3 Problems for China's New Fujian Aircraft Carrier
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 12. 2023
- PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at PDSDebt.com/task23
There are a lot of reasons why you would want the EMALS. It produces less stress on expensive aircraft frames, as well as better energy efficiency. According to a senior Chinese researcher, they have run hundreds of tests using their EMALS with their J-15 multirole fighter jets. There are no reports of it being tested with F-20’s. The General R Ford has proven their EMALS work in over 200 public test launches. EMALS is a new system, so it needs to be tested that much. In fact, the US EMALS initially had problems with its power system, its efficiency and reliability during Post Delivery Tests and Trials.
The 200+ test launches have allowed the US carrier to solve the issues, one by one. The Chinese EMALS, on the other hand, is far from this stage of development. In fact, there is no definitive data on whether the Chinese EMAL system really works because it has never been seen publicly working. What we know is this capability requirement came all the way from the top. Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post reported that the Central Military Commission, which is run by President Xi Jinping, requested electromagnetic launch. That would kind of be like if President Biden had a pet project at the department of defense. But there have been persistent questions about whether a non nuclear powered ship could achieve that result. Sources in the PLA claimed a team led by China’s top naval engineer Rear Admiral Ma Weiming had figured out a solution.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @taskandpurpose
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
#NAVY #WAR #MILITARY
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
Thanks for watching spare parts army! PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at PDSDebt.com/task23
Cappy looks freshly shaved in this. Idk, maybe he's just whiter?
Commenting here so maybe you'll see it. You said the launcher uses a 100M watts of energy. Watts are a unit of power not energy. The unit you're looking for is probably watt-hours.
@@ctownskierthank you for the correction ! ❤
Who are you to doubt China, boy?
@@ctownskier Also, I'm thinking super capacitors for energy storage, for the EMLS, and large discharge current. They are starting to show up in semi trucks, to replace 1 or more of the 4 battery pack.
The US has been operating carriers for _over_ 100 years, not nearly 100 years. The first US carrier was converted from a collier USS Jupiter beginning in 1920, and re-commissioned as USS Langley (CV-1) on 20 March 1922. The 100 year birthday of the US carrier fleet was 20 March 2022.
It depends if you count those early modified battleships as carriers. They catapulted sea planes then pulled them out of the water with a crane
yes it counts, it's an air craft carrier@@samsonsoturian6013
@@samsonsoturian6013the Langley was the first of what we would call an aircraft carrier, with a flight deck and operating conventional aircraft.
In times of war between survival and death, people have a capacity to learn very fast in war.
@@samsonsoturian6013 "They catapulted sea planes then pulled them out of the water with a crane"
And yet they were still aircraft carriers. Just because the technology for aircraft during that time wouldn't allow landing ships on a deck doesn't mean they weren't aircraft carriers.
Did my thesis on this exact subject in 2016. You nailed it all. From tonnage displacement, the Liaonang being outdated, the Malaka straight and 9 dash line. You presented all of this so well in a short amount of time that took me some 120 pages haha.
Is your thesis public?
I would be very interested in reading your thesis if you’re able to share it ! Email is in the vid description
@@Cpt_Boony_HatI am very interested in the thesis as well. Any chance to read that?
Hmm, I dunno about this @bananabear009 aka 'Dick Chan' fellow asking Qs
🤨
His 1st & only post n this channel and his subscriptions are private..hmmm
_-Don't tell him anything!-_
@@Metapharsical honey trap? :D
You're absolutely spot on about naval air power pilots..... .we gave up naval aviation in 2014 when we retired the Illustrious and the loss in capability meant that our crews had to get retraining from the USN and French Navy to bring our crews and pilots back up to speed as we're all senior NATO members and close partners. Thank you USN, USMC and French carrier crews and pilots.🇬🇧🇺🇸🇲🇫✌️
I love your channel. It always reminds me the best way to win a war is by underestimating one's adversary.
The fact they got the sister ship of the Kuznetzov working is pretty neat on its own. Considering the sibling and all.
The Indians were able to get their ex-soviet carrier working also. Speaks volumes that the ruzzian federation can't get theirs going.
It's not just they can't get it going. It keeps catching on fire.
@@jakleo337 All the Soviet naval engineers were living in Ukraine around Odessa.
But does the sister ship retain the tofu dreg construction like the buildings and certain tank have?
I dont think Chinas military corruption is as rampant as Russias. Thats whats keeping the Kuznetzov down, is theres corruption everywhere on it.
I think the point you made about training and experience with regard to the U.S. and Chinese militaries is quite valid.
If marching smartly in lock-step was actually worth something in combat, the Chinese would be very impressive. Most images you see of U.S. military, they are sauntering along and chatting casually among themselves. They know what they're doing.
Tbf, do they really need spend money to train? What would a war between them and us be anyways but nuke lobbing?
For a proxy conflict, they could just go ww2 America mode, build crap faster than they’re lost, lose a measly few hundred thousand, then soak up experience by a proxy war’s next year.
Imo they’re at most only aiming for kinmen, else they’d actually try to match our spending and troop ratio.
@@ac1455that’s what American thought before the Korean War. Don’t make the same mistake twice.
Its called having discipline. Russian conscripts and hamas also saunter chit chat.
Imagine thinking chit chatting is what makes a military effective 😂
@@charles8769
Fall in!
@@ac1455 What is the point only aiming for Kinmen😂
21:24 haha his little brest pockets flipping up in the wind so cute
As always, great job and very informative.
