Threatening Japan, ROC (Taipei), ROK (South Korea), India, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia are all "Chinese military encroachment." Stop building new islands to steal coastal waters from your neighbors. Also, you send spy ships into USNavy task groups all the time. Plus your spy balloons that Emperor Poopy Pants (Joe Biden 皇帝便便裤) was too stupid to destroy. And stop buying lands near USA military bases (which US State Dept and US Senate are too stupid to block you from buying to spy on us.) But honestly, I don't blame Chairman Winnie the Pooh 主席小熊维尼. I blame the stupid American Politicians and Diplomats.
3:10 China is the greatest challenge to American security, freedom, well-being, and those of their allies and partners??? Please explain how. Has China threatened to attack US territory? No. Has China threatened to take away Americans' freedom? No. Has China threatened to harm Americans' well-being? No. Has China similarly threatened the UK and EU? No. China has fought no wars in the last 45 years. How many wars has the US fought? China has one foreign military base in Djibouti. How many military bases does the US have? Around 800!!! Many Americans are delusional.
Not to mention that base was built by the invitation of UN for logistic mission for UN peace keeping. It's literally sitting next to a few other similar bases operated by other UN member states
Ahh.... You have to understand USA baseline assumptions. 1. They have to maintain military hegemony to prop up their financial hegemony and US$ 2. Without financial and US$ hegemony, mainland USA dissolves into chaos. Because USA has to keep borrowing $ for deficit spending every year. Thus anything or anybody which erodes USA military and financial and US$ hegemony is a threat. Whether that something or somebody actually aims to erodes USA hegemonies is immaterial
USA elites know it. USA PR experts provide justifications in moral and ethical terms. USA soldiers swallow the justifications without thinking. From private all the way up to admiral or general. You can't blame them. After all, you don't expect your plumber to give a lecture about Clausewitz yeah
Because China is run by Asian people, so if China is number one, then the myth of white supremacy is dead and Americans can't have that, otherwise all the other black and brown people in the world might think it's not fair that 5% of the world's population is using 80% of the world's resources.
The gentlemen ignore a serious question - logistics. Sal Mercogliano of 'Whats going on with Shipping' has spoken repeatedly of the risks to US naval power projection due to the significant decline in US logistical shipping. The US is already struggling to maintain its fleets with supply and support, in a conflict that is likely to completely break down from shear stress.
That's why we have allies. China will have no allies and will be facing multiple enemies and everyone else in their neighborhood doesn't really like them.
To say nothing of enemy strikes on said logistics chain. This is why i can't take western power projections seriously, all those guns, but what happens when you waste your ammo, and your supplies lines have been blow to smithereens.
Regarding Taiwan, To clarify: China has not been the one changing the status quo. Whoever is moving towards declaring the independence of Taiwan is breaking the status quo. No able country would tolerate the secession of its territory. The status quo is mainly based on: 1. 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which Japan accepted as they unconditionally surrendered. (Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and its sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku.) 2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. It recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations") 3. China-US Three Joint Communiqués (1972, 1979, 1982, US President Jimmy Carter in TV broadcast to the entire world, that the United States recognized that the government of the People's Republic of China was the sole legal government of China, and acknowledged the PRC's position that Taiwan is part of China. ) 4. 1992 Consensus (See following). For whom would like to play with the wording, I quote President Jimmy Carter in Three Joint Communiqués "We do not undertake this important step for transient tactical or expedient reasons. In recognizing the People's Republic of China, that it is the single Government of China, we are recognizing simple reality. But far more is involved in this decision than just the recognition of a fact." This is the foundation of China-US relationship and President Carter has no intention to play ambiguous wording here in the full context of the Three Joint Communiqués. Now some more facts on The status quo. 1. Taiwan is not the name of a country. It is the name of a island or a province. The Republic of China (ROC) is the acting governing body of Taiwan province. 2. In the current constitution of ROC, it states both mainland China including Mongolia and Taiwan province are the territory of ROC. 3. Mainland China is governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), while Taiwan province is governed by ROC. 4. Two governing bodies are still in a Civil War since 1945 and have never signed a peace treaty nor an armistice. The current condition is in a ceasefire. 5. What do most countries do with civil wars? Take the United States as an example. When the Confederate States seceded from the United States, the Union States didn't tolerate such action and waged a four year civil war which resulted in 620,000 deaths of soldiers not including civilians. What did the Union government do to counter the British and French support for the Confederate States? a) diplomacy: The Union government dispatched diplomats to Europe to explain the cause of the war and to argue that secession was unconstitutional. The Union also attempted to persuade European nations that supporting the Confederacy would lead to a long and bloody war that would destabilize the entire continent. b) Naval blockade of the Confederate ports. c) Economic policy: The Union government encouraged domestic manufacturing to reduce reliance on British and French goods. The Union government also placed high tariffs on imported goods. 6. There are many ways for a country to end civil wars. PRC and ROC's semiofficial representatives had agreed on the 1992 Consensus which formed an basis of the dialogue between two, until recent years that ROC's (Taiwan) position has changed and deviating further away from the 1992 Consensus in both words and actions in the past 10 years. PRC (mainland) has made many attempts to invite the ROC representative back to the conversation on the basis of the 1992 Consensus but to no avail. With the growing possibility of Taiwan's permanent secession from the mainland, the PRC (mainland) took several different approaches and more firm actions and is still open to peaceful resolution based on "One China policy". 7. The United Nation and the vast majority of the countries (more than 200) in the world including the US only recognize the PRC as the sole legal government of China and established diplomatic relationships. There is only about 5 countries (depending on when) has diplomatic relation with ROC(Taiwan). However, in recent years, the actions of the US government (like arms sell to Taiwan) and its politicians have deviated further away from the three joint communicates between the US and the P.R.China.
People want to be free and be able to chose their destiny. Any who stand in the way of this are considered the enemy of freedom and the enemy of humanity. Have your excuses ready when you meet the creator and an explanation is requested.
@harrythehandyman Great comment. Thankyou. There is a few points there I was not aware of. Isn't it strange that those that actually know what they are talking about are willing to support what they say with links or facts, yet the clowns that follow those with a political agenda generally don't, and all they have is unfounded accusations and shout downs. I would definitely count the comment by @556m4 as being in the latter group.
The points you put forward are valid and difficult to contest. However, China is not a democracy, has zero aspirations to be one and I fully understand those Taiwanese who don't want to be a Chinese province.
Your premise is that Taiwan is a part of the CCP. Since the beginning of the CCP, Taiwan has disagreed with that Premise. Formosa, Taiwain, the Island has had many names and many rules. It's only been since 1949 has this Island had anything like self-rule. Bottom line, who's bottom line are you referring too?
Spot on analysis. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” Ignore your competitors strength at your own peril. China's rate of technological development has been exceptional.
@@brianboye8025 "And China should act consistent with that stance." In the last 70 or so years, China has been involved in two wars only. Both of those wars lasted a mere month each, ending when Beijing accomplished their very limited objectives. Compare that to the Western countries. As for Taiwan: there is no tension or risk of war until the US starts pushing behind the scenes for Taiwanese independence. That is a red line that - if crossed- China WILL go to war over.
@@brianboye8025 , , , Why are you insisting on what others do , Police yourself first. , Show the world you've change , Renounce your evil deeds , Make amends , Make amends , -( impossible )- . Once dead , cannot be brought back to life . - So forget amends , So back to square 1 , Continue the evil deeds . And when demonic people ask you to "behave-" , Its a trap .
The Chinese are not exactly projecting power 1000 miles from Los Angeles or New York. They are operate mainly around Taiwan and in the South China sea. A modern frigate, corvette or even a lowly missile boat can sink an aircraft carrier.
@@James-rl5tj Folks forget or never knew that we literally nuked Navy ships to test this kind of thing, and they still had to be scuttled in order to actually sink. Able dropped two Fat Man bombs over a fleet of 95 ships, including battleships and fleet carriers. Then Baker tried again, but it detonated underwater, making an unholy mess of radioactive sea spray to contaminate the test fleet
@@limitlesssky3050 you missed the pertinent info, I think. The most powerful weapons we possess were unable to sink WW1 and 2 era ships. Ships with zero personnel or dmg control. They're bigger now and fully staffed
22:10 This is what I've been saying for YEARS😭 Everytime I see one of these American RUclipsrs compare Chinese weapons to American weapons I'm like "Do you know that the war will happen RIGHT NEXT to China right? It's not like this Chinese weapon will have to face its American equivalent one on one with no backup or support" it's such a simple concept that Americans fail to grasp
I disagree with your view on American military preparation. The US military has prepared from an alliance perspective, R&D perspective, and Logistics perspective. It’s been known for some time that China is the greatest threat to US world dominance and they have not sat idly by. Lots of these new systems being fast tracked for service are directly targeted against Chinese military expansion. Of course I’m a US citizen and inherently biased, but I think US preparation in the region, especially from an alliance perspective has taken drastic strides in the US’s favor
@@richardscathouse That’s dismissing the US’s many allies in the region. Many more factors to consider than just China is the home team. They are also trying to invade one of if not the most heavily fortified islands in the world with the most powerful militaries in support of said island. The US has prepared logistically to defend Taiwan. I’d be curious how Chinese ballistics would affect US military bases in the region during wartime.
@@tuckerkane8417So has China by the way. China also has the manufacturing capability to go on a war with the US and its allies considering they alone make over 50% of the world’s ships and most electronics. They have also created alternative ways to bypass the strait of Malacca by going through Central Asia or by going through Laos to Malaysia and ship their goods from there. This is the problem on American military thinking, u always underestimate your enemy’s capability to adapt to u just as u adapt to them. Japan and Korea are a blip even if they combined their forces and I don’t think they want to get into a war with a NEIGHBOURING NATION with a population of 1.4 billion and a culture of not forgetting what was done to them especially by the Japanese. Most of South east Asia would also remain neutral other than the Philippines. Do not count on support from there and the ability to blockade the strait of Malacca. If the US blockades that strait, there will definitely be pushback by all the surrounding nations. Blockading it also means suffocating your own allies.
In the Chinese Internet, this is called Jungle Chess thinking, the higher-ranked animals can capture weaker or equal-ranked animals. The reality is that war is a confrontation between systems rather than a confrontation between weapons.
in nowadays war is not won by army navy air force, but by a country's military industry. Both countries know it's a fact that China's ship building capability is way way better than the US now. The reason behind this is very obvious, a healthy military industry needs to be backed by a strong and large civilian manufacturing industry, which China has the strongest in the world and the US has almost none. The trend is very clear now, the US needs to accept China's rise and super powers need to respect each other and give each other enough space. The US will soon learn those PAs flying so close to another superpower's coast is not the best for the US.
With China salami-slicing the land of other nations, encroaching on territory and staking claims to regions which were proven to be baseless and unlawful in an international court, a meter of space given will mean kilometers of space taken. It would be nice if diplomatic measures would work but it's easier said than done. Sadly, the only thing holding back conflict is that neither side is ready to start it yet.
Don’t forget China has to import a huge amount of energy and raw materials to keep that industry going. They have to keep that in mind before they get testy
@@StrictlyDrift those are border disputes. China has border disputes with neighbors, those neighbors have disputes with each other too. The US has no border with China, for the US to get into these disputes is not wise. This is also not a respectful way to deal with another superpower. Using these disputes to slow down China's rise is just the US's wishful thinking, that won't work, and in long term it will bring more harm than gain to the US.
@@loganhermanns2675 Yes, that's why China didn't get into as many wars as the other superpower. Also, China is gearing up with fleet building to protect those import lines, like it or not, the other superpower has no way to keep up with the Chinese ship building speed.
It's also EXTREMELY expensive. Carrier tonnage kept rising through the last century for the simple reason that generally, you got much more worth for what you spent on them, the bigger the carriers were. By the end of WWII, light carriers were mostly considered a mistake. By the 1990s, light carriers were for people who couldn't afford REAL carriers. Or in exceptions, like USSR, for those who had radically different doctrines and didn't try to compete symmetrically.
@@DIREWOLFx75The change in carrier sizes after WW II was caused by the change from propeller planes to jets which needed a longer runway. Also of course the change of the geo-strategic role of the US after the defeat of Germany and Japan, the new nuclear abilities of the US and the new confrontation with the Soviet Union played a role in the decisions for bigger carriers.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I get the idea that according cubic weight per volume makes big ships cheaper, but to say that light carrier were tossed due to cost efficiency reasons is bizarre. Obviously the issue was the size of aircraft, sustainment and armament. China and the US have different needs is all. The Chinese aren't concerned with policing the globe.
Like that substandard US steel used for years in our US Navy nuclear submarines, and the substandard meth head filled crews for the USS John McCain and the USS Bonhomme Richard...
The reasons why you disagree with ward's opinions is why I follow this channel. US military people are often hopelessly idealistic. If they weren't they wouldn't have joined up.
@ I think Russia’s intentions over Ukraine have been misrepresented by Western media, but who knows. WRT China, the SCS is essentially a dispute about the sovereignty of the maritime feature/ isles there, quite a different matter.
@@Blixey-r9z Oh sure, I personally don’t think Russia’s going to go much further than Ukraine (geographically speaking) but Ukraine was a separate sovereign nation. Doesn’t really give Russia a right to do what they’ve done
@@christopherchartier3017 NATO accession talks for Ukraine is the equivalent of a catwalk model walking down a blind alley at 3AM in a two piece. They should have signed the proposal in 2022; no loss of life or land then
There are four points which confound me about the U.S. admiral’s views. First, the discount of the smaller Chinese ships and especially their large force of Chinese corvettes that are dedicated to ASW. These are not surface combatants but they will be necessary to sanitize the Straits of Formosa of hostile submarines for Chinese amphibious forces in a contested crossing. So, with all due respect, to the admiral, these smaller ships count. Secondly, the admiral talks of force projection. But, what if the Chinese go after American logistics ships and bases? Does he have the ships to divert to maintain security for his logistics line? America hasn’t had to worry about logistics security since WW2 because nobody has been able to threaten American logistics chains. But, a defeat over Taiwan would be an existential issue for the CCP and it is very plausible that American logistics and even manufacturing resources will be targeted. So, with all due respect to the admiral, the emphasis on fewer large multi capable submarines destroyers and carriers at the expense of smaller escorts is likely to come back to haunt the Americans in a peer level conflict where logistics and manufacturing chains are viable targets unlike a war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Thirdly, he mentions future American systems that will give America an edge. But China is also developing new systems and at a far faster rate than the U.S. By the time the new American systems come online, the Chinese will have an answer and probably in larger numbers too. And, this brings us to to last point. Comparative industrial might. In this area, China is the global titan. America is not even close to being a peer in industrial capacity. Conventional wars since 1939 have been won by the country with the largest manpower and industrial capacity. By these two metrics, China is a long way ahead and the gap is only going to widen in the next 20 years. Admittedly, China suffers from low birth rates. But, artificial wombs are technically feasible and potentially necessary for the continued survival of several countries like Japan, Korea, and China which have declining birth rates. The horrifying reality is that the human race is standing on the precipice of Star Wars’ Clone Wars and Terminator, Judgment Day and nobody is slowing down the impetus to war
Yup. And if a Chinese destroyer is 60% as good but he has 150% more, it doesn't math. And Ward points out that US carriers can generate more sorties, but there are plenty of ground based Chinese launchers that will have a vote.
