This is a humongous undertaking. You covered both PLA space force and PLA navy on top of intelligence gathering and geopolitics. What a treat! One comment if I may: as a policy, PLA doesn’t disclose their weapons’ capability, unless it’s for sale. Lot of information are estimates.
15:05 is clearly a lie or a false statement as Taiwan is STILL OFFICIALLY CALLED "REPUBLIC OF CHINA" so CHINA HAS NO TERITORIAL PRETNTIONS OF TAIWAN its TAIWAN THAT CLAIMS THAT WHOLE OF CHINA IS THEIRS!!!! Get your facts, at least the basics straight - GO TO WIKIPEDIA AND READ - WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL NAME OF TAIWAN - IT IS REPUBLIC OF CHINA - and that speaks of your credibility you twat. Just for Boxer war and opium forced trade China deserves to punish us in the West and especially because people like you still try to subordinate China, a worlds now only true superpower an insult them and us that can clearly see the facts, its the strongest worlds economy, its the strongest producer, consumer and all you are still "protecting" is obtuse, obsolete world view of first, second, third and thats why you cant never understand China or communism - in communism everyone is "equal" and China is NOW directing EU and USA through trade, its just a matter of DAYS not years that China will step over USA and its only West to blame for it. You want to live in Star Trek, so why are you stopping it?
First, the J-15 was critiqued for being unable to takeoff with a payload of 12 tons, but such a payload capacity was never associated with the aircraft, which has the same 6.5 ton payload as the Su-33. It was also argued that its inability to carry 12 tons meant the J-15 couldn’t be armed with the PL-12 beyond visual range missile (BVRAAM) - despite the PL-12 weighing 200 kilograms, about one-60th of the supposed requisite 12 ton capacity. The article also claimed that a J-15 fully loaded with internal fuel could only carry a two-ton payload, limiting the aircraft to two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles and two PL-8 short range missiles (SRAAMs). In actuality, two tons is sufficient to carry two YJ-83K family missiles, two PL-8 SRAAMs, and also at least two additional PL-12 missiles with pylons all inclusive. Finally, the article asserted the J-15 would somehow be limited to only “120 kilometers of attack range” - a curious claim, given that its combat radius with full internal fuel would enable a reach of over 1,200 kilometers, and the range of an air launched YJ-83K alone would reach approximately 200 kilometers to begin with.
@@rcl998 doesn't matter how many carriers China builds if they aren't tested in combat, which is not going to happen anytime soon so don't get your hopes up on the new carrier.
@@LordEmperorHyperion combat tested is very vague nowadays, bombing a small nation without any navy is not vital combat experience compare to daily training or large exercise. It is important all the experience gained by the US navy since they have been operating super carrier for over 50 years, but not much experience they gained since WW2 for large battle. So I do believe there will be massive improvement for the Chinese carrier over the year despite not "combat tested"
How would you come to this non-sense ideas that a 6.5t payload does not allow J-15 to carry 200 kg PL-12? Then should it carry a 300kg R-27ER? Just checking J-15 video on youtube will fix your loophole logic.
36:44 I am 100% sure you put the wrong image there, while noting 002 class on top left, the ship has serial number 16 which is Liaoning not 17 Shangdong
Several small/medium mistakes 2:35 Japan's invasion of China started in 1931 through the invasion of Manchuria, and full on total war started in 1937, not 1939 13:06 China's claim is not only historical claim. It's also the fact that the Chinese Civil war never ended, not even an armistice was signed, literally nothing was signed. In fact at least the Korean war often claimed to be an ongoing conflict, had signed an armistice. So the claim is to END the Chinese civil war through unification, by all means. 13:57 No, the unification of Taiwan is NOT about democracy, the idea of applying a system that worked for Taiwan, a place with a population smaller than Shanghai to the entirety of China with 1.4 billion people is outlandishly unrealistic Also speaking from experience, mainland Chinese do not see Taiwan as a model to emulate, in fact animosity towards the island is at an all time high. Believe it or not, it is NOT because of government propaganda, rather the Taiwanese borderline racist attitude towards Mainland China. This applies to Hong Kong too. Before you say it, YES members from the same "race" can be racist towards each other, just look at the numerous racially driven massacres in Africa, where they belong to the same "race" but different tribes Same type of racism existed between the English and the Irish. or America's attitude towards Italian immigrants during the early 20th century. 29:03 that's just not correct at all, you don't need to drop your speed down to supersonic speed. A low hypersonic speed of around Mach 5 to 7 is the target for many hypersonic missiles, you can't claim it would work for the US and not for China Also since the fastest intercepting missile can barely reach that speed. meaning it's next to impossible to shoot it down I find the argument of "Chinese weapons aren't good because it's made in China" rather tiresome. While it ignores the fact that the US sea based missile defense VLS has NEVER been tested in war until 2016, when it went up against 2 old Iranian subsonic missiles fired by Houthi rebels in Yemen. On that front, neither the Chinese nor the American system are fully tested for war, But I would bet on untested offensive weapon than an untested defensive weapon 36:46 that's not the Shandong CV17 it's the Liaoning CV16 39:38 that's just not correct by 2035, China would have at least 5 maybe 6 carriers, as of now, China basically has 3 carriers, 2 commissioned and 1 about to leave the drydock. China is more than capable of building 2 more carriers in the next 15 years. It took China around 15 years to build the 3 carriers of today. And that's only utilizing ONE of the 2 available shipyards that can construct a carrier, one in Dalian and one in Shanghai. Chinese military spending is well below 2% of the GDP, there is massive room to grow if the government sees it necessary, the "slowing" economic GDP growth is the government trying to change the growth model from an investment driven to a consumption drive. This would yield slower but higher quality and more sustainable growth. regardless, the idea of China running out of money is ridiculous. 43:59 The Type 076, a LHD with EMALS catapults is not really a vaporware, though not confirmed, it is very likely, because procurement info about a Catapult system for a naval platform was posted on the official PLA website. If China is able to fit 3 electromagnetic catapults on the Type003 carrier that is conventionally powered, there is no reason to believe that 1 or 2 catapults couldn't fit on a 50,000 ton+ LHD, after all that would be a larger ship than the French carrier Charles De Gualle 49:25 The ZKJ battle management system is supposedly derived from the Italian IPN-10. which was exported to China in 1985, to claim China haven't built on that over the decades is simply unrealistic. considering China's massive strides in the past 20 years in terms of communication and software technologies, it is not hard to imagine China fielding some very capable battle management systems. Conclusion, China's strategy is NOT to defeat the US, after all why would you want to kill your biggest customer? The aim for China is to supplant the position of the US without firing a bullet. that involves dethroning the US dollar as the global reserve currency, Many Chinese economist that are well connected with Beijing have already came out saying this goal explicitly. Without the US dollar as the reserve currency, the US would find it impossible to maintain the size of the American military. It won't relegate America to the dustbin of history, but would GREATLY diminish their power projection capabilities.
He also didn't point out that the US saved China from Japan. If the US didn't defeat Japan in WW2 then China would still be occupied by Japan right now, a fact that the CCP should recognise and respect.
You consistently keep the content at such a high level. Kinda wish college credit could be given for viewing these, with a test afterwards of course. Thank you for allowing us to be the beneficiaries of all your hard work.
You done a great job yet again. Thank you and keep up the great work. I’m hoping some of the people in Canberra see this too and identify the lessons here.
You don't think the sudden increase in naval expenditure and procurement over the last 10 years is an indicator Canberra already knows this? The decision to move to a nuclear submarine also confirms it.
I think you really missed the ethnic nationalism that plays into current Chinese thought. Claims to Taiwan are less about historical territorial control and more about a common people being separated unfairly. The language Xi uses when talking about Taiwan reminds me much more of the Romantic Nationalism and revanchism/irredentism of the 19th century than anything else. I'd also be interested to know what role sea gliders play in the recon stage of A2AD. Your closing statements where interesting. Imo there is nothing the US can do to maintain its technological edge over China, no amount of investment can overcome the challenge as both nations are largely drawing on the same talent pool. The USSR struggled because it had so little connection to the outside world, its engineers alone had to solve the technological challenges of their arms race with no outside help, it was inevitable that they would fall behind in a range of areas (computers especially). China on the other hand has a massive educational exchange with the West. The engineers at Lockheed and Raytheon are no better than their Chinese counterparts, they all go to Harvard now. The same could not be said the engineers of the USSR.
@@thedausthed A Chinese-speaking region, that's China. Because China has its own history and unified culture. So, use your mind in your western world. You used to colonize all over the world, and you built a lot of white countries, and the conventional wisdom was I speak English but I'm not British, I speak Spanish but I'm not Spanish, I'm a white country but I'm not European, that's normal. But this is your own dirty past, don't bring the Chinese into it. China is not Europe, China has its own unified culture, you do not need to point fingers, do not bring the western world's universal values to China. In recent years, western media not only smears China in the world, but also countries hire some stars in China: India is clean and democratic, Americans are rich and free, white people are polite, European environment is good, we China is full of smoke. Never heard praise for Russia. Russia doesn't deserve it? I won't say who it is. Everyone can guess. Just want China to be like India. What rubbish India is, everyone in the world knows except Indians. Scared of China? Afraid China will tear the ugly anglo-Saxons apart? Will. You have accepted western universal values in your head. It is useless to follow the barking of some Western media. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons have the strength or qualifications to teach China how to do things. The 21st century is China's century. You and I are all witnesses. When the sun rises in the east, there will be no need for the lighthouse. Thank you.
@@dddddh1 That's a very long way to write; it's okay to invade other countries because Europeans did it in the in the past. Communist never seem to understand ethics and morality, it's not surprising since the core tenet of communism is theft.
When you said that it took the PLA Navy 6 years to achieve IOC of the CV 16 Liaoning (the vessel was commissioned in 2012, it was declared combat capable in 2018), the thing to remember is that the Liaoning was officially classed as a Training Ship when it was first commissioned, it wasn't expected to be a fully capable combat carrier originally. As far as I know, the PLA Navy wanted to deploy carriers since the early 1980's, they examined operational carriers of other navies (when possible), as well as bought quite a few decommissioned carriers for scrapping or converting into other roles. They have had mock ups of carrier landing decks built in several places, where they were training potential future carrier based pilots long before they ever had a real carrier in their fleet. My point is that they are fully aware of the skills needed and the experience required to enable aircraft carriers to be operated safely and effectively. The growth and development of the PLA, looking back in retrospect, at how they went from obsolete types of submarines, surface ships, auxiliaries and support vessels back in the late 1980's, to having large numbers of world class types of SSBN/SSN/SSK/DDG/CGM/FFG and AOR/LSH/LPD etc within 20-30 years makes me believe that they know exactly what they are doing. Also the HHQ-16B carried by the 054A, 052B, 051B and the Fuzhou DDG have a range of 70km+ (compared to the HHQ-16 variant that has 40km range).
Chinese carriers are worthless because their aircraft are failed reverse engineered copies of russian Su-33 fighters and have inefficient and weak jet engines and no air to air refueling, which means they can not take off with a full fuel load and an effective war-load and as such give no real capability to the carriers. In addition their small numbers per carrier means the chinese will never be able to match the US Navy’s force projection capabilities nor match its very effective aircraft. Added to the fact that they are all conventionally powered means a huge portion of the each carrier is devoted to housing fuel oil for their own engines and thus have very limited ordnance and avgas storage even further limiting their capabilities when compared to US Navy carriers.
A useful summary although several inaccuracies such as using the wrong designation (e.g. Han class is 091, not Type 95, and the image for the Song class was actually an early variant of the Yuan).
The author over emphasised the political reasons for retaking Taiwan and grossly underrated the strategic reasons for retaking the island. Taiwan independence would turn the island into a US military base the directly threatens the mainland.
Will Taiwan is already independent so that's kind of a bad argument. Also with China's Belligerence in the South china sea More countries in the region we'll be open to the idea of hosting US bases or at the very least Increasing their offensive capabilities to ward off the Chinese.
My complement, sofar the best and balanced in-depth evaluation of Chinese naval development by a western analyst. Many shortcomings of realtime targeting information by the known system like satellite and over the horizon radar pointed out by the author are very correct, and therefore the focus of new development of UAV like WZ-8, which is a rocket powered, launched from H6, supersonic UAV collecting the position of large naval ships.
I have come to expect nothing less than intelligent informed analysis, and you don't disappoint. Your discussion of the issues surrounding the Chinese use of ASBMs was well-reasoned, and to the point, as good as any briefing that I could have received.
@@levelazn And how would having been to China change anything? Unless it has changed a great deal since the last time (of 7 visits) that I have been there, the PLAN doesn't make a habit of providing foreigners with detailed briefings of their naval affairs. The chap who produced this video has a superlative grounding in the source material, and has produced numerous analyses of both depth and breadth. If you don't have facts to produce counterarguments, pointless ad-homs really don't prove much....
@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 he is projecting a certain bias that China is aggressive when it hasn’t fired a shot in 40 years or pushed any country into a hot war. The entire Ukraine conflict is at least 50 percent attributed to the aggressive expansion of nato under us foreign policy.