The issues with these carriers the fuel consumption on a ramp jump is insane compared to catapulting. The other issue for China, US Carriers can put to air double the aircraft two times as fast. These are good if you’re going to pick on a smaller power but can’t go toe to toe with Nimitz or Ford class carriers.
Great point !
@@Taskandpurpose VF 32/ VFA 32 2004 to 2008, CVN 75 Truman, CAG 3. Call sign Gypsie, give em hell! Buck stops here!
Any time Baby 🐱
Are you implying that 2 carriers are gonna launch jets at each other?
How is that possible, to take off from a ramp you use full afterburner, to take off with a catapult you also use full afterburner. So an aircraft would use about the same amount of fuel for either. More importantly, a ramp take off usually requires the aircraft to have a much lower take off weight than otherwise. So less fuel and fewer weapons.
@@Taskandpurpose
Nonsensical.
PRC AC aren't meant to "face-off" against U$ AC ... they're meant to provide air-cover for the amphibious landing mission on Taiwan.
My dad was on the USS Coral Sea CVA-43 and worked on F-4 phantoms. Army E-4 Mafia for me.😎
K??
It took me a minute to realise that the footage at 7:45 was some sort of simulation. I was really concerned about where this combat footage was coming from, but I was relieved when I noticed that there was some digital trickery going on.
Keep up the great work Cappy 😂
i tell u, thats gotta be some top notch military ai animation 😂
catapult may be supported by a battery or super capacitor bank, or a hybrid of both.
Chris cappy is my favourite in the CZcams platform, not only just watching his podcasts to get updates but also a lecturer, best military combats, effective weapons, armored vehicles, helicopters, fighting jets, and best Strategy to executes battlefields to the way to deliver Strategic decisive victory. I always appreciates you chris chappy....🙏.
Thanks man ❤️
Agreed, I'm at a solid tie between Cappy and Ryan Mcbeth. Both absolutely fantastic presenters
I'd like to see him run for President.
The Fujian uses DC for its EMALS system rather than AC for the Ford. Essentially, it is more energy efficient and easier to maintain which is what a conventional carrier needs but is more expensive to operate and build.
More efficient overall if you're able to surge production in the enormous amount of current needed to cycle through launches, which a powerplant short of nuclear struggles to accomplish.
@@doujinflipno, exactly the opposite. Capacitors and batteries both use DC not AC, so using DC for the catapult is a great boon if your power plant can't supply it directly and it has to go through a buffer, as you don't get the conversion loss.
@@reappermenPower is typically generated using AC but there is very mature technology there to convert to DC.
@@luting3 that is mainly done because it is more convenient for grid use. It is actually very simple to make DC generators, so assuming the ship uses DC for lots of stuff they'd use a DC generator not an AC one, and then just convert the DC to AC for the minor uses
You really think the US was all "gosh I wish we could make our catapult more efficient, but this DC stuff sounds hard, let's just use a nuclear reactor instead"
Thank you for posting this interesting video
Another informative post well worth watching.
big fan of the channel, keep up the good work! & thank you for your service!
After 20+ yeas in the Navy most of that time at sea on several USN Carriers, I can say you have done a great job in your analysis of the Chinees Carriers! Agree that while they are not ready for primetime, they are putting in the work to get there!
yes, complacency is terrible. China has demonstrated an ability to lessen the time for learning on almost every prediction of accomplishing X task, be it training or manufacturing.
@@radiofreealbemuth8540that Chinese space station tells you how advanced china really is. Whats next a freaking Chinese death star?
@@gregmasters8558 I am very confident that the U.S. has very advanced tech that makes the space station look primitive though. The US went from the Wright Brothers to Armstrong. The SR71 was built 66 years ago, the same amount of time between Wright Brothers to the moon.
@@radiofreealbemuth8540 USA golden years are over. China being painted as evil globally by the true colonial evil has given the Chinese ammo to become even better.
@@radiofreealbemuth8540Yet the US wont do anything about it.
If you'd like to see the U.S.'s ElectroMagnetic launch system in action, you can catch it at the fair next year with a pack of Greyhounds chasing it. I heard the track got a great deal on the parts at auction.
A great point on the diesel generation of electricity to power EMALS. As an engineer I believe this would be difficult and the sortie rate will go down.
Conventional and nuclear powered carriers are technically all steam powered. Conventional carriers just use oil to boil water. A nuclear powered carrier is also just a giant water heater. Nuclear power isn't anything like a power plant in Star Trek. If you go into a nuclear power plant on a carrier, all you're gonna see is a bunch of pipes and cables coming out of a big box (the reactor). They both just use steam to spin a turbine.
The biggest difference is conventional powered carriers required fuel supply and have lower efficacy(more fuel for same power). Also, as now Type 001 002 have to bring 3 types of oil to take operation(oil for aircraft ,generate electricity, and power the ship)
nuclear powered carriers can also reduce the logistical requirements of a ship.
that is why ppl say Conventional and nuclear powered carriers are so different even they both use steam.
I think the point is the amount of energy that a nuclear power can make vs a oil/fuel burning driven turbine can. Yes both boil water but how hot is that water/steam.
You mean it doesnt have warp speed or teleportation capabilities?? 😮
And the difference is not having to replenish oil reserves and stay on station indefinitely. FYI, in NATO conducts underway replenishment. So as long as there is oil and tankers all NATO frontline war ships are deep water regardless whether nuclear or gas turbine 👍
@@robertgarcia217 true but a nuclear powered one doesn’t require fuel for the engines , hence more fuel for jets and munitions. The space for that chinese carrier for its engines must be massive.