The Chinese doesn't have many vessels outside of the pacific region. . they have a lot of smaller vessels but when comparing mid / large vessels they are very much outnumbered by US ships in the pacific let alone the rest of the fleet.
@@arkadious9320 - As of October 2023, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) of China has around 370 ships and submarines, making it the world's largest navy by number of active sea-going ships. This is compared to the United States Navy's battle force of around 292 ships and submarines around the World.
@@arkadious9320 No they aren't. China's navy is concentrated, not spread out. They're also rapidly catching up. And if you think the entire PLAN is outnumbered by the Pacific Fleet alone then you're just delusional and have no idea what you're talking about. And small doesn't mean useless. They don't even build those anymore.
They also mention compared to US ships in open ocean. China has no plans of large scale force projection. US ships are off the coast of China. Anti ship missiles fired from land would be an issue for the US to. China's production capacity far exceeds the US.
@@kristoffereberius2476 The US Navy doesn't stand a chance against China in China's backyard. In the event of a war between the mainland and Taiwan the USA would just sit back and watch as it will not risk American lives for Chinese ones. In the unlikely scenario of US getting involved, US Navy ships would be sunk by ASBMs from the mainland or other long range anti ship weapons. If the US Navy stays outside the range of the ASBM's their airwings would be useless as it would be a one way trip due to range limitation of the carrier aircraft. Force multipliers like tankers and AWACS would be prime targets for Chinese stealth aircraft. 18 out of 18 US think tank war scenarios resulted in the USA Navy being thoroughly defeated. The Taiwanese should look to the Russia Ukraine conflict as an example of US commitment of manpower which is zero. Taiwan is not going to get help from anyone.
Let’s believe the americans the same people who said USA is the 1st most powerful kilitary in Afghanistan ( especially in the night they silently ran away )
@ … 1. creating a modern state out of Afghanistan wasn’t going to and didn’t happen. So it was a bad plan to start. 2. The major partner in the war was the Afghan army and police. Which couldn’t or wouldn’t hold onto the country. 3. The corruption of the Afghan government
@@greedyinvader9462 … the ultimate failure was of the Afghan government. Which collapsed. The Americans are at fault trying to transform Afghanistan into a modern nation state. Then tasking the army to do that. To create something which had never existed there. The American soldiers did not fail in fighting the Taliban.
18:59 - "but you will have to cross the mass of that ocean". Yankee projection, since China's developed a defensive posture, it's the Americans who think they need to cross said mass, whilst China maintains home advantage
In the Napoleonic era, naval might is measured in the men who crewed the ships times the number of canons carried. In the modern era, naval might is measured in the men who crew the ships times the number of missiles carried. USN and western navies are screwed.
Type 052D has 64 VLS cells while a flight III Burke has 96. Which is where the Admiral probably got the 0.6 ratio. A bit simplistic considering that the 052D has ASBM capabilities, but overall fair, and something that Chinese sources would agree with. In China they see the Type 055 as the Burke equivalents.
It is not simplistic but spot on! At the end of the day, the US doesn't need that many ASBMs. They they submarines and air power for that. Their destroyers stick to the original definition of a destroyer. It is an escort ship. It protects the carrier and itself with A2A missiles
The Chinese ships AND the weapons in those VLS however are considerably newer overall, and especially the anti-ship missiles are vastly superior to the USN ones on an individual basis. We're already seeing how USAs SAMs in UA have not managed to intercept even a SINGLE supersonic missile from RF(as openly stated more than once by UA airforce spokesman). And the Chinese YJ-18 are not just supersonic, they're highend supersonic AND they have the pack maneuvering, datalinking and EW that made the old Soviet heavy antiship missiles so much more dangerous as well. USN still widely relies on Harpoon and Tomahawk, and those are quite frankly not a serious threat to Chinese vessels as long as they have SAMs left or USN fires them in BIG packs. Modern Chinese SAMs and PD will generally have no trouble at all with subsonic missiles.
The 052D does not have as many VLS as the Burke III, but "In China they see the Type 055 as the Burke equivalents." Who would even say that, Can't we just say "in between"?
@@napobg6842 As the admiral said, the air is still contested. Air superiority is not a given. As for submarine, China has 110+ surface vessel equipped with towed array sonar and variable depth sonar plus 50+ ASW fixed wing aircraft constantly scanning the ocean. Not counting the wall of underwater listening device China already installed during peacetime. US definitely need a much longer range anti-ship missile than Harpoon.
@@gaobili OK "more of a Burke equivalent" and that's even if you grant that China needs or wants an "equivalent" Obviously different navies have different requirements but, closer to the role of a Burke.
The Bias is soo extreme. "We see this J-15s at the wings of our P-8s provocativly." Who is flying at the border of whom? Who flies provocativly directly along the border so the other quick reaction alert interceptors are taking off? And what are the Default procedures? The interceptor is positioned by the side of the other plane a little bit to the front to get sight contact with the other pilot. And by the way, this is more calming for the other crew than an interceptor at their tail, because flying at your side, you definitely won't be attacked.
The USN is flying in international waters. The PLAAF have every right to intercept but there is a professional, safe way to do it and the Chinese often violate that. THAT'S the problem.
@@hambone4728 that’s something for the diplomats and respective militaries to work out - a peacetime professional code of ethics/ conduct between airforces. Maverick is going to hate it though.
@@Blixey-r9z there's plenty of international waters they could be flying over, why do they choose to be right off the Chinese coast? Can you imagine the American reaction if the Chinese were flying patrols in international waters off of California? American hypocrisy on full display.
@@gz3zbz Not to mention that the Americans also have the option to conduct freedom of navigation exercises with non-military aircraft …. At least till the next KAL007 incident.
@@bobahop1232 No. The only thing he takes a dump on is stupid people and stupid ideas. I'm an American citizen who served almost 12 years as an infantry officer in the US Army between 2004-15. I agree with almost all of his analysis regarding our foreign policy.
China has an amazing navy that already outclasses USA especially in the Cruiser-class type ships. Their fast Assault ships are also a big threat and their Destroyers are already beginning to outclass the USA's Arleigh Burke fleet which is in most areas quite old and newer warships take years to build.
"Outclasses" is a strong word. USN is unmatched in terms of tonnage afloat. The PLAN is definitely dangerous. The Burke Flight III's are extremely advanced warships with long legacy of training and experience behind them. This is where the PLAN lacks. They don't have a robust history of experience and don't train at the rate or scale as the USN does. So we have no idea how the PLAN will do in actual combat, but they probably won't do well.
@@hambone4728 You don’t understand the fighting will of Chinese soldiers. China has been the leader of the world for thousands of years, but internal contradictions in the past two hundred years have led to its decline.
@wenluo6617 I understand the last full scale conflict you were in you got thrown out of Vietnam....if you don't count killing your own unarmed people from time to time. Then there was fighting with bats and rocks at the LOC with India....? Oh and the complete and utter failure of your UN Expeditionary Force in Mali in 2020 where Chinese soldiers were scared to fight local insurgents and failed to protect the civilians they were sent there to protect.....so there's that as well.
@@wenluo6617 Because you've never fought anyone. Your generals have never fought anyone. You have no recent combat experience anywhere in your entire military that didn't involve fighting Indians with sticks or being afraid to counterattack Mali rebels. Ignorance is bliss.
Chinese navy doesnt sail off shore of US, nor should USA do it to China, but they do and have done so essentially for 200 years, even having colonies in China during this time..
The US has conducted freedom of navigation exercises since the end of WWII. The point is international water is owned by all and unrestricted use of the that water is the basis for our modern world economy. US presence aids everyone who's inclined to conduct trade... Meanwhile the Chinese have made a claim to ownership of international water. Without challenging that claim it becomes true and the Chinese get to control trade.
@@a24396 US not doing "freedom of navigation", US behaviour is like a bandit coming from 10000km away, brandishing his guns with threats of annihilation on the doorstep of china and that of many other countries, yes, its been doung that for 80 odd years now and thats 80 year too many ...
Just In the 20th and 21st centuries: Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China and this China temporarily abandoned expanding for a short while, however it would soon reconquer Xinjiang, absorbing the then-Second East Turkestan Republic with help from Stalin. China regained control of Tibet through a series of events. Mao Zedong considered Tibet Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan as China's responsibility. China and India fought a border war in 1962, where China gained Aksai Chin. China also sought to take over Taiwan. China also sought to take over Sikkim in 1967, but it was unsuccessful. A Chinese map published in 1961 showed China claiming territories in Bhutan, Nepal and the Kingdom of Sikkim. Incursions by Chinese soldiers and Tibetan herdsmen allying with the Chinese government also provoked tensions in Bhutan. In 1974, China launched its first naval expedition to reclaim the Paracel Islands and defeated the 50-strong South Vietnamese occupation force.Tensions triggered between China and later unified communist Vietnam led to the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. China and Vietnam later fought another bitter skirmish in the South China Sea in 1988, resulting in China's consolidation of some disputed islands. In the opening speech at the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping emphasized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. Pacifists indeed.
@@kdbsuff9625 Reestablishing sovereignity over de jure territory after a civil war, a few minor border disputes, claiming some microscopic islands very close to home that other countries who claim them have an equally weak claim to, emphasizing your country's sovereignty over a region that is an internationally recognized as part of your country, and fighting a single minor war with your neighbor that both sides were equally responsible for causing. Yeah, that list does make them pacifists by comparison. Those events are utterly insignificant next to the action's of China's competition, the US. Thanks for explaining in detail exactly why the Chinese have been extremely pacifist in the 20th and 21st centuries.
@@kdbsuff9625 And to point out a few more absurdities. Its very odd that in every one of the very few minor conflicts that China has been involved with, the other side is not given any responsibility whatsoever, as if China has tensions with these countries that are completely one-sided. And the for some reason, no one ever talks about the equally weak claims of other countries that claim the parcel islands, including and especially the Republic of China. Weird how the government of an internationally recognizined Chinese region, Taiwan, can claim and militarily occupy the same islands, using the exact same justification, and no one seems to care.
Truly....invaded and oppressed Tibet peacefully. Invaded and were thrown out of Vietnam peacefully. Threaten Taiwan with conquest and death peacefully. China so peaceful...truly.
The Houthis are not 'competing succesfully', their have been 424 airstrikes against them, and 0 casualties or inflicted damage upon US or coalition forces. tf are you talking abt
Ward is a classmate of mine. I told him of your videos a few years ago - he could use your tech help as an English professor - btw - not a Pilot, he was an F-14 RIO. You and Ward need to interview each other - I’m usually agree with you on tech things. Not a big fan of Ward’s views either - but stay focused on tech - don’t politics skew your analysis. Politics may be reality but it is rarely the right answer.
Yes, the average US solider has an INFINITE amount more combat experience than all of the chinese army combined. That is just a fact. Seasoned light weight vs novice heavy weight. Heavy weight loses due to lack of practical experience.
@@singular9what a dumb argument. You do realize if a war erupts between the two, Chinese troops will get more battle experience as the war progresses, thereby negating the difference in combat experience.
Then we find out how good their missile tech actually is. We saw the Kinzhal missle was not actually a hypersonic and is pretty bad in Ukraine. On the other hand we already know how Aegis performs...and it's very good. So the Chinese or Russians will have lost a ship, their missiles will probably be defended and World War 3 will have begun.
I didn’t think Ward was imagining a carrier-carrier fight. His main point was that chinese carrier tonnage is not equal to US carrier tonnage, mainly because of a huge gape in training and operational experience
Why have a huge naval fleet if its only purpose is to protect your own coastline. Also there is no hope of the US getting any sizeable fleet near the Chinese coast during war. The Chinese might not have a lot of ships but they have huge numbers of land to sea missiles that would decimate any naval force that got too close. Aircraft carriers do not trump missiles if they are in sufficient number
@@eamonnfanton2165 my comment was more about capability per ton than the total amount of tonnage. my point was that the Type 003 is not equal in capability to the Nimitz just because it is roughly the same size and similar on paper. That is the point that Ward was making, and I would definitely agree. Discussing a conflict on an operational level is a whole other level of complexity
@@eamonnfanton2165They don't need to be near the Chinese coast. They need to maintain air superiority over Taiwan and be able to punch supply convoys onto the island.
@@hambone4728 The US will never get the chance to land small convoys onto the islands. That's precisely why China has gone for loads of smaller ships that are missile capable. China simply has to have these ships within missile range of Taiwan. Taiwan is only 200km away from the China mainland, so a Chinese fleet midway between would allow for missiles that only had a 100km range to be used and that's most of them theses days. Air superiority is not going to clear that amount of small ships without fully depleting their stores for their aircraft extremely rapidly.. US carriers have limited supplies of missiles and ammunition for their aircraft that will inevitably force them to use naval assets to remove the Chinese missile boats. Carriers carry a LOT of ammunition and stores for their aircraft but not enough to prosecute a sustained battle over many days or weeks without the carrier being resupplied. It would mean either naval assets being used to remove the Chinese missile ships which would be extremely costly, or somehow have rapid and frequent cargo transports to resupply the carrier, which is definitely not as easy as it sounds. Assuming the US had sufficient supply vessels for a protracted conflict ( which currently they don't) it then has the scary scenario of both the carrier and the supply vessel remaining in close proximity at a steady speed (for aviation fuel transfer) for about 4 hours which is the typical aviation fuel transfer time and also using helicopters to transfer bombs and ordinance from the supply ship at the same time. Carriers that cant alter course rapidly are sitting targets to long range air launched missiles and submarines. If China sends in massive waves of missiles and drones even the defensive curtain provided by the carriers task force is eventually going to run out of ammo. Just look what happened to Israel's Iron Dome, it got overwhelmed as many batteries simply ran out of ammunition shooting down cheap and relative cheap drones and rockets or short range missiles. The risk of losing a carrier would be just too great. Long story short, if the US wanted to land troops and supplies onto Taiwan during a war it would be a naval operation dependent on naval protection not air power. That naval protection fleet would be constantly vulnerable to attack unless the US decide to eliminate the threat from any Chinese ships first which would involve significant losses and it almost certainly be a naval only operation with the carriers as far way as possible only responsible for fending of any attack by Chinese aircraft.
