Useless countries, America, NATO Europe, England, France, Japan, South Korea, and their allies, especially America, what's the point of being a country with military status and the world's number one economy, but unable to help world peace and stability, America, NATO and its allies only defend Israel and Ukraine which are under their auspices, do they defend and participate in reconciling Palestine, and of course Russia does not because it is not their group, in essence America, Nato and its allies are only for power and their group is not to defend all countries for the sake of world stability,😢😢 
You are partly wrong the first Aircraft carrier the CCP got was a British made Australian decommissioned one in 1985 that they were sold to scrap but spent years doing research on it before scrapping.
A British engineer by the name of C.C.Mitchell invented the steam catapult, for the Royal Navy in 1950 and the British shared this technology with the U.S. Navy.
First it takes hours for boilers to get the ship under way. Plus the Chinese cannot figure out how to get any catapult system to work. They built long sheds to cover the catapult system because they are too embarrassed. While American carriers have special rooms for coordinating take offs and landings the Chinese did not know what the rooms on the old Russian carrier were for so they made snack shops out of them.
@@i24uforever You can visualise them firing the catapult and the ship slowing down whilst the laundry shuts down altogether. “Villy shorwy, no steamed lice, we making birds go fly”! 😳
The US also added a 500KW defensive laser to the Ford carrier about 6 months ago, and they have quietly been using it in the Middle East, reportedly to a high degree of success.
@@niniv2706 Pay no attention to that nonsense. When it comes time to actually fight, the USN will deliver and drop that nonsense instantly. Nobody is going to give a shit about pronouns when the big dance begins and the metal hits the meat.
It isn't usable apart from fighting rebels china and india has it since 26 around years and it isn't as such useful apart from space missions and on small drones
we couldn’t win a fight against flip flop wearing Talibans after 20 years , and you’re talking about aircraft carriers and pilots ? Y’all need to wake up, and get your heads out of your asses
To be fair, one reason that this isn't a major issue is that China's carriers only operate in their own backyard compared to American carriers which often operate on the opposite of the planet, far away from home.
@@littleboy3459 China doesn't have a true Bluewater Navy, and they won't until they become proficient in Under Way Replenishment [UNREP] and have the necessary fleets of Oilers to deliver aviation fuel and lubricants and Supply Ships to deliver all the other items that need to be replenished on a regular basis such as foodstuffs, ordinance, and spare parts. Until the Chi-Coms develop these capabilities their Navy is limited to short ranges and not straying too far from their home-ports. In addition, since they have non-nuclear power plants they have to deliver large quantities of whatever grade of oil those ships boilers require in order to make steam for ships power. It requires an entire fleet of these ships to keep one carrier task force supplied at sea, plus the Logistical Capabilities to have all needed supplies available to reload these supply vessels as quickly as possible then dispatch them to wherever the task force will be when the supplies are delivered. This has to happen in an unbroken chain of resupply in order to keep the carrier operational. This is something the US has been doing as a matter of routine since the days of WWII.
Nah! The one who proved that aircraft were effective against ships was US Army Air Corps Col. William "Billy" Mitchell when he sank captured World War 1 German Kaiserliche Marine dreadnought Ostfriesland on July 20, 1921 using two Handley-Page O/400 and six Martin NBS-1 bombers loaded with 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs!
Billy Mitchell was a genius and because of his foresight he as you said showed how battleships could be sunk,unfortunately he was hated by alot of people, jealousy. One of America's greatest innovators.Oh he also said that Japan will be our enemy long before Pearl,this guy had such vision, anyway take care regards Scott.
The U.S. did not "perfect" carriers. The British were far smarter and built their carrier decks with metal. U.S. decks were wood and extremely vulnerable to catching fire and being penetrated by bombs. We lost carriers and personnel stupidly.
IMHO the biggest factor is the crew & training. Do we have any knowledge of China's damage control? When bullets are flying and damage eventually happens. Who can repair and become operational the fastest will win.
Exactly this. The U.S.'s incomparable experience, gained over a century of running carrier and combat ops, gives the U.S. a huge advantage which China won't be able to overcome anytime soon.
That boils down to the quality and training of all your people onboard the ship not just pilots. If you have lots of pilots but no serviceable aircraft or ship, pilots have to twiddle their thumbs 👍👍👍
The steam catapult was invented by Scottish mechanical engineer and Royal Navy Commander Colin Campbell Mitchell (1904-1969). Mitchell realized that the ship's steam could be used to drive the piston of a direct-acting catapult.
Yes, the video literally states that. And how the US adopted it and perfected it and made it more advanced. The Gerald R Ford Supercarrier uses electromagnetic propulsion now, instead of steam based.
That's right because all their equipment looks like ours because they copy us. Because we spill the beans on social media like this and give enough data to design and build one. If social media wasn't spilling the beans all the time we wouldn't have a problem
@@MakerBoyOldBoy Mind you China is NOT Russia. Look at more and more things now made in China US can not copy nor compete. If not true, then why the high import tariffs for goods made in China?
Carriers are very complex ships 🛳️ there is a reason why no other country has a carrier even close to a Nimitz class. The French carrier are the ones that are the most close to the USA but Russia and China still have solid options are they better no way but they would still put up a good fight.
@@sih9696 ngl the high tariffs are for economic war plus many nations are already eating up chinas market ( for example india mexico and vietnam all being American allies) so after the fall of Chinese trade Chinese economy will probably take a hit. Especially when china economy mainly relies on weak infrastructure project ( 30% - 40% of Chinese economy is funded by infrastructure project which has caused a large property bubble which can pop anytime so I don't expect Chinese military or economy to do well. One of the few examples being Apple switching productionof iphones from china to india And clothes and other fabric products used by west produced entirelyin Bangladesh( I might be wrong and if I am you have all rights to correct me)
You also need a whole fleet of ships with sub systems to operate effectively as a team . Think of the Abrams tank it needs about 18 different types of support to make it effective now think of how much support a carrier needs to operate.
Pretty much you need a whole ass fleet protecting them or else you lost them but important you need personal that knows what the fuck they are doing which the usa has many forget its not just build build build more ships in mass you need a crew that can support them and make them operational this is not a videogame where you quote your shits and they are operational out of the factory if you do your need for your navy here you need people to make them efective
@@voidtempering8700 personally i seen how many times they fail to impress until acting is taken you cant really tell how strong they are see russia pre war you would have belived they were strong the war comes and all the curtin fall china csn be same example having a group of people dont mean you are capable only way is to train them and also have some hands in come real combat pn thing is training other when you lunch into the conflict a high tensen situacion which only demonstraded if you are for the job or simply not
And also.....what to do when they breakdown. Troubleshooting and fixing things aboard an aircraft carrier is going to be a major problem for the Chinese.
The mere copying of systems, which China has done for decades does not teach them, or not quite, how things are they way they are and why. A bit of a problem when you're in the middle of a shooting war and stuff breaks down.
you wrong in 1 thing, especially about the boilers ... nuclear powerd ships are also nothing more than boiler based ships. its all about heating water for turning things - which may produce electricity
I mean US perfected the carrier for 100 years, and the Chinese manage to do half of what the US carrier did in 20 years. Isn't that more concerning?, underestimating your opponents is the most dangerous thing to do here.
The PLA Navy is ignorant of what it takes to wage large scale naval warfare. Especially the utilization of carrier aircraft. As far as mimicking American carrier construction, they might have copied the basic design, but not the technology. Nor can the PLA Navy mimic the century of expertise and seamanship the US Navy posesses in operating a carrier. Especially in combat.
i dont think china isnt ignorant about large scale naval warfare as noboduy hasnt done such sunce 1945 or after so i would say everybody is ignorant abpout large scale modern naval warfare us included but i do have say they have more expereince using aircrfaft carriers than china
@@no-nonseplayer6612tell me don't know anything about american naval doctrine and world economics without saying you know nothing about American naval doctrine and world economics
How is it ignorant for actually building and utilizing all this modern technology? If expertise means having nothing in case you start war, then it didn't want to be your expert.
