The State of Global Energy Webinar & The New Chinese Carriers || Peter Zeihan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2024
- Register for The State of Global Energy Webinar here: us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regis...
The newest Chinese aircraft carrier, the Fujian, has officially hit the seas. This a major development for the Chinese Navy, but still falls short when compared to with advanced counterparts (i.e. the US).
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zeihan/webinar-the...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the UA-cam Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#china #navy #carrier
For context, the last major engagement for the Chinese navy was the Battle of the Yalu River in...1894. And they got their asses handed to them by the Japanese.
Edit: everyone's telling me not to underestimate the Chinese. I couldn't agree more, but that wasn't my point. What I'm saying is, they shouldn't be overestimated either - which is where context comes in, nothing more and nothing less.
In their defense, they were woefully outclassed technologically during the Qing Dynasty.
They did ok in Vietnam and Korea
@@user-bh8bc4qb7y Which weren't naval engagements.
@@user-bh8bc4qb7y they lost to Vietnam in 3 months in 1979 hahahah they are weak
That observation is on a par with pointing out that Russia was once conquered by the Mongols. True enough. But how is that relevant to the here and now?
Every time when he talks about China, it reminds me of a guy who proclaimed China's coming collapse 20+ years ago~. So keep it up.
How's their economy doing again? How about their agility when dealing with social issues?
The country isn't exactly healthy
@@xenoneuronics6765 which country is healthy ⁉️
The UA-cam algorithm decided a while back that I wanted to see the "Chinese is collapsing" videos. It has been interesting. While, yes, China is entering an "economic downturn" or even a "crash"; but that is not a collapse. For a "collapse" I expect a mad-max hellscape of less than 10,000 survivors. Or at least something worse than the Great Depression with China fracturing into warlord states. Real collapses are very rare when many humans are involved; and China has a lot of humans in it.
Everything Peter forecast about China has been happening over the past 2 decades though. I was a subscriber to STRATFOR back then, so I’ve been along for all of that.
@@LRRPFco52 Watch this video -> ua-cam.com/video/tochLfjWuM4/v-deo.html
In this video, Peter claimed that China could no longer manufacture any tech stuffs after the new US restriction of semiconductors. His original words were "From a technological point of view, China is DONE!"
Now it's been one and a half year since then. Has China stopped producing anything?
As a military historian, my congrats as the first to get this take correct. Good job.
Off topic: I've recently enjoyed your book,"The End of the World is just the Beginning ..."While I hope many of the things predicted don't come true, your knowledge of the world is mind-boggling! You offer such a global perspective! I, for one, am appreciative!
It might be prudent for us to exercise caution when considering the Chinese aircraft carrier fleet, similar to other nations. While the USA remains fully dedicated to a fixed-wing carrier fleet, it's important to note that not all nations may follow the same operational philosophy. There's a possibility that China could transform their carrier assets into a drone carrier fleet. In such a scenario, drones could operate autonomously, leveraging AI to sever any vulnerable control links. It's worth noting that Russia has begun painting ship shadows on docks as a counter-measure against Ukrainian drones equipped with AI. The number pf drones on such carriers may reach 500.
@sergeant64, i appreciate you sharing this. It certainly is a possibility! I've wondered if there would be a way to shoot a large net that could capture the drones and drag them down. Or,perhaps an EMF weapon that would destroy the electronics. I'm just thinking.
@@sergeant64 That would be a reasonably clever way to adapt to current combat theater conditions and offset some of the limitations of their vessels. It doesn't change their limited range... to mention only one of their limitations. Keep in mind these vessels scarcely constitute "a fleet," given that at least one, and perhaps all, have not been outfitted to venture into combat conditions. To so outfit them would take time; by then, conditions might have changed again. I also would assume every interested party within range of the PLAN is actively working out response options to that kind of drone fleet (given the real-time information coming out of Ukraine and the Black Sea about the capacities of drone warfare) -- as is every other military power worth paying attention to.
As a submariner would say “There are two kinds of ships: submarines and targets!”
Amen
AIRBORNE!
Aren't subs commonly called boats?
Guy has got a point. Mass air drones launches at a carrier, the carrier better hope it can bring the gatling guns to bear. A sub would just submerge and now the air drones have no target
Do you really think a submarine could get close enough to a Carrier Battle group to sink the carrier, even with a nuclear torpedo?
I always listen to Peter Zeihan so I will know how the future will not pan out
The Chinese call it lantern in the dark at the casino, sometimes you'll find a guy slaughter by the house on every hand, you buy against him. 😂😂
A guy pretending to know it all with conviction, does not have much value.
He`s been extremely confident and "know it all" but has been wrong again and again.
@@Norwegian733 he's just stating present day facts about carriers around the world, what's there to be wrong about?
It was the same complacent attitude most Americans had on the Japanese military in the 1930s. Then the Japanese were building up their carrier fleets and naval aircrafts but most wouldn't believe the Japanese could fly their planes off a ship, let alone sinking the mighty US Pacific Fleet in harbor. The Chinese these days are extremely competent in shipbuilding and they are constructing new carriers at an alarming rate, with each new model having substanial improvement over the last.
Tell us what happened to the Japanese after they touched our boats.
“Constructing new carriers at an alarming rate”? What rate? They’ve built two. The first was purchased. That’s a rate of one every few years = alarming?
@@bloodgout They lost the war of attrition, apart from some disasters like Midway, the Pacific war was lost to the Japanese because they were overbuilt by the Americans, something that will not happen to the Chinese.