@@levelazn This entirely depends upon who you ask. The Chinese aggression in the SCS (and please, spare me the pointless Chinese gaslighting, their behavior there is in clear violation of existing international treaties that China is a signatory to), their actions along the borders with India, etc. are all aggressive and and expansionistic by any definition of the word. Look, if you want to challenge the video with facts, not simply CCP talking points, go right ahead, but so far all you have done is make assertions with absolutely no substance. This isn't China, parroting the governments talking points doesn't get you social credit.
7:00 as an added bit of nuance, during the economic expansion of China. The US lead a coalition in the first gulf war (1995). The effectiveness of that campaign may have lead China to reassess its defencive needs in terms of advanced naval and missile forces. 9:00 These moves to expand and modernize its forces were put into a new more expansionist strategic concept after 2008. China potentially saw the politically bitter and fragmented response to the financial crisis as carte blanche to reshape its area. These are not my original ideas, just me summarizing what I remember from some thinktanks youtube video, probably the Hundsion Institute or CSIS.
Um, I think the modernization in 95. Came from Clinton U.S. money dump into China. Not fear of the Gulf War. What overpaid think tank piece are you reading? P.S. the First Gulf war was 1991. Get your timelines down.
@@The_Conqueeftador hes right to be fair. Hes unknowingly referencing or reading something else thats used "The Dragons and the Snake: How the rest learned to fight the west" by David Kilcullen. Furthermore, the book "Unrestricted Warfare" written by two PLA officers also was born out of the sheer dominance over Iraq in the First Guld War. Asymmetry is key to the CCP way of war. According to their own doctrine theyve been at war with us for a very long time. We just didn't know it.
@@muzp1121 That doesn't change the fact that they could do nothing until the Clinton era money dump and trade agreements and military knowledge sharing. They can want all they want. Nothing really materialized until the U.S. flooded China with cash. A very stupid move in hindsight.
@@The_Conqueeftador as late as the mid 2000's the west saw an emerging China as an opportunity from an economic point of view and to encourage the regime away from communism. Not to mention Xi was seen in the early days of his coming to power as a leader who would see a prominent and responsible China on the world stage. Obviously we've seen the opposite. To answer your point about the money. China was not the only actor who saw the Gulf War as a watershed moment in how to not fight the west. Use Iran as an example, they dont have the money but theyve bogged the US down through supporting multiple guerrilla insurgencies and developed a cheap way to fight a supieror military both through small boat tactics and now swarm loitering munitions. The point in all of this is that they realised the human wave tactics they employed in the Korean War were no longer effective (lets face it they werent then either). So they changed tact to develop a modern military. This is just my opinion here now, but I think this is a good thing. We know how to fight a peer conflict. China are literally developing what we know we can win against. Theyve just raised the cost of conflict, but that requires conflict to happen. We are witnessing the beginning of a slow strangle of the CCP. And with the CCP developing a modern military, we now also have the blueprint of how to bog one of those down in an uncostly manner. So in essence, its good theyre wasting their money copying us. But after saying all that. To blame one person over two terms of presidency is extremely short sighted and is clearly an opinion blinded by the polarity of western society right now. The entire world played into the CCPs hand. It didn't take the leadership of one president to do it. The shift from Taiwan that Carter instituted was far more influential. Or maybe the backing of Chinese Communist forces in WW2 in the fight against the Japanese is to blame for their rise to power. We are far better served figuring out how to win, rather than tear ourselves apart in the blame game. Because doing the latter is exactly what the CCP is harnessing and relying on.
@@muzp1121 Just ignore this Random Name idiot; you are casting pearls before pigs here. He is almost certainly a MAGA anti-vax conservative who just wants another opportunity to dump on Clinton or Sleepy Joe or whichever other Democrat president he loathes.
Absolutely stunning example of how to give a listener a formidable understanding of Chinese naval development and procurement! Will refenrece this in future! Thanks.
Question: at 44 minutes, you are showing a type 71 LPD. Said ship is flying a Dutch flag however. And there are windmills in the background. Anyone know what up?
to the north, there is Russian, to the east, there is American and Japanese, and to the south, Indian and Australian is coming, so as a Chinese, it's quiet important to keep a powerful navy to protect our own interest
... *Taiwan sweats nervously* ... It's ultimately not (only) about the tools... it's about how benevolently we use them that really counts. Love from Slovenia
I see a hypohystericalhistory video on a naval topic, I click! This is quite interesting and certainly relevant given our current strategic environment. I know you mentioned it as a previous potential topic (And I'm not sure if you did one of the Tiktok videos) but I'd love to see a video about the Arafura's/Evolved Capes.
I know its not good for rhythm of feeds, but I definitely Thumbed Up right away. Forgive my negligent thumb discharge, but Hype History hasn't let me down yet.
Do you think you are intelligent or sound intelligent throw big words around the point is to keep your comments understandable I don't know what side you are on
Echoing the gent below, and a year later, I pulled up the keyboard to note that sometimes more really is MORE. To my mind, the broadest and most coherant vid on China's overall, real world position in global affairs, but also everyone else's posture re China. I congratulate you on your erudition.
as much as there is to complain about the economic effort china accomplished during the 20th century was unique. the quality of life and ecoonomic position of hundreds of millions of citizens in such a short period of time is the closest thing to an actual miracle the world has ever seen. the average chinese citizen so the largest increase of wealth any single generation on earth has experienced. they also managed to accomplish this feat twice as fast as any nation then any of the very few nations before them has even come close to. both the speed and increase of the quality of life for the average Chinese citizen was the singular greatest economic feat any nation has managed in mankinds history.
Obviously at the time you edited this you had not heard of China's Beijing-3 satellite. This thing is frighteningly good at providing high resolution images up to 100 times a day of a fairly wide range of ground level areas. Like 1400 sq.mi. Down to 30 cm..
I think his point was satellites cannot have high definition at wide areas. The Beijing-3 satellite takes great narrow photographs but of course it's a much lower resolution at 1400 sq. miles.
China's recently launched Yaogan-41 geosynchronous earth orbit electro-optical and SAR satellite provides real time 24/7 all weather surveillance of China, the Pacific ocean area and the Indian ocean area. This allows tracking of any vessels in the aforementioned oceans on a continuous basis. In combination with other Chinese surveillance assets provides unprecedented tracking capabilities for the PLAN.
Congrats on creating yet another thoroughly researched, and informative, presentation. The current A2AD strategy practiced by China does not even need to defeat the USN- merely changing the deployment risk calculus will have a disproportionate influence on combat operation effectiveness and sustainability of required logistics to support extended naval exercises. Since the potential invasion of Taiwan/ROC is a regional-scale conflict, China doesn't need to field a carrier battle group that maintains parity with the USN. The ship-building schedule displayed by the PLAN is remarkable, and while armchair pundits may debate the quality of surface combatants and crew, there seems to be a growing consensus that the current fleet composition is effectively "good enough" to significantly frustrate and/or damage USN multi-domain assets that are likely to support a Taiwan/ROC resistance. On the flip side, this prodigious investment in naval expansion cannot be sustained indefinitely, and the PLAN already has a developing, practical notion of the long-term capital costs of fielding so many varied hulls, the required upkeep and maintenance in addition to creating a logistical infrastructure that supports truly global operations. That same A2AD stratagem is not as useful when China seeks to sail abroad, perhaps to conduct its own FON exercises off the Atlantic coast near Washington, DC. An invasion of Taiwan/ROC, whatever the final outcome, will also carry long-term consequences that will impact China's diplomatic and economic relationships with the west. The recent events in Ukraine are likely being analyzed ad nauseam by the senior leaders of the PLAN trying to draw lessons that will inform effective military doctrine. Although a successful invasion may only require control of the first island chain, China does not currently have the assets to secure long, sea-based supply routes needed to meet daily energy and agricultural consumption requirements. While they may reap the advantages of uncontested supremacy within the FIC, that same maritime demarcation serves as a barrier for extra-regional operations. China will also need to contend with a joint response by the US, Australia, Japan and other maritime allies that will stretch PLAN fleet operations.
The USA, Japan and Australia will not get involved if there is an armed conflict between the mainland and the Chinese province of Taiwan. The specter of thousands of body bags returning to the USA, Japan and Australia is a huge deterrent to those who challenge China's claim over Taiwan. Take Ukraine for instance do you see any NATO personnel fighting on the front lines? In that theater the threat to and preservation of NATO countries is way more important than Taiwan is to the West and yet they refuse to get directly involved besides supplying weapons and intelligence. If this was a poker game I would call a bluff and easily win. Anyone with any strategic foresight would come to the same conclusion.
@@bobsmith3983 There is always a political cost to casualties, but you seem to have disregarded one of the most important precepts that will likely influence the scope and speed of regional escalation for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan- the high probability that the PLAN, recognizing the importance of logistical support, will not restrict combat operations to Taiwan itself. In nearly every simulation and war-game conducted by Western militaries and various consultants, the PLAN launches pre-emptive strikes on US bases in Japan, the Philippines and Guam. Despite the use of precision-guided munitions, there are always errors, and the subsequent civilian casualties will compel the respective governments to support a Western coalition to intercede in support of Taiwan. Japan has already approved its largest military modernization budget on record. The Philippines has engaged with the US to build additional bases in north Luzon, and Australia is also expanding its north shore basing infrastructure as well as being approved to purchase a number of SSNs from the US Navy as part of the historic AUKUS agreements. Taiwan's sovereignty continues to be a major issue governing the expected actions of the United States against potential hostilities in the region, but long-term economic and geo-strategic costs of Western neutrality and disengagement will be far greater. Despite your attempt to draw some meaningful corollary with the Ukraine conflict (which incidentally has expanded NATO membership, diminished the near-term capabilities of the Russian military and dramatically changed the diplomatic landscape between Europe and Russia), the evolving political and military issues centered around Taiwan's continuing sovereignty cannot be reduced to a poker game model.
Of course, it's still a long road ahead for the PLA. But they're progressing at an astonishing rate. Even today if a conflict broke out in this region, I'd put my money on the PLA as opposed to the Australian Armed Forces.
True but you also have to take into account the demographic crisis about to hit China. Like many developed nations they have a very low birth rates that are below replacement levels and in the coming years they won't have the extra money to spend on the military and we'll have to spend it taking care of the old.
I ponder upon two topics. Recently spent some time on the Battleship New Jersey web site and the iterative design on that, now old, ship makes me wonder how much you get from reverse engineering. There is knowing and then there is the knowing from having learnt those lessons, written in blood. The other point I think about is how flexible are the leaders in the decision making process? Are all the captains of all those ships able to operate as required tactically, in a conflict, without referring to what the politicians think? Is several generations of that culture going to ham-string their war-fighting?
Going by the behavior of WW2's IJN, I suspect that China would initially have a very dedicated swarm of disposable ships, but that edge would become far more brittle than the USN forces. A navy built for winning battles, but not for withstanding the rigors of war. I recommend watching Drachinifel's content, the episode about the differences in damage control between Japanese and American navies is good stuff. The propagandist tendencies of China might rhyme with Imperial Japan's character.
You make a good point. If we wanted to, we probably could not build the Apollo moon rockets again today despite having the blueprints bc there are 1000s of little decisions by now-deceased craftsmen, designers, and manufacturers that do not show up on blueprints.
@@radiofreealbemuth8540 I mean, technically yes? Many old rocket parts were built by hand and modification of the blueprints happened all the time. But that doesn't mean we couldn't build something far better with a comparatively lower cost either. With NASA there's generally a large degree of bleedover in institutional knowledge to the wider community than many other space programs.
I dont think the U.S. has a plan at this point. The navy has been operating under continuing resolutions for years, that allows for very little future planning and R&D.
Eventually when China gains conventional superiority US will have to integrate nuclear weapons into their plans. Similar to the 60s when Warsaw Pact was conventionally superior to NATO in Europe. US planned to blast Soviet armored spearheads with nuclear weapons.
My prediction, Congress won't get serious until the war goes hot. Then the entire country will move heaven and earth to start producing ships in a hurry. It's far from ideal and might not be enough to win quickly, but it will be enough to win eventually.
Taiwan province was returned by Japan to China after the WWII. After the WWII and after the Chinese civil war, between the nationalist party and the communist party, the nationalist party retreated to Taiwan province How could they do that? This was because Taiwan has always been part of China.
I mean no that's not why they could retreat there. they could have done it just as well if it was a zone under military occupation. also what makes the CCP's claim to Taiwan more legitimate than the ROC's claim to the mainland?
@@seanmac1793 After WWII Japan returned Taiwan province to China. The nationalist party was just retreating to Taiwan province that was under China's control. Today's Chinese government can claim whatever the previous government had control of. That is why the CCP can claim what the nationalist controlled.
What I don't understand is why people don't think that China could be the next leader in technology. The Japanese lead in several fields so why couldn't China?
