda-g5n]

i cannot believe how interesting you make your subjects sound, not only do I focus to hang on every word but I end up scrutinising the illustrations as well. Unscripted! You have a wonderful speaking voice and your competency is unquestionable.

[@HISuttonCovertShores]

Thanks!

[@kevincook1018]

Very interesting. I think one reason they are testing on land instead of waterborne is that it precludes the possibility of adversary intelligence collection of missile debris from the ocean floor. UUVs, Submarines, and submersibles have quite advanced (classified) collection capabilities.

[@YaMomsOyster]

@@Jack-lb1nt what?

[@Jack-lb1nt]

@@YaMomsOyster I can't remember what I said exactly but if you hit the water with an object that's going Mach 5 or better there will be nothing to retrieve thank you for pointing out someone tampered with my comment

[@amcneilly84]

i would guess safety and cost i.e. less risk of hitting commercial ships in the populated waters vs remote desert. The ai might track the wrong ship given its initial high altitude tracking. Easier to build land based carrier replica than floating.

[@jwickerszh]

China has a rather busy sea traffic, not the safest environment to test AI guided ballistic missiles ... unless you'd tow those carrier sized targets far off but that's a bit unpractical. It's also a lot easier to safely monitor the impact on the ground as you just need basic sensors instead of having to use ships. Intelligence wise it's more of a side effect I think, but sure, also western forces would be very interested in tracking those missiles to develop possible early warning or interception capabilities which they can't do when those are tested inland.

[@oscaro3157]

It's also waaaaay cheaper.

[@1blueeye]

You've doubled in subscribers since I joined, I'm happy to see that. Another informative video. You have a knack for 'off-the-cuff' narration, it suits these videos well. Thank you!

[@gyasiansa3358]

H I Sutton is a genius

[@skyboundmktg]

Yeah love his narration. Love the videos where he shuts down comments about being unscripted and his mic quality. Cracks me up every time

[@grego15]

JEEN YUHS!

[@theacmemovement9677]

Funny I was subscribed to this channel just found out this morning.

[@shmeckle666]

Ep

[@montecorbit8280]

Just watch this video.... I found a highly interested. Been a little over a month since I've watched one of your videos, and I must say I think your audio has gotten better....this makes it easier to take in your information. Have a great day.... Monte

[@George_Salt]

Reminds me of the WW2 ship-shaped ground targets near Elvedon (52.35510119121764, 0.6402724247769583). Still faintly visible on modern aerial images, but clearer on the 1946 aerials.

[@ryanzwiep1162]

I have been waiting in anticipation for another video from this channel. You provide great analysis on all things navy.

[@m.streicher8286]

Yay he's back!!

[@lordlee6473]

There is actually a carrier making a hard turn in the Chinese desert, which simulates what’s likely to happen when a US carrier realizes it’s the recipient of a DF express package.

[@stolly27]

you don't want a piece of the US military. You will be up for a ruth awakening

[@lordlee6473]

@@stolly27 lol. What does it have to do with you? You ain’t AngloSaxon, you are a Hispanic discriminated and bullied by the AngloSaxons. GTFOH

[@Yurilon]

Noice lol

[@jwickerszh]

Ha, SF for inland delivery, DF for international deliveries at sea 😅

[@djtan3313]

Did it get hit?…

[@Kenny-yl9pc]

Please keep up the awesome work! It is always a pleasure to see your videos. It is very muhc interesting to listen to your braod and detailed knowledge about the under/over sea technology and everythinbg related to it. I would realy like to see longer videos, where you can go sideways or which ever way you want and just talk about everything you know about the topic. It is so interesting to learn and know more about it and since you have that much knowledge it is very much appreciated if you can educate us. So please do not hesitate just make them how you want and if you want make them longer. And just as a suggestion maybe you could do a more submarine briefs like you did about the Belgorod, but maybe this time about the Typhoon or what ever you like. Thank you for your great work I appreciate it very much.

[@pfisherking]

^This

[@HISuttonCovertShores]

Thanks for the kind words The war in Ukraine has messed up the usual flow of topics, hope to be able to get back to focusing on submarines soon

[@Fightback2023]

This is old news. The aircraft carrier on the desert is built exact size of US replica on a rail track moving at the speed of 30 knots. China uses it as moving target practice.