Love your channel. Informative, well researched and food for thought.🤙
When I was in the 7th Fleet, USN, we were constantly having to chase China out of the territorial waters of other countries; where they didn't belong. I know quite a bit about their assets, capabilities, and locations....
If anyone is interested:
*PLN North [HQ Qingdao]*
1 Aircraft Carrier, 18 Subs, 1 Cruiser, 9 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 10 Corvettes, 2 Tank Landing Ships, 5 Medium Landing Ships, 18 Missile Patrol Craft
*PLN East [HQ Ningbo]*
18 Subs, 12 Destroyers, 23 Frigates, 19 Corvettes, 2 Amphibs, 16 Tank Landing Ships, 7 Medium Landing Ships, and 46 Missile Patrol Craft
*PLN South [HQ Zhanjiang]*
1 Carrier, 20 Subs, 11 Destroyers, 18 Frigates, 20 Corvettes, 4 Amphibs, 13 Tank Landing Ships, 9 Medium Landing Ships, and 22 Missile Patrol Craft
Their Navy isn't as aircraft focused as ours. The reason being that PLAAF pilots have a hard time with simply just staying in the air. So they've designed a very lightweight fleet based on Aerial denial, and a meat grinder island hopping strategy.
The southern fleet is designed for the Philippines. The eastern fleet is the primary defense and its main purpose is Taiwan. The northern fleet is their weakest, because they believe that Russia will help them.
If they don't belong there, what makes the 7th legitimate there?
@@gordonsun8005
Because we're working at the request and in partnership with the countries that China is bullying. If China continues to violate UNCLOS and the territorial waters of other nations by operating within their EEZ; don't be surprised when multinational alliances form against China, and consequences for the CCP's criminality comes with consequences.
@@gordonsun8005 its called "diplomatic agreements" - the US Navy guards smaller nations that have asked for help. Not sure what you were really asking here or leaning with your question...
@@gordonsun8005 The difference is that America is asked to be there, and is also not claiming their territory. Its quite easy to see how the 7th fleet's presence is justified.
@@jesse89625
That's far from being reflective of reality.
I like your analysis. You have collected way more data than other posters. I am here to address the power questions in your video with some new data. The Ford aircraft power output from its 2 A1B nuclear reactors is 280k horsepower. For comparison Fujian is 260k horsepower, slightly less then Ford, but sufficient for its catapults. The benefit of nuclear reactors is its sustainability but not necessarily power output. The idea of using aircraft carrier is way different between China and US. US needs long commission time and more jets to "complete versatile missions" at "multiple hot zones", so nuclear power and mid-sized F35 are best suited (so a carrier can carry more). China on the other hand, does not have that many "interested zones" so nuclear power is not very needed, besides even if China want nuclear power, it has to take it step by step. The next point is 【very important】: there are very few situations/targets that would require China to deploy its aircraft carriers. Actually, there is only one possible opponent and that one has a big fucking navy, so for this kind of navy battle, you may not want lots of jets, but instead bigger and heavier jets that flies longer and can carry bigger missiles----you only need one shot. For China, its super speed missile, the 21D navy version is way too big to be carried by mid-sized jets, so that's why J15 is needed. The type 055 destroyer/cruiser also carries such missile, and that's why 055's silos are 9m deep. Its US counterpart's ---- USS Ticonderoga---- silos are 6m deep (the Zumwalt? Err...I've never seen a warship that cost so much and cannot do serious sea battle before). In short, the US aircraft carriers are like Swiss tools, they can battle with many nations. China's carriers on the other hand are like screwdrivers, they only servers one purpose. 【In the end】, I have to emphasize, for peace loving people, nobody wants a war, nobody wants to trade a warm night with a nice......(anyway, nice) for a cold night in a trench. But the world is just not so fancy as we think. Someone wants money, to buy a mansion, maybe to trip to a distant island loaded with girls......and many more pervert, low, and despicable purposes, they would call you a demon and start a war. Stop that from happening, I hope.
I’m glad this channel took off and is doing good 59 minutes and already at over 21,000 views
The Chinese Navy is pretty much favoring incremental experimental designs, which is why they have 3 ships that are all different types of carriers. Those are used as tech test beds but also for crew training.
It's likely the fourth type will be nuclear, though it is possible China will build another conventional type 003 as it would be a cheaper option while being very useful for training which does not require long range deployments.
Another armchair general.
China's first two carriers are the same type, the first was an uncompleted hull bought from Ukraine, the second was China's version of the same carrier.
I would think China would stick to conventional because their hardest fight would be invading Taiwan, and they would be able to afford more conventional carriers than nuclear.
For operations in the Indian Ocean, I'd expect China to just bring tankers for UNREP.
@@mikebaggott7802They aren't the same type, there are some stark differences between the two. The second was made based on understandings gleamed from the first.
@@voidtempering8700 , sure, but it's basically the same ship; ski jump bow, no catapults, deck lengthb is similar. Pilots trained on the either of the first two carriers will have similar experiences. It's the new ship that has created the headaches in their training pipeline.
I imagine that the 'ski-jump' ramp would do some nasty damage to the forward landing gear when it hits that slope.
Yes. Although these equipment have already been tested extensively on the land, they need to be tested onboard Fijian AC for verification which IMO will not be a problem.