They could be, in theory, but they aren’t now. But just generally speaking technological development is driven by the quality of your tertiary education system, your wider research and development base and high tech industry. China still lags the west in all of these areas, but they are capable of producing world class tech in some sectors. But just in your last point, Japan and China are very different countries; the nature of their development has been very different. Chinese growth was driven by western firm’s offshoring their manufacturing, but all of the rest of the product life cycle stayed in the west. I phones might be built in China, but everything else is done in the US; conceptual development, marketing, technological research and development, software development, service ect. You have western firms making western developed high tech products in China. Again speaking generally, most Chinese forms make reasonably low cost, well established goods. It wasn’t like that in Japan, firms like Mitsubishi, Sony, Nissan did everything in house, so from the start Japan was developing its technical and technological capacity. World leading high tech industry was always part of Japanese development. That’s not really so in China where the increased productivity has been driven by the injection of capital and technology from the west.
According to ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) the Chinese lead in 37 out of 44 critical technologies e.g. hypersonics, drones, etc.. So China is the leader with the West falling further and further behind. The point is when 1.4 billion people with an average IQ of 105 put their minds to work they excel over everyone else.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 China has the complete supply chain for most of the product made in China. Even smart phones like the Huawei Mate Pro 60 is completely made in China from the microchips to the screws. The iPhone main SOC is made in Taiwan (BTW a province of China) by TSMC as the US companies in the USA do not have the capability to produce it. Most of the mechanical components e.g. the case, LCD screen, screws, etc. are provided by Chinese suppliers so US content in the physical parts and labor are non existent in the IPhone. Increased productivity has been driven by the injection of capital and technology from the west in the past (20 years ago) but China's increased productivity is purely Chinese in origin. Chinese win math competitions world wide frequently where the USA can't even crack the top ten. You can't beat 1.4 billion Chinese with average 105 IQ.
China cannot become the next leader (like Japan did) for one reason above all: culture. Japan, when it innovated, had a (political) culture similar to the West, with its capitalist markets and free thinking. These things are vital for technological progress. (well, arguably, perhaps not-essential, but definitely most-strengthening, compared to any other alternatives). Because the only way to invent something new is by thinking outside of the box. So you need a system where free thinking is rewarded (financially, but also in status/honor, etc). But what we see in China today is literally the complete opposite. There is severe political repression, with lots of words/terms automatically banned on social media platforms, and the wider internet is not accessible without a VPN. Cameras and facial recognition are spreading rapidly to most street corners. And especially critiquing the CCP is _not_ tolerated. So how can a baby be born in China today, grow up in a system where it is normal to be watched and controlled (and perhaps even punished), and go on to become a free thinker? How can a university or company set up a department or think tank that truly pushes the envelope? It's like comparing a fish with a monkey, and complaining the fish is bad at climbing trees.... How great could the Soviet Union have been, if they had never sent any smart inventors to any gulag? But then, if they'd never done that, it couldn't have stayed the Soviet Union... That's the whole point! The CCP has made the choice to stay in power through control/monitoring, but that inevitably also decreases free thinking in its society, and that puts it at a structural disadvantage when it comes to innovation. It's not that innovation is impossible; it's just that it's far more likely to sprout up in a (political) culture like Japan, the USA, or India. And over time that compounds, exponentially. So others will innovate faster, thus precluding China from becoming a leader like Japan. I hope this enables you to look at the world with a fresh perspective :)
I have had a chance to watch this now; great work here, very impressive. I do wonder exactly how China intend to sustain and maintain a 400+ fleet for 30 years of service life? Disregarding the doctrine of the US Navy which is forward deployed fleets (with a significant impact on serviceability and decreased capacity) perhaps they are planning to either lose 50% of this fleet to retake Taiwan or reduce each ships time out at sea by rotating this large fleet?
China military budget are second largest in the world after US, and also china doesn't need to pay and maintain hundred of overseas military base like US
@@MrSmokeyroo - Well 1.1 million of those tonnes are tied up in 11 super carriers. Id wager those 150 small boats can be in many more places than once than those carriers..
@@Fauzanarief-n7i - Yes, its difficult to accurately work out the Chinese defence budget. And yes while it doesn't have as many overseas bases as the US, and never will probably, the Americans don't pay for those bases, the rests of thew world do. The benefits of the worlds reserve currency and every commodity priced in US dollars.
I think it will be entertaining to watch as well. Being so new and growing so fast, as these start to get used heavily and have problems they will be pulling political, public and littoral Damage Control overtime
Really good spoken. I heard some phrases from this Video in another Video from you and this got me wondering if you have thousends of named audio files
You keep talking about skills that the US Navy has but China lacks.... bombing or invading a country with an inferior defense doesnt count as experience. This idea of yours would make more sense if the US just came out of World War 2.
Love the channel! Been a huge fan ever since I discovered you several months ago. I would just like to add that US Carriers can flex up in their aircraft capability. While nowadays the airwing is limited, when I was deployed in the early 2000s on a carrier, we easily were pushing 100 planes. The size allows them to carry that much and the deck crew can certainly handle the extra load!
While a Nimitz has the deck and hanger space to support over 90 aircraft, operational tempos are significantly reduced at that kind of capacity and therefore I think in combat a more balanced air wing of around 50-70 aircraft is more likely.
Interested to hear your opinion on the development of XLUUV to be deployed from Arafura and Hunter Class Frigate, along with the Loyal Wingman, as an AI/unmanned response to China's overwhelming manpower advantage.
13:32 Denmark ones ruled all of Norway, a huge part of Sweden, Iceland, the US virgin islands, some parts of the Baltic countries and a good part of Germany! If you go back to the Viking age also a good part of the UK and Normandy in France.
I cannot agree more .So why did Denmark recover the Schleswig from Germay after WWI ? Come on,you have to smile only because you are too weak to fight.😃
Denmark was nothing but an obsolete barbarian state during the age of Rome empire. It's not even comparable to a primary civilization like China and India.
Great video as always. This is an unpopular opinion but China does have claim over Taiwan as the KMT and CCP historically adhered to the one China policy, and each other wanted to reunite the country through military means. The Taiwanese government changed tact after it became clear Taiwan was never going to be able to do so. China is deeply affected by the “century of humiliation” from naval/military weakness, which allowed foreign powers to carve out its territories. China sees the military as an insurance against foreign interference in its affairs, like in Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The next step was always the navy. China has been trying a naval buildup since the start of the 20th century, one that was only successful recently. That the US navy is still able to influence their actions on Taiwan, haunts them greatly, and is only further motivation. China was happy to maintain status quo as long as Taiwan did not declare independence. But I think great power competition and US’s pacific pivot with a first island chain containment strategy involving Taiwan has only gave urgency for China to retake Taiwan, as Taiwan could possibly declare independence with current circumstances. China wants to avoid a repeat of how the Soviets enabled Mongolia to become independent.
Chiang Kai Shek was never interested in independence for Taiwan but only to overthrow the communists and return to power on the mainland. The ROC’s claims mirrors the PRC regarding Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan and the South China Seas.
The summery changes when you add in. The US ships are for the most part all over a decade old. When you consider the Chinese combination of the Russian navy is a major game changer
The B2 and B21 are not invisible to HF radar and can be detected at sufficient ranges allowing anti aircraft weapons or fighter aircraft to engage them. They are most lo observable in the 10Ghz RF band. The B2 and B-21 are most likely to be used to launch standoff weapons so as not to be detected however when launching it's weapons load it will be visible to X band radar for a short period of time and it's location revealed.
While China's economy will slow down, it is still expected to grow around 6% per year, easily outpacing America's 2-3%. China will, indeed, maintain its military spending for decades more.
China has enormous domestic expenditure.....China's controlling model of governance comes with huge security, surveillance and political corruption costs
@@action963 Same applies for the US though (and there is lots of corruption, ah sorry, it's called lobbying and its legal btw. Also just in general contracting and private companies sucking so much money off the US such as the MIC).
@@michael3032 the difference is pvt entity's work more efficiently than directly controlled government...look at china's domestic bills on controlling there own population..its absolutely enormous and growing
@@action963 pvt more efficient? Lol no, it really depends. And also, pvt chases PROFIT, not fucking care about the fact that they are leeching/stealing money from the people.
@@michael3032 let's compare homeland security costs. If we look at the "Chinese Statistical yearbook" chinese spending is roughly 130billion USD compared to 90 in the US...China suffers from a higher levels of domestic unrest...all major political indices show this..for instance the world Bank ranks china at 157th the US is ranked 56th
Just one thing: The standard cruise speed of an naval force is around 15 - 20 knots not 30. Yes, a DDG-51-Class-Destroyer can reach 30 kn, but the ship would run out of fuel within hours/days.
15 knots and 30 knots are both basically the same thing (standing still) to an anti ship missile maybe if the ship was weaving through wwII style dive bombers with unguided bombs the 30 knots might actually have a chance at being relevant to evasion of attack but in a modern setting that speed will only give you the tiniest fraction of a percentage chance of survival if all your other counter measures have already failed.
This is an interesting, well thought out and well presented video. One point I would have liked to seen explored is how the reemergence of Russian Naval Power would have on the balance of forces between the PLA(N) & the USN. Although Russia & the People's Republic of China do not share the same ultimate Strategic Goal or Vision, the fact that they have converging interests when it comes to the Western Liberal Nations, particularly the USA, may see them act in concert even if not formally allied, especially for a specific Near-Term Goal. I would have also like to have seen how the growth of the Indian Navy might affect the balance of power vis a vis the PLA(N).
@@bathhatingcat8626 To be fair, I don't think ANYBODY could have predicted just how incompetent the Russian Navy could be. The Russians have a nasty habit of doing crap in one war then doing much better in the next one. Hopefully, the Russian Armed Forces will remain at their current truly abysmal standard of competence that they are displaying against Ukraine.
It's ironic that the investment by the Western world in China has facilitated this rise. China has continually outsmarted the West. Our best hope is that the Chinese fleet is made of the same grade of steel that they routinely export to Australia.
Not really. The largest sources of investment to China were not from the West, but actually overseas Chinese in Thailand, Taiwan, and even Singapore who had relatives or some connections in the mainland. Even Japan too.
@@sw36jl It was the West that set up manufacturing, under China Joint Venture rules, effectively handing over IP for nothing. I worked for a company that did just that. And what the Chinese could not get legally (by Western law), they took. They are some of the smartest people on the planet and have been taking the West for a ride since Australia recognised China, closely followed by the US. And yes, Japan has offshored manufacturing to Japan also.
The Chinese can and do make good steel, but as with anything you have to pay for it. I use a lot of Chinese continuous cast grey and ductile iron. It's made to Japanese industrial specs and is perfectly good material. On the other hand, if you buy hot rolled mild steel from scummings you'll get crappy merchant bar that at best has a weldability rating, all other properties are not specified.
For China to successfully engage their area opponents (Taiwan, Vietnam, The Philippines and Japan), they would first have to assure that they had access to the one major resource their nonnuclear navy needs. Oil. Unless I am mistaken, China obtains virtually all of their oil from the middle east and that oil has to come by sea. In order for the Chinese to conduct anything but a very short regional conflict they would have to prevent the democratic nations from blocking the Strait of Malacca and the Sunda Strait. This is the exact problem Japan faced in WWII. This particular issue would make a very interesting video.
@@kokoczoko3135correct. The US by serving the fantasies of 3rd generation Polish nationalists in USA has removed any and all incentives for Russians to say no to PRC.
@@kokoczoko3135no not really, in order for them to get Russian oil it would either need to be imported by sea through the first island chain and the fucking National waters of The USA near Alaska, or through the straight of malaka. When it comes to land transportation is pretty much hopeless, either trucks trough the Goby desert or trains trough the wasteland of Siberia all of the piping infrastructure was made to go to Europe and would need to be constructed throughout the entirety of Siberia all the way to Mongolia and into China That is a length equal to Africa it's impossible simply unreasonable especially in wartime like Russia is in right now.
@@anarchyandempires5452 you know that russia make pipeline from siberia to poland right? so from syberia to manchuria it's possible to make pipeline...
Another excellent, objective & informative presentation. How I wish the fourth estate would produce such quality - something they've failed to do for decades now.
I think your assessment on the history claim is really strange. I think you fail to forget that for as long as Taiwan and China have existed under separate governments, both have been claiming to be the rightful government of all of China. For both governments history they have agreed that there is only one China and the conflict is that who gets to rule. Taiwans current position is recent where they are distancing from that position. As a result China does have a fair and legitimate claim to the territory as it has been long established president that was mutually agreed between the two states.
SIR THIS FAKE NEWS ONLY MY INDIAN NAVY SUPERPOWER NUMBER ONE ! THIS WHY IM SO LUCKY BORN LIVE IN INDIA 🇮🇳🤗, VERY SAFE VERY CLEAN ,ALWAYS RESPECT WOMEN AND WE HAVE TOILET EVERYWHERE , INDIA IS ROLE MODEL COUNTRY TRUST ME 🤗🇮🇳 I KNOW U JEALOUS NOT LIVE IN INDIA🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗
Hey mate, saw you on tiktok and have now subscribed here. :) Would it be possible for you to do a full explanation of WW2 from start to finish? Would love to hear you explain it in depth :)
Generally sensor data fusion, along with targeting management is F****ng hard. Would love to see a deep dive into this area and their ISTAR capabilities in general given the Chinese dependence on these for their A2AD strategy.