@@Melnek1 In a war with the US, China absolutely will be overbuilt since in a handful of months their industrial capacity will grind to a halt due to the naval embargoes imposed by the US Navy preventing shipments of oil, natural gas, and raw materials (none of which China is self sufficient in)
Yes, and the Imperial Japanese Navy got completely decimated about 6 months after that.
1. The story of the development of the CVN-65 Enterprise is an interesting one. The design basically replaced eight oil burners one-for-one with small submarine style reactors. The Nimitz class and Ford run on two large ones. Big E also tested out new designs of powerful but extremely finicky and power-draining 3D phased array radar in an age before semiconductors. It was meant to be a 6-ship class but after the first one was so over budget and had so many mods during construction they threw in the towel after the first.
2. The US Navy had oil-powered supercarriers starting in 1955 with the Forrestal class and later the Kitty Hawks and JFK. They were 1080ish feet long and were in the 80K ton range as well. They still had a larger aviation complement than the Fujian, even when the Navy was using huge jets like the A3D Skywarrior, A-5 Vigilante, and F-4 Phantom.
Remember guys, they have to go through the learning and evolution process just like we did. Because they can learn some of what they need to know from studying our current methods and past experiences, their evolution will be faster. 40 years ago I wrote a paper on the development of the Chinese economy and their lack of infrastructure. When I visited 8 years ago there was little evidence of the issues I identified. They are determined, the quality gap is closing and quantity has a quality all its own. Their development should be closely watched and they should not be laughed at or summarily dismissed.
Their high-speed rail, dams, bridges, and skyscrapers are incredible feats of infrastructure. But their GDP per capita is around usd $2,500. Go figure...🙄
@@gilbertfranklin1537 where did you learn that their GDP per capita is $2500, Einstein?
Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to develop and deliver sea drones (and associated combat strategies) that modern navies didn’t contemplate when first laying down hulls for multi-billion dollar programs as in UK and Canada.
I'm not sure they didn't contemplate them. Also several key differences there and most of them have to do with force design. The ukrainians are fighting a war of survival with their backs to the wall and the only naval considerations for them is sinking whatever is left of the black sea fleet for the russians so they can't have coastal fire support.
Now switch over to a nation like the UK. No immediate land threat. So what are they designing their navy to do? Navy planners decided they want to project power abroad which u don't do with shed-made sea drones. You do it with an aircraft carrier
What is to say the US doesn't have a hand in that?
If Russia wins they get all Ukrainian assets
@@purelizardmilk6598 I think you misunderstood the OP's intent. I don't think he is suggesting to build sea drones. Instead he is warning that a pack of Ukrainian sea drones are capable of destroying a billion dollar vessel, so perhaps the age of billion dollar vessels is mostly over. Yes we need them for force projection but they are going to become liabilities that need huge levels of protection in a new ocean where destroyers can be taken down by water drones, air drones and missiles all coming at the destroyers with AI enabling smart targeting without relying on human operators and robust despite communication jamming.
Not to diminish the Ukraine results but we need to take in account, that a lot of the actual medium/large combat ship kills, have been done by anti-ship missiles or cruise missiles. A lot of the drone kills / damage was done on troop / transport ships that had limited armaments, or small combat vessels.
Second point ignored often, is that a carrier does not go out alone. It has a fleet around it, unlike a lot of those Black See kills, where lone ships are targeted. So in order to hit a carrier, you need to bypass the escort fleet. One of the issues that lone ships have, is if a sea drone gets close, their weapons can not aim below a specific point of the hulls angle. If you have escort ships that have distance from the carrier, their deck guns CAN hit targets.
In other words, the success of those sea drones has been limited to attacking a vulnerability in ship design, where lone ships can not lower their deck guns below a specific angle. If there are other ships around, they can cross fire. If a ship has a heli, this has been shown to be rather effective at going after sea drones.
Reality is, vs carriers, subs are your answer, or overwhelming the defenses with barrages of cruise/anti ship missiles.
Another overlooked fact is, that the drone attack happen in Ukraine backgarden, with the issue of the ships port of operation, being relative close. And that is also where a lot of those ships get attacked, inside the port, or just exiting, with limited maneuverability or standing still (early parts of the drone attacks).
I am sure that navies are going to be adding some Gatling guns that can get nice and low to their design or retrofitting a few existing guns to have a better down angle. So while sea drones look dangerous, in the context of a larger war, in regards to carrier fleets, no.
If we are talking lone ships, right now, yes, most fleets are vulnerable, but that will be limited within a year or two. I am not saying there will be no use for sea drones, hell no, transport shipping, etc are extreme vulnerable. But like with any new weapon that shows up in history, the counters will be introduced rather fast It will simply become another tools, that can be used in some kind of combined arms (like drones + cruise / anti-ship missiles time to arrive on the same moment etc), or stationary targets before a opponent adapts.
Great place to be, I live here and like that you are visiting!
What people seem to forget about the new Chinese aircraft carriers is that they designed a CATOBAR carrier without any CATOBAR-capable aircraft. The J-35 is the only CATOBAR-capable aircraft currently being developed by the Chinese and that is at least a good decade off being deployed in any sort of numbers. Chinese carriers are a good decade plus off having a modern carrier with a deployable air wing.
