You are absolute right. After what U$N did off Indonesia. They intercepted and seized a commercial Iranian oil tanker in the Strait of Malacca on the way to China. This is outright international piracy. This posed a serious threat to all Maritime Shipping. China is building a 1000 warship navy by 2050 to protect her maritime silk route.
It becomes an International Concern when China attempts to claim International Waters, through which a high percentage of the World's shipping trade passes through.....
@@user-cm5dr5ts1f and are deemed to be repeated by whom? That's right, China! Their aggressiveness especially in the South China Sea dispute and Taiwan is a reason why Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, US, Taiwan, and even Canada and UK are gearing up. CCP needs to be kept in check. Nice try CCP bot
The US has more ships and can maintain them while China it’s still trying to get its latest aircraft carrier with designs and tech it stole from the US to even work.
China has the absolute right for her own defence, consider the fact that the U. S. has already 800 military bases all over the world surrounding China. Is this an international concern...? Give me a break, this is only the U. S. concern. 😅😅😅
That's how modern form of colonization looks like after colonial era, together with their ex colonial pals. Most in G7 anyway! All countries must look independent, formally and technically but actually not really. All countries are compelled to follow rules written and led only by the West. All countries are made to be dependent on the West economically and even in security. Hence, the 800 bases abroad are to ensure everybody complies. Otherwise, there will be protests, regime change or bombs start dropping from the sky. When the west monopolized the economy sectors it was called Free Trade, otherwise it's a National Security THREAT! No thank to their global reached MSMs too, again in the name of freedom of press. Press or Propaganda are just a matter of convenience and occasions. 😂
902 US military bases and the world is sick of these shallow and superficial overtures of 'freedom and democracy' when what they really are is aggression, subjugation and domination with weapons and war.
I totally agree with you on cooperation within the big nations. But when one nations playbook is to contain & stop the rise of another it is inevitable call for self defence of any country that’s being targeted at.
1. China has strong determination to straighten the current " world order " which is dominated by hegemony and is the root cause of world chaos. 2. This is the reason why China must quickly strengthen its overall military strengths but not for invasion.
@ 0:36 , China is the manufacturing capital of the world. Simultaneously making two 100k ton aircraft carrier is nothing to China’s capability. China has the capability to build 4 of these simultaneously if the reason justify them.
There certainly are several lessons learned. First, the US cannot win a competition to build naval ships of any type, from destroyers to submarines. The US has only four naval shipyards, but only one is capable of building Ford class carriers. A second could be, if the US makes the investment. China has 13 shipyards capable of naval vessels, and two of which are capable of carriers. China also is capable of building upwards of 6 submarines in parallel, upwards of 4 at one shipyard. China has been coming up the learning curve in building large ships, from its latest 135,000 ton cruise ship, Adora Magic, to mega container and LNG ships. China is now the leading shipbuilding country in the world. China has been on a learning curve on nuclear propulsion. Russia is working with China to building its first nuclear powered ice breaker for operation in the Arctic. China has plans to build more for both the Arctic and Antarctic. It is avoiding the mistaken of the French in trying to adapt smaller submarine reactors to power their carrier which has turned out to be a mistake. The US normally fields 3 carriers in the Pacific, but it recently announced 5 carriers will be in the Pacific. The US plans a total of 10 Ford class carriers, but the question remains whether it can afford them. The crisis in the Middle East is also a force pushing the Chinese to the realization that it is not only the US that can disrupt its energy from the Middle East. China appears to be attempting to match the US carrier fleet in the Pacific. We see China not only trying to beef up its sea routes, but we see alternate rail/sea port routes being added to minimize its exposure to the Malacca Straits. While the US has more military bases around the world, China has more commercial ports around the world. Lastly, it seems that China had not only concerns about building a EMALS carrier, but the array of new laser, rail gun, radars, and propulsion technologies it faced at the same time. China has a different philosophy about carriers in that it seems to expects its carriers to be self defensive without the aid of destroyers. The EMALS in particular was of concern when it was found that the US version had reliability problems lasting only 15% of its design life before retrofitting. The US uses an AC system and China a high voltage DC system. It may mean that China now has confidence in its EMALS and haven't had operational problems, and can afford