@ Arrogant? Did you notice or even know that the US admiral completely missed/ignored to mention that the US navy will be faced with one of the largest missile force in Asia pacific, including hypersonic missiles? You think I’m arrogant? You must be joking, clown. 😂
@@reynoldliao7462 By being 400-700 miles East of Taiwan in the vast Pacific ocean making targeting much more difficult for land based missiles like the DF-27. An american Carrier group can move at 30kts or even higher. China will need near real time targeting to hit a target going that fast and we still don't know for sure how accurate these missiles can maneuver in an EW environment. The US. Navy is also putting PAC-3's on their ships now since the PAC-3 has successfully shot down many hypersonic missiles in the Ukraine conflict. So DF27's will have to find their targets pre-launch, continuously be updated on the target's position and survive a barrage of electronic warfare, SM-6's and PAC-3 missiles. It's a challenge for sure. But China only has to get lucky one time. One missile will destroy an entire carrier and kill thousands of sailors.
As noted, the most disturbing thing is that there is a clear strategic advantage for the US in having a war over Taiwan now than in a decade or two. It’s clear from the way the neocons are behaving that they understand this. It makes a lot of the behaviour of certain parts of the US establishment over the past few years very explicable.
The biggest problem the USA has is not lack of carriers et cetera, it's lack of money. It simply can not afford the kind of force levels it had during the Cold War or even during the so called forever wars. The US deficit is currently $1.9 trillion per annum, i.e., its costs are $1.9 trillion higher p.a. than its income. That's why it is over $36 trillion in debt and paying about $1 trillion p.a. in interest. I am not sure how the USA digs itself out of this financial hole. Tariffs on imported goods are being introduced, which a form of tax really, because for the most part it's US consumers that will pay them. That and other ways of increasing government income will help, but no doubt there will also have to be significant cuts to government spending. That's just to reduce the deficit, let alone return to a budget surplus and begin paying down that massive and ever growing debt. Long story short, the USA is going to have to downsize. I am not sure that reality has sunk in for many Americans yet. They are going to have to wise up fast, or their country risks going bust like the USSR did. P.S. I do not wish that on them, because it would hurt millions of people there, but also drag much of the world down with it (last time it killed my great grandad during the Great Depression, because the crash forced him into bankruptcy, so he died from a stroke due to the stress -- it also made the family working class, while he had been an Italian aristocrat -- just saying, because these things have long term social implications and effects on the lives of billions of people).
The reason semiconductor manufacturing is centered in Taiwan is because it is centered in Taiwan. I know it is a circular argument, but that is how the semiconductor industry works. Once you have the weight of numbers in your favor, it is almost impossible to shift. The USA and China are both working hard to shift it, but it will cost $1000B and even then could fail. The joke is that by denying China access to ICs made in Taiwan, you are helping them build a domestic industry.
I dont write many glowing comments but you continue to consistently produce accessible, substantial educational content that can't be easily found. I really appreciate that. Many years to you.
Stuff to consider: **The ship building capability of Japan and Korea combined is 90% of China . **50% of the cost of a ship is the electronics and the weapons .
@@nathanielalaburgDelhi why do you say so? Especially combined with US tech They say by 2031 the grow rate of the CCP will fall behind that of the US If the CCP invades Taiwan the US will block the CCPs oil via the straits of Mallaca
What has been unspoken about are submarines. To defeat or sink an aircraftcarrier you do not need another carrier, one submarine would do. Easily, as has been shown during an incident in 2007 in the Chinese sea by which a Chinese non-nuclear submarine suddenly showed up in the middle of one of the USA carriergroups/fleets. Not only did that submarine approached that fleet unnoticed, could completely show its sail for less then a minute, but then also vannished completely, leaving everybodies search for it in vain. Mind; this was not the most advanced of Chinese submarines!! Meanwhile China has lots of submarines, both non nuclear as well as nuclear. Surface fleets are for enforcing naval power to land, subs are to avoid such.
Who says it was unnoticed? They were in international waters, the Chinese have a right to be there and the US couldn't do anything against them besides record their signature after they surfaced and confirmed exactly what kind of contact they were. Which was a stupid move for the sub commander to make. Diesel/electric subs are dangerous in littoral waters because under battery power they can be very quiet. But they can't run far or long on their batteries. During an actual war....American carrier groups are not going anywhere near Chinese or Taiwanese littoral waters.
Keep in mind that this incident was near CHINA's backyard. US CSG are NOT gonna be there if there is a war between the US and China, they will be sitting behind the 2nd Island chain if they want to stay afloat. Which is why the Type-095 nuclear submarine comes to play. Its China's next sub thats meant to hunt Carriers and attack logisitc ships far behind enemy lines in the vast pacific. Diseal subs dont have that capability.
@@hambone4728 "Who says it was unnoticed?" The Western media describes the incident as a humiliation and as exposing the US Navy's vulnerability. If anyone involved in the incident ever disputed that, I've never heard of it. Do YOU have a source that disputes the common understanding that the Chinese submarine went unnoticed?
@@defencebangladesh4068 True, these are more silence then nuclear ones and perfect for coastal defence. But it shows how dangerous they are, even with "just" Chinese quality! Do not under estimate them, the USA navy has to be close enough to the Chinese waters in order to effectively operate and protect Taiwan and that is close enough for dieselsubs.
This somewhat misses the point that the only reason SK, Japan and a few other countries dont have nuclear weapons are their defense treaties and alliances with the US. The moment the US retreats from that theater nuclear proliferation will have a field day.
That's how narcissists keep their lap dogs obedient. You make sure to let them know they're nothing without your protection. And you also have to make sure they have enemies so they can rely on you even more. That's why independent countries usually peaceful with their neighbors.
@@GWT1m0 lets say, they launch DF-21s at carrier strike groups. Lets say they even sink one or 2 carriers . Once thats done F-35s F/A-18s, B-21s, and B-2s will be launched from other carriers and from bases in Japan, SKorea, Philippines etc and hunt down all DF-21 launchers as well as the SAMs protecting them
The Americans shout, "Russia & China are conduction military exercise off the coast of Alaska..." implying close to the territories of the USA. They conveniently left out that area is also off the coast of Russia's Alyatki, between Chukchi & Bering seas.
You need to recall that America has WESTPAC territories *and* ~ex-territories (the PI, etc) and obligations (Japan, Australia, etc.) for which we are the defacto strategic defense umbrella..
You don’t understand semiconductor manufacturing and economics. Intel has bought all of the most advanced ASML equipment, but fabs using it won’t be online for 2-4 years and that’s with massive government investment into Intel. Those machines aren’t everything though. Something like having pure water seems simple, but discovering new ways to get the even purer water they need is proving incredibly hard. Replacing TSMC means building all those fabs over here. Each one costs billions and takes many years. If we started building them all in parallel, we’d have completed buildings, but ASML couldn’t make the new machines fast enough and they’d be empty. Research matters. TSMC was sponsored and continues to be sponsored by the Taiwanese government to create dependence that in turn guarantees military assistance. They aren’t turning over their secrets or building their most advanced nodes elsewhere. Intel is the second most advanced fab these days, but isn’t catching up for another year or two and that’s only if they are telling the whole truth. Finally, it’s notable that even so-called advanced F-22 are currently using i960 CPUs from the 80s. AI weapons are different, but most cutting edge weapons are made with ancient chips on ancient fabs.
Yes, factories that cost ten billions dollars or more! But TSMC themselves cannot follows the demand. I've read recently that they currently need 50% more industrial power. Europeans countries and USA are also sponsoring semi-conductor factories and this factories can be TSMC ones as long as they are build locally.
@@GuigEspritDuSage TSMC has been having big issues with their Arizona 5nm fab not only with construction, but staffing and cultural differences too. There have been other red tape issues too where Taiwan makes building fabs easy. I'm betting Intel overtakes TSMC in the next year or two and we gradually shift more fabs into the US, but the problem is that this happens after the vulnerability window for China to attack Taiwan.
Yes, people don’t understand what a miracle of science modern chip production is. TSMC is like sending a manned mission to mars, it’s not something that can just be created out of thin air by throwing money at it.
Imagine china make a huge military base with strategic powerful weapons in mexico....how u.s will responde to such issue???this is just the manner u.s already had for decades around chinas mainland
What military bases are you talking about? Japan? Korea? It would be different if those countries didnt want US bases but they do because they dont trust china! Just like why ukraine was trying to join NATO and be part of the "west" because they didnt want anything to do with Russia! Mexico doesn't want china In there so yeah it would be an issue..
@conneroliver5001 You are right this is just an example... I mean china is getting more aggressive to the military presence of u.s around china just like if china had a strong military presence around the U.S they would not tolerate... of course there is no such issue in reality.
Funny, when Woodrow Wilson negotiated the Washington Naval treaty back in 1922, he was keenly aware that although the US Navy may have the same tonnage as the Royal Navy, the American ships were much more modern with the latest technology! Hence, by the stroke of a pen, the US Navy became the strongest in the world: Pax Americana has arrived! Seemingly the same logic holds here in this case…..
why he suggest chinese (nato name luyang) are 0.6 of burkeII is becuase the carry carry about a 100 missile, and the luyang carry about 60 missile. however the chinese destroyer are support by frigate that you guess it, carry about 40 missiles. so 1 chinese destroyer + 1 chinese frigate = 1 burkeII. PLAN can take advantage of the fact that US do not have frigate to screen their destroyer and so maintain a competitive fighting force with smaller ship. interesting if we take this metic, than the type 055 would be equal to 1.2 of a burkeII.
its simple, when asking the congress for money, China has 800 ships, OMG we need to build more ships ASAP; when showing off its power, China has only 83 ships that can fight, and among thoese 83, there are 30ish small ships that cannot fight, China nothing
Please, no. That Ghost of Kiev bullshit was pure 100% CIA/State Department propaganda and it was painfully obvious all of 3 minutes into the reporting. I’m not a fighter pilots but I know and understand that one jet cannot shoot down 5 or 6 or 7 jets on one sortie or even two. It was the most painfully obvious attempt to propagandize a population and yeah, he fell for it hook line and sinker or, more likely, he knew it was bullshit and went along with it anyways.
@@michaelwu9450 He attempts to be an authority on the matter, so he's responsible when he falls for obvious disinformation. Many people with a civilian background did not fall for that garbage propaganda. It's embarrassing.
China's ship building capacity is over 40% of the global share and US is 0.2%. that's 200X difference. Even though majority of the shipyards are for commercial ship building for cargo, lng, cruisers, etc. During potentially war time they can be quickly converted to military ship building. China's navy will be unchallengeable in 4 or 5 years
The US has something called allies. We have allies all over the globe. We have ports and basing agreements all over the globe. China has.....Russia? Lol. China still does not have significant blue water capability and won't for a long long time at this rate. They feel safe as long as they are in their littoral waters under the hypersonic missile shield from the mainland. But they don't dare venture out to the second island chain. The USN would be licking their chops for that.
The problem with asking a military person how to fix something is that they only have one tool at their disposal, and they only see things through the eyes of military conflict. The U.S. has no real industry left other than the military industrial complex, so their solutions always involve new and improved ways to create war. A word about carriers. In WW2, it became clear early on that very large battleships of the type that were used in WW1 were no longer the correct tool to use because aircraft carriers existed. If there is another major powers war, we will find out very quickly that aircraft carriers and their groups will be tantamount to useless, as they can be sunk with a single hypersonic missile hit without endangering any human soldiers. It would just blow the ship in two. It would not be advisable for the U.S. to have its carriers just willy-nilly floating around the South China Sea or anywhere inside the first ring. China cares about China. It is not in the least bit interested in policing anything that doesn't relate directly to China. The U.S. on the other hand sees itself as a worldwide hegemony responsible for basically everything which means that when China equals the U.S. in terms of naval strength, but all that strength is concentrated to defend China, they will have many times what they need to do so unless the U.S. wants to abandon the rest of the world to the fight. In the meantime, the citizens of China have a combined personal savings of $20 trillion and U.S. citizens have a combined personal savings of $650 billion dollars. Everything the U.S. does to try and maintain its hegemony is directly destroying its ability to compete where China is actually competing, which is the marketplace of products, services, and ideas. There is no scenario where the U.S. can or will even try to defend Taiwan. They have already said that in such a circumstance, before they disappear across the ocean, they will destroy Taiwan's chip manufacturing plants to which the Taiwanese and the mainland both said they would defend against. For the Americans to hang out in open water while the entire mainland and possibly Taiwan are lobbing shells and missiles at them would not be self-preservation. So there is a reason we can't do the kind of chip work that Taiwan and very soon the mainland can do. All the people who know how to do this are Chinese, be that Taiwan Chinese (98% Han Chinese) or Mainland Chinese. The U.S. can't even open the TSMC plants in Arizona because they do not have the people to do it and will not even allow the Chinese from Taiwan to come into the country to do the work. Even if they were magically to get those plants running, they would be producing legacy chips.
Thanks old man for another excellent analysis. Very interested to hear the point of view of a very well informed person but particularly from a European perspective. An Italian residing and posting in the UK, well, that might be considered a rather more unbiased and comprehensive point of view than those of us who rely on Ward Carroll for our info, excellent as he is. Please carry on your excellent work and give a kick to your excellent assistant Otis. Say it's from Dave in Quebec. He'll know where to find me.
The US is sleepwalking to death against China, the country that have more than a billion of people, sharing a border with India, Russia and North Korea which gives it a less coast to defend and everything across that coast is in the range of Chinese missiles and and China is increasing its nuclear stockpile rapidly and have the largest industrial capacity in the world.
@@jonasezekiel3829 I don’t think so. China is just a very useful, and perhaps the ideal bogeyman for the US. China is a rational and astute strategic opponent that is not trigger happy. China is the ideal foil and distraction to pass military spending bills, boost international weapons sales and build alliances.
Please correct me if im wrong, but it seems like a lot of posturing. Trying to maneuver ships into the right position, in the right area, at the right time. In my humble opinion, both sides are going to maneuver and do a little "show of force and then go about their day.