Unlike USAF F-35 or USN USS Gerald Ford where the development is performed in concurrency, I believe the PLAN are quite meticulous in the testing procedures.
They won't rush the approval process.
As for AC pilots, PLAN have been recruiting and training these new recruits for years, using the CV-16 Liaoning which is designated as a training and testing Aircraft Carrier. That is why CV-17 Shandong went ao smoothly.
Look at their Shenzhou 18 spacecraft luanched a few days ago, it all went so routinely without any hitch. The same is true with their military hardwares.
But successful testing of CV-18 will accelerated the construction of more AC which two will be build simultaneously at once with a new nuclear powerplant.
These are interesting time for enthusiasts like us.
"At any ship speed" sounds like cutting off all screw power (and lights) to put all of it into the catapult... despite the fact that a head wind helps with lift.
No evidence to back-up that claim by Cappy ... only speculation.
Brown out on the Carrier. Coffee Pots stop working.
@@lawrenceleverton7426 Proof that there is no justice in this world, my man.
The scariest part to me is not how effective the carrier is in actuality-it’s the speed at which they got to this point. In the 80s China barely had a Navy at all. I foresee this causing some major issues in the future.
How long did it take other countries to build a formidable navy and thousands of WW2 ships in a short amount of time? China is moving at a snail pace and playing it too safe.
They are a manufacturing powerhouse and they got money and also purpose, any country can do it too, its not hard to believe, but as their economy go down in the coming years, how much more can they maintain their military as it is
@@ekulerudamuru any country can do it too？There are only three countries that can fully produce their own carrier-based aircraft and aircraft carriers. . .
The aircraft carrier is just a carrier, and the United States even needs to import its arresting ropes. There is only one industrial country in the world that has a complete industrial system. .
@@user-js5bl3ei7kAircraft carriers are more then carriers, its an entire air power group, a city of over 5 thousand sailors and the US Has 11 fully operational with respectable escorts, The US not only has thr numbers but the Logistics, Crew and most importantly experiences. And thats not including Marine corps 31 Amphibious assault ships which also have air wings and marines.
@@ekulerudamurulol China's economy isn't going anywhere, even a major depression they'd still be a major powerhouse. Japan has #4 GDP in the world and they don't have anywhere near the capability
This will be a major problem for a long time even as US stays on top
thks for the great content
Haha at last, Cappy unintentionally zoom in into Malaysia map. 🤣👌
You pronounced NUCLEAR powered correctly twice in a row! Dude! I am so proud of you. You are becoming more professional and dignified day by day. Kudos. Keep up the good work. Please brag about this breakthrough to your speech therapist.
Noook-looo-ur.
New Cu Lear
I honestly do not understand people's fixation on the pronunciation of "Nuclear." Been a lot of places in the US - and different words are pronounced differently in different places. Funny - I never hear anyone complain about the various pronunciations of "ask" that I have heard.
now if only we can get them to pronounce Fentanyl correctly, instead of calling it Fentanol.....and don't get me started about where all that is coming from....
Let me correct something: China has recruited 30 British spies with naval aviation experience because MI-6, which doesn't exist, sees an opportunity to get an inside scoop on the People's Liberation Army Navy that can't be missed.
Sneaky, very sneaky. Very British now that I think about it.
Wish their leadership was smart enough to not leave the EU.
Those magnet bars properly take a lot of spaces under that first deck too!
Chinese carriers are not ready for major war with more experienced US navy yet, but they are learning faster than any previous contenders.
So far, not really.
@@rizon72 judging from all they have done in many areas including technological and militarily in recent years, they are fast tracking their progress. Only when view this objectively can US find a way to raise its own bar competing with them. Denial only worsen the situation.
@@prastagus3 what they have done isn't that fast realistically speaking. They are already 10 years in and still has a lot of learning to go.
@@rizon72 you must look beyond just carrier ops. What they done in these 10 years are for building and training their carrier supports more since their carrier technology wasn't up to part until 03 carrier.
True... Meanwhile in a decade (probably less), junior officers cannot pull the trigger 'coz their senior officers didn't get their pronouns right...
PLA-N has big problems and yet it's the western planes falling off the ships... Even the touted F-35 fell off its ship!! western planes and drones falling from the skies in "freedom of navigation" flights.. heck US submarine got its nose yanked underneath South China Sea...
US is slowly dying inside and won't retaliate against CCP 'coz the Chinese will NEVER let the West know they are at war!!! US navy will anchor at high seas and won't move an inch 'coz they cannot hurt civilian fishing vessels...
Thanks Chris and the team for your efforts in preparing all these detailed reports. Love your channel !❤
3:56
Nice stripe painting on the ... so call "fishing boat"
Fun fact: The ONLY military NAVY vessel among those police and coast guard in that atoll area is the landing ship of Filipino.🤗
Not sure it will work but the ambition to jump right into a large aircraft carrier is impressive.
Only surpassed by the ambition to promote agriculture and health by hunting the four pests. Well, I guess there is the entire Great Leap to consider as well...
time will tell, it will work and it is just a matter of time that Chinese Navy surpass the US Navy.
I blame us Brits 🙄
Instead of failing to stop our abused & very understandably hacked off RN & RAF pilot 'advisors' go to China
*We should have let their agents smuggle out the entire plans for our latest Prince Charles AirCraft Carrier* .
It would have held China back AT LEAST ANOTHER DECADE
@Task and Purpose I will admit that the PLAN has more hulls then the USN; however bring those hulls for weighing and you’ll see that the USN is still much larger in the tonnage.
because of aging and lack of shipyard space the total numbers of hulls in the US Navy is declining while the total number of hulls in of the PLAN is rapidly increasing.