A very well written and presented view of the buildup of the Chinese navy and how dangerous it is becoming for it's regional neighbours and some of it's competitors further out...
If democracy works for Taiwan, why can't it work for China? Several reasons: 1. China's population is *59X* larger than Taiwan's. It's much easier to manage a small population than a ginormous one. Try feeding 1.4 billion people. 2. China has 56 different ethnic groups and a major challenge to unite the entire country. 3. China's geographical area is *267X* larger than Taiwan's. It's much easier to control a small area than a vast territory. 4. Democracy doesn't really work for Taiwan. Taiwan is infamous for its parliamentary brawls. Taiwan's economy has been suffering severe wage stagnation for nearly three decades. Large numbers of Taiwanese are moving to the mainland for jobs. 5. The Chinese people aren't retarded. They've seen how well democracy works in USA, India, Taiwan, Brazil, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, etc. China's democratic system works much, much better: th-cam.com/video/cqemAfm92jM/w-d-xo.html
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Google is wrong, at least if we're talking Mandarin Chinese. Worth noting that rural China has a plethora of local dialects that are often almost totally unintelligible to people from the next village over, so you can find all kinds of pronunciations if you look hard enough. This is also why they're so anal about forcing everyone to speak Mandarin at school: if you only learn your local dialect you won't be able to travel to work or understand any official communication from the government.
Why do you specifically reference the past 125 years regarding china’s claim on Taiwan - seems a bit arbitrary. If you go back to the Ming dynasty or earlier you’ll find that china’s historical claim on Taiwan is much longer than the entire history of the Commonwealth of Australia. Furthermore, Republic of China’s claim on Taiwan is also part of the rationale for the PRC’s claim, since the two have yet to resolve their civil war in peace. While overall a well researched and presented video, I think the political commentary sprinkled throughout is not well balanced in comparison.
Time for CANZUK. A war relied on the US isn't a sustainable option IMO for Australia. Better to work with likeminded and near identical nations to give us a voice. Teamwork makes the dream work.
@@jasonmack5522 100% I don't deny that. Same with I think India and Japan. Distancing yourself from the EU and US doesnt mean abandoning allies or stopping collaboration. I hope I didn't give the impression of abandoning the EU or US or for that matter our great friends the Japanese or Indians.
@@jasonmack5522 With allies in the picture probably the best fit for dealing with the threat of Russia or China is The EU focusing attention on the land front and local naval theatre's with Russia. India and Japan doing the same with the China front. US and CANZUK would basically the force projection muscle that can fight on both fronts where needed, especially since currently theres only really 2 countries on the planet that can forward deploy sizable fighting forces almost anywhere on the globe on short notice without having to negotiate for assistance from other nations first and thats the US and the UK simply due to the support fleets and military bases each maintains around the globe, not even Russia and China are capable of that they lack the global infrastructure for it.
The ROC does assert the claim of one China, it is literally in their constitution. Also in all legal treaties Taiwan is a part of China, see the Treaty of San Francisco (the most relevant).
Taiwan's value to the mainland is not just a matter of political legitimacy, but rather geostrategic necessity. The mainland will not tolerate a hostile unsinkable aircraft carrier off the Chinese coast, just as the US will not tolerate Cuba being used as a base against the US mainland. The whole "China is afraid of democracy" rhetoric is more ideologically-entrenched propaganda than reality. These days the PRC has little fear of democracy as a force that undermines CPC legitimacy. Given the democratic recession that has taken hold just about everywhere (especially in the US), liberal democracy is hardly the ideological threat that it might have been in the early 90s.
The ideological threat now is rightwingism, fascism, fake democracy, sedition, subversion, encouraging the taking over the government by force, misleading and lying propaganda as news, a right wing president and administration that wants to stay in power and encouraged a take over to steal the election! First the first time in US history, a president that lost the election encouraged, along with his administration and his political party and propagandist, and the Republicans of the congress and the Republican Party it's self encouraged a conspiracy to overthrow of the US for a president that lost the election and is even now working to rig the next election and the next coup attempt! But why not? None are being held accountable!
Loving the videos on this channel. It would be interesting to see how big a navy the PLAN could have if Australia restricted the sale of all that iron ore that we so happily ship to them on a weekly basis.
Brilliant video! Even though I disagree with some points in it, I still feel the thoughtful inside. And all the comments are reasonable and constructive!
Overall I liked this video. I appreciate making a full length doco and not a series of yt algo friends eps. It also strike a good balance on the technical information, not just listing detailed spec lists. It's well presented, voiced and illustrated. It's just disappointing that it's written from the perspective of American Exceptionalism and this bias regularly undermines credibility and accuracy (but not to the point that it becomes generally inaccurate). It would be great if analysis could be made dispassionately, not favouring either PRC or USA perspectives. When objective data cannot established a point definitively it is best to present both perspectives with their competing evidence and let the viewer form their own conclusions. US bias also undermines the analysis is a few glaring points. Like giving the hypothetical example of the PLAN being sent to back a political ally in Africa. This is objectively baseless and shows an ignorance of the overall geopolitical strategy of the PLAN. PRC Foreign Policy Doctrine is of NON-INTERVENTION. Westerners ASSUME PRC will use the PLAN to intervene in foreign politics because that is how USA uses the USN and how European Imperialist Navies have been used in the past. But PRC will not use PLAN in the same way. The PLAN will only be used to defend China and Chinese Trade routes in the BRI/String of Pearls. For example it's changes the force comparison matrix versus USN. While USN will have global deployment responsibilities, diluting it's force bearing capabilities. PRC / PLAN does not have global ambitions and will only intentionally engage in single theatre conflict, no further away than the Arabian Sea/ Red Sea. PLAN will not be drawn into an Atlantic conflict for example while USN is obligated to keep half its forces in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. PRC state doctrine has no plans to form a Cold war Bloc in opposition to US/NATO. Instead PRC (and Russia) have International Policy Doctrines in favour of Multipolarism of INDIVIDUAL Sovereign States under International law based on the UN Charter. This is distinct from USA's Doctrine of Unipolarism of a "Rules Based Order" of Liberal Democracies under USA leadership, that follows Rules that eminate from US Institutions and which sideline the UN and existing International Laws. I'd love to see a remake of this video, maybe in 18months, with updated research and including perspectives from non-western sources and analysis included. There are some interesting trends and data points that this video has missed such as the military/tech integration of the Russian and PRC military sectors. For example, although Im sure you are accurate based on information available but the conclusion you draw about the capability of the PRC OTH radar does not include the Russian support they had developing it. There is also no mention of how Russian and PRC global position satellite networks are integrating/integrated which likely means they are sharing surveillance satellite data also. More than doubling the quantity and cadence of PLAN sat surveillance data. Or of PRCs lead in A.I. R&D and supercomputing and how that will advance their surveillance and targetting. Overall I think including all perspectives and not being so dismissive of PRC sources, even if you qualify your personal suspicions of it's reliability, would make for a more engaging video, that is more of a Debate that reflects the growing great power competition, than this video which is distinctly onesided and displays bias openly. Still enjoyed this video and thanks for making it.
Sorry mate I have to disagree with your analysis here; there is no American exceptionalism in this video, although it was authored with a western audience in mind. I am a realist at heart, I don't believe that China will behave any differently to the United States, or Great Britain, or the Soviet Union, or any other superpower. When Beijing has global interests, which it now does because of its integration within the global economy, then it will act to further those interests, militarily if it has the capability to do so. That is my firm belief, and said belief rests upon 2,400 years of history and the oldest school of international relations theory.
Ironically enough, you are the one approaching this topic with a moralistic bias; that somehow the United States is a particularly imperialistic power and the PRC is exceptionally non-interventionist. A rather ironic form of chinese exceptionalism. I would argue that the only reason that appears to be the case is because we have just experienced a period of US global hegemony. If we had just experienced 30 years of Chinese dominance you would be saying precisely the same thing about Beijing. Realpolitik is far firmer ground to base an analysis of future Chinese actions than current pronouncements of the PRC's strategic aims which emanate from the central committee, as these can neither be fully trusted and are obviously subject to arbitrary change. Imagine, for example, that we were teleported to the 1930s, and you were making the same argument about the United States; that there is no way it would ever become a global hegemon or interventionist power considering its clear penchant for isolationism. That is essentially what you are saying here. China will have no choice but to become an interventionist power; why on earth do you think they are investing in super carriers, the ultimate tool of global power projection, if they do not intend to project power globally? This is a nonsensical position, one that is very obviously driven by your anti-americanism.
This is the problem with current geopolitics; I advance an analysis based on nothing more than the fundamental precepts of realist international relations theory (that within the international system all nations will basically act in similar ways if they are placed in similar circumstances), and you are so blind by your own anti-american bias that you claim that my analysis is based on american exceptionalism. Respectfully, maybe you should examine just how balanced your own beliefs are before you accuse others of bias; after all, I made no moral argument here, and it appears that you are. Any hegemonic power will act to maintain its position of power, that was as true for Sparta as it was for the United Kingdom as it is for the United States. The United States is not special at all in my view, but somehow it is in yours.
And finally, if you are credulous enough to accept the pronouncements of the capabilities of chinese systems from chinese state media, despite their clear an unequivocal history of exaggeration (such as the maturity of the DF-21D) and how politicised the chinese state is, that’s your business. But I might have a few things to sell you.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 "The Chinese hasn't invaded Iraq yet but I assure you they will once they become strong enough!!" Do you realize how dumb you sound?
This is a humongous undertaking. You covered both PLA space force and PLA navy on top of intelligence gathering and geopolitics. What a treat! One comment if I may: as a policy, PLA doesn’t disclose their weapons’ capability, unless it’s for sale. Lot of information are estimates.
"Lot of information are estimates." to us OSINT normies, yes... :D *CIA entered the chat room*
Think again
@@elektrotehnik94 The American empire is old and dying they don't have the capacity to spy on china's military like they could the soviets
"FOOLS YOU THINK WE DONT TAKE ADVANTAGE ON THOSE HONEYPOT SCANDALS??"
15:05 is clearly a lie or a false statement as Taiwan is STILL OFFICIALLY CALLED "REPUBLIC OF CHINA" so CHINA HAS NO TERITORIAL PRETNTIONS OF TAIWAN its TAIWAN THAT CLAIMS THAT WHOLE OF CHINA IS THEIRS!!!! Get your facts, at least the basics straight - GO TO WIKIPEDIA AND READ - WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL NAME OF TAIWAN - IT IS REPUBLIC OF CHINA - and that speaks of your credibility you twat. Just for Boxer war and opium forced trade China deserves to punish us in the West and especially because people like you still try to subordinate China, a worlds now only true superpower an insult them and us that can clearly see the facts, its the strongest worlds economy, its the strongest producer, consumer and all you are still "protecting" is obtuse, obsolete world view of first, second, third and thats why you cant never understand China or communism - in communism everyone is "equal" and China is NOW directing EU and USA through trade, its just a matter of DAYS not years that China will step over USA and its only West to blame for it. You want to live in Star Trek, so why are you stopping it?
These documentaries are better than tv
Oh I agree
Good god yeah. TV has just been garbage fluff to put ads around, for easily years. This is great stuff.
@@hunterhalo2 yup, that's why I don't have a TV licence, never use it lol
@@SgtAndrewM ahhh, Britain
Love your work mate. This was the last video of yours my late father saw before he passed away in Jan 2022 age 98 (almost).
RIP
Very professional video, better than most TH-cam analysis, I already subscribed,I hope this channel can thrive
First, the J-15 was critiqued for being unable to takeoff with a payload of 12 tons, but such a payload capacity was never associated with the aircraft, which has the same 6.5 ton payload as the Su-33. It was also argued that its inability to carry 12 tons meant the J-15 couldn’t be armed with the PL-12 beyond visual range missile (BVRAAM) - despite the PL-12 weighing 200 kilograms, about one-60th of the supposed requisite 12 ton capacity. The article also claimed that a J-15 fully loaded with internal fuel could only carry a two-ton payload, limiting the aircraft to two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles and two PL-8 short range missiles (SRAAMs). In actuality, two tons is sufficient to carry two YJ-83K family missiles, two PL-8 SRAAMs, and also at least two additional PL-12 missiles with pylons all inclusive. Finally, the article asserted the J-15 would somehow be limited to only “120 kilometers of attack range” - a curious claim, given that its combat radius with full internal fuel would enable a reach of over 1,200 kilometers, and the range of an air launched YJ-83K alone would reach approximately 200 kilometers to begin with.
exactly why China is now building new carrier with catapult
@@rcl998 doesn't matter how many carriers China builds if they aren't tested in combat, which is not going to happen anytime soon so don't get your hopes up on the new carrier.