to push forward with two carriers at the same time. There is also the issue of carrier naval jets. While the J-15 is the mainstay, it is not a stealth fighter and the J-20 is not a carrier aircraft. The J-35 is specifically designed for carrier EMALS operations and it too, like the carriers, have finished development trials and is beginning production. If the J-35 can achieve the same production rate as the J-20, that means about 200 per year. The problem for the US is the ability to build naval vessels at a rate that it can compete with China. The current answer is no. The first Ford carrier took 8 years to complete, the Fujian took 4 years, albeit it is not a nuclear carrier, but it is a steam turbine powered EMALS carrier. Now we await to see whether China will build one or two nuclear powered carriers. Don't be surprised if both are nuclear because to be deployed in the far reaches of the Pacific requires longer staying power on duty. The expectation too, is that the build cycle will be less than the Fujian. There are also some potential surprises that may relate to carriers. The biggest is the nuclear power plant. China has built a developmental thorium molten salt reactor (MSR) that is running in the Gansu desert since late 2022. The official plan is to have industrial scale reactors by 2030. A carrier reactor would be smaller than an industrial version so it is possible an MSR could be slated for naval use. The Gansu reactor is rated at 2MW and a carrier like the Ford requires two 700MW reactor. So far, there have been no issues or problems arising from this developmental reactor so one might think that China has solved the alloy corrosion problems and the inline fuel processing issues. If so, a naval application may be forthcoming. An MSR power system might be the propulsion of ships in the future to meet the requirements for zero carbon emissions. This decade should be full of surprises and innovations for China. From semiconductors to quantum applications and beyond.
@@obiwan5781great summary, apparently China has also developed an innovative DC electricity system that can support the massive amounts of energy required from microwave weapons and rail guns, this will enable current energy levels to adequately power these new types of weapons, something that the US does not have
@@User1717ww Not so. US nuclear powered aircraft carriers are said to be equipped with Lasers. Rail gun development was stopped by the US, so it has no production of rail guns. China has both. The big question that the public doesn't know, is what is the EMALS performance problem and what will it take to fix it. I saw a media report saying it would take to 2025 to fix. If true, the problem is not a small problem. It almost sounds like a serious systemic problem that may require a redo of the whole system. One wonders if this problem relates to the AC system the US is using? Or is it true for all EMALS implementation. We are waiting to hear about China's high voltage DC EMALS. So far, no public word of a problem. Proof of the pudding is when they start launching J-35's from Fujian. My guess is that China has no EMALS problem. If they did, they wouldn't commit to building two carriers at the same time with EMALS, especially if they are nuclear powered. As the Ford carrier shows, new functions are fraught with potential problems, even if development models showed none. China's confidence in nuclear propulsion probably comes from China working with Russia on its first nuclear icebreaker, one that probably has a huge powerplant. If implemented like the Ford, there will be two reactors per ship, each with about 700 MW of power. A typical land based nuclear power plant generates 1 GW of power.
@@MASMIWA i was unaware of the US laser weapons but it seems you are right. I guess the real significance of China's DC system is that it will allow them to achieve a high enough level of power output to keep up with US in this regard, without necessarily deploying a nuclear carrier yet, i.e. laser weapons without nuclear energy and as we stated the railgun also. Thanks for the correction. I have no doubts about China's ability to master the EMALS technology...if the reports are accurate then China is ahead in railgun technology and they have extensive experience in maglev technology through their use of it in HSR, both of which will give them a solid foundation for EMALS, all of which are similar and related technologies. China is also working on thorium molten salt nuclear reactor for cargo ships which seems to be a promising and effective technology. Russia's nuclear icebreaker production will also slow down due to their involvement in Ukraine. I have no doubt China will takeover Russia in this area too, especially considering their massive shipbuilding capacity. All of this experience will surely provide them a solid foundation for building nuclear aircraft carriers, it is only a matter of time. As you said they have more ports globally than the US, I just realized they could potentially use these as a temporary measure to mitigate their lack of nuclear carriers as they could use these ports to refuel? Long term they seem really well-positioned to leapfrog US in key naval technologies such as EMALS, railguns, nuclear energy, and short term they seem well-positioned to keep up with what the US can currently field.
