Why the US is NOT afraid of the largest Navy in the world, yet
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- 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.
How do the Chinese carriers stack up against their American counterparts? What will happen if China invades Taiwan, and why the United States is not afraid of the Chinses aircraft carriers, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
00:00 The World's Largest Navy
02:05 Chinese Three Aircraft Carriers Explained
04:47 How Chinese Carriers Compare to American Supercarriers
07:18 The True Purpose of Chinese Aircraft Carriers
12:45 What Does China Want
15:11 Chinese Carrier Killer Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles
16:12 Why China Built Artificial Islands & Fake Aircraft Carriers in Desert
18:08 Why US Always Looses Two Aircraft Carriers During This Wargame
21:20 China's Increasing Navy Threat
Music:
Great Wall of China - Sight of Wonders
The Bloom of Cherry Blossoms - Sight of Wonders
On the Trail - Tigerblood Jewel
Funky Rock Dawg - Def Lev
What Do You Know - Enigmanic
Thyone - Ben Elson
Covert Affairs - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
Sweet Talk (Instrumental Version) - Tyra Chantey
There Is No Sequel - Philip Ayers
Sights of the Tokyo Tower - Sight of Wonders
Checked In - Jay Varton
Serious Development - Blackout Memories
Pacific Graveyard - Christian Andersen
Particle Emission - Silver Maple
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
Russian Ministry of Defense
People Liberation Army Navy
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Select References:
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe...
news.usni.org/2021/11/07/chin...
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/...
news.usni.org/2022/06/17/chin...
2023 Taiwan Invasion Wargame PDF t.co/WnSfBzQoh8
2022 Report on China to US Congress PDF navyleaguehonolulu.org/mariti...
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
Thanks. Phenomenal as usual. Keep it up.
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.
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
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.
Quality over quantity.
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.
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
Bro China didn't even try to hide the fact they copied the F-35 jet, just look at the J-31 it looks IDENTICAL BRO
Not to mention that carriers with ramps are obsolete
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
Nicely done.
You didn’t count the reserves ships of the US just resting in their ports. Although those are old ones but still very capable battleships.
"never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" Napoleon
This is true for America as well.
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.
I had no idea that the first carrier built in the world was the Langley which was a conversion of the Jupiter and in the year 1922. So difficult thinking that in 1922 we were that advanced. When I think about the 20s I think how the auto industry was barley making cars you had to hand crank just to start.
The first carrier was the Hermes, built in Britain.
Humans have been making boats much longer than automobiles.
The US Navy operates 11 carriers, compared with China's 2, and the US Navy operates 92 destroyers compared to China's roughly 50-destroyer strong fleet. When it comes to what are arguably the most critical Naval war platforms --- carriers and destroyers -- the US Navy retains an extremely significant advantage.
you ignore the china DF-26 hypersonic carrier killer, range of 2000km, they also making a 5000km version.
these Df missile design to keep your AC/destroyer away from battle. they also can be config to attack base.
and currently there is nothing can stop these hypersonic missile.
@@jetli740 except its made in china so it probably doesnt work. china is the worlds gold plated turd. everything is fake.
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.
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.
No need for aircraft carrier when you have unsinkable artificial island
Awesome information 😉😉🌹👍
Managing to read the sentence "just one Jiangnan Changxing Shipyard in Shanghai" without stuttering already deserves a like.
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.
Because of Quality over Quantity
What would do if the enemy lots of drone that cannot detect in the radar
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 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.
Blowing up bootleg battleships sounds pretty fun, good thing they gave us plenty of targets
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.
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
@@PresidentofSecularism2005 These are almost scrapped aircraft carriers decommissioned by other countries. This can only mean one thing, if even the Indians can do it, the Chinese can definitely do it.
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.
Just a thought but for defense of carrier groups either drone submarines with the ability to fire missiles or drone boats with anti air capabilities plenty of problems with that idea mainly loiter time when using a traditional fuel source but during wartime a swarm of small anti missile drones could be effective of course it’s a matter of logistics which Russia has shown is a huge concern.
There are also reports of quality control issues. from the lack of quality of the steel in the hulls, the welds, and electronics.
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.
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
6:40 made me chuckle
The outline of a aircraft carrier could also be for training of landing aircraft!
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
Love your videos. Your "flat earthers" comment slayed me!
"Have 300 warships ever been built for war, without war?" -Cleopatra (movie)
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.
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
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".
That flat earthed joke is hilarious
Nah, it fell flat.
@@The13thRonin w reply
Flat-earthers from around the world hated it.
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."
Quality over quantity
Quality, matters not no of ships. It is the men & brain behind the ships that makes the difference. Jai Hind🇮🇳
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 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.
Largest in terms of number of ships but most of are smaller classes of ships unlike the US navy, a true blue water navy with global reach and power projection capbilities.
Aircraft are increasingly capable in weaponry and speed to deliver accurate and effective responses. Ships can be attacked by drones and hypersonic weapons now so a ground based system could easily detect and destroy the enemy.
Never underestimate your enemy. _"There’s no greater danger than underestimating your enemy."_ *Lao Tzu* and _"Know the enemy and know yourself in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."_ *Sun Tzu*
Please do a video on the nuclear risks associated with sinking of nuclear-powered vessels, especially aircraft carriers. There aren't any videos on this topic that I can find.