[@AdamMGTF]

That's what the video says......

[@SchlawinerUSA]

i recently found your channel, and it is very very informative.. i love the details and the knowledge behind it, i like the narration and good, true and honest picturing of the images. and maxar when maxar can shoot such detailed images, holy smokes my tin foil zylinder is glowing :D

[@beeble2003]

It's all very well testing your missile against targets in the desert that are covered in radar reflectors, but what happens when you then try using it against a target that's trying to be radar-stealthy and which is surrounded by water that presumably behaves rather differently to sand?

[@FinnBrownc]

Great info. Would love a full video on weapons known to be using AI Targeting.

[@AdamMGTF]

The problem there would be that so much of it is secret. Also the field is constantly changing. It's all programming at the end of the day and no military is going to willingly share proprietary code

[@Trojan0304]

Thank you for update of threats to carriers. Hope you can do submarine threat to carrier.

[@namelesswarrior4760]

It is no surprise to us Chinese regarding these target practice sights. I'm certain that the US and other countries have similar systems in place. The empty desert are the perfect place for it.

[@HafiZzZzZz]

Yup. Usa have mock ups of J-20 jets in Georgia, USA for practice.

[@realMaverickBuckley]

I've always wondered what the result would be when America went to war with a powerful country, and what could happen to its Carriers. I hope we never find out.

[@Arag0n]

They will be sink or be left in home, as too expensive to be lost. That's what happened to battleships in ww1

[@slslbbn4096]

That's on top of the devastation and depopulation of American East and West coast cities. They are all marked for biochemical retaliation in the event of American intervention in Taiwan - something kept secret from the American public for obvious reasons

[@truthful3777]

I am more worried if being hit what disaster it will bring if the Nuclear waste spill on the ocean ....How much damaged it would bring to the world?!? The sea water flows through out the world...

[@AdamMGTF]

​@@Arag0n you need to read more history! Battleships were used extensively by all sides during ww1! Ok maybe not much by the USA but they weren't in the war for long.

[@AdamMGTF]

​@@truthful3777 similar to what happens when nuclear subs have been lost. How bad the damage is will depend on where it happens.

[@olivertaylor8788]

The xx3 and xx9 is designed to hit only shape targets only.Enter the shape and that's what it will hit.

[@scienceandmathHandle]

I get what your saying that blue army is traditionally used for OPFOR by China. But is there a chance that "Blue Army" might have more to do with blue water navies? just a side thought Main Thought: I have heard rumors of larger VLS systems for the Americans, larger than the MK57, back at a previous employment position... do you think that is perhaps a, prelude to large RIM missiles with hypersonic capability(or maybe ABM), in the American Navy? Thanks for the videos they are quite informative

[@GumbyGoodness]

What would Us do if China sailed their carries on the coast of america?, enough said

[@liammarra4003]

Such it the phuck up. That's about it.

[@AdamMGTF]

That would be interesting. I mean the USA would have to be huge hypocrites to protest. If the Chinese ships are in international waters then it's freedom of the seas and the USA would have to smile and wave Interestingly I don't see china doing it. The USA is obsessed with china. I don't think china cares much what the USA does. Other than hoping the us keeps spending themselves into oblivion.

[@acefighterpilot]

Beautiful artwork Sutton. When are you going to start painting happy little clouds?

[@andylarner3531]

Playing catch up again thanks for the analysis

[@fosterwilliams1073]

no. In our Chinese OSINT＇s opinion，the air launched missile in h6 isn't designed for anti ship but for nuclear balance instead

[@paulloveless9180]

Interesting. Are you suggesting that it is nuclear or just very large conventional?

[@fosterwilliams1073]

@@paulloveless9180 we calculate its max range and find out the missile can hit most region of Australia when launched from East China Sea or hit Hawaii and San Francisco when launched from Sea of Okho tsk. so that missile is designed for nuclear strike. it's a part of nuclear deterrent against US and AUS

[@fosterwilliams1073]

@@paulloveless9180 According to the PLARF tradition. it should use conventional／nuclear warhead like DF26

[@janissaryone1906]

I don't see anywhere there is proof any ASBM works against moving ships as the physics are very difficult to overcome. At hypersonic speeds, there is a plasma sheath covering the missile that acts like a Faraday cage preventing any EM waves from penetrating. So how will they use radar seekers? Infrared is similarly difficult as there's a glowing fireball in front of the heat seeker.