What the admiral didn't mention is that the more modern Chinese warships are more techonlogically advanced than their US equivalent. 052C and 052D have better radars and missiles than Burke or Tico.The PESA radar and mechanical illuminators on US ships are getting really old, when are they changing that for AESA? By that standard US only have 3 modern destoyers. And that's not taking 055 into account. As for Carrier, 003 has DC catapult which are more reliable and versatile than the AC catapult on the Ford. IT's the US not China that's technologically behind. Except for subs, in that area the US is still ahead, but not by that much
They can be technologically more modern but the reason the US can dunk on anyone anywhere anytime is due to training and logistics and management. The US is a professional force that lives and breathes dominance, unlike china, who can copy and build and innovate, but I would like to see them in action even against a smaller opponent. China knows that the moment their force makes contact with an adversary, they are just not ready. You can "pretend" all you want, but the US makes sure its units are battle tested and battle capable. Would the US face heavy losses against china? Sure, but the propoganda that everything is now fire and forget is a freaking joke. You need people who are dedicated and capable, which china does not have, and never will. China is as dedicated to war as the soviet armed forces when hitler attacked. How did that go? Hitler hit The USSR with 1/3 the force the soviets had and showed them who is boss and the losses numbers show that well. I am not US army shill, but come one, who are we kidding? Would you bet on a medium weight with 100 fights under his belt or a novice heavy weight with "lots of practice" against a punching bag?
Victor Davis Hansen agrees with you that US procurement needs to go toward cheaper, quantity tech like drone swarms etc..not always easy to move contractors away from high dollar complexity
Last year, China sent 6 warships to the Middle East, including Type 052D destroyers and Type 054A frigates. Please explain how China's PLAN is not a blue water navy.
They did a couple port calls and sat in Djibouti lol. Even the Iranian navy manages that. To conduct combat operations far from home you need friendly bases, logistics, large fleet operations and aircraft carriers. China is sorely lacking in friends, at sea replenishment, any significant operations beyond their littorals and their carriers are non existent. A flotilla of small surface combatants that would get shadowed by submarines and overwhelmed by harpoons in one attack isn't a blue water capability.
@@hambone4728 A blue water navy is simply one that can cross oceans, or "blue water." There's nothing more to it than that. Like I said, your characterization is absurd.
I’m like you, Gus, I’m definitely not a fan of ‘reaction’ videos. They’re just lazy. But this video is not that. You’re providing significant additional information and analysis. Truly excellent to get your thoughts on this important topic. 👍
@27:24 those highend semiconductors are only mostly used in smartphones, most military equipment doesnt use those sub 10nm chips, military prefers long term stability and reliability, military mostly uses 40-80+ nm chips they dont care if the chip is 5grams heavier because in a tank 5grams is a feather compared to a 12.7mm/50bmg round. China might not have full scale production of the current 3 or 4 or 5nm chips but China can design and manufacture those chips and lower scale, might have more defects aka wastage but they can still produce it. 80% of IOT devices in our homes use 40+nm chips. even smartphones that are in the midrange price category use 7nm chips that China can produce on scale. only Flagship phones such as iPhone 15/16 and Computers that have Ryzen 9 or Intel Ultra 9 use those highend chips, the average person doesnt use anything near the highend.
You could make a video analysing Finland, South Korea and Israel when it comes to the topic of managing war economy and munitions supply issues. I think that could give a good contrast to the typical 'Western' professional armies with not so focused governance.
Chinese sub re not lagging behind, in fact, it might be their real focus in term of maritime force, China develops its sub much earlier than their surface ship. China's sub is most secretive unit among others. The recent leaks of Type 093B Nuclear Submarine has clearly shown how well the progress in term of sub tech, and considered the PLAN have the habits of only showing submarine that 1-2 generation older in public. To think Russian can transfer any tech to China is hilarious, just like what happens to the fith-gen fighter, China exceeded them in term of stealth tech and materials. China is about to launch their new j-35 while Russian is still struggle to produce Su-57. Things has changed long before people can realized it.
It's almost as if China plans to fight in Brown Waters, rather than Blue Waters. But that can't be, it's not like they have direct access to Brown Waters, which happen to be surrounded by Military Bases of a hostile nation. Wait a minute... that's exactly the case. PS: I would much rather have 15 ships that are a 0,6 than 5 ships that are a 1,0. Especially if those 15 ships are cheaper, faster to build, easier to operate and easier to maintain. PPS: Yes, the USA intends to over-rely on super advanced weapon systems, completely underestimating "outdated" ones. Just look at "Millenium Challenge 2002" for an example of why that is a horrible idea. Heck, look at the Bombing of Yugoslavia, the USA lost planes it shouldn't have lost, one of which was an F-117 that got shot down by an S-125.
@@napobg6842The US has Global military deployment obligations, China is an isolationist military power. It can force project 100% in her own backyard without concern for the consequences of Global "security"
I wish ppl bringing up Millenium Challenge actual knew anything about : 1 - what we do when we war game.(We deliberately set up worst case scenario to learn from it) 2 - the general running OPFOR didn't follow the parameters even of that, giving his own forces RTS levels of intel and communication, some teleportation, for example. 3 - said general embellished it even further in order to write a book about it 4 - internet legend is not a reliable source
@@napobg6842 Until we consider that the USA has to stretch those 100 ships across multiple parts of the World and it's own Brown Waters. All the while, China has to cover 2 bodies of Brown Water, with it's 50 ships, while having the luxury of utilizing land-based weapon systems to support it's ships.
@@Ilost11 Well, you can only thank the US for all your international orders coming to your door. I'm not sure what is the meaning behind this - "security". In case of a conflict, the US prioritize change from your products to their mission needs.
China doesn't want a war with us, it's not just a matter of weapons, tactics and strategies. The modern economic system can't survive any war, no matter the scenario. War isn't a video game, we will find out that Russia lost close to 100,000 men and Ukraine 1,000,000 plus. With nearly twice that injured. Russia will remember the losses and the breach in our relationship with them will take generations to repair.
Putin positioned Russia as a strategic adversary of the US well before he invaded Ukraine. There was no healthy "relationship" worth protecting. Forget nobles causes: supporting Ukraine to destroy Russia's conventional forces is greatly in America's self-interest, and an absolute bargain at the cost of a few percent of the annual defence budget and no American blood shed. Also your casualty figure are pure fiction.
I have heard of this conversation, but for non-native English speakers, relying on CC subtitles to listen to the whole process can be a bit tiring. I like your program's analysis of viewpoints one by one, very interesting.
Yeah been saying this a while, the PLAN is mostly patrol boats, not fleet level surface combatants. USN considers the LCS class vessels to be little crappy ships, and ast least a third of the PLAN are smaller and weaker than an LCS. The real stuff to worry about is the 20,000 ferries and 80,000 oceanic fishing vessels that are dual use for troop transport/landing vessels for a Taiwan invasion. That is a LOT of capacity for the primary conflict expected.
The question is how concentrated the ships are. The US has a lot more ships, but they are spread all over the world. The Chinese are able to concentrate their ENTIRE navy in a small area, with very specific goals, with land-based support all over that operational area. They do not NEED more ships for a war in that area.
Thank you Gus. Interesting video but overall, no great surprise. The foregoing is partly due to the exemplary research, explication and explanation employed by you in previous videos. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
It is said that the military prepares to fight the last war. The US is still trying to fight WW2 and or Vietnam with aircraft carriers. If we then look to the Red sea the Yemen in the form of the Houthies have demonstrated that a carrier strike group is no longer enough for gunboat diplomacy. The Carrier strike group is vulnerable to swarm attacks coupled with hypersonic missiles. Then the carrier strike group becomes very vulnerable. As the anti Iran war games proved. If the US was to use a carriers that would be approx. 4500 dead for each carrier sunk. More for each support ship sunk. Couple that with the expenditure of air / ballistic defence missiles and the long supply chains and the slow production rate for these missiles looks to me to be a recipe for disaster
There is also a big problem for the US. There navy is global and all over the world. Chinese navy is in and around China. Locally the chinese navy is overwhelmingly stronger than the US navy. It's almost impossible to locally concentrate more forces for the US than China.
US also have to consider that it won’t be able to use the entire global fleet in one area and leave other areas undefended while all of chinas fleets are already in China seas. That is the exact same scenario as the British empire being overstretched fighting in WW.
If one ship is sunk in each side of that war between China and USA, which snip will get replaced first? In war, the ability to replace something fast, is a really big advantage,
I hope he is saying something in public and thinking something else in private. The fact that the Chinese will be fighting on their doorstep but the Allies will be fighting with huge supply lines, even for the superior forces, it gives them a huge problem.
The problem with US navy is that they are stretched too thin because they cover the Black Sea, South China Sea amongst many other oceans where else China only needs to focus on the South China Sea. So, 83 warships are a huge deal for the US in the South China Sea
@Millennium7HistoryTech can you make a video on the image released recently? The first ever photo of the inside of a Su-57's wing root internal weapons bay has been taken at the Zhuhai International Airshow preparations.
One question we should ask is if B2s and B21s will be hitting missile launchers and military factories in China. Let’s remind ourselves are much fewer missile launchers than there are missiles
Bro is flying P-8s near Hainan and complains about "Chinese military encroachment".
Threatening Japan, ROC (Taipei), ROK (South Korea), India, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia are all "Chinese military encroachment."
Stop building new islands to steal coastal waters from your neighbors.
Also, you send spy ships into USNavy task groups all the time. Plus your spy balloons that Emperor Poopy Pants (Joe Biden 皇帝便便裤) was too stupid to destroy. And stop buying lands near USA military bases (which US State Dept and US Senate are too stupid to block you from buying to spy on us.)
But honestly, I don't blame Chairman Winnie the Pooh 主席小熊维尼. I blame the stupid American Politicians and Diplomats.
3:10 China is the greatest challenge to American security, freedom, well-being, and those of their allies and partners???
Please explain how. Has China threatened to attack US territory? No.
Has China threatened to take away Americans' freedom? No.
Has China threatened to harm Americans' well-being? No.
Has China similarly threatened the UK and EU? No.
China has fought no wars in the last 45 years. How many wars has the US fought?
China has one foreign military base in Djibouti. How many military bases does the US have? Around 800!!!
Many Americans are delusional.
Not to mention that base was built by the invitation of UN for logistic mission for UN peace keeping. It's literally sitting next to a few other similar bases operated by other UN member states
Ahh.... You have to understand USA baseline assumptions.
1. They have to maintain military hegemony to prop up their financial hegemony and US$
2. Without financial and US$ hegemony, mainland USA dissolves into chaos. Because USA has to keep borrowing $ for deficit spending every year.
Thus anything or anybody which erodes USA military and financial and US$ hegemony is a threat.
Whether that something or somebody actually aims to erodes USA hegemonies is immaterial
USA elites know it. USA PR experts provide justifications in moral and ethical terms.
USA soldiers swallow the justifications without thinking. From private all the way up to admiral or general.
You can't blame them. After all, you don't expect your plumber to give a lecture about Clausewitz yeah
作为中国人，我甚至支持，台湾人如果不成为中国人，追求他们想象的自由，我支持台湾人移民美国或者日本，但，島必須留下
Because China is run by Asian people, so if China is number one, then the myth of white supremacy is dead and Americans can't have that, otherwise all the other black and brown people in the world might think it's not fair that 5% of the world's population is using 80% of the world's resources.
The gentlemen ignore a serious question - logistics. Sal Mercogliano of 'Whats going on with Shipping' has spoken repeatedly of the risks to US naval power projection due to the significant decline in US logistical shipping. The US is already struggling to maintain its fleets with supply and support, in a conflict that is likely to completely break down from shear stress.
That's why we have allies. China will have no allies and will be facing multiple enemies and everyone else in their neighborhood doesn't really like them.
War with China would mean a draft and rationing. From there they could get the man power needed to do large scale shipping.
Where is the US going to get supply if Russia and China aren't going to give them manufactured or raw?
To say nothing of enemy strikes on said logistics chain.
This is why i can't take western power projections seriously, all those guns, but what happens when you waste your ammo, and your supplies lines have been blow to smithereens.
@@FrostSapphire-bm2tt Couldnt agree more :)
Regarding Taiwan, To clarify: China has not been the one changing the status quo. Whoever is moving towards declaring the independence of Taiwan is breaking the status quo. No able country would tolerate the secession of its territory.
The status quo is mainly based on:
1. 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which Japan accepted as they unconditionally surrendered. (Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and its sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku.)
2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. It recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations")
3. China-US Three Joint Communiqués (1972, 1979, 1982, US President Jimmy Carter in TV broadcast to the entire world, that the United States recognized that the government of the People's Republic of China was the sole legal government of China, and acknowledged the PRC's position that Taiwan is part of China. )
4. 1992 Consensus (See following).
For whom would like to play with the wording, I quote President Jimmy Carter in Three Joint Communiqués "We do not undertake this important step for transient tactical or expedient reasons. In recognizing the People's Republic of China, that it is the single Government of China, we are recognizing simple reality. But far more is involved in this decision than just the recognition of a fact."
This is the foundation of China-US relationship and President Carter has no intention to play ambiguous wording here in the full context of the Three Joint Communiqués.
Now some more facts on The status quo.
1. Taiwan is not the name of a country. It is the name of a island or a province. The Republic of China (ROC) is the acting governing body of Taiwan province.
2. In the current constitution of ROC, it states both mainland China including Mongolia and Taiwan province are the territory of ROC.
3. Mainland China is governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), while Taiwan province is governed by ROC.
4. Two governing bodies are still in a Civil War since 1945 and have never signed a peace treaty nor an armistice. The current condition is in a ceasefire.
5. What do most countries do with civil wars? Take the United States as an example. When the Confederate States seceded from the United States, the Union States didn't tolerate such action and waged a four year civil war which resulted in 620,000 deaths of soldiers not including civilians.
What did the Union government do to counter the British and French support for the Confederate States?
a) diplomacy: The Union government dispatched diplomats to Europe to explain the cause of the war and to argue that secession was unconstitutional. The Union also attempted to persuade European nations that supporting the Confederacy would lead to a long and bloody war that would destabilize the entire continent.
b) Naval blockade of the Confederate ports.
c) Economic policy: The Union government encouraged domestic manufacturing to reduce reliance on British and French goods. The Union government also placed high tariffs on imported goods.