6:40 good one.
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
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.
@@user-sx2we1xe5q 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.
Is not the quantity its the quality
Cool fishing boats mate
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.
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。
In a war where your carriers in waters located near your mainland, and the enemy has a string of islands that surround you, carriers will not be that meaningful.
Similarly, it's not necessarily the case that tonnage is all that meaningful. If you ship is sunk by anti-ship missiles, it is sunk.
Half their so-called ships are the size of our USCG cutters. And their carriers are old diesel models without the ability to effectively launch planes much less land them.
"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.
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.
At 22.13, why is the (Chinese I assume) ship carrying both the American and Chinese flags?
Quality is better than quantity
Having bigger ships is a downside when you got a opponent that will spam you with hypersonics from multiple sources (those being the smaller ship).
Which consists of mostly frigates and destroyers, I doubt they can launch a hypersonic.
@@anthonyscott1997 mig 31 is 22½m long and can carry a khinzal which is basically an hypersonic Iskander adapted for planes.
There will be ship-launched hypersonic missiles.
@@flickingbollocks5542 I don't wanna be there to verify
@@anthonyscott1997 You'd be fine if you were. US has been shooting down 'invulnerable hypersonics' with 20 year old weapon systems. We're good. Drones are going to be a far bigger threat.
Edit: I should have said US trained UKRAINIANS have been using 20 year old US weapon systems. Hypersonics appear to be a scare the media weapon and not actually effective.
A lot of the PLAN's ships are stuff like coastguard ships, that just aren't capable of launching missiles.
Plus. Hypersonics aren't the end all be all/undefeatable. Definetly not when going up against the combined air defense of a carrier battle group
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.
"Remains to be seen"... it all remains to be seen. The fact is we have no idea how well either the Chinese navy or American navy will perform under actual fire. There hasn't been a major naval battle of significance in decades so every point of data being used in simulations is guesswork or based on controlled tests.
War games and simulations predicted Ukraine would be in Russian hands years ago and the fight would now be between NATO and Russia over Poland or another nation in that area. Yet here we are. Why? Because war games and simulations are math problems, and wars are not.
The American Navy is constantly evolving in technilogical and weapons innovations as well realistic training. That's what keeps the US Navy ahead of the Chinese and Russian Navies.
One of the US's best military strategies is to TELL YOU that we're working on a magical mystery weapon... show you a few photos... and then watch you spend billions of dollars trying to duplicate it or defeat it... when you've never seen that system in reality. It's GENIUS!
We do this all the time. And we trot out magical mystery weapons that actually exist and work just often enough that our opponents can't afford NOT TO try and match our crazy stuff! (Think all the Stealth fighters and bombers for an example. Precision guided missiles for another example.)
We showed the world hypersonic weapons decades ago. Then the DoD decided they weren't really all that useful since a defender can shoot them down and we stopped working on them. But China and Russia have been bragging FOR YEARS about their amazing hypersonic missiles. And this year the Ukrainians have been shooting down brand new Russian Kinzhals' using 20 year old PATRIOT missile batteries! They're fast, our enemies spent BILLIONS developing them, and they're not very useful in the real world. Like I said, GENIUS!
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.
Amazingly informative video as per usual NWYT! The war games were especially interesting
2:30 idk what crazier the fact they thought we would believe it or fact they actually turned one into a theme park
They also include a lot of random ships in their numbers. That, and the fact that most of their equipment is either repurposed equipment or stolen designs means there's already a counter for a lot of it.
Also, did anyone else notice how robotic their sailors look when waving? Honestly the funniest thing I've seen today, though I don't know why. Like, when I got underway in full dress we weren't exactly happy to leaving our family, but most people agree that a ship and its crew belong at sea, but not the way you might think. We get so many opportunities to see parts for the world you don't usually get to see (unless you get unlucky, then it kinda sucks) It's also the only time where you spend most of your day doing the job you joined to do, and life is just simpler on the water.
Training only in fair weather, only during the day and without arms equipped is a good recipe for failure when they actually get put to the ultimate test.
Great video! Nice comparison, never thought about the Chinese weaknesses that you’ve mentioned. USA ROCKS!
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
Not worried. But i am curious though about how its built. I mean seeing how buildings they build that are substandard and incomplete (Tofu dreg) to dams etc . Well you get what i mean .
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
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.
I’d be more afraid of of the hypersonic missiles since there is not counter defense with that yet.
It's not the quantity. But the quality in question .
Love your videos!! Keep up with the great work!!!!
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.
A C-17 carrying pallets of rapid dragon systems and LRASM missiles should make anyone on a ship nervous. It does me.
Chinese Navy: *starts ship
Ship: *The Bluetooth device is connected successfully
Its Main VLS needed a Bluetooth
"The Bluetooth Device, is connected-uh successfully"
😂
😂
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.
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
0:04 So many the Orville cosplayers :D
They do not have the world's largest Navy. It's only because we don't classify every single tiny vessel as a ship. When you figure out the tonnage of those ships you quickly realize exactly how outmatched the Chinese Navy is
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.
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
Maximum pucker factor. 👀
11:13