Go to ground.news/nwyt to get all sides of every story and compare coverage. Subscribe through our link before August 1, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access for as little as $5 a month.
If I am US the superpower I will never admit to be afraid of any other country even if it is true. I will just make some noises on the media and probably make friends in secret. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The number of ships in the Chinese navy is dramatically inflated. They include picket boats, coast guard cutters (of all sizes), and minuscule patrol boats in the same category as destroyers.
Just had a look at the wikipedia which everyone sources, they include everything from cable laying ships to construction crane ships to spaceship transport ships.
It is however they are building on another scale compared to the US, if the US keeps pouring money into fantasy projects and stops building ships as fast then I think it could be a problem as the Chinese will be able to become more of a threat. Plus, the Chinese are very good at theft so they could be more of a problem than Russia in developing decent enough warships
That’s why navies are usually rated in tonnage. However… numbers are concerning because the battle won’t be in the Gulf of Mexico but in the South China Sea. It will likely be in the form of seaborne guerrilla warfare. Sea-deniability with land based ballistic and cruise missiles, land based aircraft, and hit and fade tactics that would gradually wear down the US Navy who no longer have the same industrial capabilities to repair or replace ships like they did in WWII. If the Chinese try to do the Kantai Kessen like the Japanese they will be in trouble.
That may be true but if your standards are such that the Chinese navy is not internationally competitive, then naturally, nobody is internationally competitive other than the US.
@@timetraveller2300 Might want to remind China of that, as they continuously try to compare themselves to and claim they are more capable than the U.S., they don't want to be reminded that bullying fishing boats and real ship to ship combat are drastically different experiences.
One of the things I love about this channel is the clear commentary and the slow/calm pronunciation, as a non-native English speaker it is way easier to understand everything that is being told. Plus: his voice is very calming!
As a native English speaker I also appreciate it. I can't stand people that narrate at ludicrous speed. You don't take any of the info in at that speed.
I can verify that the first soviet bought Chinese aircraft carrier was indeed converted into an amusement park attraction. I work for a US entertainment company called Mirage Entertainment. For years we produced a live stunt show that was performed on that carrier. I participated myself as the production designer.
The premise of describing the PLA Navy as the biggest Navy in the world because they have the most number of boats is completely missing the mark. You can make 50,000 canoes but they wouldn't do very well against a Destroyer ship. The only important measurables when it comes to Naval fleets is total tonnage, and firepower. China is miles behind the US in both categories.
@@leon_z1201 China is pretty overconfident, considering America's vast array of anti ship weapons. It wont be a cakewalk for America but we all know that unless America makes blunder after blunder, defeat isnt happening
@@leon_z1201 Tonnage isn't just behind, it's less than half, so unless they're able to fit equal firepower in 1/2 the space, I feel pretty confident saying they're behind on firepower as well. That's also not even taking into consideration the fun fact that the US Navy has the worlds 2nd largest airforce and the firepower that brings to the fight.
@@RGun90 Oh yes they can. Take the YJ-21 as an example, and look at the results of interception tests done by the US Navy, you will know why. As for the air force, they are quickly catching up as well. There are even more reports on that, so take a look if you want. You may argue that China "stole" all the technologies, but if you knew the story of non-smoke gunpowder, you would never make such an assertation. Even if China "stole" the techs, why didn't the US or any of its Anglo-Saxon vassal states, e.g. the UK, Australia, and Canada, have the techs and transform them into practical weapons? Oh, it's because the techs were stolen by China, and they didn't have any more.
Exactly. But remember, the war will take place off China's coasts. They don't need the same sheer tonnage as the US when they don't project international power.
Yes, Remember when US and allies said Leopard tanks would be far better in Ukraine? Didnt happen, Never underestimate China. I hope they remember the Korean war.
@@cappermenv1845 180k Chinese soldiers died. And China was fighting NATO and the UN at the same time. A feet LITERALLY not any country could do. And still pushed the US far away from its border. Come with actual facts. Not US numbers.
@@JSIIC "China can focus its Navy on the pacific." Look man, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about... so why comment? Just read shit and move on.
Numerous cause of the coastline boats with barely any range what so ever, china includes them in there military reports, that's why US is not taking them seriously.
@@JSIIC Where did you get this from last I check china is VERY limited to range cause barely any of there ships are nuclear there still diesel run including there new carrier, most of there ship are coastline ships.
Yes, but then the Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, British and potentially the French would have naval forces in the Pacific as well. It wouldn't be just the US vs China.
@@JSIIC I mean, it wouldn't be the first time the US has fought in the pacific while also doing actions everywhere else on the globe. Little thing called WW2, in which the allies quite literally saved China from becoming Japan 2 to begin with.
China’s 340 war ships count: 140 real ships including subs.. 150 fishing boats converted to militia vessles 50 ferry boats converted to transport militia vessels
As a Vietnamese, I found that PLAN's plan to expand kind of scary too. The disputed islands in the South China Sea is getting more and more important in today geopolitical landscape of South East Asia.
I wouldn't be too concerned. Look up the USS New Jersey and how the crew took offense to a strike on their boat from a fortified island off of Vietnam. Their response was to literally sink the island, wiping it off the map (and this was with 1969 tech). China stationing military assets on their artificial and/or contested islands may give them the illusion of force projection, but the moment an actual war breaks out, they are literally building their bases on shifting sand. China isn't stupid, and so they must be aware of this history, and how their position here is paper-thin. It does make a good propaganda point internally, and for nations that can't exert that sort of force.
china had never brought its carrier strike group far from its territory except for an international drill that depend on weather conditions, they know it, but still inexperience in fighting in bad weather with low supply and overpressure which need trade by decades of battle, and cost of human life, until now they only bully their weak neighbor never they fight in Midway or taste a defeat of Pearl Harbor; or intention of blockage in Cuba nuclear crisis. their navy service a purpose to show their people that CCCP has made them strong and end up fooling them self
The Soviet Navy of 1990 had almost twice the number of ships and twice the personnell of the present Chinese Navy. To my knowledge the US was not greatly worried about the Soviet Navy.
At its peak the Soviet Navy totalled something like 3000 vessels. If the US Navy weren't afraid of a Navy with that kind of numbers, then why should they be afraid of the Chinese Navys 600 vessels?
especially when it comes to the nuclear reactors. The US has a very refined nuclear technician program using live reactors and taking months of maintaining said reactor to qualify (source - recruiter who came to school).
Shame there aren't any equally experienced allies the US can rely on, instead of having to carry the world on its own. Except maybe the British, they have similar if not more experience, but they've long since faded into obscurity, they are no longer the world power they once were, and they know it. The US is practically alone in this regard. If they loose a battle, there is no help coming from elsewhere, all their allies are far too weak to defend themselves from any serious threat.
I think the constant training and real world experience of the US navy is second to none. Despite china having more ships I don’t think the tides of war are in their favor
@@ohwaitchristian We all seen the decades of experience with aircraft carriers on board the USS Forrestal. Now it is again a new era of weapons, and all the previos experience is not worth anything. So the war can go either way. Also China do not really need their CV, since they can use land based aircraft to cover almost entire war theater. The US is almost soley dependand on ther carrier force since any long range aircraft form Guam or Hawaii even with in flight refueling can not react in time. It is 4-6 hour of flight to even get to the warzone, and 4-5 refueling process under way, and another 4-6 hour to get back. Only imagine pilot fatigue in F-15 during combat after that.
The biggest difference between the two Navy's, is that the US have been actively using their Navy in actual wars since WW2. So the Americans...are battle hardened, and tested.
Also, China's boats are FAR less technologically advanced. They are running off of bootleg Russian tech, which is inferior to anything the US is fielding. For perspective, the reason why their carriers need the upswept runway is because they can't even copy a functional version of the catapults that the US had running during WWII. This puts heavy limits on the types of planes they can launch. While they CLAIM to be building a carrier that has modern catapults (as indicated in this video), all we have is an empty hull covered in tents. There is absolutely no evidence that their new carrier will be able to do anything they claim it will.
@@theprogressivecynic2407 Still...I wouldn't take the threat too lightly, and underestimate them. Better to be Operationally ready, than caught with not enough to respond to anything China can dish out. That's not how the US Military works, and has worked since WW2. Better to catch the enemy off guard. Much like how they handled the Iraq War.
@@epicnova2010 I never said they WON every war. The mere fact they're engaging in nearly every war speaks volumes about their experience, and have you spoken to a Marine about the history of war? These guys know their shit!!!! Not only do they adapt and overcome, they study the history of war, and learn from everything. Not only from the history of war that America has fought, but from EVERY country's history with war, and they don't using propaganda that skews history in America's favor, like China does. They study America's, British, German's, China's, the Arab Countries, wins and especially losses.
Combat experience against Iraq or Afghanistan is not very helpful when you go to war with China. There is a reason U.S. does not send their troops to Ukraine because you don’t want to fight with Russia. Not that you can’t win, I believe U.S. will win, but it’s going to be very very ugly. Last major war U.S. fought was Korean War, and that was 70 years ago. The rest are all what I call operations against some guerrillas.
@@markzepp481 If you mean the wartime requisition on civilian ships, then it's totally normal. Those ships are not "counted as the navy". Doesn't the US or UK have this kind of requisition? Of course they do.
Saw a brief military analysis on the China/Taiwan issue last summer, just before Ukraine started pounding on the Russians. It stated that the US Naval plan wasn't to keep the carriers within range of Chinese missiles, but to go dynamite fishing in the first island chain using submarines first, with support from long range aircraft from Hawaii and Guam, as well as Australia and the mainland US. I've also seen speculation that the Philippines and Vietnam would most likely be open to allowing US forces to base on their territory in exchange for help defending themselves against China.
The Philippines have agreed to ten US bases this year. A couple will be on the islands closet to Taiwan. I believe Subic Bay will also be re-opened. I don't think there has been movement on Vietnam.
What kind of parallel universe do you live in where ukraine is pounding on russia?😂 the entire war is to fund blackrock and the military industrial complex. american taxpayer money will stop being sent there once ukraine is adequately destroyed and then blackrock can make a cool couple billion off western liberal stupidity
I worked a Russian shipyard in Vladivostok where offshore modules were being constructed (the only ones). Walking through the yard I asked a ship yard engineer via the inverperture why so many millers ships were being broken/de-commissioned, I was informed very sternly these were being built. 😂 Sakhalin 2 & further modules were constructed in Korea.
I saw the USS Gerald R. Ford when it visited my home city last year. As big as one of the islands in the harbour. Very impressive looking, hard to imagine building ships that size.
Building large and advanced warships requires not only the technologies, but also the entire ENORMOUS AND COMPLETE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM behind, and this is why China and the US are the only two powers on earth that are able to build and maintain a large navy. You may argue that China "stole" all the technologies, but if you knew the story of non-smoke gunpowder, you would never make such an assertation. Even if China "stole" the techs, why didn't the US or any of its Anglo-Saxon vassal states, e.g. the UK, Australia, and Canada, have the techs and transform them into practical weapons? Oh, it's because the techs were stolen by China, and they didn't have any more.
@@ascendantchameliasapostle2580Explains why your Apple phone and Boeing parts are manufactured in China. And now Tesla too. I bet those factories are rubbish compared to the US factories. Oh wait, the Multinationals shut down most US factories and relocated to that dumb country China. Get a grip bro. You're an embarrassment to the species.
the critical part is that it's not just China vs. U.S. It's about China-Russia-N.Korea vs S.Korea-Taiwan-Japan-U.S. That's why trilateral agreement between S.Korea and Japan and U.S. were made recently and Taiwan is being armed heavily. China lost it's prime time to overthrown Pacific region and trying very hard to make one in a near future. This persistency of China is even bringing NATO into the Pacific conflict.
@@alexchan8821 Iran and China have the same enemy but they can never be alike or rather be partners. China does not respect Muslims and it runs on the blood, hence the Muslim genocide in XinJian.
Just came back from deployment on a carrier this past week or so, we're on the verge of war everyday in south china sea, with how close Chinese ships get close to our carrier or don't maneuver as they should.
@@intyrnet No? The waters are international. Anybody can sail in them. The problem is that China keeps trying to claim the SCS as theirs. Cope harder, tankie.
@@intyrnet the only one claiming it's theirs and doing agressive/unprofessional manouvers is china, usa is not claiming anything and they are on their right to travel in international waters.
One thing not mentioned is that War Games are designed with the intention of the US losing, so they can determine what their weaknesses are. The US technically, aren't supposed to win in war games, based on the parameters.