6. There are many ways for a country to end civil wars. PRC and ROC's semiofficial representatives had agreed on the 1992 Consensus which formed an basis of the dialogue between two, until recent years that ROC's (Taiwan) position has changed and deviating further away from the 1992 Consensus in both words and actions in the past 10 years. PRC (mainland) has made many attempts to invite the ROC representative back to the conversation on the basis of the 1992 Consensus but to no avail. With the growing possibility of Taiwan's permanent secession from the mainland, the PRC (mainland) took several different approaches and more firm actions and is still open to peaceful resolution based on "One China policy".
7. The United Nation and the vast majority of the countries (more than 200) in the world including the US only recognize the PRC as the sole legal government of China and established diplomatic relationships. There is only about 5 countries (depending on when) has diplomatic relation with ROC(Taiwan). However, in recent years, the actions of the US government (like arms sell to Taiwan) and its politicians have deviated further away from the three joint communicates between the US and the P.R.China.
People want to be free and be able to chose their destiny. Any who stand in the way of this are considered the enemy of freedom and the enemy of humanity. Have your excuses ready when you meet the creator and an explanation is requested.
@harrythehandyman
Great comment. Thankyou. There is a few points there I was not aware of. Isn't it strange that those that actually know what they are talking about are willing to support what they say with links or facts, yet the clowns that follow those with a political agenda generally don't, and all they have is unfounded accusations and shout downs. I would definitely count the comment by @556m4 as being in the latter group.
The points you put forward are valid and difficult to contest.
However, China is not a democracy, has zero aspirations to be one and I fully understand those Taiwanese who don't want to be a Chinese province.
@@556m4
So your invisible sky daddy requests explanations. Uh huh.
Your premise is that Taiwan is a part of the CCP. Since the beginning of the CCP, Taiwan has disagreed with that Premise. Formosa, Taiwain, the Island has had many names and many rules. It's only been since 1949 has this Island had anything like self-rule. Bottom line, who's bottom line are you referring too?
Spot on analysis. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Ignore your competitors strength at your own peril. China's rate of technological development has been exceptional.
@user-pfsej8bzklAnd China should act consistent with that stance.
@@brianboye8025 "And China should act consistent with that stance."
In the last 70 or so years, China has been involved in two wars only. Both of those wars lasted a mere month each, ending when Beijing accomplished their very limited objectives.
Compare that to the Western countries.
As for Taiwan: there is no tension or risk of war until the US starts pushing behind the scenes for Taiwanese independence. That is a red line that - if crossed- China WILL go to war over.
I dont thino the US necessarily ignores chinas strength
@@brianboye8025 ,
, ,
Why are you insisting on what others do ,
Police yourself first. ,
Show the world you've change ,
Renounce your evil deeds ,
Make amends ,
Make amends , -( impossible )- .
Once dead , cannot be brought back to life .
-
So forget amends ,
So back to square 1 ,
Continue the evil deeds .
And when demonic people ask you to "behave-" ,
Its a trap .
@user-pfsej8bzkl Yeah clearly from tributary states to this. Clearly not offensive. shut the hell up
Chinese type 055 destroyer is arguably the best if not top 3 destroyers in the world.
It is probably the best amongst the ones that can be produced at scale
@@stenyethanmathews945 but the Chinese don’t have many yet. They will have more soon
@@khorweesiong Bro there are 10 of them already, how many Tico does USN have left?
In terms of pffensove capabilities, I agree
In terms of defense capability, I believe that honor belongs to Arleigh Burke (Tico's a cruiser)
@@Temstar04 Tico is outdated
The Chinese are not exactly projecting power 1000 miles from Los Angeles or New York. They are operate mainly around Taiwan and in the South China sea. A modern frigate, corvette or even a lowly missile boat can sink an aircraft carrier.
Sink? No. Mission kill is possible but carriers are incredibly hard to sink
@@James-rl5tjAll the alleged unsinkable ships in history have a reputation of ending up becoming coral reefs.
@@James-rl5tj Folks forget or never knew that we literally nuked Navy ships to test this kind of thing, and they still had to be scuttled in order to actually sink.
Able dropped two Fat Man bombs over a fleet of 95 ships, including battleships and fleet carriers.
Then Baker tried again, but it detonated underwater, making an unholy mess of radioactive sea spray to contaminate the test fleet
@@jagx234So it's a fleet of ghost ships? All the same then.
@@limitlesssky3050 you missed the pertinent info, I think. The most powerful weapons we possess were unable to sink WW1 and 2 era ships. Ships with zero personnel or dmg control. They're bigger now and fully staffed
22:10 This is what I've been saying for YEARS😭 Everytime I see one of these American RUclipsrs compare Chinese weapons to American weapons I'm like "Do you know that the war will happen RIGHT NEXT to China right? It's not like this Chinese weapon will have to face its American equivalent one on one with no backup or support" it's such a simple concept that Americans fail to grasp
Exactly 💯 China only has to defend China. Not force the world into submission at the same time. 😂
I disagree with your view on American military preparation. The US military has prepared from an alliance perspective, R&D perspective, and Logistics perspective. It’s been known for some time that China is the greatest threat to US world dominance and they have not sat idly by. Lots of these new systems being fast tracked for service are directly targeted against Chinese military expansion. Of course I’m a US citizen and inherently biased, but I think US preparation in the region, especially from an alliance perspective has taken drastic strides in the US’s favor
@@richardscathouse That’s dismissing the US’s many allies in the region. Many more factors to consider than just China is the home team. They are also trying to invade one of if not the most heavily fortified islands in the world with the most powerful militaries in support of said island. The US has prepared logistically to defend Taiwan. I’d be curious how Chinese ballistics would affect US military bases in the region during wartime.
@@tuckerkane8417So has China by the way. China also has the manufacturing capability to go on a war with the US and its allies considering they alone make over 50% of the world’s ships and most electronics. They have also created alternative ways to bypass the strait of Malacca by going through Central Asia or by going through Laos to Malaysia and ship their goods from there. This is the problem on American military thinking, u always underestimate your enemy’s capability to adapt to u just as u adapt to them. Japan and Korea are a blip even if they combined their forces and I don’t think they want to get into a war with a NEIGHBOURING NATION with a population of 1.4 billion and a culture of not forgetting what was done to them especially by the Japanese. Most of South east Asia would also remain neutral other than the Philippines. Do not count on support from there and the ability to blockade the strait of Malacca. If the US blockades that strait, there will definitely be pushback by all the surrounding nations. Blockading it also means suffocating your own allies.
In the Chinese Internet, this is called Jungle Chess thinking, the higher-ranked animals can capture weaker or equal-ranked animals. The reality is that war is a confrontation between systems rather than a confrontation between weapons.
in nowadays war is not won by army navy air force, but by a country's military industry. Both countries know it's a fact that China's ship building capability is way way better than the US now. The reason behind this is very obvious, a healthy military industry needs to be backed by a strong and large civilian manufacturing industry, which China has the strongest in the world and the US has almost none. The trend is very clear now, the US needs to accept China's rise and super powers need to respect each other and give each other enough space. The US will soon learn those PAs flying so close to another superpower's coast is not the best for the US.
Very well said
With China salami-slicing the land of other nations, encroaching on territory and staking claims to regions which were proven to be baseless and unlawful in an international court, a meter of space given will mean kilometers of space taken. It would be nice if diplomatic measures would work but it's easier said than done. Sadly, the only thing holding back conflict is that neither side is ready to start it yet.
Don’t forget China has to import a huge amount of energy and raw materials to keep that industry going. They have to keep that in mind before they get testy
@@StrictlyDrift those are border disputes. China has border disputes with neighbors, those neighbors have disputes with each other too. The US has no border with China, for the US to get into these disputes is not wise. This is also not a respectful way to deal with another superpower. Using these disputes to slow down China's rise is just the US's wishful thinking, that won't work, and in long term it will bring more harm than gain to the US.
@@loganhermanns2675 Yes, that's why China didn't get into as many wars as the other superpower. Also, China is gearing up with fleet building to protect those import lines, like it or not, the other superpower has no way to keep up with the Chinese ship building speed.
having a swarm of smaller carriers is genius actually
swarms of cheap naval drones is better, and China can build millions in no time
It's also EXTREMELY expensive.
Carrier tonnage kept rising through the last century for the simple reason that generally, you got much more worth for what you spent on them, the bigger the carriers were.
By the end of WWII, light carriers were mostly considered a mistake.
By the 1990s, light carriers were for people who couldn't afford REAL carriers.
Or in exceptions, like USSR, for those who had radically different doctrines and didn't try to compete symmetrically.
@@DIREWOLFx75The change in carrier sizes after WW II was caused by the change from propeller planes to jets which needed a longer runway.
Also of course the change of the geo-strategic role of the US after the defeat of Germany and Japan, the new nuclear abilities of the US and the new confrontation with the Soviet Union played a role in the decisions for bigger carriers.
@@DIREWOLFx75 I get the idea that according cubic weight per volume makes big ships cheaper, but to say that light carrier were tossed due to cost efficiency reasons is bizarre. Obviously the issue was the size of aircraft, sustainment and armament. China and the US have different needs is all. The Chinese aren't concerned with policing the globe.
@@DIREWOLFx75 "It's also EXTREMELY expensive." - not more expensive than big marquee vessels, it isn't.
"quantity is a quality on its own"
Not so much quality in America 😢
@@richardscathouse Boeing enters chat😂
Like that substandard US steel used for years in our US Navy nuclear submarines, and the substandard meth head filled crews for the USS John McCain and the USS Bonhomme Richard...
Especially when the quantity is cheap and endless
Just as size is too. Neither ensures ultimate supremacy, but they sure do provide a nudge in the right direction. Ask women.
Ward was not "pilot". He was a RIO ( Radar interception officer) on F-14, Tomcat, just say.
Correct.
Back seaters are still required to be pilot certified
They are still certified pilots
Which is a pilot. Lmao.
@@AvocadoAfficionado
Did he sit in the pilot seat?
The reasons why you disagree with ward's opinions is why I follow this channel. US military people are often hopelessly idealistic. If they weren't they wouldn't have joined up.
I mean the Admiral in the interview keeps saying how dangerous the Chinese are....but he's hopelessly idealistic lol
That's only part of it, remember, these guys have to tow the line too.
@@FrostSapphire-bm2tt But "hopelessly idealistic" though? Not really.
not idealistic, you mean unrealistic.
@@hambone4728 I bet the Admiral said what he said because the people above him told him too.
Imagine: if you piss off from other nations coasts, there will be no threat and no war.
@@quadpumped34 great advice to America👍
@@Blixey-r9zMight wanna tell Russia and China that too
@ I think Russia’s intentions over Ukraine have been misrepresented by Western media, but who knows. WRT China, the SCS is essentially a dispute about the sovereignty of the maritime feature/ isles there, quite a different matter.
@@Blixey-r9z Oh sure, I personally don’t think Russia’s going to go much further than Ukraine (geographically speaking) but Ukraine was a separate sovereign nation. Doesn’t really give Russia a right to do what they’ve done
@@christopherchartier3017 NATO accession talks for Ukraine is the equivalent of a catwalk model walking down a blind alley at 3AM in a two piece.
They should have signed the proposal in 2022; no loss of life or land then
There are four points which confound me about the U.S. admiral’s views.
First, the discount of the smaller Chinese ships and especially their large force of Chinese corvettes that are dedicated to ASW. These are not surface combatants but they will be necessary to sanitize the Straits of Formosa of hostile submarines for Chinese amphibious forces in a contested crossing. So, with all due respect, to the admiral, these smaller ships count.
Secondly, the admiral talks of force projection. But, what if the Chinese go after American logistics ships and bases? Does he have the ships to divert to maintain security for his logistics line? America hasn’t had to worry about logistics security since WW2 because nobody has been able to threaten American logistics chains. But, a defeat over Taiwan would be an existential issue for the CCP and it is very plausible that American logistics and even manufacturing resources will be targeted. So, with all due respect to the admiral, the emphasis on fewer large multi capable submarines destroyers and carriers at the expense of smaller escorts is likely to come back to haunt the Americans in a peer level conflict where logistics and manufacturing chains are viable targets unlike a war with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Thirdly, he mentions future American systems that will give America an edge. But China is also developing new systems and at a far faster rate than the U.S. By the time the new American systems come online, the Chinese will have an answer and probably in larger numbers too.
And, this brings us to to last point. Comparative industrial might. In this area, China is the global titan. America is not even close to being a peer in industrial capacity.
Conventional wars since 1939 have been won by the country with the largest manpower and industrial capacity. By these two metrics, China is a long way ahead and the gap is only going to widen in the next 20 years.
Admittedly, China suffers from low birth rates. But, artificial wombs are technically feasible and potentially necessary for the continued survival of several countries like Japan, Korea, and China which have declining birth rates.
The horrifying reality is that the human race is standing on the precipice of Star Wars’ Clone Wars and Terminator, Judgment Day and nobody is slowing down the impetus to war
Artificial wombs ? lol come on man..
USA worried about Chinese missiles, radar and satellite. Its navy can hardly survive.
Yup. And if a Chinese destroyer is 60% as good but he has 150% more, it doesn't math. And Ward points out that US carriers can generate more sorties, but there are plenty of ground based Chinese launchers that will have a vote.
@@ducon0000 can you be sure China won't allow human cloning if it comes to such a situation?
Powers are always equipped to fight the last wars they were involved in. Nothing new there
LOL……. somebody, with admiral rank compared Chinese warships in ONE region, with quantity of ALL US ships in ALL Oceans?? LOL 😂😂😂
The Chinese doesn't have many vessels outside of the pacific region. . they have a lot of smaller vessels but when comparing mid / large vessels they are very much outnumbered by US ships in the pacific let alone the rest of the fleet.
@@arkadious9320 -
As of October 2023, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) of China has around 370 ships and submarines, making it the world's largest navy by number of active sea-going ships. This is compared to the United States Navy's battle force of around 292 ships and submarines around the World.
@@arkadious9320 No they aren't. China's navy is concentrated, not spread out. They're also rapidly catching up. And if you think the entire PLAN is outnumbered by the Pacific Fleet alone then you're just delusional and have no idea what you're talking about. And small doesn't mean useless. They don't even build those anymore.
They also mention compared to US ships in open ocean. China has no plans of large scale force projection. US ships are off the coast of China. Anti ship missiles fired from land would be an issue for the US to. China's production capacity far exceeds the US.