They also read a grad students paper on electromagnetic catapult and threw funding at that concept
J15B is the catobar variant... and then there will be the EW J15D
And you know all that base on your American brain?😂🤣🤣
@@fatdoi003 J-15 is already overweight before the B variant was developed as the folding wings and other modifications added 1.5t extra onto the empty weight of the J-11. With the B, add on another half a ton to a ton for the structural reinforcements required for the landing gear and you're starting to see the major issues here with adapting a land based aircraft for CATOBAR duties. Even the Chinese have publicly said that the J-15B is not an ideal platform to build a future fleet of CATOBAR jets around.
@@Thichaou You are either a bot or an idiot, probably both. An account three weeks old hurling only American-based insults despite no evidence of where the person lives.
The carrier USS Enterprise wasn't meant as a test bed. It was meant to be first of a class of six ships. Congress balked at the rising construction costs and decided the USS America would be built as a conventional Kitty Hawk class carrier. The Nimitz class benefitted greatly from the delay in building the next nuclear carrier. Adopting radical new technology for ships is extremely expensive and if you can't spread the cost across several ships, they don't get funded. Two of the last three times it's been tried have been expensive failures.
I think he's referring to the space shuttle Enterprise, which was a test and a NASA promotion to increase popularity
I am a Cold War Navy Veteran with VS-41 and VS-33 AZ2 two west pacs and the American Navy rules the seas plain and simple with 11 aircraft carriers we rule the seas..
Gotta love those turbo fans! VAQ-141 here, mid 90’s with the four seater A-6 variant
The Spanish used to rule the seas until they didn't. The British used to rule the seas until they didn't. Technologies change. Times change.
Yes. That is why Iran can capture american cargo vessels williy nilly. 🤡🤡
Why did usa lost to china
@@DelAoc Spaniards and Brits have nowhere near the geography, resources, and population of the US, let alone their seaport/access constraints that don’t compare well at all to the US. China murdered their young population in and out of the womb for 35 years under "One Child", and their senior officers sell off critical war materials under their command to local markets due to their millennia-long culture of obscene corruption and primitive mentality. Just one of the US fleets would embarrass the PLN for sport.
"Aircraft Carriers at War" is a great book by CVAN-65's first CO and the future CNO, focusing a lot on it's first war cruise in Vietnam. A decorated ship with a long battle history now, but the first 2 deployments were pretty rough given the insane Lmao give it 6 reactors and make each one different design
Wow, Peter nailed those time zones off the top of his head. I learn something new with each video!
Dah,
Anyone living out west knows this.
While he is talking about test ships, I really want to stress this: WE USED TO DO THIS, and we NEED to again!
The USN would put a huge amount of work into creating test ships as proof of concept for new tech (Narwal and Enterprise.) However we no longer do so and it's costing us a fortune.
Seawolf, Zumwalt, the LCS classes. We are putting entire classes of ships into the water that have teething issues for the entire class, along with some systems purpose built in the ships that don't really ever become practical (Zumwalt Guns)
RnD is worth it's weight in gold, but you shouldn't be experimenting with an entire class.
nicely said.... USN wasted many billions and now has generation gap
How are your 40 million illegals?😂🤣🤣
US navy procurement assumes we're always operating at scale, since we have been for some time. But ur right, we need to scale back DOWN on some test contracts in order to innovate. Question is, which defense contractors would even really want to compete for such a comparatively small contract
Ahh, the soon to be minority whites, hello!
Next war won´t just be about innovation, numbers and logistics will count more... the Littoral combat ship program showed what happens when innovation and an overly ambitious project just fails... it´s not time just new tech and research... having more ships, missiles and resources... expecting a war of attrition around a hotspot like Taiwan and denial of supply routes.
在国内的战忽局的同事纷纷调动到战恐局的时候，只有peter同志继续坚守在战忽局的岗位上，20年如一日。（为了继续保护peter同事更好的展开工作，这段就不翻成英文了），salute~
向peter同志致敬
respect😊
Really good analysis 🤙
4:13 Yes they talk about what's on their mind honestly all the time.
Thank you Sir!
Great information. Thanks!
Good insight
Oh colour me super exctied for the upcoming webinar!
Hi Peter, I believe Australia “sold” China their first Carrier. HMAS Canberra, apparently we left the catapult and arresting equipment on as it was being sold to scrap. She went missing for a long time before eventually turning up to be scrapped. Late 80’s or early 90’s
HMAS Melbourne and this was sold to China in 1985. She was origninally laid down in 1943 and launched in 1955, decomissioned in 1982.
HMAS Melbourne, and it had been stripped bare before the Chinese got it
Sorry, it was the HMAS Melbourne. She sat off Athol Bay Naval wharf on lower north shore Sydney. Not far from Taronga Zoo. Used to swim out and climb up on her, had a guard hut on the flight deck.
@@paulmeilak9946 I'm surprised the Americans haven't sanctioned you....oh sorry I was expecting consistentcy.
Autralianistan you mean? And you people have kangaroo dung!
Well Said, Peter!!!
Welcome to Phoenix, Peter!
As usual amazing geopolitical analysis! Love what u do. Avid follower of ur work.
Great presentation, as always.
U.S. Navy - Haze grey and under weigh. Chinese navy - siitin' on the dock by the bay.
It's "underway" - has nothing to do with anchors aweigh. You did a little overthinking there, bud.
Well, if you look at the numbers it's our Navy that is sitting in the docks, waiting for delayed maintenance. Our Navy is in SERIOUS trouble and people need to wake up to that fact, otherwise we'll get our asses kicked HARD.