That's the thing, reportedly during an exercise in the Philippines, the US handicapped their F-22s by attaching drop tanks to them and Philippine aircraft managed to "shoot them down", which goes to show that on exercises US always chooses to lose for analysis reasons, which is one great thing because "you gain better knowledge of the enemy if you lose a battle"
And this is the kind of attitude which makes the US so powerful. It's not about looking perfect; it's about understanding where your L's come from so you can move towards actually being better
The us are inflating the numbers, because things like usa foreign aid are accounted as defence spending, and the USA soldiers health care plans are also counted and that is a huge expense. The USA is also more bureaucratic and over the last 20 years US contractors have merged into one big contractor which reduces competition and innovation and increases costs.. also there is fraud in the USA system, the double count a lot of things to steal money, constantly mixing up procurement costs and stock costs
From what I’ve heard (2014 numbers) China’s fleet is limited to just under 1600 KM out from the shore before they require refueling, sailing efficiently and in a straight line. Make that under evasive maneuvers at high speeds under battlefield conditions and you could reduce it potentially as far as 800 KM, with little chance of being refueled because any competent combatant is gonna target the refueling ships.
they don't need to go far ...they are not going to attack other countries like the yanks do ..only defend themselves ...and mostly use rockets and electronic defenses ..the yank aircraft carriers won't last 5 minutes being hit with M10 hypersonic missies .guaranteed to hit such large targets .. including basses ..they will literally have thousands of them swarming towards anything that gets within a few thousand miles ....
Yes but don't forget China isn't looking to provoke wars or invade countries thousands of km away from it's shores, whereas the USA does. The US need longer range warships so they park them just outside their enemies shores and provoke war
The US has the capacity to put China’s ship building speed to shame. Back in WWII the US was finishing a new liberty ship every single day. Just because the US isn’t producing ships as fast as China doesn’t mean that it can’t. The American military industrial complex was basically idling until recently. It hasn’t really been revved up since WWII.
@@williamlucas5852correct. I don't see the US cranking out air carriers quickly, but they could produce amphibious carriers that are capable of launching F35s as well rather quickly because they're not near powered and are about 300ft shorter.
@@nathanmarden3754 I'm sure we could kick into high gear of production on ALL sources of Military needs if we ended up at War with China or anyone else. Obviously at this point, we are in need or ammunitions as well as missiles and basically every category of military equipment, as we are the only country constantly using/giving our equipment to help other countries around the World without replacing our own supply consistently.
During WWII in the US everything was rationed, and the US companies had 75% tax rate, and that only happened because FDR was a strong progressive leader. You will never find another FDR, they kill anyone like him just like they did with JFK.
Issue China's going to see is that the bigger you get the higher maintenance cost yet and that slows your development. Quick to build the first three aircraft carriers building the next three is a lot slower while you're also paying to maintain the first three.
this dude's like "look they're building 5 ships at once!" and all i see is 5 doubtlessly crappy ships made of low tier materials just to say they have 5 more ships. the US builds ships slower because that's the actual normal time it takes to build a ship people will actually use, not just build the outside hull to inflate a number.
The thing to consider is supplying those ships and refueling those aircraft. The US Navy practices and uses underway replenishment (ship to ship refueling and resupply at sea) and has roughly 32 ships dedicated to this. Naval Aviation can also refuel mid-air using Navy aircraft or US Air Force refueling aircraft. It's not known to what extent China has this capability, but every indication is that they have not yet developed this skillset. Until you can refuel your ships and aircraft under operational conditions, your fleet is effectively a coastal fleet and limited in operational capabilities because you must dock or use barge refueling to gas up.
The Chinese navy actually does have supply and replenishment ships too, in fact even bigger and larger ones than the US supply ships. But this just shows your arrogant and ignorant lack of knowelege. Typical American. The Chinese navy is a fully capable blue water navy similar to the USN. But there is currently no reason for China to send its navy patrolling around the world.
I agree with you but in a nutshell these are types of secrets that need to be hidden from the Chinese, so let them right ahead and preaching foolishness about how their inferior weapons are, that's a good comment!!
I've done refueling at sea a lot of times and it's not easy at all and extremely dangerous!!! You definitely better know what you're doing!!! My ship was the first one to accomplish picking up a refueling hose trailing behind a tanker and it was a super bitch!!!! We got a award for that!! USS BAGER FF-1071 !!!! She's on the bottom now having been used for target practice after serving a long time!!! I wouldn't have it any other way! Much better than razor blades!!!
@@Glenn-m1t We shot lines across from the Belleau Wood (LHA-3) and hauled the hoses in (well I didn't, I was throttleman in No. 2 MMR and just helped maintain speed).
Without a catapult a J-15 can take off from a carrier on a max weight of about 30 tons, literally half the takeoff weight of an F-35C. Combined with the fact that China's carriers have air wings maybe half the size, they can each ideally put about 1/4th of the weight of aircraft and weapons into action at any given moment as a Nimitz- or Ford-class carrier. This is of course before considering other factors such as institutional knowledge and experience, building quality, quality of support such as AWACS, aerial refuelling platforms, cargo delivery, storage for spare parts, weapon performance, and so on, which all effect how much striking power a carrier can exert.
You think you know a lot about aircraft carriers snd you think you are better than PLA planners, who does this for a living? Even you can tell PLA aircraft carriers cannot match the US aircraft carriers, you think they don't know? Let me tell you, PLA does not use aircraft carriers to attack aircraft carriers. All they have to do is to send some reconnaissance planes from the aircraft carriers to locate your aircraft carrier. And then they will launch anti ship ballistic missiles from their 055 cruisers and destroy your aircraft carriers. You think after they spend trillions of dollars building ships, they have no effective method to kill your aircraft carrier? You think so? You think Chinese are idiots? Why don't you Google YJ-21 missile.
...maybe, but as the video effectively precises, those current chinese carreers are barely training models while they develop the next ones which will be closing the technology and capability gaps to some extent. And anyway, ultimately the chinese dont need to aim at the same capacities as the US navy, as they simply dont have the same military doctrines. USA needs carreers on the other side of the world, China doesnt : the power projection only needs to be regional, as is the vast majority of their missile arsenal for example. They dont have the same need for "bluewater" capacity.
India and Brazil each have more experience in carrier operations than China. Maybe they can make some good hardware, but they still need to learn how to use it effectively, and develop carrier-based tactics that no one is going to be helping them with. The US, UK, and France have decades of actual combat experience with their carriers.
The problem for China is they have a huge navy, air force and army but no allies. The bigger and more belligerent China gets, the more likely a NATO style alliance forms around them. Individually they might not be much of a threat, but together, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India and Taiwan would be formidable, even without USN support. With the USN, the balance of power tips wildly away from China.
China and Russia are not official allies, but Putin and Xi said their countries are friends of each other, which is to them better than being merely an ally. Calling China "belligerent" means likely you're only reading US sponsored media. China is far from perfect, but countries should be judged equally, and the US has been far more belligerent than China has been. Try Al Mayadeen if you want more independent news reporting, or news from India or indeed other countries translated. Useful to get a world view. Just a globalist here.
South Korea hates Japan, Vietnam hates Japan and South Korea and Vietnam aren't that close due to South Koreans fighting against the north in the Vietnam War.
@user-sx2we1xe5q ah yes. Who can forget the age old adage, "the man with all the friends is really just a big narcissist that no one likes" /s Please keep spreading such engaging wisdom.
I like to remind people that by hull count, the USN was the largest in the world circa 1866. The catch is that it was basically a costal/riverine navy. Lots and lots of small ships and boats designed to strangle the Confederacy. Very little bluewater capability. While the ccp isn't building theirs for an ongoing civil war, the similarities are there and are also informative.
The US had half a continent left to clear cut and hunt. The US population has exploded in the past 150 years. China has strangled her rivers, poisoned their fields and is dealing with demographic collapse in the coming decades.
Much of the US Navy tonnage is with Nimitz carriers with outdated steam catapults, outdated Ticonderoga cruisers, and outdated models of Arleigh Burke destroyers.
@@tritium1998 I shall now translate from the native language used in the original comment. From the original Shill: "The USN is made of stuff the ccp dreams of and has been shown to be effective, but I need something to cry/complain about so this is it."
Chinese carriers may be new, but the U.S. has nearly 101 years of experience (seriously, the first U.S. aircraft carrier was 1922. I just realized that the U.S. Navy did their 100-year anniversary).
and they have freaking enterprise, the girl, the myth , the legend. the slayer of the imperial japanese navy no seriously. carrier techs. its always the americans. god. people have forgotten how much of a beast american military industry during war time. my guy pumps out destroyers and fucking carriers like nothing
101 years of experience?? When?? The last US Naval War was WW2..and you can't bring those old sailors back on duty It's RESET..both are equal in War Experience
@@Basti0n No...they are more advance that US ships..except at most carriers.. Bulk of US naval ships are Cold War era.. Bulk of Chinese naval ships are new
@@scottanno8861 That depends heavily on the loadout. Do the MIGS carry the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal high-precision ballistic missile with a range of about 2,000 km? If so they win. Ain't no F22s firing on nuclear capable MIGs.
Ayo, glad to find a fellow cozy space enjoyer/connoisseur. That shit had me distracted for like half the video. Ah, it's the integrated catapult control station. It lowers into the deck which I think makes it even more neat.
The only naval base tgat matter is in the pacific arena. Even then it's too far away to make any difference. The only relevant bases is in sk, Japan, guam, PH, australia. Those bases will surely be attacked early. You see today's missiles can rrach US ships before they even get close to china. By the time they reach china. They would have depleted half their limited weapons onboard defending against antiship. missiles. They won't be at full strength when they reach china. They can send waves of cheap drones launch attacks on US ships to waste their limited onboard weapons. Then the big antiship missiles finished them off.
Every USN nuclear powered ship can operate for 6 months or more without port. If shtf bad enough the navy can still operate world wide with no ports other than east and west coast US. That is the difference between it and every other navy in the world. Couple that with the defenses each individual ship carries against both air and sea and there is no fair comparison. Munitions isn't an issue either. Each will run out of food long before munitions even in WW2 style sea battle, much less what it is today.
@@tannissar5624Thank you. The US navy armada includes supply ships, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear powered subs, and more that are all designed to sustain the fleet for many months without the need of a resupply. They do not need ports and could travel around the world without having to stop. But if they did need resupply, the US also boasts the largest and most complete supply network across the globe. It's the reason the US is the single only global super power.
The US Navy has 11 Carrier Task Groups and has the second most powerful air force in the world (the most powerful is the US Air Force). The US Navy also has flat-topped amphibious ships that are capable of carrying F-35B fighters, effectively doubling the number of aircraft carriers available (LPH's, LHA's, etc.). The Navy also has 14 SSBN's (carrying 16-24 Trident Missiles each [up to 8 warheads each, so roughly 2,240 nuclear warheads]), 4 SSGN's (carrying up to 154 Tomahawk Missiles [nuclear capable] each, so roughly 660 warheads), and 55 SSN's (attack submarines that are capable of carrying torpedoes, land attack missiles, and anti-ship missiles).
@@patrolmanracv Boots on the ground. You can destroy things, but to really win a war you have to occupy territory and hold it and that requires soldiers, not sailors or airmen. Really though, politicians lose wars because they won't allow the Military to do what is necessary to win, which means that the politicians impose rules of engagement that prevent the Military from destroying the enemy and the enemy's means of making war. Compare wars - In World War 2 it was total war, with the targeting of German factories, rail yards, and cities supplying the Nazi effort that suffered more bombings than the front line armies. Roughly 9 civilians were killed for every 1 soldier killed. You remove the means of war production and the source of new recruits and endeavor to destroy the enemy armies at the same time. If you limit the war only to combatants, you will never cease to be fighting another one. That's how the North Koreans were forced to an Armistice and why the Vietnam War ended so shamefully. In Korea, we destroyed all industry by bombing. In Vietnam, we refrained from doing the same. War is hell and it should be waged as such if victory is every truly desired and you want to end it as quickly as possible.
Ships are impacted by the square cube law. If you double the length of a ship, and make it wider and deeper in proportion, the result is eight times the volume, meaning eight times the water can be displaced before the deck is too close to the surface to be safe. Meanwhile the surface area is only multiplied by 8, so any armor, or just the skin to keep the sea out grows more slowly than the amount of space and weight the ship can carry. The result is that a few larger ships can carry more useful stuff than many small ships, even if the overall displacement is the same. So in terms of number of missiles, planes, and guns/ammo the navies can carry, the US advantage is understated by just looking at the tonnage. The USA does have more sea to patrol to maintain the status quo though, keeping up anti-piracy patrols around various hotspots, keeping forces in the Baltic and Adriatic and Arctic to counter Russian posturing soaks up a lot of ships, so as long as we are playing the posturing game, the China can claim some control of their local seas, but if it came to actual war, the Chinese navy would be destroyed and the US navy would still have plenty of material in the sea to control the relevant waters.
One of the game changer in the coming future would be directed energy weapons both in offensive and defensive roles, US forces already deployed smaller ones on active duty. Who ever masters the directed energy weapons technology will have upper hand, because it is cheap to operate and unlimited ammo, then no worry about emptying of magazine in a defencive situation.
Dedicated maritime anti-missile vessel with hundreds of vertical launch cells and onboard directed energy weapon systems, nuclear powered of course and unmanned exclusive aircraft carrier which will be smaller, faster to build and require less personel. Those two capabilities will be the tools to defeat China in blue water warfare.