@@kristoffereberius2476 The US Navy doesn't stand a chance against China in China's backyard. In the event of a war between the mainland and Taiwan the USA would just sit back and watch as it will not risk American lives for Chinese ones. In the unlikely scenario of US getting involved, US Navy ships would be sunk by ASBMs from the mainland or other long range anti ship weapons. If the US Navy stays outside the range of the ASBM's their airwings would be useless as it would be a one way trip due to range limitation of the carrier aircraft. Force multipliers like tankers and AWACS would be prime targets for Chinese stealth aircraft. 18 out of 18 US think tank war scenarios resulted in the USA Navy being thoroughly defeated. The Taiwanese should look to the Russia Ukraine conflict as an example of US commitment of manpower which is zero. Taiwan is not going to get help from anyone.
Let's believe the americans, the same people who said Russia is the 2nd most powerful military in Ukraine.
That wasn’t the opinion of just the United States. Everyone was surprised at how inept Putin’s military was invading Ukraine.
Let’s believe the americans the same people who said USA is the 1st most powerful kilitary in Afghanistan ( especially in the night they silently ran away )
@ … 1. creating a modern state out of Afghanistan wasn’t going to and didn’t happen. So it was a bad plan to start. 2. The major partner in the war was the Afghan army and police. Which couldn’t or wouldn’t hold onto the country. 3. The corruption of the Afghan government
The US didnt say this, the media did. Dawg, if youre gonna critisize propganda, dont use propaganda to do so
@@greedyinvader9462 … the ultimate failure was of the Afghan government. Which collapsed. The Americans are at fault trying to transform Afghanistan into a modern nation state. Then tasking the army to do that. To create something which had never existed there. The American soldiers did not fail in fighting the Taliban.
18:59 - "but you will have to cross the mass of that ocean". Yankee projection, since China's developed a defensive posture, it's the Americans who think they need to cross said mass, whilst China maintains home advantage
In the Napoleonic era, naval might is measured in the men who crewed the ships times the number of canons carried.
In the modern era, naval might is measured in the men who crew the ships times the number of missiles carried.
USN and western navies are screwed.
@@TheBelrick Why do men matter with automation?
@@thelungilife6057the men are for logistics and maintenance
That's right. China and Russia have A2AD, anti access area denial. Also exports to US are a small fraction of Chinese economy now due to new markets.
@@DonVetto-vx9dd ,,
They don't need men , they will deploy robots ,
-
They are importing the robots too .
Type 052D has 64 VLS cells while a flight III Burke has 96. Which is where the Admiral probably got the 0.6 ratio. A bit simplistic considering that the 052D has ASBM capabilities, but overall fair, and something that Chinese sources would agree with. In China they see the Type 055 as the Burke equivalents.
It is not simplistic but spot on! At the end of the day, the US doesn't need that many ASBMs. They they submarines and air power for that. Their destroyers stick to the original definition of a destroyer. It is an escort ship. It protects the carrier and itself with A2A missiles
The Chinese ships AND the weapons in those VLS however are considerably newer overall, and especially the anti-ship missiles are vastly superior to the USN ones on an individual basis.
We're already seeing how USAs SAMs in UA have not managed to intercept even a SINGLE supersonic missile from RF(as openly stated more than once by UA airforce spokesman).
And the Chinese YJ-18 are not just supersonic, they're highend supersonic AND they have the pack maneuvering, datalinking and EW that made the old Soviet heavy antiship missiles so much more dangerous as well.
USN still widely relies on Harpoon and Tomahawk, and those are quite frankly not a serious threat to Chinese vessels as long as they have SAMs left or USN fires them in BIG packs.
Modern Chinese SAMs and PD will generally have no trouble at all with subsonic missiles.
The 052D does not have as many VLS as the Burke III, but "In China they see the Type 055 as the Burke equivalents." Who would even say that, Can't we just say "in between"?
@@napobg6842 As the admiral said, the air is still contested. Air superiority is not a given. As for submarine, China has 110+ surface vessel equipped with towed array sonar and variable depth sonar plus 50+ ASW fixed wing aircraft constantly scanning the ocean. Not counting the wall of underwater listening device China already installed during peacetime.
US definitely need a much longer range anti-ship missile than Harpoon.
@@gaobili OK "more of a Burke equivalent" and that's even if you grant that China needs or wants an "equivalent" Obviously different navies have different requirements but, closer to the role of a Burke.
The Bias is soo extreme. "We see this J-15s at the wings of our P-8s provocativly." Who is flying at the border of whom? Who flies provocativly directly along the border so the other quick reaction alert interceptors are taking off?
And what are the Default procedures? The interceptor is positioned by the side of the other plane a little bit to the front to get sight contact with the other pilot. And by the way, this is more calming for the other crew than an interceptor at their tail, because flying at your side, you definitely won't be attacked.
@@pelle7771 it’s Maverick’s fault. Russians and Chinese think that’s how American aviators fly 🤣
The USN is flying in international waters. The PLAAF have every right to intercept but there is a professional, safe way to do it and the Chinese often violate that. THAT'S the problem.
@@hambone4728 that’s something for the diplomats and respective militaries to work out - a peacetime professional code of ethics/ conduct between airforces. Maverick is going to hate it though.
@@Blixey-r9z there's plenty of international waters they could be flying over, why do they choose to be right off the Chinese coast? Can you imagine the American reaction if the Chinese were flying patrols in international waters off of California? American hypocrisy on full display.
@@gz3zbz Not to mention that the Americans also have the option to conduct freedom of navigation exercises with non-military aircraft …. At least till the next KAL007 incident.
Colonel Douglas Macgregor is the only former US military officer in the public domain whose opinion I respect.
Lol
he is an idiot
Because he shits on the US everytime he speaks?
@@bobahop1232 No. The only thing he takes a dump on is stupid people and stupid ideas. I'm an American citizen who served almost 12 years as an infantry officer in the US Army between 2004-15. I agree with almost all of his analysis regarding our foreign policy.
@@clarkenoble that is because the military industrial complex has not sunk its claws into him; perhaps he is truly a man of integrity.
China has an amazing navy that already outclasses USA especially in the Cruiser-class type ships. Their fast Assault ships are also a big threat and their Destroyers are already beginning to outclass the USA's Arleigh Burke fleet which is in most areas quite old and newer warships take years to build.
"Outclasses" is a strong word. USN is unmatched in terms of tonnage afloat. The PLAN is definitely dangerous.
The Burke Flight III's are extremely advanced warships with long legacy of training and experience behind them. This is where the PLAN lacks. They don't have a robust history of experience and don't train at the rate or scale as the USN does.
So we have no idea how the PLAN will do in actual combat, but they probably won't do well.
@@hambone4728 You don’t understand the fighting will of Chinese soldiers. China has been the leader of the world for thousands of years, but internal contradictions in the past two hundred years have led to its decline.
@@hambone4728 I served in the Chinese army for five years. When we thought about fighting the United States, we were not timid, but rather excited.
@wenluo6617 I understand the last full scale conflict you were in you got thrown out of Vietnam....if you don't count killing your own unarmed people from time to time.
Then there was fighting with bats and rocks at the LOC with India....?
Oh and the complete and utter failure of your UN Expeditionary Force in Mali in 2020 where Chinese soldiers were scared to fight local insurgents and failed to protect the civilians they were sent there to protect.....so there's that as well.
@@wenluo6617 Because you've never fought anyone. Your generals have never fought anyone. You have no recent combat experience anywhere in your entire military that didn't involve fighting Indians with sticks or being afraid to counterattack Mali rebels.
Ignorance is bliss.
Chinese navy doesnt sail off shore of US, nor should USA do it to China, but they do and have done so essentially for 200 years, even having colonies in China during this time..
The US has conducted freedom of navigation exercises since the end of WWII.
The point is international water is owned by all and unrestricted use of the that water is the basis for our modern world economy. US presence aids everyone who's inclined to conduct trade...
Meanwhile the Chinese have made a claim to ownership of international water. Without challenging that claim it becomes true and the Chinese get to control trade.
The has had a strong navy from 1900 to 1942, and a great navy since 1942. China is starting, it wont be long when we see them all across the globe.
China does, in fact, patrol off americas west coast
Because the Chinese Navy is too busy bullying Taiwan and the Philippines. Give them time.
@@a24396 US not doing "freedom of navigation", US behaviour is like a bandit coming from 10000km away, brandishing his guns with threats of annihilation on the doorstep of china and that of many other countries, yes, its been doung that for 80 odd years now and thats 80 year too many ...
Love semi long format, Mixed Air and navy are Incredible interesting. Daje otis
We Chinese were truly pacifists. But, thanks West, for waking us up.
Just In the 20th and 21st centuries:
Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China and this China temporarily abandoned expanding for a short while, however it would soon reconquer Xinjiang, absorbing the then-Second East Turkestan Republic with help from Stalin.
China regained control of Tibet through a series of events. Mao Zedong considered Tibet Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan as China's responsibility.
China and India fought a border war in 1962, where China gained Aksai Chin. China also sought to take over Taiwan. China also sought to take over Sikkim in 1967, but it was unsuccessful. A Chinese map published in 1961 showed China claiming territories in Bhutan, Nepal and the Kingdom of Sikkim. Incursions by Chinese soldiers and Tibetan herdsmen allying with the Chinese government also provoked tensions in Bhutan.
In 1974, China launched its first naval expedition to reclaim the Paracel Islands and defeated the 50-strong South Vietnamese occupation force.Tensions triggered between China and later unified communist Vietnam led to the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. China and Vietnam later fought another bitter skirmish in the South China Sea in 1988, resulting in China's consolidation of some disputed islands.
In the opening speech at the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping emphasized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan.
Pacifists indeed.
Tibet called. It wants you to leave.
@@kdbsuff9625 Reestablishing sovereignity over de jure territory after a civil war, a few minor border disputes, claiming some microscopic islands very close to home that other countries who claim them have an equally weak claim to, emphasizing your country's sovereignty over a region that is an internationally recognized as part of your country, and fighting a single minor war with your neighbor that both sides were equally responsible for causing. Yeah, that list does make them pacifists by comparison. Those events are utterly insignificant next to the action's of China's competition, the US. Thanks for explaining in detail exactly why the Chinese have been extremely pacifist in the 20th and 21st centuries.
@@kdbsuff9625 And to point out a few more absurdities. Its very odd that in every one of the very few minor conflicts that China has been involved with, the other side is not given any responsibility whatsoever, as if China has tensions with these countries that are completely one-sided. And the for some reason, no one ever talks about the equally weak claims of other countries that claim the parcel islands, including and especially the Republic of China. Weird how the government of an internationally recognizined Chinese region, Taiwan, can claim and militarily occupy the same islands, using the exact same justification, and no one seems to care.
Truly....invaded and oppressed Tibet peacefully. Invaded and were thrown out of Vietnam peacefully. Threaten Taiwan with conquest and death peacefully.
China so peaceful...truly.
Silly boy. There are so many worse things than dying. 😢
Like being an Uighur in a Chinese Concentration Camp
There are greater things to you but to him a sole life is priceless already.
As the elites who literally sold their souls to the devil will find out.
It is very worrying that the Houti's are competing with the US succesfully.
Houthis don't have a navy much less 1 modern navy ship. Houthis don't even have a batallion of jet fighters.
The Houthis are not 'competing succesfully', their have been 424 airstrikes against them, and 0 casualties or inflicted damage upon US or coalition forces. tf are you talking abt
Ward is a classmate of mine. I told him of your videos a few years ago - he could use your tech help as an English professor - btw - not a Pilot, he was an F-14 RIO.
You and Ward need to interview each other - I’m usually agree with you on tech things. Not a big fan of Ward’s views either - but stay focused on tech - don’t politics skew your analysis. Politics may be reality but it is rarely the right answer.
You are rating me way above my level, but thank you.
Crossover of my two favourite channels 🥳
Agreed! Really nice combo! :)
Another American " Exceptionalist"??
At least that guy is somewhat honest, when he is not using the Doublespeak !
Yes, the average US solider has an INFINITE amount more combat experience than all of the chinese army combined. That is just a fact.
Seasoned light weight vs novice heavy weight. Heavy weight loses due to lack of practical experience.
@@singular9American soldiers also have an infinitely more experience in commiting suicide. And that's a fact.
@@singular9 keep coping
last time I saw ur murikan bois with iNfInItE cOmBaT eXps, they got kicked like dawgs by some arabs in sloppers
@@singular9what a dumb argument. You do realize if a war erupts between the two, Chinese troops will get more battle experience as the war progresses, thereby negating the difference in combat experience.
Better him than someone bellicose.
Babe wake up a new Otis video just dropped
Thank you for your sane level headed analysis.
What happens if Chinese destroyer or Russian frigate fired just 2 hypersonic rockets on US aircraft carrier?
Then we find out how good their missile tech actually is. We saw the Kinzhal missle was not actually a hypersonic and is pretty bad in Ukraine.
On the other hand we already know how Aegis performs...and it's very good. So the Chinese or Russians will have lost a ship, their missiles will probably be defended and World War 3 will have begun.
The US ship would be docking on a Taiwanese port while being on fire, maybe? A military will not sink easily.
@@donparky1812
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) at Naval Base San Diego was lost with no any missile strike...
@@95valero cuz of a fire
@@95valero 😬😬
I didn’t think Ward was imagining a carrier-carrier fight. His main point was that chinese carrier tonnage is not equal to US carrier tonnage, mainly because of a huge gape in training and operational experience
Why have a huge naval fleet if its only purpose is to protect your own coastline. Also there is no hope of the US getting any sizeable fleet near the Chinese coast during war. The Chinese might not have a lot of ships but they have huge numbers of land to sea missiles that would decimate any naval force that got too close. Aircraft carriers do not trump missiles if they are in sufficient number
@@eamonnfanton2165 my comment was more about capability per ton than the total amount of tonnage. my point was that the Type 003 is not equal in capability to the Nimitz just because it is roughly the same size and similar on paper. That is the point that Ward was making, and I would definitely agree. Discussing a conflict on an operational level is a whole other level of complexity
@@eamonnfanton2165They don't need to be near the Chinese coast. They need to maintain air superiority over Taiwan and be able to punch supply convoys onto the island.