Aside from the flight deck improvements, the Fujin is essentially comparable to a Kittyhawk-class vessel in terms of deployment and operational capability.
I was on the Independence and Kitty Hawk. Both would have put the Chinese carrier in Davey Jones locker before lunch. Our planes and pilots are far better.
The key difference between the two country's carriers is the crew. US Navy crews can conduct war time flight ops with no problems. And that's with the full compliment of their aircraft. The chinese can only dream about that & they have half the aircraft that US Navy carriers operate with. It's not going to be a "fair fight" if they decide to take us on. But then that's what war is ll about. Never fight above your weight class
Oh really! it's the US that will try to take China on by attempting to install missile systems on Taiwan and starting a conflict. About US navy crews, sure they have experience. But that experience does not stack up like directly proportional to time like an exponential function, there is ONLY SO MUCH experience to be learned and it only takes a few generations of crewman to master the technique and skill, and this negates your claim about the US's superior experience in the usage of aircraft carriers as well as carrier based fighter training. Meaning instead of an exponential graph, you would have a logistic graph because the amount of experience tops off at a certain level, and that level is NOT that high on god. Just like other ppl's claims about the India's superior carrier usage experience, but in reality it only takes two or three generations of fighter pilots and navy crewman to learn all(100.000%) the tips and tricks on how to operate the aircraft carrier. So if it takes the US navy to learn something that takes China half to a third the time to learn, then it would only mean one thing. Operating an aircraft carrier with order of command and training the crew to be proficient and mastering the different skills and drills in case of an emergency does NOT take decades jesus christ, in other words saying that because the US has operated in many wars before therefore they have ABSOLUTE advantage in experience hours is a completely false claim. Fighter pilots are the same thing, it's not like the older the pilots get and the more flight hours they have the more tricks they will learn... FALSE! Go ahead and monitor a supposed "low" flying experience fighter pilot and a "high" experience fighter pilot and see how many errors each one's gonna make and how many tricks each one can do and how applicable they are. On god you won't find anything different. I feel like most people just think that US pilots are all like Maverick and chinese pilots are all little newbies like what??? BVR missiles I bet Maverick(tom cruise) can do no shit about it. Pilots that have flown way more times can make the same errors as pilots that have flown way less times. And...the Chinese aren't the ones who are dreaming because in reality in a Taiwan conflict the US Navy aren't going to face the Chinese navy but the DF-17, DF-26, and DF-21D anti ship ballistic missiles(and quite possibly the 055 with the YJ-21s). And now the US is trying to fight someone way above its weight class.
Both nuclear and oil fired ships require water boilers. The difference is the heat source. The Ford boilers would need replacing before it needs refuelling.
China can’t replicate the institutional knowledge of the crew of the US Navy ships. It took me years to become an expert on all the things I needed to know for my rate.
The British invented the steam catapults for aircraft carriers, not the U.S. Also we learned a lot from the British about aircraft carriers during WW2. They gave us the backbone of design and operation.
@@merrick6484 The CCP will SAY they mastered aircraft carrier operations but there will be a slight difference between what is said and what reality is...have you seen their tanks? Road wheels falling off and all that. The Chinese government is all about appearance, substance is a distant second to how it looks on the world stage. To underestimate China would be foolhardy at best but to see them they want the world to see them is just as stupid.
@@pimpalamac3411 next you'll be telling me that their highspeed trains and space station are plastic. Sounds like you like drinking via propaganda cool aid
@@VIAGRA465 they just kick our asses in sharp shooting olympics and alot of other major sports . That was almost un heard of 20 years ago. These people know how to learn and adapt lol
@@trustandbelieve9173 China also maintains camps forcing children into training in those events. Also forgot how mention China has been called out for doping... again.
How in the world did the author even include Taiwan as a potential refueling port for the Chinese navy? Can a Russian naval ship refuel in the U.S.? For these scenarios to pan out, Taiwan has to become a Chinese ally, and the U.S. becomes a Russian ally first!
@@Tumujun In this case, it's more appropriate to call it that China has taken over Taiwan rather than reunify since the government on Taiwan existed first and also ruled China. The Chinese Communists are actually the renegade. It's like the U.S. used to be under Britain and then split off, ie. the U.S. is the renegade. If the U.S. ever expands to include Britain, it won't be reunify but take over. Unfortunately, since China has been claiming reunification for 7 decades now, the world has become accustomed to this claim.
The first Navy to use a ship for planes to take off was the British Navy on the HMS Hermes. The first custom built aircraft carrier was by the Japanese Navy and the and Hosho in 1920. Japan created the modern aircraft carrier which has been perfected by the USA, UK, France and even Italy.
You missed the Ford’s ability to be future proof with regards to electricity output needed for tomorrow’s technology. This ability to fully support the electrical needs of not only today but into its full life cycle is immeasurable.
It’s hard to predict how much power future systems that haven’t been implemented will take up, but it is a good idea to have a power surplus to at least try
@@icarossavvides2641 stay in your lane if you don’t understand what’s going on. Pretending to be smart gets you nowhere, and I’m not in the mood to teach someone who can’t understand.
@@IM-lr6vz modern electronics, especially hundreds of thousands all being powered by one source, is very taxing. Some ships can’t operate the more modern equipment because their power plants can’t support the power draw.
Fujian is NOT a supercarrier like Ford or Nimitz. Sure it’s large but it only has 3 catapults compared to 4 on either Ford or Nimitz. And NO portside elevator, meaning aircraft will have to cross the deck to get to the portside catapult which is time consuming. Total of only 2 elevators unlike 4 on Nimitz which again consumes more time transferring aircraft and munitions between flight deck and hanger. So YES Fujian is slower in terms of sortie rate. It even has less power than the older non-nuclear powered Kitty Hawk class. On shaft horsepower alone Kitty Hawk has almost twice. On the other hand J-15 is the largest naval fighter aircraft. So by footprint for every 2 J-15, 3 F-18E/F can be carried instead; or for every 3 J-15s, an equivalent of 5 F-18C/D or F-35C can be carried. Ergo the total number of aircraft carried are NOT the same like a Ford or Nimitz supercarrier. Not to mention boilers especially its fuel take up a huge amount of space than diesel/gas turbines or nuclear so Type 003 will only be able to carry around 40 aircraft like the older Type 001 and Type 002. Consequently it’s more comparable to a QE class carrier as both are similarly matched in the number of aircraft both can carry. Though QE has a more efficient propulsion. So in terms of capabilities Fujian like QE sits in between a small “lightning” carrier and a Ford or Nimitz class supercarrier. NONETHELESS kudos to the Chinese. Outside USN supercarriers if they can make Type 003 operational it will be the 2nd best CATOBAR carrier.
Kitty Hawk was considered a super carrier . It's not propulsion isn't what makes a supercarrier nor is it the number of cats . How many planes it can operate and deck size are the deciding factors . The first 8 U.S. super carriers were conventional powered . Now they all did have 4 cats and could carry around 87 planes during the cold war and the Enterprise and Nimitz class were built to conform to that standard so is the Ford for that matter tho day to day air wings are only about 65 today
@@rbtsubs Nimitz can carry 130 F/A-18s at maximum otherwise its 85 - 90 for different types of aircraft. But typical loadout is around 65. Likely the same for Ford. Cats and elevs are important as they can directly impact flight deck operations. Ford showed this that despite having 1 less aircraft elevator it has better sortie rate as it has twice the small munition elevs. Also it's NOT the propulsion itself BUT the power more especially the shaft horsepower it can provide is what is important as this can affect a carrier's manueverability specifically its turning radius.
