How Putin's broken Navy leaves China and the West in an Aircraft Carrier showdown | Superpowers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- As the Pacific theatre heats up aircraft carriers have taken on a new role and could be key for redefining NATO's role on the world stage as Putin's naval threat recedes in the Atlantic, Dr Sidharth Kaushal RUSI Senior Research Fellow, Sea Power and Vice Admiral Jerry Kyd former Royal Navy Fleet Commander tell James Heappey on Superpowers.
📻 Listen to Times Radio - www.thetimes.co.uk/radio
📍 Subscribe to our channel - / @listentotimesradio
🗞 Subscribe to The Times www.thetimes.co.uk/subscribe/...
📲 Get the free Times Radio app www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/how-...
If Russia wants carriers they will need to buy one from someone with better engineering skills and experience than themselves, the only options would be the humiliating choice of India or China
We need toilet, indoor pipe in Russia before we need ships😒
Maybe India definitely not China nobody has 24 hours for it to warm up, and it cracking the hull on a ripple of a wave.
@@dpelpal we do waste tremendous resources on weaponry...but in a troubled world we often have little choice
@@frankpienkosky5688 That's probably why Russia is losing to Ukraine
@@Jaysqualityparts India lol really?
"do we send a warship or a tug boat" that was brutal.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Both
Brutal but True
I can’t for my life imagine an ex defense minister in my country, Sweden, do such a good job hosting a a webcast like this. Big thanks to the two invited experts!
I don't know if it's this way in Sweden or the UK, but in the US, although the President may change, it's not uncommon for a former Defense Secretary to be reappointed to their former post by a new President of the same Party as the President they initially served under. Perhaps this podcasting is a good way of staying in the forefront, in hopes of such reappointment.
@@xitheris1758 In Sweden there is no law preventing someone from being prime minister for more than two terms. Prime minister selects the cabinet (the ministers). So often when rule changes the it’s the same people as last time they were there. More changes in the right wing cabinets though.
@@xitheris1758 Anyone can be appointed as a cabinet member but unless the parties are in a coalition it's not generally done. (As that would be risking your vote power if, for example, a Labour government assigned a cabinet seat to a tory, that Tory cabinet member could spear the efforts from the Labour party. (Though not exactly with the amount of seats Labour has this term.)
But yeah, as can be seen from Keir's appointments in some of the areas, he's assigned non political entities to his cabinet (Such as the former Covid advisor becoming the minister for Science and stuffs. Cabinet positions have silly names most of the time.)
Sadly James Heappey has almost zero chance of getting reappointed as the current Defence Minister is very very deeply rooted in the Labour party, going back to having cabinet positions under Tony Blair two decades ago! Though very little in actual military experience (Other than helping support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!) But you can bet he's getting a six figure digit payout for doing stuff like this.
Russia sold three of their carriers to China and India and both countries regretted buying them, as they required billions just to rectify all of the problems they encountered. China has now built a super carrier which is not nuclear powered and has yet to complete it's sea trials because they can't get the magnetic catapult working properly. This is what happens when you copy the look of a carrier but lack 100 years of experience building and operating carriers. An American carrier is basically an air force at sea, self sufficient and able to defend itself along with it's supporting escorts to project air power anywhere in the world. Add in the fact that the US has the best carrier born aircraft and you can see why China and Russia fear them!
You're well wide of the mark on a couple of counts:
-Russia sold China their Kiev class STOVL carriers. China learned very little from them because they wanted CATOBAR carriers and didn't have the know how to convert them so they were sold off to become theme parks. China learned far more about CATOBAR carriers from the HMAS Melbourne that was sold to them in 1985 to be scrapped, but ended up being poured over by the PLAN for 20 years before being broken up in the early 2000s.
-Ukraine sold China the Varyag (the sister ship to the Kuzenetsov) which became their training ship/status symbol until they could build an indigenous carrier that was **actually** useful. Still waiting for that to happen. Side note the new Chinese CATOBAR carrier is **not** a 'supercarrier'. It's much smaller than US carriers
-Only India bought a carrier that was converted from a Kiev Class carrier, and their regret stems not from the carrier or it's capabilities (limited though it is), but from russia reneging on the deal after they sold it for peanuts, then effectively blackmailed India for more money (2x the sale price) after they realised what they did.
The other regret from India was buying brand new Mig-29Ks after India discovered their development hadn't been finished, and the quality control of their production was so bad that barely 10% of the fleet was airworthy 6 months after their acquisition.