@@hambone4728 The US will never get the chance to land small convoys onto the islands. That's precisely why China has gone for loads of smaller ships that are missile capable. China simply has to have these ships within missile range of Taiwan. Taiwan is only 200km away from the China mainland, so a Chinese fleet midway between would allow for missiles that only had a 100km range to be used and that's most of them theses days. Air superiority is not going to clear that amount of small ships without fully depleting their stores for their aircraft extremely rapidly.. US carriers have limited supplies of missiles and ammunition for their aircraft that will inevitably force them to use naval assets to remove the Chinese missile boats. Carriers carry a LOT of ammunition and stores for their aircraft but not enough to prosecute a sustained battle over many days or weeks without the carrier being resupplied. It would mean either naval assets being used to remove the Chinese missile ships which would be extremely costly, or somehow have rapid and frequent cargo transports to resupply the carrier, which is definitely not as easy as it sounds. Assuming the US had sufficient supply vessels for a protracted conflict ( which currently they don't) it then has the scary scenario of both the carrier and the supply vessel remaining in close proximity at a steady speed (for aviation fuel transfer) for about 4 hours which is the typical aviation fuel transfer time and also using helicopters to transfer bombs and ordinance from the supply ship at the same time. Carriers that cant alter course rapidly are sitting targets to long range air launched missiles and submarines. If China sends in massive waves of missiles and drones even the defensive curtain provided by the carriers task force is eventually going to run out of ammo. Just look what happened to Israel's Iron Dome, it got overwhelmed as many batteries simply ran out of ammunition shooting down cheap and relative cheap drones and rockets or short range missiles. The risk of losing a carrier would be just too great.
Long story short, if the US wanted to land troops and supplies onto Taiwan during a war it would be a naval operation dependent on naval protection not air power. That naval protection fleet would be constantly vulnerable to attack unless the US decide to eliminate the threat from any Chinese ships first which would involve significant losses and it almost certainly be a naval only operation with the carriers as far way as possible only responsible for fending of any attack by Chinese aircraft.
@@hambone4728and Taiwan is near China lmao
If someone walks around your house with camera, 3 times a day, for whole year nonstop, what would you do?
These people’s arrogance and ignorance are laughable.
What an arrogant thing to say.
@ Arrogant? Did you notice or even know that the US admiral completely missed/ignored to mention that the US navy will be faced with one of the largest missile force in Asia pacific, including hypersonic missiles? You think I’m arrogant? You must be joking, clown. 😂
Please tell us more about your expertise on the US and Chinese capabilities Reynold Liao😂
@ Please tell us how you propose for the US fleet to defend against hypersonic missiles? We’ll wait.😂
@@reynoldliao7462 By being 400-700 miles East of Taiwan in the vast Pacific ocean making targeting much more difficult for land based missiles like the DF-27. An american Carrier group can move at 30kts or even higher. China will need near real time targeting to hit a target going that fast and we still don't know for sure how accurate these missiles can maneuver in an EW environment.
The US. Navy is also putting PAC-3's on their ships now since the PAC-3 has successfully shot down many hypersonic missiles in the Ukraine conflict. So DF27's will have to find their targets pre-launch, continuously be updated on the target's position and survive a barrage of electronic warfare, SM-6's and PAC-3 missiles.
It's a challenge for sure. But China only has to get lucky one time. One missile will destroy an entire carrier and kill thousands of sailors.
As noted, the most disturbing thing is that there is a clear strategic advantage for the US in having a war over Taiwan now than in a decade or two. It’s clear from the way the neocons are behaving that they understand this. It makes a lot of the behaviour of certain parts of the US establishment over the past few years very explicable.
It's not a strategic advantage if you get your entire fleet sunk. It might be a slower sinking (compared with in a decade) but it's still sunk.
The US Navy has enough ships for the Pacific. If the entire navy is stationed in the Pacific.
Just because you're not telling everybody your plans doesn't mean you're ignoring somebody, everybody sees what's coming.
Thank you for an even-handed and reasonable reaction to Ward Carroll's recent upload.
The biggest problem the USA has is not lack of carriers et cetera, it's lack of money. It simply can not afford the kind of force levels it had during the Cold War or even during the so called forever wars. The US deficit is currently $1.9 trillion per annum, i.e., its costs are $1.9 trillion higher p.a. than its income. That's why it is over $36 trillion in debt and paying about $1 trillion p.a. in interest.
I am not sure how the USA digs itself out of this financial hole. Tariffs on imported goods are being introduced, which a form of tax really, because for the most part it's US consumers that will pay them. That and other ways of increasing government income will help, but no doubt there will also have to be significant cuts to government spending. That's just to reduce the deficit, let alone return to a budget surplus and begin paying down that massive and ever growing debt.
Long story short, the USA is going to have to downsize. I am not sure that reality has sunk in for many Americans yet. They are going to have to wise up fast, or their country risks going bust like the USSR did.
P.S. I do not wish that on them, because it would hurt millions of people there, but also drag much of the world down with it (last time it killed my great grandad during the Great Depression, because the crash forced him into bankruptcy, so he died from a stroke due to the stress -- it also made the family working class, while he had been an Italian aristocrat -- just saying, because these things have long term social implications and effects on the lives of billions of people).
Germany had Bismarck. Japan had Yamato. They were very proud of them. Japan still fantasisizes about Yamato. Look up their anime about Yamato
The reason semiconductor manufacturing is centered in Taiwan is because it is centered in Taiwan. I know it is a circular argument, but that is how the semiconductor industry works. Once you have the weight of numbers in your favor, it is almost impossible to shift. The USA and China are both working hard to shift it, but it will cost $1000B and even then could fail. The joke is that by denying China access to ICs made in Taiwan, you are helping them build a domestic industry.
I dont write many glowing comments but you continue to consistently produce accessible, substantial educational content that can't be easily found. I really appreciate that. Many years to you.
Stuff to consider:
**The ship building capability of Japan and Korea combined is 90% of China .
**50% of the cost of a ship is the electronics and the weapons .
And 10% of the quality lol
@@nathanielalaburgDelhi
why do you say so?
Especially combined with US tech
They say by 2031 the grow rate of the CCP will fall behind that of the US
If the CCP invades Taiwan the US will block the CCPs oil via the straits of Mallaca
not wise to rely on building your warship at the doorstep of your enemy
What has been unspoken about are submarines. To defeat or sink an aircraftcarrier you do not need another carrier, one submarine would do. Easily, as has been shown during an incident in 2007 in the Chinese sea by which a Chinese non-nuclear submarine suddenly showed up in the middle of one of the USA carriergroups/fleets. Not only did that submarine approached that fleet unnoticed, could completely show its sail for less then a minute, but then also vannished completely, leaving everybodies search for it in vain. Mind; this was not the most advanced of Chinese submarines!! Meanwhile China has lots of submarines, both non nuclear as well as nuclear. Surface fleets are for enforcing naval power to land, subs are to avoid such.
Who says it was unnoticed? They were in international waters, the Chinese have a right to be there and the US couldn't do anything against them besides record their signature after they surfaced and confirmed exactly what kind of contact they were. Which was a stupid move for the sub commander to make.
Diesel/electric subs are dangerous in littoral waters because under battery power they can be very quiet. But they can't run far or long on their batteries.
During an actual war....American carrier groups are not going anywhere near Chinese or Taiwanese littoral waters.
It was a diesel submarine too.
Keep in mind that this incident was near CHINA's backyard. US CSG are NOT gonna be there if there is a war between the US and China, they will be sitting behind the 2nd Island chain if they want to stay afloat. Which is why the Type-095 nuclear submarine comes to play. Its China's next sub thats meant to hunt Carriers and attack logisitc ships far behind enemy lines in the vast pacific. Diseal subs dont have that capability.
@@hambone4728 "Who says it was unnoticed?"
The Western media describes the incident as a humiliation and as exposing the US Navy's vulnerability. If anyone involved in the incident ever disputed that, I've never heard of it. Do YOU have a source that disputes the common understanding that the Chinese submarine went unnoticed?
@@defencebangladesh4068 True, these are more silence then nuclear ones and perfect for coastal defence. But it shows how dangerous they are, even with "just" Chinese quality! Do not under estimate them, the USA navy has to be close enough to the Chinese waters in order to effectively operate and protect Taiwan and that is close enough for dieselsubs.
What threat is the PRC, when nearly everything is made in China, these days😂
我们以前只制造纽扣和衣服袜子，在西方人眼里我们这样的学徒居然开始生产汽车，芯片 飞机 这是老师们不能忍受的
This somewhat misses the point that the only reason SK, Japan and a few other countries dont have nuclear weapons are their defense treaties and alliances with the US. The moment the US retreats from that theater nuclear proliferation will have a field day.
That's how narcissists keep their lap dogs obedient. You make sure to let them know they're nothing without your protection. And you also have to make sure they have enemies so they can rely on you even more. That's why independent countries usually peaceful with their neighbors.
13:39 "In a potential conflict against China--which I believe is going to happen...." These words are very chilling.
I agree
It is the truth. US will no longer allow China to challenge their hegemony.
dont forget the massive numbers of DF21s
Not just that but 17s 26s 51s 41s 27s 37s.
thats why B-21 and F-35 is critical, as they will hunt down those DF-21 launchers before they can launch their missiles
@@michaeld1170A pre-emptive strike ? This isn't Lebanon. It's nuclear war.
@@GWT1m0 lets say, they launch DF-21s at carrier strike groups. Lets say they even sink one or 2 carriers . Once thats done F-35s F/A-18s, B-21s, and B-2s will be launched from other carriers and from bases in Japan, SKorea, Philippines etc and hunt down all DF-21 launchers as well as the SAMs protecting them
@@michaeld1170 攻击中国本土就意味着美国本土同样会受到攻击，你愿意承担核战争的风险吗？
The Americans shout, "Russia & China are conduction military exercise off the coast of Alaska..." implying close to the territories of the USA. They conveniently left out that area is also off the coast of Russia's Alyatki, between Chukchi & Bering seas.
You need to recall that America has WESTPAC territories *and* ~ex-territories (the PI, etc) and obligations (Japan, Australia, etc.) for which we are the defacto strategic defense umbrella..
I watched this interview right after it came out. I actually wondered what you’d think about it. Great job!
You don’t understand semiconductor manufacturing and economics.
Intel has bought all of the most advanced ASML equipment, but fabs using it won’t be online for 2-4 years and that’s with massive government investment into Intel. Those machines aren’t everything though. Something like having pure water seems simple, but discovering new ways to get the even purer water they need is proving incredibly hard.
Replacing TSMC means building all those fabs over here. Each one costs billions and takes many years. If we started building them all in parallel, we’d have completed buildings, but ASML couldn’t make the new machines fast enough and they’d be empty.
Research matters. TSMC was sponsored and continues to be sponsored by the Taiwanese government to create dependence that in turn guarantees military assistance. They aren’t turning over their secrets or building their most advanced nodes elsewhere.
Intel is the second most advanced fab these days, but isn’t catching up for another year or two and that’s only if they are telling the whole truth.
Finally, it’s notable that even so-called advanced F-22 are currently using i960 CPUs from the 80s. AI weapons are different, but most cutting edge weapons are made with ancient chips on ancient fabs.
Yes, factories that cost ten billions dollars or more! But TSMC themselves cannot follows the demand. I've read recently that they currently need 50% more industrial power. Europeans countries and USA are also sponsoring semi-conductor factories and this factories can be TSMC ones as long as they are build locally.
@@GuigEspritDuSage TSMC has been having big issues with their Arizona 5nm fab not only with construction, but staffing and cultural differences too. There have been other red tape issues too where Taiwan makes building fabs easy.
I'm betting Intel overtakes TSMC in the next year or two and we gradually shift more fabs into the US, but the problem is that this happens after the vulnerability window for China to attack Taiwan.
Yes, people don’t understand what a miracle of science modern chip production is. TSMC is like sending a manned mission to mars, it’s not something that can just be created out of thin air by throwing money at it.
Your work deserves more appreciation 👏
Ward is high on copium... Unsubbed from his channel after he spammed ghost of kiev nonsense...
The big difference is only US keep saying war with China. China has never ever said that term.
Imagine china make a huge military base with strategic powerful weapons in mexico....how u.s will responde to such issue???this is just the manner u.s already had for decades around chinas mainland
What military bases are you talking about? Japan? Korea? It would be different if those countries didnt want US bases but they do because they dont trust china! Just like why ukraine was trying to join NATO and be part of the "west" because they didnt want anything to do with Russia! Mexico doesn't want china In there so yeah it would be an issue..
America is not claiming massive swathes of international waters or ramming the naval vessels of soveriegn nations
@conneroliver5001
You are right this is just an example...
I mean china is getting more aggressive to the military presence of u.s around china just like if china had a strong military presence around the U.S they would not tolerate... of course there is no such issue in reality.
@@conneroliver5001what if cuba invites the chinese to set up a naval base there, would you happily accept it
@@donaldlee8249
This is exactly what i am trying to say!
Funny, when Woodrow Wilson negotiated the Washington Naval treaty back in 1922, he was keenly aware that although the US Navy may have the same tonnage as the Royal Navy, the American ships were much more modern with the latest technology! Hence, by the stroke of a pen, the US Navy became the strongest in the world: Pax Americana has arrived!
Seemingly the same logic holds here in this case…..
Ward Carrol BANs My COMMENTs that DO NOT Fit His Childish Racist NARRATIVEs
Ward is beyond hope of saving.
thx Mr Carrol for hosting the session ， thx for sharing this
why he suggest chinese (nato name luyang) are 0.6 of burkeII is becuase the carry carry about a 100 missile, and the luyang carry about 60 missile. however the chinese destroyer are support by frigate that you guess it, carry about 40 missiles. so 1 chinese destroyer + 1 chinese frigate = 1 burkeII. PLAN can take advantage of the fact that US do not have frigate to screen their destroyer and so maintain a competitive fighting force with smaller ship. interesting if we take this metic, than the type 055 would be equal to 1.2 of a burkeII.
The 🇺🇸U.S. Navy Can’t even beat the Houthis in 🇾🇪Yemen. Yet we’re supposed to believe they stand a chance against 🇨🇳China?
its simple, when asking the congress for money, China has 800 ships, OMG we need to build more ships ASAP; when showing off its power, China has only 83 ships that can fight, and among thoese 83, there are 30ish small ships that cannot fight, China nothing
Carrol got duped by a video game during the Chicken of Kiev situation, a true rube.
Yeah you’ve neeeever fallen for disinformation before.. calling a retired war vet a rube is low lmao
@ no I have not
Please, no. That Ghost of Kiev bullshit was pure 100% CIA/State Department propaganda and it was painfully obvious all of 3 minutes into the reporting. I’m not a fighter pilots but I know and understand that one jet cannot shoot down 5 or 6 or 7 jets on one sortie or even two. It was the most painfully obvious attempt to propagandize a population and yeah, he fell for it hook line and sinker or, more likely, he knew it was bullshit and went along with it anyways.
@@michaelwu9450 He attempts to be an authority on the matter, so he's responsible when he falls for obvious disinformation. Many people with a civilian background did not fall for that garbage propaganda. It's embarrassing.