US Navy 🏳️⚧️
That was the post 22 watch (fantail watch in port) song.
The PLAN hasn't had any billion dollar destroyers rammed by huge slow moving merchant ships. Some navies might be so incompetent that it happened multiple times in the same year. Without ever sounding the collision alarm so sailors don't drown when their berthing space flooded while they were asleep.
great nature you've got there, arthur!
This nature belongs to the North American Indians, not the bandit Anglo-Saxons
Thanks for including the EU time zone. Good of you.
First Carrier is called the Liaoning, named after a province in the northeastern part of their country. The second one is called the Shandong, named after another province and the latest one is the Fujian, named after the province that sits opposite Taiwan...
I thought carrier #2 was called shandong
@@dcc70 My apologies. You are correct.
How are they going to name them when they run out of provinces names?
@@likeAG6likeAG6 there's no need nor money to maintain that many carriers
FYI The webinar is $850. I would love to see it, but I am not in the energy business so it's just a really expensive zoom call from my POV.
Welcome to Arizona! Try hiking flat iron if you want a bit of a challenge.
Hi Peter I was curious if there was a student rate for this webinar? Or some lower tier through which I could access even some of the information from the talk
Great content as always!
I don't think the British carriers count as "super carriers" they are diesel powered, use jump ramps instead of catapults. And they only carry 40 aircraft compared to 75 in an American carrier.
They are medium carriers at best.
You do understand your view point is warped if you look at the US as the baseline
@@johnlavery3433 Not at all, The USN defined what a supercarrier is.
I wouldn't either, but media does since HMSQE2 and HMSPoW has weights of over 65,000 metric tonnes and are "around" 300 metres in length. But as you say: I think a super carrier must be nuclear powered to fit the definition. Catapult or ski jump should however not affect the definition, as I see it. USSGRF is 100,000 metric tonnes and 333 metres; and Fujian will be 72,000 tonnes and 292 metres.
The British carrier is garbage.
The term super carrier has no set definition, no legal or doctrinal basis. It’s pretty much exclusively used by media, the first carrier to be described as such was the 22,000 tonne HMS Ark Royal
It will be interesting to see how long it takes them to solve the electromagnetic catapult system.
already solved）
@@chenzhang2154 no video evidence
No complain about the system reported by the chinese as they adopted a different system from US.
It's not nuclear powered so it's projection of power is limited. If apparently takes 48 hours to start up and depart.
ua-cam.com/video/eXNLd3WcCRU/v-deo.htmlsi=dmrii8Eg19mO2I4G
time will tell.
It's not often you watch an expert and feel like you know less after watching him. It's the Liaoning as anyone with knowledge of military affairs would be aware. Also, generally we call a ship a vessel not a vehicle.
wow, you sure showed him how knowledgeable you are 😂
For transparency sake in regards to Friday's energy sector webinar: are you paid by an energy company, energy based Think Tank, or energy focused lobbying firm?
Deep down you already know the answer…
He is paid by an oil company. Forget the name but you can probably google it.
🤣
He's paid by whoever hires him. He runs a consulting company. That's what they do! And he's an energy industry expert in addition to being a geopolitical generalist.
You can find many of his full presentations here on UA-cam, to all sorts of audiences, and his basic presentation is always customized to give specific advice to the paying customers needs and requirements. Like I said, he's a paid consultant.
If that energy webinar is sponsored or paid in part by an energy firm, that would not be unusual or out of character.
The name of that first carrier is the CSS Tofu Dreg!
CSS Superspreader Event
Har!
That's USA bro
@@Fanta....That's fort derrick
@@JonySmith-bb4gx how's that new 2nd Gen "stealth" H20 bomber coming along Chin? It can't be any worse than any of your "aircraft carriers." Bawawawawa!!!!!
I feel like at a certain point of saying "Oh this is just a test vessel for developing technology", you'd start to assume that that's just what they say even if it was a combat vessel...
Are carriers and other surface ships of 2020s similar to the Maginot line of the 1940s?
I think Zeihan is underselling the Chinese carriers a bit here. The Varyag was of the same class as the current sole Russian carrier, The Admiral Kuznetsov. It's a crappy carrier by modern standards but it is capable of projecting power. Big warships are fully capable of transiting the world's oceans with sufficient supply via tenders, fuel ships and port calls. Nuclear powered ships are just much more efficient. Each Chinese carrier has been better and more capable than the last and all three are usable weapons of war, with the ability to launch airplanes into the sky. All three carriers would be participants in any invasion of Taiwan which is really China's focus operationally and strategically. They would be looking to project power into Taiwan and they would be looking to intercept and fight US and allied fleets defensively in and around the China Sea and the Pacific more generally. They are not too worried about sending a fleet into the Atlantic or something like that. They are not meant to police global hotspots in the way that the American supercarriers are.
The Chinese government disagrees with you.
Your points sound logical, then you listen to what the CCP has said, what their Naval Experts have said, and the fact that none of these 'carriers' ever leave the dock without a tugboat escort (which they have needed to get home more than once).
At best, these carriers could be used to forward deploy some fighter jets to help in an assault against Taiwan. Of course, the Chinese have not been so good at carrier LANDINGS, especially under variable sea conditions like they'd have to deal with in a fight, so those planes would have to fly back to land bases for refueling and rearming... but at least they'd get one punch in faster than otherwise.
They have not shown any capability to operate "in and around the China Sea and the Pacific more generally" yet. They can't get 100 miles from China's coast without baby-sitters to bring them home.