@@Hanlanhill That is assuming J-35 is as big as F-35. But China would still have to go nuclear for a smaller footprint as their is no need to carry fuel for the ship and NO J-15s only J-35s to match the total aircraft carried by either Ford or Nimitz.
Even the Liaoning and Shandong carriers already had better radars, runways (angled and longer), ramps, and AA defenses than the QE class that needs smaller STOVL planes with smaller radars and missiles for your false equivalence with the Fujian just because of aircraft numbers. Try to stick to the topic of carriers instead of optional aircraft.
All wars are started and kept going by the super rich!!! There's no way that Vietnam could stand against America if they let the American military go all out!! The super rich would only allow them to put in enough military to keep the war going and never enough to win it!!! Just look up how much military equipment we produced in WW2!!! We had over 90 carrier's at the end of the war!!! Watch the documentary called, JFK to 9/11 everything is a rich man's trick. It's on RUclips and you'll see just how evil and low the people who actually runs the world are!!! The so called royals also!!!
Anyone ever wondered why US aircraft carriers tend to be named after important political figures like Ronald Reagan, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, while China's are all named after Chinese provinces like Liaoning, Shandong and Fujian? My theory for this is that the Chinese government has a very fragile image to maintain at all costs, because perception of legitimacy is everything to an authoritarian government. If an aircraft carrier were to be named after an important political figure like Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping or Xinnie the Pooh, and it were to be sunk in combat or by some mishap, the catastrophic political fallout that would likely ensue might just cause the CCP to collapse. Whereas with the US aircraft carriers, I think the Americans tend to see it as a symbol of their military might and national pride. If one of them were to be sunk by a hostile foreign power, it would rile up the kind of anger and "terrible resolve" in the American population that we've not seen since the attack on Pearl Harbour.
I served on CVN - 71 the Theodore Roosevelt. It is 38 years old and still so WAY more advanced than anything CHINA has in the water. The Ford is even more advanced than the Teddy Ruxpin and the Nimitz class carriers i can’t imagine the havoc it could wreak on the Chinese.
Don't be over confident. The Chinese learned from the problems and mistakes made during the development of the US carrier system. Do you think they will not do anything to improve? Just look at their latest space station.
At 0:55 this implies the first ever aircraft carrier was the USS Langley. It was not, Brits got there several years earlier. Also, the Brits were the first to utilize a steam catapult on a carrier. "murica SMH.
The Brits were underestimated when the next door door neighbour invaded the Falklands. The rest, as they say, is history 👍👍 They also used a little aircraft which was dismissed as a gimmick. The splat marks on West Falkland showed what that insignificant toy could do 👍👍👍👍 Shades of Horatio Nelson perchance?
Langley was the first US carrier, but either the Brits or the Japanese built the first "built to be a carrier" carrier ever. One started sooner, the other achieved operational status sooner despite starting construction later. US first such ship was CV-4 Ranger, years later.
What you fail to see is that China doesn't depend on Aircraft carriers in battle they are there for a specific reason, where as the USA depends on the Aircraft carriers and it's contents for everything????
I was a operation specialist on my carrier the John c stennis, My main job is to make sure to operation picture which everybody use for combat is clean and up-to-date with all the contacts with information. God it was so annoying, when a Hawkeye drops a shitload of information on you.
The Japanese have more carrier experience than the Chinese. Think about that. Can anybody name a country with at least one aircraft carrier who has less experience than China? For those of you touting China’s hypersonics and the US “lack, thereof” …the US completed successful testing of the hypersonic AGM-183A recently and “shelved” the project. Apparently the DOD decided to move forward with the smaller and cheaper hypersonic Mako, a missile that can (already developed, being used) fit in the weapons bay of a 5th gen fighter. The makos are also much cheaper per unit than the AGM-183A. Makes sense. By the way, the 2 British aircraft carriers are both better than anything China has. And Britain has experience!
Steel ships have been built on the James River for the last 160 years. Between that and over a century of CV operations and development, no one else even comes close.
Other countries are starting to realize how unbelievably complex Aircraft carriers are to not only build but also MAINTAIN and how well trained every crew-member needs to be. As in the video, the US has perfected the art of aircraft carriers so much so that we make it seem easy. When in reality it’s a logistical nightmare that not even Freddy Krueger were dare enter.
The two carriers don’t look a like, the F22 & F35 and the J20 also don’t have any resemblance. The J20 is delta shaped with front canards. I don’t get why Americans are always saying they look a like.
To be honest i think its pure jealousy. While the US is worried about pronouns and inclusivity. The chinese are perfecting anything they create including war machines. I will give them another 10 years or so they will have about 5-7 modern nuclear aircraft carriers
The Chinese first step was to buy the HMAS MELBOURNE (R21) in 1982. The purchase was officially labelled “scrap” but the Chinese reverse engineered everything they were interested in, especially the catapult system.
High-tech controlled Choppers 25 miles (ca. 40 km) from the main navel fleet equipped with lasers and artillery will be able to intercept enemy attacks, alert the fleet of subs long before the fleet has to actually engage in combat. 8/1/24
China J-20 Fighter is not based off of the F-35 rather the Russian Mig 1.44 which was intended to hunt the SR-71. It doesnt have a gun and is likely an interceptor just like the 1.44 for territorial disputes against neighboring countries.
The Americans have been building aircraft carriers for a 100 years china has a couple of soviet era crap ones and this is yhere first attempt terrible it takes 3.4 km to turn the usa one takes 500 metres 😂😂😂😂😂
Considering it's closer to the Forestal or Kitty Hawk than the Ford, 3.4 km isn't bad - at speed. And to be fair, the Ford doesn't even THINK about turning in 500 meters AT ANY SIGNIFICANT SPEED.
Imagine a fake product not lasting as long as an original one. And you're gonna use it to risk hundreds maybe thousands of lives. Poor Chinese navy personnel.
The US Navy had DECADES of aircraft carrier development. The US has better engineering, and it took YEARS to perfect the FORD's EMLS. The Chinese thinking that they can go from a ramp carrier, to EMLS launch systems, while skipping steam catapults was UNREALISTIC. Military decision made by a party member from the propaganda department. The Fujian was a waste of money. Steam systems require a lot more room. In 10-15 years, they MIGHT steal enough info to get it to work.
There is no match to the US for carrier ops hands down. Experience over time. The crews. Training, etc. It cannot be matched. Why do you think we built 10+ at once despite the extraordinary cost?
English can argue the point, and the Japanese might still have the institutional memory to do so. French - sort of, NO war experience. We did NOT build 10+ at once, having that many in OPERATION took DECADES of work.
If the Ukraine war teaches us anything, American Military equipment is highly overrated. Abrams tanks were easily destroyed by Iranian and Russian drones. American Himars were easily jammed, targeted and destroyed by Russian Electronic warfare. Excalibur Artillery was useful for a week or 2 until Russians learned to jammed and render the system useless. American Atacms missiles are now easily targeted, jammed, and destroyed by Russian forces. Patriot missile systems are just overwhelmed by Russian drones and missiles. Every time the Western media and governments gives some "wonder" weapon to Ukraine claiming it will swing the war in Ukraine's favor, the Russians quickly figure out a counter measure within a few days and the Weapon system is rendered useless. The most scary thing is, everyone knows the Russians are selling all this captured technology to the Chinese and teaching them everything they know about how to counter NATO weapon systems. The American navy is soo bad that they can't even stop the poor Houthi rebels in Yemen from enforcing a naval blockade against Israel. The Navy don't even dare sail close to Yemen now that the Houthis have drones and missiles provided by Iran. These big expensive ships might allow you to bully 3rd world countries but they really don't mean much against a technologically sophisticated enemy who has some brains. Just a waste of Tax dollars now.
this ain’t no 1922 , and we were naval power back in 1945 , a lot has changed since , there was no any serious use of our navy since … aircraft carriers are old technology, dinosaurs, it would take only one Chinese hypersonic missile to send the whole aircraft carrier, with all 70 aircrafts to the bottom of the sea … and as far as China copying our aircraft carriers, I don’t know , how many different shapes or types of aircraft carriers can there be ? pretty dumb video if you ask me
Not a bad video. A few minor errors. The cats provide speed, not lift. A few odd foreign clips that were supposedly American. Also, the Fujian has a 3.4 +/- kilometer turning radius versus the Ford's 1/5 kilometer turning radius. The Fujian, being diesel powered has only enough to move it's sorry ass through the water OR launch aircraft. It cannot generate enough power to do both simultaneously. Being diesel powered it is easy to spot due to the black smoke it has been emanating when under way which gives away its position and makes it an easy target. Tofu dreg construction at its best!