This is an inevitably development, given the persistent aggressive posture of the US military pivoting around China. Consequently, China urgently needs to develop its military forces to be at least on par, if not better, vis-à-vis the US military. In line with the strategic requirement of real-time mobile operations and multi-dimensional offense and defense, the PLA/PLAN will endeavor to reorient from passive theatre defense to pro-active trans-theatre mobility, which necessitates an effective projection of power far beyond China’s traditional kill-zone. China must demonstrate to potential foe(s) that if they start a war, China have the capability to win because a force that can deter conflict must show that it can dominate a conflict; an integral concept of the Art of War.
@@patrolmanracvJealousy gets you nowhere Dumbo. Obviously you don't know that China manufacturing capacities are larger than the US, the EU, Japan and Korea combined. The collective West is rotting even AS we speak.
@@patrolmanracv The USA has 10+ aircraft carriers whereas China has 4, I think. By 2027, China had a plan to catch the USA in military strength. They will achieve the same before that.
In a perfect world countries could set differences through diplomacy but the US always have to be first in everything. In American eyes there is no peer., only vassals.
@sydneystout4003 That just mean Taiwan should be reunified with China as one people. This is an unresolved civil war and is none of anyone's business except for the Chinese themselves.
It's expected that China will build its navy and military until the US stop talking about a war with them. That's called deterrence! To sent warships unnecessary close to someone are provocations, and these have that kind of effect. If the US didn't want China to build their military, they should try less provocations. Since the US typically overestimate their own military capability, China might have to overbuild theirs. The idea is that the US has to grasp that war is a bad idea, and we all know how hard that is for them!
Strange isn't it. Only a very few years ago, China was proclaiming how vulnerable carriers were to their missiles. Why won't their carriers be vulnerable to missiles from other nations?
the more you build of anything in a shorter time period the cheaper it is... They should decide how many aircraft carriers they want and build all of them in twos or more and in this way they may be able to build more and make their decisions based more on daily operations cost than number of aircraft carriers.
China's construction capabilities are to be respected, fast trains, Dams, bridge's, space exploration now aircraft carriers. Well within their capabilities.
Ameria could build two conventionally powered carriers at the same time. It can build it's nuclear ones only one at a time. The British built two 65,000 tonners at the same time. If they can do that then the Americans can build two 100,000 tonners.
I can't believe AUKUS submarines take 25 years to build. Recent claims that they won't be ready well after 2060. What good they will do if ww3 starts in 2025?
They won't do anything even if they had them now. 3 non nuclear armed subs is meant to do what against China? China has 70 subs and can build their own. Then China has like 100 ships which can kill subs too and jets. after those 3 subs destroyed what will Australia do? Wait another 50 years for another 3 subs? Hahaha. China build 10 subs in one year if they want during peacetime. During war they will build 100 subs a year.
Just Dracula finding a new way to suck Australia's blood. By then China will have thousands of nuclear warheads. Maybe China now already has thousands of nuclear warheads.
The AUKUS is only a tech term for "Protection Fee" or Bully Fee", Aussies have to pay whether they are happy or not. There would be no subs at all, not even 1.
"international cooperation" and "talent acquisition". How on earth did you get that idea. Cooperation with whom? Talent acquisition from whom? You are being flippant.
What you offer has little value, when the US is sending 5 aircraft carrier battle groups into SCS. How do you negotiate with a party that does not value peace or logic but intent on either China being subjugated or war!! Look at the lesson from the Russia - Ukraine conflict.
China Rocket Force is always ready for US Aircraft Carriers. Mainland China itself is A HUGE unsinkable Carrier that no amount of US Aircraft Carriers can match.
Well said, US is a big bully that invades any country they want and China needs to be stronger and stronger. US will soon be on the menu not at the table. You can’t say u wanna talk to China from the position of strength.