It reminds me of the naval situation between Germany and the UK prior WW1. Germany really pushed to compete with the naval superpower, had an advantage in production and technology and really made the UK nervous. The result was that in the war, German navy stood in their ports and lost the few battles they had. There is no way China can stand a chance against Taiwan, the US and its pacific allies. Their only chance are land based A2AD capabilities and nukes. China in 20 years might be another problem, but in the forseeable future there is no way China succesfully naval attacks Taiwan, if it gets any hard support from AUKUS.
Absolutely right. Having an effective force is more than numbers of weapons platforms. The quality of the platform is important, it's ability to do it's job more than once is a critical multiplier, as it the logistics of putting it back together and sending it back out. The US continually exercises their logistics chains to maintain readiness, just like we exercise every other part of our force. And every weapon platform the US has is supported with current technology continually updated at great cost. It's about spending money on technology. Cloning a mig is an attempt to spend nothing on technology. good luck with that! Every year you waste time reverse engineering and cloning existing technology is a year spent not advancing. You might learn something building clones, but the guys you cloned have two or three generations of next platforms already being developed, and you have a copy of something designed 20 years ago. The risk is if China finds a new, overwhelming technology. But the US uses our eyes and ears to be aware, and spend spend spend on new tech. We outspend everyone, we have layers of largely unused tech, so the other side is always playing catch up.
To take Taiwan you take out the chip plants. Without computer chips america dies quickly. Cripples the world in fact. As the final mail in coffin you cut off all Chinese exports. The US and Europe have no manufacturing capacity. We saw this during the lockdown running out of simple things like wiper motors. Civil unrest will destroy society. Then release a virus you inoculated your people for and sit back and wait. The same thing will happen with this green agenda except people are too stupid to see the enemy is their own government pushing it.
@@nathanmarden3754exactly. China has the manpower. They can launch ships faster than the US can destroy them. Not to mention viruses. Drop an EMP over the US and take out Taiwanese semiconductor plants and it’s game over. FOR THE WORLD. Green New deal achieved. Great Reset achieved. All hail communism.
TW is actually within long range artillery rockets from china, we don't even have to use missles to handicap TW. Your analogy can be used to describe China as being in it's backyard and own ports, to achieve strategic advantage to US navy, not to mention, your carrier groups will be in direct target range from land missiles.
He mentioned that the US needs to focus on long range bombers with ballistic missiles I was immediately reminded of the new Stealth B-21 Raider the Air Force is currently developing, also the US Navy is currently developing laser technology to shoot down incoming missiles, the basic idea being to throw off or completely fry the guidance system before it hits. Strategy wise I’m not panicking for our navy as I’m sure they will be able to put up a good fight, but I’d like to have the newer technology that could jam or get around the Chinese defenses to inflict massive naval losses if they try to invade Taiwan.
Oh they have them I promise. Was on a boat a long time ago. Since decommissioned and sunk as a reef. We had the tech then. I'm sure it's much better now.
There's not way the US can win China in China's backyard. US doesn't have the capacity to wage war like that thousands of miles away. Russia will most likely get involved too, same with North Korea. So, it will be US vs China, Russia and North Korea. Good luck with that.
China is contained from Japan to Taiwan to Philippines to Malaysia to Australia. It's honestly insane and only getting more insane on Japan's minor islands and in the Philippines.
Most of the US losses come from war gamers concluding that China would sink US carriers, but one can challenge the conclusion that China would actually SINK US carriers. Rendering a US carrier incapable of combat and actually SINKING one are two different animals. For example, in an experimental effort to sink one of its own carriers (a de-commissioned Korean War era carrier) the US Navy dropped bombs on it for two weeks straight -- and still the carrier did not sink. Eventually the Navy had to resort to sending demolition experts on board to plant explosives in order to sink it. Moreover, as hard as that old carrier was to sink, it was a lot easier to sink than one of today's super carriers would be. If a US Navy super carrier were struck by, say, three or four large Chinese anti-ship missiles, the carrier would probably be taken out of the action, but would it actually sink? Furthermore, I take issue with the catastrophizing about US losses in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Assuming China does sink two US carriers, the war gamers conclude US losses would be in the neighborhood of ten or twenty thousand. If the US suffered such losses, it would be horrible, but does it make sense to regard such losses as "catastrophic" when, on average about 9,500 Americans die every single day?
Dropping bombs and launching anti ship missiles are very different things, asms are made to penetrate and cause damage within the hull, rather than exploding on contact
chinas losses would be children of the one child policy. China cannot socially handle the inner turmoil it would experience if any meaningful number of young men were to die in combat. If non ccp affiliated men die, those are families with nothing left to lose to their government. If ccp affiliated men die, those are families with real power in china who would likely be extremely dissatisfied with the government and a foot in the door to change it. China will collapse if they really wanna put their only children through the American meat grinder.
Rendering them inoperable is good enough, and nearly as good as sinking them as far as being at war is concerned. And if we're talking a prolonged war where repairing ships and redeploying them, we should be very concerned, cuz China can outproduce the US in almost every meaningful way, and by a substantial margin. An attritional/prolonged war with China is not to the US's advantage and losses of carriers for long periods of time would be devastating given the need to wage war across the Pacific Ocean.
@kekistanimememan170 "Due to the often hypersonic flight speed of ballistic missiles an ASBM's kinetic energy alone may be sufficient to cripple or outright destroy a supercarrier with a single conventional warhead impact"
If you added up the US Navy and Coast Guard (which is basically a 2nd Navy because it operates 1000+ miles offshore in open seas) and subtracted China's harbor patrol vessels and other craft that don't leave sight of land, the US fleet would be significantly larger.
adding the coast guard is more than generous especially given that china is more than 7000 miles away... and the coast gaurd doesnt exactly field destroyers...
@@vitsadelholeIf China can include their harbor patrol, certainly our Coast Guard, with its Legend Class cutters, qualifies as a naval combat force. They carry 57mm deck guns and a phalanx suite. These cutters could be upgraded to carry harpoon anti-ship missiles and Mk-48 torpedo launchers, making them a serious threat to any vessel. 12 of their their predecessors, Hamilton class, were kitted as such, for a short time until the breakup of the Soviet Union.
@@vitsadelhole If they can exaggerate the size of their navy so can we. My point is we have more warships capable of war than they do and some of them happen to be in our Coast Guard.
@@hammerfist8763 its a shit point bc they could never be deployed 7000 miles away and your point also specifically hinged on disincluding many of china's ships. I know this is hard for your pea sized brain but your point was absolute garbage
China will be using AI Smart Swarm 6G DRONES (air, land, above sea, below sea). They have MILLIONS of hardened Drone Pilots (they have Drone Sporting Competition with amazing athletes). While USA is cruising their outdated, last century, analogue Battleships, China's Drone Pilots will be sitting in an ergonomic chair, in an air conditioned office, eating Shanghai dumplings, drinking Green tea, and switching between entertainment and piloting their Military drones on USA's ships and army. They'll be watching USA personnel jumping into the oceans, hanging onto life rafts, relying on the peaceful response of China to send out drone rescue crafts to bring them back to mainland china, and take care of their wounds in the robotic, AI Hospitals. USA has NO IDEA the kind of hiding they're going to get from China (and on Mainland USA) if they do NOT stop their ongoing provocations on China. Instead of pushing China for war, how about USA works with China to better the lives of EVERY Human Being on our Beautiful Planet Earth. Come on USA. Grow up ... and work as a team with the rest of the World, instead of you self centred GREED of power and money. Enough is enough and the World is tired of your adolescent behaviours.
Measuring the size of a Navy can be tricky in the modern era. What's the measuring standard? Number of Vessels? Total Tonnage?. A navy that has only 2000 Coastal defense Torpedo Boats Isn't going to be able to do much against a Modern 300 Ship navy with proper surface ships, subs and carriers. It comes down to how capable each ship is really, especially since Tonnage is no longer an accurate metric of a fleet's size/power. Geography also plays a big role.
"Largest Navy" if we were to include our mothballs fleet (which would be activated in a time of war) that adds another potential 600 ships to the fleet.
Also the logistics of having all major US based airline planes being able to haul people and equipment everywhere in the US so military planes are freed up to actually fight
@@azumishimizu1880 You would have to hold your breath for a LONG time to walk from China to Taiwan. Mass infantry attacks into a modern weapons is a quick form of suicided, just ask the Russians... those that survived anyways!
That too. Not sure if many European nations would directly join (if US isn't attacked directly), but other SEA countries are definetly gonna join (for their own sake), while europwan nations could easily provide help via their industry (ships and ammo)
@@J_X999 What? The Japanese military is one of the most technologically advanced in the world. South Korea has a huge military capacity due to the constant threats of North Korea. China has been in more or less continuous skirmishes with India for decades now, and there's pretty much zero chance India wouldn't take the opportunity to solve that particular problem. China didn't exactly do that great against Vietnam's military the last time around, and relations between Vietnam and America are surprisingly warm. All that's not even counting the various NATO allies like Britain and France who could wind up helping out.
@@PhysicsGamer Japanese technology is not advanced and has an army made of 40 year olds. South Korea will not engage in conflict with China due to threat of North Korea only being controlled by China. They'd remain rather neutral. If India launched an attack on China, it would result in monstrous casualties and economic devastation. France is collapsing and Britain has also seen better days. China isn't an invincible superpower, but hyping up it's neighbors is not what I am going to do.
I would argue that China does not have the largest navy, they have more boats but many are barely or not at all combat vessels. We have a fully integrated military where the army, navy, Air Force and marines all work seamlessly together, Air Force provides real time satellite intel, navy and Air Force provide air support to ground troops and all this happens near perfectly. The Chinese military doesn’t even work seamlessly within their own branch or even with government commands.
Yes, but China has a geosunchronous sattelite over the region, convering most of western pacific 24/7, meaning they see large threats like carrier groups days in advance, so I wouldn't worry too much about the PLA's coordination.
@@filippopotame3579 as do we. They have been carefully monitoring that region for over 50 years. I don’t think we could ever successfully invade China, we just don’t have the manpower, but on the other hand it would be very difficult for China to even invade Taiwan as we are nearby and would be feeding real-time satellite intelligence to Taiwan for them to hit the boats before any landing could take place. A bit of a stalemate there. Military attack would come from missiles and aircraft towards Taiwan because china’s only hope would be to knock out land based defenses to facilitate a landing. Their air force would be a worthy opponent for awhile to us, but it wouldn’t last long and they know it. They would have to get massive amounts of military equipment ashore before we could react. That is if we even got in on it. What I’m saying is China only stands any chance when they are close to home, but it won’t last and they would have to consider the nuclear option same as Russia would. China has no real blue water capabilities, it is so limited it’s not even a real concern yet. They have two respectable fighters in small numbers to go up against ours and we have 5 or 6 respectable aircraft in high numbers. I’m not worried about China beating us tactically unless we try to invade their mainland
@@cm5838 On the sattelite side, it's more subtle than that. The US has a huge constellation of sattelites, but they constantly rotate around the earth, meaning they can only take a picture of a given location once per orbit and you need for the next one to arrive to track a target, unlike the Chinese geosynchronous one, which doesn't move. The main issue the US faces in the event of an attack of Taiwan, is how much closer it is to China than to any US base. An F22 doesn't have the range to come from Japan for instance. And the carrier groups probably would have to stay out of the range of the ballistic anti ship missiles of the ZF family. So american help reaching Taiwan would be a challenge. What I find worrying is that the US seems less and less inclined to defend the island while it's investing massively in its own semiconductors to reduce dependecy on Taiwan.
@@filippopotame3579 seems natural to me, Taiwan will never be secure as an independent nation as long as China is still under communist rule. I do believe we can get jets there from Japan and Korea using drop tanks but it is the return that would be interesting. No we would likely have to preemptively strike china’s threats to clear a path in, but it doesn’t change the fact that China can’t land enough troops quick enough to avoid getting their troop carriers sunk. We are in a unique position militarily, no other country can match our capabilities currently, China is trying but their interests are regional so they build ships designed for that purpose, they are showing no signs of trying to build a globally dominating navy. Our greatest advantage in such a fight is that almost all of their recent (last 50 years) battle experience is theoretical. But on the other hand all of our battle experience is with greatly outclassed militaries. Still I’m not concerned, if we (the west) stopped doing business with China they would return to being a third world country within a decade, I really think that should happen
Not afraid because of having simply any understanding of this situation points out infinite flaws in Chinas "navy". Not to mention, China isn't the largest navy, they have the most ships, which isn't how Navy's are measured. They don't even have half the tonnage of the U.S., and how fast they build is irrelevant when it's smaller, inferior, slower, less armed, and lacks any real navy capabilities, can't carry any kind of AWACS platform, etc. China basing it's entire aircraft carrier regiment on a completely failed Kuznetzov heavy cruiser is hilarious and tell about all the story anyone needs to know. Not to mention, China can't even carry it's best aircraft on their "aircraft carriers". None of their ships are nuclear powers, none have blue water capabilities, and the one that is coming out is BARELY getting catapult launchers. and still can't launch and land at the same time like the U.S., and still can't carry the F20's that are too big for any of their ships. No matter how they try to lie to themselves, 20 beats 3.