I wonder how can a country be proud of their military when they just showoff and copy their enemies and many of their equipements are either fake,copied,not working,old etc last time i took a look at the PLA soldiers they looked so skinny to the point it was pitiful give them some food jesus😂😂😂...
China has endeared itself with money and flattery to certain politicians who believe that China is not interested in owning America with its resources and record-holding several ocean ports for ships. We have a coastline from Maine all the way around to Alaska. There is no nation like ours. Russia, China, or Islam seeth in covetness toward our assets and global wealth. We are also currently the dominant military power, indicating that siding with China has weakened us for decades.
One would think that if you take out the ramp on the Fujian, or any part of the deck, she's done, and the island, take out the island and it's lights out.
💥Вownload War Thunder for FREE and get your bonus! ► Use my link - playwt.link/beyondfacts #ad
Useless countries, America, NATO Europe, England, France, Japan, South Korea, and their allies, especially America, what's the point of being a country with military status and the world's number one economy, but unable to help world peace and stability, America, NATO and its allies only defend Israel and Ukraine which are under their auspices, do they defend and participate in reconciling Palestine, and of course Russia does not because it is not their group, in essence America, Nato and its allies are only for power and their group is not to defend all countries for the sake of world stability,😢😢

You are partly wrong the first Aircraft carrier the CCP got was a British made Australian decommissioned one in 1985 that they were sold to scrap but spent years doing research on it before scrapping.
Floating Junk
Self delusion. Western gang has reduced to produce junk content sooth their failure.
8ií99999o9l
A British engineer by the name of C.C.Mitchell invented the steam catapult, for the Royal Navy in 1950 and the British shared this technology with the U.S. Navy.
the video said it was a British invention 2:11
Here comes the Temu fleet!
Buy a whole fleet for $25
SS Tofu Dregs?
It makes sense we say buy America but but temu
😂
We maika freet reer goo. Yu no fuck wit a freet o re brow yu so rong an haad
Catapults do not add ‘lift’ to an aircraft, they add SPEED! The speed provides lift!
Sigh.
First it takes hours for boilers to get the ship under way. Plus the Chinese cannot figure out how to get any catapult system to work. They built long sheds to cover the catapult system because they are too embarrassed. While American carriers have special rooms for coordinating take offs and landings the Chinese did not know what the rooms on the old Russian carrier were for so they made snack shops out of them.
@@i24uforever 😂😂👍
@@i24uforever You can visualise them firing the catapult and the ship slowing down whilst the laundry shuts down altogether.
“Villy shorwy, no steamed lice, we making birds go fly”! 😳
Well said.. 🎉
😂😅😂@@i24uforever
The US also added a 500KW defensive laser to the Ford carrier about 6 months ago, and they have quietly been using it in the Middle East, reportedly to a high degree of success.
US Navy uses neo pronouns too ...
@@niniv2706 Pay no attention to that nonsense. When it comes time to actually fight, the USN will deliver and drop that nonsense instantly. Nobody is going to give a shit about pronouns when the big dance begins and the metal hits the meat.
It isn't usable apart from fighting rebels china and india has it since 26 around years and it isn't as such useful apart from space missions and on small drones
@@282XVL - I hope you are correct ... I do . Later 282
Top
The fujian is not even as good as a Nimitz class carrier hands down. But the biggest difference is quality of pilots.
China has pilots? Since when?
@@steveforbes7718 😂 never
@@steveforbes7718lmao
yes, those drug addict is best pilots in the world
we couldn’t win a fight against flip flop wearing Talibans after 20 years , and you’re talking about aircraft carriers and pilots ? Y’all need to wake up, and get your heads out of your asses
They overlooked one of the most important American advantages. With nuclear, you can carry twice as much as much jet fuel as a conventional carrier.
But where is this ship sailing? Does china need a nuclear-powered carrier? Afterall its support fleet are all conventionally powered too.
China's carriers are built to patrol Chinese territories only, why the need for nuclear power?
To be fair, one reason that this isn't a major issue is that China's carriers only operate in their own backyard compared to American carriers which often operate on the opposite of the planet, far away from home.
@@littleboy3459 China doesn't have a true Bluewater Navy, and they won't until they become proficient in Under Way Replenishment [UNREP] and have the necessary fleets of Oilers to deliver aviation fuel and lubricants and Supply Ships to deliver all the other items that need to be replenished on a regular basis such as foodstuffs, ordinance, and spare parts.
Until the Chi-Coms develop these capabilities their Navy is limited to short ranges and not straying too far from their home-ports. In addition, since they have non-nuclear power plants they have to deliver large quantities of whatever grade of oil those ships boilers require in order to make steam for ships power.
It requires an entire fleet of these ships to keep one carrier task force supplied at sea, plus the Logistical Capabilities to have all needed supplies available to reload these supply vessels as quickly as possible then dispatch them to wherever the task force will be when the supplies are delivered. This has to happen in an unbroken chain of resupply in order to keep the carrier operational. This is something the US has been doing as a matter of routine since the days of WWII.
@@KingArthur13thTo be fair China would love to have the capability to project their power around the globe but they can't.
Nah! The one who proved that aircraft were effective against ships was US Army Air Corps Col. William "Billy" Mitchell when he sank captured World War 1 German Kaiserliche Marine dreadnought Ostfriesland on July 20, 1921 using two Handley-Page O/400 and six Martin NBS-1 bombers loaded with 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs!
Billy Mitchell was a genius and because of his foresight he as you said showed how battleships could be sunk,unfortunately he was hated by alot of people, jealousy. One of America's greatest innovators.Oh he also said that Japan will be our enemy long before Pearl,this guy had such vision, anyway take care regards Scott.
And he got drummed out of the military for being right. "Go figure."
The U.S. did not "perfect" carriers. The British were far smarter and built their carrier decks with metal. U.S. decks were wood and extremely vulnerable to catching fire and being penetrated by bombs. We lost carriers and personnel stupidly.
@@MakerBoyOldBoyuuuummmm....then why do they come to/get help and use the US techniques when manufacturing their own carriers?
About 100 years ago.
This is like a Fiero with a Ferrari body kit on it.
What's this?
Lol
Fiero was pretty cool especially the V6 version.😂
Like a Ford pinto made of highly flammable materials with a Ferrari body kit on it.
@johndoe8785 That makes no sense whatsoever.
IMHO the biggest factor is the crew & training. Do we have any knowledge of China's damage control? When bullets are flying and damage eventually happens. Who can repair and become operational the fastest will win.
Exactly this. The U.S.'s incomparable experience, gained over a century of running carrier and combat ops, gives the U.S. a huge advantage which China won't be able to overcome anytime soon.
Which is why we need to maintain that excellence and integrity not with DEI crap!
They actually can shipbuild, shipbreak, and recycle more than you.