@@LordEmperorHyperion combat tested is very vague nowadays, bombing a small nation without any navy is not vital combat experience compare to daily training or large exercise. It is important all the experience gained by the US navy since they have been operating super carrier for over 50 years, but not much experience they gained since WW2 for large battle. So I do believe there will be massive improvement for the Chinese carrier over the year despite not "combat tested"
@@rcl998 Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say that small to medium limited scale combat operations attribute to the "combat tested" status.
How would you come to this non-sense ideas that a 6.5t payload does not allow J-15 to carry 200 kg PL-12? Then should it carry a 300kg R-27ER? Just checking J-15 video on youtube will fix your loophole logic.
36:44 I am 100% sure you put the wrong image there, while noting 002 class on top left, the ship has serial number 16 which is Liaoning not 17 Shangdong
Several small/medium mistakes
2:35 Japan's invasion of China started in 1931 through the invasion of Manchuria, and full on total war started in 1937, not 1939
13:06 China's claim is not only historical claim. It's also the fact that the Chinese Civil war never ended, not even an armistice was signed, literally nothing was signed.
In fact at least the Korean war often claimed to be an ongoing conflict, had signed an armistice.
So the claim is to END the Chinese civil war through unification, by all means.
13:57 No, the unification of Taiwan is NOT about democracy, the idea of applying a system that worked for Taiwan, a place with a population smaller than Shanghai to the entirety of China with 1.4 billion people is outlandishly unrealistic
Also speaking from experience, mainland Chinese do not see Taiwan as a model to emulate, in fact animosity towards the island is at an all time high.
Believe it or not, it is NOT because of government propaganda, rather the Taiwanese borderline racist attitude towards Mainland China. This applies to Hong Kong too.
Before you say it, YES members from the same "race" can be racist towards each other, just look at the numerous racially driven massacres in Africa, where they belong to the same "race" but different tribes
Same type of racism existed between the English and the Irish. or America's attitude towards Italian immigrants during the early 20th century.
29:03 that's just not correct at all, you don't need to drop your speed down to supersonic speed. A low hypersonic speed of around Mach 5 to 7 is the target for many hypersonic missiles, you can't claim it would work for the US and not for China
Also since the fastest intercepting missile can barely reach that speed. meaning it's next to impossible to shoot it down
I find the argument of "Chinese weapons aren't good because it's made in China" rather tiresome.
While it ignores the fact that the US sea based missile defense VLS has NEVER been tested in war until 2016, when it went up against 2 old Iranian subsonic missiles fired by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
On that front, neither the Chinese nor the American system are fully tested for war, But I would bet on untested offensive weapon than an untested defensive weapon
36:46 that's not the Shandong CV17 it's the Liaoning CV16
39:38 that's just not correct
by 2035, China would have at least 5 maybe 6 carriers, as of now, China basically has 3 carriers, 2 commissioned and 1 about to leave the drydock. China is more than capable of building 2 more carriers in the next 15 years.
It took China around 15 years to build the 3 carriers of today. And that's only utilizing ONE of the 2 available shipyards that can construct a carrier, one in Dalian and one in Shanghai.
Chinese military spending is well below 2% of the GDP, there is massive room to grow if the government sees it necessary, the "slowing" economic GDP growth is the government trying to change the growth model from an investment driven to a consumption drive.
This would yield slower but higher quality and more sustainable growth. regardless, the idea of China running out of money is ridiculous.
43:59 The Type 076, a LHD with EMALS catapults is not really a vaporware, though not confirmed, it is very likely, because procurement info about a Catapult system for a naval platform was posted on the official PLA website.
If China is able to fit 3 electromagnetic catapults on the Type003 carrier that is conventionally powered, there is no reason to believe that 1 or 2 catapults couldn't fit on a 50,000 ton+ LHD, after all that would be a larger ship than the French carrier Charles De Gualle
49:25 The ZKJ battle management system is supposedly derived from the Italian IPN-10. which was exported to China in 1985, to claim China haven't built on that over the decades is simply unrealistic.
considering China's massive strides in the past 20 years in terms of communication and software technologies, it is not hard to imagine China fielding some very capable battle management systems.
Conclusion, China's strategy is NOT to defeat the US, after all why would you want to kill your biggest customer?
The aim for China is to supplant the position of the US without firing a bullet. that involves dethroning the US dollar as the global reserve currency, Many Chinese economist that are well connected with Beijing have already came out saying this goal explicitly.
Without the US dollar as the reserve currency, the US would find it impossible to maintain the size of the American military. It won't relegate America to the dustbin of history, but would GREATLY diminish their power projection capabilities.
Great information!
You must be fun at parties
He also didn't point out that the US saved China from Japan. If the US didn't defeat Japan in WW2 then China would still be occupied by Japan right now, a fact that the CCP should recognise and respect.
@@douglasnakamura6753so did the Us push the japanese out of Manchuria?
Amazing rebuttal.
You consistently keep the content at such a high level. Kinda wish college credit could be given for viewing these, with a test afterwards of course.
Thank you for allowing us to be the beneficiaries of all your hard work.
You done a great job yet again. Thank you and keep up the great work.
I’m hoping some of the people in Canberra see this too and identify the lessons here.
You don't think the sudden increase in naval expenditure and procurement over the last 10 years is an indicator Canberra already knows this?
The decision to move to a nuclear submarine also confirms it.
Oh your finally back! Hurray! Setting down with my lunch to watch this interesting topic.
I think you really missed the ethnic nationalism that plays into current Chinese thought. Claims to Taiwan are less about historical territorial control and more about a common people being separated unfairly. The language Xi uses when talking about Taiwan reminds me much more of the Romantic Nationalism and revanchism/irredentism of the 19th century than anything else.
I'd also be interested to know what role sea gliders play in the recon stage of A2AD.
Your closing statements where interesting. Imo there is nothing the US can do to maintain its technological edge over China, no amount of investment can overcome the challenge as both nations are largely drawing on the same talent pool. The USSR struggled because it had so little connection to the outside world, its engineers alone had to solve the technological challenges of their arms race with no outside help, it was inevitable that they would fall behind in a range of areas (computers especially). China on the other hand has a massive educational exchange with the West. The engineers at Lockheed and Raytheon are no better than their Chinese counterparts, they all go to Harvard now. The same could not be said the engineers of the USSR.
Nothing gives a country the right to invade somewhere because of a shared ethnicity!
Daily reminder that the only good nazi is a dead nazi
@@thedausthed A Chinese-speaking region, that's China. Because China has its own history and unified culture. So, use your mind in your western world. You used to colonize all over the world, and you built a lot of white countries, and the conventional wisdom was I speak English but I'm not British, I speak Spanish but I'm not Spanish, I'm a white country but I'm not European, that's normal. But this is your own dirty past, don't bring the Chinese into it.
China is not Europe, China has its own unified culture, you do not need to point fingers, do not bring the western world's universal values to China. In recent years, western media not only smears China in the world, but also countries hire some stars in China: India is clean and democratic, Americans are rich and free, white people are polite, European environment is good, we China is full of smoke. Never heard praise for Russia. Russia doesn't deserve it? I won't say who it is. Everyone can guess.
Just want China to be like India. What rubbish India is, everyone in the world knows except Indians. Scared of China? Afraid China will tear the ugly anglo-Saxons apart? Will. You have accepted western universal values in your head. It is useless to follow the barking of some Western media. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons have the strength or qualifications to teach China how to do things.
The 21st century is China's century. You and I are all witnesses. When the sun rises in the east, there will be no need for the lighthouse. Thank you.
@Muslimcel True, but Might doesn't always make friends ^^ ... *cue Russia*
@@dddddh1 That's a very long way to write; it's okay to invade other countries because Europeans did it in the in the past. Communist never seem to understand ethics and morality, it's not surprising since the core tenet of communism is theft.
When you said that it took the PLA Navy 6 years to achieve IOC of the CV 16 Liaoning (the vessel was commissioned in 2012, it was declared combat capable in 2018), the thing to remember is that the Liaoning was officially classed as a Training Ship when it was first commissioned, it wasn't expected to be a fully capable combat carrier originally.
As far as I know, the PLA Navy wanted to deploy carriers since the early 1980's, they examined operational carriers of other navies (when possible), as well as bought quite a few decommissioned carriers for scrapping or converting into other roles. They have had mock ups of carrier landing decks built in several places, where they were training potential future carrier based pilots long before they ever had a real carrier in their fleet.
My point is that they are fully aware of the skills needed and the experience required to enable aircraft carriers to be operated safely and effectively.
The growth and development of the PLA, looking back in retrospect, at how they went from obsolete types of submarines, surface ships, auxiliaries and support vessels back in the late 1980's, to having large numbers of world class types of SSBN/SSN/SSK/DDG/CGM/FFG and AOR/LSH/LPD etc within 20-30 years makes me believe that they know exactly what they are doing.
Also the HHQ-16B carried by the 054A, 052B, 051B and the Fuzhou DDG have a range of 70km+ (compared to the HHQ-16 variant that has 40km range).
Chinese carriers are worthless because their aircraft are failed reverse engineered copies of russian Su-33 fighters and have inefficient and weak jet engines and no air to air refueling, which means they can not take off with a full fuel load and an effective war-load and as such give no real capability to the carriers. In addition their small numbers per carrier means the chinese will never be able to match the US Navy’s force projection capabilities nor match its very effective aircraft. Added to the fact that they are all conventionally powered means a huge portion of the each carrier is devoted to housing fuel oil for their own engines and thus have very limited ordnance and avgas storage even further limiting their capabilities when compared to US Navy carriers.
A useful summary although several inaccuracies such as using the wrong designation (e.g. Han class is 091, not Type 95, and the image for the Song class was actually an early variant of the Yuan).
The author over emphasised the political reasons for retaking Taiwan and grossly underrated the strategic reasons for retaking the island. Taiwan independence would turn the island into a US military base the directly threatens the mainland.
Will Taiwan is already independent so that's kind of a bad argument. Also with China's Belligerence in the South china sea More countries in the region we'll be open to the idea of hosting US bases or at the very least Increasing their offensive capabilities to ward off the Chinese.
@@blazingkhalif2 you don't live here do you? No one here interested in hosting US military because that's akin to putting a target on our back.
China would never allow that to happen and the USA knows it and would never attempt it.
My complement, sofar the best and balanced in-depth evaluation of Chinese naval development by a western analyst. Many shortcomings of realtime targeting information by the known system like satellite and over the horizon radar pointed out by the author are very correct, and therefore the focus of new development of UAV like WZ-8, which is a rocket powered, launched from H6, supersonic UAV collecting the position of large naval ships.
I have come to expect nothing less than intelligent informed analysis, and you don't disappoint. Your discussion of the issues surrounding the Chinese use of ASBMs was well-reasoned, and to the point, as good as any briefing that I could have received.
It’s western bias analysis by a guy who never been to China. I wouldn’t put much weight on it
@@levelazn And how would having been to China change anything? Unless it has changed a great deal since the last time (of 7 visits) that I have been there, the PLAN doesn't make a habit of providing foreigners with detailed briefings of their naval affairs.
The chap who produced this video has a superlative grounding in the source material, and has produced numerous analyses of both depth and breadth. If you don't have facts to produce counterarguments, pointless ad-homs really don't prove much....
@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 he is projecting a certain bias that China is aggressive when it hasn’t fired a shot in 40 years or pushed any country into a hot war. The entire Ukraine conflict is at least 50 percent attributed to the aggressive expansion of nato under us foreign policy.
@@levelazn This entirely depends upon who you ask. The Chinese aggression in the SCS (and please, spare me the pointless Chinese gaslighting, their behavior there is in clear violation of existing international treaties that China is a signatory to), their actions along the borders with India, etc. are all aggressive and and expansionistic by any definition of the word.
Look, if you want to challenge the video with facts, not simply CCP talking points, go right ahead, but so far all you have done is make assertions with absolutely no substance. This isn't China, parroting the governments talking points doesn't get you social credit.
@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 it’s not ccp talking points. It’s Chinese talking points. Us has a Monroe doctrine. China will have a xi doctrine
7:00 as an added bit of nuance, during the economic expansion of China. The US lead a coalition in the first gulf war (1995). The effectiveness of that campaign may have lead China to reassess its defencive needs in terms of advanced naval and missile forces.
9:00 These moves to expand and modernize its forces were put into a new more expansionist strategic concept after 2008. China potentially saw the politically bitter and fragmented response to the financial crisis as carte blanche to reshape its area.
These are not my original ideas, just me summarizing what I remember from some thinktanks youtube video, probably the Hundsion Institute or CSIS.
Um, I think the modernization in 95. Came from Clinton U.S. money dump into China. Not fear of the Gulf War. What overpaid think tank piece are you reading? P.S. the First Gulf war was 1991. Get your timelines down.
@@The_Conqueeftador hes right to be fair. Hes unknowingly referencing or reading something else thats used "The Dragons and the Snake: How the rest learned to fight the west" by David Kilcullen. Furthermore, the book "Unrestricted Warfare" written by two PLA officers also was born out of the sheer dominance over Iraq in the First Guld War. Asymmetry is key to the CCP way of war. According to their own doctrine theyve been at war with us for a very long time. We just didn't know it.