China's ship building capacity is over 40% of the global share and US is 0.2%. that's 200X difference. Even though majority of the shipyards are for commercial ship building for cargo, lng, cruisers, etc. During potentially war time they can be quickly converted to military ship building. China's navy will be unchallengeable in 4 or 5 years
The US has something called allies. We have allies all over the globe. We have ports and basing agreements all over the globe. China has.....Russia? Lol.
China still does not have significant blue water capability and won't for a long long time at this rate. They feel safe as long as they are in their littoral waters under the hypersonic missile shield from the mainland.
But they don't dare venture out to the second island chain. The USN would be licking their chops for that.
Good day
Clever analysis. As always. Thanks.
The problem with asking a military person how to fix something is that they only have one tool at their disposal, and they only see things through the eyes of military conflict. The U.S. has no real industry left other than the military industrial complex, so their solutions always involve new and improved ways to create war.
A word about carriers. In WW2, it became clear early on that very large battleships of the type that were used in WW1 were no longer the correct tool to use because aircraft carriers existed. If there is another major powers war, we will find out very quickly that aircraft carriers and their groups will be tantamount to useless, as they can be sunk with a single hypersonic missile hit without endangering any human soldiers. It would just blow the ship in two. It would not be advisable for the U.S. to have its carriers just willy-nilly floating around the South China Sea or anywhere inside the first ring.
China cares about China. It is not in the least bit interested in policing anything that doesn't relate directly to China. The U.S. on the other hand sees itself as a worldwide hegemony responsible for basically everything which means that when China equals the U.S. in terms of naval strength, but all that strength is concentrated to defend China, they will have many times what they need to do so unless the U.S. wants to abandon the rest of the world to the fight. In the meantime, the citizens of China have a combined personal savings of $20 trillion and U.S. citizens have a combined personal savings of $650 billion dollars. Everything the U.S. does to try and maintain its hegemony is directly destroying its ability to compete where China is actually competing, which is the marketplace of products, services, and ideas.
There is no scenario where the U.S. can or will even try to defend Taiwan. They have already said that in such a circumstance, before they disappear across the ocean, they will destroy Taiwan's chip manufacturing plants to which the Taiwanese and the mainland both said they would defend against. For the Americans to hang out in open water while the entire mainland and possibly Taiwan are lobbing shells and missiles at them would not be self-preservation.
So there is a reason we can't do the kind of chip work that Taiwan and very soon the mainland can do. All the people who know how to do this are Chinese, be that Taiwan Chinese (98% Han Chinese) or Mainland Chinese. The U.S. can't even open the TSMC plants in Arizona because they do not have the people to do it and will not even allow the Chinese from Taiwan to come into the country to do the work. Even if they were magically to get those plants running, they would be producing legacy chips.
lol the "Military Industrial Complex" is only 3% of GDP. You're so wrong it's hilarious. The cope is strong with you.
Thanks old man for another excellent analysis. Very interested to hear the point of view of a very well informed person but particularly from a European perspective. An Italian residing and posting in the UK, well, that might be considered a rather more unbiased and comprehensive point of view than those of us who rely on Ward Carroll for our info, excellent as he is. Please carry on your excellent work and give a kick to your excellent assistant Otis. Say it's from Dave in Quebec. He'll know where to find me.
The US is sleepwalking to death against China, the country that have more than a billion of people, sharing a border with India, Russia and North Korea which gives it a less coast to defend and everything across that coast is in the range of Chinese missiles and and China is increasing its nuclear stockpile rapidly and have the largest industrial capacity in the world.
@@jonasezekiel3829 I don’t think so. China is just a very useful, and perhaps the ideal bogeyman for the US. China is a rational and astute strategic opponent that is not trigger happy. China is the ideal foil and distraction to pass military spending bills, boost international weapons sales and build alliances.
Please correct me if im wrong, but it seems like a lot of posturing. Trying to maneuver ships into the right position, in the right area, at the right time.
In my humble opinion, both sides are going to maneuver and do a little "show of force and then go about their day.
What the admiral didn't mention is that the more modern Chinese warships are more techonlogically advanced than their US equivalent.
052C and 052D have better radars and missiles than Burke or Tico.The PESA radar and mechanical illuminators on US ships are getting really old, when are they changing that for AESA? By that standard US only have 3 modern destoyers. And that's not taking 055 into account.
As for Carrier, 003 has DC catapult which are more reliable and versatile than the AC catapult on the Ford.
IT's the US not China that's technologically behind. Except for subs, in that area the US is still ahead, but not by that much
They can be technologically more modern but the reason the US can dunk on anyone anywhere anytime is due to training and logistics and management. The US is a professional force that lives and breathes dominance, unlike china, who can copy and build and innovate, but I would like to see them in action even against a smaller opponent.
China knows that the moment their force makes contact with an adversary, they are just not ready. You can "pretend" all you want, but the US makes sure its units are battle tested and battle capable. Would the US face heavy losses against china? Sure, but the propoganda that everything is now fire and forget is a freaking joke. You need people who are dedicated and capable, which china does not have, and never will. China is as dedicated to war as the soviet armed forces when hitler attacked. How did that go? Hitler hit The USSR with 1/3 the force the soviets had and showed them who is boss and the losses numbers show that well.
I am not US army shill, but come one, who are we kidding?
Would you bet on a medium weight with 100 fights under his belt or a novice heavy weight with "lots of practice" against a punching bag?
The Burke class underwent many modernization rounds over the decades. The most recent Flight III come with GaN-based AESA radar called AN/SPY-6
Yemen think differently 😅@@singular9
Even the flight 2 Burke’s Aegis Radar is equal to type 55 and better in some areas. In the comparison between flight 2 vs type 55 USA wins every one.
@@JohnLee- 100% of all threats presented to the US ships by Yemen were neutralized
Victor Davis Hansen agrees with you that US procurement needs to go toward cheaper, quantity tech like drone swarms etc..not always easy to move contractors away from high dollar complexity
Who said America was a great power? Pirates I'd call them. 😢
Very balanced commentary!
Last year, China sent 6 warships to the Middle East, including Type 052D destroyers and Type 054A frigates. Please explain how China's PLAN is not a blue water navy.
They did a couple port calls and sat in Djibouti lol. Even the Iranian navy manages that.
To conduct combat operations far from home you need friendly bases, logistics, large fleet operations and aircraft carriers. China is sorely lacking in friends, at sea replenishment, any significant operations beyond their littorals and their carriers are non existent.
A flotilla of small surface combatants that would get shadowed by submarines and overwhelmed by harpoons in one attack isn't a blue water capability.
@@hambone4728 Your characterization is absurd.
@horridohobbies No it isn't lol. Thats all you have to say in response then?
@@hambone4728 A blue water navy is simply one that can cross oceans, or "blue water." There's nothing more to it than that.
Like I said, your characterization is absurd.
@@hambone4728 China's carrier battle groups consist of carriers, destroyers, and *replenishment* vessels.
I’m like you, Gus, I’m definitely not a fan of ‘reaction’ videos. They’re just lazy. But this video is not that. You’re providing significant additional information and analysis. Truly excellent to get your thoughts on this important topic. 👍
Ward is great! Nice combo guys! ;)
@27:24 those highend semiconductors are only mostly used in smartphones, most military equipment doesnt use those sub 10nm chips, military prefers long term stability and reliability, military mostly uses 40-80+ nm chips they dont care if the chip is 5grams heavier because in a tank 5grams is a feather compared to a 12.7mm/50bmg round. China might not have full scale production of the current 3 or 4 or 5nm chips but China can design and manufacture those chips and lower scale, might have more defects aka wastage but they can still produce it. 80% of IOT devices in our homes use 40+nm chips. even smartphones that are in the midrange price category use 7nm chips that China can produce on scale. only Flagship phones such as iPhone 15/16 and Computers that have Ryzen 9 or Intel Ultra 9 use those highend chips, the average person doesnt use anything near the highend.
One has to be aware that all of China’s fishing fleet can be considered manned-drones ready to crash with any other capitol ship at sea.
You could make a video analysing Finland, South Korea and Israel when it comes to the topic of managing war economy and munitions supply issues. I think that could give a good contrast to the typical 'Western' professional armies with not so focused governance.
Chinese sub re not lagging behind, in fact, it might be their real focus in term of maritime force, China develops its sub much earlier than their surface ship. China's sub is most secretive unit among others. The recent leaks of Type 093B Nuclear Submarine has clearly shown how well the progress in term of sub tech, and considered the PLAN have the habits of only showing submarine that 1-2 generation older in public. To think Russian can transfer any tech to China is hilarious, just like what happens to the fith-gen fighter, China exceeded them in term of stealth tech and materials. China is about to launch their new j-35 while Russian is still struggle to produce Su-57. Things has changed long before people can realized it.
I've been on one of those Italian carriers. Beautiful and impressive ships. The medical bay slopes down to drain the blood in times of battle.
It's almost as if China plans to fight in Brown Waters, rather than Blue Waters. But that can't be, it's not like they have direct access to Brown Waters, which happen to be surrounded by Military Bases of a hostile nation. Wait a minute... that's exactly the case.
PS: I would much rather have 15 ships that are a 0,6 than 5 ships that are a 1,0. Especially if those 15 ships are cheaper, faster to build, easier to operate and easier to maintain.
PPS: Yes, the USA intends to over-rely on super advanced weapon systems, completely underestimating "outdated" ones. Just look at "Millenium Challenge 2002" for an example of why that is a horrible idea. Heck, look at the Bombing of Yugoslavia, the USA lost planes it shouldn't have lost, one of which was an F-117 that got shot down by an S-125.
But the situation is totally different. The US has a bit less than 100 destroyers and cruisers. China has about 50 destroyers and cruisers
@@napobg6842The US has Global military deployment obligations, China is an isolationist military power. It can force project 100% in her own backyard without concern for the consequences of Global "security"
I wish ppl bringing up Millenium Challenge actual knew anything about :
1 - what we do when we war game.(We deliberately set up worst case scenario to learn from it)
2 - the general running OPFOR didn't follow the parameters even of that, giving his own forces RTS levels of intel and communication, some teleportation, for example.
3 - said general embellished it even further in order to write a book about it
4 - internet legend is not a reliable source
@@napobg6842 Until we consider that the USA has to stretch those 100 ships across multiple parts of the World and it's own Brown Waters. All the while, China has to cover 2 bodies of Brown Water, with it's 50 ships, while having the luxury of utilizing land-based weapon systems to support it's ships.
@@Ilost11 Well, you can only thank the US for all your international orders coming to your door. I'm not sure what is the meaning behind this - "security". In case of a conflict, the US prioritize change from your products to their mission needs.
China doesn't want a war with us, it's not just a matter of weapons, tactics and strategies. The modern economic system can't survive any war, no matter the scenario. War isn't a video game, we will find out that Russia lost close to 100,000 men and Ukraine 1,000,000 plus. With nearly twice that injured. Russia will remember the losses and the breach in our relationship with them will take generations to repair.
Putin positioned Russia as a strategic adversary of the US well before he invaded Ukraine. There was no healthy "relationship" worth protecting. Forget nobles causes: supporting Ukraine to destroy Russia's conventional forces is greatly in America's self-interest, and an absolute bargain at the cost of a few percent of the annual defence budget and no American blood shed. Also your casualty figure are pure fiction.
Slavery is actually worse than dying
I beg to differ, a slave can escape, a death person can't come back.
@@Millennium7HistoryTechBeing experimented on as a POW is much worse than dying. Seeing the Japanese imperial force secret labs make one shiver.
Debatable
I have heard of this conversation, but for non-native English speakers, relying on CC subtitles to listen to the whole process can be a bit tiring. I like your program's analysis of viewpoints one by one, very interesting.
Yeah been saying this a while, the PLAN is mostly patrol boats, not fleet level surface combatants. USN considers the LCS class vessels to be little crappy ships, and ast least a third of the PLAN are smaller and weaker than an LCS. The real stuff to worry about is the 20,000 ferries and 80,000 oceanic fishing vessels that are dual use for troop transport/landing vessels for a Taiwan invasion. That is a LOT of capacity for the primary conflict expected.
The question is how concentrated the ships are.
The US has a lot more ships, but they are spread all over the world.
The Chinese are able to concentrate their ENTIRE navy in a small area, with very specific goals, with land-based support all over that operational area.
They do not NEED more ships for a war in that area.
The US has advanced and flexed and resource-optimized their way out of readiness for lasting conflict.
Thank you Gus. Interesting video but overall, no great surprise. The foregoing is partly due to the exemplary research, explication and explanation employed by you in previous videos. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
It is said that the military prepares to fight the last war. The US is still trying to fight WW2 and or Vietnam with aircraft carriers.
If we then look to the Red sea the Yemen in the form of the Houthies have demonstrated that a carrier strike group is no longer enough for gunboat diplomacy. The Carrier strike group is vulnerable to swarm attacks coupled with hypersonic missiles. Then the carrier strike group becomes very vulnerable. As the anti Iran war games proved.
If the US was to use a carriers that would be approx. 4500 dead for each carrier sunk. More for each support ship sunk. Couple that with the expenditure of air / ballistic defence missiles and the long supply chains and the slow production rate for these missiles looks to me to be a recipe for disaster
I don't agree, they are trying hard to do something new. Something makes sense, something doesn't, it has to be expected
There is also a big problem for the US. There navy is global and all over the world. Chinese navy is in and around China. Locally the chinese navy is overwhelmingly stronger than the US navy. It's almost impossible to locally concentrate more forces for the US than China.
US also have to consider that it won’t be able to use the entire global fleet in one area and leave other areas undefended while all of chinas fleets are already in China seas. That is the exact same scenario as the British empire being overstretched fighting in WW.
If one ship is sunk in each side of that war between China and USA, which snip will get replaced first? In war, the ability to replace something fast, is a really big advantage,
I hope he is saying something in public and thinking something else in private.
The fact that the Chinese will be fighting on their doorstep but the Allies will be fighting with huge supply lines, even for the superior forces, it gives them a huge problem.
The problem with US navy is that they are stretched too thin because they cover the Black Sea, South China Sea amongst many other oceans where else China only needs to focus on the South China Sea. So, 83 warships are a huge deal for the US in the South China Sea
@Millennium7HistoryTech can you make a video on the image released recently? The first ever photo of the inside of a Su-57's wing root internal weapons bay has been taken at the Zhuhai International Airshow preparations.
One question we should ask is if B2s and B21s will be hitting missile launchers and military factories in China. Let’s remind ourselves are much fewer missile launchers than there are missiles