That's a lot of upkeep... and China, while famous for building stuff quickly, has not been historically good at keeping things in working order over time... logistics and maintenance is something the US excels above all
ALL I KNOW IS THAT AMERICA IS A COUNTRY THAT WHEN IT MAKES UP ITS MIND..THERES NO STOPPING IT..JUST GET BIDEN AND HARRIS OUT OF THERE..ONE IS ABOUT TO CROAK..ONE IS TOTALLY CLUELESS HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY😢..YOU CANNOT WIN IF YOU HAVE LEADERS WITH ANTI AMERICAN VALUES SITTING THERE!!
Another things that China lacks is Military & Operation Base outside their region. You gotta be able to refuel, resupply, and repair outside of your territory if you wanna operate internationally. But you need allies to achieve it, and that's why they have a quite aggressive international politics.
Yeah it’s one of the reasons that Japan had to attack so many military installations in the South Pacific. China will need to attack and set up a protected supply chain. Something that is incredibly hard to do while waging a massive war
Counting aircraft carriers is one way to determine a navy's strength, but it isn't the be-all to end-all. I believe that submarines would play a more significant role.
@@billsweeney6864 China is already developing underwater drones to take subs out. Submarines, tanks, fighter jets, will become obsolete soon. Future wars will be fought with drones and long range missiles. We'll still need foot solders, though.
@@jukio02 US submarines HAVE the capability to take out ANY hostile object launched against it. Hell, they train all the time to blast enemy torpedoes, let alone drones. And you admitted we still need foot soldiers. Unless you want massive casualties, what's a foot soldier without tanks and warplanes to protect him? And as for drones, hell even I can take out a drone with my 12-gauge shotgun and #8 birdshot.
Type 003, Type 055, YJ-21, etc. These "big toys" are no joke, but many Americans are too proud to admit this fact. If they were jokes, why didn't the 7th fleet cruise the South China Sea every week? Yeah, someone may argue that China "stole" all the technologies, but if they knew the story of non-smoke gunpowder, they would never make such an assertation. Even if China "stole" the techs, why didn't the US or any of its Anglo-Saxon vassal states, e.g. the UK, Australia, and Canada, have the techs and transform them into practical weapons? Oh, it's because the techs were stolen by China, and they didn't have any more.
And whos entire army consists of only children whos families will probably revolt against the government if any meaningful number of young men get killed
Additionally they don’t have thousands of “retired” pilots who fly other planes who could jump back into a fighter jet and land on a carrier tomorrow. America has the history and culture that would effectively train pilots throughout a war. Just like we did last world war and the Japanese did not
@@nickshelton8423 I very much doubt if most retired pilots could jump back into a modern plane and land on a carrier tomorrow. Sure, quite a few might be able to go on a hasty refresher course and then qualify for the more recent plane, ships and procedures, but it's not "tomorrow". OK, if they retired in the last few years but beyond five years? The chances are much lower, health and fitness will have taken its toll as well as changes in planes, etc. Fly "something", maybe, but not a fighter and not land on a carrier - carrier pilots are considered pretty elite for a good reason.
Wait, remind me … just how many reliable allies does China have? Wars are not fought without the involvement, directly or indirectly, of other nations. Lines of supply are very vulnerable for the Chinese, particularly the supply of oil.
Correct. If they’re essentially relying on land based allies, like North Korea and Russia (let’s be honest, the Russian Navy’s best days are behind them; I’m pretty sure that the only naval ability the Russians have nowadays is to dive, navy wide, and a quarter sure some of their ships are able to resurface) they’re throwing away the ability to effectively attack while moving, while the US can effectively bomb a military/missile installation from land, air, or sea.
The US Navy is not "afraid" of any country. I'm sure China feels the same. You evaluate your oppenet, look for opportunities then exploit the weakness. Simple.
The lack of ability to operate AEW *planes* is generally overlooked. What was not mentioned here is the fact that an AEW plane uses active radar, which allows its friendly shooters to use passive sensors, and therefore be much harder to detect.
Hot take: carriers won't matter. Subs will. We often see headlines of carries being "sunk" in exercises by subs. Perhaps building islands as stationary "carriers" is the move for a Taiwan invasion.
I don't think that's really much of a hot take. I think its widely accepted the US strategy in a theoretical conflict would rely heavily on US submarines. It's bizarre all these analysts suggests the US would lose multiple aircraft carriers and dozens of other ships as if the US would just sail them into range of Chinese missiles without any regard for their vulnerabilities. The US would almost certainly rely on long range aircraft, missile strikes, and submarines, saturating targets and causing havoc in the area until the field is set for closer operations with surface ships.
@@vitsadelhole Missiles also outrange Chinese carrier launched aircraft, did you think of that? And what kind of missiles DO NOT carry ordnance? What are they supposed to carry, diapers??🤣🤣🤣
@@usnavypalawanhunter5737 i was referring to planes and who cares about the Chinese carriers absolutely irrelevant here. You failed to reply intelligently on all fronts therefore i take my leave
The title is misleading because everyone facing that fleet is afraid Even if they can be defeated but only at a huge cost that include many human lives on both sides
@@Fgway that tooo Funny how they can put you into prison for swimming with dolphins (as that is not allowed in many places in the US not to bother wild life) While the navy blows up entire ships for experimenting munition and killing everything in a huge radius
@@Blue_Doge they tell you that to make yourself feel a bit better and to justify it. Have you ever seen such an explosion? The force is hardly comprehensible and 100% it kills many animals each time
If we throught we needed more we'd have more. Our ships are designed to be powerhouse and tanks. This also means they require A LOT of maintenance and upkeep. Every extra unnecessary super carrier or destroyer adds strain to the system and complicates the Navy's logistics. And again it's the US freaking Navy they spend every waking minute training and planning to pimp slap anybody who dares step out of line. Combine that with the world wide reach if the US Air force and you done stepped in a pile of shit you're very much going to regret.
if you closely at the jet (9:14) as it lands you can see that the airframe had to be lightened in some areas and reinforced under the cockpit near the front landing gear. this is due to the carrier-launched aircraft needing to haul the pilot's massive steel balls off of and onto the deck
Go to ground.news/nwyt to get all sides of every story and compare coverage. Subscribe through our link before August 1, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access for as little as $5 a month.
CUM
Very interesting video.
Like your videos they are the highlight of my day.
If I am US the superpower I will never admit to be afraid of any other country even if it is true. I will just make some noises on the media and probably make friends in secret. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ground is pretty good 👍🏻 ngl
The number of ships in the Chinese navy is dramatically inflated. They include picket boats, coast guard cutters (of all sizes), and minuscule patrol boats in the same category as destroyers.
Just had a look at the wikipedia which everyone sources, they include everything from cable laying ships to construction crane ships to spaceship transport ships.
It is however they are building on another scale compared to the US, if the US keeps pouring money into fantasy projects and stops building ships as fast then I think it could be a problem as the Chinese will be able to become more of a threat. Plus, the Chinese are very good at theft so they could be more of a problem than Russia in developing decent enough warships
@@Horizon301. Fantasy projects (R&D) give US advantage over China. US will never will able to compete China in plain manufacturing speed.
That’s why navies are usually rated in tonnage.
However… numbers are concerning because the battle won’t be in the Gulf of Mexico but in the South China Sea.
It will likely be in the form of seaborne guerrilla warfare. Sea-deniability with land based ballistic and cruise missiles, land based aircraft, and hit and fade tactics that would gradually wear down the US Navy who no longer have the same industrial capabilities to repair or replace ships like they did in WWII.
If the Chinese try to do the Kantai Kessen like the Japanese they will be in trouble.
Its not the size of your boat, but the motion of ocean.
In all fairness to China, they have a FINE REGIONAL fleet. But it’s FAR from being internationally competitive.
the goal is not to be internationally competitive to begin with. Chinese navy is designed for regional deterrence.
@@timetraveller2300which feels weird given the Chinese governments actions and threats
@@timetraveller2300no it’s not. China invaded waters and lands more than any other country lol
That may be true but if your standards are such that the Chinese navy is not internationally competitive, then naturally, nobody is internationally competitive other than the US.
@@timetraveller2300 Might want to remind China of that, as they continuously try to compare themselves to and claim they are more capable than the U.S., they don't want to be reminded that bullying fishing boats and real ship to ship combat are drastically different experiences.
One of the things I love about this channel is the clear commentary and the slow/calm pronunciation, as a non-native English speaker it is way easier to understand everything that is being told.
Plus: his voice is very calming!
very true!!!!
As a native English speaker I also appreciate it. I can't stand people that narrate at ludicrous speed. You don't take any of the info in at that speed.
It's not what you think
wadafuckyoutalkinbout?
@@fridayokwah2 you beaten me to it haha
I can verify that the first soviet bought Chinese aircraft carrier was indeed converted into an amusement park attraction. I work for a US entertainment company called Mirage Entertainment. For years we produced a live stunt show that was performed on that carrier. I participated myself as the production designer.
The premise of describing the PLA Navy as the biggest Navy in the world because they have the most number of boats is completely missing the mark. You can make 50,000 canoes but they wouldn't do very well against a Destroyer ship. The only important measurables when it comes to Naval fleets is total tonnage, and firepower. China is miles behind the US in both categories.
And accumulated years of experience. China doesn't have any when it comes to wartime carrier ops.
Tonnage is behind indeed, but firepower is not. Overconfidence is not good.
@@leon_z1201 China is pretty overconfident, considering America's vast array of anti ship weapons. It wont be a cakewalk for America but we all know that unless America makes blunder after blunder, defeat isnt happening
@@leon_z1201 Tonnage isn't just behind, it's less than half, so unless they're able to fit equal firepower in 1/2 the space, I feel pretty confident saying they're behind on firepower as well. That's also not even taking into consideration the fun fact that the US Navy has the worlds 2nd largest airforce and the firepower that brings to the fight.
@@RGun90 Oh yes they can. Take the YJ-21 as an example, and look at the results of interception tests done by the US Navy, you will know why. As for the air force, they are quickly catching up as well. There are even more reports on that, so take a look if you want. You may argue that China "stole" all the technologies, but if you knew the story of non-smoke gunpowder, you would never make such an assertation. Even if China "stole" the techs, why didn't the US or any of its Anglo-Saxon vassal states, e.g. the UK, Australia, and Canada, have the techs and transform them into practical weapons? Oh, it's because the techs were stolen by China, and they didn't have any more.
China counts almost every boat in their waters as a naval vessel, the US Navy’s tonnage far outclasses China’s
Exactly. But remember, the war will take place off China's coasts. They don't need the same sheer tonnage as the US when they don't project international power.
Maybe the US tonnage comes from those navy cheeks?
Yes, Remember when US and allies said Leopard tanks would be far better in Ukraine? Didnt happen, Never underestimate China. I hope they remember the Korean war.
@@azumishimizu1880 400,000 Chinese died and 36,000 US soldiers died so we’d be just fine
@@cappermenv1845 180k Chinese soldiers died. And China was fighting NATO and the UN at the same time. A feet LITERALLY not any country could do. And still pushed the US far away from its border. Come with actual facts. Not US numbers.
The US Navy is the largest, the Chinese Navy is the most numerous. That's a pretty important distinction.
@@JSIIC "China can focus its Navy on the pacific." Look man, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about... so why comment? Just read shit and move on.
Numerous cause of the coastline boats with barely any range what so ever, china includes them in there military reports, that's why US is not taking them seriously.
@@JSIIC Where did you get this from last I check china is VERY limited to range cause barely any of there ships are nuclear there still diesel run including there new carrier, most of there ship are coastline ships.
Yes, but then the Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, British and potentially the French would have naval forces in the Pacific as well. It wouldn't be just the US vs China.
@@JSIIC I mean, it wouldn't be the first time the US has fought in the pacific while also doing actions everywhere else on the globe. Little thing called WW2, in which the allies quite literally saved China from becoming Japan 2 to begin with.
China’s 340 war ships count:
140 real ships including subs..
150 fishing boats converted to militia vessles
50 ferry boats converted to transport militia vessels
against 13 aircraft carriers 😂😂😂😂
They might also count tactical style civilian ones! 😂
Probably have row boats in their ranks too.
The cope is funny.
As a Vietnamese, I found that PLAN's plan to expand kind of scary too. The disputed islands in the South China Sea is getting more and more important in today geopolitical landscape of South East Asia.
GayAnalDildo
Vietnam will become more prosperous as china withers.
I can only recommend Reallifelores newest video about the Chinese population. It is kinda scary to think about this.
I wouldn't be too concerned. Look up the USS New Jersey and how the crew took offense to a strike on their boat from a fortified island off of Vietnam. Their response was to literally sink the island, wiping it off the map (and this was with 1969 tech). China stationing military assets on their artificial and/or contested islands may give them the illusion of force projection, but the moment an actual war breaks out, they are literally building their bases on shifting sand. China isn't stupid, and so they must be aware of this history, and how their position here is paper-thin. It does make a good propaganda point internally, and for nations that can't exert that sort of force.
china had never brought its carrier strike group far from its territory except for an international drill that depend on weather conditions, they know it, but still inexperience in fighting in bad weather with low supply and overpressure which need trade by decades of battle, and cost of human life, until now they only bully their weak neighbor never they fight in Midway or taste a defeat of Pearl Harbor; or intention of blockage in Cuba nuclear crisis. their navy service a purpose to show their people that CCCP has made them strong and end up fooling them self
The Soviet Navy of 1990 had almost twice the number of ships and twice the personnell of the present Chinese Navy. To my knowledge the US was not greatly worried about the Soviet Navy.