@@tritium1998dingy quality too 👍🏽
That boils down to the quality and training of all your people onboard the ship not just pilots. If you have lots of pilots but no serviceable aircraft or ship, pilots have to twiddle their thumbs 👍👍👍
The steam catapult was invented by Scottish mechanical engineer and Royal Navy Commander Colin Campbell Mitchell (1904-1969). Mitchell realized that the ship's steam could be used to drive the piston of a direct-acting catapult.
Yes, the video literally states that. And how the US adopted it and perfected it and made it more advanced. The Gerald R Ford Supercarrier uses electromagnetic propulsion now, instead of steam based.
Other British inventions for aircraft carriers were the angled deck and the mirror deck landing system.
And actual Aircraft Carriers.
Steam catapults are adjusted to the weight and type of aircraft,not one size fits all.
I rest my case when someone says J20 looks like F22 -_-
That's right because all their equipment looks like ours because they copy us. Because we spill the beans on social media like this and give enough data to design and build one. If social media wasn't spilling the beans all the time we wouldn't have a problem
Dude also cried about the obviously more advanced Chinese CIWS as just a copy of the US.
@@tritium1998
Advanced LOL.
J20 wouldn't know the F22 was around until it got a missile up its tailpipe.
Yeah the temp version
Its truly a nightmare for China, it's not easy to copy an aircraft carrier. Let see how it works in the ocean
In COMBAT......
Russian Federation tried to copy also. Their boat has 0 value.
@@MakerBoyOldBoy Mind you China is NOT Russia. Look at more and more things now made in China US can not copy nor compete. If not true, then why the high import tariffs for goods made in China?
Carriers are very complex ships 🛳️ there is a reason why no other country has a carrier even close to a Nimitz class. The French carrier are the ones that are the most close to the USA but Russia and China still have solid options are they better no way but they would still put up a good fight.
@@sih9696 ngl the high tariffs are for economic war plus many nations are already eating up chinas market ( for example india mexico and vietnam all being American allies) so after the fall of Chinese trade Chinese economy will probably take a hit.
Especially when china economy mainly relies on weak infrastructure project ( 30% - 40% of Chinese economy is funded by infrastructure project which has caused a large property bubble which can pop anytime so I don't expect Chinese military or economy to do well. One of the few examples being Apple switching productionof iphones from china to india
And clothes and other fabric products used by west produced entirelyin Bangladesh( I might be wrong and if I am you have all rights to correct me)
You also need a whole fleet of ships with sub systems to operate effectively as a team . Think of the Abrams tank it needs about 18 different types of support to make it effective now think of how much support a carrier needs to operate.
Pretty much you need a whole ass fleet protecting them or else you lost them but important you need personal that knows what the fuck they are doing which the usa has many forget its not just build build build more ships in mass you need a crew that can support them and make them operational this is not a videogame where you quote your shits and they are operational out of the factory if you do your need for your navy here you need people to make them efective
@@soulbreaker1467China already has carrier strike groups for their other carriers, why do you think the Fujian would be different?
@@voidtempering8700 personally i seen how many times they fail to impress until acting is taken you cant really tell how strong they are see russia pre war you would have belived they were strong the war comes and all the curtin fall china csn be same example having a group of people dont mean you are capable only way is to train them and also have some hands in come real combat pn thing is training other when you lunch into the conflict a high tensen situacion which only demonstraded if you are for the job or simply not
The different between copying from others, and actual learning things is understanding how things works in practical situation.
And also.....what to do when they breakdown. Troubleshooting and fixing things aboard an aircraft carrier is going to be a major problem for the Chinese.
The mere copying of systems, which China has done for decades does not teach them, or not quite, how things are they way they are and why. A bit of a problem when you're in the middle of a shooting war and stuff breaks down.
@@quasimotto8653 WarThunder chats
China has been copying and then improving technology for decades now.
They can build nuclear submarines. But They can't put a nuclear plan in a ship. You are joking right
you wrong in 1 thing, especially about the boilers ... nuclear powerd ships are also nothing more than boiler based ships. its all about heating water for turning things - which may produce electricity
You have to refuel a conventional ship... You don't have to refuel a nuclear powered ship..
Also! The UsA is more experienced in using a Carrier during War. To top that off, US Naval fighter Pilots are the best.
That kind of jingoistic complacency is what's cost hundreds of thousands of lives over the years!
Wake up, it’s 21st century.
I mean US perfected the carrier for 100 years, and the Chinese manage to do half of what the US carrier did in 20 years. Isn't that more concerning?, underestimating your opponents is the most dangerous thing to do here.
The PLA Navy is ignorant of what it takes to wage large scale naval warfare. Especially the utilization of carrier aircraft. As far as mimicking American carrier construction, they might have copied the basic design, but not the technology. Nor can the PLA Navy mimic the century of expertise and seamanship the US Navy posesses in operating a carrier. Especially in combat.
i dont think china isnt ignorant about large scale naval warfare as noboduy hasnt done such sunce 1945 or after so i would say everybody is ignorant abpout large scale modern naval warfare us included but i do have say they have more expereince using aircrfaft carriers than china
@@no-nonseplayer6612tell me don't know anything about american naval doctrine and world economics without saying you know nothing about American naval doctrine and world economics
How is it ignorant for actually building and utilizing all this modern technology? If expertise means having nothing in case you start war, then it didn't want to be your expert.
when is the last time the USN had a large scale naval war?
@@JohnDoe-td3xx most "doctrine" is open source or easily gained. it's not as if 90 year old crew members are training the latest ford carrier crew.
The steam assist does not generate lift. It generates speed that the wings convert to lift.
Aside from the flight deck improvements, the Fujin is essentially comparable to a Kittyhawk-class vessel in terms of deployment and operational capability.
I was on the Independence and Kitty Hawk. Both would have put the Chinese carrier in Davey Jones locker before lunch. Our planes and pilots are far better.
Fujian probably faces significant challenges getting EMALS to work. An aircraft carrier that can’t launch planes is worthless!
This isn't the Gerald Ford EMALS.
@@tritium1998 It's worse?
The key difference between the two country's carriers is the crew. US Navy crews can conduct war time flight ops with no problems. And that's with the full compliment of their aircraft. The chinese can only dream about that & they have half the aircraft that US Navy carriers operate with. It's not going to be a "fair fight" if they decide to take us on. But then that's what war is ll about. Never fight above your weight class
Looool yet the heavy weight UAssA got whipped by peasants in Vietnam and sand sandals Afghans loooool
Oh really! it's the US that will try to take China on by attempting to install missile systems on Taiwan and starting a conflict. About US navy crews, sure they have experience. But that experience does not stack up like directly proportional to time like an exponential function, there is ONLY SO MUCH experience to be learned and it only takes a few generations of crewman to master the technique and skill, and this negates your claim about the US's superior experience in the usage of aircraft carriers as well as carrier based fighter training. Meaning instead of an exponential graph, you would have a logistic graph because the amount of experience tops off at a certain level, and that level is NOT that high on god. Just like other ppl's claims about the India's superior carrier usage experience, but in reality it only takes two or three generations of fighter pilots and navy crewman to learn all(100.000%) the tips and tricks on how to operate the aircraft carrier. So if it takes the US navy to learn something that takes China half to a third the time to learn, then it would only mean one thing. Operating an aircraft carrier with order of command and training the crew to be proficient and mastering the different skills and drills in case of an emergency does NOT take decades jesus christ, in other words saying that because the US has operated in many wars before therefore they have ABSOLUTE advantage in experience hours is a completely false claim. Fighter pilots are the same thing, it's not like the older the pilots get and the more flight hours they have the more tricks they will learn... FALSE! Go ahead and monitor a supposed "low" flying experience fighter pilot and a "high" experience fighter pilot and see how many errors each one's gonna make and how many tricks each one can do and how applicable they are. On god you won't find anything different. I feel like most people just think that US pilots are all like Maverick and chinese pilots are all little newbies like what??? BVR missiles I bet Maverick(tom cruise) can do no shit about it. Pilots that have flown way more times can make the same errors as pilots that have flown way less times. And...the Chinese aren't the ones who are dreaming because in reality in a Taiwan conflict the US Navy aren't going to face the Chinese navy but the DF-17, DF-26, and DF-21D anti ship ballistic missiles(and quite possibly the 055 with the YJ-21s). And now the US is trying to fight someone way above its weight class.