@@Booyaka9000 I remember that at the time various magazines wrote about the problems India and China had with their carriers. Both countries spent billions fixing their problems. India has cosied up to Russia for several years now and they deserve all the pain that goes with this friendship. China is China, they are very good at copying the looks of something but they have no knowledge on how to make it work.
100 years? Yeah, I don't think the British would help out the Chinese, like they did the Americans. Britain invented aircraft carriers and most of the key technologies involved.
@@BooBaddyBig A lot of British soldiers and veterans often sold secrets and training to the PLA
@@BooBaddyBig America's first aircraft carrier was launched in 1924. It is now 2024, 100 years later.
Fascinating discussion - it's refreshing to see the subject matter experts allowed to speak at some length; you rarely find such in-depth talks on the 24-hour news channels.
It's quite depressing that what you've described is the reality now and we can see just how poorly it is serving all of us as so many people just have no clue what is going on because everything has to be tailored to 30 second soundbites now instead of helping people actually gain any real understanding about an issue.
Russia has a geography problem when it comes to their navy. They really only have four areas where they can have ports..... in the Pacific it is Vladivostok, which is the only port that is ice free year round in the pacific. In the west, there are three ports with each a fleet: The Black Sea fleet, the Baltic fleet, and the Northern fleet. The Baltic fleet is essentially cut off by Nato, and if there ever IS a conflict between Russia (and its allies) and NATO, the Baltic fleet is pretty much doomed. With Sweden and Finland now in NATO, they don't even have to send out ships to encounter the Russian Navy there, if they dare to leave the ports of St Petersburg or Kaliningrad they can literally be picked off by mobile missile systems on the Finish, Baltic states coast, and should they manage to take care of those.... the Swedish, Polish and Danish coast lines will surely make minced meat of them. (There are land based sonar systems to detect submarines, as well as sonar buoys..... and I am sure that now Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, a few more of those will be installed along their coasts..... if they didn't have them already....)
And if they survive THAT..... the French, British, and US Navies will be waiting for them in the North Sea. They literally have no chance of reaching the Atlantic.
The Black Sea fleet will also be doomed. They can't reach the Mediterranean without literally capturing half of Turkey, and again..... if they didn't get sunk before reaching the Bosporus Strait, they will be picked off there, or subsequently by missile systems on the Greek coast. And again if they survive that..... the Spanish, Italian, French and other navies will be waiting for them. They too, will never have a chance to leave the Mediterranean and get to the Atlantic.
So the Russians really have only two ports they can operate from: Vladivostok in the east on the Pacific, and Murmansk in the North for their Northern fleet. And Murmansk is a port that is now, as of last year, dangerously close to NATO territory, and is surely one of NATO's primary targets should it ever come to a (hopefully conventional) war. It is, realistically, the only port from which Russia can reach the Atlantic relatively unchallenged. It is the port their Nuclear Submarines depart from, and can get close to the American coasts. So IF a war happens between NATO and Russia, NATO will have plans in place to utterly devastate the ports of Murmansk and the surrounding area with air strikes. They don't even have to bring any ships close, as Norway, Finland, and Sweden can utilize their air bases in the north, and planes from the USA, UK, France and other nations can be parked there within a DAY, and used to attack the Russian ports.
It should also be said that the port of Murmansk is where the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier is currently locating and undergoing an overhaul and modernization. That was supposed to be finished some time in 2021 after starting in 2017..... but due to corruption, an accident in 2018, and just simply bad management..... it wasn't even nearly complete when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and with all sorts of sanctions now in place and certain materials and equipment now harder to come by..... as of 2024, it is still moored in Murmansk. Google earth shows a (2023 taken) photo of the ship with its deck dismantled and being reconstructed. At this time, and probably for the next few years..... that carrier poses no threat, and will likely be sunk by missiles should it ever come to a war. I don't know for sure of course, but I doubt the ship can even see any active service before some time in 2025 or 2026 at this point. They may try to "rush" it if NATO does go to war with Russia, but I think its pretty safe to say NATO is very much aware of where this ship is located and where it will go..... The planes it carries are SU-33s and Mig 29s.... both of which are formidable aircraft, but no match for the western F-22's and F-35's already in operation within NATO. Europe is currently home to about 300 F 35's, and with the Dutch, Danish, and Norwegion airforces being able to support the US and UK airforces operating out of the UK..... and the Fins having put in an order of 64 of them.... it is expected there will be over 500 of them within the next few years all over Europe. And that fighter is VASTLY superior to anything the Russians have. If war breaks out, I am willing to bet that on day ONE..... squadrons from all above mentioned countries will be stationed in Finland, Norway and Sweden for immediate attacks on anything that flies a Russian flag in the Arctic ocean.