What does it mean to invade Taiwan? Taiwan is part of China, as stipulated in Taiwan's constitution. As for your suggestion that China uses aircraft carriers to attack Taiwan, that is simply nonsense. Taiwan is only over 300 kilometers apart from mainland China. Does it need an aircraft carrier? It's really like using a cannon to kill mosquitoes.
@@snowlee-ml7rr I'm actually giving China more credit than most and yet you still found a way to be insulted by it, very funny.
Thanks. What about the recent news about the power of advanced cruise missiles that are capable of taking out really big ships from a long distance away?
The recent nonsense you mean? They have to find the big ship first and then manage to calculate a firing solution for a moving target on the sea and then get past its defenses. None of these is a trivial task. Plus our aircraft are deadly, fast and accurate. Way better than china’s even dream about.
I think he covered that last year and was fairly dismissive about it, along with a number of military (the real ones) bloggers.
First of the Wumao 🤖 comments 🤣
@@FishandHunt Whats wumao in talking about military tech?
what happened to the 1,000 missiles and drones that iran shot towards israel? they aren't capable of taking out really big ships from a long distance
good news
What about Italian carriers? What is their level compared to Japan or France for example? Thanks
I don't know. They modernized their whole economy in 10 years. Went from bikes and tuktuks to modern roads and cars in less than ten years. I think Peter underestimates the sheer stubbornness of the chinese
did you watch any travel china videos lately?! except for the biggest of their cities, the rest is still bikes, tuktuks and scooters :))
The Chinese didn't do that, the West did. Remember how they were dirt poor until they joined Western markets and allowed for limited capitalism?
Then Western investors poured cash in, and that's what built China. The Chinese hadn't accomplished anything in decades
And they created a mountain of debt along with the buildout. they are becoming just like the USA
@@strigoiu13你说哪个城市？
@@strigoiu13大城市才有共享自行车。大城市因为堵车太厉害，大家更趋向选择地铁出行。中小城市以及农村，因为地铁普及率不够，所以更多选择开车出行。短途最优选择是：网约车+地铁。中短途最优选择是：网约车+地铁+高铁/城轨。长途的最优选择是：网约车+城轨+飞机。如果你家住在地铁站或城轨站/高铁站旁，网约车都省了。
Hey Pete, I thought previously you said the Chinese supercarriers. The first one was previously a floating casino.
Partially true. Mostly just funny. That Russian/Ukrainian scrap carrier was originally bought by someone from china claiming to want to make it a casino, it never came to pass of course.
I lived in Beijing for a while. I remember about 10 years ago I went to Tianjin and partied on an aircraft carrier of some sort that was permanently docked there. We were dancing on the flight deck under decommissioned fixed-wing aircraft and choppers that were scattered around, with a DJ booth and lights and shit. I think I paid about 100 yuan for entrance. Everyone was on molly and coke. It was a different time.
@@BobDiot Ture
@@andrewlefevre9018 awesome night for you, definitely a different time
If we should think of this current Chinese carrier as their version of Enterprise then they have a pretty high bar. CVN-65 served for more than 50 years and saw serious combat in Vietnam and in the 2nd invasion of Iraq. The ship even survived a serious fire and explosions that could have sunk many warships.
Only Navy ship to have a reactor scram also as far as I know.
Excellent as usual, Peter. A.T. Mahan would be proud.
I would not focus on range of a nuclear carrier so much - it still needs constant deliveries of aircraft fuel and food anyway to operate.
the point isnt to suggest that nuclear carrier can sail forever. The point is the flexiblity. US carriers can change mission or extend deployments on a moments notice because they dont have to be tied like a slave to a logistical chain. To move a ship larger than most buildings without nuclear power means that fuel will be the first thing to run out....even before food or aircraft parts or anything else.
Additionally, you have to have massive fuel tanks. These would not be needed on a nuclear carrier and instead could be replaced with extra space for more food, parts, etc even further extending the carriers time and range before resupply. Especially in a world where half the earth has friendly ports for US carriers, a carrier could just drive wherever at any time and not really worry about supply chain nearly as much. The Gerald R Ford, despite being massive, could be quite independent and react first while worrying about resupply later unless it was already critically low on supplies already, which would never be the case.
This is a massive advantage in power projection. I doubt china can even get its carriers out of the south china sea and maintain combat readiness without a great degree of difficult and a very vulnerable supply chain.
@@nicholastesta5102 But my point is that you still are tied to logistical chain for aviation fuel, spare parts food etc. I am not saying nuclear power is meaningless but the fact is navies operate non nuclear carriers around the globe for centuries now.
Here is a metric:
Can a Chinese carrier group launch and recover aircraft while conducting connected re-supply with another ship at 18+ knots?
2nd metric - can the entire carrier group stay at sea without pulling in for 60 day+ and still conduct operations fully st high intensity?
Can anyone provide insight on this?
Depends on the mission theater. Taiwan 100% protecting its coastal interest 90-100%.
People on social media often benchmark them against the USN. But they forget the monetary cost of the Economy and Treasury.
Their strategy is to have Area Denial first, with Hypersonics.
For the cost of operating a Aircraft carrier for a year. They can have the arsenal to deny a carrier group access in that range.
Power projection is quite expensive to upkeep.