@@muzp1121 That doesn't change the fact that they could do nothing until the Clinton era money dump and trade agreements and military knowledge sharing. They can want all they want. Nothing really materialized until the U.S. flooded China with cash. A very stupid move in hindsight.
@@The_Conqueeftador as late as the mid 2000's the west saw an emerging China as an opportunity from an economic point of view and to encourage the regime away from communism. Not to mention Xi was seen in the early days of his coming to power as a leader who would see a prominent and responsible China on the world stage. Obviously we've seen the opposite.
To answer your point about the money. China was not the only actor who saw the Gulf War as a watershed moment in how to not fight the west. Use Iran as an example, they dont have the money but theyve bogged the US down through supporting multiple guerrilla insurgencies and developed a cheap way to fight a supieror military both through small boat tactics and now swarm loitering munitions.
The point in all of this is that they realised the human wave tactics they employed in the Korean War were no longer effective (lets face it they werent then either). So they changed tact to develop a modern military. This is just my opinion here now, but I think this is a good thing. We know how to fight a peer conflict. China are literally developing what we know we can win against. Theyve just raised the cost of conflict, but that requires conflict to happen. We are witnessing the beginning of a slow strangle of the CCP. And with the CCP developing a modern military, we now also have the blueprint of how to bog one of those down in an uncostly manner. So in essence, its good theyre wasting their money copying us.
But after saying all that. To blame one person over two terms of presidency is extremely short sighted and is clearly an opinion blinded by the polarity of western society right now. The entire world played into the CCPs hand. It didn't take the leadership of one president to do it. The shift from Taiwan that Carter instituted was far more influential. Or maybe the backing of Chinese Communist forces in WW2 in the fight against the Japanese is to blame for their rise to power.
We are far better served figuring out how to win, rather than tear ourselves apart in the blame game. Because doing the latter is exactly what the CCP is harnessing and relying on.
@@muzp1121 Just ignore this Random Name idiot; you are casting pearls before pigs here. He is almost certainly a MAGA anti-vax conservative who just wants another opportunity to dump on Clinton or Sleepy Joe or whichever other Democrat president he loathes.
Absolutely stunning example of how to give a listener a formidable understanding of Chinese naval development and procurement! Will refenrece this in future! Thanks.
Wow, so much. I love your in-depth coverage on these topics. There is no where else online you can find quality and quantity like this
Question: at 44 minutes, you are showing a type 71 LPD. Said ship is flying a Dutch flag however. And there are windmills in the background. Anyone know what up?
Beijing's conundrum, overestimating projected Chinese military capabilities I find equally daunting to underestimating them.
Hi man, interesting video, I would be interested to see what sources you used to find all this information. Do you have a list of documents somewhere?
I know this is petty and I love all the effort and quality of this video: buuuut Qing isn't pronounced King but is basically Ching.
to the north, there is Russian, to the east, there is American and Japanese, and to the south, Indian and Australian is coming, so as a Chinese, it's quiet important to keep a powerful navy to protect our own interest
... *Taiwan sweats nervously* ...
It's ultimately not (only) about the tools... it's about how benevolently we use them that really counts.
Love from Slovenia
I see a hypohystericalhistory video on a naval topic, I click! This is quite interesting and certainly relevant given our current strategic environment. I know you mentioned it as a previous potential topic (And I'm not sure if you did one of the Tiktok videos) but I'd love to see a video about the Arafura's/Evolved Capes.
I see a comment that reads my mind and I upvote!
I know its not good for rhythm of feeds, but I definitely Thumbed Up right away. Forgive my negligent thumb discharge, but Hype History hasn't let me down yet.
@@Danster87 and..............................ditto
Do you think you are intelligent or sound intelligent throw big words around the point is to keep your comments understandable I don't know what side you are on
Echoing the gent below, and a year later, I pulled up the keyboard to note that sometimes more really is MORE. To my mind, the broadest and most coherant vid on China's overall, real world position in global affairs, but also everyone else's posture re China. I congratulate you on your erudition.
as much as there is to complain about the economic effort china accomplished during the 20th century was unique. the quality of life and ecoonomic position of hundreds of millions of citizens in such a short period of time is the closest thing to an actual miracle the world has ever seen. the average chinese citizen so the largest increase of wealth any single generation on earth has experienced. they also managed to accomplish this feat twice as fast as any nation then any of the very few nations before them has even come close to. both the speed and increase of the quality of life for the average Chinese citizen was the singular greatest economic feat any nation has managed in mankinds history.
So true!
36:52 In picture it is still Liaoning (Hull 16) whereas Type-002 Shandong is Hull-17.
Obviously at the time you edited this you had not heard of China's Beijing-3 satellite. This thing is frighteningly good at providing high resolution images up to 100 times a day of a fairly wide range of ground level areas. Like 1400 sq.mi. Down to 30 cm..
I think his point was satellites cannot have high definition at wide areas. The Beijing-3 satellite takes great narrow photographs but of course it's a much lower resolution at 1400 sq. miles.
China's recently launched Yaogan-41 geosynchronous earth orbit electro-optical and SAR satellite provides real time 24/7 all weather surveillance of China, the Pacific ocean area and the Indian ocean area. This allows tracking of any vessels in the aforementioned oceans on a continuous basis. In combination with other Chinese surveillance assets provides unprecedented tracking capabilities for the PLAN.
This channel is phenomenal
Awesome work as always mate
Congrats on creating yet another thoroughly researched, and informative, presentation.
The current A2AD strategy practiced by China does not even need to defeat the USN- merely changing the deployment risk calculus will have a disproportionate influence on combat operation effectiveness and sustainability of required logistics to support extended naval exercises. Since the potential invasion of Taiwan/ROC is a regional-scale conflict, China doesn't need to field a carrier battle group that maintains parity with the USN. The ship-building schedule displayed by the PLAN is remarkable, and while armchair pundits may debate the quality of surface combatants and crew, there seems to be a growing consensus that the current fleet composition is effectively "good enough" to significantly frustrate and/or damage USN multi-domain assets that are likely to support a Taiwan/ROC resistance.
On the flip side, this prodigious investment in naval expansion cannot be sustained indefinitely, and the PLAN already has a developing, practical notion of the long-term capital costs of fielding so many varied hulls, the required upkeep and maintenance in addition to creating a logistical infrastructure that supports truly global operations. That same A2AD stratagem is not as useful when China seeks to sail abroad, perhaps to conduct its own FON exercises off the Atlantic coast near Washington, DC. An invasion of Taiwan/ROC, whatever the final outcome, will also carry long-term consequences that will impact China's diplomatic and economic relationships with the west. The recent events in Ukraine are likely being analyzed ad nauseam by the senior leaders of the PLAN trying to draw lessons that will inform effective military doctrine. Although a successful invasion may only require control of the first island chain, China does not currently have the assets to secure long, sea-based supply routes needed to meet daily energy and agricultural consumption requirements. While they may reap the advantages of uncontested supremacy within the FIC, that same maritime demarcation serves as a barrier for extra-regional operations. China will also need to contend with a joint response by the US, Australia, Japan and other maritime allies that will stretch PLAN fleet operations.
Superb analysis.
The USA, Japan and Australia will not get involved if there is an armed conflict between the mainland and the Chinese province of Taiwan. The specter of thousands of body bags returning to the USA, Japan and Australia is a huge deterrent to those who challenge China's claim over Taiwan. Take Ukraine for instance do you see any NATO personnel fighting on the front lines? In that theater the threat to and preservation of NATO countries is way more important than Taiwan is to the West and yet they refuse to get directly involved besides supplying weapons and intelligence. If this was a poker game I would call a bluff and easily win. Anyone with any strategic foresight would come to the same conclusion.
@@bobsmith3983 There is always a political cost to casualties, but you seem to have disregarded one of the most important precepts that will likely influence the scope and speed of regional escalation for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan- the high probability that the PLAN, recognizing the importance of logistical support, will not restrict combat operations to Taiwan itself.
In nearly every simulation and war-game conducted by Western militaries and various consultants, the PLAN launches pre-emptive strikes on US bases in Japan, the Philippines and Guam. Despite the use of precision-guided munitions, there are always errors, and the subsequent civilian casualties will compel the respective governments to support a Western coalition to intercede in support of Taiwan. Japan has already approved its largest military modernization budget on record. The Philippines has engaged with the US to build additional bases in north Luzon, and Australia is also expanding its north shore basing infrastructure as well as being approved to purchase a number of SSNs from the US Navy as part of the historic AUKUS agreements.
Taiwan's sovereignty continues to be a major issue governing the expected actions of the United States against potential hostilities in the region, but long-term economic and geo-strategic costs of Western neutrality and disengagement will be far greater.
Despite your attempt to draw some meaningful corollary with the Ukraine conflict (which incidentally has expanded NATO membership, diminished the near-term capabilities of the Russian military and dramatically changed the diplomatic landscape between Europe and Russia), the evolving political and military issues centered around Taiwan's continuing sovereignty cannot be reduced to a poker game model.
You really deserve more subscribers. Fantastic material.
Of course, it's still a long road ahead for the PLA. But they're progressing at an astonishing rate. Even today if a conflict broke out in this region, I'd put my money on the PLA as opposed to the Australian Armed Forces.
I'd put my money on Fiji over NZ too. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🥑
True but you also have to take into account the demographic crisis about to hit China. Like many developed nations they have a very low birth rates that are below replacement levels and in the coming years they won't have the extra money to spend on the military and we'll have to spend it taking care of the old.
China.
Could you do a video on the type 26 frigate program/what the rn plans to procure in the future
I ponder upon two topics. Recently spent some time on the Battleship New Jersey web site and the iterative design on that, now old, ship makes me wonder how much you get from reverse engineering. There is knowing and then there is the knowing from having learnt those lessons, written in blood. The other point I think about is how flexible are the leaders in the decision making process? Are all the captains of all those ships able to operate as required tactically, in a conflict, without referring to what the politicians think? Is several generations of that culture going to ham-string their war-fighting?
Going by the behavior of WW2's IJN, I suspect that China would initially have a very dedicated swarm of disposable ships, but that edge would become far more brittle than the USN forces. A navy built for winning battles, but not for withstanding the rigors of war.
I recommend watching Drachinifel's content, the episode about the differences in damage control between Japanese and American navies is good stuff. The propagandist tendencies of China might rhyme with Imperial Japan's character.
You make a good point. If we wanted to, we probably could not build the Apollo moon rockets again today despite having the blueprints bc there are 1000s of little decisions by now-deceased craftsmen, designers, and manufacturers that do not show up on blueprints.
@@radiofreealbemuth8540 I mean, technically yes? Many old rocket parts were built by hand and modification of the blueprints happened all the time. But that doesn't mean we couldn't build something far better with a comparatively lower cost either. With NASA there's generally a large degree of bleedover in institutional knowledge to the wider community than many other space programs.
Hope you had a wonderful Chrismas this is a great vedio
Would love to see a counterpart video on the United States plan/motions in-place to maintain competitive dominance through the 21st century.
I dont think the U.S. has a plan at this point.
The navy has been operating under continuing resolutions for years, that allows for very little future planning and R&D.
agree w/ Russell.
Eventually when China gains conventional superiority US will have to integrate nuclear weapons into their plans. Similar to the 60s when Warsaw Pact was conventionally superior to NATO in Europe. US planned to blast Soviet armored spearheads with nuclear weapons.
My prediction, Congress won't get serious until the war goes hot. Then the entire country will move heaven and earth to start producing ships in a hurry. It's far from ideal and might not be enough to win quickly, but it will be enough to win eventually.
Huge fan via TikTok..... found my favorite historian on youtube. Love your work, such a pleasure to listen to.
Taiwan province was returned by Japan to China after the WWII. After the WWII and after the Chinese civil war, between the nationalist party and the communist party, the nationalist party retreated to Taiwan province How could they do that? This was because Taiwan has always been part of China.
I mean no that's not why they could retreat there. they could have done it just as well if it was a zone under military occupation. also what makes the CCP's claim to Taiwan more legitimate than the ROC's claim to the mainland?
@@seanmac1793 After WWII Japan returned Taiwan province to China. The nationalist party was just retreating to Taiwan province that was under China's control. Today's Chinese government can claim whatever the previous government had control of. That is why the CCP can claim what the nationalist controlled.
@@seanmac1793 both are equally legitimate but only one side has the power to pursue it's claim
Your videos are so great. Easily best video on this topic out there. Thanks for making my day
You make better Doco's then our billion dollar funded ABC & SBS?
It’s written as “Qing” but it’s not read as “King” but as “Ching” ….
the average American lives in the cocoon of his belief that 'his toy is more lethal and better than that of the other kid"
not without good reason lmao. the average iranian also thinks this, its just more embarassing
This was a thoroughly, ridiculously good video.
What I don't understand is why people don't think that China could be the next leader in technology. The Japanese lead in several fields so why couldn't China?