@@LeoChen-v6z 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@LeoChen-v6z well said
Both nuclear and oil fired ships require water boilers. The difference is the heat source. The Ford boilers would need replacing before it needs refuelling.
So?
So your saying oil based boilers are more efficient and reliable than a nuclear reactor
@@steamaccount3030 No he means Ford fuel outlast the boiler and the chinese carrrier needs to be refuel way more often
Are these Chinese aircraft carriers all Tofu class boats ?
Even US is afraid of tofu carriers
😂gotta ask about taliban farmars about that
Like it!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The tofu and the dreg.
May the force be always with us United States of America 🇺🇸.
China can’t replicate the institutional knowledge of the crew of the US Navy ships. It took me years to become an expert on all the things I needed to know for my rate.
It doesn't have to. It has its own Chinese ships that are more modern without needing as much crewmen or manual labor.
@@tritium1998
LOL, sure, Ding Dong, sure.
Not true, they have already infiltrated our military and law enforcement.
Not true, they have already infiltrated our military and law enforcement.
Not true, China has already infiltrated our military and law enforcement.
No US warship has sunk small Filipino fishing boat.
Only China warships have proven to sink small Filipino fishing boats.
Do you really want to go there?
Bikini islands.
Us navy is so wonderful.
WOW what a accomplishment!!!!! 😁
I didn't think US was into hunting small Filipino boats. Try Argentina, they sink Chinese fishing boats.
every military power will try to copy other tech and improve on it.
Thank You, Xi, For the CCP POV.
Nobody is copying chinas crap
Quite true.
😂 Copying and stealing designs is popular in China, Iran and Russia bc they don’t allow the freedom to innovate or patent ideas
@@carpe_poon5761 All countries do the same, including the US. This is why every country needs spies to gather technical information.
The British invented the steam catapults for aircraft carriers, not the U.S. Also we learned a lot from the British about aircraft carriers during WW2. They gave us the backbone of design and operation.
He said Britain invented and we perfected it in our aircraft carriers
And China will master it in few years, as always.
@@merrick6484you’re drunk wumao, go home.
@@merrick6484 The CCP will SAY they mastered aircraft carrier operations but there will be a slight difference between what is said and what reality is...have you seen their tanks? Road wheels falling off and all that. The Chinese government is all about appearance, substance is a distant second to how it looks on the world stage. To underestimate China would be foolhardy at best but to see them they want the world to see them is just as stupid.
@@cliffcampbell8827 you missed one word .... "will master" and not "mastered".
Lol... China copy the image of Ford class carrier, but? The quality is very different. 😂😅
Probably better.
@@ijatpingrhybtoo much baijiu?
@@ijatpingrhyb Chinese technology is always inferior.
@@pimpalamac3411 next you'll be telling me that their highspeed trains and space station are plastic. Sounds like you like drinking via propaganda cool aid
@@fluffylittlebear was. Who just landed on the far side of the moon.
Trust me America is not worried about China 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂made In china
It's against India
Never underestimate your enemies
If u r not worried about things that made in China, why formed quad, AUKUS, 5 eyes, nato to contain china? Need your replying.
@@VIAGRA465 they just kick our asses in sharp shooting olympics and alot of other major sports . That was almost un heard of 20 years ago. These people know how to learn and adapt lol
@@trustandbelieve9173 China also maintains camps forcing children into training in those events. Also forgot how mention China has been called out for doping... again.
How in the world did the author even include Taiwan as a potential refueling port for the Chinese navy? Can a Russian naval ship refuel in the U.S.? For these scenarios to pan out, Taiwan has to become a Chinese ally, and the U.S. becomes a Russian ally first!
it is based on assumption that China has successfully reunify Taiwan and deploy carriers.
@@Tumujun In this case, it's more appropriate to call it that China has taken over Taiwan rather than reunify since the government on Taiwan existed first and also ruled China. The Chinese Communists are actually the renegade. It's like the U.S. used to be under Britain and then split off, ie. the U.S. is the renegade. If the U.S. ever expands to include Britain, it won't be reunify but take over. Unfortunately, since China has been claiming reunification for 7 decades now, the world has become accustomed to this claim.
Taiwan is called republic of china by itself
7:38 That is NOT a .50 caliber machine gun, appears to be a .30 caliber M240 machine gun.
Ex Infantry machine gunner here, US Army active duty.
Yes that is a 240b. Fires a 7.62, is gas fed, open bolt, fully auto machine gun. Good eye. 👍🏽
*_'COPINA' = 'Copy' + 'China'_*
TOFU WILL SINK ALL BY ITSELF
Hahaha tofu or ampao
Wrong. It transforms into a very large submarine
The Chinese carrier is called CCP Tofu😮
The first Navy to use a ship for planes to take off was the British Navy on the HMS Hermes. The first custom built aircraft carrier was by the Japanese Navy and the and Hosho in 1920. Japan created the modern aircraft carrier which has been perfected by the USA, UK, France and even Italy.
The author is showing off his knowledge.... the lack of...
Its an AI voice "reading" an AI script, what do you expect accuracy? :))
🤦the video producer needs do some research before posting videos.
You missed the Ford’s ability to be future proof with regards to electricity output needed for tomorrow’s technology. This ability to fully support the electrical needs of not only today but into its full life cycle is immeasurable.
It’s hard to predict how much power future systems that haven’t been implemented will take up, but it is a good idea to have a power surplus to at least try
@@grantbarday5760 There's no point in having a 'power surplus' if the wiring and support systems arent there to carry it!
@@icarossavvides2641 stay in your lane if you don’t understand what’s going on. Pretending to be smart gets you nowhere, and I’m not in the mood to teach someone who can’t understand.
Being nuclear powered, I wouldn't have thought that would be an issue?
@@IM-lr6vz modern electronics, especially hundreds of thousands all being powered by one source, is very taxing. Some ships can’t operate the more modern equipment because their power plants can’t support the power draw.
Aircraft carrier with no aircraft ahaha😂😂😂
Fujian is NOT a supercarrier like Ford or Nimitz. Sure it’s large but it only has 3 catapults compared to 4 on either Ford or Nimitz. And NO portside elevator, meaning aircraft will have to cross the deck to get to the portside catapult which is time consuming. Total of only 2 elevators unlike 4 on Nimitz which again consumes more time transferring aircraft and munitions between flight deck and hanger. So YES Fujian is slower in terms of sortie rate. It even has less power than the older non-nuclear powered Kitty Hawk class. On shaft horsepower alone Kitty Hawk has almost twice.
On the other hand J-15 is the largest naval fighter aircraft. So by footprint for every 2 J-15, 3 F-18E/F can be carried instead; or for every 3 J-15s, an equivalent of 5 F-18C/D or F-35C can be carried. Ergo the total number of aircraft carried are NOT the same like a Ford or Nimitz supercarrier. Not to mention boilers especially its fuel take up a huge amount of space than diesel/gas turbines or nuclear so Type 003 will only be able to carry around 40 aircraft like the older Type 001 and Type 002.