To be clear they do not have a CAG, they do not have planes yet built for a CAG. The are still in early phases of testing their launching system and the aircraft they are looking to use, the J-15, does not yet have a carrier variant and its current version may be too heavy for the launch system. the type 3 has yet to undergo sea trials as it is tethered to shore for steam plants to simulate expected performance of a naval nuclear power plant. the naval nuclear power plant has yet to be designed, or at least has yet to be revealed to be designed.
so for your 2 metrics, both are of yet unknown, likely the type 3 will never launch aircraft away from shore if they are indeed using it to test a nuclear adjacent powered launch system, EM launcher, and until we see the Chinese complete a nuclear aircraft carrier we shouldn't expect any real trials.
The thought of a Chinese nuclear powered carrier makes me imagine a floating Chernobyl waiting to happen
China best nation
@@dcc70Chernobyl has less radiation then a Boeing plane
Fun fact
The first Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. Which was an old Soviet Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier.
loved the Star Trek reference.
Hey Z. Any thoughts on the carrier killer hypersonics! A larger Ford class means a larger target.
Not really, it's pretty much the same size, its just has reduced weight through modular systems. The Ford class can just carry much more ordinance. It still needs to get through the canal.
Yes. A hypersonic would split the ship into two. But their range is limited. With refuelers, the CBG can stay well out of range.
Hypersonic missiles are FAST. But they don't have magic giant warheads. Or magic penetration aids. They have to HIT THE SHIP to matter!
And all navy vessels are designed to take a few hits and keep fighting. Carriers especially. Google what it took the navy to sink the Kitty Hawk when they were trying to sink it on purpose!
And consider that Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles have been shot down in Ukraine by 20-year old PATRIOT batteries.
I suggest that these missiles are a real threat, but not an especially unique one. The Navy is ready for them if they get launched. At the end of the day any ship can be sunk, but I don't think these are a game changer, just fast.
@@user-xw3vi4nk2y you dont call 1500KM is safe zone.
In a decade or two? More like never
Love your work, Zeihan!
where did I read? this FuJian carrier is hybrid power system. it store the power when its engine on lower efference.
In a world where the us is pulling back ... does a Chinese navy really need anything more than 1000 mile range and access to siberian oil to fight s war?
The Chinese probably want a Navy capable of protecting their "far seas" fishing fleets and One Belt One Road projects. So my guess is that they very much want the range
We’re not pulling that far back.
Considering that the way to cripple China in a war is to put a fleet in the Indian Ocean to cut off the trade routes, the Chinese navy needs more range, not less, because of the American withdrawal.
I think all of you are mistaken to talk about an american "withdrawal". The US isn't withdrawing from the pacific. It is, in fact the exact opposite. That is THE theater of interest now to the American miltary and politics. Look at AUKUS. Look and the re-engagment with the Phillipines who are hosting more US servicemembers today than anytime in the last twenty years. Look at US/Japan security agreements. Look at Korea/US training, buildup. Truly. I'm scratching my head here to undersetand how the US is 'withdrawing' Yes. The US said to hell with the middle east. Let it go to shit. That's because no matter what the US or the world does the Middle East will ALWAYS be a hell hole with no end in sight. It took the Americans twenty years to learn that immutable lesson, but learn it they did. In fact, the US pulling mostly out of the middle east was literally a geo-strategic decision because generals and politicians, for years, were asking why were were wasting time in muslim countries when China was a FAR larger threat, which is why they've been wanting to PUSH more assets into the pacific, not 'pull back'.
@@Erik_Ice_FangUSA had already been defeated by china 2 times
Peter, would the US ever sell a Nimitz to the Japanese or another ally?
I can't see any of them wanting to use that much airpower at that cost and be ok with nuclear propulsion that would possibly need replacing soon. Most countries don't even operate enough naval certified aircraft to fully staff it. I hope Peter weighs in just to see what he thinks.
Note that Ford class is 4 times as expensive as the Nimitz and takes 3 times as long. I call it the Gilbert & Sullivan class.
It’s the first of its class.
The Fujian has the emals catapult system however, being conventionally powered instead of nuclear powered, many engineers doubt it can generate the electrical power needed to operate the electromagnetic catapults. So I doubt this thing would ever be combat effective in a huge naval war.
美国人会沮丧地发现，他们的电磁弹射相对竞争对手是垃圾。
Don't forget the Chinese are good at shortcuts. Remember their space program?
All carriers, nuclear or not needs a conventional supply ship that follows them and supply jet-fuel, food and ammunition.
The only difference with a conventional carrier is that it also needs fuel for propulsion. Doesn’t help much to have unlimited range when you run out of jet-fuel, food and ammunition
When have we had that problem?
As a Navy vet the US Navy has the infrastructure for unlimited time on station, not just the the nuclear-powered carriers and subs.
@@bloodgoutthe problem arrives in battle, which the US never had been in a Naval battle with a Supercarrier group. Those resupply ships are not escorted you know.
WW2 comes to mind with Germans sinking supply ships to the Brits.
your navy is weak wumao
That's a ridiculous statement. Without the need for fuel, the nuclear carrier can carry five times the fuel needed for its jets or other ships. They can carry over three million gallons of fuel just for the airwing, while the conventional carriers have to use that for propulsion.
So, no worries
Carry on! We need all Americans believe what you believe!
How do you keep getting things wrong? It must be skill.
he and Gordon Chang must be in the same class
When he talks about the USS Enterprise being a test bed, I presume he's referring to the nuclear powered aircraft carrier CVN-65 commissioned in the early 60's. I think the Navy intended to build more but lessons learned convinced them to design the Nimitz class.