US is much higher in number of ships that put up credible air defense, whereas most of the PLAN boats are vulnerable to even a cheap guided bomb.
Yea
But more of them then us
China can change that quickly too.
Don't get too comfy.
@@tomhenry897 Maybe I can put it into perspective then. A ship needs a certain amount of weigh to support all the fun weapons and technology to win. Compared to our Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyers, their Type 052B carries only half the missiles.
While you can say they if they have double the hulls they be in more places. It is better to protect the assets you half then more in this cases. The complex equipment required for these very large ships is not cheap and building more ships to lesser standards doesn’t mean it translates into having a better navy.
Could be Type 0030, taking inspiration from Mazda CX line.
Remember how back in the early 90s, China barely had a navy except converted fishing boats .Fast forward to the current days, churning out British navy -size number of ships every 4 years. That very impressive.
Hey! I have that shirt! All these aircraft carriers run on steam, the difference is that they use nuclear reactors to produce steam instead of coal or oil. Great video!
Did I see a brief flash of a diesel-generator system for their EMALS? That dead load test looked pretty weak as well, no surprise. Good luck with that! Good, clear presentation that ties together well. I'd be surprised to see this ship operational before I die of old age.
that video test is from gerald r ford AC, no chinese video only picture of deadload splashing infront of carrier
😂
They use BYD blafe batteries to power the EM launcher. Its more powerful than your steam catapult. Its a mag lev technology. Can steam trains travel at 500km/h compare to mag lev???
哈哈，真酸！
Never see anyone who curses himself about short life in the way before😂
What are your thoughts about welding issues with Chinese built ships.
My guess is they have to coast the ship and send that power to charge the caps (I say that because "they can launch planes at any ships speed") so slowing down (coasting) yea and what about their electromagnetic gun? Still a b.s. tiger?
The deck is lifting it has power issues it takes 48 hours for the engines to be operational and logistical Hull testing has not being completed it is a death trap
Why does it take 48 hours for the engines to be operational?
@@u2beuser714..just time it takes to collect enough gutter oil to fill the tank, my guess
Say, U2beuser, you're not considered a Wumao , are you!? You seem so interested in channels discussing China..😂
Do you denounce the CCP?
It takes a long time to heat up thousands of gallons of water to turn it into steam. There are shortcuts such as leaving one boiler running or using steam supplied from shore. With a nuclear reactor, much of the system remains hot and ready. Thus the shorter underway time with nuclear.
A nuke plant has to stay hot, it also does not take 48 hours for a oil to steam plant to get on line. @@major__kong
This is interesting watching this, just yesterday I read a news article talking about how China has about 40-50 days of oil/fuel. I can't help but think how all of this would just sit around due to a fuel shortage.
That thing would look amazing as a diving reef. You could play Count the Skeletons.
Notice they're marching the instructors alot? That's so they can run good on those treadmills to power the EMALs! 🤣🤣🤣
19:59 "The aircraft carrier was spotted 89 ft away from its berthing place."
I think you are spot on about freedom of navigation vs denying others such freedom of navigation in what they perceive as their "territorial waters." Even though they have deployed ships into the middle east, there have yet to be any reports of them defending ships by intercepting missals or drones, and the bulk of the naval ships they've built are not deep water vessels with extensive, global reach, though they are seeking to build out such capability.
China does not interfere with international shipping, especially since they are so dependent on trade. The U.S. has everything (food, oil, etc.) and can close itself off and still survive.
@@johnchiu4560 Yes, they do, particularly in the South China sea in the territorial waters of other nations which they claim as their own in violation of international law.
@@WraithAllen What "international law"? Jazzy expression. But it means obey whatever the U.S. says.
international law? Is what the United States passes called international law?
Does U.S. navigation in China’s territorial waters count as international law? Will it be considered international law to sail within the United States when China becomes stronger?
Isn't this your gangster theory? Just listen to whoever is strong? When the United States bombed our Yugoslav Embassy, was it also required by international law?
Put away your gangster logic.
Don't talk about those things that are available and not available. As long as it is our own territorial waters, we can go wherever we want.@@WraithAllen
That's just because you didn't see it. Don't take your ignorance as a joke. It is impossible for the American media to report what good things the Chinese navy has done there. They prefer negative news about China.
As usual, the video author carefully prepared and obtained a bunch of outrageous results on the rich and detailed materials. This is very in line with the intellectual level of Europeans and Americans.
I don't say this often, but this was an excellent video that was right on point! It was refreshing to watch a video that was accurate and educational
I don't see it in the comments enough - Thank you Chris. Always so much thought and research in your videos. Thank you
Great video man, with really good information. I watch your channel all the time, and this video was awesome. All are but this stuck out. Great job man.
The EMAG step was bold. The rest of the carrier design makes a lot of sense to me. They are progressing. But the biggest challenge will be crew and experience. I wish the US would focus on the crew and experience factor more than building the super-carrier Ford and its future siblings. A modest carrier even coal-powered carrier of the Kitty-Hawk class with a great crew is a formidable projection of power. We would probably get more bang for our buck building smaller carriers and getting more pilots and seamen with real seat time. my 2c
I agree. And from a force protection standpoint: multiple smaller aircraft carriers are drastically more survivable than 1 supercarrier. The US Navy should be distributing its firepower as widely as possible in the Pacific, not concentrating it. This is even more obvious with the growing proliferation of anti-ship ballistic missiles and offensive drones.