Vladivostok has better survivability and it is close to allies North Korea and China, so that may work in their favor. Not that the North Korean navy is all that great, but unlike Murmansk, Vladivostok can be much better protected and they will likely hold on to that port. But then, it really is of limited use..... If a war with NATO starts, and North Korea as an ally will be obliged to help...... the war will overflow to South Korea, Japan, and local US bases..... If China subsequently gets involved, there is a decent chance that the "mighty" Russian navy will fight on to live another day, and they will be able to assist in sea battles that are surely to happen between China and the USA at that point. That said, the geography isn't great for the Russians here either, because in order to reach the Pacific, they will have to get out of the Sea of Japan, which can realistically only be done on its northern side along the Russian coastline and the Strait of Tartary.... On the south it will have to go between Japan and South Korea - both of which are partners and dare I say allies of NATO, and they can just launch a barrage of land-based missiles and drones at them.
There is a reason that historically, the Soviets never invested too much in big surface fleets. Their nuclear submarines were (are?) unrivalled and some of the best in the world, and that is the Naval power they were counting on, because they knew..... they would never ever outlast a sea battle with the west. It is basically already a given that if a conventional war erupts between NATO and Russia (or formerly the Soviet Union) that the "war at sea" would quickly be lost, and they would need to focus on air power and land power.
Ergo, the Russian navy is really only useful in smaller conflicts, taunting during peace time, logistics in transporting troops and weapons..... but in a conflict with NATO..... they may as well not exist.
Did he say russia is still a great military power 😂
At this point, the Russian military is only great for comedy😂😂😂
Russia is a great military power. If they are fighting civilians and children's hospitals
That's kind of a dumb statement.
Have they still got military? 😂😂
their conventional weaponry seems somewhat wanting...might affect their arms sales...but they still have those nukes
Kudos to the Brits putting out a program with this level of discussion!!!
Orwell waswriting about his own country in 1984, so "enjoy" their media.
@@muhcharonaThis is hardly the same as what Orwell wrote about. Look to China and Putler’s Russia for that kind of world. I make sure to do things that would lower any Social Credit Score.
It's a propaganda channel, just look at all the video topics and the theme of all of them and it's as clear as day what this channel is all about.
@@rodpanhard Propaganda= anything you disagree with.
@@jimtalbott9535 That's not the dictionary definition of propaganda. Are you saying it's not a propaganda channel?
Russia still has a navy left?!😂
@Bootsa1986
💥 _MOSKVA_ 💥
🤭
And didn't Modi just visit Moscow to blow smoke 🚬 up Russian a**
3 rubber ducksis and a jetski.
Well, Ukraine fixes that one drone at a time!
@@cerberus2881 Indeed lol
China has a carrier that is more status than weapon, and Taiwan has already seen how to put it on the bottom!
So Taiwan will beat China 😂😂😂😂
@@paulpaisley5291 Probably not but like Russia, China will pay a very dear price. The CCP also thought is could conquer nature, how well has that been working out?
@cerberus2881 nature. The west can't tell you what a woman is and you think you can win wars.
@@paulpaisley5291 Ukraine is beating Russia, why couldn't Taiwan beat China?
@@paulpaisley5291 every time i see that emoji, it's copium from a fascist
That was extremely interesting. What an impressive discussion that was.
Really fascinating conversation. I love the long form, in depth answers. Very interesting.
Excellent episode of the Superpower serie. Very very complex analysis about aircraft carrier evolution, access denial capabilities and new tech in maritime warfare.
As someone who has actuality been in a war (operation Corparate) at sea, I'm dismayed at todays UK carrier force. 40 odd years ago it was clearly proven that short range jets put the carrier in to much danger having the enemy coast to close.
Today the same issue exists, HMS Hermes the Falklands flagship only survived due to a huge ro-ro ship was placed between Hermes & the mainland & the Exocet missile radar locked on to Conveyer a mere 10 miles or less away, we could see her burning with eyesight.