They could be, in theory, but they aren’t now. But just generally speaking technological development is driven by the quality of your tertiary education system, your wider research and development base and high tech industry. China still lags the west in all of these areas, but they are capable of producing world class tech in some sectors.
But just in your last point, Japan and China are very different countries; the nature of their development has been very different. Chinese growth was driven by western firm’s offshoring their manufacturing, but all of the rest of the product life cycle stayed in the west. I phones might be built in China, but everything else is done in the US; conceptual development, marketing, technological research and development, software development, service ect. You have western firms making western developed high tech products in China. Again speaking generally, most Chinese forms make reasonably low cost, well established goods. It wasn’t like that in Japan, firms like Mitsubishi, Sony, Nissan did everything in house, so from the start Japan was developing its technical and technological capacity. World leading high tech industry was always part of Japanese development. That’s not really so in China where the increased productivity has been driven by the injection of capital and technology from the west.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Thanks for the reply! I definitely walking away with a different perspective.
According to ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) the Chinese lead in 37 out of 44 critical technologies e.g. hypersonics, drones, etc.. So China is the leader with the West falling further and further behind. The point is when 1.4 billion people with an average IQ of 105 put their minds to work they excel over everyone else.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 China has the complete supply chain for most of the product made in China. Even smart phones like the Huawei Mate Pro 60 is completely made in China from the microchips to the screws. The iPhone main SOC is made in Taiwan (BTW a province of China) by TSMC as the US companies in the USA do not have the capability to produce it. Most of the mechanical components e.g. the case, LCD screen, screws, etc. are provided by Chinese suppliers so US content in the physical parts and labor are non existent in the IPhone. Increased productivity has been driven by the injection of capital and technology from the west in the past (20 years ago) but China's increased productivity is purely Chinese in origin. Chinese win math competitions world wide frequently where the USA can't even crack the top ten. You can't beat 1.4 billion Chinese with average 105 IQ.
China cannot become the next leader (like Japan did) for one reason above all: culture.
Japan, when it innovated, had a (political) culture similar to the West, with its capitalist markets and free thinking.
These things are vital for technological progress. (well, arguably, perhaps not-essential, but definitely most-strengthening, compared to any other alternatives).
Because the only way to invent something new is by thinking outside of the box.
So you need a system where free thinking is rewarded (financially, but also in status/honor, etc).
But what we see in China today is literally the complete opposite.
There is severe political repression, with lots of words/terms automatically banned on social media platforms, and the wider internet is not accessible without a VPN. Cameras and facial recognition are spreading rapidly to most street corners. And especially critiquing the CCP is _not_ tolerated.
So how can a baby be born in China today, grow up in a system where it is normal to be watched and controlled (and perhaps even punished), and go on to become a free thinker?
How can a university or company set up a department or think tank that truly pushes the envelope?
It's like comparing a fish with a monkey, and complaining the fish is bad at climbing trees....
How great could the Soviet Union have been, if they had never sent any smart inventors to any gulag?
But then, if they'd never done that, it couldn't have stayed the Soviet Union...
That's the whole point!
The CCP has made the choice to stay in power through control/monitoring, but that inevitably also decreases free thinking in its society, and that puts it at a structural disadvantage when it comes to innovation.
It's not that innovation is impossible; it's just that it's far more likely to sprout up in a (political) culture like Japan, the USA, or India.
And over time that compounds, exponentially.
So others will innovate faster, thus precluding China from becoming a leader like Japan.
I hope this enables you to look at the world with a fresh perspective :)
*Thank you for posting all of your videos. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!*
I have had a chance to watch this now; great work here, very impressive.
I do wonder exactly how China intend to sustain and maintain a 400+ fleet for 30 years of service life? Disregarding the doctrine of the US Navy which is forward deployed fleets (with a significant impact on serviceability and decreased capacity) perhaps they are planning to either lose 50% of this fleet to retake Taiwan or reduce each ships time out at sea by rotating this large fleet?
The us navy is 5 million tonnes the Chinese is around 2 million tonnes . China counting 150 small missle boat's as warships .
China military budget are second largest in the world after US, and also china doesn't need to pay and maintain hundred of overseas military base like US
@@MrSmokeyroo - Well 1.1 million of those tonnes are tied up in 11 super carriers. Id wager those 150 small boats can be in many more places than once than those carriers..
@@Fauzanarief-n7i - Yes, its difficult to accurately work out the Chinese defence budget. And yes while it doesn't have as many overseas bases as the US, and never will probably, the Americans don't pay for those bases, the rests of thew world do. The benefits of the worlds reserve currency and every commodity priced in US dollars.
I think it will be entertaining to watch as well. Being so new and growing so fast, as these start to get used heavily and have problems they will be pulling political, public and littoral Damage Control overtime
Really good spoken. I heard some phrases from this Video in another Video from you and this got me wondering if you have thousends of named audio files
You keep talking about skills that the US Navy has but China lacks.... bombing or invading a country with an inferior defense doesnt count as experience.
This idea of yours would make more sense if the US just came out of World War 2.
Very informative video. Thank you for taking time to do this.
Love the channel! Been a huge fan ever since I discovered you several months ago. I would just like to add that US Carriers can flex up in their aircraft capability. While nowadays the airwing is limited, when I was deployed in the early 2000s on a carrier, we easily were pushing 100 planes. The size allows them to carry that much and the deck crew can certainly handle the extra load!
This goes to all we're talking about here... We got only OSINT data.
Expect some variability as to how capable cutting-edge class systems *TRULY* are.
While a Nimitz has the deck and hanger space to support over 90 aircraft, operational tempos are significantly reduced at that kind of capacity and therefore I think in combat a more balanced air wing of around 50-70 aircraft is more likely.
Interested to hear your opinion on the development of XLUUV to be deployed from Arafura and Hunter Class Frigate, along with the Loyal Wingman, as an AI/unmanned response to China's overwhelming manpower advantage.
Yet another excellent presentation...thank you.
Great to see the commentator knows the capabilities of the US military more than the US’s own four star generals😝
New subscriber here, fantastic content, just what I have been looking for! 👏👏👏
13:32 Denmark ones ruled all of Norway, a huge part of Sweden, Iceland, the US virgin islands, some parts of the Baltic countries and a good part of Germany!
If you go back to the Viking age also a good part of the UK and Normandy in France.
I cannot agree more .So why did Denmark recover the Schleswig from Germay after WWI ? Come on,you have to smile only because you are too weak to fight.😃
Denmark was nothing but an obsolete barbarian state during the age of Rome empire. It's not even comparable to a primary civilization like China and India.
Thanks again mate, another well presented and informative brief on our region.
Great video as always. This is an unpopular opinion but China does have claim over Taiwan as the KMT and CCP historically adhered to the one China policy, and each other wanted to reunite the country through military means. The Taiwanese government changed tact after it became clear Taiwan was never going to be able to do so.
China is deeply affected by the “century of humiliation” from naval/military weakness, which allowed foreign powers to carve out its territories.
China sees the military as an insurance against foreign interference in its affairs, like in Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The next step was always the navy. China has been trying a naval buildup since the start of the 20th century, one that was only successful recently. That the US navy is still able to influence their actions on Taiwan, haunts them greatly, and is only further motivation.
China was happy to maintain status quo as long as Taiwan did not declare independence. But I think great power competition and US’s pacific pivot with a first island chain containment strategy involving Taiwan has only gave urgency for China to retake Taiwan, as Taiwan could possibly declare independence with current circumstances. China wants to avoid a repeat of how the Soviets enabled Mongolia to become independent.
The CCP has no right to force itself on anyone.
@@thedausthed Tell that to the Catalonians, Hawaiians, and Purto Ricans…
Chiang Kai Shek was never interested in independence for Taiwan but only to overthrow the communists and return to power on the mainland. The ROC’s claims mirrors the PRC regarding Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan and the South China Seas.
The summery changes when you add in. The US ships are for the most part all over a decade old. When you consider the Chinese combination of the Russian navy is a major game changer
Long live President Xi and the Chinese nation. You are a force for the good of the planet. From one in the African diaspora.
The real issue is can they stop the b2 or b21
The B2 and B21 are not invisible to HF radar and can be detected at sufficient ranges allowing anti aircraft weapons or fighter aircraft to engage them. They are most lo observable in the 10Ghz RF band. The B2 and B-21 are most likely to be used to launch standoff weapons so as not to be detected however when launching it's weapons load it will be visible to X band radar for a short period of time and it's location revealed.
While China's economy will slow down, it is still expected to grow around 6% per year, easily outpacing America's 2-3%. China will, indeed, maintain its military spending for decades more.
China has enormous domestic expenditure.....China's controlling model of governance comes with huge security, surveillance and political corruption costs
@@action963 Same applies for the US though (and there is lots of corruption, ah sorry, it's called lobbying and its legal btw. Also just in general contracting and private companies sucking so much money off the US such as the MIC).
@@michael3032 the difference is pvt entity's work more efficiently than directly controlled government...look at china's domestic bills on controlling there own population..its absolutely enormous and growing
@@action963 pvt more efficient? Lol no, it really depends.
And also, pvt chases PROFIT, not fucking care about the fact that they are leeching/stealing money from the people.
@@michael3032 let's compare homeland security costs. If we look at the "Chinese Statistical yearbook" chinese spending is roughly 130billion USD compared to 90 in the US...China suffers from a higher levels of domestic unrest...all major political indices show this..for instance the world Bank ranks china at 157th the US is ranked 56th
The 🐐 is back!
Just one thing: The standard cruise speed of an naval force is around 15 - 20 knots not 30. Yes, a DDG-51-Class-Destroyer can reach 30 kn, but the ship would run out of fuel within hours/days.
That’s not really relevant if the force is trying to evade an incoming air strike though is it?
15 knots and 30 knots are both basically the same thing (standing still) to an anti ship missile maybe if the ship was weaving through wwII style dive bombers with unguided bombs the 30 knots might actually have a chance at being relevant to evasion of attack but in a modern setting that speed will only give you the tiniest fraction of a percentage chance of survival if all your other counter measures have already failed.
@@Kakarot64.
The argument was dodging satellite detection not missiles.
Good video man
This is an interesting, well thought out and well presented video.
One point I would have liked to seen explored is how the reemergence of Russian Naval Power would have on the balance of forces between the PLA(N) & the USN. Although Russia & the People's Republic of China do not share the same ultimate Strategic Goal or Vision, the fact that they have converging interests when it comes to the Western Liberal Nations, particularly the USA, may see them act in concert even if not formally allied, especially for a specific Near-Term Goal.
I would have also like to have seen how the growth of the Indian Navy might affect the balance of power vis a vis the PLA(N).
indian navy will wet its pant....
@@ishtiaquealamin6147 😂😂🤣🤣your country may do it 😂😂🤣🤣
@@ishtiaquealamin6147 Indian Navy still at rubber ducky stage, no match for Chinese naval forces at this time
The reemergence of the Russian navy? Hahahahahaha.
@@bathhatingcat8626 To be fair, I don't think ANYBODY could have predicted just how incompetent the Russian Navy could be.
The Russians have a nasty habit of doing crap in one war then doing much better in the next one. Hopefully, the Russian Armed Forces will remain at their current truly abysmal standard of competence that they are displaying against Ukraine.
This channel is incredible
It's ironic that the investment by the Western world in China has facilitated this rise. China has continually outsmarted the West. Our best hope is that the Chinese fleet is made of the same grade of steel that they routinely export to Australia.
Not really. The largest sources of investment to China were not from the West, but actually overseas Chinese in Thailand, Taiwan, and even Singapore who had relatives or some connections in the mainland. Even Japan too.
And yet the Australian keeps importing from China. Go get your steel somewhere else. 🤦♂️
@@sw36jl It was the West that set up manufacturing, under China Joint Venture rules, effectively handing over IP for nothing. I worked for a company that did just that. And what the Chinese could not get legally (by Western law), they took. They are some of the smartest people on the planet and have been taking the West for a ride since Australia recognised China, closely followed by the US. And yes, Japan has offshored manufacturing to Japan also.
@@freetorobandloot I wish. Unfortunately that's not my decision. If it was, we'd be sourcing all our steel locally.
The Chinese can and do make good steel, but as with anything you have to pay for it.
I use a lot of Chinese continuous cast grey and ductile iron. It's made to Japanese industrial specs and is perfectly good material. On the other hand, if you buy hot rolled mild steel from scummings you'll get crappy merchant bar that at best has a weldability rating, all other properties are not specified.
53:00 Type 056 Corvette 8 per year 72 in the water well armed.
For China to successfully engage their area opponents (Taiwan, Vietnam, The Philippines and Japan), they would first have to assure that they had access to the one major resource their nonnuclear navy needs. Oil. Unless I am mistaken, China obtains virtually all of their oil from the middle east and that oil has to come by sea. In order for the Chinese to conduct anything but a very short regional conflict they would have to prevent the democratic nations from blocking the Strait of Malacca and the Sunda Strait. This is the exact problem Japan faced in WWII. This particular issue would make a very interesting video.
china can get oil form Russian if nedded
@@kokoczoko3135correct.