Consequently it’s more comparable to a QE class carrier as both are similarly matched in the number of aircraft both can carry. Though QE has a more efficient propulsion. So in terms of capabilities Fujian like QE sits in between a small “lightning” carrier and a Ford or Nimitz class supercarrier. NONETHELESS kudos to the Chinese. Outside USN supercarriers if they can make Type 003 operational it will be the 2nd best CATOBAR carrier.
Kitty Hawk was considered a super carrier . It's not propulsion isn't what makes a supercarrier nor is it the number of cats . How many planes it can operate and deck size are the deciding factors . The first 8 U.S. super carriers were conventional powered . Now they all did have 4 cats and could carry around 87 planes during the cold war and the Enterprise and Nimitz class were built to conform to that standard so is the Ford for that matter tho day to day air wings are only about 65 today
@@rbtsubs Nimitz can carry 130 F/A-18s at maximum otherwise its 85 - 90 for different types of aircraft. But typical loadout is around 65. Likely the same for Ford. Cats and elevs are important as they can directly impact flight deck operations. Ford showed this that despite having 1 less aircraft elevator it has better sortie rate as it has twice the small munition elevs. Also it's NOT the propulsion itself BUT the power more especially the shaft horsepower it can provide is what is important as this can affect a carrier's manueverability specifically its turning radius.
J35
@@Hanlanhill That is assuming J-35 is as big as F-35. But China would still have to go nuclear for a smaller footprint as their is no need to carry fuel for the ship and NO J-15s only J-35s to match the total aircraft carried by either Ford or Nimitz.
Even the Liaoning and Shandong carriers already had better radars, runways (angled and longer), ramps, and AA defenses than the QE class that needs smaller STOVL planes with smaller radars and missiles for your false equivalence with the Fujian just because of aircraft numbers. Try to stick to the topic of carriers instead of optional aircraft.
When you underestimate the enemy you already lost half the battle. Russia vs Afghanistan, United States vs Vietcong......
All wars are started and kept going by the super rich!!!
There's no way that Vietnam could stand against America if they let the American military go all out!!
The super rich would only allow them to put in enough military to keep the war going and never enough to win it!!!
Just look up how much military equipment we produced in WW2!!!
We had over 90 carrier's at the end of the war!!!
Watch the documentary called, JFK to 9/11 everything is a rich man's trick.
It's on RUclips and you'll see just how evil and low the people who actually runs the world are!!!
The so called royals also!!!
So true
Did China participate in these two wars?
Apples to Mac Truck comparison lol
No but they did mess with vietnam and got battered with an estimated 26,000 casualties in 3 weeks. @user-ul8qw6gu3u
Anyone ever wondered why US aircraft carriers tend to be named after important political figures like Ronald Reagan, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, while China's are all named after Chinese provinces like Liaoning, Shandong and Fujian?
My theory for this is that the Chinese government has a very fragile image to maintain at all costs, because perception of legitimacy is everything to an authoritarian government. If an aircraft carrier were to be named after an important political figure like Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping or Xinnie the Pooh, and it were to be sunk in combat or by some mishap, the catastrophic political fallout that would likely ensue might just cause the CCP to collapse.
Whereas with the US aircraft carriers, I think the Americans tend to see it as a symbol of their military might and national pride. If one of them were to be sunk by a hostile foreign power, it would rile up the kind of anger and "terrible resolve" in the American population that we've not seen since the attack on Pearl Harbour.
CN has experience in copying for 50 years!!
I served on CVN - 71 the Theodore Roosevelt. It is 38 years old and still so WAY more advanced than anything CHINA has in the water. The Ford is even more advanced than the Teddy Ruxpin and the Nimitz class carriers i can’t imagine the havoc it could wreak on the Chinese.
Don't be over confident. The Chinese learned from the problems and mistakes made during the development of the US carrier system. Do you think they will not do anything to improve? Just look at their latest space station.
@@sih9696tofu dredge navy
I end watching a video with an add. If you hide it in the middle or wherever you want… that’s when I stop watching. 5:01
At 0:55 this implies the first ever aircraft carrier was the USS Langley. It was not, Brits got there several years earlier.
Also, the Brits were the first to utilize a steam catapult on a carrier.
"murica SMH.
The Brits were underestimated when the next door door neighbour invaded the Falklands. The rest, as they say, is history 👍👍 They also used a little aircraft which was dismissed as a gimmick. The splat marks on West Falkland showed what that insignificant toy could do 👍👍👍👍 Shades of Horatio Nelson perchance?
Langley was the first US carrier, but either the Brits or the Japanese built the first "built to be a carrier" carrier ever.
One started sooner, the other achieved operational status sooner despite starting construction later.
US first such ship was CV-4 Ranger, years later.
Japan also beat Langley. The usa was late to the party but had to money to finally do it better. Britain went broke and japan was disarmed.
Both beat the usa to carrier's. @@bricefleckenstein9666
What you fail to see is that China doesn't depend on Aircraft carriers in battle they are there for a specific reason, where as the USA depends on the Aircraft carriers and it's contents for everything????
What?? You can’t depend on anything when you can’t properly use it. No s h I t sherlock.
I was a operation specialist on my carrier the John c stennis, My main job is to make sure to operation picture which everybody use for combat is clean and up-to-date with all the contacts with information. God it was so annoying, when a Hawkeye drops a shitload of information on you.
The Japanese have more carrier experience than the Chinese. Think about that. Can anybody name a country with at least one aircraft carrier who has less experience than China? For those of you touting China’s hypersonics and the US “lack, thereof” …the US completed successful testing of the hypersonic AGM-183A recently and “shelved” the project. Apparently the DOD decided to move forward with the smaller and cheaper hypersonic Mako, a missile that can (already developed, being used) fit in the weapons bay of a 5th gen fighter. The makos are also much cheaper per unit than the AGM-183A. Makes sense. By the way, the 2 British aircraft carriers are both better than anything China has. And Britain has experience!
QE 2 just went in for unscheduled maintenance
Steel ships have been built on the James River for the last 160 years. Between that and over a century of CV operations and development, no one else even comes close.
So, watching this, I am tempted to believe that the Fujian will find a permanent home on the bottom soon.
They must have damaged the reefs when they fished there. It’s only fair to replace it with a fresh wreck, complete with human-flavoured fish food
Other countries are starting to realize how unbelievably complex Aircraft carriers are to not only build but also MAINTAIN and how well trained every crew-member needs to be. As in the video, the US has perfected the art of aircraft carriers so much so that we make it seem easy. When in reality it’s a logistical nightmare that not even Freddy Krueger were dare enter.
Chicom only advantage is people.
see the movie Red Dawn( the first one).
Look at the Russians trying to attack Ukraine… Fail.
american sinophobia a disease without a cure
Greyhounds are not onboard at all times, so they should not be counted into the onboard air groups.
Yan Ang air crafts carrier with no air crafts. 😂 Hahaha..............
They have them.. just too heavy to actually do anything from the carrier. lol
Aircraft is plural, genius.
Nice chinglish.
Is that dude at 8:57 doing some skeet shooting off the deck or what??😆😆🤘🤘
The two carriers don’t look a like, the F22 & F35 and the J20 also don’t have any resemblance. The J20 is delta shaped with front canards. I don’t get why Americans are always saying they look a like.
To be honest i think its pure jealousy. While the US is worried about pronouns and inclusivity. The chinese are perfecting anything they create including war machines. I will give them another 10 years or so they will have about 5-7 modern nuclear aircraft carriers
What do you expect?
They are americans, without fabricate the imformation, they don‘t know how to speak.😂
The Chinese first step was to buy the HMAS MELBOURNE (R21) in 1982. The purchase was officially labelled “scrap” but the Chinese reverse engineered everything they were interested in, especially the catapult system.
A paper military power,ye😂😂
Houtis from Yemen fully agreed. 😂
The text-to-speech robot really grates. Humans preferred.