[@msytdc1577]

Though I highly doubt they would do it this way, theoretically, the missile payload could consist of two parts, the primary steered impactor, and a secondary sensor portion that detaches near the terminal phase that then decelerates sufficiently to be able to sense and communicate in a forwards direction. That sub-payload would then direct the impactor with terminal guidance by communicating with it via it's rear, which has clear enough transmissibility through any reentry plasma. It is how the early cold war US short range nuclear tipped anti ballistic interceptor missiles were directed to their targets from ground stations, as they encountered the same issue as they accelerated to hypersonic speeds within seconds while in the thick low atmosphere, surviving only through ablative shielding on their noses.

[@MrCastodian]

If USA could do this in the early 80s, why can’t China and at least 4 other nations do it today?

[@steve-wu7jp]

Fascinating video

[@ryanhampson673]

The US has used electro optical recognition in sub munitions for years now. The BLU-109 ( if I recall nomenclature correct) can be dropped over intertwined vehicles in combat. The submunition spins and scans the battle field below identifying targets. If it comes across a vehicle it compares the picture to its database. If it’s a U.S. vehicle it doesn’t fire but if it’s an enemy design, mainly soviet it fires. I’m assuming the missile is using radar and several other options, IR, optical, UV and even anti-radiation (radar and radio emissions) and comparing it to a previously uploaded database. I’m wondering if these could be a one hit kill weapon, if you watch a sink-ex ( sinking exercise) videos on older ships the US ships have taken tremendous amounts of punishment, and that’s just a stationary ship with no maneuvering, countermeasures or damage control parties working. Although new ships now are lucky to have thin armor compared to the behemoths we built in WW2.

[@aaronclair4489]

I believe you're talking about the skeet dropped by the BLU-108 and CBU-97/CBU-105 combination. I also don't think the BLU-108 does as much target recognition as you think. It has a laser rangefinder and a thermal sensor, and it recognizes targets by seeing if a target is the height of a tank (with the laser) and the temperature of a tank (with the thermal sensor). But I don't think the submunition does any more target analysis than that, and I don't think the thermal sensor has more than a handful of pixels. This simple design keeps the cost reasonable (probably ~$10K-20K per submunition) and the size small. AI image processing wasn't super amazing in 1992.

[@iles33681]

Could the circular markings be for the initial inertial guidance system? If there are impact marks inside, it would either mean a test of the missile inertial guidance system (test the basic accuracy), or the failure of acquiring (identifying) the ship in the port (AI accuracy test).

[@AdamMGTF]

I love the bullseye in the middle of the Iranian target carrier😅

[@thepetrologist]

There is a channel called ”HypOps” that simulated a realistic battle between these adversaries with these weapon systems. Worth a watch. It is the two oldest videos on that channel.

[@riskinhos]

11:55 yes we did. they do have several submarine launched anti ship missiles.

[@skankhunt9078]

Hello cer. That is a strange aircraft carrier. What kind of engines do they need to navigate in the desert sand? Thanks

[@SALTINBANK]

thanks you as always for your amazing content love the GEOINT // TECHINT parts ...

[@louisquatorze9280]

Well done. Clearly the age of AI in warfare is upon us. Carrier strike group defense will have to evolve accordingly, perhaps with lasers and/or revival of the moribund rail gun development projects.

[@kineahora8736]

Lasers are definitely a thing. Being tested right now by Israel as the next step in evolution of their rocket defenses after Iron dome: turns out lasers make a lot of sense for several reasons-they don’t use any perishable ordnance, so it’s a big cost savings issue, and of course there is speed: doesn’t matter how hypersonic a missile is, if the laser is light-speed.

[@byloyuripka9624]

@@kineahora8736 laser anti missile has been pushed far and abandoned in new mexico and that 747 project. the most powerful railgun destroyed a warehouse of capacitors.... not yet

[@WhiskyCardinalWes]

A few grey cells got together and produced a random thought about U.S. Navy and its autonomous boats. I was thinking that all of the VLS cells on manned ships would be defensive missiles, while the unmanned VLS boats would carry the offensive missiles. It's not a fully formed thought, I'm still trying to iron it out.