Fascinating discussion with great depth. This went far beyond my expectations. Guests were amazing picks for the show with excellent insights. 👏👏 Will be listening to more.
My God 😮 what a great conversation "and informative at that , great job james.
Russia is a sad little gas-station in a world thats going electric
Hypersonic missiles are great against stationary targets, but a lot of the same things that make them hard to shoot down makes it hard for them to hit mobile targets. The plasma generates by hypersonic speeds interferes with their sensors. Theyxd have to be fired from close by, which would make their launching platform vulnerable.
How can you guys say that china is in some kind of competition between US and Chinese aircraft carriers, china's can not even sail 1000 miles away from their country, the US can defeat the Chinese navy without even fighting it.🙃
Its a while since you've been a light anything James! Great questions as usual. You, James H and Kate G are the best interviewers on TR.
I could actually get all of this… An outstanding discussion… Thank you
Wow, you should bring more videos like these.
No, the Houthies failed to destroy a US carrier!
Doesn't this just chime with the fact that historically Russia has been a land emprire and not really a maritime power?
Look at the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. The Russians did a good job wiping out their own Navy, trying to sail from st. Petersberg to Japan to join its pacific fleet, but the Japanese made quick work of them as soon as they arrived. Speaks to Russia's awkward geography when it comes to projecting power. Russian western navies must literally sail around the world to join their eastern navies.
Soviet Union had some of the if not the best subs on the planet.
@@Jaysqualityparts
"had"
for maybe a nanosecond
@@Jaysqualityparts And Peter the Great invested heavily in trying to build up Maritime capabilities, but one way or another the defense spending always tends to prioritize their land forces.
@@Jaysqualitypartsyes but you wouldn't want to be in one
Building aircraft carriers today is like building impressive battleships in 1950. They are yesterday's weapon for tomorrow's war.
Carriers never fitted into its foreign policy, which was for the Soviet Union it didn't seek influence across the globe, but was instead focused on self defence of its Union of nations at home.
Soon, the Russian navy will consist of one coracle, which will be in the repair shop for a patch up :)
American general quoted “there are two type of ship in the Navy submarines and target “
Really interesting discussion to listen to. I'd like to see more of this.
This is preposterous. The Chinese are in no way able to field carriers further than 1000km from their mainland. That's why none of the existing two hasn't gone anywhere.
Any other evidence?
@@franktully3065 - You think a carrier has an invisibility cloak?
@@user-kq5ke5yb6kNo, and I didn't suggest so. That wasn't my question, which was about China, specifically.
@@franktully3065 The fact that they have never sailed a carrier to any port in any other country should be enough evidence.
@@CMB21497You said "not able" which made me wonder whether you were referring to a physical incapability or to political expediency, that's all.
The quality of the guests and the eloquence of the discussion is top notch. The click baity title doesn't do any favor though...
China has two "aircraft carriers"... One is a converted casino boat, the other is a copy of it. I think they may have a third on the way. All run on Diesel. The United States has something like 12 nuclear powered super carriers. Each of which is stronger than the full airforce of all but 3 or 4 countries, all of which are our allies (minus Russia). We also have something like 12 other carriers which are of the smaller variety or designed specifically to transport helicopters. If the United States falls, it will do so from within as is the case with most great empires. A distinct possibility, but lets not over sell China's navy. It has ZERO chance against ours. Especially when you consider the fact that the other great navys (Japan, UK, France) are on our side.
The idea China would even consider volunteering itself to a world war on behalf of supporting a European conflict is just flat out insane. It's one thing demonstrating control over the lives of their people like with the lockdowns but it's a whole other thing putting weapons in their hands. A full mobilization of the Chinese population could be potentially risky for Xi because it would mean for the first time in their lives civilians would have a credible means of challenging the power of the CCP. If it was 10 years ago I'd say it would be a ridiculous notion but Xi Jinping has put a real strain on people's lives over the past few years as he's transformed himself from an able technocrat into a self-obsessed tyrant. You might see an 'off to Berlin' sort of outburst of initial optimism at the outset but once things start getting real and their pre-war forces have been degraded in sufficient numbers, it's going to be a majority conscript army.
the current battle plan...sometimes called the ring theory...is to keep our carriers well out of missile range
@@killingmasheen Why would they need to conscript soldiers when they have so many people and never needed to in the past? like in the Korean war their army was all volunteers and even after the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands of their troops, their actual military was still basically the same size with the new volunteers that replaced them.