Patrol boat collided with a Chinese Battleship and ripped a hole in it. A Battleship made of paper.
What battleship? US destroyers have had more holes like paper after collisions.
High-tech controlled Choppers 25 miles (ca. 40 km) from the main navel fleet equipped with lasers and artillery will be able to intercept enemy attacks, alert the fleet of subs long before the fleet has to actually engage in combat. 8/1/24
Ummm. Yeah. It seems you got some pictures wrong. You have some non American systems as american.
China J-20 Fighter is not based off of the F-35 rather the Russian Mig 1.44 which was intended to hunt the SR-71.
It doesnt have a gun and is likely an interceptor just like the 1.44 for territorial disputes against neighboring countries.
The Americans have been building aircraft carriers for a 100 years china has a couple of soviet era crap ones and this is yhere first attempt terrible it takes 3.4 km to turn the usa one takes 500 metres 😂😂😂😂😂
Considering it's closer to the Forestal or Kitty Hawk than the Ford, 3.4 km isn't bad - at speed.
And to be fair, the Ford doesn't even THINK about turning in 500 meters AT ANY SIGNIFICANT SPEED.
2:07 The catapult provides the airspeed to generate the lift without a long runway.
that china aircraft carrier is only a sitting duct target for U.S. navy 😂😂😂😂😂
Oblivious to the rest of the Chinese navy targeting you.
After giving us paper, movable type, and the gunpowder we use in our guns, I figure them ripping us off of an idea or two is fair.
Didn't the Chinese carrier break in half a couple times already???
Thats Indian carriers.
They fixed it with super glue and instant noodles
Imagine a fake product not lasting as long as an original one. And you're gonna use it to risk hundreds maybe thousands of lives. Poor Chinese navy personnel.
Short and simple, the famous so-called generic made in China period.
Also known as pre-collapse period
More comparable to a 1960s era Kitty Hawk class than a Ford class. The Fujian is an artificial reef waiting to happen in a modern naval engagement.
Copying? You mean stealing
The US Navy had DECADES of aircraft carrier development. The US has better engineering, and it took YEARS to perfect the FORD's EMLS. The Chinese thinking that they can go from a ramp carrier, to EMLS launch systems, while skipping steam catapults was UNREALISTIC. Military decision made by a party member from the propaganda department. The Fujian was a waste of money. Steam systems require a lot more room. In 10-15 years, they MIGHT steal enough info to get it to work.
Aren't Asian's supposedly the most intelligent race? So how come they have to steal our technology?
Over proud of the past successes and under estimate the new challenger capabilities is the real nightmare of that uppity country.
ChiCom bot speaks!
Thinking building a puny carrier puts you in the big leagues is the very definition of hubris!
yes I agree China has been uppity of late, thanks winnie.
It’s not about the carrier. It’s how you operate on it. It took the us decades. You can’t copy that
The thumnail had "Wish" but I think it is really from Temu.
Most people don’t even know the difference between Carriers and Super Carriers
How about super duper carriers?
@@richardmoloney689 as of right this moment, I’m too tired to create a witty comment lol
China's ship building is 185 times larger than that of the US. Not 185 percent
The Chinese carrier is equipped with state of the art chopsticks.
You are talking about a country that built a fully operational hospital in a week. Aircraft carrier piece of piss.
How many of those buildings, bridges, and dams have fallen apart recently in China? Oh right, a whole hell of a lot.
There is NO substitute for centuries of experience in Naval operations.
The Chinese carrier’s propulsion system runs on tofu
wood boiler and rower's.
美国船舶的推进系统使用大麻作为原料
That's ground breaking innovation!
Sound a lot like uk ones 😂
Pork fried rice
I think you will find that the first steam catapult system was on a Royal Navy aircraft carry HMS Perseus in 1950.
Yeah that's what he said in the video we just watched...
Sounds more of a Temu aircraft carrier.
There is no match to the US for carrier ops hands down.
Experience over time. The crews. Training, etc. It cannot be matched. Why do you think we built 10+ at once despite the extraordinary cost?
English can argue the point, and the Japanese might still have the institutional memory to do so.
French - sort of, NO war experience.
We did NOT build 10+ at once, having that many in OPERATION took DECADES of work.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 operate 10+ at once is what I meant.
If the Ukraine war teaches us anything, American Military equipment is highly overrated. Abrams tanks were easily destroyed by Iranian and Russian drones. American Himars were easily jammed, targeted and destroyed by Russian Electronic warfare. Excalibur Artillery was useful for a week or 2 until Russians learned to jammed and render the system useless. American Atacms missiles are now easily targeted, jammed, and destroyed by Russian forces. Patriot missile systems are just overwhelmed by Russian drones and missiles.
Every time the Western media and governments gives some "wonder" weapon to Ukraine claiming it will swing the war in Ukraine's favor, the Russians quickly figure out a counter measure within a few days and the Weapon system is rendered useless. The most scary thing is, everyone knows the Russians are selling all this captured technology to the Chinese and teaching them everything they know about how to counter NATO weapon systems.
The American navy is soo bad that they can't even stop the poor Houthi rebels in Yemen from enforcing a naval blockade against Israel. The Navy don't even dare sail close to Yemen now that the Houthis have drones and missiles provided by Iran.
These big expensive ships might allow you to bully 3rd world countries but they really don't mean much against a technologically sophisticated enemy who has some brains. Just a waste of Tax dollars now.
Nice comment...👍
I'm listening could you explain how you came to this conclusion and what sources do you have cause I want to look into it
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I want whatever mind altering chemicals you're taking because I need a break from reality, just like you clearly are
This is the best switch into advert.
Hahahhaha your the goat bro
The first aircraft carrier was name HMS Argus yes British built the first operated aircraft carrier don't believe me do your research
This is the China Papermate! I wonder how long it will last, and the tenacity of the people manning it!😮
this ain’t no 1922 , and we were naval power back in 1945 , a lot has changed since , there was no any serious use of our navy since … aircraft carriers are old technology, dinosaurs, it would take only one Chinese hypersonic missile to send the whole aircraft carrier, with all 70 aircrafts to the bottom of the sea … and as far as China copying our aircraft carriers, I don’t know , how many different shapes or types of aircraft carriers can there be ? pretty dumb video if you ask me
What flavor of copium you huffing today?
new USNavy carriers have PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS . Are Winnie the Poo's missiles faster than the SPEED OF LIGHT?
So it’s a small airport that floats. I suppose they could drag some fishing nets behind it. Rent it out for short fishing trips.
Not a bad video. A few minor errors. The cats provide speed, not lift. A few odd foreign clips that were supposedly American. Also, the Fujian has a 3.4 +/- kilometer turning radius versus the Ford's 1/5 kilometer turning radius. The Fujian, being diesel powered has only enough to move it's sorry ass through the water OR launch aircraft. It cannot generate enough power to do both simultaneously. Being diesel powered it is easy to spot due to the black smoke it has been emanating when under way which gives away its position and makes it an easy target. Tofu dreg construction at its best!
Since when are JBD’s weapons elevators
Submarines vs ships,
subs always win
I wonder how can a country be proud of their military when they just showoff and copy their enemies and many of their equipements are either fake,copied,not working,old etc last time i took a look at the PLA soldiers they looked so skinny to the point it was pitiful give them some food jesus😂😂😂...
China has endeared itself with money and flattery to certain politicians who believe that China is not interested in owning America with its resources and record-holding several ocean ports for ships. We have a coastline from Maine all the way around to Alaska. There is no nation like ours. Russia, China, or Islam seeth in covetness toward our assets and global wealth. We are also currently the dominant military power, indicating that siding with China has weakened us for decades.
One would think that if you take out the ramp on the Fujian, or any part of the deck, she's done, and the island, take out the island and it's lights out.
The superstructure is a good hint to which one is which.