[@WhiskyCardinalWes]

Somehow I'm getting a cross of David Weber's Honor Harrington pod laying ships, crossed with a modern surface ship that can launch a lot of 'pod boats' with VLS that can fire off a bunch of missiles at once. It's early morning and the caffeine delivery system hasn't kicked in yet.

[@stalinbalans3030]

@@WhiskyCardinalWes honestly, that's a great idea given how ssm lethality increased dramatically the last few decades, 6th gen fighter projects are developing a similar concept. I think that navies should shift from manned to unmanned smaller surface ships to improve survivability and cut down expenses

[@bumponalog7164]

The problem with unmanned ships is unlike aircraft damage control can be very successful in preventing the loss of the ship.

[@stalinbalans3030]

@@bumponalog7164 they're expendable anyway, at least compared to a conventional manned warship. Corvette sized unmanned ships (or even smaller) could be produced in large numbers at cheap costs so losses would be tolerable

[@1blueeye]

Interesting thoughts. The ability to avoid life-support systems would dramatically reduce costs, obviously. There are many considerations, but it is an interesting concept.

[@PlanetFrosty]

Since this was released operational testing of hypersonic missiles have been conducted by US which has done development on and off since the 60s. The ability to provide reliable control at hypersonic speeds for both China and Russia are limited. They are behind the R&D compared to US which has spent more time with lower altitude higher heat and steering load at high resistance/temp.

[@AdamMGTF]

Given the actual level of development is no doubt highly secret. I'm not sure how you can make such a sweeping statement. Unless you work for an intelligence agency and your posting about it on the internet 😂

[@danielmartin7838]

Is that artificial port literally generic, or does it mimic any particular port? Maybe they couldn't help but leave a clue? It also wouldn't surprise me if the mock ships were used for drone targeting, either. Why waste a good target? Thanks for the vid. Known about these ships for a good bit now, nice to see your keen insight to explain what they're shooting at them with.

[@thelawofficesofmaxlevine6413]

Stop apologizing for your narration! It’s great. I only wish you’d make more videos.

[@kreterakete]

Love you my friend. Hugs from bohemian forest. Crystal clear. Hugs again.

[@michaeltan6682]

Well done China. If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander!!

[@profo4544]

Well, i can give a vague guess at a few things. The gliding one, will lose momentum and airspeed with every turn/manuever it has to make, also, the faster these missiles travel, the less time you have to divert or cancel.

[@dirkkarmel5209]

At these speeds, the missile has liittle need to adjust it's approach.

[@76dg15]

Pretty cool and informative video

[@matthewsheeran]

Yes. They no longer need airborne targeting systems. They can be sent to a particular areas to independently and selectively attack targets and not doubt prioritize them: hit a carrier of they see one otherwise a destroyer for example or large tanker depending upon how they are programmed for a misssion. Hmmm. (I doubt that they can change these mission parameters once in flight though.) I hope Uncle Sam is listening carefully and developing suitable countermeasures. I wonder if a destroyer could make itself look like a carrier with some kind of projected chaff at the last minute. hmmm.

[@dirkkarmel5209]

6 months ago ? The systens are obviojsly in their final testing phases. The sensor systems being used,, are to evaluate the impacts.

[@grego15]

Love your videos please keep uploading!!

[@craigbinder5560]

I haven't been getting notifications of your new videos

[@mikeray1544]

Why did the IJN practicevin a island group that resemble the Hawian island..

[@spankythemonkey9828]

So why are there no damages to it if its a target? Maybe it's for practicing landing and take-off on moving platform for inexperience pilots?

[@AdamMGTF]

Watch the video 😂. They are built in weapons testing sites 🙄

[@spankythemonkey9828]

@@AdamMGTF Thank you. It's been 10 months since my comment, now I don't even remember.

[@AdamMGTF]

@@spankythemonkey9828 your welcome :)

[@KR4FTW3RK]

Coming from the IT side, I find it fascinating to see that these real-world tests are employed to fine-tune autonumous guidance. I wonder how long it'll take to develop a reliable defense against these missiles... assuming such a missile comes plunging down from a parabolic trajectory and maneauvering, CIWS will be useless.... my money is on hypersonic anti-missile missiles or perhaps something more exotic. Loitering drones above a ship could do since they only have to brush the ASBM in order to disintegrate it. Railguns and lasers have been "20 years away" for about 50 years now... I just don't see energy weapons as viable in the near future.