China currently has a military of well over 5.5 million (PLA + PAP + lowest estimate of the Militia at 2 million which can be as big as 8 million by other estimates, all are under the military commission and would be used in a real war). 5.5 million better equipped soldiers than during the Korean war (where only about 3 million served). A war that already killed 5.5 million soldiers would be a genocide and you will see massive support for the Government just like in the USSR during ww2. They would never need to conscript anyone to fight that kind of war with their kind of population (especially since they also let hundreds of thousands of women serve meaning they have way more potential kinds of volunteers to fight for the war)
I think it's humorous to see the one guest (red tie) go on about China's A2AD capabilities as if they exist at all in reality. The reality is that China like Russia practice advanced Maskirovka techniques to fool people (like this guest) about the efficacy of their military capabilities. The reality is that many of these A2AD capabilities are pure hype, and would not be at all effective in a real battle scenario against an American coalition. This is being proven over and over in the Ukraine by the Russians. Their vaunted AS 400 missile defense systems are total junk, and are easily wiped out by the Ukrainians. The DF-21 missile, on a good day would have trouble hitting a stationary target 2,000k away, let alone a quickly moving, heavily defended USN carrier battle group. The guy with the red tie probably makes a decent living as an analyst, but I'd hate to have his job...
Two pretty smart guys…… do enjoy this conversation……
The reality is that for the Chinese carriers to survive in a conflict with the US they will have to stay in port under cover. The moment they move out into the Asian littoral or Indo-Pacific oceans, their life-expectancy will be less than 24 hours. B-1B, B52 and P-8A will be more than capable of sinking those carriers long before US carriers can do a thing. Same applies for USN SSNs. Not to mention an 1,800 km or 2,750 km range US army hypersonic weapon. The PLAN carriers will simply stay in port, and/or be sunk in port. Although it's possible they think they have a chance, and get ordered to leave port anyway. They will be sunk. Weeks before US carriers arrive in the region from the US West coast. Yup, the Pacific really is that big.
It's not just the carrier, there is a small fleet that has to be provisioned to sail with it.
The UK has forgotten that.
Fascinating, even it there was quite a bit that I didn't understand. 😅
No mention of the Falklands, I would have thought that was a clear case in point on the projection of power. Albeit Argentina was not a formidable opponent ...
wars are not fought on the sea and its the submarines that are the destroyers of worlds not surface ships
Military investment into systems is driven primarily by capability. Even if carriers are more vulnerable than in the past, until something else can supplant their role theyre not going anywhere. See: Ford class carrier.
Satellite spots a carrier and relays information to the boss. Boss tells missile crew it's at this location sink it. Missile launch. Missile arrives at location and carrier has been gone for hours. 😁
Every single time the question of "Is X weapon system obsolete?" The very next questions you should ask are
"Do we still need it?" and "What can replace it?"
If the answers to those questions are "Yes." and "Nothing.", then no, they're not obsolete.
China’s aircraft carriers don’t have any planes that can fly off of them and the arresting gear on their newest aircraft carrier isn’t fully installed and doesn’t work
Superb discussion, more of the same please
Great video ! Question; Which countries have carriers and how many do each have ?
Strange as it may seem, if Ukraine Russia situation has taught as one thing, with all the modern equipment and drone warfare, we have gone back to hand to hand combat in trenches. hence the flag communication and use of a Sexton.
It takes 3km for a Chinese aircraft carrier to make a turn, I don't think there's much of a showdown.
That was well done.
The longest road on Earth is the ocean,
and it has no road signs..
moving target.. vs, a sitting duck
How much tec can effect something like the hms missouri..
"Let's lay some lead on those FM's"
16" shells
Excellent interview and guests.
Question...the youg generation so connected digitally,gps navigation goes out, can they read a paper map for getting around?
Not knowing for sure, but aren't they still taught how to use a sextet ??????
@@user-ot7ec4uc3g basic seamanship....is it still being taught?
@@user-ot7ec4uc3g not any more I was in the last class to be taught and that was almost 15 years ago
I surely hope at least some of the US's new more advanced autonomous AI strike force air craft carriers have the ability to dive deep below the surface, same as a submarine. It's the only way to avoid the majority of their current detection capabilities at this time.