Should push come to scuff, China can simultaneously construct 4-100,000 tons Aircraft Carriers within her 5 shipyards which include Shanghai, Guangdong n Tianjin; as the two being mentioned. There is no need for China to rushing it.
bigger aircraft carriers are not always the best. The best tonnes of aircraft carrier is between 60,000 to 80,000 tonnes. these ships can dock in most deep sea ports and go to most medium deep water way. that is why France carrier is good because they can go into brown water area.
However, these are non nuclear ships meant for local seas defense. So, the construction is no doubt faster. Motives may be for deterrence instead of power projection.
The bottom line is the US doesn’t want to see the advance of China‘ military force. As a result the sino-American cooperation will never exit now and the future.
China builds to protect peace and stability in the region and the world.But not to invade other countries as Deng Xiao Ping had stated in the UN Congress in the 1980s,and will continue doing so. !!
HELLO !!! it's not a unipolar world , the United States has lost this , right across the entire spectrum , It's lost the tech race , it's lost the space race, it's lost the economic race , it's lost the industrial race , and it's lost military one as well , China the # one superpower of planet earth and i'm afraid the US is a distant second , BTW China has won the most important one of all and that is the world wide hearts and minds race !!!
O don't know, but, perhaps the United States will react to this challenge. I thrust in the industrial capacity of the United States. I think it is possible to acelerate it's rating of military naval production.
Its one thing to copy a vessel that looks like an aircraft carrier. Its an entirely different challenge to construct a combat ready carrier task force capable of performing high tempo operations 24x7 anywhere on the globe. China's ability to utilize its large, modern shipyards to pump out vessels quickly is a tremendous advantage, one that the US enjoyed in WW II. It lags in all other areas related to carrier operations and will take decades to learn the trade and build the necessary technologies. It will have to do this while its economy collapses and it is increasingly cut off from the Western products, services and innovations it needs to complete the job.
@@kimpark283 Spend more time studying history and you might actually learn something. In the mean time, ask yoursefl why Chinese flight deck operations crew wear the same coloured jackets the US does.
China is a peaceful country.She owns aircraft carrires for protection, not for invasion. China manufacruring power much bigger than The US.In case of war, China repairing capability also much more faster than The US.
Costly aircraft carriers fast becoming obsolete, as with the battleship. I hope the PLAN's strategists are drawing lessons from the current situation in the Red Sea region & drone warfare generally. But not to say that they have no relevance here & now.
Drawing lessons from current situation in the Red Sea doesn't show that aircraft carriers are obsolete as not a single one was reported to be impaired by the small warfare equipment that Houthis can afford. At the same time those carriers enable power projection reaching very far. But carrier killer rockets that only advanced militaries have seriously threaten to change them into casualty multipliers.
@@deoibyiyingoma1784 Seeing as the Yemenis do not have either an air force nor navy, they've exposed the Achilles heel of aircraft carrier fleets. Any carrier group will be at the mercy of any enemy with either a viable air force or navy, or both, especially if equipped with drone capabilities. Modern asymmetric warfare have rendered a lot of accepted military practice obsolete.
@@spidermann1256 An arcraft carrier is normally surrounded by minor vessels and awacs aircraft for escort but I wonder if it could be easily sunk by ordinary missiles even when it is hit. Otherwise China would have given up building them at this juncture. But China doesn't need as many as the US deploy both because they do not intend to patrol all the oceans asthe US do and also because it doesn' take a carrier to kill another one.
Sure. Now I hope you're getting paid. Better make sure the CIA pays you because I heard they're broke. Otherwise you'd be doing all these for nothing😅😅
People who are ignorant about technology are just like you. Many technologies in the United States have already fallen behind China, such as electromagnetic technology and phased array radar technology
Expanding the military when the economy is tanking might look like a fix. But the money has to be paid from somewhere. So this looks more like a case of dustracting the populatiin with chest beating, again. Belt and Road fizzled out. Threatening Tiawan is not feasible. Palling up with North Korea is a bit desperate.