[@paulloveless9180]

Very good analysis regarding railgun and lasers always being 20 years away.

[@bathhatingcat8626]

Aegis can shoot these down. These hypersonic missiles aren’t like the nuclear armed glide vehicles. These are ballistic missiles but need to slow down on retry to acquire a target. So their final dive isn’t much faster than an anti ship missile like granite. I think the angle these ballistic type anti ship missiles approach at is an issue for the anti missile system. I think that aegis system must be set specifically to look for ballistic missile style approaches. He said leave it to people in the comments to discuss these missiles. I’m not an expert. Here is a reading list.

[@bathhatingcat8626]

It would let me post my links. Here is a video with a good summary and reading list kzbin.info/www/bejne/qF6khJZrgbh5abc

[@bathhatingcat8626]

*wouldnt

[@SchlawinerUSA]

it will all come down to speed and detection.. how fast can you detect it.. i am curios about that, too.

[@broworm1]

10:29, maybe the circular target with multiple impacts is in case the missile can't find the target, or is cancelled to a fallback?

[@benghazi4216]

I noticed this video 2 days late... It's 3:18 AM, but I aint going to bed now

[@torbenzenth5615]

My favorite channel 🙂

[@gyasiansa3358]

Me too

[@tonbopro]

hmmm，target acquisition systems analysis of remote sensing systems？and calibration in desert environ with extreme temperature fluctuations thru out 24 hours；thx for the visual walk thru

[@gumonmyshu]

What if they are building arks in the desert because they are going to melt the polar ice caps?

[@AdamMGTF]

Lol because china is Dr Evil now?😂 Your comment made my day

[@davidlim5]

Isn't aircraft carriers sitting ducks to torpedoes ???😢😢😢

[@AdamMGTF]

You have to get close enough to launch a Torpedo. That's why hypersonic warheads are a focus of research

[@dand4075]

How about laser weapons? Can they down a hypersonic asbn?

[@iffn]

Interesting. Could it also be possible that these are just used for calibrating reconnaissance satelites? I assume that an aircraft carrier would take evasive manoeuvres when under attack and not just travel in a straight line.

[@mekaerwin7187]

Reconnaissance satellites don't make craters in test ranges though.

[@MadComputerScientist]

Yeah, doesn't jive with 10:10 . They probably calibrate their recon satellites on actual carriers, since one can do so non-destructively.

[@Strategy_Analysis]

It always surprised me that the Soviets (Russians) and Chinese denote their forces in Red, and the enemy in Blue, when we do the exact opposite.

[@mcz9733]

Its just colors, so their meaning is subjective.

[@user-nd9jp2lj2r]

I would presume it has to do with their flags being red while the NATO flag is blue

[@DGrin79]

I like how you snuck some Sean in there.

[@Kav.]

Just a thought, but if they are using AI wouldn't that justify the use/purchase of physical deception kits similar to how old merchants/warships had funnels cut off or modified to hide?

[@mandowarrior123]

Call back to you, we are seeing the beginnings of that, Russia disguising its ships, good call.

[@Kav.]

@@mandowarrior123 Indeed we are (although I think Russia is trying to disguise them from Ukrainian USVs more than AI). It'll be interesting to see how multi-spectral camouflage for ships develops with this actually, with IR cameras etc being used in place of pure visible light.

[@janwitts2688]

Land based targets have little practical conversion to sea based war vessels.. how exactly are the chinese to target these if the usa clears the reconsats from orbit.. and sweeps the chinese SSK and ssns from the ocean.. prior to deployment..

[@Zhujac]

Chinese is biggest gambler. Try it to see what would happen. Juan and Japan base all in missile range.

[@janwitts2688]

@lSong Gaming I'm not American and they interfere with the running of my country.. so I'm perfectly ok for them to try it and see... The real problem for china is that Beijing is not mobile... so I expect it would be utterly destroyed along with every other ccp haven ...