And still isn’t. It’s all about logistics and experience. Russia and China don’t have navy experience fighting outside their borders
China steel production is 15 times of US. Ship building is 50 times. To think US can beat China,...
At its peak the Soviet Navy totalled something like 3000 vessels. If the US Navy weren't afraid of a Navy with that kind of numbers, then why should they be afraid of the Chinese Navys 600 vessels?
@@Noneofyourbizniz1gotta thank japan for the naval carrier warfare lol
Usa lost in Vietnam, korea , Afghan ....
What bullshit experience.
Cool fishing boats mate
It's hard to catch up with a century of carrier experience
Except the Chinese have demonstrated their ability to steal US military intellectual property numerous times.
especially when it comes to the nuclear reactors. The US has a very refined nuclear technician program using live reactors and taking months of maintaining said reactor to qualify (source - recruiter who came to school).
Shame there aren't any equally experienced allies the US can rely on, instead of having to carry the world on its own.
Except maybe the British, they have similar if not more experience, but they've long since faded into obscurity, they are no longer the world power they once were, and they know it.
The US is practically alone in this regard. If they loose a battle, there is no help coming from elsewhere, all their allies are far too weak to defend themselves from any serious threat.
True but I am sure they know this and are prepared with land based systems.
First step is to have carriers. Next step is to keep on building more, learning from each generation of new ships.
I think the constant training and real world experience of the US navy is second to none. Despite china having more ships I don’t think the tides of war are in their favor
exactly, the us has not only used carriers for about a century but theyve used them in anger, which china is yet to do
中国人民解放军有东风导弹，24枚东风26（DF-26）可以干死米国瘪三的航母。
@@ohwaitchristian We all seen the decades of experience with aircraft carriers on board the USS Forrestal. Now it is again a new era of weapons, and all the previos experience is not worth anything. So the war can go either way. Also China do not really need their CV, since they can use land based aircraft to cover almost entire war theater. The US is almost soley dependand on ther carrier force since any long range aircraft form Guam or Hawaii even with in flight refueling can not react in time. It is 4-6 hour of flight to even get to the warzone, and 4-5 refueling process under way, and another 4-6 hour to get back. Only imagine pilot fatigue in F-15 during combat after that.
@@ohwaitchristian You're not using carriers and electronics from a century ago.
@@TheRelativy you forgot about Japan and Alaska lol
The biggest difference between the two Navy's, is that the US have been actively using their Navy in actual wars since WW2. So the Americans...are battle hardened, and tested.
Also, China's boats are FAR less technologically advanced. They are running off of bootleg Russian tech, which is inferior to anything the US is fielding. For perspective, the reason why their carriers need the upswept runway is because they can't even copy a functional version of the catapults that the US had running during WWII. This puts heavy limits on the types of planes they can launch. While they CLAIM to be building a carrier that has modern catapults (as indicated in this video), all we have is an empty hull covered in tents. There is absolutely no evidence that their new carrier will be able to do anything they claim it will.
@@theprogressivecynic2407 Still...I wouldn't take the threat too lightly, and underestimate them. Better to be Operationally ready, than caught with not enough to respond to anything China can dish out. That's not how the US Military works, and has worked since WW2. Better to catch the enemy off guard. Much like how they handled the Iraq War.
you mean losses every war, even to afghanistan😢
Didn't China adopt western hardware rather than Russian cause they understood how obsolete it was?
@@epicnova2010 I never said they WON every war. The mere fact they're engaging in nearly every war speaks volumes about their experience, and have you spoken to a Marine about the history of war? These guys know their shit!!!! Not only do they adapt and overcome, they study the history of war, and learn from everything. Not only from the history of war that America has fought, but from EVERY country's history with war, and they don't using propaganda that skews history in America's favor, like China does. They study America's, British, German's, China's, the Arab Countries, wins and especially losses.
Because of Quality over Quantity
Between Having something that looks like a carrier and being able to conduct carrier ops lies about 100 years of operational experience
Quality vs. Quantity.
The summary of whole of the video.
什么是你们所谓的“作战经验”？无非是欺负像伊拉克、阿富汗之类的小国罢了
@@TaoHu-ri4mh 也许他说的有些夸张，但是操作经验确实是个问题，台湾黄正辉在节目上讲过一个舰队成军到作战的过程，几百上千人加上几十个作战舰，难度非常大。保持谨慎，不惧挑战，这没什么。
Combat experience against Iraq or Afghanistan is not very helpful when you go to war with China. There is a reason U.S. does not send their troops to Ukraine because you don’t want to fight with Russia. Not that you can’t win, I believe U.S. will win, but it’s going to be very very ugly. Last major war U.S. fought was Korean War, and that was 70 years ago. The rest are all what I call operations against some guerrillas.
It’s crazy how these channels never mention china literally counts every boat in China as part of its navy
He did though
Another too-proud-to-admit-facts American.
@@leon_z1201 it’s an actual fact fact check it before you reply next time
@@markzepp481 If you mean the wartime requisition on civilian ships, then it's totally normal. Those ships are not "counted as the navy". Doesn't the US or UK have this kind of requisition? Of course they do.
@@fkUTube449 I didn't say "counting ships in peacetime as warships". Plz practice your mother tongue before you comment on anything.
Saw a brief military analysis on the China/Taiwan issue last summer, just before Ukraine started pounding on the Russians. It stated that the US Naval plan wasn't to keep the carriers within range of Chinese missiles, but to go dynamite fishing in the first island chain using submarines first, with support from long range aircraft from Hawaii and Guam, as well as Australia and the mainland US. I've also seen speculation that the Philippines and Vietnam would most likely be open to allowing US forces to base on their territory in exchange for help defending themselves against China.
The Philippines already does let the US put troops and equipment inside its borders.
Doubt Vietnam and the Phillipines would open themselves to attack from China for no obvious gain
The Philippines have agreed to ten US bases this year.
A couple will be on the islands closet to Taiwan. I believe Subic Bay will also be re-opened.
I don't think there has been movement on Vietnam.
What kind of parallel universe do you live in where ukraine is pounding on russia?😂 the entire war is to fund blackrock and the military industrial complex. american taxpayer money will stop being sent there once ukraine is adequately destroyed and then blackrock can make a cool couple billion off western liberal stupidity
“Just be Ukraine started pounding on the Russians.” Haha right.
I worked a Russian shipyard in Vladivostok where offshore modules were being constructed (the only ones). Walking through the yard I asked a ship yard engineer via the inverperture why so many millers ships were being broken/de-commissioned, I was informed very sternly these were being built. 😂 Sakhalin 2 & further modules were constructed in Korea.
I saw the USS Gerald R. Ford when it visited my home city last year. As big as one of the islands in the harbour. Very impressive looking, hard to imagine building ships that size.
Building large and advanced warships requires not only the technologies, but also the entire ENORMOUS AND COMPLETE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM behind, and this is why China and the US are the only two powers on earth that are able to build and maintain a large navy. You may argue that China "stole" all the technologies, but if you knew the story of non-smoke gunpowder, you would never make such an assertation. Even if China "stole" the techs, why didn't the US or any of its Anglo-Saxon vassal states, e.g. the UK, Australia, and Canada, have the techs and transform them into practical weapons? Oh, it's because the techs were stolen by China, and they didn't have any more.
@@leon_z1201 bro log off your cope is not working. keep living in fantasy land.
@@leon_z1201 yeah I'm not reading all this. cope harder somewhere else.
@@leon_z1201the only two able to maintain a large (thus powerful) navy? The Royal Navy is one of the largest in the world…
@@ascendantchameliasapostle2580Explains why your Apple phone and Boeing parts are manufactured in China. And now Tesla too. I bet those factories are rubbish compared to the US factories. Oh wait, the Multinationals shut down most US factories and relocated to that dumb country China. Get a grip bro. You're an embarrassment to the species.
Managing to read the sentence "just one Jiangnan Changxing Shipyard in Shanghai" without stuttering already deserves a like.
That flat earthed joke is hilarious
Nah, it fell flat.
@@The13thRonin w reply
Flat-earthers from around the world hated it.
There are also reports of quality control issues. from the lack of quality of the steel in the hulls, the welds, and electronics.
"never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" Napoleon
This is true for America as well.
the critical part is that it's not just China vs. U.S. It's about China-Russia-N.Korea vs S.Korea-Taiwan-Japan-U.S. That's why trilateral agreement between S.Korea and Japan and U.S. were made recently and Taiwan is being armed heavily. China lost it's prime time to overthrown Pacific region and trying very hard to make one in a near future. This persistency of China is even bringing NATO into the Pacific conflict.
And don’t forget Australia, Philippines and the rest of NATO too.
Well said.
U forgotten Iran. China potential partner
@@alexchan8821 Iran and China have the same enemy but they can never be alike or rather be partners. China does not respect Muslims and it runs on the blood, hence the Muslim genocide in XinJian.
It's China, Russian, Iran, N. Korea vs. NATO homeboy
Just came back from deployment on a carrier this past week or so, we're on the verge of war everyday in south china sea, with how close Chinese ships get close to our carrier or don't maneuver as they should.
What ship? Must have sucked constantly being in PedCon red.
@@intyrnet"theirs" lmao, south china sea are international waters, just because it has china in the name, that don't mean it's theirs
@@intyrnet it's not theirs lol.
@@intyrnet No? The waters are international. Anybody can sail in them. The problem is that China keeps trying to claim the SCS as theirs. Cope harder, tankie.
@@intyrnet the only one claiming it's theirs and doing agressive/unprofessional manouvers is china, usa is not claiming anything and they are on their right to travel in international waters.
What would do if the enemy lots of drone that cannot detect in the radar
One thing not mentioned is that War Games are designed with the intention of the US losing, so they can determine what their weaknesses are. The US technically, aren't supposed to win in war games, based on the parameters.
I don't know how they got to count the quantities and specs of Chinese forces to simulate.
@@tritium1998 you cant hide ships this big, anyone with a satellite knows how big the US and Chinese Navy are...
That's the thing, reportedly during an exercise in the Philippines, the US handicapped their F-22s by attaching drop tanks to them and Philippine aircraft managed to "shoot them down", which goes to show that on exercises US always chooses to lose for analysis reasons, which is one great thing because "you gain better knowledge of the enemy if you lose a battle"
And this is the kind of attitude which makes the US so powerful. It's not about looking perfect; it's about understanding where your L's come from so you can move towards actually being better
I mean, seeing as the US's military budget is 4 times bigger than China's, I can see why.
not because they spent more = better or stronger... it is actually the contrary.
@@Kiyoone you can say that to the soviet cope slope shitboxes
The us are inflating the numbers, because things like usa foreign aid are accounted as defence spending, and the USA soldiers health care plans are also counted and that is a huge expense. The USA is also more bureaucratic and over the last 20 years US contractors have merged into one big contractor which reduces competition and innovation and increases costs.. also there is fraud in the USA system, the double count a lot of things to steal money, constantly mixing up procurement costs and stock costs
So much of the US budget is wasted or siphoned off.
It’s actually on par. Always consider PPP
From what I’ve heard (2014 numbers) China’s fleet is limited to just under 1600 KM out from the shore before they require refueling, sailing efficiently and in a straight line. Make that under evasive maneuvers at high speeds under battlefield conditions and you could reduce it potentially as far as 800 KM, with little chance of being refueled because any competent combatant is gonna target the refueling ships.
Also, we have more friendly neighbors willing to host air support
have read that the PLA(N) is a brown water navy, would be lost out of the SCS
they don't need to go far ...they are not going to attack other countries like the yanks do ..only defend themselves ...and mostly use rockets and electronic defenses ..the yank aircraft carriers won't last 5 minutes being hit with M10 hypersonic missies .guaranteed to hit such large targets .. including basses ..they will literally have thousands of them swarming towards anything that gets within a few thousand miles ....
Flat earther was a savage comment bro 😅
Yes but don't forget China isn't looking to provoke wars or invade countries thousands of km away from it's shores, whereas the USA does. The US need longer range warships so they park them just outside their enemies shores and provoke war
5:50 what is that and why is purple? Is it a boiler flame?
The US has the capacity to put China’s ship building speed to shame. Back in WWII the US was finishing a new liberty ship every single day. Just because the US isn’t producing ships as fast as China doesn’t mean that it can’t. The American military industrial complex was basically idling until recently. It hasn’t really been revved up since WWII.
No point in saying what one can do in the past. Its the present capability to deliver that counts.
@@williamlucas5852correct. I don't see the US cranking out air carriers quickly, but they could produce amphibious carriers that are capable of launching F35s as well rather quickly because they're not near powered and are about 300ft shorter.