The US by serving the fantasies of 3rd generation Polish nationalists in USA has removed any and all incentives for Russians to say no to PRC.
@@kokoczoko3135no not really, in order for them to get Russian oil it would either need to be imported by sea through the first island chain and the fucking National waters of The USA near Alaska, or through the straight of malaka.
When it comes to land transportation is pretty much hopeless, either trucks trough the Goby desert or trains trough the wasteland of Siberia all of the piping infrastructure was made to go to Europe and would need to be constructed throughout the entirety of Siberia all the way to Mongolia and into China That is a length equal to Africa it's impossible simply unreasonable especially in wartime like Russia is in right now.
@@anarchyandempires5452 you know that russia make pipeline from siberia to poland right? so from syberia to manchuria it's possible to make pipeline...
@@kokoczoko3135possible but the timeframe for such a project would be pretty long
It's criminal this channel has fewer than 100k subscribers. Channels like this are what make youtube a fantastic platform.
Another excellent, objective & informative presentation.
How I wish the fourth estate would produce such quality - something they've failed to do for decades now.
I think your assessment on the history claim is really strange. I think you fail to forget that for as long as Taiwan and China have existed under separate governments, both have been claiming to be the rightful government of all of China. For both governments history they have agreed that there is only one China and the conflict is that who gets to rule. Taiwans current position is recent where they are distancing from that position. As a result China does have a fair and legitimate claim to the territory as it has been long established president that was mutually agreed between the two states.
SIR THIS FAKE NEWS ONLY MY INDIAN NAVY SUPERPOWER NUMBER ONE ! THIS WHY IM SO LUCKY BORN LIVE IN INDIA 🇮🇳🤗, VERY SAFE VERY CLEAN ,ALWAYS RESPECT WOMEN AND WE HAVE TOILET EVERYWHERE , INDIA IS ROLE MODEL COUNTRY TRUST ME 🤗🇮🇳 I KNOW U JEALOUS NOT LIVE IN INDIA🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗
Thanks for the lols
Brilliant analysis as per usual.
Liberal culture of hk? Lol yeah hk was very liberal under British colonial rule
Hey mate, saw you on tiktok and have now subscribed here. :)
Would it be possible for you to do a full explanation of WW2 from start to finish? Would love to hear you explain it in depth :)
This’ll be an interesting one 👍
Generally sensor data fusion, along with targeting management is F****ng hard. Would love to see a deep dive into this area and their ISTAR capabilities in general given the Chinese dependence on these for their A2AD strategy.
Liaoning aircraft carrier is an active ship not a training ship.
Incredible video
Looking forward to watching this one! Can we get a TikTok or a video covering the concept of NORFORCE by any chance?
Well done my friend you’ve done your research and then some, everybody that watched just half of the video should subscribe. Greetings from 🇺🇸
A very well written and presented view of the buildup of the Chinese navy and how dangerous it is becoming for it's regional neighbours and some of it's competitors further out...
12:45
Qing china is pronounced tsjing china not king china
Just Wanted to mention it
If democracy works for Taiwan, why can't it work for China? Several reasons:
1. China's population is *59X* larger than Taiwan's. It's much easier to manage a small population than a ginormous one. Try feeding 1.4 billion people.
2. China has 56 different ethnic groups and a major challenge to unite the entire country.
3. China's geographical area is *267X* larger than Taiwan's. It's much easier to control a small area than a vast territory.
4. Democracy doesn't really work for Taiwan. Taiwan is infamous for its parliamentary brawls. Taiwan's economy has been suffering severe wage stagnation for nearly three decades. Large numbers of Taiwanese are moving to the mainland for jobs.
5. The Chinese people aren't retarded. They've seen how well democracy works in USA, India, Taiwan, Brazil, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, etc. China's democratic system works much, much better: th-cam.com/video/cqemAfm92jM/w-d-xo.html
Stellar presentation, keep up the good work
Hate to be that guy but Qīng(清) is pronounced like 'ching' not 'king'
Google told me different
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 GOOGLE LIED
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Google is wrong, at least if we're talking Mandarin Chinese.
Worth noting that rural China has a plethora of local dialects that are often almost totally unintelligible to people from the next village over, so you can find all kinds of pronunciations if you look hard enough. This is also why they're so anal about forcing everyone to speak Mandarin at school: if you only learn your local dialect you won't be able to travel to work or understand any official communication from the government.
Pls do a video on the rise and fall of the Taipan and the UH-60M black Hawk
Why do you specifically reference the past 125 years regarding china’s claim on Taiwan - seems a bit arbitrary. If you go back to the Ming dynasty or earlier you’ll find that china’s historical claim on Taiwan is much longer than the entire history of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Furthermore, Republic of China’s claim on Taiwan is also part of the rationale for the PRC’s claim, since the two have yet to resolve their civil war in peace.
While overall a well researched and presented video, I think the political commentary sprinkled throughout is not well balanced in comparison.
Spectacular, so detailed, fair and we'll presented. Cut funding to PBS and send it here!
Time for CANZUK. A war relied on the US isn't a sustainable option IMO for Australia. Better to work with likeminded and near identical nations to give us a voice. Teamwork makes the dream work.
Don't get me wrong I think CANZUK is a great idea and should be pursued. But we need America to counter China ideally with the EU as well.
@@jasonmack5522 100% I don't deny that. Same with I think India and Japan.
Distancing yourself from the EU and US doesnt mean abandoning allies or stopping collaboration. I hope I didn't give the impression of abandoning the EU or US or for that matter our great friends the Japanese or Indians.
@@mitchellgruninger9992 I agree with you 100%
@@jasonmack5522 EU is mostly occupied with Russia but yes
@@jasonmack5522
With allies in the picture probably the best fit for dealing with the threat of Russia or China is
The EU focusing attention on the land front and local naval theatre's with Russia.
India and Japan doing the same with the China front.
US and CANZUK would basically the force projection muscle that can fight on both fronts where needed, especially since currently theres only really 2 countries on the planet that can forward deploy sizable fighting forces almost anywhere on the globe on short notice without having to negotiate for assistance from other nations first and thats the US and the UK simply due to the support fleets and military bases each maintains around the globe, not even Russia and China are capable of that they lack the global infrastructure for it.
Great discussion!
The ROC does assert the claim of one China, it is literally in their constitution. Also in all legal treaties Taiwan is a part of China, see the Treaty of San Francisco (the most relevant).
Joke: Confucius say: Man who run through airport turnstile sideways going to Bangkok.
Taiwan's value to the mainland is not just a matter of political legitimacy, but rather geostrategic necessity. The mainland will not tolerate a hostile unsinkable aircraft carrier off the Chinese coast, just as the US will not tolerate Cuba being used as a base against the US mainland. The whole "China is afraid of democracy" rhetoric is more ideologically-entrenched propaganda than reality. These days the PRC has little fear of democracy as a force that undermines CPC legitimacy. Given the democratic recession that has taken hold just about everywhere (especially in the US), liberal democracy is hardly the ideological threat that it might have been in the early 90s.
The ideological threat now is rightwingism, fascism, fake democracy, sedition, subversion, encouraging the taking over the government by force, misleading and lying propaganda as news, a right wing president and administration that wants to stay in power and encouraged a take over to steal the election! First the first time in US history, a president that lost the election encouraged, along with his administration and his political party and propagandist, and the Republicans of the congress and the Republican Party it's self encouraged a conspiracy to overthrow of the US for a president that lost the election and is even now working to rig the next election and the next coup attempt! But why not? None are being held accountable!
Amazing video
Loving the videos on this channel. It would be interesting to see how big a navy the PLAN could have if Australia restricted the sale of all that iron ore that we so happily ship to them on a weekly basis.
Brilliant video! Even though I disagree with some points in it, I still feel the thoughtful inside. And all the comments are reasonable and constructive!
Overall I liked this video. I appreciate making a full length doco and not a series of yt algo friends eps. It also strike a good balance on the technical information, not just listing detailed spec lists. It's well presented, voiced and illustrated.
It's just disappointing that it's written from the perspective of American Exceptionalism and this bias regularly undermines credibility and accuracy (but not to the point that it becomes generally inaccurate).
It would be great if analysis could be made dispassionately, not favouring either PRC or USA perspectives. When objective data cannot established a point definitively it is best to present both perspectives with their competing evidence and let the viewer form their own conclusions.
US bias also undermines the analysis is a few glaring points. Like giving the hypothetical example of the PLAN being sent to back a political ally in Africa.
This is objectively baseless and shows an ignorance of the overall geopolitical strategy of the PLAN. PRC Foreign Policy Doctrine is of NON-INTERVENTION. Westerners ASSUME PRC will use the PLAN to intervene in foreign politics because that is how USA uses the USN and how European Imperialist Navies have been used in the past.
But PRC will not use PLAN in the same way. The PLAN will only be used to defend China and Chinese Trade routes in the BRI/String of Pearls.
For example it's changes the force comparison matrix versus USN. While USN will have global deployment responsibilities, diluting it's force bearing capabilities. PRC / PLAN does not have global ambitions and will only intentionally engage in single theatre conflict, no further away than the Arabian Sea/ Red Sea. PLAN will not be drawn into an Atlantic conflict for example while USN is obligated to keep half its forces in the Atlantic/Mediterranean.
PRC state doctrine has no plans to form a Cold war Bloc in opposition to US/NATO. Instead PRC (and Russia) have International Policy Doctrines in favour of Multipolarism of INDIVIDUAL Sovereign States under International law based on the UN Charter.
This is distinct from USA's Doctrine of Unipolarism of a "Rules Based Order" of Liberal Democracies under USA leadership, that follows Rules that eminate from US Institutions and which sideline the UN and existing International Laws.
I'd love to see a remake of this video, maybe in 18months, with updated research and including perspectives from non-western sources and analysis included.
There are some interesting trends and data points that this video has missed such as the military/tech integration of the Russian and PRC military sectors. For example, although Im sure you are accurate based on information available but the conclusion you draw about the capability of the PRC OTH radar does not include the Russian support they had developing it.
There is also no mention of how Russian and PRC global position satellite networks are integrating/integrated which likely means they are sharing surveillance satellite data also. More than doubling the quantity and cadence of PLAN sat surveillance data. Or of PRCs lead in A.I. R&D and supercomputing and how that will advance their surveillance and targetting.
Overall I think including all perspectives and not being so dismissive of PRC sources, even if you qualify your personal suspicions of it's reliability, would make for a more engaging video, that is more of a Debate that reflects the growing great power competition, than this video which is distinctly onesided and displays bias openly.
Still enjoyed this video and thanks for making it.
Sorry mate I have to disagree with your analysis here; there is no American exceptionalism in this video, although it was authored with a western audience in mind. I am a realist at heart, I don't believe that China will behave any differently to the United States, or Great Britain, or the Soviet Union, or any other superpower. When Beijing has global interests, which it now does because of its integration within the global economy, then it will act to further those interests, militarily if it has the capability to do so. That is my firm belief, and said belief rests upon 2,400 years of history and the oldest school of international relations theory.
Ironically enough, you are the one approaching this topic with a moralistic bias; that somehow the United States is a particularly imperialistic power and the PRC is exceptionally non-interventionist. A rather ironic form of chinese exceptionalism. I would argue that the only reason that appears to be the case is because we have just experienced a period of US global hegemony. If we had just experienced 30 years of Chinese dominance you would be saying precisely the same thing about Beijing. Realpolitik is far firmer ground to base an analysis of future Chinese actions than current pronouncements of the PRC's strategic aims which emanate from the central committee, as these can neither be fully trusted and are obviously subject to arbitrary change. Imagine, for example, that we were teleported to the 1930s, and you were making the same argument about the United States; that there is no way it would ever become a global hegemon or interventionist power considering its clear penchant for isolationism. That is essentially what you are saying here. China will have no choice but to become an interventionist power; why on earth do you think they are investing in super carriers, the ultimate tool of global power projection, if they do not intend to project power globally? This is a nonsensical position, one that is very obviously driven by your anti-americanism.
This is the problem with current geopolitics; I advance an analysis based on nothing more than the fundamental precepts of realist international relations theory (that within the international system all nations will basically act in similar ways if they are placed in similar circumstances), and you are so blind by your own anti-american bias that you claim that my analysis is based on american exceptionalism. Respectfully, maybe you should examine just how balanced your own beliefs are before you accuse others of bias; after all, I made no moral argument here, and it appears that you are. Any hegemonic power will act to maintain its position of power, that was as true for Sparta as it was for the United Kingdom as it is for the United States. The United States is not special at all in my view, but somehow it is in yours.
And finally, if you are credulous enough to accept the pronouncements of the capabilities of chinese systems from chinese state media, despite their clear an unequivocal history of exaggeration (such as the maturity of the DF-21D) and how politicised the chinese state is, that’s your business. But I might have a few things to sell you.
Your own bias is showing, quite clearly.
If you see the world through an ideological lens, then everything looks "biased".
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 "The Chinese hasn't invaded Iraq yet but I assure you they will once they become strong enough!!" Do you realize how dumb you sound?