[@Zhujac]

@@janwitts2688 China build thousands of mile long tunnel. Who would be stupid enough escalate to a nuclear show down over what😂😂😂. Washington is a dead landmark anyway.

[@Zhujac]

If China has financial crisis Washington should be worried. War to Taiwan is a good turnaround.

[@KB4QAA]

These targets can be used by satellites, aircraft, UAV's, missiles and aircraft carrying the missile seeker and targeting heads for R&D.

[@scotchsoda3165]

Hughes Aircraft made a defensive system that would jam a weapons radar, and make it seem like a US carrier was somewhere else. That was in the mid 80's, imagine what they developed as a defensive today!

[@chinahamyku6583]

China's DF-21D and DF-26B anti-ship ballistic missiles can attack moving aircraft carriers, and the DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missile is the latest anti-ship missile. Since the beginning of this year, China has been equipped with the YJ-21 anti-ship hypersonic missiles of the carrier type and the airborne type. Therefore, China has now been equipped with land, sea and air hypersonic ballistic missiles. Last year, the US and Western media reported that China carried out a hypersonic vehicle in low orbit in space and launched a hypersonic missile from low orbit in space. This will be China's preliminary ability to conduct hypersonic missile attacks on sea to land without dead ends in a 360-degree four-dimensional space.

[@byloyuripka9624]

other militaries operate in fifth dimensional space time so theyre in a whole 'nother dimension from china as you describe............... 😃

[@alsetalokin88]

good job china. may the public enemy number one of planet earth hold his peace forever. and ever. amen.

[@quinndenver4075]

What is the velocity of the warhead when it hits the ship?

[@eane7238]

@@quinndenver4075 nobody really knows but very fast, multiple times the speed of sound.

[@antwainastin6574]

China is still scared to death of U.S. carriers and any weapon they have to attack one they know they better not use it😂😂😂

[@AdamMGTF]

And yet china must be laughing themselves to sleep every night, knowing the USA is spending itself into uncontrolled debt to fun a military that hasn't done anything positive since the 1950s 😂

[@deebil8099]

Why don't they use the 003 for target practice? It's also an empty shell that is of similar size and shape of U.S. carriers. The 003 will end up at the bottom of the ocean anyways. At least this way, they will get some use out of it before it sinks.

[@nicolass180]

It for counter measures precautions

[@jbauerlu2]

it is not "south china sea" it is called "south western american sea". that naming makes it clear that this is a american sea way not a chinese one. all seaways are american now, btitain has lost them to the usa.

[@riskinhos]

how are those targets made? cardboard? cement?

[@tombouie]

Thks

[@Syndr1]

Hi H.i., already know the answer. I just came by to give the video a thumbs 👍 up.

[@jimmyhackers8980]

specific, not pacific specifically, not pacifically

[@AdamMGTF]

Yes. Poking fun at a speech impediment is the hight of sophistication.

[@jimmyhackers8980]

@@AdamMGTF no, it isn't.

[@albertchu7926]

It’s normal for all military to do practice so that they will be prepared if needed. Practice make perfect.

[@Syndr1]

Hi H.i, i already knew the answer. Im just here to give a thumbs 👍 up. And probably learn something new,lol.

[@xushenxin]

nothing new here.

[@olengagallardo8551]

The carrier is overhyped,they can clearly but sunk by airpower and subs!

[@AdamMGTF]

They can be. Doesn't mean they will in a conflict. There is no president for this in modern warfare.

[@johnnycab8986]

Imagine inflatable raft decoys the size of aircraft carriers.🤔

[@MadComputerScientist]

A zeppelin-sized pool toy. That'd be fun.

[@Weisior]

With radars and radar reflectors shining like crazy, screaming "HIT ME HIT ME C'MON"

[@mytube001]

My thought exactly!

[@AdamMGTF]

Imagine the noise when one pops 😂

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@AdamMGTF it has to be a very loud fart when it pops.

[@tonysu8860]

I suppose practice targets should not be surprising, especially when China doesn't yet own any ships of their own that are suitable for practice. But, like most practice targets... They don't shoot back or likely employ air defenses. In the end, a virtual reality would be the most productive way to practice instead of shooting up some plywood and metal strips as though it was still WWII.