Laughable. And-16 with a great pilot isn’t jack shit compared to any f-35 pilot. It’s simply overwhelmingly better. A t-34 cannot beat a t-72
Coal powered? lol
It was diesel-powered.
@@daxlucero2437but it’s a bit different for a carrier, which only needs to launch planes, and isnt meant to engage in direct combat unlike tanks and aircraft
It is merely a stepping stone, and learning platform, to the end goal of multiple 004 carriers, that will match US carriers...
I liked your "003 Problems to Solve title" - That was good.
I can already see a new video in 2030s titled “Why China’s 5 carriers is no match for the US in tonnage” and another one in 2040s titled “Why tonnage doesn’t matter when it comes to nuclear powered carriers”
I mean, the US operates like three times as many aircraft carriers as China (soon enough to be 14 total once more Ford classes come online). By 2030, China is going to be in a demographic deathspiral where the population is aging faster than the birthrate can replace it. By the 2040s it won't matter how many carriers they build, they won't have crews to run them. Chinas population is going to be halved by 2050. The China we're seeing today in the 2020s is going to be the strongest it's going to be for the next several *centuries*. With the absolute clusterfuck that is the Chinese economy, it's increasingly likely that China will cease to be a single country by 2040 and it'll just collapse into yet another warring states period. MOST of Chinese history has been spent in warring states inter-dynasty periods. China hit it's peak already like ten years ago and now it's on the way down fast, they either make their move on Taiwan in this decade or they never do it.
@@Lusa_Iceheart Firstly, the number of US carriers will never exceed 12, ever, ever, because there simply isn’t enough dry docks or skilled labors in the US to maintain all of them. China, on the other hand, can theoretically have dozens of carriers. The only limitation will be cost and political will, not industrial or manpower capacity.
Why is China building one carrier at a time right now? The same reason why it had been making 1 destroyer at a time until 2015, when it finalized the optimal destroyer design for mass production. Since then, Chinese destroyers were launched in batches of 12. One dry dock of a single shipyard was photographed assembling 5 of them simultaneously (all 5 have been launched this year).
So just like with destroyers and submarines, China is taking its time to figure out a carrier design satisfactory enough for mass production.
Secondly, regarding your statement about the Chinese population, I would recommend you Money & Macro’s CZcams video on just this topic, where he covered a range of scenarios regarding Chinese population. Short story is that no, Chinese economy and population will not collapse, halving by 2050 is the most pessimistic estimate that wasn’t shared by any other institutions. There were multiple ways to comfortably make up for population decline, one of which is raising the retirement age. China has a lot of leeway on this since Chinese retirement age was only 55, very young compared to developed countries. Just increasing it by 1-2 years is enough to make up for the skilled labor gap.
And thirdly, if we are really going down that route, take a look at America’s population by 2050: the only reason why American population isn’t going to shrink is due to immigration. By 2050, Caucasians will fall below 50% and no longer be the largest racial group in America.
At least East Asian countries like China, SKorea and Japan will be >90% native.
So really, who’s at a loss?
@@Lusa_Iceheart China right now reminds me of the strategy gamers that'll spend all their capital up front to make as large an army as possible at the expense of long-term investments. It looks great (on paper) for now, but in the not too distant future you're going to have to pay to upkeep all that and replace what ages and I don't think China's future can support the level of building they're currently doing. We'll have to wait and see I guess.
@@MrMontanaNights You may be disappointed, but China's cigarette tax alone is enough for military expenditure, and China's military expenditure is the lowest among all big countries
@user-re8so1gc7s Their published defense spending is almost 300B and cig tax rev is only 18B, so no not quite but I see what your getting at
Great video. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Here in the UK, the RN Queen Elizabeth-class uses IEP, but was initially specced for EMALS... so it's not impossible, in theory. But it gets murkier: that _was_ the ambition, but then BAE owned up that it was too much of a tech risk to deliver on time, so that was downscoped to a vague aspiration that 'at some point' an EMALS and or directed-energy weapon system might be retrofitted (because 'the IEP massively stronk'). No-one here's holding their breath on that, not least because you'd have to remove the ski-jump.
And solve the conventional power energy issue like the Chinese
As an American, im a big fan of China carrying on the USSR's historic quality control. Im sure that these vessels are fine and wont fall apart ubder their own girth.
as an american you need to go visit china and have your mind fucking blown
I hope you are correct
Sure, you better hope OTOH US made vessels don't fall in line with typical American product quality like that of Boeing 737 MAX.
China isn't Russia. They have the manpower, finances, and tech (much stolen or given them by US companies) to make decent things. They only sell us crap because we buy it.
@@levelazn
bet youre relishing that 35 yuan that the ccp just gave you for that
It's only natural that the Chinese run into problems because these are massive complex platforms that takes years and decades to master or even get familiar. That said so, their progress has been rapid and much smoother than many anticipated. With their 5th gen naval platforms achieving mass production, they will be even more formidable. For now they only seem to want to be dominant in Asia pacific but we can predict where this is going.