It's still idling now due to the lack of skilled laborers to build both ships and shipyards
@@nathanmarden3754 I'm sure we could kick into high gear of production on ALL sources of Military needs if we ended up at War with China or anyone else. Obviously at this point, we are in need or ammunitions as well as missiles and basically every category of military equipment, as we are the only country constantly using/giving our equipment to help other countries around the World without replacing our own supply consistently.
During WWII in the US everything was rationed, and the US companies had 75% tax rate, and that only happened because FDR was a strong progressive leader. You will never find another FDR, they kill anyone like him just like they did with JFK.
Issue China's going to see is that the bigger you get the higher maintenance cost yet and that slows your development. Quick to build the first three aircraft carriers building the next three is a lot slower while you're also paying to maintain the first three.
Their quality of work isn't so great in china either. Many of their new buildings are already disintegrating
Gonna follow the communists and russians, not maintaining their equipment
Yeah, in 20 years their infrastructure will be as bad as the US.😂😂
@@cameronhomes5948 or Belgium...
this dude's like "look they're building 5 ships at once!" and all i see is 5 doubtlessly crappy ships made of low tier materials just to say they have 5 more ships. the US builds ships slower because that's the actual normal time it takes to build a ship people will actually use, not just build the outside hull to inflate a number.
The thing to consider is supplying those ships and refueling those aircraft. The US Navy practices and uses underway replenishment (ship to ship refueling and resupply at sea) and has roughly 32 ships dedicated to this. Naval Aviation can also refuel mid-air using Navy aircraft or US Air Force refueling aircraft. It's not known to what extent China has this capability, but every indication is that they have not yet developed this skillset. Until you can refuel your ships and aircraft under operational conditions, your fleet is effectively a coastal fleet and limited in operational capabilities because you must dock or use barge refueling to gas up.
The Chinese navy actually does have supply and replenishment ships too, in fact even bigger and larger ones than the US supply ships.
But this just shows your arrogant and ignorant lack of knowelege.
Typical American.
The Chinese navy is a fully capable blue water navy similar to the USN.
But there is currently no reason for China to send its navy patrolling around the world.
I agree with you but in a nutshell these are types of secrets that need to be hidden from the Chinese, so let them right ahead and preaching foolishness about how their inferior weapons are, that's a good comment!!
I've done refueling at sea a lot of times and it's not easy at all and extremely dangerous!!!
You definitely better know what you're doing!!! My ship was the first one to accomplish picking up a refueling hose trailing behind a tanker and it was a super bitch!!!!
We got a award for that!! USS BAGER FF-1071 !!!! She's on the bottom now having been used for target practice after serving a long time!!!
I wouldn't have it any other way! Much better than razor blades!!!
@@Glenn-m1t We shot lines across from the Belleau Wood (LHA-3) and hauled the hoses in (well I didn't, I was throttleman in No. 2 MMR and just helped maintain speed).
I remember the Forrestal disaster in the 60's. That was on the cover of LIFE magazine. It was a big story.
The flat earthers unsubscribing at 6:40 had me dying of laughter! 😂😂😂 nice one!
Awesome 👏 😂 that was a great piece to add after that comment
This had me LMFGAO 😂😂😂😂
Me too
Yeah being in the Navy definitely showed me total proof that the earth is round!!!
Without a catapult a J-15 can take off from a carrier on a max weight of about 30 tons, literally half the takeoff weight of an F-35C. Combined with the fact that China's carriers have air wings maybe half the size, they can each ideally put about 1/4th of the weight of aircraft and weapons into action at any given moment as a Nimitz- or Ford-class carrier.
This is of course before considering other factors such as institutional knowledge and experience, building quality, quality of support such as AWACS, aerial refuelling platforms, cargo delivery, storage for spare parts, weapon performance, and so on, which all effect how much striking power a carrier can exert.
rubbish
That's why we do not fear China's naval abilities.
Well put, good Sir.
You think you know a lot about aircraft carriers snd you think you are better than PLA planners, who does this for a living?
Even you can tell PLA aircraft carriers cannot match the US aircraft carriers, you think they don't know?
Let me tell you, PLA does not use aircraft carriers to attack aircraft carriers. All they have to do is to send some reconnaissance planes from the aircraft carriers to locate your aircraft carrier. And then they will launch anti ship ballistic missiles from their 055 cruisers and destroy your aircraft carriers.
You think after they spend trillions of dollars building ships, they have no effective method to kill your aircraft carrier? You think so? You think Chinese are idiots? Why don't you Google YJ-21 missile.
...maybe, but as the video effectively precises, those current chinese carreers are barely training models while they develop the next ones which will be closing the technology and capability gaps to some extent. And anyway, ultimately the chinese dont need to aim at the same capacities as the US navy, as they simply dont have the same military doctrines. USA needs carreers on the other side of the world, China doesnt : the power projection only needs to be regional, as is the vast majority of their missile arsenal for example. They dont have the same need for "bluewater" capacity.
India and Brazil each have more experience in carrier operations than China. Maybe they can make some good hardware, but they still need to learn how to use it effectively, and develop carrier-based tactics that no one is going to be helping them with. The US, UK, and France have decades of actual combat experience with their carriers.
Yeah India has been operating Carriers since 1959.
Like all 3 types of Carriers.
CATOBAR,VTOL,STOBAR etc
india？？hahaha ，is it a joke？
I doubt China cares about your experience with outdated carriers, systems, and planes.
@feinw2514 it's not about hardware, it's about experience. India definitely has much greater naval battle experience than China.
@feinw2514indian navy had experience of carrier in war.. Like in 1971 indo pak war,
It’s a amazing day when NWYT posts
Got to be my favorite notification
Thanks for your effort for making this documentry
The problem for China is they have a huge navy, air force and army but no allies. The bigger and more belligerent China gets, the more likely a NATO style alliance forms around them. Individually they might not be much of a threat, but together, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India and Taiwan would be formidable, even without USN support. With the USN, the balance of power tips wildly away from China.
Hegemony relies on allies to remain in control while China with no specific enmity treats every country with the same respect.
China and Russia are not official allies, but Putin and Xi said their countries are friends of each other, which is to them better than being merely an ally.
Calling China "belligerent" means likely you're only reading US sponsored media. China is far from perfect, but countries should be judged equally, and the US has been far more belligerent than China has been. Try Al Mayadeen if you want more independent news reporting, or news from India or indeed other countries translated. Useful to get a world view.
Just a globalist here.
South Korea hates Japan, Vietnam hates Japan and South Korea and Vietnam aren't that close due to South Koreans fighting against the north in the Vietnam War.
@@远山-k3s you mean china treats every country with the same disrespect? it has border disputes with every country it neighbors
@user-sx2we1xe5q ah yes. Who can forget the age old adage, "the man with all the friends is really just a big narcissist that no one likes" /s
Please keep spreading such engaging wisdom.
I like to remind people that by hull count, the USN was the largest in the world circa 1866.
The catch is that it was basically a costal/riverine navy. Lots and lots of small ships and boats designed to strangle the Confederacy. Very little bluewater capability.
While the ccp isn't building theirs for an ongoing civil war, the similarities are there and are also informative.
Not really.
The US had half a continent left to clear cut and hunt. The US population has exploded in the past 150 years.
China has strangled her rivers, poisoned their fields and is dealing with demographic collapse in the coming decades.
中国人民解放军有东风导弹，24枚东风26（DF-26）可以干死米国瘪三的航母。
Much of the US Navy tonnage is with Nimitz carriers with outdated steam catapults, outdated Ticonderoga cruisers, and outdated models of Arleigh Burke destroyers.
@@tritium1998 I shall now translate from the native language used in the original comment. From the original Shill: "The USN is made of stuff the ccp dreams of and has been shown to be effective, but I need something to cry/complain about so this is it."
Everyone with a mobile phone in his hand became a military expert
Damn right, I know best! Go USA! Whooooo! * Just a joke, don't freak tf out
Well, what do we have here...
Too bad you dont own a phone.
Here is another subscriber, hopefully you can get to 4 Million subs soon!
Chinese carriers may be new, but the U.S. has nearly 101 years of experience (seriously, the first U.S. aircraft carrier was 1922. I just realized that the U.S. Navy did their 100-year anniversary).
They are still less technologically advanced than American carriers.
@@Basti0n "Made in China"
and they have freaking enterprise, the girl, the myth , the legend. the slayer of the imperial japanese navy
no seriously. carrier techs. its always the americans. god. people have forgotten how much of a beast american military industry during war time. my guy pumps out destroyers and fucking carriers like nothing
101 years of experience?? When??
The last US Naval War was WW2..and you can't bring those old sailors back on duty
It's RESET..both are equal in War Experience
@@Basti0n No...they are more advance that US ships..except at most carriers..
Bulk of US naval ships are Cold War era..
Bulk of Chinese naval ships are new
Bigger is not always better
Thank you for cheering me up
It's all about the number of planes you can launch.
@@The13thRonini think u misunderstood @demin-e 😂😂😂
@@itsgoodtobebad475 I assure you I did not.
@@The13thRoninIt's all about the quality of planes. You can launch 100 MIGs and still lose to 10 F 22s
@@scottanno8861 That depends heavily on the loadout. Do the MIGS carry the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal high-precision ballistic missile with a range of about 2,000 km? If so they win. Ain't no F22s firing on nuclear capable MIGs.
Love your videos. Your "flat earthers" comment slayed me!
that crew position at 3:11 seems so awesome. Cozy with a good view. edit: and 7:41
Ayo, glad to find a fellow cozy space enjoyer/connoisseur. That shit had me distracted for like half the video.
Ah, it's the integrated catapult control station. It lowers into the deck which I think makes it even more neat.
The biggest advantage of the US navy is its extended network of global naval bases. Without it, their navy would also be a regional navy.
The only naval base tgat matter is in the pacific arena. Even then it's too far away to make any difference. The only relevant bases is in sk, Japan, guam, PH, australia. Those bases will surely be attacked early. You see today's missiles can rrach US ships before they even get close to china. By the time they reach china. They would have depleted half their limited weapons onboard defending against antiship. missiles. They won't be at full strength when they reach china. They can send waves of cheap drones launch attacks on US ships to waste their limited onboard weapons. Then the big antiship missiles finished them off.
@@maolo76all it takes is one loss, and that force will be met with equal force from an ally launch pad... They're not only sending ships.
Every USN nuclear powered ship can operate for 6 months or more without port. If shtf bad enough the navy can still operate world wide with no ports other than east and west coast US. That is the difference between it and every other navy in the world. Couple that with the defenses each individual ship carries against both air and sea and there is no fair comparison. Munitions isn't an issue either. Each will run out of food long before munitions even in WW2 style sea battle, much less what it is today.
@@tannissar5624Thank you. The US navy armada includes supply ships, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear powered subs, and more that are all designed to sustain the fleet for many months without the need of a resupply. They do not need ports and could travel around the world without having to stop. But if they did need resupply, the US also boasts the largest and most complete supply network across the globe. It's the reason the US is the single only global super power.
Nuclear power is the reason the US Navy is global.
Love your videos!! Keep up with the great work!!!!
2:30 idk what crazier the fact they thought we would believe it or fact they actually turned one into a theme park
The US Navy has 11 Carrier Task Groups and has the second most powerful air force in the world (the most powerful is the US Air Force). The US Navy also has flat-topped amphibious ships that are capable of carrying F-35B fighters, effectively doubling the number of aircraft carriers available (LPH's, LHA's, etc.). The Navy also has 14 SSBN's (carrying 16-24 Trident Missiles each [up to 8 warheads each, so roughly 2,240 nuclear warheads]), 4 SSGN's (carrying up to 154 Tomahawk Missiles [nuclear capable] each, so roughly 660 warheads), and 55 SSN's (attack submarines that are capable of carrying torpedoes, land attack missiles, and anti-ship missiles).
so why haven't they won a war against very inferior enemies in the last 70 years ..running away in some ..
@@patrolmanracv Boots on the ground. You can destroy things, but to really win a war you have to occupy territory and hold it and that requires soldiers, not sailors or airmen.
Really though, politicians lose wars because they won't allow the Military to do what is necessary to win, which means that the politicians impose rules of engagement that prevent the Military from destroying the enemy and the enemy's means of making war.
Compare wars - In World War 2 it was total war, with the targeting of German factories, rail yards, and cities supplying the Nazi effort that suffered more bombings than the front line armies. Roughly 9 civilians were killed for every 1 soldier killed. You remove the means of war production and the source of new recruits and endeavor to destroy the enemy armies at the same time. If you limit the war only to combatants, you will never cease to be fighting another one. That's how the North Koreans were forced to an Armistice and why the Vietnam War ended so shamefully.
In Korea, we destroyed all industry by bombing. In Vietnam, we refrained from doing the same.
War is hell and it should be waged as such if victory is every truly desired and you want to end it as quickly as possible.
Ships are impacted by the square cube law. If you double the length of a ship, and make it wider and deeper in proportion, the result is eight times the volume, meaning eight times the water can be displaced before the deck is too close to the surface to be safe. Meanwhile the surface area is only multiplied by 8, so any armor, or just the skin to keep the sea out grows more slowly than the amount of space and weight the ship can carry.