[@jwickerszh]

VR can be useful for AI training, even Tesla uses that for example, but real world testing is still very valuable.

[@ChiefCabioch]

Only the Chinese would base its information on hitting a non moving target, US Aircraft Carriers are hardly ever stationary

[@1001001a]

watch the video carefully

[@msytdc1577]

If all they are doing is testing the ability for sensors to be able to penetrate any plasma and be able to identify targets then moving targets is not relevant to that sub-system validation, you first need to retire such critical path technological risk before moving on to further, more realistic testing scenarios.

[@sigmaprime4307]

All ships are submarines. Some just haven't submerged yet.

[@sadiporter2966]

Why do you keep telling us whether the video is unscripted or not?

[@oviss5946]

They want to use a optical rocket.

[@likklej8]

Time travel ships from sometime during WW3?

[@PavlosPapageorgiou]

12:05 awww... :(

[@hylimm]

Why not for training?

[@scottwilson9676]

Target practice

[@TheGreg6466]

I had a friend called Marv

[@sebastianenoc5327]

make more videos

[@directxxxx71]

Form the Art of War by Sun Tzu 用兵之法，无恃其不来，恃吾有以待也，无恃其不攻，恃吾有所不可攻也。 Rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

[@entropyachieved750]

Target practice.

[@fortheocean7892]

very cool videos

[@daverei1211]

China has been a huge beneficiary of globalisation, they are dependent on food and oil, any significant military action, for example taking out US assets would leave them very isolated and without the benefits of globalisation.

[@jwickerszh]

In case of WW3 the "benefits of globalisation" would be pretty much irrelevant.

[@truthful3777]

You got it wrong...They are self sustaining. They have everything in their country. They can stand alone. Bare in mind their population is 4 times the size of US and also 4 times the size of EU. They can trade among themselves.....They no need the world to trade. We buy electronic stuff to resell in my country. We buy 1000 units for a 15 million population and we have trouble selling for a year. The manufacturer sneered at us when we told them of our required quantity. They told us their local market itself can easily take 100,000 per order any time.

[@liammarra4003]

Isolated? They're the largest trading partners of most states on earth. So, unless others can pick up the slack. States may not want to do business but they won't have a damn choice. China, unlike the US, has managed the benefits of "globalization" very well. US seems pretty butt hurt about it lmao.

[@mcc9102]

Just fire target for Chinese DF 17,21, 26 hypersonic antiship missiles. YJ 21 from 055 also capable to destroy American carriers 1500 km away

[@mrkeogh]

Wouldn't a hypersonic vehicle have trouble employing other sensors like IR and optical? The vehicle would have to slow down in order to deploy sensors beyond it's heatshield or eject part or the shield in order to actually "see" anything. The aerodynamic heating at lower altitudes will he a huge problem for such weapons unless they slow to speeds that aren't that much of a problem for missile defenses. Unless...they're intending another sensor platform will give the glide vehicles updated targeting information? Maybe these mock-ups are not for terminal guidance testing of actual weapons but instead to improve the targeting platforms ability to find & track the carrier? 🤔

[@Lowkeh]

Idk mang, _...*hic!*_ 'tlooks like a big ol' bottle to me 🍾 ... or possibly a giant middle-finger. :thonk: 🤔

[@ricardolai8581]

Training target

[@tonbopro]

Navy operates their own fleet of H6

[@kauphaart0]

So, similar to the stuff the US has had at China Lake for the past 60 years?

[@dirremoire]

No, much better and scarier.

[@jarhead6153]

I’m sorry, any aircraft carrier will be moving, not stationary. Let China pat themselves on thier backs for hitting a stationary target.

[@buzzardman2963]

You must have missed the part in the video where they built a railway system to move ships at the speed at which a ship would be moving. Ignorance is one thing but to actually comment on a video where the video itself openly shows you that you are wrong is absolutely hilarious.

[@jarhead6153]

Have you ever been on a USN ship at sea....? They don't travel in a strait line at a fixed speed in a time of war but obviously you're a barracks sea lawyer that knows it all. Ignorance goes both ways, don't at yourself on the back too hard. @@buzzardman2963

[@lloyd3205]

they're interested in hitting United States aircraft carriers at Port

[@wildbill6976]

crude scribblings in the middle of the desert don't shoot back...