Now that NASA has sucdessfully demonstrated the first stage of rockets can be landed/recovered on a barge, the US defense dept is looking at using this technology to ship supplies to carriers anywhere on the planet in less than 60 minutes. Who would have guessed about that option. Pentagon is highly excited about this. And it would not surprise me if they have already tried landing on helicopter ships. This is a major change in warfare logistics. Technically, troops on the front line can have pizza delivered.
It was SpaceX who did that, not NASA. NASA had nothing to do with it, other then as a by-standing government regulatory agency of US space activities. It was not a US gov who did this. As for supplying carriers via rocket, there is no such plan. And most probably never will be. Scores of heavy logistics aircraft can already do that, in bulk, and forward storage of parts, weapons and ammo has been standard-practice since WWII. And it takes more than 60 mins for a CVN or LHD to get into a port. It's more like 3-days to 1-week. More than enough time to get whatever they need to that port. Whatever the Pentagon or media spinners gets excited about, is never clear and rarely relevant, especially for what is a prototype. More than likely the Pentagon wants to launch stuff into space, and that is all. That is what they tend to do.
@@facsimile-io3dd Very short sighted to rule out rockets landing on a carrier in an emergency situation. It will happen regardless of what you think. You probably laughed when the pentagon discussed using planes to drop tanks and humvees on the battlefield too.
@@JuanSanchez-ik7wx Nope, it's not. You apparently live in a fantasy world where the deck structures and their ability to cope with that, plus the thermal properties of that deck don't exist, and don't matter. 😂 Plus you seem to think a crew of ~5,000 people can be put at risk, as if it's nothing. It's an aircraft carrier mate, not an intergalactic space port. You're *totally* delusional.
Can't see that happening
@@neiltitmus9744 I believe you. And I am sorry for your inability to understand the changing military tactics on a global scale.
Thank you.
Oh please, the floating casinos? Come on, don't be completely ridiculous, China doesn't really have carriers and you damned well know it.
This reminds me of the British sending. Repulse and Prince of Wales against the Imperial Fleet. Anyone who thinks Carriers are the answer is living in the past.
they have their uses...but are vulnerable in a major power confrontation...agreed?....most submariners refer to any surface ship as a "target"....remember what happened to the Kittyhawk as she transited the Taiwan Strait?
really interesting questions =)
Just because you own a Ferrari, it doesn't mean you're skilled enough to race it professionally. That's even more true for an aircraft carrier. NO ONE can utilize a carrier force like the US and it's not even close! Yes, the Chinese have built up their carrier force, BUT THEY'VE NEVER FOUGHT WITH ONE in a single conflict! The British are operationally the 2nd best practitioners of aircraft carrier warfare, but they currently don't have a functional carrier. (They should be ashamed.)
If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything; it's the fact that numerical superiority doesn't mean victory on the battlefield. Proper coordination of all military assets is critical to successful warfighting and all preconcieved notions of "theoretical abilities" quickly go out the window when the shooting starts and the rubber is forced to meet the road!
.....so much for "Britainia Rules the Waves"....
Some say the Imperial Japanese navy made a mistake in using their attack submarine fleet on resupply missions when they could have been better used to attack allied shipping. When you have an attack platform like an aircraft carrier shouldn't it be attacking rather than defending?
Great information...good ...people
Great discussion, really enjoyed this, and not having to contend with armchair quarterbacks handing out poorly informed observations.
As the guests allude to, its better to look at the aircraft carrier as part of a task force...sure, they are the centerpiece of most navies and their force-projection, but they never travel alone, typically with a flotilla of cruisers, destroys, attack subs, support vessels, etc...including intel and surveillance assets, in the strike group and outside of (or above) it. And if you don't have all of those components working efficiently and in place, then the carrier isnt effective, and could be just a large bullseye. Drones and hypersonic missiles are just new threats to this strike force.
Many folks point to the obsolescence of battleships in these conversations...well, they did become obsolete, but the essential strike group still remained, it just had the battleship replaced with the carrier.
missiles and drones...drones and missiles...that seems to be the future especially in regard to surface vessels...but what happens when those control networks are disrupted?...which is likely in a major power confrontation....
Exceptional Interview informative relevant innovative wise
The Battle of Ukraine is a land activity, especially since the Black Sea Fleet is sunk.
Aircraft carriers are critical in sea control, and are demonstrating that capability by protecting merchant shipping in the Red Sea.
Furthermore, should hostilities with China begin, aircraft carriers could quickly close the entire Indian Ocean to Chinese oil tankers and merchant shipping. This is in addition to strike capabilities in a South China Sea engagement.