Correct, CVN-65 which had 8 reactors and was (due to its ability to generate power) faster than every other ship in its battle group.
Every other US carrier since has had 2 reactors with the second reactor being a backup.
Space shuttle Enterprise
@@jelo742 I hadn't thought of the Shuttle. Maybe you're right. 😆
@@jelo742 Enterprise was a mid-atmospheric and recovery practice vehicle, not a testbed for re-entry or orbital work that the later Shuttles did. I remember it very well since we were at Edwards AFB at the time.
@@jimmy-buffett While a carrier can run on just one reactor, I wouldn't say the other is a backup. It would be rare to have only one reactor running when at sea. Each reactor runs two shafts and half the electric grid. The steam plant and the electric grid can be cross connected if there's a problem in one plant.
Yes, the Liaoning was just an experiment in reverse engineering, basically learning what they could from what was left on the Russian carrier. Then they built the Shandong, largely on that pattern, as an experiment in carrier production. I think they learned enough to realize that the Russian carrier design is pretty bad and now they're building a more western carrier design with the Fujian.
Still these are basically experiments, much like the USS Langley was for the US 100 years ago.
China does not need to be as slow as 100 years
Fellow Coloradan here. Great video.
When you say "stand up against an American carrier" that's just in the ship vs ship realm, decades away. The aircraft on the carrier create a huge difference in the power and capabilities of these ships that no one is getting near to anytime in the next 75 years. Congratulations to the F-22 for being taken out of retirement and to the F-15 & FA-18/3, enjoy the upgrades.
That's because the F35s are unreliable piece of garbage that needs a major overhaul and bankrupting the bank accounts. 29% mission capable of the entire fleet. It's a piece of paperweight.
So they built 3 lemons. Good work guys.
A" joke", just like their electric cars , which nobody can compete with. I have no love for the CCP, but the joke is on you if you take your cues from this moron
I thought the Chinese were good at math
@@Kiwibirdman1701 Good at rote memorization math, but bad at accounting, so it seems.
@@Kiwibirdman1701 they are but also good at lies.
Better than no lemons. At least somebody did something rather than complain.
Do you think that we can keep the typical super carrier afloat in a shooting war? I have read war gaming data that we would run out of munitions and they would eventually overwhelm us. I am speaking of a conflict with China.
China has a separate goal from just going up against the US Navy about Taiwan, and that is just looking competitive to the US for control of international trade. Too many small countries rely on the US for protection of general international trade. China does not want to miss the opportunity while major political elements in the US want to pull back from military projection. China does not need to be able to win a fight with the US, they just need props to say they are ready to step in when the US steps out of the way.
Mr. Zeihan is saying American carries are high tech and great and all others are built with match sticks and rubber bands. Where is the source of his information?
For most other Navies, the benefit of having something like a Nimitz class carrier doesn't justify the cost of designing, building, operating, and maintaining them. All of the other countries with the money and technical ability to do it are already NATO allies of the United States, so it doesn't make financial sense. Peter's not saying the Brits and the French couldn't do it if they had to, they just didn't because they had better places to spend the money when their buddy already bought 10 of them.
China's different, they're an adversary (And they're not broke and/or locked into summertime only ports like Russia) so it's worth it to them to invest the money, they're just pretty far behind.
You're looking good mate 🤙 thank you again for your comprehensive reports
You know the audience is sophisticated when a 5 min vid = 'comprehensive report' 😂
If I cannot listen to May 10 session, is it recorded for later listening?
First one is shandong
Aircraft carriers are anachronisms. Huge costly targets to present day missile systems.
If you land your jet on a Chinese aircraft carrier between 11 AM and 3 PM, you get a free eggroll
yeah, mcArthur told the America and 18 united nations troops in korea, the chinese has no aircraft, no anti aircraft guns, they don't have many riffles, they are using stones and spears and the chinese are only 4 feet tall. So go a head boys.
I guess that some people can’t help themselves from displaying their stupidity in public.
@@freeworld88888okay, shug, why don’t you go take your meds now 😂
Egg roll? What the hell?
If you and five of your mates land.
Remember “With Six You Get Eggroll” (1968).
Right. Doesn't change his forecast.
His forecast is often wrong with the timelines. Way wrong.
Well, eagerly awaiting yours along with your supporting research.
@@besomewheredosomethingJust search for his predictions for the 2010’s when he was still with Stratfor in “Business Insider.” Most of the predictions were wrong including China collapsing (which he predicted a decade earlier as well) or Egypt and Turkey become regional power (they didn’t and both economies are in decline)or Iran will be pacified (laughable given current events).
I wish I could afford the webinar!
The Chinese carriers will make excellent man made corral reefs if they come decide to come out of the few ports they have. Once again I will say this actually applies their whole navy.
What you are not taking into account is China's capacity to out-build the US by a factor of 10 or more. At present China commands roughly 80% of the global ship-building market and if they wanted to could build 10 more Fujian's in a few years. It's the next version that we should be concerned about and at their current pace, that's less than a decade away from over-matching the US.
lol no none of that is true come on you have to stop getting your information from TikTok
They'll never make it. Just like the Soviets, they'll go bust trying to even get close to US military might. They're literally going to run out of young people and it'll be Dad's Army against the most competent, well drilled, battle hardened navy in all of history.
China can also build lots of ships with low quality just to bait the US into spending loads more money building more ships they don't really need and reducing recruitment standards to staff them just to compete.