And yet china did overcome them all
A lot of Chinese military commentators call these new platforms training, research and development facilities, they are not just learning about combat tactics but also about construction, maintenance, logistics and sustainment. China just started Naval build-up in the last 10-15 years and they are very new to this and have a long way to go. But one thing you can count on is massive industrial scale of the Chinese, they are pumping out new platforms and modifications to these new platforms at a fast click.
well do you know that the chinese build the ground based training facility 5-10 years ago before china commissioned their first carrier? and the first carrier is just for training purposes which is now upgraded to be fully capable of assault. So do not underestimate CHINESE period. IT's the worlds one of the greatest civilization for a reason. Huawei will destroy apple+ QUALCOMM + tsla soon. ready for the show in 2024 and more exciting 2025 and beyond for chinese complete domination of semiconductor end to end supply chain.
@@jacksmith-mu3ee nobody can overcome "all" problems lmfao, even the mighty US has F-35 dropping in the ocean every other month
@@TheRealIronMan China: hold my moon rock.
Only two navies currently have commissioned operational catobar carriers, the US and France.
To operate the EMALs, the radars, the weapons system, and the ancillary systems all at the same time in a combat situation will more than likely cause one or more of those systems to shutdown do to power systems limitations.
The US aircraft carriers could also be tankers for the support ships that escort them. The same can not be said about the Chinese carriers.
The uss Gerald Ford with its two nuclear reactors produced almost 3times more power than the current Nimitz class,enough power here for future weapon ,most likely laser weapons which need at least 500kw to be practical.Fujian carrier should at least match ford power output,considering it is not a nuclear carrier but wait and see .
The fujian is meant for defense near china not worldwide projection, and the type 004 just got confirmed so its on its way.
@@YourSocialistAutomaton Carriers were invented as offensive weapons and they do project power.
@@kerentolbert5448 Yes but in a operational zone near china and not a worldwide prospective, this is just a start for chinas carrier fleet as they intend to operate 6 to 8 carriers.
@@YourSocialistAutomaton That is your supposition base on what you think the outcome or limits of a war may be.
Notice the “Farley Laserlab” laser cutting machine? Supplied by Australia. Wonder if they’re still supplying the Chinese?
The PLAN uses a very different EMALS system to the USN. The U.S. variant is a high voltage system that needs nuclear power, while the Chinese one uses a medium voltage system that allows it to store energy in the ships batteries and use it for aircraft ops. The Chinese system doesn’t need nuclear power, it does however need the ship to be fitted with an advanced integrated electric propulsion system.
Just because the U.S. doesn’t use this system doesn’t make the Chinese one less capable, it’s very possible that the Chinese have made a tech breakthrough here ahead of the U.S.
The voltage has nothing to do with the type of boiler. Nuclear reactor is just a larger boiler, nothing too special.
@@henrywang3977It’s the integrated electric propulsion aspect that’s the key, allowing the storage of energy to use for the operation of the medium voltage EMALS system. Google the work of Ma Weiming on medium voltage EMALS. It’s too technical for a CZcams comment feed but what he’s done on the subject is extraordinary.
China is more advanced for power supply.
@@henrywang3977it’s the difference between DC on the 003 and AC on the Ford class. DC is more efficient, more modular, and has more redundancy to resist battle damage, but is more complex and harder to design than AC systems.
Ford class went with AC because DC wasn’t really mature 10 years ago and nuclear powered carrier doesn’t need efficiency anyway. However, now you are seeing the issue where one electromagnetic catapult breaking down on the Ford put the other 3 out of commission as well. This will not happen to a DC system like on 003.
Isn't that why it's slower? They need time to recharge the system between shots?
Just 3 problems? Damn, they’re doing good!😂
3 aircraft problems for the u.s lol
@@levelazn why can I see the current gen us aircraft salivating on those carriers and the hellcats giving them a nodding approval...
and all those 3 problems are everyone can think off, just watch the beginning, disappointed. 😂
LOL
Supposedly 3 problems ...
By the time it enters combat service... all the "problems" have been solved . 👍
That Type 360X about to be lit!!!
China just successfully completed the third test of its electromagnetic catapult system on Fujian 003 aircraft carrier with RAIL GUN. Close to Ford carrier in size. China’s 004 is being built and it’s believed to be nuclear powered with new capabilities plus 20% bigger than the Ford series
We can only speculate, because they don't share anything publicly. Also, Rail Gun? The technology isn't even there yet to fully transition to it, I highly doubt they have a barrel that doesn't disintegrate after a few shots.
Do a video on their upcoming type 004 aircraft carrier
Why? China has enough problems as is with their military development. A ship that’s planned to made in a decade and a half is not worth for coverage. It’s supposed to based on the 003 yet, the 003 has even reached sea trials. The Chinese could completely changed the design three times within the design portion allotted. Speculation, on a ship that based on a ship that hasn’t even let her home port yet is a exercise in fiction.
@@joecool2810 maybe because we wanna know any info about the ship and his take on it?
@@pabcu2507 why is insight relevant? he's an "infantry man" ... but if you want coverage of the 004 check out Eurasia Naval Insight which does cool coverage of most Chinese ship developments.
At the rate you put out these good videos I have to ask: do you ever sleep? 😅
he has an whole state department behind him to push these videos out.
Cris, im brasileiro (Brazilian) and your vídeos helped me learn english. Tnx for your job
Awesome context!
Love your stuff🌞🌞. Does “ range” limit naval ships. Don’t fueling craft travel with every group ? Or else the shortest range ship would limit the group.