Speaking of the South China Sea, hostilities there would begin with massive cruise missile strikes against Chinese military capabilities on the mainland and Spratly Islands, at which point the submarines and surface ships are off-line for replenishment. Meanwhile aircraft carriers can be flexibly retasked in real-time.
Ah Russia, where your Navy can be defeated by a country without a navy.
So very true, and so very hilarious
Like a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan that have beaten every world power that ever tried to invade their country
@kevinrobb86 True, but the US does not lose wars, it loses interest.
@@bixbysnyder-00 - Well said. So many keyboard warriors don't grasp that.
@@bixbysnyder-00 nearly lost in Korea...and who were we fighting then?
Tungsten rod from space gap. You ready yet Putie?
Convenient no one mentioned hi tech torpedoes....................
This is brilliant analysis!! That it conforms with my own re: the #russians , even better.
BUT ... as the age of the dreadnoughts passed to the battleship to the carrier, it has now passed to the Age of the Missile. For all of the advantages, protections, and projection, it only takes one JH-15, or heavyweight Russkie missile to take that asset out of play, if not sink it. It absolutely applies to more geographically limited battle spaces as it does to the wide open Pacific or Indian Oceans; witness the US wariness of Iranian and Houthi anti-ship shore batteries. The Age of the Missile is here. Ships are being designed as SAM banks (the Russian Gorshkov class is outstanding, as is the Chinese Type-55 destroyer, both superior to the US AEGIS ships, Tico and Arleigh Burke classes) instead of the Kirov class of Russian battlecruisers, which were dedicated carrier-killers, and are being brought back on a modern footing.
The US has 11 supercarriers; that's more than enough. For every new one, the oldest, least capable should be decommissioned. That single act would not only decrease the bloated DoD budget, but also reduce strain on recruitment, retention, and training by moving personnel from an old to a similar new platform.
Oh its MIA heappofcrap. Where was he when he was an MP.
35:00 how would that drone fleet fare in the EM soup that is currently blanketing Eastern Ukraine?
A fixed airbase is hard to completely knock out. It can take more hits than any ship.
Would you prefer to be on a ship that took a hit or an airbase that took a hit with the same ammount of weapons.
always a valid point
Ask Japan what happens when you mess with American ships!!
how many ships did we lose at Okinawa?...and those were just slow-moving prop jobs with suicide pilots...now up that by a factor of ten....the missiles are going to fly, ships and lives are going to be lost...as the Brits found out in the Falklands
@@frankpienkosky5688 Bet they never bomb Pearl harbor again..Yes modern warfare at sea will be very dicey and lives will be lost even if you have counter-measures for counter-measures. Lets hope we won't have to sail in harms' way and give peace a chance!
Australia used to have a modest Carrier capability but a lack of investment in Defence over a prolonged period and the blatant disinterest by politicians of both the left and the right have left us with a couple of helicopter carriers with limited utility.
Our current government is beating its chest about a plan to acquire a nuclear powered submarine capability and to double its surface fleet but all that is 20 years away because it is not spending one extra dollar now - and ‘kicking the can down the road’ financially. Bloody useless politicians - particularly Labor.
The LHDs are primarily for amphibious landings. That's not a "limited capability", it's a high-end capability. Re the SSNs, your information is wrong. The first of three Virginia Class SSNs will be arriving beginning in RAN from 2032 but operating from Australia with joint crews long before that, as USN platforms. UK Royal Navy will be doing the same from Australia. The AUKUS Class follows from there and is "at least eight" entirely new class of subs to follow on, beginning in the 2038 to 2040 time-frame.
@@facsimile-io3dd my point is that it is all too little too late! Our Navy will not start to grow until the late 2030’s which is around 12 - 15 years from now. Our own Defence minister is on record publicly admitting the strategic threat is very high now! I repeat . . . NOW!
In fact - already - the oldest of our ANZAC Class frigates is decommissioning as we speak and a second will follow within two years ‘reducing our combatant surface fleet without replacement when the threat is supposedly at its zenith ( China looking to be ready for war in 2027 )
A NEW NEUTRAL PARADIGM 010
The claim in the title is basically tripe.
China can, possibly, put a single carrier group to sea.
The USA, on its own, fields more than TEN super carriers.
Russia WAS “…a superpower…”
It is not one today, except for its possession of nuclear weapons.