Industrial capacity is very important. Never underestimate your enemy is key. China doesn’t need a super carrier battle group to reach its current immediate goals. Why would they need a carrier if they already have air bases at proximity to reach Taiwan? All they need is to keep the us Navy away and they do have deterrence force for that as their technology is focused around sinking us vessels, including a super carrier.
@TRYCLOPS1 since it won't let me reply to your comment directly. They can have Taiwan the same as Russia can have Ukraine. The US navy will blockade them at the FIC and the Malacca strait. Without a navy that can PROJECT, the Chinese would be doomed. I'm not underestimating them, I'm just looking at the facts; and the Chinese military has almost ZERO experience, China has no real allies and they're whole economy has developed at the whim of the US. Unsustainable without those protected shipping lanes.
Thanks Peter.
How long did it take them to build? Bc a test vehicle that only takes a year or 2 could be significant if they can learn lessons and make another 2/3 in the next decade.
They have a plan for 6 super carriers by 2035. Plus the smaller two for use as training ships.
Obviously you're all underestimated the Chinese of what they can do and what their ability are, as everything else they would take it to hypersonic speed of building this aircraft carrier, they probably already have a frame for a 4th and the 5th carrier with the nuclear power being built right now, if I'm correct the next 5 years you will see one or two more coming up.
The Chinese steel has a higher content of “other” products such as aluminum. The lifespan and tinsel strength of these materials are much weaker then ours. This is a huge negative for their navy.
the carriers deck was broken few months back and the rails for launching the fighters dont work for them lol
Do you mean ramps?
I think the "cracks" were just from a bad satellite image.
Yes it will take maybe 5-10 years to figure out their electromagnetic catapult system
@@bloodgout The latest Chinese carrier uses an EMALS system similar in concept to that on the new Ford-class carriers. EMALS is extremely power hungry and, as Peter pointed out, the new carrier is diesel powered limiting her overall energy generating capacity.
That's just the catapults. We're not even talking about powering it up to get it underway. That process takes over 10 hours to do.
@@bloodgout the newer carrier is trying to use magnetic rails like our carriers not ramps like the russian junk
Brilliant! Thanx!
Different background Cacti - The man gets around. Looks like he is often one who heads into the Western sunsets. So - Are carriers obsolete? Seems like a swarm of drones could do quite a lot of damage to these behemoths.
I work in Oil and gas plant building. The Chinese are very competent at rig and floatation service vessel builders. They have skills and yards the US or Europe no longer have. Chinese drone technology is way ahead of US or European drone technology. With advances in drones carriers are very vulnerable in a modern conflicts.. so the era of the carrier is over. If 1000 sub marine drones are coming at you no defence system will protect you.
Got it in one.
😂😂😂😂😂 omg the copium was purchased from Temu
@@bloodgout🤣🤣🤣
And the west is using it ⁉️
🤣🤣🤣
Hahaha..
In 2005 a Swedish diesel submarine penetrated a US carrier task force undetected during a NATO exercise. The US Navy is fighting the last war.
No they're not 😂. The whole point of doing excersizes with your allies is to to find inadequacies like that. People make way too much of a big deal out of that. Sweden by the way has relatively high defense spending and has a small but highly competent navy.
Modern carriers may be the most complex system of systems of any kind ever developed. Of course, getting the hardware right is very important but it is only the beginning. Training a crew to effectively and efficiently perform highly coordinated, easily disrupted procedures in stressful combat situations is the real trick to carriers and it is no small feat. As Peter mentioned, the US Navy (as well as the Japanese and the Brits) are doing this from a knowledge base of a hundred years of operation. The Chinese are starting from zero. I agree that it will probably take a couple of decades for the Chinese to get to anything close to parity with the US and its allies in carrier ops.
Carriers are really a Task Force, you need an entire fleet build around a carrier just for it to function anywhere other than right next to your supply. Then there is the supply chain, which China should be able to handle unless its at war, then who knows how and how far the Chinese can project naval power.
Regardless though, the Chinese are at least more competent than the Russian's with their Kuznetsov/tug boat task force and seem to be willing to spend what it takes to get better at naval power projection in general.
Not to mention they are putting out large modern combatants at the same speed the Russians put out smaller frigates and corvettes, if not, even faster
You should pay closer attention to the problems China is having.
@@bloodgout What problems would those be? I find it hard to believe the Chinese are corrupt and inept to the extant the Russians are.
This new carrier can deliver 12,000 shipping containers of Panda Express across the Pacific.
He just said it can't. It's a floating paperweight made for research purposes.
It actually runs on orange chicken sauce for its fuel
Think of all the portable Casino possibilities 🤔.
Sounds like TEMU class carriers.
You have a solid understanding and you are a good analyst mr Zeihan but you are missing one crucial element on the viewpoint here and that is called speed of implementation….Chinse have endless resources in production and development and yes they are coming from a century behind when it comes to naval Airforce and aircraft carrier capabilities but the moment they fully utilize the potential of their new aircraft carrier and they understand its pros and cons they will produce it at scale with speed and this won’t take years since they have already built their naval Airforce principles they just need the hardware now….it took them 40 years to build the second largest economy on the planet, it took them 10 years to build the largest fleet, they build a fleet the size of the Royal Navy every four years...i don’t think sizes are fully comprehended…If some decision makers in the US didn’t have this American centric and slightly ignorant approach towards progress and achievements of competitors , US would have been the global hegemon still…