And, we see refueling of military jets all the time. Otherwise the F 35 would be severely limited
This is a great point I’ll have to research carrier logistics operations more . My understanding is they use ports to refuel because they have to stay “on station” circling areas in boxes for long periods . Kind of like how aircraft loiter in the sky for a while
Carriers can (an do sometime) use underway replenishment and replenishment at sea. We did it extensively in WW2 in the Pacific and still do to this day. We used to have Fast Combat Supply Ships like the "Supply-class" that could keep up with a carrier strike group but they've all been retired as of around 2012. Nowadays we have Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ships as well as Henry J. Kaiser and John Lewis Class replenishment oilers. The PLAN has an equivalent ship to the Fast Combat Supply Ship in the form of the Type 901. It's my understanding that the replenishment ships no longer follow the strike groups because they can't keep up, so have to rendezvous for pre-scheduled replenishment ops. They're also experimenting with unmanned surface vessels for resupply but that may be a fair bit off from operational use.
even in ye olde days of coal fueled steamships, many large and well funded navies with international commitments, such as the brittish empire's ships, had coal tenders for underway replenishment. The UK also had a lot of bases around the world so those coal tenders could more easily stock up and return to the fleet, or the fleet can pull into port for maintinance and repairs.
@@Taskandpurpose The US fleets have been practicing Underway Replenishment (UNREP) since before WW2. In good, poor, and in some cases outright bad weather. This is what gave the US the significant combat range and loiter time in the operational theater. It's the logistics piece that helps to win wars.
You need to update your info, Fujian has published video showing successful test of its catapult.
Watch this video age like fine wine, because the future's already poured. Railguns, SATS, drones, Hypersonic missiles - name your flavor of ship-sinking goodness. One hundred years of experience won't save you from tomorrow.
I figured out what their integrated power system is! It really will allow them to power an EMALS. They integrate their aircraft carrier with the local power grid of whatever city they are ported in (Shanghai for instance). Then they can indeed show their EMALS working… while it’s plugged in to land! 😂😂😂
just need a long extension cord
Why am I put in mind of high school students who relied on ChatGPT, yet imagine they know it all?
Good point about energy requirement's. Maybe they can close their onboard supermarket, to save energy to allow their planes to fly. Making sure they are not drying their laundry on the deck would help too. But they may have learnt the lessons that Japan gave them, in regards to how to use a fighting ship correctly.
9:43 "only 2 other countries use this, the United States and France" - he says show a image with 3 nations on them, USA, France and Brazil.
Good pace, good clarity.
The J-15 looks like an A-5 Vigilante had love child with a SU-37, and neither one wanted to raise it.
But will it be effective?
j15s are actually pretty decent fighters now that the engine issues have been sorted. its one of the few heavy carrier based fighters in the world and serves the same purpose the F14 did.
Dam, man! That is FUNNY! You are so right! LOL.
I get letters every month from my J-15, telling me what they’ve done, etc. as long as I send my support.
@@ashog1426 its got a large payload capacity, long range and a powerful aesa radar, its about as good as you can expect a 4th generation fighter to be.
i believe that the type 03 carrier is more of a jumping platform for the type 04, since it's chinas first time making a aircraft carrier of this shape they simply don't want to make another zumwalt and do it step by step
It sounds like the Zumwalt is getting to be pretty badass. You might want to look into the changes going on. Though yeah it was a farce for a long time
Thanks to bring out that much of knowledge and information 👍
They build lots of warship, but they call it "paper tiger" hahahaaaa... Nice one
And in the mid 10's they said, "1 carrier does not a fleet make." We just keep pushing back the point of when it starts to matter.
Okay, valid, but consider this. China has 2 carriers they can not afford to maintain. The USA has 11. Each one operating with a support group that would make it a fleet unto itself for smaller nations. China counts up-armored fishing trawlers as part of its navy. They don't have a fleet. They got a terrifying incident report waiting to happen.
@@kyosokutai Terrifying incident reports indeed, aswell as some cool artificial reefs if they continue throwing weight around.
@@kyosokutainot to mention the wasp class amphibious assault ships
10,000 fishing vessels shall serve the PLN at the time of need. China's Navy is Superior.
@@bensonfitch6697 You mean those sinking artificial islands?
So proud of the PLAN. They have been striving to evolve into a Blue water Navy. I think this leapfrog into this new technology is awesome!
Electro magnets and hi tech electronics don't mix well they will need a lot of shielding witch adds weight bad in both air and ships also the need for massive amounts of power
not old ski jump, ski jump is actually newer than catapult, and both pioneered by Royal Navy
So an EMALS system is like a rail gun/gauss gun that uses a plane instead of a slug?
Yep!
I was on the CV-63 in 1998 & we had high speed transit from the SCS to the Arabian Sea in just 3 days, w/o the UNREP. So, Chinese CV-16/17/18s can do the same. They r learning tactics on 2 STOBARs for using them on their future CATOBARs; not all of their 3 CVs will be at sea at the same time; if need be, some AF pilots can be trained for carrier ops. Also, some AF helo pilots coud be transferred to naval squadrons, freeing up naval helo pilots for fighter pilot training. Enough said!
I am so surprise and glad that China made so much progress in the aircraft carrier industry and the advanced technology is same level as US which has 100 years experience.
what if they used capacitors to run the catapults?
You can buy them in China town for $6.99 a piece.
I found a source the sells them for a buck less
Buy me one
@@chatter4427 We can get them two for 10 bucks, do you have a slip big enough for them? Mine in Vancouver is really tight with my yacht.
@@anthonywarren4207 then why are u so scared
@@zacksmith5963 Nice non-sequitur
Need to see this
Wearing your helmet as your thinking hat and taking it off - made me laugh. :D
Is Cappy a military advisor for China now?