I agree 100%
The title overestimates China's carrier capabilities. Sure, China can put a carrier to sea. And sure, they can fly aircraft off those carriers. But their carriers have a *very* short range, and the combat aircraft flown off of them have next to zero capability or usefulness in anything resembling modern carrier operations. China will only have something resembling a capable carrier when the new Fujian enters service, but even then, it'll be light years away from what any of the existing carrier powers are operating.
No mention that the royal navy's aircraft carriers are always under repair besides only one can be deployed at a time
China does not even have a blue water navy
they are a potent regional force...but you're right,..in an extended conflict that would affect them greatly...their trade routes and maritime traffic are quite vulnerable...
@@frankpienkosky5688 wasn't the point of the Belt and Road to build a string of friendly ports so the Chinese Navy can hug the coast and stay away from the open ocean?
I still say us got to show put in that there is not afraid of him that's why he do what he do
He DROVE a carrier???
Be fighting with sticks and stones..
34:53 also bare in mind how many multi million dollar failures elon had getting to where he is now if that was public funding he’d have had his funding pulled long before he got a successful run
Times Radio talk about absolutely wrong on every aspect in Ukraine
Russia may be able to project it's navy far better when the artic becomes ice free in 2014, as predicted by Al Gore quoting NASA research.
For the next vid just don't put background music over the people talking please... its not even the same volume all the time gets loud then quite then loud again... why? video editor why?
These so call experts also predicted Ukraine would bend the knee to Russia in one week😂, I take everything these experts say with a mountain of salt, cuz they get a lot of things wrong
Carriers are NOT for “near peer” adversaries.
The U.S. is the only country who can employ carriers against China or Russia. No one can employ carriers against the U.S.
France and UK can not use their carriers against China or Russia, or even against each other.
India MIGHT be able to deny China access to the Indian seas, with their carriers…maybe. And only with US assistance.
Power projection is ONLY to very weak adversaries, for all by the U.S., and all other nations can ONLY use their carriers is the U.S. allows them to.
If only Russian kit was as good as their uniforms.
Hyper sonic ?? so why are the chinese still building carriers , serious it real hard to detect , target and then hit a small moving object at long range in a vast open space of water , in the meanwhile even if the Russians managed to get a carrier operational again, they have lost decades of carrier borne operators !
Aircraft carriers are out of date. They are hugely expensive and with hypersonic missiles it is likely they can be sunk. Russis is not a naval power. It has optes for submarines and top class anti air missiles.
Don't disagree with the utility of Carriers but they need sufficient airplanes to make them effective and self defence systems to make them survivable
Ours have neither
Considering their astronomical price, the required technological and industrial complexity to build and maintain them and also of the necessary supply chain and industrial and other capacity to run them, the unavoidable vulnerability to both rockets/ missiles and drones not just due their size, and the advances in drone technology and AI and their comparative advantages( cheap and easy to manufacture in big numbers etc) the aircraft carriers are far from effective weapons but more or less the white elephants of modern warfare.
Not even US can afford to risk its destruction in conflict, both due money and time needed to replace one not to mention more, and thus they can't be effectively used in conventional conflict against any sufficiently developed and/ or capable state actor.
Thats prolly the reason only US has more than couple of them cos US army is the only one so absurdly overfunded to afford them and the same time already heavily invested in aircraft carrier program to still continue with it.
slava ukraini
James really likes himself talking.
Russia always tried the US on who is better
RUSSIA GREAT MILITARY LOL. HE LOST ME AT THAT COMMENT.
The russians looks like turks on the XVI century.
When they faced portuguese, just 500 were enough to defeat 25000 turks... And enabling rhe indian ocean control for 100 years. 😂
He says it is absolutely wrong aircraft carrier s ate safe. Isn’t that what they said about battleship some of which are sitting on the ocean floor. Just review how easy it was to sink aircraft carriers in WWII once they were located and there were forces available to bring force to bear against them. The world is different if he thinks the aircraft carries are safe is no different than experts in the past on any subject to make claims that would be proven false.
You can tell the guy sat with the presenter doesn't really like America and also be used to many but words to say simple things
There is no comparison the US has 11 supers everyone else does not have 11. Hypersonics are not a big deal look you got these guys talking about carriers like they know. Lol
Showdown? Really?
th-cam.com/video/z39E79KV2As/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yfcyNsEIJL7-ORnh 🚀 Nik