The result is that a few larger ships can carry more useful stuff than many small ships, even if the overall displacement is the same. So in terms of number of missiles, planes, and guns/ammo the navies can carry, the US advantage is understated by just looking at the tonnage.
The USA does have more sea to patrol to maintain the status quo though, keeping up anti-piracy patrols around various hotspots, keeping forces in the Baltic and Adriatic and Arctic to counter Russian posturing soaks up a lot of ships, so as long as we are playing the posturing game, the China can claim some control of their local seas, but if it came to actual war, the Chinese navy would be destroyed and the US navy would still have plenty of material in the sea to control the relevant waters.
One of the game changer in the coming future would be directed energy weapons both in offensive and defensive roles, US forces already deployed smaller ones on active duty. Who ever masters the directed energy weapons technology will have upper hand, because it is cheap to operate and unlimited ammo, then no worry about emptying of magazine in a defencive situation.
Its all fun and games till we roll our first laser boat off the drydock
Dedicated maritime anti-missile vessel with hundreds of vertical launch cells and onboard directed energy weapon systems, nuclear powered of course and unmanned exclusive aircraft carrier which will be smaller, faster to build and require less personel. Those two capabilities will be the tools to defeat China in blue water warfare.
They don't work in high humidity or poor weather. Lazer's arent super weapons.
@@blckspice5167 if you’re gonna talk shit at least spell it right. L a s e r
你说的这些都是垃圾武器，包括所谓的核导弹，这都是上个世纪的大杀器，有一种武器只需要一发就可以杀掉300公里范围内的所有生物，并且是持续性的蔓延，来上100万发世界将不会有人类存在。
Nicely done.
It’s one thing to have carriers and frigates. It’s a whole other different thing to maintain these ships and keep them stocked and supplied.
It reminds me of the naval situation between Germany and the UK prior WW1. Germany really pushed to compete with the naval superpower, had an advantage in production and technology and really made the UK nervous. The result was that in the war, German navy stood in their ports and lost the few battles they had. There is no way China can stand a chance against Taiwan, the US and its pacific allies. Their only chance are land based A2AD capabilities and nukes.
China in 20 years might be another problem, but in the forseeable future there is no way China succesfully naval attacks Taiwan, if it gets any hard support from AUKUS.
Absolutely right. Having an effective force is more than numbers of weapons platforms. The quality of the platform is important, it's ability to do it's job more than once is a critical multiplier, as it the logistics of putting it back together and sending it back out. The US continually exercises their logistics chains to maintain readiness, just like we exercise every other part of our force. And every weapon platform the US has is supported with current technology continually updated at great cost. It's about spending money on technology. Cloning a mig is an attempt to spend nothing on technology. good luck with that! Every year you waste time reverse engineering and cloning existing technology is a year spent not advancing. You might learn something building clones, but the guys you cloned have two or three generations of next platforms already being developed, and you have a copy of something designed 20 years ago.
The risk is if China finds a new, overwhelming technology. But the US uses our eyes and ears to be aware, and spend spend spend on new tech. We outspend everyone, we have layers of largely unused tech, so the other side is always playing catch up.
@@bigtexuntex7825unless that technology can work autonomously there won't be enough people to man it with the manpower shortage
To take Taiwan you take out the chip plants. Without computer chips america dies quickly. Cripples the world in fact. As the final mail in coffin you cut off all Chinese exports. The US and Europe have no manufacturing capacity. We saw this during the lockdown running out of simple things like wiper motors. Civil unrest will destroy society. Then release a virus you inoculated your people for and sit back and wait.
The same thing will happen with this green agenda except people are too stupid to see the enemy is their own government pushing it.
@@nathanmarden3754exactly. China has the manpower. They can launch ships faster than the US can destroy them. Not to mention viruses. Drop an EMP over the US and take out Taiwanese semiconductor plants and it’s game over. FOR THE WORLD.
Green New deal achieved. Great Reset achieved. All hail communism.
TW is actually within long range artillery rockets from china, we don't even have to use missles to handicap TW. Your analogy can be used to describe China as being in it's backyard and own ports, to achieve strategic advantage to US navy, not to mention, your carrier groups will be in direct target range from land missiles.
He mentioned that the US needs to focus on long range bombers with ballistic missiles I was immediately reminded of the new Stealth B-21 Raider the Air Force is currently developing, also the US Navy is currently developing laser technology to shoot down incoming missiles, the basic idea being to throw off or completely fry the guidance system before it hits. Strategy wise I’m not panicking for our navy as I’m sure they will be able to put up a good fight, but I’d like to have the newer technology that could jam or get around the Chinese defenses to inflict massive naval losses if they try to invade Taiwan.
You forget the laser systems that is being integrated in fleet defense
Oh they have them I promise. Was on a boat a long time ago. Since decommissioned and sunk as a reef. We had the tech then. I'm sure it's much better now.
There is the Rapid Dragon missles
We the tech now like those planes with the big dish on tip can also jam, the are also jets like the Growler that is used for jamming and cyber warfare
There's not way the US can win China in China's backyard. US doesn't have the capacity to wage war like that thousands of miles away. Russia will most likely get involved too, same with North Korea. So, it will be US vs China, Russia and North Korea. Good luck with that.
As one of my favorite Authors has said many times, "fear is natural... It's what keeps you alive."
China is contained from Japan to Taiwan to Philippines to Malaysia to Australia. It's honestly insane and only getting more insane on Japan's minor islands and in the Philippines.
@@adarshkumar2038 I was talking US systems and bases, I was unaware of any in Vietnam.
Insane in what way? Are you saying we Filipinos are insane? Be careful what you say before you blunder into the racist category.
lol..how can those irrelevant countries contained China? Be realistic dude!
Most of the US losses come from war gamers concluding that China would sink US carriers, but one can challenge the conclusion that China would actually SINK US carriers. Rendering a US carrier incapable of combat and actually SINKING one are two different animals. For example, in an experimental effort to sink one of its own carriers (a de-commissioned Korean War era carrier) the US Navy dropped bombs on it for two weeks straight -- and still the carrier did not sink. Eventually the Navy had to resort to sending demolition experts on board to plant explosives in order to sink it. Moreover, as hard as that old carrier was to sink, it was a lot easier to sink than one of today's super carriers would be. If a US Navy super carrier were struck by, say, three or four large Chinese anti-ship missiles, the carrier would probably be taken out of the action, but would it actually sink? Furthermore, I take issue with the catastrophizing about US losses in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Assuming China does sink two US carriers, the war gamers conclude US losses would be in the neighborhood of ten or twenty thousand. If the US suffered such losses, it would be horrible, but does it make sense to regard such losses as "catastrophic" when, on average about 9,500 Americans die every single day?
Dropping bombs and launching anti ship missiles are very different things, asms are made to penetrate and cause damage within the hull, rather than exploding on contact
chinas losses would be children of the one child policy. China cannot socially handle the inner turmoil it would experience if any meaningful number of young men were to die in combat. If non ccp affiliated men die, those are families with nothing left to lose to their government. If ccp affiliated men die, those are families with real power in china who would likely be extremely dissatisfied with the government and a foot in the door to change it. China will collapse if they really wanna put their only children through the American meat grinder.
Rendering them inoperable is good enough, and nearly as good as sinking them as far as being at war is concerned. And if we're talking a prolonged war where repairing ships and redeploying them, we should be very concerned, cuz China can outproduce the US in almost every meaningful way, and by a substantial margin. An attritional/prolonged war with China is not to the US's advantage and losses of carriers for long periods of time would be devastating given the need to wage war across the Pacific Ocean.
@@aaronsams8605 bombs come in a variety of fuse settings so false.
@kekistanimememan170 "Due to the often hypersonic flight speed of ballistic missiles an ASBM's kinetic energy alone may be sufficient to cripple or outright destroy a supercarrier with a single conventional warhead impact"
If you added up the US Navy and Coast Guard (which is basically a 2nd Navy because it operates 1000+ miles offshore in open seas) and subtracted China's harbor patrol vessels and other craft that don't leave sight of land, the US fleet would be significantly larger.
adding the coast guard is more than generous especially given that china is more than 7000 miles away... and the coast gaurd doesnt exactly field destroyers...
@@vitsadelholeIf China can include their harbor patrol, certainly our Coast Guard, with its Legend Class cutters, qualifies as a naval combat force. They carry 57mm deck guns and a phalanx suite. These cutters could be upgraded to carry harpoon anti-ship missiles and Mk-48 torpedo launchers, making them a serious threat to any vessel. 12 of their their predecessors, Hamilton class, were kitted as such, for a short time until the breakup of the Soviet Union.
@@hammerfist8763 you specifically excluded chinas harbor patrol….
@@vitsadelhole If they can exaggerate the size of their navy so can we. My point is we have more warships capable of war than they do and some of them happen to be in our Coast Guard.
@@hammerfist8763 its a shit point bc they could never be deployed 7000 miles away and your point also specifically hinged on disincluding many of china's ships. I know this is hard for your pea sized brain but your point was absolute garbage
6:40 made me chuckle
The Chinese navy would be just an appetizer for the US Navy’s submarine fleet; particularly the Seawolf and Virginia classes.
Yeah our subs are no joke, I hope they've been training for anti-sub operations otherwise those guys will have a god damn field day out there.
@@nahfam8794they've been playing Cold Waters
China will be using AI Smart Swarm 6G DRONES (air, land, above sea, below sea). They have MILLIONS of hardened Drone Pilots (they have Drone Sporting Competition with amazing athletes). While USA is cruising their outdated, last century, analogue Battleships, China's Drone Pilots will be sitting in an ergonomic chair, in an air conditioned office, eating Shanghai dumplings, drinking Green tea, and switching between entertainment and piloting their Military drones on USA's ships and army. They'll be watching USA personnel jumping into the oceans, hanging onto life rafts, relying on the peaceful response of China to send out drone rescue crafts to bring them back to mainland china, and take care of their wounds in the robotic, AI Hospitals. USA has NO IDEA the kind of hiding they're going to get from China (and on Mainland USA) if they do NOT stop their ongoing provocations on China. Instead of pushing China for war, how about USA works with China to better the lives of EVERY Human Being on our Beautiful Planet Earth. Come on USA. Grow up ... and work as a team with the rest of the World, instead of you self centred GREED of power and money. Enough is enough and the World is tired of your adolescent behaviours.
Actually Russia, North Korea and China combine have more than 225 submarines in that area of South China Sea plus anti submarines battleships
Measuring the size of a Navy can be tricky in the modern era. What's the measuring standard? Number of Vessels? Total Tonnage?. A navy that has only 2000 Coastal defense Torpedo Boats Isn't going to be able to do much against a Modern 300 Ship navy with proper surface ships, subs and carriers. It comes down to how capable each ship is really, especially since Tonnage is no longer an accurate metric of a fleet's size/power. Geography also plays a big role.
"Largest Navy" if we were to include our mothballs fleet (which would be activated in a time of war) that adds another potential 600 ships to the fleet.
real ships too, not tugs and fishing boats
add to that the several hundred strong museum ship fleet that could also be rearmed in an (admittedly rather serious) emergency
Yeah just like the boneyard in Arizona. Within 6 months 80% would be able to fly
Also the logistics of having all major US based airline planes being able to haul people and equipment everywhere in the US so military planes are freed up to actually fight
@@nickshelton8423 I'm not sure I quite get your comment, but logistics is definitely a serious issue.
0:37 xiangxiang jangji shipyardd
Thanks. Phenomenal as usual. Keep it up.
It's not the quantity that matters but the quality and capability of the ships and their crews.
What they said before the Korean war. China stepped and North Korea was born again,.
@@azumishimizu1880 You would have to hold your breath for a LONG time to walk from China to Taiwan. Mass infantry attacks into a modern weapons is a quick form of suicided, just ask the Russians... those that survived anyways!
Not necessarily true, quality doesn't always win in the Navy and that's been historically held true true for the most part
Quantity matters too
Remember that the US would not go it alone.
That too.
Not sure if many European nations would directly join (if US isn't attacked directly), but other SEA countries are definetly gonna join (for their own sake), while europwan nations could easily provide help via their industry (ships and ammo)
Apart from the US, there aren't any other allied militaries that could really do damage in the long run.
the rest of the worlds navys combined couldn't help much
@@J_X999 What?
The Japanese military is one of the most technologically advanced in the world.
South Korea has a huge military capacity due to the constant threats of North Korea.
China has been in more or less continuous skirmishes with India for decades now, and there's pretty much zero chance India wouldn't take the opportunity to solve that particular problem.
China didn't exactly do that great against Vietnam's military the last time around, and relations between Vietnam and America are surprisingly warm.
All that's not even counting the various NATO allies like Britain and France who could wind up helping out.
@@PhysicsGamer Japanese technology is not advanced and has an army made of 40 year olds.
South Korea will not engage in conflict with China due to threat of North Korea only being controlled by China. They'd remain rather neutral.
If India launched an attack on China, it would result in monstrous casualties and economic devastation.
France is collapsing and Britain has also seen better days.
China isn't an invincible superpower, but hyping up it's neighbors is not what I am going to do.
It is good to know. Thanks!
Really hope we can build another shipyard or even more so we can maximize production capacity. Both for domestic production and naval..
i bet the chinese ship has MADE IN CHINA on it
lol! Shipyard to build bancas?
I would argue that China does not have the largest navy, they have more boats but many are barely or not at all combat vessels. We have a fully integrated military where the army, navy, Air Force and marines all work seamlessly together, Air Force provides real time satellite intel, navy and Air Force provide air support to ground troops and all this happens near perfectly. The Chinese military doesn’t even work seamlessly within their own branch or even with government commands.
Yes, but China has a geosunchronous sattelite over the region, convering most of western pacific 24/7, meaning they see large threats like carrier groups days in advance, so I wouldn't worry too much about the PLA's coordination.
@@filippopotame3579 as do we. They have been carefully monitoring that region for over 50 years. I don’t think we could ever successfully invade China, we just don’t have the manpower, but on the other hand it would be very difficult for China to even invade Taiwan as we are nearby and would be feeding real-time satellite intelligence to Taiwan for them to hit the boats before any landing could take place. A bit of a stalemate there. Military attack would come from missiles and aircraft towards Taiwan because china’s only hope would be to knock out land based defenses to facilitate a landing. Their air force would be a worthy opponent for awhile to us, but it wouldn’t last long and they know it. They would have to get massive amounts of military equipment ashore before we could react. That is if we even got in on it. What I’m saying is China only stands any chance when they are close to home, but it won’t last and they would have to consider the nuclear option same as Russia would. China has no real blue water capabilities, it is so limited it’s not even a real concern yet. They have two respectable fighters in small numbers to go up against ours and we have 5 or 6 respectable aircraft in high numbers. I’m not worried about China beating us tactically unless we try to invade their mainland
@@cm5838 On the sattelite side, it's more subtle than that. The US has a huge constellation of sattelites, but they constantly rotate around the earth, meaning they can only take a picture of a given location once per orbit and you need for the next one to arrive to track a target, unlike the Chinese geosynchronous one, which doesn't move. The main issue the US faces in the event of an attack of Taiwan, is how much closer it is to China than to any US base. An F22 doesn't have the range to come from Japan for instance. And the carrier groups probably would have to stay out of the range of the ballistic anti ship missiles of the ZF family. So american help reaching Taiwan would be a challenge. What I find worrying is that the US seems less and less inclined to defend the island while it's investing massively in its own semiconductors to reduce dependecy on Taiwan.
@@filippopotame3579 seems natural to me, Taiwan will never be secure as an independent nation as long as China is still under communist rule. I do believe we can get jets there from Japan and Korea using drop tanks but it is the return that would be interesting. No we would likely have to preemptively strike china’s threats to clear a path in, but it doesn’t change the fact that China can’t land enough troops quick enough to avoid getting their troop carriers sunk. We are in a unique position militarily, no other country can match our capabilities currently, China is trying but their interests are regional so they build ships designed for that purpose, they are showing no signs of trying to build a globally dominating navy. Our greatest advantage in such a fight is that almost all of their recent (last 50 years) battle experience is theoretical. But on the other hand all of our battle experience is with greatly outclassed militaries. Still I’m not concerned, if we (the west) stopped doing business with China they would return to being a third world country within a decade, I really think that should happen
@@cm5838drafting could always solve the man power problem
Not to mention that carriers with ramps are obsolete
You gained a subscription when you did that flat earth bit!!!😅😂😂😂😂
Not afraid because of having simply any understanding of this situation points out infinite flaws in Chinas "navy". Not to mention, China isn't the largest navy, they have the most ships, which isn't how Navy's are measured. They don't even have half the tonnage of the U.S., and how fast they build is irrelevant when it's smaller, inferior, slower, less armed, and lacks any real navy capabilities, can't carry any kind of AWACS platform, etc. China basing it's entire aircraft carrier regiment on a completely failed Kuznetzov heavy cruiser is hilarious and tell about all the story anyone needs to know. Not to mention, China can't even carry it's best aircraft on their "aircraft carriers". None of their ships are nuclear powers, none have blue water capabilities, and the one that is coming out is BARELY getting catapult launchers. and still can't launch and land at the same time like the U.S., and still can't carry the F20's that are too big for any of their ships. No matter how they try to lie to themselves, 20 beats 3.
they also lack any sufficient amount of air tanker planes for air refueling.
Whoa! Blue afterburners?! What were they burning and how efficiently? 😂
That's a lot of upkeep... and China, while famous for building stuff quickly, has not been historically good at keeping things in working order over time... logistics and maintenance is something the US excels above all
It's my understanding that China's most effective land based anti-ship missiles rely on a complex and fairly easy to disrupt "kill-chain".
Quite a good video on Chinese Navy, especially from someone that does not typically focus on China. Well done!
ALL I KNOW IS THAT AMERICA IS A COUNTRY THAT WHEN IT MAKES UP ITS MIND..THERES NO STOPPING IT..JUST GET BIDEN AND HARRIS OUT OF THERE..ONE IS ABOUT TO CROAK..ONE IS TOTALLY CLUELESS HOW TO RUN A COUNTRY😢..YOU CANNOT WIN IF YOU HAVE LEADERS WITH ANTI AMERICAN
VALUES SITTING THERE!!
There’s a reason the US Navy has the second biggest Air Force in the world (only behind the USAF).
By number of aircraft: US Air Force #1, US Army #2, US Navy & Marines #3 😊
Another things that China lacks is Military & Operation Base outside their region. You gotta be able to refuel, resupply, and repair outside of your territory if you wanna operate internationally. But you need allies to achieve it, and that's why they have a quite aggressive international politics.
Yeah it’s one of the reasons that Japan had to attack so many military installations in the South Pacific. China will need to attack and set up a protected supply chain. Something that is incredibly hard to do while waging a massive war
They dont need to, the main objective of chinese navy is protecting their first and second island chain
China has already said many times, they don't wish to take over the world. Their military is built on protecting it's homeland and interests.
Are you going for a record of the most amount of contradiction you can put in a sentence.
4:05 REAL similar 😅
Counting aircraft carriers is one way to determine a navy's strength, but it isn't the be-all to end-all. I believe that submarines would play a more significant role.
Usa far exceeds china in both qaulity and amount of subs
@@billsweeney6864 You don't far exceed them in quantity, just quality.
@@billsweeney6864 China is already developing underwater drones to take subs out. Submarines, tanks, fighter jets, will become obsolete soon. Future wars will be fought with drones and long range missiles. We'll still need foot solders, though.
@@jukio02 US submarines HAVE the capability to take out ANY hostile object launched against it. Hell, they train all the time to blast enemy torpedoes, let alone drones. And you admitted we still need foot soldiers. Unless you want massive casualties, what's a foot soldier without tanks and warplanes to protect him? And as for drones, hell even I can take out a drone with my 12-gauge shotgun and #8 birdshot.
@@jukio02drones😂😂😂
"China has 340 Warships..."
Panik
"... made in China."
Kalm
If China ever decides to drop communism, that would be the real Panik moment.
Type 003, Type 055, YJ-21, etc. These "big toys" are no joke, but many Americans are too proud to admit this fact. If they were jokes, why didn't the 7th fleet cruise the South China Sea every week? Yeah, someone may argue that China "stole" all the technologies, but if they knew the story of non-smoke gunpowder, they would never make such an assertation. Even if China "stole" the techs, why didn't the US or any of its Anglo-Saxon vassal states, e.g. the UK, Australia, and Canada, have the techs and transform them into practical weapons? Oh, it's because the techs were stolen by China, and they didn't have any more.
@@leon_z1201 lame
@@seinnenn proof?
@@leon_z1201 that you're lame? or that china's government is lame? Because I have a mountain of evidence of both and links too sweetheart :)
is it because they aren't afraid of a country that counts a canoe as a warship?
And also has to import half of its oil from the Persian Gulf, a huge strategical bottleneck for China.
@@scottanno8861 They also have very few air refueling planes. Half their military is old soviet tech
@@corners3755 and the other half is knockoff american tech
And whos entire army consists of only children whos families will probably revolt against the government if any meaningful number of young men get killed
yes but can rge chefs cook a good curry chips n with beef
Keep in mind their pilots dont have the same amount of flight hours or past combat experience.
Additionally they don’t have thousands of “retired” pilots who fly other planes who could jump back into a fighter jet and land on a carrier tomorrow. America has the history and culture that would effectively train pilots throughout a war. Just like we did last world war and the Japanese did not
@@nickshelton8423 I very much doubt if most retired pilots could jump back into a modern plane and land on a carrier tomorrow. Sure, quite a few might be able to go on a hasty refresher course and then qualify for the more recent plane, ships and procedures, but it's not "tomorrow". OK, if they retired in the last few years but beyond five years? The chances are much lower, health and fitness will have taken its toll as well as changes in planes, etc. Fly "something", maybe, but not a fighter and not land on a carrier - carrier pilots are considered pretty elite for a good reason.
@@nickshelton8423 exactly
This is why we are developing the most powerful and sophisticated direct energy / laser weapons on earth. Near unlimited ammo for cents per shot.
not really cents considering s single shot would rack up a few thousand dollars worth of electricity bills but definitely cheaper than autocannons
They don't work tho.
Wait, remind me … just how many reliable allies does China have? Wars are not fought without the involvement, directly or indirectly, of other nations. Lines of supply are very vulnerable for the Chinese, particularly the supply of oil.
Correct. If they’re essentially relying on land based allies, like North Korea and Russia (let’s be honest, the Russian Navy’s best days are behind them; I’m pretty sure that the only naval ability the Russians have nowadays is to dive, navy wide, and a quarter sure some of their ships are able to resurface) they’re throwing away the ability to effectively attack while moving, while the US can effectively bomb a military/missile installation from land, air, or sea.
They have pakistan..their iron brother😊
@@honestpetvideos9307 no they don’t 😂
The US Navy is not "afraid" of any country. I'm sure China feels the same. You evaluate your oppenet, look for opportunities then exploit the weakness. Simple.
The lack of ability to operate AEW *planes* is generally overlooked. What was not mentioned here is the fact that an AEW plane uses active radar, which allows its friendly shooters to use passive sensors, and therefore be much harder to detect.
Hot take: carriers won't matter. Subs will. We often see headlines of carries being "sunk" in exercises by subs. Perhaps building islands as stationary "carriers" is the move for a Taiwan invasion.
I don't think that's really much of a hot take. I think its widely accepted the US strategy in a theoretical conflict would rely heavily on US submarines.
It's bizarre all these analysts suggests the US would lose multiple aircraft carriers and dozens of other ships as if the US would just sail them into range of Chinese missiles without any regard for their vulnerabilities.
The US would almost certainly rely on long range aircraft, missile strikes, and submarines, saturating targets and causing havoc in the area until the field is set for closer operations with surface ships.
@@michaelm.3641 missiles outrange US carrier launched aircraft in almost all cases, especially ones carrying ordinace
@@vitsadelhole Missiles also outrange Chinese carrier launched aircraft, did you think of that? And what kind of missiles DO NOT carry ordnance? What are they supposed to carry, diapers??🤣🤣🤣
@@usnavypalawanhunter5737 i was referring to planes and who cares about the Chinese carriers absolutely irrelevant here. You failed to reply intelligently on all fronts therefore i take my leave
Sometimes,its also about the quality
Made in China garantee
The title is misleading because everyone facing that fleet is afraid
Even if they can be defeated but only at a huge cost that include many human lives on both sides
@@Fgway that tooo
Funny how they can put you into prison for swimming with dolphins (as that is not allowed in many places in the US not to bother wild life)
While the navy blows up entire ships for experimenting munition and killing everything in a huge radius
@@Fgway recover what? the ships??
@@angelaferkel7922 they clear the area of sea life before they do that
@@Blue_Doge they tell you that to make yourself feel a bit better and to justify it. Have you ever seen such an explosion? The force is hardly comprehensible and 100% it kills many animals each time
首先中国海军吨位不包括海警船，其次，和阿利伯克级对比的应该是055系列而不是054，其次中国航母上搭载的舰载机目前是大多是重型战斗机，每个都比美国的中型舰载机更大
I wish the US had more ship building yards
If we throught we needed more we'd have more. Our ships are designed to be powerhouse and tanks. This also means they require A LOT of maintenance and upkeep.
Every extra unnecessary super carrier or destroyer adds strain to the system and complicates the Navy's logistics.
And again it's the US freaking Navy they spend every waking minute training and planning to pimp slap anybody who dares step out of line. Combine that with the world wide reach if the US Air force and you done stepped in a pile of shit you're very much going to regret.
At the end of ww2 Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world... but not a single battleship. Tonnage is more important that the number of craft.
if you closely at the jet (9:14) as it lands you can see that the airframe had to be lightened in some areas and reinforced under the cockpit near the front landing gear. this is due to the carrier-launched aircraft needing to haul the pilot's massive steel balls off of and onto the deck
Lol